Wood and Ceramics: The Armor of South Korea's Black Panther

9 535 50
Wood and Ceramics: The Armor of South Korea's Black Panther

Perhaps we should start with one joke that proves the practical benefit of the saying “there’s a grain of truth in every joke.”

About three years ago, the Ukrainian segment of the Internet was actively promoting history about what is in the Russian armor tanks They allegedly found ordinary boards. The Russians, they claimed, were so financially and intellectually deficient that they'd already started shoving lumber in place of normal armor protection elements. It sounded grandiose, sarcastic, and perfect for viral publications.



In reality, of course, there were no such boards. It was simply the general public, far removed from armored vehicles, who made fun of the fiberglass plates exposed by the hull rupture (due to the detonation of ammunition) of one Russian tank. But they kept shouting about it for a long time, not really realizing that fiberglass was a component of the armor of most Soviet tanks.

Today, this situation is nothing but laughable. But what makes it particularly piquant is the fact that wood can actually be used in composite tank armor. And we're talking about the quite advanced South Koreans, specifically their K2 "Black Panther" tank, whose armor patent lists wood as one of the elements.

And wood plays an important role.

Millimeters speak for themselves


The South Korean K2 "Black Panther" tank is met with mixed reviews: some criticize it for its flawed design, while others praise it for its quite capable electronics, including the fire control system and suspension. But the tank's armor is one aspect that's beyond doubt.

Despite its size and relatively low weight of around 55 tons, this tank boasts impressive frontal resistance. For example, according to official data, it can withstand a HEAT round with a penetration of up to 900 millimeters in steel equivalent. And this doesn't include any additional armor.

A lot? Yes, a lot, considering its weight. Take our beloved T-90M, if you remove its Relikt dynamic armor from its turret (the turret is the most protected) and fire HEAT rounds at it, the results will clearly be worse and more disappointing. But HEAT rounds aren't particularly remarkable. It's much more interesting to see how the Korean Panther withstands sub-caliber rounds.


The Korean tank's steel equivalent is approximately 700 millimeters—during testing, the tank was fired at with K279 armor-piercing sub-caliber rounds from its own 120 mm smoothbore gun, which are rated to penetrate 700 millimeters of medium-hard steel from a distance of two kilometers. The result: no penetration.

Soviet tanks provide an example of how high these figures are. The turrets of the T-80B/BV tanks, which are now used to make modified T-80BVM vehicles, in their bare form provide resistance to sub-caliber projectiles of around 420-450 mm of steel equivalent. This is old stuff, with sand cores as filler, but it's just for illustration purposes.

And ceramics are to blame for all of this; when properly designed in armor and in the presence of wood or similar damping materials, they begin to rule the roost.

Ceramics are ceramics, but dampers are also needed


Today, it seems pointless to talk about the South Korean Black Panther's armor being made of ceramics. Much has already been written and said about it. And by the Koreans themselves, who have published pages of material detailing how, after years of painstaking work, they finally produced high-quality silicon carbide capable of withstanding incoming projectiles.

It's much more interesting to see how they designed the ceramics in the armor, as they're useless against projectiles on their own, as despite their high hardness, they're extremely brittle. When struck by a high-velocity sub-caliber projectile (actually the active part of the projectile—the "arrow" itself, but let's call it a projectile), the ceramic block will simply crack and crumble, partially turning into sand in the contact zone. So, ceramics can't be used haphazardly in armor.

Of course, the South Koreans didn't just throw it in there, but did it very carefully. Below you can see a diagram of how they designed it. The numbers 100, 200, and so on, don't refer to the thickness of the elements, but to their numbers.


100 — face armor plate, 200 — damping element, 300 — ceramics, 400 — support plate. Source: Patent No. 10-2884674. Copyright holder: Samyang Gumtech Co., Ltd.

Essentially, what we're looking at is a "sandwich," consisting of an outer layer consisting of a steel face armor plate. This is followed by a damping layer made of wood (boards, chipboard, or something else—it's not specified). After the damping layer, come ceramic elements, housed in thin-walled cells (steel or another material) that completely enclose the ceramic on all sides. There may or may not be gaps between the cells, depending on the protection requirements.

Following the ceramic layer is a backing plate—it can be made of either medium-hardness steel or, for example, an aluminum alloy. Then, the process is repeated, only without the front armor plate. There can be several such "sandwiches" of "damper + ceramic + backing plate"—not just two, as in the diagram.


