Explosive Reactive Armor: Common Misconceptions (feat. Prof. Paul Hazell)

In this video we look at common misconceptions about explosive reactive armor (ERA), namely that it does not explode as easily as the name suggests, that it is also used by Western countries, that the ERA panel explosion is actually far more dangerous for bystanders than a HEAT round exploding with practical insights from Prof. Paul Hazell (UNSW Canberra), that modern ERA also works against kinetic rounds and that one has to consider if fitting ERA is really a benefit for certain vehicles. Additionally, we also look at the basics of ERA as well.
Cover Image: USMC M60, 1989, STAFF Sergeant Scott Stewart, Public domain
Cover design by vonKickass.
Various images by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, vitalykuzmin.net as noted in the video.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Hazell, Paul J.: Armour: Materials, Theory, and Design. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2022. routledge.pub/Armour
buttjerfreimann?l...
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks I, Jane’s Information Group: Coulsdon, Surrey, UK, 1991.
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks II, Jane’s Information Group: Coulsdon, Surrey, UK, 1991.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_tank
00:00 Intro
00:23 ERA Basics
01:52 It just explodes when hit
02:50 West does not use ERA
04:34 HEAT round explosion is as dangerous as ERA explosion
08:12 Only work against HEAT Rounds
09:38 Can be put on everything
11:21 Summary
#era #explosivereactivearmor #tanks #myths #misconceptions

[@jprehberger]

"ERA easily explodes" (Karen Effect) LOL! 😀

[@psikogeek]

Karen's are easily set off.

[@EventHorizon1776]

Read that too fast and thought you had Paul Harrell on the video 😂

[@letsgobrandontrump2024]

SAAAAAMMMMME

[@dancing_odie]

Me too. If only. Paul Harrell is a legend I'm gonna miss dearly.

[@whya2ndaccount]

4:34: Apart from the physics/engineering, there is also a legal issue. It may sound daft but I as a commander am required to minimise the WH&S risks. The firing of the RPG / HEAT round is an action of the enemy. The effects of the defensive ERA type countermeasure has been legally argued as an action of friendly forces and falls into the same area as ensuring for example that friendly Infantry are not in the frontal arc of the tank when you fire APFSDS, in order to minimise the effect of the discarding sabots. There are similar legal questions about automated self defense systems such as AVEPS where exposed dismounts may be subject to effectively "friendly fire".

[@Scorchluck]

Then, why are modern armored vehicles so actively outfitted with APS? In my opinion, a piece of metal with relatively low velocity (I think many people have heard of Newton's third law) is safer than an air-burst charge weighing as much as a grenade that explodes 10 yards away from the tank. Out of respect, I will not cite as examples cases of "blue on blue", in Iraq or Afghanistan, which became known only thanks to whistle blowers, and investigations on which never happened.

[@whya2ndaccount]

@@Scorchluck You are entitled to an opinion. It just doesn't count compared to binding legal advice.

[@Scorchluck]

@@whya2ndaccount As I said, the second part of my comment can be ignored in the discussion. The first part has nothing to do with the Law at all. You're trying to rationalize the lack of ERA on western armor through very convoluted reasoning.

[@whya2ndaccount]

@@Scorchluck No I'm not. Different countries have different laws. This reflects through Defence as well as other places. E.g. The US is happy to use land mines, many other countries deem them illegal. If your country has deemed AVEPS or ERA illegal then your AFVs wont carry it. Pretty simple.

[@Verxinn]

I'd imagine the fact that the enemy set off the ERA would discount it as friendly fire. The legal world is so weird

[@bholdr----0]

Thank you for a nuanced, succinct, and unsentationalized piece on ERA.

[@1joshjosh1]

It turns out after watching this video I didn't have many misconceptions about explosive reactive armor

[@Xeno426]

Same. Wasn't aware that they had new ERA types that fragmented more safely to reduce the risk to nearby infantry, though I still would like to know what the fragmentation radius is.

[@itsmebatman]

ERA is basically a uno reverse card for the liner from hollow charges. That liner is formed into a penetrator by explosives and ERA counteracts it essentially the same way. Russia and Ukraine use it so much, because they found out, that most danger to tanks comes from various kinds of hollow charges. Most of the FPV drones, RPGs and ATGMs used in this conflict are hollow charge weapons. And many of them can attack a tank's armor from angles that are not in favour of the armor layout of the tank.

[@Verxinn]

Funny how tanks were mostly designed to fight against other tanks when in reality infantry in general came to be their greatest demise

[@Zorro9129]

@@Verxinn In reality, it is artillery and drones that appear to be responsible for the most tank casualties. Infantry remain a threat, however.

[@Verxinn]

@@Zorro9129 Fair enough. Correct me if I'm wrong here though, but I'd argue that artillery and drones (small FPV ones, the larger are definitely their own thing) are part of the infantry network, as both system require coordinates that I assume are most relayed by them. To further add to my point, its important to consider these systems appear to be better in "finishing the job" by attacking abandoned vehicles (usually due to AT mines placed by infantry or ATGMs) rather than to do it all themselves. One may credit the finishing move as the casualty, but i consider an abandoned tank as combat effective as a blown out one, therefore knocked out.

