Militarysta

OK, as exmaples german NXRA and NERA tests and...NxRA armour on Leo-2A5/A6(famous "wedges" on Leo-2A5) btw: You can find those PFD by using title in google :-) Enjoy! Soviet ERA and German double NERA: ps. and check this: https://zapodaj.net/images/47b609390faa3.bmp and find pfd via google - agin - Enjoy, it very good pdf

Are You sure it's not Iskander-K? Or the name was changed? o.O

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-) Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project: Offcial statment after tests: translate: And second: NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates": if You want I can post more resercht like this above. More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction. In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive? Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers: (my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)

I know this article very well. It's more or less the same propaganda war since 2010 between UWZ and CHzTM and Microteh and NII Stali. Whit all respect to NII Stali - this article totally ignores main Nozh working principles. Of course in some area this article have right, but for all castette working mehanism single linear SC faliture is no problem -couse a forced fragmentation of the external metal plate of the ERA cassette. The effectiveness of Nozh depends highly on fragments from the “chopped” external metal plate. The linear shaped charges also reduce the,penetration of an incoming penetrator but the effect is smaller than the one,caused by fragments of the cassette. And this part is almoust ignore in NII Stali article -and all is based on "single linear SC faliture" theory. Yes, this faliture is true, but it's not relevant in whole casette working mehanism. BTW: Nozh and Duplet was tetsed vs OLF F1 on Ukriane and again OLF F1 and DM43 in Emirates. In both cases penetrator lost more then 90% of it's penetration capabilities...

It's "partial disclosed" -the most importing factor is "secondary effect" from thick metal frontplate of Nozh and Duplet cassete. It's far more important then only linear SC working - and this part was describe for my by two person - one form Ukraina and one from Russia.

About polish 125mm and 120mm APFSDS-T ammo. In case 125mm polish army is using 3BM15 and 3BM22 munition, Still. In 2016 Jesus, f*ckin Chirst... Apart that on base offset for buing in 2001 ATGM Spike polish industry had akcess to modern sabot's and "long rods" form Israel. So on base israeli CL3579 MK.II was made polish "Pronit" round: It was made circa 1400 rounds when was discover on tests that 1/5 rods from IMI have factory faliture and have smaller penetration in cold winter conditions. So army stop buing Pronit. Apart this polish industry had offer "new" rondu whit french rod: More od less polish army don;t bou this APFSDS too, so in circa 2016 polish army is still usinig 3BM15 and 3BM22. Greate... ------------------------------ In case 120mm ammo polish industry had developed whole family: In case 120mm APFSDS-T there is Pz.531 round as base "combat" APFSDS-T. Initialy it was polish copy of the German DM-33A1. But polish industry had it's own invention and made two pieces (segments) rod in penetrator. Yes - like in 3BM42 Mango... Round: and segmented penetrator: the bonus from sucht build was 10% better penetration then in DM-33A1 and ability to better overcome sloped "convex" shape turrets roof like in T-72B or erly T-90S. But this round have not very good penetration 500-540mm RHA on 2000m. Finnaly polish MoD consist that polish Leoprads-2 need a new APFSDS and industry developed "new" Pz.531 second generation round whit longer rod - taken from Plansee factory (France and Ostriech) - almoust the same as in DM43 round. This round is in production now. What is funny - polish MoD need again better round whit better abilities to overcome heavu ERA. Off the record - DM63 New round whit minimum 700mm RHA penetration abilitis will be buing from 2018.

Some APFSDS marks on destroyed tanks: T-72M ODS 1991: Separatist T-72B m.1989: (the most strange think is that this tank not blow out after sucht hit..) UA Army T-64 BW after hit: well known separatist T-64BW destroyed by two APFSDS hit: Iraqi T-62 2003 OIF: 1st example: 2th example: Russian/separatist T-72BW after friendly fire to destroy damage tank: what is interesting - fist shoot was on sucht short distance that we can see sabot mark on plate -so distance was under 50m... interesting. About fins marks - 3BM42 in action?

