Advancing Defenses: Technologies Shaping Tank Protection in Modern Battlefields [NAR]

They were once the ace equipment on the battlefield, dominating the strength rankings for many years. Unrestrained and fearless, they operated without a hint of caution. However, they now face new threats as their vulnerable tops become targets for enemy strikes. In this episode of Military Technology, we analyze the crisisladen tanks and armor in modern warfare. Hello viewers and welcome to Military Technology. I am

your host Longha serving as one of the key presenters on modern ground combat equipment. Tanks with their superior off-road firepower and armor protection capabilities rightfully earn the title of kings of land warfare. The quantity and quality of tanks have also become crucial indicators for assessing the collective combat capability of various nations armies. However, as the saying

goes, the taller the tree, the more wind it catches. Tanks are undoubtedly the most coveted land combat weapon. Since their inception, anti-tank weapons targeting each generation of tanks have emerged in abundance. Today, with the advancement of technology, tanks are set to encounter new threats. Modern tanks

possess rapid mobility, firepower, and tight protection, consistently earning them the title of kings of land warfare. In the general perception, the primary anti-tank weapons used in modern warfare include anti-tank missiles, anti-tank rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, and anti-tank landmines. In recent years, with the widespread adoption of medium, small, and micro drone technology, drones have officially become a new type of anti-tank weapon. According to relevant media reports, in several recent military conflicts, renowned main battle tanks like the Leopard 2, T90, and Marava have been compromised in defense against attacks from micro drones, gradually losing their traditional advantages. When faced with aerial assaults from drones, tank crew members find themselves as if sitting inside a giant turtle shell, almost always at a disadvantage. Regarding the technology of drone bombing, I believe the technical difficulty is not particularly high. The key factors are

what? The vast quantity of commercially available consumer drones, their easy procurement, low costs, and the convenience of training battlefield personnel are among these factors. Secondly, there is the advantage of cost for armored vehicles. The overall cost of third generation main battle tanks is relatively high. If one opts for commercial or consumer grade drones, their costs might drop to a few thousand, highlighting a significant disparity in cost advantages compared to tanks. Meanwhile, the signal

characteristics of micro drones are inherently weak, and the sounds they produce are easily masked by the noise of tank engines. Therefore, when micro drones fly above tank armored vehicles, the crew members find it difficult to detect them. Unless a crew member happens to look up at that moment, it is only then that they might notice a drone hovering directly overhead, poised to drop its payload. At this point, if the drone operator possesses a certain level of skill or is simply lucky, the anti-tank ammunition dropped could very likely fall through the open hatch and into the vehicle, resulting in even greater damage. Now, for the tank crew members, if for example, I use a panoramic observation site, I might be able to see some external conditions.

However, this still pertains to what we refer to as the classic engagement distance for tanks, which is around 3,000 m and sometimes even 5,000 m. Within this range, enemy tanks and armored vehicles being of significant size are the primary targets for observation. While everyone knows that miniature drones are indeed very small. Furthermore, when they are airborne, it becomes quite challenging to track them visually through imagery. In addition to this, armored vehicles like tanks face a fatal flaw against top attacks from drones. They lack effective interception

and defense measures. Since World War II, tanks have inherently suffered from weak aerial interception and defense capabilities with the vast majority relying solely on large caliber anti-aircraft machine guns mounted on the turret. This was true during World War II and it remains so today. Moreover, due to the structural limitations of the gun mount, these anti-aircraft machine guns are unable to achieve a vertical firing angle of 90°.

Thus, even if the crew members spot an enemy micro drone overhead, they have no effective means to shoot it down. Consequently, when crew members realize that a drone is about to attack, aside from attempting to drive away, they find it challenging to find a better option. Tanks are referred to as the kings of land warfare, and one of their greatest advantages lies in their thick armor, which can be said without reservation to provide superior protection compared to almost all other land-based weaponry.

