"a question about how effective is explosive reactive armor?" Topic

Hi Team. I have a question about Explosive reactive armor. Exactly how effective is it against kinetic and Heat based weapons?

Does it Stop the kinetic round from penetrating? also for Heat weapons.

any information is appreciated.

what i have rewad on line is confusing. Thank you!

Which generation(s).

The later Russian ones seem to be extremely effective, vs. ATGMs, and RPGs at the very least – Kontakt 5 and later. Not so sure about HEAT.

Not sure on the kinetic rounds, but might degrade even them a little, IIRC.

Earlier gens were less effective, apparently, but still useful.

I would think that once one pad blows off, you have a hole in your armor. But what would I know?

Ask Smaug, he may have an answer.

Was always under the impression that the only round it had little effect against was kinetic. The latest generation of rounds for the TOW have an explosive nose that sets off the reactive armor so the main charge can go off against the armor.

True, but it's like darts or archery.

How many people and weapons have the skill to hit the same exact spot on a target 1,500m – 3,000m away?

The newer reactive armors even work against tandem warheads.

Lots of armies are putting them on their vehicles. So they reckon they are effective,

But nothing is immune from being destroyed.

Some ERA even in the early days was designed against kinetic. It sheared the plate up against the long rod in an attempt to deflect it. If a long rod does not fly strait
it loses much of its penetration power. You are looking in some cases as the equivalent of adding 30 to 60% equivalent armor.

Effective until someone comes up with a way to make it less effective. A two-part munition where the first part hits to cause the reaction and the second part hits where the reactive armor was?

Those are called tandem warheads, been around awhile now. The latest armor claims to handle that. Triple warheads anyone?

effective meaning that they stop penetration?

The earliest stuff was primarily designed (and most effective at) countering shaped charge warheads (High Explosive Anti Tank). It will disrupt most basic HEAT warheads (early Saggers/TOWs/Milans…) and RPGs and LAWs. "Newer" ATGMs are specifically designed to counter reactive armor, either by having a predetonator or using a top attack mode.

They are dangerous to any dismounted personnel moving around the vehicle. In operations this makes coordination of infantry and armor challenging at least.

I know that some of the newer stuff is supposed to 'degrade' or defeat kinetic penetrators as well as tandem warheads, but how effective they are is debatable and dependent on a large number of variables.

The newer designs like Kontakt-5 or Relikt are designed to move the upper plate sideways against the penetrator, effectively making the armor thicker against HEAT, and potentially bending or breaking APFSDS.

The Russians claim 100% greater armor against HEAT and 50% greater against KE for those.

effective meaning that they stop penetration?

Meaning that they improve protection as the most effective way of doing so.

Oh, and even if the ERA does blow off and leave a hole in your protection, it's a pretty small panel for most of the modern ERA applications. Kontakt-5 seems to have ~20cm square panels, for example.

Hard to hit an 8" square target at 1500m when both it and the shooter are moving.