About tank guns and amunition, hope it will be interesting topic :-) In penetration data I will base on russian sources -they are ussaly most credible (the best). I will ussaly give value for monolith steel plate slopped on 60@ - it's the best scenario for APFSDS penetrator. In sucht scenario (slopped on 60@ plate) penetration value can be bigger at even 17-20% then on 0.degree plate - this is caused by "asymmetry loads back surface" of the plate): First: M829 M829A1 M829A2 M829A3 M829A4 M829: DOI: 1985 penetration at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: 540-560mm RHA: M829A1 DOI - 1989 (in some sources - 1988) penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 700mm RHA this round was to weak to overcome T-80U and T-80UD and T-72B m.1989 whit Kontakt-5 ERA, what was "suprisly" discover on tests in circa 1994. The same story was whit DM43 prototypes.. M829A2 DOI - 1992 penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 740mm RHA Fist US round whit composite sabot. (lack good photos) insted of this: KE-W so M829A1 but whit WHA penetrator, and KEW-E3 so M829A2 whit WHA long rod. M829A3 DOI - 2003 penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: propably circa 800mm RHA, but is not sure value, round devleoped to everpas heavy ERA but whit unkown result M829A4 DOI -2016 :-) penetration - no idea It's very interesting round data link is for APFSDS round?! I have a hypothesis... Ok so it have data link to be programmed, it is said to be capable to defeat 3rd generation heavy ERA (Relikt, Knife, etc.) and active protection systems (hard kill). It seems that focus is primary on defeating heavy ERA. But then again, why do you need to program just a long rod fired by a big gun? There are few options: - Gudining the round, - Precursor, - "Intelligent" control over propelant charge ignition (dependant on propelant temperature, environment temperature, gun service life, range to target etc.) And truth to be told hypothesis that there is some sort of precursor in the rod is the only hypothesis that makes sense. Control over propelant charge ignition is not needed and probably not possible at all with current technology, besides the M829A4 (and all newer US ammo types for 120mm smoothbore) use insensitive propelant charges. And it is nowhere mentioned in any document avaiable for public. Guiding the rod to target? Perhaps possible from technical point of view, but why? Again it was nowhere said that FCS for M1A2SEPv3 have ability to guide any type of rounds. And manouvering of the rod during flight means loss of a lot of energy, even if this manouvering would be done to "cheat" the APS for example. So perhaps the option is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod. So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely. The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target. How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous. Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts. of course this data link coud be placed only for security resons, as one person on TankNet had wrote: :-) ps. prefragmentet APFSDS during flying exist now, as smal-scale models and test object:

1) Yes, it's me 2) Oh, this one. It's ABC weapons detector, almoust the same is on PT-91:

And few videos: 155mm SPH Krab: 155mm SPH Kryl: 120mm SP Motar RAK: WR40 MLRS: in action:

A few infos about polish "Regina" modernisation of the artilery program. This program will be replaced whole artilery systems in Polsih Army. 342 2A1 "Gvozdika" 122mm will by repleced by 120-130 "Krab" SPHs on K9 Samsung Tehwin chassis and AS90 Braveheart turret system. All will be polonisated in 100%, turret system is polonisated now in 100%. 155 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer KRAB: datashhet form manufacurer webpage: en.hsw.pl/i/fmfiles/krab/krab-sph-hsw.pdf 152mm Self-Propelled Howitzer "DANA" (111 in active service) will be replaced by circa 120-150 155 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer on truck KRYL. Artilery part is taken from israeli ATMOS. Ugly, ofull protoype: Datashet: http://en.hsw.pl/i/fmfiles/kryl/kryl-sph-hsw.pdf 120mm motars (146) will be replaced by 120 mm SP Mortar in two verion - on AMV "Rosomak" chassis (68 to 96 SPM) and on tracked chassis (96 systems) (it will be new chasis taken from new IFV for polish army). motar system: datasheet: http://en.hsw.pl/i/fmfiles/rak-m120-wieza/m120-mortar-turret.pdf old MLRS RM-70 and BM-21 GRAD are replacing by two system: WR-40 Langusta (75 now in active service) and new "Homar". WR-40 Langusta MLRS: data sheet: http://en.hsw.pl/i/fmfiles/langusta/langusta-hsw-rocket-launcher.pdf The second MLRS program in Poland is "Homar". - propably it will be based on ATCMS and US GMLRS program, now we have trade in Poland, and tehere ar two offers: Lockheed Martin (HIMARS) IMI (Lynx) New rocket will allowed to build 3x long-range MLRS artilery divison. Structure of "Missaile brigade": It's consists: 1st costal rocket artilery division (NSM 24x rocket on 6 vehicles) 2th costal rocket artilery division (NSM 24x rocket on 6 vehicles) 1st tactical missaile division (18 MLRS and ATACMS vehicles) 2th tactical missaile division (18 MLRS and ATACMS vehicles) 3th tactical missaile division (18 MLRS and ATACMS vehicles) What is interesting - Poland is using NSM missailes in two costal defense divisoons. Both are using not as "typical" costal defense but due to perfect NSM missiales ability to overcome enemy air defense as "long range" artilery in Polish Army: NSM in Poland:

OK, hosting on imigur solved porblems -thanks a lot!

