Reactive Armor

[Flake2m]

I would like to know if anyone has research and experimented with Reactive armor?
It would be useful if someone has done some R&D into reative armor because then the finding could be used to improved it, or find a way to defeat it more easily.

[nbk2000]

Why would anyone have experimented with such things? It's not like any of us have tanks we need to protect.

[Flake2m]

The members of this forum that are doing some R&D into shaped charges could make a form of reactive armor to test out how effective an shaped charge is against different armor types.

It should be fairly easy to make reactive armor. I would coat a thick steel plate (5mm steel) on one side with an HE like PETN and then place a thinner steel plate (1.2mm) on top of the HE.

(correct me on this) When there is an explosion close enough and powerfull enough to detonate the explosive underneath, the thin steel plate is used as a shield to defect the hot gases created and prevent them from penertrating the thick armor.

[Anthony]

What's the point? You'd know it'd work, so it's not really in need of "proving". Besides, I don't know about other members, but I for one lack a .50 rifle to test it with...

BTW, you wouldn't catch me using 5mm of steel as protection, unless you use a minute amount of explosive it'd more than likely be breached.

[ENGINEERKILLER]

I don't understand why it is assumed that reactive armor will function if it is hit by a .50. I have shot 155mm rounds full of comp b with incendiary tracers and all the round did was pass through. The same goes for c-4 as long as it is not on fire when you shoot it nothings gonna happen.

[Eliteforum]

If someone has cash to spare, I know a few sites that sell tanks, starting from around £9,000.

Now.. where's my cheque book.. :D

[Anthony]

ENGINEERKILLER, it was mentioned in the Penetrating Thick Skinned Targets thread that a .50 cal (BMJ I presume) would activate reactive armour.

Obviously I'm not saying you're wrong, just going on what has been said. With the 155mm shells, maybe it was because they lacked the "anvil" effect of a tank? I.e. the round doesn't have an inpenetratable surface to compress the explosive against.

[nbk2000]

The "Raufoss" .50 caliber round contains either HMX or A4, either one of which will set off any high explosive it impacts in since it is a delayed explosion. The army EOD uses it for EXO disposal. Shoot a bomblet with one and BOOM!, no more bomblet. :)

Though normal ball ammo won't set off ERA, it could degrade its effectiveness is later impacted by explosive weapons. Most ERA panels are impervious to penetration by small arms fire anyways.

[Cyclonite]

Reacive Armor is easy to defeat, as already stated though not to many people have a use for it. More advanced HEAT rounds use a small precursor shapecharge in the front that will set off the explosives in the armor leaving it vulerable to the large main shapecharge the the rear of the projetile.

[cutefix]

Reactive armor is defeated by tandem warheads; a series of explosive charges. which the first one will set of the reacitve armor .Then the second one will penetrate the armor.
Have a look at patent 5,744,746 for example.
There are some rumours that Russia is developing a a series of three explosive charges which was focused on destroying the Chobham armor of the Abrams Tank.
I am not sure if that is the model that disabled a few of these tanks in the latest Gulf war.

[ancalagon]

I was reading not so long ago about research centers that experiment with high energy particles, sending them shooting around a controlled area, crashing into things. Sometimes howver, these hit the walls, and so the centers developed plasma shields which form instantly to plug holes, and are to dense for the particles to get through. I don't remember a great deal about this article (hence the vague post), but I hope somehow may have heard something about this. I wonder if this technology may ever be used in military application.

-Ancalagon

[GibboNet]

I have an article on reactive armour and why it was created, it's explained form a very 'newbie' point of view, but it is interesting. Until I get a working scanner, I can't quickly get it on here, but if anyone is sufficiently interested, I will read it into voice recognition.

It's titled "Anti-Anti-Anti Tank Weapons" From "latest great moments in science"