In the world of modern warfare, terms like Chobham armor, reactive armor, and cage armor are often mentioned. These are all types of armor used to protect tanks and other armored vehicles. While they might seem unrelated, they all play a crucial role in the evolution of tank protection. Let’s explore how tank armor has developed over the years and what it has to do with boilers.
The concept of tank armor has come a long way since tanks were first introduced during World War I. The British army coined the term “Tank” as a codename to mislead the Germans, and because these vehicles were manufactured in boiler factories, the name was fitting. Early tanks were constructed with riveted steel sheets, which were not very effective against anything stronger than rifle fire.
Over time, advancements in armor technology, such as sloping armor and the use of exotic materials, have made tanks more resilient. However, significant improvements in tank armor only began to emerge during the Cold War, as the U.S. and the Soviet Union competed to develop superior military technology.
During World War I, tanks were slow and lightly armored, relying on mobility and firepower. Their armor was typically 6-12 millimeters thick, enough to protect against small arms fire but vulnerable to artillery. World War II brought significant advancements, with tanks featuring thicker, sloped armor that could deflect some enemy fire.
German tanks like the Tiger I and Tiger II had thick armor, while the Panther and Soviet T-34 had well-sloped armor, making them difficult to penetrate. The British and Americans initially lagged in adopting sloped armor but compensated with thicker armor, as seen in the British Matilda II tank.
The Cold War era marked a shift in tank design, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union racing to develop advanced tanks. This period saw the introduction of composite armor, which combined various materials for enhanced protection.
Soviet tanks like the T-54 and T-55 used composite armor with layers of steel and non-metallic materials, making them resistant to both kinetic and chemical energy munitions. Soviet tanks were also designed with sloped armor for better protection, although their low profile limited their gun depression.
The UK developed Chobham armor, a composite material combining ceramic and steel, making tanks like the Challenger 2 highly resilient. The U.S. adopted similar technology for the M1 Abrams, incorporating depleted uranium layers for exceptional protection.
Reactive armor emerged during the late Cold War, adding a new layer of protection. This type of armor explodes outward when hit, disrupting the projectile’s path. The Soviet Union was a pioneer in developing Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), with systems like Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 enhancing tank survivability.
ERA systems significantly improved tank protection, allowing them to withstand anti-tank munitions. The latest Russian ERA development, the Relikt system, offers even greater protection against modern threats.
The M1 Abrams tank, the main battle tank of the United States, has undergone significant armor upgrades since its introduction in the late 1970s. Initially featuring Chobham composite armor, the Abrams proved its effectiveness during the Gulf War, where it faced Soviet-designed tanks.
Post-war upgrades included depleted uranium inserts and the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) for urban warfare. The latest version, the M1A2 Sep3, features advanced reactive armor tiles and other enhancements.
Ongoing research has led to the development of advanced armor materials, including composite armor, that offer improved protection while reducing weight. These materials have been incorporated into the Abrams’ armor configuration to maintain its effectiveness while enhancing overall mobility.
More recently, the Israeli army developed the TROPHY system, which creates an active protection system to intercept and destroy incoming threats before they hit the tank. This represents the future of tank armor, combining traditional armor with advanced technology to ensure maximum protection on the battlefield.
Research the evolution of tank armor from World War I to the present day. Focus on key developments such as sloped armor, composite materials, and reactive armor. Prepare a presentation to share your findings with the class, highlighting how each advancement improved tank survivability.
Participate in a debate on the effectiveness of different armor technologies. Divide into groups, each representing a different type of armor (e.g., Chobham, reactive, or composite). Argue the advantages and disadvantages of your assigned technology, and discuss which is most effective in modern warfare scenarios.
Create a model of a tank using materials such as cardboard, plastic, or metal sheets. Incorporate different armor technologies discussed in the article, such as sloped armor or reactive armor. Present your model to the class, explaining the design choices and how they enhance the tank’s protection.
Conduct a case study analysis of the M1 Abrams tank. Examine its armor upgrades over the years, including the use of depleted uranium and the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK). Discuss how these enhancements have contributed to its reputation as a highly resilient battle tank.
Engage in a simulation game where you must design a tank with optimal armor for various combat scenarios. Use a software tool or board game to simulate battles, adjusting your tank’s armor configuration to counter different threats. Reflect on the strategic decisions made and their outcomes.