I had tried I have this error: https://zapodaj.net/4d96c1d2e48ed.jpg.html to many pictures posted today in my posts? or just polish serwers and google ones are not welcome?

Generally in older NERA armour packed "the main defender" is moving thiner back plate in eacht one NERA packed - in case T-72B it is those 3mm thick steel plate. During hit energy is transfering by rubber layer form front plate (21mm thick) to those 3mm thin metal plate. Ant this plate bulging and move is disturbing SC jet or bent "long rod". In mucht modern NxRA system the armour packed layout is diffrent - ussaly two thin (3-8mm) plates and thicker interlayer whit some "energetic" material. In sucht armour BOTH thin metal plates are moving - first backplate and as second - prontplate. So tehre is 2x more "moving and bulging plates" then in older NERA armour. Older one's type exmaple: T-72B (Ob.184) armour: https://zapodaj.net/images/386cbcc588bf1.bmp T-55 Haji armour (on T-55 ENIGMA) https://zapodaj.net/images/5f06c3f7eadd7.png And mucht more modern solution on Merkawa Mk.3D Dor Dalet - typical NxRA (both metal layer are moving): https://zapodaj.net/images/6cda17836100e.jpg EDIT - why I can't ad some photos? o.O EDIT2 - hosting on imigur help a lot

