Talk:Arena (countermeasure)

Drozd and Arena

"More sophisticated all-round protection systems are the Shtora and Arena Active Protection Systems."-Form the Drozd page

"Arena's less-sophisticated precursor is the Drozd APS."-Arena page Dudtz 10/26/06 8:26 PM ET

Power?

27V isn't a statement of power, a Wattage would be. Is there any data on the wattage of the system?

From the article: "The 27-volt system requires approximately one kilowatt of power" Acorn897 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusing

The article says: "Arena increases a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5–2 times." What does this mean? Muad (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is supposed to mean that if a rocket-propelled grenade is tossed at a tank, if you got Arena and if you use it, you got a 150-200% chance more of surviving than if you don't have Arena. Jeremy Wang (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinetic Energy Penetrator

According to the article, the system can protect tanks against APDSFS ammunition and refers to source No. 26 (Warford, p. 21). I read this article and I personally understand it in the way, that the Kontakt-5 armour defeated the KE-Penetrator, not the ARENA-System. I think the author of the article refers to this part: "Additionally, a tank fitted with “built-in dynamic defense” (probably a T-80U fitted with standard KONTAKT-5 second-generation reactive armor) defeated attacks by both HVAPFSDS and HEAT-FS ammunition. Finally, a T-72 fitted with a “grill against shaped-charge shells” was engaged by KONKURS ATGMs from 100 meters and RPG-type weapons from 40 meters. None of the missiles or grenades fired hit the argeted T-72. The defensive system that was probably being demonstrated was the ARENA active Defensive Aids Suite (DAS)." Additionally, how can the system detect a KE-Round, if it is only capable of detecting targest from 70 m/s to 700 m/s, while a KE-Round has a speed of more than 1000 m/s? Please excuse if I have not made my opinion clear, but I am not a native speaker of English. --213.39.209.60 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. It is virtually impossible that a system like this could defeat a kinetic energy penetrator. If so, it would be effective against almost any munition known to man.132.162.84.166 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The text of the article does not support that claim that a tank round was stopped by the Arena APS. I've removed it from the wiki article. Autoxidation (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs a photo

This article could really a use a photo of a vehicle fitted with the Arena systems. The picture of the T-80U there, does not have Arena on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.248.56 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

I wonder if those who awarded this article the FA status had read the introduction. There were some sentences having no meaning, or misleading the reader (for example, one apparently meant that Arena had been employed in Afghanistan). See you soon. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope I don't come across as rude, but this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If you see a problem, please do change it, as opposed to just notifying other people of it in the expectation that they will make the relevant adjustments instead. Otumba (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. You did make the changes. My sincere apologies. Otumba (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the expression "the Russians"

• During the Battle of Grozny, for example, the Russians lost between 200–300[13] armoured fighting vehicles to Chechen rebels
• According to the Russians, it was selected to be used on the South Korean K2 main battle tank, although this was not confirmed by the South Koreans.[6]
• Russians claim that they lost between 200–250 armoured fighting vehicles, out of 2,221 deployed; Warford, p. 18

I don't like the usage of the expression "the Russians" here. It makes the article seem like it was written from a Western (or American) point of view, which is not good, since WP should have a global point of view. I don't think we are using similar expressions in articles about American military either. For example, we are not saying:

• "In the Battle of Fallujah, the Americans lost 100 men"
• "According to the Americans, the Abrams tank perfomed well in the war"
• "Americans claim that they lost 100 armoured vehicles"

Instead, I think we write something like "In the Battle of Fallujah, the US Army lost 100 men." We should use similar expressions in this article (i.e. "the Russian armed forces lost 200-300 fighting vehicles...") Offliner (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please go ahead and make the changes. (WP:BB --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I support your proposed changes, Offliner. Thanks for highlighting the problem. Otumba (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

US Equivalent?

Is there a US equivalent to this active protection system? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the money spent for the US army, as a general rule, any type of military hardware a country other than the US has, is bound to already be employed by the US army. I do know the Americans have a system similar to the one described in the article, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is called. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Otumba (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually USED in Russia. It's just experimental. The American version is "Quick kill". - Heaney555z (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arena (countermeasure). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210100007/http://www.kbm.ru:80/en/product/aps/arena-e to http://www.kbm.ru/en/product/aps/arena-e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Claim of Effectiveness Against Top Attack Weapons

The claim that it is effective against top attack munitions is unsourced (and false) and should be removed. I will remove it shortly if no one objects. OwenEason (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Found a source. Whether flyover ATGMs should be lumped in with top-attack ones is another question, since they approach horizontally (so probably not). OwenEason (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Review time?

I have some concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. Given the lack of public information about Arena-it remains somewhat of an enigma-I'm not sure if this article can be considered "featured". Also some information that has since become public has not yet been added to the article (e.g. Russia To Arm Its T-90M Tanks With Arena-M Active Protection System. Good Article status seems achievable. I'm willing to put in the work. I've added a photo of Arena and some background information. Schierbecker (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)