[@tomhense6866]

I think a video about the misconceptions of how slat armor works would be really interesting aswell

[@wacojones8062]

Only works with things like RPG-7 and similar fuzing, the bars crush the outer shell in breaking the electrical path to the detonator. Standard TOW Misslle warhead will function fine as it has a large contact area it may have a slight reduction in penetration depth. Side blast can and will tear up tracks and storage mounted on the vehicle depending on impact point. Number of duds on impact varies depending on spacing. Chain link fence was used in Nam mounted on engineer pickets spaced about 8 feet in front of parked tanks and APC. 50% dud rate was normal vs B-40 and RPG-7.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

High explosives are, as a rule, VERY stable & safe. Some are so stable they need a booster explosive on top of the initiating charge.

[@tommihommi1]

this isn't true. *Secondary* high explosives are stable. There are loads of high explosives that aren't, probably more than stable ones. Some of them are used as primary explosives, most aren't used commercially and are mere lab curiosities.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

@@tommihommi1 Yes, it is true. I worked with them for over 10 years.

[@whitephosphorus15]

@@xxxlonewolf49 I wouldn't expect someone to typically be working with the types of explosives that are unstable.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

@whitephosphorus15 Stable meaning 'insensitive'. Initiating explosive are much easier to set off

[@DCrypt1]

You aren't talking about primary HE compounds then, those are very sensitive and usually only used in fuzes. You sure you worked with energetic materials?

[@tokencivilian8507]

"Karen Effect" - classic. Great vid as always MHNV.

[@jonny2954]

6:38 CLARA ERA is developed by Dynamit Nobel Defence, not Rheinmetall. Found on UAE Leclerc and German Puma IFV.

[@dannydetonator]

Thanks for CLARA fication.)) I wonder if Rheinmetall provides contract parts for this, as it's producing the bulk of Germany's - and by contracts whole Europes artillery. I'd guess an armor as well, got to find out now. I want to work in weapons' factory.

[@frankcessna7345]

Excellent review on a topic most military enthusiasts don’t fully understand!

[@Vtarngpb]

There’s just something in the way that Bernhard says “penetration” 😂😉

[@patsmith3894]

Great video. Fantastic quality of analysis.

[@spacecase13]

This answered the many questions that I have had about ERA and it's deployment. Great video, lusciously informative.

[@qelleri]

Heavy ERA, while effective against APFSDS, is not very effective against HEAT anymore, due to the greater weight of the flyer plates. Heavier plates accelerate slower and have less "feeding" effect on extremely fast HEAT jets. So ERA design is usually a choice of do you want it to protect against APFSDS or HEAT. It's very difficult to do both.

[@rizkydarmawan6540]

Sorry for the layman question but what about NERA design? Does it have similar trade-off or so? I know it's heavier and can resist tandem charges but I have little to no idea about its mechanism. Thanks in advance

[@qelleri]

@@rizkydarmawan6540 It´s much the same with NERA. Physics don't change. Heavier objects accelerate slower or need more energy to accelerate them faster. NERA uses inert material like rubber to move the flyer plates. The force of the penetration forces the material to expand, which moves the flyer plates. The idea is the same as in conventional ERA, but because NERA has no explosive, it can be contained inside the base armour of the tank. This would be pretty much impossible with ERA. The explosion could rupture the armour from inside. The non-explosive nature of NERA also means they can be stacked. Modern composite armour contains multiple NERA plate(bulging plate) arrangements behind one another. This video has pretty good simulation of that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZmkoKuZf8RsjZY

[@Hrrrrrrrrrreng]

There’s a ridiculous method I can think of, stack the HEAT resistant ERA on top of the apfsds ERA. So they’re double stacked. The outer plate would hit a heat round first, and the apfsds is going right through the outer one anyways. Meaning it’ll also hit the inner plate. It also doubles the effort to produce it though.

[@dannydetonator]

@Hrrrrrrrrrreng You read my mind. HE physics should confirm that (or not). Call the Slomo Guys to find out. Though cost and weight might get in the way of equipping all vehicles, that's one of the reasons they use cheap and ridiculed "cope cages". Reportedly works against FPV HE-carrying or suicide drones.

[@williampotts-halpin6795]

as always, so informative, thanks !

[@brianreddeman951]

NO amount of ERA can prevent a SKD or Sudden Karen Detonation.

[@johnbruce4004]

Typically straight forward presentation and clear explanation of a topic which could be clouded by technical 'mumbo-jumbo'. Thanks.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

UNSW Canberra is basically ADFA [Aust Defence Force Academy] _I was one of the 'commissioning crew'!_ ⚓

[@kane357lynch]

MHV is a god tier channel. I have little shame in admitting he's helped me dispell numerous misconceptions I've held due to bias and bad sources. I learned alot here alone! even thr comments are often times helpful!

[@recce8619]

Unfortunately there won't be an end to people describing HEAT warheads, as "molten", "superheated" or "burning through". The liner becomes more fluid under shear stress. Like tooth paste or maple syrup. But describing the effect of an AT round as "superheated" sound way cooler than "tooth paste".

[@kuyayan]

Wow glad i found you! subscribed!

[@realspeed1944]

Love your videos, from Serbia

[@sangomasmith]

Interestingly, I've read reports and seen simulations that show that it's actually the rear plate that has the biggest effect on the projectile. This is especially true against APFSDS. Which means that a thick front plate is actually more useful to increase the speed of the rear flyer plate. This makes thick base armour even more important, because you're slamming a heavy piece of metal directly against it as fast as possible using an explosive charge.