My article about ukrainian ERA "Knife" and "Duplet": In russian: http://warfiles.ru/show-101186-ukrainskaya-dinamicheskaya-zaschita-nozh-chast-1.html http://malikobalo.appspot.com/otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/era-nozh_part2/ http://malikobalo.appspot.com/otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/era-nozh_part3/ And in eglish: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c47_1421699338 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67c_1423601762 I hope it will be interesting :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About polish ERAWA and ERAWA-2 armour ERA: (mo old article from BTVT) :-) Polish Explosive reactive armor: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ·Origins of the ERAWA armor ·ERAWA -1 – the build and effectiveness ·ERAWA -2 – the build and effectiveness ·ERAWA armor on PT-91 and PT-91MZ ·ERAWA-2 unique features, and compare whit other ERA armors. Origins of the ERAWA armor The ERAWA armor is connected whit person of the Prof. Ph.D. D.Sc. Adam WIŚNIEWSKI from Military Institute of Armament Technology (WITU) in Poland. Name of this reactive armor is based on acronym: Explosive Reactive Armor Wiśniewski Adam 1 and 2 layered. The origins of the ERAWA are hidden in half of the 1980s when polish Military Institute of Armament Technology had started (in person Prof. Ph.D Wiśniewski) development process about new armor for deep modernization of the T-72M1. In fact WITU work had started about whole family of the armor whit two „tank” part: ceramic CAWA armor for main tank armor and explosive ERAWA armor as external layer. Rumors about eastern (Soviet Union) origins of the ERAWA are false. Polish Army during negotiation about future production in Poland T-72s tank (planned at half of the 1990s) rejected Kontakt-1 armor as solution whit many flaws and not good enough against suspected RPG's and ATGMS warhead in breakthrough of the 1980/1990. New armor ERAWA-1 was available in 1993 whit first PT-91 prototype. ERAWA -1 – the build and efectivnes Basic parameters of the ERAWA-1 cassette: (Photo description: Left: ERAWA-1 TX cassette Right: ERAWA-1 patent draw: 1-casette; 2-HE (trotyl or trotyl-heksogen); 3- external HHS (HB500) plate ~6mm thick; 5,6 – screws; 7 - brackets for ERAWA-1 cassette in distance 30-50mm form armor ) I. Parameters: 1. Size of the ERAWA-1 cassette - 150x150x26 mm 2. Mass of the ERAWA-1 cassette - 2.9 kg ERAWA-1 is build form RHA cassette whit HE insert (TNT or TNT-hexogen) cover by circa 6mm HHS plate whit 500HB hardness. Whole cassette is mounted by two screws to the brackets. This build, seems to be primitive, but thanks to strong explosive and very good quality HHS plates provides very good capability of the protection: Capability of the Protection is based on formula: CP - capability of protection CP=(H-Hw)/H H- Guaranteed penetration RHA armor with thick "H" Hw - real depth of perforation RHA armor (witness) after perforation ERAWA brick In result ERAWA-1 (single layered) have sucht efectivnes valued in CP factor: against hand held AT weapons sucht Komar (The Mosqito), PG-7 and PG-9 whit (circa 300-330mm RHA penetration): CP = 92% against 9M113 warhed (circa 460mm RHA penetration): CP = 83% against 125mm BK-14M round (circa 450mm RHA penetration): CP = 94% ERAWA-1 casettes are insensitive to react: ·during impact of ·AP small calibre amunition ·fragments from exploding projectiles ·during burning of by: petrol, napalm, thermite Seafty tests ERAWA-1 photos: ERAWA -2 – the build and effectives ERAWA-2 (two layered) was answer for modern thread: AT weapons whit precursor (PG-7VR, MBT LAW, Panzerfaust-3T etc), EFP projectiles formed from 100mm cone diameter, partially APFSDS penetrators, and challenge to reduce RCS tank signature. ERAWA-2 and ERAWA-1 cassettes are fully swichable. Basic parameters of the ERAWA-2 cassette: Photo description: Left: ERAWA-2 TX02 cassette Right: ERAWA-2 patent draw: 1-casette; 2 double HE layer (trotyl or trotyl-heksogen); 3- thin HHS plate separation two HE layers; 4- thin metal lid ; 5 – ceramics layer; 6 – thin HHS plate; 7- rivet/screw; 8 - brackets for ERAWA-2 casette in distance 30-50mm form armor; 9 – screw between cassette and brackets, 10 – mounted nut. ) Parameters: 1. Size of the ERAWA-2 cassette - 150x150x46 mm 2. Mass of the ERAWA-2 cassette - 4.7 kg Internal build of the ERAWA-2 cassette is much more sophisticated then ERAWA-1 and it's very different then other known ERA cassettes. Basic build is similar to the ERAWA-1 – metal cassette attached by mounted screws to brackets in distance 30-50mm from armor surface. But internal ERAWA-2 build is different. First they are two HE layers inside cassette separated by thin (circa 2-3mm) HHS plate whit hardness above 500HB. Probably both HE layers have slightly