How effective are Russia’s armoured vehicle protection systems?
While media attention has focused on the large numbers of Russian main battle tanks (MBTs) knocked out during the fighting in Ukraine, losses amongst Moscow’s lighter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) have been even higher.
To put this in context, it useful to examine how Russia is protecting its MBTs and other AFVs, and how effective the technology is. Traditionally Russian tanks have had the highest level of protection over their frontal arc as this is where the main threat was expected to come from... Continues below
Newsletter Sponsors:
Above: The Russian T-90C MBT incorporates advanced armour in its hull and turret as well as ERA over its frontal arc. (Photo: author)
Said arc is normally protected by advanced materials, which includes laminates over which are fitted blocks of explosive reactive armour (ERA). More recently, bar or slat armour has been fitted over the rear arc of some tanks to give at least some level of protection.
Nonetheless, the Russian Army has lost significant numbers of its T-72, T-80 and T-90 series MBTs and has been forced to use older tanks including the T-62 which were originally withdrawn for service some years ago.
The T-62M for example, has been upgraded to T-62MB standard which retains the original cheek armour package either side of the 115 mm gun but in addition has ERA on its glacis plate and hull sides with bar/slat armour over the hull and turret rear.
In terms of available armour options, earlier generation ERA only offered protection against attack from high-explosive antitank (HEAT) warheads that were fitted to antitank guided weapons (ATGW), and some munitions fired by the widely deployed RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
More recent Russian ERA is claimed to provide protection against ATGWs with a tandem HEAT warhead as well as some types of gun-launched projectiles.
Russia has been offering its ERA packages for export, giving some insight into their claimed capability, with at least four systems known to be offered by NII Stali.
The first, the Contact add-on ERA system, uses 4S20 armour panels and is designed to defeat weapons fitted with a single HEAT warhead.
The Contact 5 integrated system meanwhile uses 4S22 panels and has been designed for installation on T-72, T-80 and T-90 series MBTs; it is claimed to reduce the armour-piercing capabilities of ATGMs by 60%, RPGs by 90% and armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds by 20%.
On the turret, for example, this ERA system has a distinctive arrowhead design like those fitted to versions of the German Leopard from the 2A5 onwards.
The third option is the Relict multi-purpose modular ERA system. This uses 4S23 panels and is claimed to provide protection against all types of threats including precision guided munitions.
Above: The latest Russian T-90MS has a protection package which includes passive/slat armour over the rear arc. (Photo: author)
The previous three packages are designed for platforms with a strong and well protected hull and turret, but for lighter vehicles 4S24 ERA panels are used with ‘the minimum amount of explosives’.
This is claimed to offer protection against weapons capable of penetrating up to 500mm of rolled homogenous armour (RHA) at any angle of approach.
According to the manufacturer ‘a specific damping system prevents breach of thin armour under the combined effect of an RPG and ERA panel’.
The panels can be replaced in the field if they are damaged but like all munitions degrade over time.
In addition to ERA, Russian MBTs have banks of 81mm smoke dischargers which are linked to detectors and can also lay a smokescreen by injecting fuel into their engine exhaust outlets.
Many Russian MBTs, including the T-90S, also have the Shtora-1 protection system which has been designed to decoy incoming ATGMs, especially older wire-guided missiles.
However, many of the latest Western ATGWs such as the US Javelin are laser-guided and designed to attack the highly vulnerable upper surfaces of a MBT and cannot be neutralised by Shtora-1.
Russia has also developed active protection systems (APS) with the first generation Drozd-1 being fitted to T-55AD MBTs which were deployed to Afghanistan last century.
This only covered the frontal arc and was followed by the Drozd-2 which gave protection through 360 degrees but as far as is known this has not been adopted by the Russian Army.
Russia showed the Arena hard-kill APS some 20 years ago and this was seen fitted to the turret of an upgraded T-72M1 but again this was never deployed by Russian forces.
More recently, the compact Arena-E APS has been developed which is fitted on MBT turrets and claimed to cover 360 degrees in azimuth but only +20 degrees in elevation, so cannot engage ATGWs with a steep attack angle.
The KBM company, prime contractor for Arena-E, states in its marketing material that ‘installation of Arena-E APS enhances [tanks’] survivability on the battlefield in attack missions by nearly two times and three to five times in local conflicts and peacekeeping operations’.
To defeat top-attack ATGWs like Javelin, some Russian MBTs have been seen with improvised bar/slat armour in a raised position, rather like a bedstead, on top of their turrets as a battlefield expedient.
Above: A scale model of a BMP-3 IFV fitted with bar/slat armour to front and sides. (Photo: author)
Losses amongst Russian light AFVs were much higher during the initial stages of the invasion of Ukraine as Moscow used its airborne forces equipped with BMD-series air-portable assault vehicles which have very thin armour that can be easily penetrated by 12.7mm MG fire or RPG-type weapons.
They also advanced along roads and were easily ambushed by Ukrainian forces using light antitank weapons such as the Swedish MBT-LAW and RPGs. The first and last few vehicles of the convoy were knocked out first, so blocking an advance or retreat.
The Russian Army has also deployed significant numbers of the older BMP-1 and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and smaller numbers of the BMP-3, but none of these have been seen with ERA, although some have been fitted with bar slat/amour.
BTR-70/BTR-80 and BTR-82 8x8 armoured personnel carriers (APC) have been used in some numbers and a few have been fitted with added armour of the slat/bar type.
As intimated above, due to the turret and hull structure of lighter AFVs, it not always possible to fit ERA.
In the last few years Russia has developed new AFV classes including the T-14 Armata MBT, T-15 heavy IFV, Kurganets tracked IFV and Bumerang 8x8 IFV, but none of these have been seen on the front line to late.
The T-14 and T-15 not only have a high level of protection but also incorporate hard and soft kill protection systems.
Above: A BTR-80 with upgrades including a new remote-controlled turret and bar/slat armour around the hull. (Photo: author)
Adding to the threats from ATGWs, RPGs and gun-launched projectiles are landmines and increasingly UAVs that were originally used for the reconnaissance mission but are now being armed with top-attack weapons.
As the conflict enters its winter phase, loss rates should be watched carefully and the relative effectiveness of high-tech protection systems (if deployed) and improvised expedients such as bar/slat cages tracked to draw further conclusions.
Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.