So, what are the primary protective measures employed by tanks? As the kings of land warfare, tanks represent a complex overall engineering project encompassing weapon systems, observation systems, protection systems, power systems, and communication systems among others. In comparison to anti-tank weapons, the research and development cycle, funding investment, and difficulty level for developing tanks are significantly higher. Additionally, unlike anti-tank weapons, which prioritize power as the foremost requirement, the development of tanks often encounters a dilemma between achieving defensive capabilities and mobility. However, in terms of mobility,

research on defense seems to be even more challenging with a wider array of methods involved. Since the inception of tanks, designers have believed that the thicker the armor, the lower the probability of it being penetrated by adversaries. Therefore, during World War II, various countries desperately endeavored to equip their tanks with thicker armor. By

the end of the war, even monstrous design proposals emerged. In 1945, as the Soviet forces entered Berlin, they discovered the wreckage of two gigantic tanks during the fighting. These tanks were enormous with wreckage measuring over 3 meters in height. And each turret weighed more than 50 tons, comparable to a currently active K2 main battle tank in South Korea. The Soviets summoned

German engineers to identify these behemoths, ultimately concluding that they were one of the German military's secret weapons known as the mouse tank. It is astonishing that the meticulous Germans referred to such a massive monster as a mouse. It is important to note that this behemoth weighed a staggering 188 tons, equivalent to six Panzer 3/4 tanks or three Tiger tanks or even 125 civilian cars weighing 1.5 tons each. After capturing the mouse tanks,

the Soviets assembled the components of the two wrecks into one operational unit. But after testing, they deemed it a useless giant. Typically, a standard tank has thick armor on the front, while the sides and rear are thinner. However, the Mouse being a specialized breakthrough tank was designed with all-around defense in mind. Its armor thickness was substantial on the front, sides, and rear. And coupled with the

power of its mounted cannon, the Mouse was indeed superior in terms of defense and firepower compared to all other armored vehicles of its time. The critical issue, however, was that such a heavy tank could essentially be regarded as having zero mobility. For instance, on the battlefield, even if positioned at key points, the loss of mobility meant that opposing forces could consider various methods to strike at it. Another significant problem was how to transport such a tank to the battlefield. Would it be pulled by train or how else could it reach the combat area? The difficulty of achieving deployment to the operational zone was immense which highlighted a design logic that deviated from that of conventional tank armor. This was precisely why during the Soviet German war both sides exerted considerable effort to increase armor thickness. By the end of the war,

the armor thickness of tanks had essentially reached its limit. Nevertheless, tank designers arrived at a crucial conclusion. To possess both high-speed and strong defense, a modern tank's maximum weight must remain under 70 tons. Even today, not a single tank designer dares to challenge this weight limit. As the penetration capabilities of anti-tank shells, missiles, and rockets continue to increase, the steel bodies of tanks are unable to withstand attacks from such weapons. While continuing to increase the thickness of the armor can certainly enhance a tank's defensive capabilities, doing so inevitably affects the tank's weight and in turn its mobility. Consequently,

people have come up with the idea of equipping tanks with additional external armor. Much like ancient warriors dawn protective gear, there are many types of external armor among which composite armor is particularly wellknown. Composite armor consists of a multi-layered structural combination incorporating both metallic and non- metallic materials. To simplify,

composite armor can be likened to layers of fatty and lean meat stacked together. Some designs feature two layers of metal on the inside and outside with a layer of non- metallic material sandwiched in between while others may consist of four or five layers of alternating metal and non-metal materials. The concept is that within what appears to be a single armor plate, different layers possess unique material characteristics. For instance, some materials may transform into a fluid state when subjected to sufficient stable pressure. This transformation allows for maximum disruption of incoming projectiles such as armor-piercing jets or steel penetrating rounds by bending the hardened core of the projectile, thereby diminishing its effectiveness. On June 22nd, 1976, the

United Kingdom successfully developed Chabam armor, marking a revolutionary advancement in tank protection technology. Chabam armor is a multi-layered composite armor with non- metallic materials in the center and highquality alloy steel on the outer layers, making it exceedingly difficult for armor-piercing projectiles to penetrate. When we watch footage featuring this armor, some viewers may wonder, what exactly is reactive armor? Why is it capable of withstanding a direct hit from a tank's main gun? Reactive armor, formerly known as explosive reactive armor, is an additional protective measure for tanks that emerged in the 1980s. Its principle is akin to firefighting, igniting combustible materials around it to prevent the flames from spreading inward. The basic structure consists of a sandwich-shaped box made of inert material plates and high energy explosives which can be mounted on the exterior of the tank to counter incoming threats. When armor-piercing or kinetic projectiles strike the surface of reactive armor, the high energy explosives inside the boxes are detonated by the impact, producing inert fragments and shock waves that create a reverse interference effect against the jet or kinetic projectile, thereby reducing the damage inflicted on the tank itself and achieving the goal of protecting the armored vehicle. The