An armor block with ceramic armor after being fired at with 120mm fin-stabilized subcaliber projectiles. Source: Patent No. 10-2884674. Copyright holder: Samyang Gumtech Co., Ltd.

In a simplified form, this whole system works like this.

When a subcaliber projectile penetrates the front armor plate, the wooden shock absorber absorbs the impact load, preventing premature cracking and other damage to the ceramic components. Essentially, the wood acts as a safety cushion, allowing the ceramic to meet the projectile intact and effectively engage it.

The projectile then penetrates the ceramic. As mentioned earlier, the ceramic itself does not offer high projectile resistance and is very sensitive to impact loads, stretching, and shear. However, the walls of the cells in which it is located in the armor prevent crack growth, and the ceramic "sand" formed in the contact zone between the ceramic and the projectile has nowhere to escape from the isolated space.

As a result, during penetration, the ceramic actively resists the projectile, causing damage to the projectile: it deforms plastically, wears down, and partially breaks. Then, when the projectile penetrates the ceramic layer and the base plate, the situation repeats.

This achieves high armor resistance to projectiles. Moreover, the arrangement of ceramics in small cells positively impacts the armor's survivability, as even if a projectile strikes one cell, the ceramics in the others remain intact due to the insulation.

Final World


Overall, the South Koreans have succeeded in designing a fully functional armor system. When properly incorporated into armor, ceramics can be roughly equivalent in strength to medium-hardness armor steel, but are significantly lighter in weight. And the Koreans appear to have come close to achieving this parity between steel and ceramics, creating a tank that is not the heaviest but still offers powerful protection.

But as for the method, it's by no means unique. For example, in the USSR, a similar principle was proposed for tank turrets, using ceramics in individual cells, only the damping layer wasn't wood. If memory serves me correctly, they apparently planned to use something like felt, but the idea is the same: it's inexpensive and works well.

But the USSR was unable to establish a process for producing high-quality armor ceramics, excluding corundum balls for the T-64 series, while South Korea succeeded and now makes tanks no worse than their Western counterparts.

Information sources:
Patent No. 10-2884674. Copyright Holder: Samyang Gumtech Co., Ltd.
"Special issues of terminal ballistics". V.A. Grigoryan, A.N. Beloborodko, N.S. Dorokhov and others.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    19 May 2026 07: 01
    In principle, the South Koreans didn't invent anything new! They simply skillfully combined what was already known and even used in a number of "foreign" designs! Dampers don't necessarily require wood, but there is armored fiberglass, which appeared on Soviet tanks... I don't know about silicon carbide as a tank armor (I only know about "silicon" in bulletproof vests and attempts to use it in the armor of light armored vehicles, as well as boron carbide), but the British were the first to use "metal-ceramic" armor, proposing "Chobham"! Only that wasn't silicon carbide, but "heavy metal-ceramics," that is, tungsten carbide in "plastic"! "Backbone" plates were also known! And if we're listing the "layers" of sandwich armor, then perhaps it's worth mentioning the integrated ERA! Incidentally, the author, having mentioned corundum balls on Soviet tanks, could have said a few words about the "sand" rods!
  2. +3
    19 May 2026 07: 36
    But the USSR was unable to establish a process for producing high-quality armor ceramics, excluding corundum balls for the T-64 series, while South Korea succeeded and now makes tanks no worse than their Western counterparts.

    UVZ never mastered the cast turret with corundum balls... And now it touts a welded turret as a virtue... but the welds are cracking. They've even acquired an annealing furnace, but they stubbornly refuse to implement argon-arc machining of multi-pass welds using the method of the Zhdanovsky (Mariupol) Heavy Machinery Plant. Meanwhile, the Zhdanovsky Heavy Machinery Plant had the best welding specialists in Soviet times, and almost all tank hulls for tank factories were made there.
    1. +2
      19 May 2026 09: 13
      Quote: Konnick
      UVZ was never able to

      The goals have changed. Profit is what matters. The outcome doesn't matter until the war starts.
      As well as the means of production, which have degraded significantly over the past 30 years.
      I wonder if the Ministry of Defense really believes that in order to make a new tank or ship, it’s enough to hire more Tajiks?
      1. +1
        19 May 2026 15: 28
        UVZ made a T-72 tank without ballistic missiles in the 1070s. What's the profit and what does 30 years have to do with it?