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. Makes sense to me.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I had always assumed Newton's law of action and reaction meant the explosion which flings the outer plate outwards also wants to fling the inner plate inwards, meaning ERA could only be applied to armor thick enough to withstand it. Plus, the fact that the whole plate is pushed inwards more or less as a whole spreads the force around, the exact opposite of shaped charges which concentrate the force in a tiny jet. (How big is that shaped charge jet anyway? One millimeter, 5? Do more modern shaped charges have a narrower jet?)

[@ecpgieicg]

The ERA explosion is not always directed in a normal direction to the vehicle's armor. So while what you said about the need for underlying armor must be true, how much needed really depends on the configuration of the ERA. It can be not much at all.

[@Sufferingzify]

Sometimes those egg-carton shaped ERA you see on a few vehicles are called Counter-charge method. Shaped-charge to catch the enemy shaped-charge.

[@theallmightyego6756]

@@Sufferingzifyunless your thinking of linear shaped charges like the sort on Ukrainian Nozh ERA, those egg carton looking things are just spacers

[@Seraphus87]

As an ex-infantry pleb, the very thought of my APC or IFV being covered in ERA disturbs me. Good way to cause desertion.

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting.

[@colbunkmust]

While the penetrator of a HEAT round defeats armor mechanically rather than thermally, the penetrator rod technically does become molten/semi-molten for a fraction of a second during the penetration process. See the "Characterizing In-Flight Temperature of Explosively Formed Projectiles in CTH" research paper on sciencedirect

[@verfugbarkite]

A bit impressive of the Russians to purloin an Israeli tank in the 1982 war, and proceed to make ERA standard issue by 1985.

[@levivansnick6672]

Bismark i love your content with bo gaming 100% comedy and this content is pretty good aswell hope you have a good day 👍

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

An interesting thought experiment. What would the frontal and side armor equivalent be for a Sherman M4E8 with Block 1 ERA?

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Another issue with lightly armored vehicles. The clue is in the word "explosive"... That means that even when they do stop shaped charge, the explosion of ERA block is likely to destroy the vehicle by smashing its thin armor. It is after all, explosive on its thin armor. The KZbin creator with the channel Red Effect did a great video with using photos from USSR tests with light vehicles and you can see entire side of BMP shattered only by ERA block exploding. They did develop ERA for lightly armored vehicles (called Kontakt-3 or 4) but it never caught on most likely due to added weight and price.

[@yoloman3607]

Can you stack ERA? I've seen a vehicle with double Kontakt 1 or Kontakt 1 layered with Kontakt 5 for example, does it do anything?

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

The bottom layer needs to be strong enough to withstand the force of the exploding top layer.

[@pkre707]

My question is, why doesn't ERA have some kind of HESH effect? Wouldn't explosives spread out over steal armor generate a scab fragment on the other side?

[@Vinzmannn]

I think we should armour all fighter jets with era. Drastically improves survivability

[@thingamabob3902]

nope, not at all, since air targets are usually pelted with shrapnel of explosions nearby ( by AA or missiles ) and shrapnel can´t activate ERA. So you would need a special kind of ERA which does explode when shrapnel enters it ... but what happens then ? You avoid a puncture of the plane and put a lot of stress on the whole airframe or even crack it by your own exploding ERA ... nope.

[@edged1001]

How does the performance compare between NERA and ERA armor?

[@jintsuubest9331]

They are insanely weight efficient.

[@jonny2954]

ERA is more weight efficent but only for one hit. NERA is a little less efficent but has mutli-hit capability. Accoprding to Rheinmetall: CLARA ERA is stated to have "at least ten" times higher weight efficency against shaped charges than steel armor. AMAP-SC is NERA that is stated to have between 8 and 10 times as high weight efficency against shaped charges than steel armor. It has multi hit capability. Example Puma IFV would be NERA on the front because more hits are expected over the frontal area exposed to the enemy, ERA on the sides. Note the lower half sides are NERA too because it provides better protection against mine/IED blast than ERA, important point to note aswell.

I am rather nervous going in to this video 😃 let's see if I got it right in my video on the matter 🤔

[@seanbrennan2478]

After this great explanation of ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour), I am now in need of a video to explain what Western countries use, as in.....What is Non-Explosive Reactive Armour?

[@joenuts5167]

It’s just composite panels

[@alexanderf8451]

He just means they don't use ERA as much. They use composite armor made of layers of metal, ceramics, and other things. Though I don't know why anyone would think the west doesn't use ERA or non-Western countries don't use composite armor. In an environment with lots of anti-armor weapons both are desirable and so both get used if possible.

[@otm646]

1:19 This is an oversimplification of the shape charge liner which equally misleads people. The materials like copper have been studied extensively at these very high strain rates. The material is most definitely acting like a solid. That strain extreme rate combined with the beginning grain size and liner distribution is critical in the penetration performance.

[@christopherreaves691]

The tank in the clips cover photo is a Marine M60A1,it uses Blazer armor, which isn't explosive,it doesn't need it...

[@donovanchau3483]

I don’t remember where I saw it, but if I remember correctly the Soviets also determined that a minimum armor thickness of 30mm of RHA is required for direct mounting of K1 which is why people question when Russians and Ukrainians put K1 on BMPs and BTRs

[@ljubomirculibrk4097]

They haw put it even on "Buhanka". Old soviet style van (in translation "bread loaf"), ordinary tin can car. In that iteration its deadly to the crev.

[@omarrp14]

What effect does ERA have on HESH or a simple high explosive projectile

[@watcherzero5256]

Generally cancels it out with an equal but opposite force.

