THE USE OF HEAVY REACTIVE ARMOUR IN FIRST GENERATION MODERN WESTERN TANKS.

[ramontxo]

I have read (mostly here) of surplus first generation Leopard 2 tanks being offered practically for free. However the cost of upgrading them to the latest protection (an armament also of course) status will be probably prohibitive for medium to small countries. So would the addition of the kind of heavy reactive armour manufactured, for example, in Ucrania (latest Kontak or whatever) be a profitable alternative?.Would it bring an obsolete tank like the Chieftain or S-tank to the kind of protection needed to survive in a modern battlelfield? Thanks in advance to the far more learned

Edited November 8, 2011 by ramontxo

[Ssnake]

It depends on the actual prices (which I do no know), the incurred weight penalties and their implications for operational mobility, and not the least on the expected threat profile.

 

In other words, it depends.

[Guest JamesG123]

It wouldn't hurt, but its not going to make an older tank competitive with a newer one. Too many other refinements in everything from automotive to fire control, etc.

 

Best thing you can hope for is survivable on a modern battlefield full of handheld and guided AT weapons and against similar peer systems.

[bojan]

1. You can not just slap K-5 on tank and call it a day

2. Most Leo2A4 users don't really have to be afraid of treat over frontal ark, while K-5 is not ideal for sides protection.

3. Most users got those Leo2A4 for peanuts, and it might be a bit hard to explain that you have to spend multiples of price of tank for upgrading it.

[ramontxo]

1. You can not just slap K-5 on tank and call it a day

2. Most Leo2A4 users don't really have to be afraid of treat over frontal ark, while K-5 is not ideal for sides protection.

3. Most users got those Leo2A4 for peanuts, and it might be a bit hard to explain that you have to spend multiples of price of tank for upgrading it.

First of all thanks. I must acknowledge that you were one the "far more learned" alluded in my post. To the first part of your post, i must concede to that being more or less what i thought . To the second "while K-5 is not ideal for sides protection" , why? Too dangerous for own soldiers in the neighborhood?

Edited November 9, 2011 by ramontxo

[bojan]

...To the second "while K-5 is not ideal for sides protection" , why? Too dangerous for own soldiers in the neighborhood?

No, actually it is less dangerous then most other ERA, problem is that it has to be mounted on angle or it's efficiency is much diminished. So, most side mounted K-5 (except BMPT which has quite unique arangement) you see is actually intended to protect vs stuff coming from frontal 60deg.

[Guest JamesG123]

Hopefully, if a government is going to contract to buy a ERA kit ("K-5" or other) for their tanks, they are going to get a custom array designed for their particular vehicle, not buy a bunch of T-72 tiles off the shelf and spot weld them on any which way they fit.

[DB]

Hopefully, if a government is going to contract to buy a ERA kit ("K-5" or other) for their tanks, they are going to get a custom array designed for their particular vehicle, not buy a bunch of T-72 tiles off the shelf and spot weld them on any which way they fit.

Well... The military Prime contractor will get paid for one, but probably do the other.