        You really are some kind of generator of nonsense.
        1. -1
          19 May 2026 15: 33
          Quote: Kull90
          You really are some kind of generator of nonsense.

          I think it's you. What does the T72 have to do with what I said about the new tank?
          How did you even get that idea? Incidentally, I'm completely dissatisfied with the Armata as a new tank. When you try to make something completely new using imported materials, and then it ends up being too expensive and a large part of the new stuff gets cut off because it's "expensive," you get a hernia, in Latin.
          1. +3
            19 May 2026 15: 59
            Well, of course, it's imported, and where do they produce the armor, the A-85-3A engine, the KAZ Afghanit, the Malachite DZ, the 2A82 gun? That's why you can be called a generator of nonsense.

            During military operations, the conveyor belt will not be stopped; any fool can understand that.

            And when the T-14 was created, there were no FPV drones, and the KAZ, as the fighting in Lebanon showed, is useless.
            1. -1
              19 May 2026 16: 32
              Quote: Kull90
              you could call it a nonsense generator

              You make up your own nonsense and then present it as your interlocutor.
              We're talking about the tank's electronics, which in its original form accounted for over 70% of the cost. You can build a chassis, a gun, even, I don't know, spaceship armor, but without electronics, your tank will be nothing more than a blind, deaf, slanted, cozy coffin.
              Quote: Kull90
              As the fighting in Lebanon has shown, the Kaz is useless.

              Only the myth about the effectiveness of the trophy has been debunked. For example, the Chinese Kaz, which creates a complete screen against threats, is effective against drones. And the Koreans have the same.
              Quote: Kull90
              there was no T-14 during its creation

              The T14 is a stripped-down tank from the Soviet Union. When it was designed, many features weren't available. More than 35 years have passed. And adding cameras around the perimeter won't strengthen the tank.
              1. +2
                19 May 2026 16: 46
                *When you try to make something new entirely from imports* - these are your words, you start to evade again

                The T-14 Electronics is the result of cooperation between leading Russian enterprises:
                "Sozvezdie" (Voronezh) - ESU TZ;
                Kazan Optical-Mechanical Plant - sighting and infrared systems;
                "Shvabe" - thermal imagers;

                Name the Soviet tank on which the T-14 was based?
                1. -1
                  19 May 2026 16: 53
                  Quote: Kull90
                  Electronics T-14 is the result of cooperation between leading Russian enterprises
                  Where is all the hardware marked "Made in China"?
                  Or is a French thermal imager, two generations out of date, a source of pride for you?
                  1. +2
                    19 May 2026 17: 07
                    is there evidence?

                    Frog-type thermal imagers have not been used on tanks for a long time (After 2014, French companies stopped supplying matrix photo-receiving devices for thermal imaging cameras to Russia.)
                    The French Catherine-FC camera was replaced with the domestic thermal imaging channel TPK-K, created by the Krasnogorsk Zverev Plant.
                    The NPO Orion product, based on a cooled matrix of indium antimonide photodiodes – FEM18M-03 – is used as a matrix photoreceiver module in the thermal imaging channel.
                    and no need for pathos, I'm just informing you, you're just throwing out unsubstantiated statements and this isn't the first time
                    1. +1
                      19 May 2026 17: 09
                      military.pravda.ru: Chinese components have been found in F-35 aircraft. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin purchases electronic circuit boards from the American company GE Aviation, which in turn purchases blank printed circuit boards from Exception PCB, a company owned by the Chinese company Shenzhen Fastprint.
                      1. ptt
                        -2
                        19 May 2026 17: 33
                        Quote: Kull90
                        military.pravda.ru: Chinese components have been found in F-35 aircraft. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin purchases electronic circuit boards from the American company GE Aviation, which in turn purchases blank printed circuit boards from Exception PCB, a company owned by the Chinese company Shenzhen Fastprint.

                        You're probably a multi-tasker, or your colleagues are handing you the projectiles and you're immediately broadcasting them. July 17th post about thermal imagers and September 17th post about Chinese F35 boards. You only have a couple of minutes to read and digest, but writing a response, especially mentioning the company names, is awesome! Are you working from the same server?
                      2. 0
                        19 May 2026 18: 12
                        Don't you know how to make queries in Yandex? Believe me, there's nothing complicated about it.

