Jump to content


Defeating Era

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Eloise



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2016 - 2256 PM

I come across this article How accurate is this it ?

Experimental, modified 3BM22 Szpilka APFSDS which was capable of penetrating Kontakt-5 ERA without initiating it.

The top of the rod looks like cylinder with a length of 50 mm and wchich cross section has a diameter of 13,8 mm. This way of defeating Explosive Reactive Armor uses the fact that Reactive Armor usually does not explode when hit by 20-30 mm rounds even if they perforate the cassette. The job of such a rod top design is to simulate a small caliber round and gradually increase the penetration channel without making the explosive elements inside the ERA explode

- See more at: http://m.liveleak.co...h.u7ZbiLv5.dpuf

EAT warheads vs ERA

In case of HEAT warheads (used mostly in RPGs and ATGMs) the main way of defeating ERA is using a precursor. Precursors are divided into initiating and non-initiating ones. The first ones are supposed to make the ERA explode before the cumulative jet from the main charge reaches the armor. The main disadvantage of this solution is a need to create a relatively large time interval between the explosion of the precursor and the main HEAT charge. It must be done in order to give time for ERA to blow up after being initiated by the precursor. In reality majority of modern ERA (Relikt, ERAWA-2, BLAZER, ARAT) have multiple layers of reactive elements between metal plates and the time each layer explodes is delayed thus initiating precursors are nowadays most likely outdated.

More effective are the non-initiating precursors used in PzF-3IT600, RPG-29, RPG-28 and Kornet ATGMs. Their job is to punch a hole in ERA layers without initiating them allowing the main HEAT charge to pass through. Publications presented below show results of tests of penetrating two ERA layers covered by 14 mm armor plate by a precursor without initiating any of them. This precursor type allows the main HEAT charge to blow up right after without any time delays and the use of different layers and heavy moving armor plates in ERA can bring little effect against it

- See more at: http://m.liveleak.co...h.u7ZbiLv5.dpuf

It sound very strange to me , are these part realistic ? I thought ERA doesn't explode when hit by small caliber bullet because these are not fast enough ? How can the tadem warhead and the long tip of APDS round penetrate ERA without make it explode?
  • 0

#2 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 January 2016 - 1512 PM

Impact initiation of high explosives is pretty complicated. If you generate sufficiently shock pressure on impact the interaction details don't really matter, it's going to DDT and detonate. Prompt initiation of HE by impact requires strong shocks being generated and so there are lots of impact conditions that don't generate sufficiently strong pressures to reliably initiate insensitive HEs.


If you're below those strong impact pressure (which you actually can be even at the high speeds involved here)  tip shape, penetrator diameter and shock-shape make a substantial difference. I have no doubt that for some insensitive HEs there is a combination of impact velocity and tip geometry that can prevent prompt initiation of the ERA, whether that's possible at rod sizes and velocities of interest to effective KEPs is another matter.


Non-initiating precursor shaped charges are also absolutely a real thing.


All of these capabilities hinges on the fact that ERA explosives are using highly insensitive formulations specifically so that they don't go off against light caliber threats, frag/splinters etc. They are just a bitch to setoff and so counter weapons can exploit that.


In the long run I think ERA is going to be rolled in as the heavy/ultra-heavy element of  vehicle active defense, with tiles being automatically fired based on radar threat detection instead of passive impact initiation. The passive impact initiation is attractive for ease of implementation, but if you're going active as a first defense layer any tway and reactive as your second layer you've already crossed the technical hurdle of the radars/fire control anyway.

  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users