Here’s a sanitized version of the provided YouTube transcript:
—
Chobham armor, reactive armor, cage armor, and boilers? If you’ve been keeping up with modern conflicts, you might have heard of at least three of these terms before. Although the first three do have armor in their name and are used to protect armored vehicles like tanks, they seemingly have nothing in common. Tank armor, in general, seems to be a confusing topic at first, so let’s dive in and explain how this revolutionary piece of technology was developed, and what this all has to do with boilers.
**The Birth of the Tank**
Modern tank armor has evolved significantly since these weapons of war were first introduced to the battlefield in World War I. The lumbering vehicles were given the codename “Tank” by the British army as a cover to confuse the Germans, and since they were being made in factories that produced boilers, the name acted as a perfect cover for the revolutionary project. This is why we mentioned boilers in the intro! The first tanks were made in quite the same fashion: riveted sheets of steel, sometimes bolted together. Vertical, thin, rolled sheets of steel were used instead of hardened steel to save on weight and cost, so these early prototypes rarely stopped anything more than rifle shots or light machine gun bullets.
Since then, advancements in armor sloping, metal technology, and exotic materials have been instrumental in making armored vehicles more resilient on the battlefield. But many of these more modern advancements only came about later on as the Cold War pitted the U.S. against the Soviets. Before these leaps in technology, a foundation had to be set; this is where World War II armor developments come in.
**Early Tank Armor Developments Through World War II**
The birth of tank warfare in World War I was marked by the introduction of primitive armored vehicles. The first tanks were relatively slow and lightly armored, and they primarily relied on mobility and firepower to overcome enemy defenses. These early tank designs used rolled steel armor, often only around 6-12 millimeters thick. This armor was capable of protecting against small arms fire and artillery shell splinters, but was vulnerable to direct hits from artillery and light anti-tank weapons.
World War II marked a significant turning point in the evolution of tank armor. The conflict saw the development of more sophisticated tanks, with thicker armor, the replacement of riveted plates with cast steel hulls and turrets, and better-sloped armor that provided more effective protection than non-sloped armor and had a chance to deflect some lower-powered shells. German tanks like the PzKpfw. VI Tiger I and the more massive Tiger Ausf. B, known as the King Tiger or Tiger II, featured thick armor, while the PzKpfw. V Panther and Soviet T-34, IS-I, and IS-II featured well-sloped armor that was difficult for most anti-tank weapons to penetrate, at least from the front.
While the United Kingdom and the United States were slower to adopt sloped armor designs, they compensated by using thicker armor in some of their main battle tanks. The British Matilda II tank, for example, used thick frontal and side armor to great effect early in the war and proved difficult for German gunners to knock out. The thickness of the armor, however, came at a price: the tank was heavier and slower than many other tanks of the time, and the British were never able to upsize its turret to replace the already obsolete 2-pounder main gun.
The majority of Western tanks, specifically the US-built M-3 Grant and M-4 Shermans, suffered from weaker armor and a lack of high-powered anti-tank guns that could penetrate their German opponents. While the Germans had the Borsig KwK Pak 42 75mm high-velocity cannon, capable of penetrating American or British armor at very long range, even more effective was the legendary 88mm KwK Pak 36 gun, derived from the 88mm Flak 36 anti-aircraft gun. Against this cannon, no Allied armor was safe.
**The Cold War: Arms Race and Composite Armor**
The Cold War era marked a substantial shift in tank design and armor technology. The United States and the Soviet Union, along with other European nations, engaged in an arms race to produce the most advanced tanks. This period saw the development of revolutionary tank and armored vehicle designs, as well as the emergence of composite armor, a significant development in tank protection.
Let’s look at the two sides of the Cold War arms race and how their military doctrines influenced their developments.
**Soviet Tank Armor**
Soviet tanks, particularly the T-54 and T-55, were equipped with composite armor that utilized various layers of steel and non-metallic materials. This made the armor resistant to both kinetic penetrators and chemical energy munitions. Soviet tanks were also designed with sloped armor for improved protection against a wide range of threats. However, the priority of Soviet tank designers appeared to be in keeping their tanks as low as possible. On average, their tanks were anywhere from one to two feet lower than their Western counterparts. While that did make for a harder-to-hit target, it also limited how far their main gun turret could depress, which in turn limited the tank’s capability to go “hull down,” which is when a tank hides behind a low hill or berm and exposes only its turret and main gun to enemy fire.
This makes sense considering the Soviets were preparing their military to fight a conflict against the west across The Great European Plain, a flat part of North-Eastern Europe stretching from Northern Germany to modern-day Ukraine.