                        I'm just interested in military equipment and have a good memory.
                    2. -1
                      20 May 2026 09: 13
                      Quote: Kull90
                      is there evidence?

                      Quote: Kull90
                      replaced

                      Quote: Kull90
                      you throw out without evidence

                      Quote: Kull90
                      no need for pathos

                      1. News about PLANNING to replace the licensed Katrina with the TPK-K surfaced in 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018. But the system never made it onto tanks. Before that, the Sosna-U, all upgraded T72-B3 tanks, and others were equipped with the Katrina. I couldn't find any quick information about recent years, but I think the situation hasn't changed much, and the second-generation TPK is not being implemented, and if it is, it's only on a handful of vehicles. Rearmament HAS NOT HAPPENED. However, let me remind you that NATO is already heavily armed with second- and third-generation TPKs and is already purchasing vehicles with the fourth. In other words, the notorious technological gap has NOT been overcome. What level is this? Our TPK allows us to see silhouettes at ranges of up to 3500 meters under ideal conditions. NATO thermal radars allow for target detail detection and targeting, as well as ranges of 4500 km and even further (the Americans claim 5.5 km), and can also detect infantry from afar. The difference is quite noticeable.
                      The T90M is now officially produced with the Kalina fire control system, which retains the Sosna-U sight with the same old licensed French Teplak. The T72-B3 is also being modernized and repaired with the old instruments.
                      So who's playing the pathetic game here? I think it's you.
                      1. +1
                        20 May 2026 12: 31
                        Armed conflicts of recent decades have shown that the average tank battle distance rarely exceeds 1,5–2 km. This is influenced by:
                        landscape features (hills, forests, settlements);
                        the need for camouflage;
                        the effectiveness of modern detection and countermeasures;
                        requirements for the probability of hitting and penetrating armor

                        The T-90M is produced with a Russian thermal imager; the supply of frogs ceased in 2014.

                        Since 2016, Russia has become the fourth country in the world, after the United States, France, and China, to possess the technology to produce its own microbolometer thermal imaging matrices, which are the basic component of any thermal imager.
                        Their production was established at the enterprise of the Cyclone Research Institute, which in turn is part of the Rostec holding company Ruselectronics.

                        You constantly lie and don't have information.
                      2. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 45
                        Quote: Kull90
                        Armed conflicts of recent decades show that the average distance of a tank battle rarely exceeds 1,5–2 km.

                        They show that tank combat has become a great rarity.
                        The distance isn't just something that rarely exceeds (by the way, in Iraq, the Americans often fired from maximum visibility ranges, depending on the weather, to exploit their advantage in guidance systems and the armor-piercing capabilities of their shells, and the ranges varied DEPENDING ON THE WEATHER from 400 to 5000 meters). But be that as it may, the Arab-Israeli wars were the last wars where tanks encountered each other en masse. Any consideration of statistics can be stopped here, because each episode is essentially separate in its circumstances. In Iraq, for example, tanks were destroyed several times more often by ATGMs and aircraft than by shells. And about "lying" - aren't you tired of being a jerk in every comment? Or do I have to write the same offensive nonsense to calm you down? In my opinion, you often lie, distort, and obscure uncomfortable topics with details.
                        I'm not trying to be perfect, and talking about a topic without proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it's labor-intensive to find everything and lay it out. Yes, there are some inaccuracies, but the ideas are sound. You jumped off the Heaters, and they pressed you for specifics. Yes, we have a second-generation Heater, somewhere formally and at exhibitions, and some are in the plans, but you'll definitely find old French first-generation tanks on 95% of the tanks. You tried to make me look like a liar several times on this topic, but in fact, you yourself got carried away with the lies and immediately started to change your mind, "forgetting." It's ugly, nasty, and vile. Calm down.
                      3. +2
                        20 May 2026 12: 53
                        You're lying again. You have a 2nd generation frog thermal imager, now you're saying it's 1st generation.
                        Two generations were supplied, and they stopped producing it in 2014. However, a higher-quality thermal imager was created in Russia, which is installed in the T-90M.