different HE material whit different reaction time and other parameters. Second – external ERAWA-2 plate is not thick HHS plate but multilayered layout made by: thin metal lid then circa 4-5mm thick ceramic layer and second thin (circa 2-3mm) HHS plate whit hardness above 500HB. Such, unusual, layout make ERAWA-2 different then other known ERA. And give surprisingly good capabilities of the protection: ·Agiainst single SC (HEAT) warheads like 9M113 (Konkurs) or 9M111M (Fagot) or BK-14M CP = 95% ·Against single EFP formed form 100mm cone diameter and penetration circa 85mm RHA CP= 94% During test ERAWA-2 proof abiities to protect in PT-91 hull top and turret top against EFP formed from 50-155mm cone diameter (so up to 120mm RHA penetration) and to protect hull sides against EFP formed form 200mm cone (so up to 150mm RHA penetration). ·Against APFSDS rounds 3BM15 (125mm) and DM-33A1 (120mm) CP in first case (3BM15) was equal to 57% CP in second case (DM33A1) was not given, but ERAWA-2 placed on PT-91 hull model (so T-72M1) was enought to stop APFSDS whit guaranted 470mm RHA penetration, from 600m distance: In this case DM-33 penetartor was heavy damage during ERAWA-2 penetration, then perforate first plate and rebound from deeper (glas textolite) layers without reach second RHA plate (backplate) PT-91 hull is consist by: (for 90 degree) 60 mm RHA + 105 mm STEF + 50 mm RHA, and glasstextolite thickness effectiveness is circa 0.4 against APFSDS, and ERAWA-2 cassette is 46mm thick So layout for 68 degree is: ~120mm ERAWA-2 cassette + 160mm RHA + 280mm STEF + 146mm RHA Hull base armor (without ERAWA) works as circa 420mm RHA against APFSDS. Guaranteed DM-33A1 penetration is 470mm RHA on 2000m. DM-33A1 after passing ERAWA-2 perforate first RHA plate and circa half STEF layer then rebound. In theory ERAWA-2 give CP=42% in this case (using formula: CP=(H-Hw)/H) but in author opinion such test is not relevant cause rather rebound mechanism then only ERAWA-2 working. Some sources (Kajetanowicz J., POLIGON 2/2013, „Czołg podstawowy PT-91 Twardy” page 7.) give ERWA-2 abilities to reduce APFSDS penetration up to 30-40%. What is consist whit above example. For the other hand - both used on test APFSDS rounds are not modern. 3BM15 is complete obsolete and antic and DM-33A1 is not really young (DOI 1987). Probably ERAWA-2 test against much modern rounds (DM53, M829A2, KEW-A2, OLF-F1, M332) will give much worse results. Anyway - ERAWA-2 ERA incares a lot protection of the PT-91 tank against non monoblock penetrator, so: 3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26, 3BM42 and even help against first generation longer monoblock penetrator (DM33). So for typical angle +/- 30. degree from longitude tank axis and against APFSDS from half of the 1980s decade ERAWA-2 have capability of the protection – circa CP= 50-60% for penetrator whit tungsten or steel slug inside and achieve unknown (30%?) but rather significant protection against slightly younger APFSDS whit monoblock penetrator (DM33A1). ·Against SC warhead (HEAT) whit precursor. Proliferation of the AT hand held weapons whit precursor able to destroy ERA cassette starts to be serious problem for armor developers in 1990s decade. Most of the precursors are working not as typical SC warhead able to perforate armor and are not working in idea „fast ERA detonation” before main warhead SC jet hit target. In modern hand held AT weapons (PG-7VR, MBT-LAW, PzF-3T and IT600, probably in RPG-29) precursor is working in different way. As Panzerfaust-3IT developers wrote: „The dual warhead has a small first charge and a main shaped charge. The first charge penetrates the reactive add-on armor on the combat vehicle without initiating the charge inside it to ensure it does not compromise or pre-vent the armor-piercing action of the main shaped charge.” Such mechanism was describe in some ballistic symposium thesis too: ERAWA-2 was tested against several tandem warhead (main warhead + precursor) AT weapons, but probably the most difficult test was against Pzf-3T and PzF-3IT600: Pzf-3IT600 main warhead (110mm diameter) is able to perforate 900mm RHA plate, and PzF-3T warhead is able to perforate 800mm RHA plate. Both of them where tested against ERAWA-2 cassettes placed on angle 30 and 15 degree (so 75 and 60 degree form the surface): The result was more then good: ERAWA-2 against PzF-3T placed at 30 degree (60) achieve CP = 50% what including sophisticated precursor in Pzf-3T and powerful 110mm warhead (800mm RHA penetration) was greater success. ·Reduce tank RCS signature. ERAWA-2 casettes are covered by 4mm special absorber layer (1K2KS and 1KF2KS absorber) whit mass 6kg/m2 and able to protect against radar working in band X and Ku whit f=8-16GHz. On typical PT-91 such absorber cover circa 20m2 and achive reduce