**British and US Tank Armor**
The United Kingdom contributed to the development of composite armor through the invention and development of Chobham armor. Chobham armor is a composite material that combines a classified blend of ceramic sheets, sections of steel, and other materials to provide enhanced protection. This innovation made British tanks like the Challenger 2 highly resilient to enemy direct-fire weapons on the battlefield. The exact composition of Chobham armor is still a somewhat closely guarded secret, though analysts suggest it’s made of alternating layers of nylon micromesh, titanium, and ceramic material bonded together.
In response to the Soviet threat, the US developed composite armor solutions such as their Chobham-derivative armor used on the M1 Abrams tank. The Abrams featured a composite armor package that included depleted uranium layers, which offered exceptional protection against kinetic energy penetrators, as well as angled sheets internal to the armor that helped direct away and deflect any incoming blast from an anti-tank round. Details about this armor are also technically still meant to be top-secret, though leaks on the Internet supposedly show just how the sandwiched layers are utilized in vital areas around the tank, such as the turret’s gun mantlet, the front glacis plate, and other vital areas. This early version was designated “non-explosive reactive armor,” or NERA.
**Reactive Armor and Its Introduction**
During the late Cold War and post-Cold War era, reactive armor became an important addition to tank protection. Reactive armor is a type of modular armor that explodes outward when hit by a projectile, disrupting the penetrator’s path and reducing its effectiveness.
The Soviet Union was among the first to look into developing reactive armor, beginning in the late 1940s. Although development was slow in the early days of the Cold War and only prototypes were produced, as the importance of this technology became apparent, the Soviets ended up developing some of the first effective Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) systems. Their Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 systems were widely used on tanks like the T-72 and T-80. These systems were effective against shaped-charge munitions, further enhancing the tank’s survivability on the battlefield.
During the later Cold War years, the Soviet Union faced significant challenges in the realm of armored warfare. The Western powers, particularly the United States, had developed formidable tanks and anti-tank weapons. Shaped-charge warheads and kinetic energy penetrators had the potential to penetrate traditional armor with ease, making tanks more vulnerable to enemy fire.
The Soviet response was to continually innovate and equip its armored vehicles with superior protection. In this context, the development of Explosive Reactive Armor was seen as a crucial step to enhance tank survivability. Soviet engineers developed the Kontakt-1 ERA system in the late 1970s, making it one of the world’s earliest ERA implementations. Kontakt-1 ERA is built around the concept of precisely placed explosive blocks layered onto metal plates, arranged in a grid, and attached to the exterior of the tank’s hull and turret. When an incoming projectile, such as an anti-tank round or missile, strikes the ERA blocks, the explosives within them detonate. This explosion creates a shockwave and a jet of gas, disrupting the incoming threat. The explosion effectively “pre-detonates” the projectile, diminishing its ability to penetrate the tank’s main armor.
Kontakt-1 was designed specifically to provide enhanced protection against Western-designed shaped-charge warheads commonly used in US, British, and West German anti-tank munitions. It significantly reduced the probability of successful penetrations, thereby increasing the survivability of the massive Armadas of Soviet armored vehicles.
Kontakt-1 ERA was deployed on early Cold War Soviet tanks, including the T-64 and T-72. The introduction of this technology marked a critical advancement in tank protection, as it demonstrated the Soviet Union’s commitment to maintaining a strong armored force that could threaten NATO and the West with a quick and powerful armored thrust into the heart of Europe.
While the Kontakt-1 was a significant breakthrough, the development of Kontakt-5 ERA represented a further enhancement in tank protection technology. Kontakt-5 refined the fundamental principle of ERA, still including explosive-filled blocks, but introducing some crucial improvements. The most notable of these was the composite structure of the ERA blocks, which incorporated non-metallic materials and metals in specific configurations on top of the standard explosive charges. This innovation provided superior protection against a wider range of threats.
The Kontakt-5 also offered enhanced protection against not only shaped-charge warheads but also kinetic energy penetrators, which posed a significant threat to armored vehicles. It was the first type of ERA that was able to significantly decrease the penetration of armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds favored by US and British armored forces.
Kontakt-5s also introduced active protective elements. The active element is the explosive component whose concussion and blast can disrupt incoming projectiles. The passive element includes the composite materials and metal plates that form the ERA blocks and are specifically designed to disrupt the projectile upon contact. The combination of these elements makes Kontakt-5s a versatile and effective armor solution against a wide array of anti-tank munitions.