                        During operations in Iraq (Desert Storm, 2003), Abrams tanks often fired from distances of 1500–2500 m

                        It's ugly, vile, and mean to lie, but for some reason you continue to lie.
                      4. 0
                        20 May 2026 13: 00
                        Quote: Kull90
                        then you have a 2nd generation frog thermal imager

                        Quote: Kull90
                        you're lying again

                        Where did I say that and who's the liar here? I'm telling you to calm down, you've clearly gone too far.
                      5. +2
                        20 May 2026 13: 09
                        I read it wrong, but you still lied anyway because
                        The Catherine FC thermal imager, which was installed on T-90 tanks, belongs to the second generation of thermal imaging systems.

                        According to the data we've studied, most M1A2 Abrams tanks are equipped with first-generation thermal imagers, and only the latest versions of the M1A2 Sep V3 TUSK are equipped with a second-generation thermal imager as part of the CITV sight, which is no better in terms of image quality than our Sosna-U and Irbis-K.
                    3. -3
                      20 May 2026 09: 15
                      Quote: Kull90
                      Frog-shaped thermal imagers have not been used on tanks for a long time

                      It's a lie. They just produce it under license and install it.
                      1. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 20
                        Prove it with facts, or you know who it is
                      2. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 26
                        Are you serious? Do you need the project start date shoved in your face from Wikipedia?
                        What facts are you waiting for?
                      3. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 42
                        You claim it's a lie, so prove it with facts.

                        You can stick it up your nose
                2. -3
                  20 May 2026 09: 23
                  Quote: Kull90
                  Name the Soviet tank on which the T-14 was based.

                  The T-14 is a reworking of the old Soviet prototype Black Eagle Object 640 from 1997.
                  A number of innovations were dropped from the design, such as the 152mm gun, a more powerful engine, a turret-mounted ammunition module, and a number of other improvements. The fire control system was improved (it would have been strange to install the same one 30 years later), other relatively new, but far from cutting-edge, electronics were added, and the side protection was improved. In fact, only the protection against sub-caliber and shaped-charge projectiles, especially the hull, was radically improved, while the tank's combat potential remained close to that of the T-90M.
                  That is, the point of the new tank has become vanishingly small due to its cutbacks.
                  1. +1
                    20 May 2026 12: 19
                    In 1997, the USSR did not exist, and the 640 tank was based on the T-80 and has nothing in common with the T-14.
                    Object 195 had a 152mm gun, Object 640 had a 125mm gun

                    You have no information at all, you don't know how to use Yandex, and you argue with the stubbornness of a sheep.
                    1. +1
                      20 May 2026 12: 21
                      Do you know where the forest is? Go there. The project began in the USSR and ended when it collapsed. By nitpicking such details, you're diverting the conversation from the core topics and still have the nerve to criticize.
                      1. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 44
                        The key topic of the article is the wooden Korean tank,
                    2. -1
                      20 May 2026 12: 35
                      Quote: Kull90
                      Object 195 had a 152mm gun, Object 640 had a 125mm gun

                      You don't have any information at all and don't know how to use it.

                      And again, go to hell. We're not talking about a specific tank having such a gun, but rather the documentation where they planned to include it in the project and fine-tune it for that purpose. This was planned work for the new generation of ALL future tanks, no matter which were ultimately accepted into service, not just two separate prototypes, which could have initially housed anything. But they abandoned this, claiming there were still plenty of 125mm gun shells in storage, even though most of these armor-piercing shells are already obsolete and only high-explosive shells are relevant. In the SVO, we saw yet another absurd reality—when the T80, T72, and T14 are used as field artillery because they fire these same shells, but aren't used as tanks. Even the T62 and T54 have appeared in this role. So, what progress?
                      1. +1
                        20 May 2026 12: 40
                        go to hell

                        Both the M1 and Leopard-2 are also used as field artillery. FPV drones don't care how many centimeters of armor they have on their front or the range of their thermal imaging.
                      2. 0
                        20 May 2026 12: 54
                        Quote: Kull90
                        FPV drones don't care how many centimeters of armor they have on their front or the range of their thermal imaging.

                        The American Bradley can withstand an average of at least 11 drone hits before it can be considered downed.
                        A BMP-1 without screens is destroyed by the first hit.
                        On average, a Ukrainian BTR-3 with screens is knocked out with 4 hits.
                        so there is a difference in protection
                        The range of the thermal imaging and the effective operation of weapons allows for better concealment of equipment to avoid exposing it to drone attacks—this is also an important factor for survival.
                        Quote: Kull90
                        Both the M1 and Leoprad-2 are also used as field artillery.