[@stephenallen4635]

since hesh works by creating spalling on the plate it hits against ERA would be very effective simply by just being in the way between the projectile and the armour and against HE it might help a bit by adding distance between the armour and the shell explosives

[@stephenallen4635]

​@@watcherzero5256im not sure it would work that way at all. if a vehicle is going to be destroyed by the force of an explosive adding more explosives isnt going to save it

[@watcherzero5256]

@@stephenallen4635 ERA is a shaped explosive, its formed of several sandwiches of explosives and pusher plates to ensure the force is purely directed outwards to meet the incoming stream of molten metal. Outgoing hot gases would meet incoming hot gases and nullify each other out.

[@omarrp14]

@@stephenallen4635 I guess it would effect the direction a portion of the blast. Especially with HESH, the plasticity of HESH has to spread & hug the armor before it detonates. ERA in the way would prevent it from forming properly. If the vehicle would get destroyed either way then the armor was too thin for the ERA to matter anyway.

[@IvanTre]

It seems really silly to worry about the plates being unsafe, in a battle. IF they don't fragment and they fly off mostly in one mangled piece, the odds of hitting anything seem.. low.

[@PBMS123]

Just some corrections to the subtitles are needed with your interview with Paul, 5:27, he says "You sandwich it" not "Used sandwich it" 5:44, the word is "frangible" and NOT fragile. (Frangible being brittle, able to be shattered) the same at 6:36 the word is "frangible", NOT tangible. 6:42 should be "Rheinmetall", not "raw material"

[@malebetegrrr5793]

10:13 "appliqué" ?

[@johng.1703]

ERA uses high explosive, which means in needs a lot of energy in order to detonate. it's very hard to detonate, but it will burn quite happily.

[@serahshevelan3263]

If era was easy to detonate, you would potentially suffer from a chain reaction as the first era brick initiated a sympathetic detonation of the surrounding bricks and so on.

[@luggilu7864]

If the ERA poses a risk to your aircraft, the error lies with rhe pilot, not the ERA panel xD

[@vladimpaler3498]

I wonder how this compares to Chobham armour. (I put a 'u' in armor so will soon lose my US citizenship.) Maybe the ERA is also used over it?

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Chobham is composite armo(u)r with layers of steel and ceramics. It's most likely heavier than ERA. ERA is something for older and/or more lightly armo(u)red vehicles. I'd rather sit in an Abrams, Leo2 or Challenger than in an ERA stuffed Bradley or T-72. ERA is only good against HEAT, Chobham does it all. It can't hurt to improve Chobham armo(u)red vehicles with ERA, though. Don't be afraid of using a civilized language from time to time. Learn German, French, Spanish or Italian. 🙂 English (and "Austrian") is just bastardized German(ic language) anyways. Try the original. Loosing US citizenship isn't too bad either; you now have a chance to live in a free country. Sorry, couldn't resist. Prost, mein Freund, und ein schönes Wochenende. 🙂

[@user-qf6yt3id3w]

Chobham is a composite armour with ceramic tiles and possibly depleted uranium that are designed to defeat long rod penetrators. ERA is aimed at defeating HEAT rounds. You can use ERA on top of Chobham. Removing a u from Chobham Armour would be like adding a u to Pearl Harbor.

[@burner33]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 good era is shown to be effective against kinetic projectiles as well, also era on tanks is only used along with composites, not one or the other

[@alexdunphy3716]

You didn't watch the video did you?​@@ottovonbismarck2443

[@robbudden]

U did well 😂

[@Failcard]

So ERA doesn't really "add on" to the base armor thickness, ERA should be calculated by how much it reduces the threat. Kontakt-5 is stated to reduce apfsds penetration capability by about 20%. So it wouldn't be accurate to state it adds 300mms on a T-72Bs 520mm turret or 530mm hull to gain 800ishmms, but more so it would reduce say M829 APFSDS from penetrating say 540mms to 432mms, making it ineffective, outside of weakened zones like the drivers periscope for example, of the T-72Bs armor front.

[@jacqueshejeije7499]

Something I am rather curious about is why militaries don’t use ERA on military vessels, and if it is at all possible to do so.

[@01Bouwhuis]

Weight. And you have other defensie options.

[@unknown0soldier]

Probably weight? And if the ERA does explode, will the vehicle structure be strong enough to withstand it?

[@ThunderPanzer]

You would need a lot of it, and nowadays most of the protection is in active defenses to shoot down the incoming stuff. I'm also not sure the explosive will like being subjected to salt water for years. Replacing tiles on submarines is already a pretty big task.

[@stephenallen4635]

off the top of my head there are many environmental factors such as the presence ofwater, drag and corrosion from sea water that would already make it incredibly costly and inconvenient and then the fact that any ship small enough to not be prohibitively expensive to cover with era likely doesnt have armour thickness to make it even effective

[@RobTzu]

@@unknown0soldier Probably not, most hulls are just 25mm, the island less

[@medln5357]

this is actually very interesting to listen, now I understand why IFVS, APCs dont have any real ERA since that would turn them into a grenade for all their infantry around them xd

[@Dramn_]

Hello I am sorry in advance, what accent do you have? Sometimes I hear like, german and then I hear french and then norwegian and I'm just confused

[@patchbunny]

I've never understood why Russian tanks use smaller blocks at steeper angles than the armor, and ERA on western tanks are larger and set more parallel to the armor.

[@Ancient_Hoplite]

EOD specialising in Karen explosive refusal. The hero we need.