Since the early 2000s, the Kontakt-5 ERA has become a standard feature on modern Russian tanks, including the T-80U, T-84, and T-90. These tanks were at the forefront of Russian armored forces during the invasion of Ukraine, and this ERA played a critical role in bolstering their survivability on the battlefield, though the tanks wound up being destroyed through other means, especially top-down exploding anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs).
Kontakt-1 and later Kontakt-5 ERA systems have had significant impacts on tank warfare, both during the Cold War and beyond. The primary impact has been the enhanced survivability of armored vehicles equipped with ERA. By reducing the effectiveness of incoming threats, ERA has helped tanks withstand anti-tank munitions that would otherwise disable or destroy the armored vehicles.
The improved protection offered by ERA systems has increased the tactical flexibility of armored units. Tanks equipped with ERA can more confidently engage enemy forces, even in complex and hostile environments where anti-tank threats are prevalent. ERA systems, including Kontakt-5, are particularly effective against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The disruption caused by the explosive blocks can make these missiles far less likely to achieve a lethal hit on the tank, protecting the armor and its crew from one of the most prevalent anti-tank weapons on the modern battlefield.
Explosive Reactive Armor technology has continued to evolve, with subsequent generations offering further improvements in protection against advanced threats. In the context of evolving anti-tank weaponry and changing battlefield dynamics, ERA remains a critical component of tank survivability. As technology continues to advance and new threats emerge, ERA systems will likely continue to evolve, ensuring that armored forces remain a formidable presence on the modern battlefield.
The latest development by Russian tank designers includes the Relikt system. Designed by the Russian army in response to new developments in Western ATGM technology and depleted uranium penetrator rounds, Relikt is the third generation of Russian ERA and is claimed to be twice as effective as its predecessor, Kontakt-5. It has been installed on some modernized T-72B, T-72B3M, and T-90 tanks after the system was adopted by the Russian army in 2006.
Developed by NII Stali, Relikt uses a completely new composition of explosives to achieve dynamic protection. Unlike Kontakt-1, it works equally well against both low-velocity and high-velocity projectiles, reportedly doubling a tank’s protection against shaped charges and increasing protection against ATGMs by as much as 50 percent. The Relikt system can also reportedly defend against tandem warheads and reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds by over 50 percent.
The system was developed in response to the Abrams A3 tank round variant, which was especially effective against Soviet-made ERA-outfitted tanks in the Iraq War. In fact, the A3 round was so effective that the Russian army created Relikt specifically as a countermeasure to the Abrams’ latest tank round. Supposedly, Relikt is Russia’s most sophisticated tank armor currently in use and will eventually replace the Kontakt-5 system that is still employed on many older Russian tanks. Kontakt-5 is also still present on some Ukrainian tanks, as well as on Indian T-90S tanks, and on Serbia’s older US-made M-84AS main battle tanks, among others.
The latest Russian ERA development, the fourth generation Monolith system (which is often confused with the “Malachit” that was used on the Objekt.187) is still under development but is expected to be used on later production models of the T-14 Armata. The Armata is also reportedly being built with a new and still classified type of armor, code-named 44S-SV-SH. Little is known about this new alloy, though it is reported to maintain its properties in low temperatures, suggesting the Russian government is expecting to use their new tanks in an Arctic environment.
It seems many of the ERA developments we’ve listed so far have been a reaction to Western developments, specifically the rise in prominence of the Abrams tank. Let’s have a look at what makes this tank a formidable opponent and what developments the US has implemented to enhance its capabilities.
**The King of Armor: M1 Abrams**
The M1 Abrams tank, the principal battle tank of the United States, has a storied history of armored protection. Since its inception in the late 1970s, the Abrams tank has evolved significantly in terms of its armor, offering enhanced protection to its crews in a changing battlefield landscape, including the renowned Chobham armor and subsequent modern upgrades.
The Abrams tank was developed during the height of the Cold War to counter the growing threat of Soviet armored forces. It was named after General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and a key figure in the development of post-World War II Western tanks. The Abrams was designed to be an all-around superior tank, with a focus on crew protection, firepower, and mobility.
When the Abrams first entered service in 1980, it featured several revolutionary features, including its composite armor. The primary component of this armor was the Chobham composite, a closely guarded secret of British armor technology that combined various materials, including ceramics, metal, and other substances, to achieve superior protection. The Chobham armor was particularly effective in countering the shaped-charge warheads commonly used in anti-tank munitions, giving the Abrams a level of protection significantly higher compared to previous generations of tanks.