                        Which isn't good, especially since both of these tanks are designed to fire sub-caliber rounds, and are poor howitzers, with short barrel life. This isn't something to emulate. We should have emulated something else: in 2022-2023, NATO artillery often managed to deliver accurate counter-battery fire within 1-2 minutes of our initial fire, and those weren't tanks.
                      3. +1
                        20 May 2026 13: 01
                        Is there any evidence that they can withstand 11 FPV drones? I saw a video where Bradleys were stopped with one hit and the crew evacuated.

                        Enemy drone video captures the heroic deed of a Russian BMP2 crew.
                        Despite the vehicle taking more than three ATGM hits!!! and approximately three RPG hits!!!, as well as continuous fire from various types of weapons, the crew continued to fight to the last. The BMP-2 once again demonstrated its durability and survivability, and the Russian soldier's resilience.

                        Is there evidence of accurate counter-battery fire within 1-2 minutes?
                        I saw a video where the Pukras fire a shot and they immediately get hit
    2. +4
      19 May 2026 15: 25
      Some studies have noted that welded-rolled turrets offer superior projectile resistance compared to similar cast designs. For example, according to test data, a welded-rolled turret could outperform a cast turret by 15% in this regard, and by 13% in shaped-charge resistance.

      T-64 turret: The equivalent armor thickness of the turret in terms of resistance was: from an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile (APS) - 400 mm, from a cumulative projectile (CS) - 450 mm.

      T-72B turret: The armor resistance of the T-72B tank turret, without taking into account dynamic protection (DZ), is about 600 mm against APFSDS.

      In 1985, Kharkov switched to turrets without balls, the T-80U turrets
      1. 0
        19 May 2026 15: 38
        Quote: Kull90
        Some studies have noted that welded-rolled turrets offer superior projectile resistance compared to similar cast designs. For example, according to test data, a welded-rolled turret could outperform a cast turret by 15% in this regard, and by 13% in shaped-charge resistance.

        The weak point of such turrets is the welded seams. Yes, rolled sheet metal is certainly better than cast steel, but it's not for nothing that the Tiger tanks used tenon-welded steel. There's a video on YouTube of a T-90 falling apart at the seams.
        1. 0
          19 May 2026 15: 44
          If the Abosrams had had HE shells in their ammunition, they would have been falling apart at the seams.
          1. 0
            19 May 2026 15: 57
            Quote: Kull90
            If the Abosrams had had HE shells in their ammunition, they would have been falling apart at the seams.

            Video from our tank crews: The tank was hit, not what you thought.
      2. 0
        20 May 2026 12: 59
        The main focus is on resistance to kinetic energy projectiles. For a HEAT round, the dimensions and "sandwich" are important; the turret manufacturing method and steel grade play a role, but only slightly.
        The Asian approach—the enormous frontal turret bulk and sandwich construction significantly increased the tank's resistance to HEAT. The Germans, Americans, and even the British proved more conservative, and their tanks' resistance to HEAT is lower. The Merkava is generally protected only against HEAT—its kinetic resistance is significantly lower than most of its contemporaries.
        1. 0
          20 May 2026 13: 12
          Our DZ Relikt has significantly increased its cumulative resistance.
    3. 0
      19 May 2026 17: 34
      Quote: Konnick
      UVZ was never able to master the cast turret with corundum balls...And now it is passing off a welded turret as an advantage...and the seams are cracking,

      The issue isn't really about the shortcomings of the welded turret concept itself (all tank builders have long since switched to welded turrets), but rather its implementation at UVZ. Although, looking at Ustyantsev, the "court historian," it's hard to expect otherwise.
  3. +5
    19 May 2026 10: 25
    When a subcaliber projectile penetrates the front armor plate, the wooden shock absorber absorbs the impact load, preventing premature cracking and other damage to the ceramic components. Essentially, the wood acts as a safety cushion, allowing the ceramic to meet the projectile intact and effectively engage it.

    Truly, history develops in a spiral. Wood as a damping element for armor belt plates was used in ship armor protection right up until the time of the Russian Navy.
    1. +2
      19 May 2026 17: 40
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Truly, history develops in a spiral. Wood as a damping element for armor belt plates was used in ship armor protection right up until the time of the Russian Navy.