[@_EllieLOL_]

4:26 nice, so it automatically shoots back at the user of the RPG :D

[@501Mobius]

What is non-explosive reactive armor? How can a non-explosive armor react?

[@user-qf6yt3id3w]

It could react with shock, dismay, anger and disappointment.

It uses the energy transmitted to the armour system by the projectile. You have shockwaves traveling through the material and moving it or making it expand. For example by using a layer of rubber.

[@levilastun829]

Most of the time, non-explosive reactive armour in its most basic layout is a rubber like material in between two metal plates.

[@stephenallen4635]

non explosive reactive armours are made of materials that deform or shatter to spread the energy from the impact over a larger surface area

[@Karmag555]

The coolest one IMO is "electric armor." You can look it up for the full (declassified) details, but essentially it works by putting two conductive plates separated by a non-conductive spacer. You apply a strong voltage differential across the two plates, so that any incoming kinetic penetrator closes the circuit and gets an *extreme* amount of amps dumped through it, which often vaporizes the penetrator rod. Another version uses electromagnetic metal plates, so that the kinetic force of the impact is converted into electromagnetic force which then displaces one of the plates laterally, thus diverting (or shearing) the penetrator.

[@rael5469]

I don't believe Hazell's description of the shaped charge. .....because copper isn't going to penetrate armor. But something as hot as a cutting torch might.

[@theallmightyego6756]

Well, to actually “melt” through armour you need to heat up the armour sufficiently enough first, a HEAT jet will travel roughly at around 9km/s, let’s say it’s impacting a 100mm steel plate. That HEAT jet will be in contact with that steel plate for at most, around 100th of a millisecond; that is NOT enough to heat up that armour to any sufficient amount to melt it. The way it penetrates is that it “pushes” the steel out of the way from the sheer pressure of the HEAT jet. Think of this similar to how if you were to put your finger in some clay, your finger pushes the clay out of the way causing your finger to go in deeper and deeper.

[@rael5469]

@@theallmightyego6756 But the jet of molten metal is ....fluid, isn't it? Intellectually I get that it works. But I don't see how a fluid can force it's way through armor. I wonder if they have any computer animations of a HEAT round penetrating armor.

[@theallmightyego6756]

@@rael5469 sorta, the definition of molten would mean that it has heated to its melting point and changed to a liquid; a HEAT jet at most gets to around 900c, copper melts at 1030c if I remember right. What is happening is that the ridiculous pressures being inflicted on the copper and can make it act like a liquid, just for an inconceivably short amount of time. It it was “molten” or had melted the copper jet or armour proper, it would still be a liquid a few seconds after impact, at most both act like a liquid for- I would say 100-1000th of a millisecond. If you want to learn more, this is a pretty good read on how shaped charges work as published by the US department of defence: apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA226401.pdf Also as you asked, a simulation of shaped charges too: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5DWamNqe5maba8si=ZbHBRxLmykpxruNn Although spaced charges are extremely hard to simulate because they are ridiculously computationally expensive, I would know I do these simulations myself.

[@robertbalazslorincz8218]

2:15 "low-sensitivity" so theoretically 'high' explosive as apparently HE needs to burn and be hit by a shockwave to detonate it

[@CalgarGTX]

The main problem with ERA bricks, seems to be corruption, and they got replaced with cardboard so not as effective anymore :I

[@MatthewDoye]

ERA is for when you don't have another option and are willing to accept higher casualties amongst dismounts and nearby civilians.

[@vickersfield3847]

"Karen Effect" 🤣🤣🤣

[@looinrims]

“Ivan, How do we armor tank with more armor?” *Takes shot* “Vlad, Make boom boom brick and put on tank.”

[@latayantheazran]

And bolt a metal barn on top of it!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Do, people have been in error about ERA.

[@rabbithole8498]

If opponent player put his perks into critical hit, then he have high chance of bypassing armor completely anyway. ;DD

[@darwinism8181]

I mean it's 'assumed' it behaves like a fluid because the most accurate predictions of penetration show that it has to be to do what it does. I know that's an assumption scientifically speaking, but colloquially.... everything is a fluid if you hit it hard enough. And ERA takes advantage of that; it's literally just, "wait, hold on, penetrators are just pressure applied, what if we make a layer of armor that just.... pushes back?"

[@sammyjones6730]

Maybe western tanks just have too much surface area to try to apply heavy-ERA to?

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

IMHO its all about the weight and dimensions. Western armor is simply heavy and bulky as it is. Adding more layers of (any)armor will degrade mobility.

[@TheEsseboy]

I would argue that it is not bulky compared to none-western armor, when you take into consideration that there is much much more internal volume in western tanks.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@@TheEsseboy yeah, I meant armor as in armored vehicles. Need for people to be fully standing with enough elbow room to manhandle munitions requires way more space than having three guys sitting. This becomes even more apparent when you consider that Russians managed to cram in 5 sitting crew into the t72 hull in the Terminator.

[@wawaweewa9159]

Numbers are once again showing more inportance than maximum quality and advancement

[@kuhaku9587]

Thing is.. losing a tank is worse than having an infantry man getting hit by an ERA plate.

[@stephenallen4635]

not when the news gets back to your country

[@laencleardale]

Politically it isn't. Joe got killed by enemy fire versus Joe got killed because they were forced into close proximity to protect a tank which killed them when it got shot at.