detecting range at 50 to 60% for typical conditions. ERAWA armor on PT-91 and PT-91MZ There was three generation of ERAWA armor on PT-91 tank. First generation consisted 394 ERAWA-1 cassette. On hull front was placed 118 cassettes and on turret 108 cassettes. On each hull side was placed 84 cassettes. Such cover weight circa 1144kg. ERAWA-1 cassettes are mounted by screws and nuts to individual metal brackets on armor surface: Photo: First generation ERAWA mount on early PT-91 tank prototype: Second generation ERAWA armor on serial PT-91 tank consist 296 ERAWA casettes: ·204 x ERAWA-1 ·92 x ERAWA-2 With total weight 2014kg and mounted by screws to the special metal bar- brackets: Photo: second generation ERAWA mount on serial PT-91 tank : Third generation ERAWA armor on PT-91 tank consist 259 cassettes: ·164 ERAWA-1 ·92 ERAWA-2 Weight 907kg. The main change is modular designed to achieve faster replace damage cassettes on battelfield. On hull are placed 79 segments, on turret 90 segments and on each hull side 45 segments. This generation layout is used on PT-91M „Pendekar” (or „Malaj”) for Malaysia, PT-91Ex and PT-91P prototypes. Photo: Third generation ERAWA mount on serial PT-91M „Pendekar” tank : It is importand to notice that typical ERAWA can't be use on light platforms like IFV or APCs. ERAWA armor will not be use on Polish Leopard-2A4 and 2A 5 tanks for law resons – agreement whit KMW and German Republic excludes non authorisated and non tested solution in Leopard-2 modernisation program. Cost of sucht certification and legalization problems propably will be to big to put ERAWA armor on polish Leopard-2. ERAWA-2 unique features, and compare whit other ERA armors. Polish ERAWA armor have some special features whit make ERAWA-1 and 2 very interesting example of different principles during ERA development process. First – ERAWA cassette have small dimensions. While in other countries ERA cassettes are rather big, ERAWA developers had tried to make ERAWA cassettes as small as it possible, whit under cassette montage system. This solution give possibility to mounted ERA cassettes without heavy metal frame known from other ERA or without space between ERA cassettes. In some ERA gaps between cassettes are almost 50mm wide. ERAWA ERA haven't such problems, so it can better cove the tank. Any flat surface cover by ERAWA is protected in 95% of it's area. Photo: Lack of any gaps between ERA cassettes on PT-91A hull and present sucht gaps on T-72B hull. Photo: Compare turret cover by ERA: Second special features of the ERAWA is its high effectiveness even on great angle. While most developers are trying to slopped ERA cassettes at 60 degree (30) form 0 to achieve some needed effectives level ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 can be slopped at smaller angle whit the same effectiveness. Typical ERAWA-2 CP value (capability of the protection) against single SC warhead is CP = 95% at 60. Degree ERA slopped angle. But even for extremely difficult for ERA cassettes angle 70-90. ERAWA-2 is effective in impressive CP=67-80% Photo: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 effectiveness at difficult angle grater then 60. Third special feature of the ERAWA armor is confirmed abilities to significant reduce (CP=50% for 60. slopped angle) modern AT hand held SC (HEAT) warhead whit precursor. So Pzf-3T, PzF-3IT600, PG-7VR, RPG-29, MBT-LAW, etc Some ERA manufacturer claimed that they ERA have counter double warhead abilities (Relikt, Knive -Duplet, ARAT-2, ERAWA-2, etc) But till now only in Poland (and Ukraine) are known and have confirm in open public sources evidences that ERA armor can withstand such thread. Despite that ERAWA-2 ERA can stop most EFP warhead what is rather unique feature too, and it's cover by microwave absorber to reduce tank RCS. The last, maybe not unique, but really good ERAWA armor feature is it's insensitive for AP small caliber ammunition, fragments from exploding projectiles, and burning of by: petrol, napalm, termite., insensitive for 10m height drop, and chain reaction after ERA cassette explosion. What more – ERAWA have confirm abilities to work in -50 to +80 C temperature, have more then 20 years guaranteed lifetime and is small and easy to fixed it on tank. In compare to exist now ERA ( BRENUS, Blazer, ARAT-1, ARAT-2, Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, Relikt, Knive /Duplet,) etc. ERAWA have the smallest cassettes and it can cover the biggest tank area (except Ukrainian Knive ERA in Oplot-M modules). ERAWA-2 abilities to stop single HEAT warhead is rather no different then other ERA, this what is special in ERAWA is it's ability to work even on greater angle (90-70.) whit significant effectiveness (CP=67-80%) and abilities to stopped even big EFP warhead. Unknown is effectiveness