effectiveness of reactive armor during the Lebanon war caused a sensation worldwide. It gained immediate fame and rapidly underwent extensive development and application. Today, countries such as the United States, France, Israel, and Russia have developed a series of reactive armor products. If you wish to utilize explosive reactive armor, the original thickness of the vehicle's armor cannot be too low. Why is this the case? Because ultimately explosions operate on the principles of action and reaction, part of the explosive force will still be transmitted to the armor, necessitating that the vehicle's armor itself be relatively thick. Additionally, reactive armor generates shock waves similar to fragments upon detonation, meaning that personnel cannot be positioned near the vehicle, thus limiting certain aspects of combined operations between infantry and tanks. Nevertheless, the advent and

widespread use of reactive armor have significantly increased the survivability of tank vehicles, marking a milestone in the history of armor protection technology. The saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense. When incoming anti-tank munitions successfully lock onto a tank target and avoid being misled or jammed, the tank finds itself in an unavoidable situation where the only option for survival is to confront the threat directly. This approach embodies the concept of an active defense system which operates similarly to missile defense systems. Generally speaking, hard kill systems comprise detection systems, control and computation systems, and interception systems, which are deployed around the tank with active interceptors to create a 360° protective radius. When munitions enter the interception range, interceptor projectiles can destroy or alter the trajectory of the incoming munitions within a distance of 10 to 15 m with the entire process taking approximately 0.4 to 0.7 seconds.

Currently, there are various active defense systems in the world such as Russia's arena system, the United States quick kill system, and Israel's iron fist and trophy systems. Next, let us take a look at the interception footage of Israel's Iron Fist and Trophy systems. These two systems represent two distinct interception methods. Trophy

employs a large number of metal projectiles to directly impact incoming munitions, causing them to explode in midair or altering their trajectory. This can be simply understood as resembling a shotgun, and it can be said to utilize a hard kill approach. Conversely, the Iron Fist system launches high explosive grenades at incoming munitions, utilizing numerous fragments and high temperature shock waves to destroy the target. Given that

active defense systems are so effective, why have they not been widely deployed? The cost implications of implementing such a system are significant. Consider that to achieve all directional interception of incoming enemy munitions, one could describe this as akin to a super highcaliber artillery system, which must also be compact. It needs to be responsive and capable of intercepting from all angles, which naturally drives up the cost. Additionally, the increased weight of the system presents another substantial challenge. Regarding detection systems, radar detection is the most mature and widely used method. However, because anti-tank munitions typically fly at altitudes of only 1.5 to 2 m above the

ground, this height is where radar interference from clutter is most severe. Furthermore, the shock waves and fragments generated by interceptor explosions pose a significant threat to the safety of the infantry tasked with providing cover around the tank. Active defense systems rely on the destruction of incoming munitions as a means of protection. Currently, several models of such systems have been equipped by numerous countries, making them one of the most effective means of tank protection available. Next, let's take a

look at some of the comments from online users. One user made an interesting observation. This individual stated that tanks are referred to as the kings of land warfare precisely because of their outstanding firepower and mobility as well as their superior protective capabilities.

However, with the introduction of composite armor, reactive armor, and active defense systems, why do tanks seem to have become vulnerable when faced with attacks from micro drones? This user has indeed pinpointed a weak point in tank design. So, how should we respond to this challenge? Let's continue to explore the issue of top defense. This gap in protection is actually a traditional problem with tank armored vehicles. Tanks were initially

designed primarily to counter direct fire from ground artillery, focusing their defensive capabilities on the frontal armor of the turret and hull. Consequently, during upgrades, the top of the tank was not prioritized for increased protection. Additionally, tank observation systems typically do not have the capability to scan above a height of 60°, which makes them less effective against top- down attacks. This limitation means that attacks from above tend to be particularly effective.