[@mozdy7457]

I don’t think western militaries are necessarily ignorant of the advantages of ERA, just that they have already found a solution that doesn’t require the risks. Western armor packages are already capable of sustaining double digit numbers of rpg hits and Russia rolling out T-54 is not going to motivate any innovation.

[@RobTzu]

True.

[@huntermad5668]

Being near a tank is extremely dangerous. If an infantry close enough to be injured by ERA then he would be in range of the shockwave from the Tank main gun... Modern Recoilless guns are simply too powerful for infantry to operate close by

[@Robin6512]

If you are so close to an apv when it get hit by a rpg, you’re in the wrong place anyway.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

ProtiP: just think of ERA plates as EFPs and then its obvious what it does.

[@langweilerkanal7894]

Regarding ERA beeing more dangerous then the war head: Isnt the chace of the ERA plate hitting someone a few hundret meters away terribly small? Even the Professor said in the area close to ERA you habe big problems with the warhead for like a couple dozent meters, and isnt this what we are worried about, since thats the area where infantry might be taking cover? Who cares for a chunk of metal flying of into nowhere.

[@stephenallen4635]

his reply was to say that its not necessarily correct to say there is no increase in the potential for collateral damage when using era, what matters is that it is a large plate that can hit something. I dont think he was particularly arguing against its use but that it does need to be taken into account If it does hit something it will do a lot more damage than a shell fragment and if its used in active duty without cautionary measures there will definitely be a case where it does

[@tHeWasTeDYouTh]

have seen pictures of Bradleys in Ukraine using thick era on the sides and turret and this allowed them to survive Russian ATGMs. mines are another thing, those take out everything

[@Sideshowbobx]

The effects of mass and kinetic momentum - ergo the solid ERA acts like an shape charge mine while a fragabil will act similar to mini Claymore mine. So the solid stands a chance to take out the enemy that activated it, while the frangible will only effect the tanks support infantry. Classical NATO thinking applied again😂

[@Red-238]

Why didn’t NATO have kontakt-5 equivalent in the Cold War?.

[@EpicThe112]

Great video and here's another thing you see in Ukraine Russian military lorries UAZ Vans having explosive reactive armour to them I wonder what's the point of the Russians doing it to vehicles that are not supposed to have it.

[@JAnx01]

It's better than nothing. Degrading penetration is better than getting the full blast. In the real world, you'll also be getting hits at steep angles, in which case a perforation might be prevented completely.

[@edwardscott3262]

I wonder if it's not explosive armor and just add on protection against small arms and fragmentation?

[@tonyyarbray]

a common misconception in russia is that filling the containers with bits of plastic or the bags with bedsheets or rolls of fabric will still function as reactive armor...either that or someone just stole some money and did that instead

[@georgecristiancripcia4819]

Modern western MBT have composite armour,which is more then enough protection against most threats,so ERA will only add weight with no overal increase in armour protection.Western use of ERA on IFV and AFV is logical bc of the lower armour value on those,so ERA added protection is worth the weight increase. Soviet and russian tanks have a lot less armour and it has lower protection value so ERA add enough protection that the weight increase is worth it.Also it is much cheapear to bolt some ERA plates on a tank and call it modernization then to build a new tank.Even t90 is a t72 with some ERA added.

[@JAnx01]

Modern western MBTs have huge weak zones and even the strongest parts of their sides (usually turret) rely on steep angles to prevent perforatiom. Soviet / Russian tanks don't have any less armor - that is a Discovery channel tier nonsense. Less interior volume => you need less mass to achieve the same levels of protection.

[@georgecristiancripcia4819]

@@JAnx01 False. Modern Western MBTs have better armour then russian tanks.T90 is a slighty upgraded T72,it is not a new built.What step angles?Only the front of the turret is step,the sides and back are flat.

[@Sufferingzify]

@@georgecristiancripcia4819 Flat? Have you ever even seen a Modern MBT?

[@JAnx01]

​@@georgecristiancripcia4819 The only thing that the western MBTs have better is their turret protection, but their hulls have much larger weak zones and are generally weaker overall (comparing respective time periods). The T-90 is based on the T-72 platform, that means it inherited its layout, it doesn't mean that it uses the same armor composition and you're assuming there's something wrong with the T-72 to begin with. The T-72B was one of the better protected tanks in the 80's. With the Kontakt-5 ERA added, it's still worthwhile in the 21st century. There are plenty of videos from Ukraine of them withstanding hits from the 1100mm capable Stugna-P, which is something that's not even possible on paper based on the official claims. I remember when a Challenger 2 got penetrated frontally by a 750mm capable RPG-29 in Iraq.

[@hellboystein2926]

The automated undertitle tool of youtube sometimes works abysmal for example out of '1 over r cube' (1/r^2) it makes 'one overall cube' out of it. Making absoloutly NO sense at all!🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@KarelRode]

You missed the opportunity to talk about Tandem heads as used in Palestine...

[@action4newsinligme803]

Not sure what "stretching plastically deforming rod" means. Especially in an engineering context that means something entirely different than what's going on in a shaped charge. Jets can be fluids, but are also often plasmas, which the material coating the explosive would very much qualify as. I'm just generally pretty confused what the first quote is looking to say

[@gaiamission7200]

it doesnt have the time or energy to convert state physically, its deforming plasticly into a rough rod shaped penetrator and accelerated substantially, one way to see this effect more easily is explosively formed penetrators, HEAT rounds are effectively very close range high power explosively formed penetrators. the material, like APFSDS rounds, ablates and deforms as it penetrates, and behaves very analogously. you can imagine HEAT as an impact triggered gun being fired at the enemy In addition, the comment also serves to counter the common misconception that HEAT rounds "melt through" the armor they defeat, when instead its entirely a kinetic penetration, similarly to any other AP round

[@edyartzi]

Israel didn't use reactive armor on the Centurion or "Shot" as it was named by Israel . In spite the appearance those are hollow panels that initiate the round farther from the surface of the tank armor hence reducing the penetration.

