Polish peculiar Armors, Part II - ERAWA for Rosomak

2s14.blogspot.com 8 years ago

In the erstwhile part of the series I described the reactive armor of ERAWA designed for tanks and another heavy armored combat vehicles. Here I will describe another and extraordinary advantage of this ERA of Polish production, i.e. the anticipation of utilizing it besides on somewhat armored combat vehicles.

Why can't you usage tank ERAs on somewhat armored vehicles?

In videos of combat activities in Syria or Ukraine, you can frequently meet with the combat infantry cars BMP-1, which are on the sides or even on the turret covered with Contact-1.

In the founding of the originators of this task ERA located on the armor med increase protection BMP as in MBT.

It's reasoning quite logicalebut Error.

The problem of classical ERA is their main factor, i.e. the explosive in them. In case of hita In the cassette, the energy of the detonation is not only directed towards the projectile, but besides towards the shielded armorthe ego of the vehicle. In the case of Contact-1, the problem is even greater as in the case of an detonation of a cumulative rocket More than 1 cassette explodes, making the blast force on the armor significanttho greater than with newer ERAs.

The effect is that the armor is penetrated by the reactive and damaged armor on it.a the full vehicle.

I'm going to talk about how to solve this problem in the next part of the series, where I'm going to introduce you CERAWA armor - here I will mention only to the subject of research, which was to check the anticipation of utilizing a classical ERAWA, on vehicles specified as BMP-1.

Design and testing

The biggest problem of the full test was how to defend an 8 mm thick armor plate utilizing an ERA so that theand The cumulative stream did not penetrate the armor, nor was the plate penetrated by Reactive armor blasting.

Because of this, a very interesting way to assemble the moneytwhich I will discuss in the following points:

1. Changed the case of cassettes - in place of armored steel high hardness aluminium has appeared

2. The tape was bolted single cap for steel coil

3. The coil was welded.with steel plate

4. The plate with the coil was bolted with 2 more screws to plate 1, to which the muffs were welded

5. Plate n1 was fastened almost on the banks dwith a thickness of 8 mm

In the first plate variant nr 1 was a 227 kg RHA plate per square metre (i.e. thickness 2.9 mma)the second option wasAnd this is just a steel plate. with a weight of 211 kg per square metre (i.e. with a thickness of 2.7 millimetres). The discs were 152 millimeters (6 inches) apart.

There was a 3rd variant, which had 1 more crucial change in the plan - plate nr 1 was not attached to plate No 2 on its edges, but at tallness ERAWA-1 tapes. There is simply a plate nr 1 was a RHA evidence weighing 221 kg per square metre (i.e. 2.8 millimetres thick). The distance between them was reduced to 114 mm (4.5 inch).

During the testof plates No 1 had dimensions 500 x 500 mmand plate number 2 - 600 x 500 mm.

Due to the known strength properties of ERAWA-1 ankles, kuntil the passive-reactive armour variants were tested only in terms of protection against hitsa PG-7 cumulative grenades at 60° and 72°.

The results were as follows:

In all six tests, the plate No. 1 was completely penetrated.

- Option 1

PLatvia-The witness in the first case (72°) remained intact.

In the second case (60°) remained in the discwith a depth of 3 x 3 mm and depths 1 mm.

- Option 2

In pMr.elu no. 3 (72°) on board- The witness is left to dig into you.bearing 4.5 mm and measuring 51 x 13 mm, and the full plate remained au8 mm bent.

But in the case of youelu No. 4 (60°) full penetration of the witness board. The penetration channel had the form of a cut-off scone - The inlet had dimensions 34 x 17 mm and outlet - 10 x 6 mm.

- Option 3

Witness plate in panel no. 5 (72°) was only bent 11 mm.

In panel 6 (60°) in the witness disc still in depth measuring 3 x 3 mm and depth 2 mm, a flexionYou were 13mm.

The conclusion is that withbetter material for "podka handle" for a reactive ERA armourWA-1 are pCommonIconed with RHA, and the witness evidence behaves much better as the number 1 evidence is more distant from plate 2. In addition, plate No. 1 of thickness at least 5 millimeters could theoretically stopa residual cumulative flux for anglea of 72°.

Capabilities

This option ERAWA-1 reactive armor was never presented on any armored vehicle. The problem was that the only somewhat armored armored vehicles in the Polish Army were BWP-1, BRDM-2 and MT-LB.

The second was (and is) utilized as a specialized carrier, making its additional armor totally unnecessary, while BWP-1 and BRDM-2 have a low burden capacity reserve. BasicYou fighting infantry car of our army has estimatedStock Strengthau about 1300, mountainsa 1400 kggrams, while covering the vehicle with 3 mm plates alone is an additional burden of 774 - 795 kg. For this reason, another passive-reactive armor was started, which was designated CERAWA.

On the another hand "aluminium" ERAWA-1 in this form could be utilized as a substitute for the presently utilized modular passive shields in KTO Rosomak. erstwhile you talk about Rosomak himself, you gotta talk about him very much.ecaves fact - armor bThe azo of our armored transporter is identical to Passive part of the WITU test shield. The only problem with protecting the front would be turning the coils into armor.and mounting the ankles themselves.

In case of protection of the sides The problem is much bigger as ERAWA-1 would not supply the safety of the cumulative missile. Grids mounted on The vehicle would besides not solve this proBlemu.

The only solution is to make fresh ones., thicker tapes. Inthe centre of these tapes would be ERAWA-1 cassette inclined at an angle of 60° to the vertical along with a steel plate and filler in the form of polyurethane foam. Suche a solution not only would supply the required level of protection, but additionally could theoretically increase the displacement of the full vehicleAnd therefore, improve its buoyancy. How much? I'd gotta count. Anyway, ostrawPassive-reactive ones of this kind already exist, and 1 of the most celebrated ones is the American household BROTHER ♪ Oh, yeah ♪ SRAT, Russian CactusUkrainian or Ukrainian Rocketwhich is proposed by the maker (Microtech) as additional protection for Rosomak.

Bibliography

In the article, I utilized photographs and test descriptions from the survey "Protection of Light Armours Against Shaped Charge Projects" by Prof. Dr. engineer Adam Wiśniewski (ISSN 2081-5891).

Read Entire Article