The Abrams’ armor design included both Chobham composite armor and rolled homogeneous steel (RHA) in a modular configuration. This composite armor, combined with the Abrams’ steeply inclined front hull and turret, made it exceptionally resistant to various threats, including kinetic penetrators and chemical energy munitions.
The Abrams’ true test came during the first Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. It was here that the Abrams was first put to the test as it faced off against Soviet-designed tanks such as the T-72 and Iraqi-modified versions, which were equipped with older armor technologies. The Abrams’ armor proved to be highly effective, with no Abrams being lost to enemy fire and zero crew losses. The only Abrams that were destroyed fell victim to “friendly fire” from other Coalition forces or were scuttled by their own crew, rather than allow them to fall into enemy hands. The success of the Abrams in the Gulf War solidified its reputation as one of the most well-protected tanks in the world.
While the Gulf War highlighted the effectiveness of the Abrams’ armor, it also revealed areas for improvement. Post-war analysis showed that the Abrams’ armor could be further improved to make the tank even more impervious to evolving threats. As a result, the US Army initiated a series of armor upgrades.
One of the first upgrades involved the installation of depleted uranium (DU) armor inserts. Depleted uranium, a dense and heavy material, was used to reinforce the existing composite armor. This addition improved the Abrams’ resistance to kinetic penetrators and increased the protection level of both the hull and the turret. The US also introduced upgrades to the overall armor package, which involved modifying the composition and configuration of the existing Chobham armor.
The Abrams played a pivotal role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. During this conflict, the Abrams faced a variety of threats, including improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). These unconventional threats prompted the addition of further armor upgrades.
In response to the urban warfare environment of Iraq, the US developed the Tank Urban Survival Kit, or TUSK. This system included various improvements, such as additional armor panels, slat armor for RPG protection, and a remote weapons station. The slat armor, also known as cage armor, was designed to defeat RPGs by detonating them prematurely upon contact with the cage structure.
The Iraq War also saw the introduction of reactive armor kits, which were designed to disrupt the penetration of incoming ATGMs. The M1A2 Sep3 Abrams, the most recent upgraded version of the original M1 Abrams, features several enhancements to its armor protection. The Sep3 includes the Abrams Reactive Armor Tile system, known as ARAT. This is similar to the Russian Relikt ERA, but the US version is only applied to the sides of the hull and the turret, and not on the front glacis plate, nor the turret’s front.
**Modern Armor Systems**
Ongoing research has led to the development of advanced armor materials, including composite armor, that offer improved protection while reducing weight. These materials have been incorporated into the Abrams’ armor configuration to maintain its effectiveness while enhancing overall mobility.
More recently, the Israeli army developed the TROPHY system, which creates
Armor – A protective layer or material used to shield objects or individuals from damage, often used in military applications to protect vehicles and personnel. – The development of advanced armor has significantly increased the survivability of military vehicles in combat zones.
Tanks – Heavily armored combat vehicles equipped with large-caliber guns and tracks for mobility, used primarily in ground warfare. – Modern tanks are equipped with sophisticated targeting systems and reactive armor to enhance their effectiveness on the battlefield.
Protection – The act of shielding or defending against harm or damage, often through the use of specialized materials or technologies. – Engineers are constantly researching new materials to improve the protection of soldiers against ballistic threats.
Materials – Substances or components with specific physical properties used in the creation of structures, devices, or systems. – The study of materials science is crucial for developing new alloys that can withstand extreme temperatures and pressures.
Technology – The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry and engineering. – Advances in sensor technology have revolutionized the way engineers design automated systems.
Warfare – Engagement in or the activities involved in war or conflict, often involving the use of advanced technology and strategies. – The introduction of drones has changed the landscape of modern warfare, providing new reconnaissance and combat capabilities.
Composite – A material made from two or more constituent materials with significantly different physical or chemical properties, which remain separate and distinct within the finished structure. – Composite materials are increasingly used in aerospace engineering due to their high strength-to-weight ratio.
Reactive – Referring to materials or systems that respond to external stimuli or changes in the environment, often used in the context of armor that can adapt to impact. – Reactive armor is designed to explode outward upon impact, neutralizing the force of incoming projectiles.
Advancements – Progress or development in technology or knowledge, leading to new capabilities or improvements in existing systems. – Recent advancements in quantum computing have the potential to revolutionize data processing and encryption.
Mobility – The ability to move or be moved freely and easily, often a key consideration in the design of vehicles and machinery. – Enhancing the mobility of robotic systems is crucial for their deployment in complex and dynamic environments.