[@minus7621]

This is wrong, ERA was infact used on Israeli Sho'ts, starting with the Sho't Cal Bet, there are photos of Sho't Cal Gimels and Dales missing ERA blocks from hits in Lebanon.

[@edyartzi]

⁠Wrong I can’t be. You are looking at photos I myself don’t need any pictures. As I explained those lookalike blocks are removable tiles made of steel and are hollow. They are not even blocks cause they are open between one and the other. In a photo to the untrained eye they look the same. If you will ever visit Israel you can visit the Armor Museum near Latrun Monastery on the way to Jerusalem and see for yourself maybe even some tanks in other museums cause Israel have in the past exchanged vehicles with other museums in the world. Some of those Shot tanks were converted to heavy fighting vehicles as is the Puma that is used by some infantry/engineering units. Those have an even higher reinforced armor that is different from the Shot besides lacking a main gun and turret.

[@minus7621]

@@edyartzi I am actually visiting that museum in a few days, for the 33rd Latrun March, Ive visited it multiple times, I don't know if you speak Hebrew, but on the ERA blocks there it says in Hebrew they are training blocks, which of course lack all explosives

[@edyartzi]

Maybe you can find some old people with their sons or grandsons that actually served on those tanks and you could ask them your self.

[@minus7621]

@@edyartzi I have personally talked with a Sho'ts Kal Bet, Gimel and Dalet mechanic who said it has Baltan ERA, sadly I have yet to meet crews of the tanks, I have connections in Brigade 211, which used Magach 6Bs and Merkavas Mark one and two

[@creatoruser736]

I don't know about other NATO tanks, but the Abrams didn't use reactive armor for a while because it had depleted uranium inserts. That was hard enough to withstand both HEAT rounds and kinetic energy penetrators. Although it is heavier than ERA, it can stay useful against repeat hits while something like Kontakt 5 is expended after one hit. Even now when the Abrams has ERA it's only used on the sides, not on the front like Russian tanks use Kontakt 5 because it doesn't need them on the front.

[@jameshodgson3656]

The Abrams didn't have DU until the M1A1HA. DU isn't really comparable to ERA, DU is just a simple passive material used in the Abrams' composite array in the same way as a steel plate. DU is used because it's denser than steel. The reason why the US, and other NATO countries, didn't use ERA and still rarely use it is due to their preference for heavier tanks. When weight isn't a factor, NERA is generally preferable to ERA, but the Soviets wanted their tanks to be light enough to be easily transportable by rail and by truck, so they opted for the weight savings afforded by ERA.

[@Sufferingzify]

If you are getting repeatedly hit by Anti-Tank Weapons, then you have a bigger problem rather than the Armor.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

How is a cracked uranium or ceramic plate more useful than expended ERA with untouched main armor?

[@PBMS123]

Just some help with pronunciation give English is not your first language. accelerated = "ack-sell-er-ate-ed" (as opposed to "a-sell-ate-ed" said at 4:29) Also be careful calling "high-explosives" low-senstitivity, as this is generally associated with "insensitive munitions" which is a specific rating for HE. Most common plastic high explosives, like C-4, Comp B etc. are all safe from fire (assuming it doesn't reach shockwave speeds), and usually bullet and shrapnel impact, while being able to be detonated by sympathetic detonation and shape charge jets. Rated IMs are generally safe around shape charge jets, and are very difficult to detonate sympathetically, which is not what you want.

[@CB-vt3mx]

if AFV losses are any guide, the truth is that there are few actual solutions to the proliferation of ATGMs and kinetic systems. When considering ERA, it must be evaluated against the combined arms fight, not one ATGM vs one tank or AFV of other types. This is what "operational analysis" means in the video. How are the units operating? What other technologies are they using to detect and target? It is a given that in a fight, losses are to be expected and therefore operational and tactical systems and methods are developed to layer detection, targeting, and maneuver capabilities to reduce opportunities for an RPG man who must be within just 500 meters or an ATGM crew 1 to 3 KM away. How does your army use obscurants, EW, maneuver, fires, etc to decrement enemy capabilities? The higher the level of competence, the less reliant on defensive armor schemes the force will be.

[@jamesyoungquist6923]

And ERA as deployed doesn't protect well from attacks from above...

[@wacojones8062]

I Knew a Marine who before he joined the Marines worked in an East Coast ballistics lab he designed the first reactive armor to test on Riverine patrol boats in Nam. It was too violent and a bit too sensitive to use on the fiberglass boats. The idea was passed on to Israel who refined the packaging and explosives to use. Some packages can help disrupt long rod penetrators along with spaced armor layers behind the charges. The Reactive armor explosions are minor when compared to the Blast of Incoming HEAT or HE rounds. Infantry if smart stay well away from tanks in action unless taking out enemy ones Behind the vehicle to avoid the blast from the main guns firing and getting run over as the tanks maneuver suddenly. There is a reason tankers call infantry Crunchies. I meet the marine summer 1971 he had done the work several years before that around 1965.