of the ERAWA-2 againt big tandem ATGM warhed like in Kornet, Ataka, etc. Probably ERA will not achieve such good results in this scenario. But for the other hand – ERAWA-2 have confirm (not only in marketing ads) abilities to deal whit modern hand held SC (HEAT) warheds whit precursor. Reduce at 50% penetration for such warhead like PzF-3T (for 60 angle) and abilities to similar reduction in other modern AT weapons (like RPG-29) should be notice as extremely good. This what modern ERA (Relikt, Knive, etc) have definitely better then ERAWA-2 is ability to stop APFSDS penetrator. Probably ERAWA can deal with only 1980s penetrators (3BM26, 3BM42, 3BM32, DM33A1 etc) whit fluent effectiveness between 30-56% and in case modern monoblock 1980s penetrator rather based on rebound mehanism (like in DM-33A1 case) then destroying penetrator. So effectiveness against modern APFSDS (even 1990s) is rather highly questionable. Good ERAWA feature is covered ERA cassette by microwave absorber to reduce RCS. In summary: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 are good example completely different way making ERA to achieve quite good results. Of course ERAWA seems not to be so good as the most modern IBD, FCCT Microtek, NII Stali solutions, but it's not bad anyway. For polish point of view ERAWA armor was necessary and relatively cheap way to increase a lot PT-91 (so originally T-72M1) armor protection. Future of the ERAWA armor in Poland is unclear. Probably for pure German reasons ERAWA will not be used during polish Leopard-2A4 modernization, and then Leopard-2A5 ones program. Trilateral Polish Army – German Army - KMW agreement almost blocked using pure polish solution in modernization program, and few allowed (polish RCWS, driver camera, BMS, etc) where more important and cheaper then long an expensive ERA certification process – including fire tests. Lighter platforms don't need such heavy ERA as ERAWA-1/2 and in polish Military Institute of Armament Technology was developed whole family armors for lighter then tanks platforms like: - CERAWA-1 composite-reactive armor - lightweight special bar armor (the cage) - ceramic armor CAWA-4 and CAWA-3 - main multilayer passive armor CAWA-2 and CAWA-1NA armor In other institutes in Poland where developed NERA armor and polonisated lightweight ceramic armor for Rosomak (AMV) APC. In fact ERAWA successor can be used only in future IFV. Bibliography: 1. Wiśniewski A., Pancerze, budowa, projektowanie i badnie, Warszawa 2001 2. Wiśniewski A. „Protection of Light Armors Against Shaped Charge Projectiles” 3. Wiśniewski A. „Computer analysis of explosive sensitivity to projectile impact” 4. Kajetanowicz J., Czołg podstawowy PT-91 „Twardy”, POLIGON 3/1013 5. Opis patentowy Nr 156463 „Segmentowy pancerz aktywny”, WUP 03/92 6. Opis patentowy Nr 168122 „Czołg z pancerzem reaktywnym”, WUP 01/96 7. Opis patentowy Nr 174119 „Segmentowy pancerz reatywny”, WUP 06/98 8. Koning P. J, Mostret F. J, „The Designand performance of non-initiating shaped charges whit granular jest against ERA”, 20th international symposium on ballistic Orlando 2002. 9. Podgórzak P., Wiśniewski A., „RESEARCH RESULTS ON PRECURSOR OF THE TANDEM SHAPED CHARGE PROJECTILE MODEL”, WITU 2005. 10. Dynamit Noble Defense, „Urban Warfare 2.0 How asymmetric threats dominate conflicts”, 2010. 11. Szudrowicz M. „ANALYSIS OF BAR AND NET SCREENS STRUCTURE PROTECTING VEHICLES AGAINST ANTI-TANK GRENADES FIRED FROM RPG-7”, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 18, No. 1 2011 12. Magier M., WSTĘPNA ANALIZA ZJAWISKA RYKOSZETOWANIA WYDŁUŻONYCH PENETRATORÓW POCISKÓW KINETYCZNYCH, WITU 2010 =================================== And to be honest - In Poland in late 1990 was tested PT-91 vs M829 120mm Distance was 1200m, there was shot 5x M829 to turret and hull. In fact it was T-72M1 whit ERAWA-2 on hull and turret front, and... additonal HHS palte on hull (so two HHS paltes - factory ones and this "aditional") There was no single penetration :-) The same DM-33A1 was unable to overcome ERAWA-2 and T-72M1 hull. Of course mucht modern APFSDS have not problem to overcome polish ERA. Now in Poland is tested Knife and Duplet ERA as "offset" for deploing polish thermal cameras for Ukrianian tanks (circa 80 pieces for T-72AW modernisated in Lviv tank plant). As I konw the results are not very far away from my article conclusion...

@UP To be honest - it's Turms-T FCS from italian "Galileo". And it have hunter-killer plus capabilities. Tk panormaic sight have independent thermal camera (Attila) and it's own laser rangefinder, Whole Turms-T on T-72M4Cz have 22 news block. But Czech made one mistake - they left old gun 2A46 and...old stabilisation 2E28M whit only slighty modernisation. So propability to hit target by first shot is only about 65 to 75%... ps. hello :-)