      The damper material was likely selected experimentally. Apparently, nothing better than wood was found. But how is wood inferior to rubber, plastic, or plexiglass if it performs better in practice? One could go further and use it as a Newtonian fluid damper in armor packages.
  4. +1
    19 May 2026 12: 25
    How are things going in Armata? Or is all hope in the Arena or something?
    1. +3
      19 May 2026 15: 17
      The frontal armor of the hull is 900 mm against armor-piercing fin-stabilized sabot projectiles (APFSDS), and more than 1100 mm against cumulative projectiles (CS).

      There is no arena there, there is Kaz Afghanit
      1. 0
        19 May 2026 16: 16
        Quote: Kull90
        There is no arena there, there is Kaz Afghanit
        And remote sensing type “Cactus”
        1. +3
          19 May 2026 16: 48
          You're mistaken: the Malachite type dz, the Cactus dz on the BMP-3, and the rear of the tank turrets.
          1. +2
            19 May 2026 17: 50
            Quote: Kull90
            You're mistaken: the Malachite type dz, the Cactus dz on the BMP-3, and the rear of the tank turrets.
            Perhaps so (I came across information about the "Cactus" on the T-14, in the description of turret protection). The only place the "Cactus" (developed in Omsk) was installed was on the Object 640 ("Black Eagle"). Vehicles had to be designed from the ground up for its installation; you couldn't just slap it on an existing vehicle.
            1. 0
              19 May 2026 18: 08
              DZ "Malachite"
              ........ It should be noted that the Research Institute of Steel has patented an electrodynamic protection system[5], possessing the performance characteristics published for Malakhit, such as the ability to destroy prospective NATO APFSDS rounds without increasing the amount of explosive, and operating principles that are "unparalleled," that is, a non-classical ERA design[6]. The patent states that the detection of an incoming metal APFSDS round or ATGM is carried out by built-in induction coils based on a sharp change in magnetic field strength upon the approach of a metal projectile or missile. The induced EMF from an APFSDS round flying near the ERA module is approximately 1 volt for a 600-turn coil laid along the perimeter of the ERA module. The resulting current from the induction coil serves as a command for the preemptive ejection of the striking elements approximately 40 centimeters before contact with the ERA module[5]. In this case, the APFSDS is destroyed while still in flight, and for ATGMs, even those that manage to initiate a cumulative projectile, when damaged by a hit from a metal plate of the explosive reactive armor, the detonation occurs at a distance without optimal focusing of the cumulative jet...
    2. 0
      19 May 2026 17: 54
      Quote: AlexSam
      How are things going in Armata? Or is all hope in the Arena or something?

      The promising T-14 tank was late to the new realities of warfare. Without drone protection, it's little better than the T-90M.
      For a promising tank you need:
      - a means for guaranteed physical destruction of drones (including those attacking simultaneously from different angles), since electronic warfare and aerosol clouds for blinding the seeker are useless against UAVs on fiber optics
      - a hybrid power plant that allows the car to move using electric motors
      - a significant increase in the amount of energy generated on board the tank to power communication systems, electronic warfare, detection equipment, APS, ACS, etc.
      - Electrothermochemical weapon (ETC-gun), which allows to increase the ballistics of the weapon without increasing the caliber
      - ASUNO, with integration with the ASU TZ (which does not yet exist) and the implementation of the "transparent armor" principle
      - possibility of unmanned use
      - isolation of fuel and ammunition (apparently, ammunition removed from the tank hull)
  5. +3
    19 May 2026 15: 15
    The thickness of the T-90 tank's armor, excluding dynamic protection (DZ) against shelling with cumulative projectiles (KS), is: turret - 850 mm
    1. +2
      19 May 2026 15: 41
      Quote: Kull90
      The thickness of the T-90 tank's armor, excluding dynamic protection (DZ) against shelling with cumulative projectiles (KS), is: turret - 850 mm

      It is necessary to clarify - the equivalent thickness in terms of armor resistance is monolithic, and the actual one is much less, but composite
      1. +3
        19 May 2026 15: 49
        So in the Korean tank it is necessary to clarify - the equivalent thickness in terms of armor resistance is monolithic, and the actual one is much less, but composite