Nowadays, many commercial or consumer-grade drones are equipped with munitions that can target the tops of tanks, representing a lowcost method of attack that had not been extensively considered in the past. In contrast, standard overhead attack munitions like the Javelin missile are considerably more expensive. When it comes to intercepting such threats, for example, the Russian T14 tank has integrated some considerations for high angle defense, possibly focusing on strategies such as the use of smoke screens represents a relatively lowcost method. And ultimately, there must be a balance between this cost and the corresponding effectiveness. It essentially boils down to a question of cost versus benefit. As the saying goes, the higher the level, the greater the challenges with the deployment of top attack munitions in actual combat. Designers have begun to

consider how to counter this proverbial sword of Damocles hanging overhead. At the Army 2023 defense exhibition held in Moscow, Russia showcased a range of main battle weapons, among which the most eye-catching feature was that aside from the T14 Armada tank, all other tanks were equipped with a cage structure at top their turrets. This cage structure is based on battlefield experiences and has emerged from significant sacrifices, thereby possessing considerable reference value. The design of the cage structure is intricate, featuring a double layer and V-shaped design that effectively disperses shock waves. It primarily aims to counterattacks from anti-tank missiles and suicide drones. This overhead cage can be viewed as an initially makeshift battlefield creation similar to external added armor such as the concrete armor used by the Germans during World War II or the sandbags placed on many Allied tanks and even like the track plates hung on wire beds.

These are all temporary battlefield innovations. Interestingly, similar designs existed during the Soviet era, but they were intended for frontal protection rather than overhead defense. In 1964, the Soviet Union developed a unique protective net kit known as the ZET1 tank protection system, which resembled a strangely shaped giant umbrella. The entire protective system consisted of an umbrella-like protective net mounted on the tank's gun barrel and multi-art skirts that could extend outward from the sides of the hull. This umbrella-shaped protective net was composed of a hoop, six support rods, and a wire mesh. Because the width of

the tank turret is smaller than that of the hull, the deployed protective net takes on a triangular shape, being narrow at the top and wider at the bottom, which allows it to completely shield the main battle tank from the front. The entire protective net weighs 60 kg and can be folded like an umbrella around the gun barrel during transit, transitioning from a moving state to a combat defensive state in just 3 minutes. The protective principle is to detonate armor-piercing rounds prematurely, causing the metal jets of the rounds to lose stability and reducing their armor penetrating effectiveness. This means that whether

it is the current overhead cage or the earlier Soviet CCT system, they can be classified as spaced armor by inducing explosions at a considerable distance from the main armor. The essence of explosive reactive armor follows a similar design. Through the method of inducing detonation, I ensure that when the jet reaches its maximum armor penetrating effectiveness, it has not yet reached the layer of the main armor.

Consequently, this greatly diminishes the armor penetrating capability of the projectile. Currently, in addition to Russia, Israel and Ukraine have also equipped the tops of the Marava and Challenger main battle tanks with cage structures. However, compared to the simple designs of the past, such as a barbecue grill, the Russian military is implementing a series of improvements to these overhead structures. One approach involves installing explosive reactive armor on the top which can better withstand attacks from anti-tank missiles striking from above. Another concept known as the tsar sun shade features a very long ballistic structure that protects the engine compartment at the rear of the tank. This overhead

protection is currently seen as a relatively effective method against drone attacks. As no superior alternatives have yet been found, one wonders if new technologies will emerge in the future. For instance, technologies such as electromagnetic armor or laser systems are being explored by some countries which will certainly need to balance cost with the increase in weight. Additionally, there are many alternative methods being considered such as rapidly deploying counter measures. For example, upon detecting a drone target, one could quickly obscure the tank using smoke screens or other means, rendering the guidance systems ineffective. In modern

warfare, tanks and armored vehicles continue to play a crucial role. However, as we face future battles, drone warfare and anti- drone operations will become central to the battlefield. Therefore, new tanks must comprehensively consider how to counter these emerging threats. Well, dear

viewers, thank you for your continued attention to the National Defense Military Channel's military technology segment. We will see you again at the same time next week. They are the celebrated star equipment on the world stage. They traverse the skies and tread

across the mountains. Yet during their design and development, they have sometimes missed critical points, resulting in astonishingly awkward moments in their nearly flawless careers. So, who exactly are these esteemed pieces of equipment? What profound impacts have these moments had on them? Military technology invites you to explore the embarrassing moments of main battle equipment.

2025-05-04 05:57

Other news