[@wazza33racer]

Recently, the Phillipino Army, defeated RPG's fired by Islamist rebels with simple wooden armor attached to their armored personnel carriers.

[@diggoryjaydark97]

If ERA is so good why dont they put it on soldiers. Are they dumb?

[@CookieMonster-nt8hh]

are those actually common misconceptions? I almost exclusively hear them in these "debunked" style videos or posts. I feel like weve come full circle where the idea that these misconceptions exist is a misconception in itself.

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Your exposure to the MSM must be low.I envy you.

[@slimj091]

I also feel that people think that ERA is some kind of magical force field that stops everything from penetrating the tank. ERA doesn't "stop" shaped charges, and kinetic rounds from penetrating. It reduces their penetrating effects. It's effective against certain models of anti tank weapons, and nearly useless against an increasing majority of anti-tank weapons.

[@pyeitme508]

😳 w

[@HiReeZin]

This channel host is the guy who, in his co-hosted video with Chieftain (a serving colonel in US army!) stated this: Would I fight for my country? No. But if it'd be about defending Austria against an intruder... well I guess I could consider it. Huh?? A real nerd talking shit. You can guess how long Moran looked at the guy when he revealed it. Like: "with what kind of trash I'm sitting here...?"

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

Bad video, why didn't he SHOW any film footage of this armour in action.

[@arturbalakhnin9770]

sadly nothing new but still good video, although 100m danger of ERA is a littel bit exaggerated and depends on where you mount it. lower mounted panels do not fly as figh and not as far and thouse mounted dawnwards would hit the earth or the armor of the tank. I think only thouse mounted on top or towards the sky woul reach a high distance although I dont think that they are leathel after beeing launches up into the air and loosing most of their speed and only having the momentum of falling, yes they still could be dangerouse to somebody without a helmet or even with one but i dont think they pouse a threat as EFP that are now have been used to overcome ERA because of the lover velocity.

[@92HazelMocha]

Yes, additionally we have to consider that the direction the flyer plate is going is the direction of the enemy. If you shoot a t72 in the side with an rpg, the flyer plate will head in your direction. If flyer plates are a real threat to anyone, it's the people shooting at them.

[@stephenallen4635]

​@@92HazelMochaexcept thats not how it works in the real world

[@stephenallen4635]

no one said there was 100m of danger just that the plates can travel up to 100m and carry a lot more momentum than smaller less dense fragments from the attacking projectile. naturally that means the area of danger is going to be larger than without era but not necessarily 100m

[@Salamandra40k]

I would say that a HEAT "jet" is definitely a fluid loll. The explosive is 100% heating that material beyond its melting point, BUT that doesnt mean it cant do kinetic damage as well. A molten piece of copper and a solid piece of copper weigh the same- a HEAT warhead just ensures that that molten copper is going hypersonic speeds, and is thus using pure kinetic energy to simply punch through the armor, liquid as the jet may be. I would just say to look at HEAT impacts and you can clearly see molten residue left behind

[@CH3TN1K313]

@ 1:35 incorrect... explosive reactive armor was being tested by the Soviet Union during the late 1940's after WW2 had ended. They shelved the project since their explosive mixes were too sensitive and would blow prematurely. They went back to the lab and perfected the explosive formula which allowed them to bring back the idea and resume testing in the mid 1960's.

[@richardthomas598]

The "ERA works on everything" point gets at why Leopard 1 is a crap tank. Even with ERA, it can be penetrated by even a middling rocket on the frontal arc.

[@jackburton9035]

ERA was invented by the Australians and British in 1944

[@huyhoangtahuu9733]

Source ? Cause it literally take 3m to find that the idea of counterexplosion (kontrvzryv in Russian) in armour was first proposed in 1949 in USSR by Bogdan vjacheslavovich

[@robertstallard7836]

@@huyhoangtahuu9733 You have to take more than three minutes looking at Wikepedia articles, and delve a little deeper. The Australian claim comes from 1944 when various methods were tried to protect against the hollow-charge panzerfaust. A report "M.M. 4(a) 16" dated September 1944, from the Explosives Factory at Maribyrnong entitled: "Intrim Report on 'Chemical Armour' Methods of defeating shaped charges" included details of placing small amounts of explosive or 'vigorous oxidising medium' filler between metal plates and mounting it on a tank to defeat shaped charge projectiles. They tested these with some success, and passed the details on to the British, but neither pursued the matter much further. To be honest, they had more important things to think about at the time, there being a war on, and all, and sandbags did a good enough job to be going on with. The Americans were also experimenting with it in 1949. Emerson Pugh at Carnegie tech wrote a 1949 paper details similar experimentation with oxidising agents and explosives. So - who "invented" it? As with a lot of things, it was actually developed in parallel in several places. Old Bogdan was just one of many.

[@jintsuubest9331]

​@@huyhoangtahuu9733 A certain refine, I assume Brits, that produce historical afv related content on KZbin. High quality content.

[@jackburton9035]

@@huyhoangtahuu9733 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpikgGyIZdiii80 You learn something new everyday

[@coryhoggatt7691]

Unfortunately you confuse two kinds of appliqué armor throughout the video. Protection from CE munitions is obtained by explosive which are NOT sandwiched between heavy steel plates. Protection from KE munitions is achieved by heavy steel plates that *slide* when struck and damage the penetrator. The earliest designs had no explosive at all. Prof Harzell’s explanation is accurate but doesn’t describe any ERA system in existence.