[if gte mso 9]>Normal021falsefalsefalseENX-NONEX-NONE[if gte mso 9]>
[endif]Another problem of the Polish Army at the time of the systemic transformation (and today) was the basic means of transport of mechanized battalions, and they were constructed in the 1960s by combat infantry wagons BMP-1 (in the WP BWP-1).
Already in the 1980s, it was realized that the firepower of this car was insufficient., Therefore, 2 battalions were purchased in the framework of the planned method modernization of the LWP (which is de facto continuing to this day)New BMP-2, indicated in the WP as BWP-2. No licence for their production and problemsThe shorthands caused that they were not bought more, and even withdrawn and sold after 8 years of use.
Combat infantry car BWP-95
Even so, armor.used in the Polish Army BWP-1 (as well as BWP-2) purchased in the 1990s was insufficient. The top plate is only 7 mm thick, but it is tilted to the level at an angle of 80°, corresponding to conversion thickness 40 mm - thanks to thisis he resistant tomissiles antipainncerne cal.:
- up to 12.7 mm with dslow distance - I'm sorry. Cal. 14,5 and 20 mm at a distance of 100 m - cal. 23 mm with a distance of 500 m
On the another hand, enough slight change in slope (For example, 10°) to make the vehicle vulnerableuth hits .50 at 250 m or a 14.5 mm bullet at a distance of about 800 m. The lower front plate has a conversion thickness of 35 mm but it is tilted at a smaller angle, so it better responds to the slope of the vehicle (for 10° in dThe yellow is as much as 49 mm and up 28 mm).
Sides BWP-1 are traditionally worse armored from the front - they are protected by armor plates with a thickness of 16 mm inclined at an angle of 14° (LoS = 16,5 mm), so they are easy to penetrate by missiles 12,7 mm at a distance of up to 600-700 m. In the case of ammunition,6.62 mm in the tank, opposition to hits fromlengths above 75 m.
Tower is, however, covered with 13-23 mm armored panels at an angle of 30-42° (LoS = 15-31 mm), which is mainly oelephant before ammunition 7.62 mm (front and sides besides before 12.7 mm). Biggest problemHowever, resistancethe impact on the grenade launchers, and In fact, she's missing., because The accumulation stream from the PG-7 grenade could pierce virtually through these wagons Combat.
Therefore, VIT began work on light passive-reactive armor, specially designed for BMP-1.Its fulfilment was to be identicale as in ERAWA (i.e. TNT), on the another hand it was decided to apply ceramic housing for a good interception of the detonation energy, and decreased masstapes. This armor was named CERAWA.
Why didn't they decide on a Western product?
The problem was the defects of the average itself, including:
- tiny retention capacity BWP-1 (approx. 1350 kg) - large angle of inclination of the advanced front armor plate - tiny thickness of basic armor BWP-1
Of course, since the 1970s, the ERA has been produced in the West specially designed for light armored vehicles, but there are adequate circumstantial requirements for reactive armor for BWP-1 that they were not suitable for usage in our army.
And these requirements were as follows::
- I'm sorry.aua large detonating surface capable of stopping the cumulative stream
Western light ERAare filled materialself-extinguishing explosive agents, which, on the 1 hand, weaken the explosive force of the cassette directed towards the vehicle, but on the another hand, to halt the cumulative stream, respective cassettes are needed, a In the end, it could seriously harm BWP-1. - I'm sorry.low mass
It was decided that the BWP-1 would hold buoyancy after the additional armor was applied.
- I'm sorry.small thickness
Zuse of thick cassettes on front armor would reduce driver visibility BWP due to the armor leaning.
- I'm sorry.possibility to cover mik absorberrofal
Hello Western ERA due to An uneven surface (e.g. EAAK) cannot be additionally covered.
CERAWA-1 passive-reactive ceramic armour tape
I That's how the ceramic armor came into being.with passive-reactive, wheresimple modular cassettes have been utilized where each hasdimensioned 306 x 156 x 44 mm and massesau (with a frameem) 12.5 kg
Protection
The basic assumptions of the CERAWA-1 armor were the full protection of BWP-1 against anti-tank missiles of the kal. 12,7 and 14,5 mm at the front and at the sides, as well as protection against hitting PG-7 cumulative grenade (or others with akin parameters).
To this end, stateiono execute individual ankle tests before data fromHazards - in case of large caliber firearm ammunition was fired from a distance of 3 meters, natomiPG-7 cumulative grenade was detonated straight at kacecie. And inall cases per paCERAWA is simply a 10 mm thick steel plate.
The results were as follows:
- anti-tank ammunition B32 12.7 x 108 mm (penetration: 25 mm RHA ♪ Oh, yeah ♪ 100 m)
- anti-tank ammunition BZT 14.5 x 114 mm (passability: 40 mm RHA / 100 m)
- cumulative grenades PG-7 (transformability: 300 mm RHA)
Dthe opposition of the cartridges to the detonation was tested in the event of a hit with artillery shrapnel - the bullet was detonated during the test chipping OF-462 122 mm
As you can see, CERAWA could not full defend byd 14,5 mm projectiles, but completely completedand its assumptions in the case of smaller ammunition (the bullet remained in the mediate of the cassette, and the puncture was due to bending of the cassette) and cumulative grenades. Moreover, it was completely detonating-resistant as a consequence of artillery fire. With a purposeed increased passive protection of this armor, WITU planned to make the CERAWA task (founded even providing complete protection for BWP-1 byd projectiles 3UBR6 and 3UBR8 cal. 30 mm)But it didn't happen.
Application
CERAW armorA-1 was presented on MSPO '95 as 1 of the elements upgraded BWP-1 marking BWP-95.
BWP-95 on MSPO '95
As part of this modernization, the main changes in the vehicle were the replacement of the existing tower into newed product by HSW, which was armed with a SPG-9 cal. 73 mm jet-free cannon, automatic cannon 2A14 kal. 23 mm and device weapon PKT kal. 7.62 mm and installation of the saidHe's armored.
72 CERAWA-1 cassettes were mounted on the vehicle a full weight of 900 kg, where the arrangement was as follows:
- I'm sorry.23 pieces to the topfront plate and breakwater - 12 pieces on the lower front plate - 7 pieces per hull side - 9 plates on front tower plate - 7 pieces each from each side of the tower
As a consequence of this solution, the mass of the vehicle increased to 14,2 tonnes on 1 side, but on the another side BWP became resistant to hits 14.5 mm and 23 mm projectiles from approx. 200 metres or even 30 mm from approx. 700-1000 m and cumulative grenades with a penetration of about 300 mm RHA. The summarum BWP-95 could have been a theoretically better armored vehicle becauseCommonof any military From Rosomak.
Personally, I do not think CERAWA should (as opposed to BWP-95) in the 1990s withedeven for average BWP-1, this could be the only reasonable protection against the enemy's primary weaponry.and what's more with large ease it could besides be applied on the Rosomacs. The problem here is the bigger due to the fact that even the best mesh cover on BWP-1 has only moral value because will not supply even afterstand-up protection against infantry armor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But for the necessaryIn my opinion, I will tell you another time about the modernization of BWP-1.
Bibliography
The article utilized data and photographs from a book by Adam Wiśniewski entitled "Pancers. Construction, plan and research" and the improvement of the sameauthor's ego entitled "Protection of Light Armors Against Shaped Charge Projects".
