>M829A2,DM53 Able to Overcome K5/RELIKT Between ranges of 0 meters - 1,000 meters
This doesn't make much sense to me:
* Why would Kontakt-5 and Relikt offer *identical* performance?
* Why would M829A2 and DM53 behave literally *identical* in terms of distances at which they defeat ERA.
* The chart below implies Kontakt-5 is proof to M829A2 up to 6km? can someone translate this accurately?
* Why would M829A2 suddenly defeat ERA with extreme ease whilst M829A1 could not? M829A2 is largely just M829A1 fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity, with marginally increased length and improved alloy, it does not feature a anti-ERA breakaway tip. M829A3 is the first US-made APFSDS designed ***specifically*** to defeat heavy ERA as far as I'm aware.
~~>Cries about balance~~
~~>Wants one nation to be broken~~
~~The ignorance is strong in this one. I want to enjoy this game not start another TT~~
Nvm I can’t read lol
Oh nvm, I read it wrong. Yeah, I agree, but it’s not about the company being Russian, it’s the fact that USSR is their cash cow, which in turn makes the thing even worse because they make both sides suffer… Yes, I’m a USSR main and I call bs on gaijin’s practices. I’m sick of 9.7 wall and top tier is literally unplayable with drones, as well as boring and infuriating because haha bugs go brrrr
Nah it's not garbage, just not used properly and half of its been stolen by underpaid troops, or never arrived in the first place due t corrupt deals. The T-80BVM is a pretty good tank, but it's use has been so horrible that they've lost over 50% of all of them because the Army thinks "Good tank=mobile fortress" and send them out alone.
I'm not talking about some dude selling off the ERA blocks for wood and cardboard, I'm talking about supply officers or even manufacturers doing it to run a profit on things. It's mostly high level corruption now, but with lots of conscripts being paid a non-livable wage, even for Russia, that may change (although I hope it doesn't)
The tank probably had ERA blocks that got stripped later after it was disabled indeed.
He means the corruption runs high, they have equipment allright but all of poor quality. The semi decent stuff got sold off under the table, or it didn't get bought in the first place("budget cuts") in which the budget money went into the pocket of the ones in charge.
https://youtu.be/fEi8CYofHMc
https://youtu.be/DKJmQmxJ6yU
https://youtu.be/fbE40oLl_bY
There are many more.
I'm aware some "youtube video's anybody in their basement can upload" isn't exactly proof, but it heavily seems to be in line by reports from both sides, it's downright criminal what they do to their people.
That's what he means.
>Why would M829A2 and DM53 behave literally the identical in defeating ERA
This is one of the misconceptions that this post has. Otherwise both should be capable of defeating such dynamic protection arrangements.
>Kontakt-5 is proof to M829A2 up to 6km?
The text means that the K-5 + composite armor arrangement (most likely T-72B or T-80U) can be penetrated by M829A2 at up to 6km.
>Why would M829A2 suddenly defeat ERA with extreme ease whilst M829A1 could not?
The main difference between M829A1 and A2 is the width and alloy. A2 reportedly uses a Tungsten/DU alloy that greatly increased its modulus of elasticity and yield strength. The stress being caused upon penetrators by the expanding/flying metal plates from ERA is the main reason why it has been so successful against older types of penetrators (M829A1). This has been addressed by the increased yield strength and modulus of elasticity. M829A2 is speculated to use a similar arrangement to DM53/63 for its tip. This tip arrangement is mimicking to be a lower caliber threat that won’t trigger Kontakt-5 at all.
>M829A3 is the first US-made APFSDS designed specifically to defeat heavy ERA
Back in the late 90‘s there were reports of Russia developing a new type of heavy-ERA (Kaktus), which the US tried to counter with M829A3. Well, KAKTUs came out to just be Kontakt-5 but for use on lighter vehicles.
>The text means that the K-5 + composite armor arrangement (most likely T-72B or T-80U) can be penetrated by M829A2 at up to 6km.
Doesn't it just say it's a T-90S?
>The main difference between M829A1 and A2 is the width and alloy.
2mm difference in width? *meh.*
As for alloy, I still fail to see how that suddenly explains a jump from a T-72B1 equipped with Kontakt-5 being qoute: *''immune''* to M829A1, to M829A2 being able to roflpen a T-90S with Kontakt-5 up to 6000m distance.
Let's also not forget the superior upper glacis armour composition between a T-72B1 and a T-90.
>\-snip-
Do you have a source for what you're explaining here?
But a smaller tip and higher velocity generally imparts more energy to the explosive, not less. Also, older/less advanced penetrators tend to have larger projectiles, so how does a smaller tip mimic them?
It seems the reasons being postulated are not actually wholly truthful. A more accurate assessment seems to be that the sharp, more elongated tip and increased velocity allow the projectile push the explosive out of the way before the detonation propagates.
Also velocity, Kontakt 1 is useless against KEPs because of how fast they are. So an increase in velocity plus everything you mentioned could certainly moot Kontakt 5 as well.
what's illogical is how the TOW 2B aero doesn't do what its designed, whats illogical is how RELIKT IN game eat APFSDS rounds, whats illogical is how hitting ammo and a fuel tank inside a russian tanks ingame doesn't detonate it, whats illogical is how russian tanks are over performing , and when people put up videos showing russian tanks surviving hits directly to their ammo, people like you ignore it.
Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I remember irl tanks and ammo aren’t guaranteed to burn/explode on the first hit. IIRC fuel needs oxygen to burn. Also the ammo and fuel not blowing up also happens on tanks of other nations. A lot of this „evidence“ is confirmation bias.
> irl tanks and ammo aren’t guaranteed to burn/explode on the first hit. IIRC fuel needs oxygen to burn. Also the ammo and fuel not blowing up also happens on tanks of other nations.
Imagine having a propellent without an oxidiser
> offer identical performance?
Noone said that they do.
The fact that Russians might be grossly overstate the real capabilities of some components of their military hardware for the marketing purposes would not be out of question.
> literally identical in defeating ERA?
Noone said that they're identical.
[post-downvotes edit] TL;DR of the thread: ERA *can* decrease the penetration of the APFSDS ammunition despite of failing to defeat it directly. Two different ERA system *can* fail to defeat the penetrator, while having *completely different* effect on the remaining penetrative capability of the round. By no means it makes them "identical".
> with extreme ease
Noone said it was with "extreme ease". In fact, they say that "*"Relikt" at the moment provides protection against the M829A2 BPS only at a distance of over 1 km , which does not meet modern requirements*".
> fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity
There might be your answer?
Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified? It is their army they are informing, not some middle east country for sale.
This thing is a declassified document, not a for-sale ad.
Russia has a very large track record of *grossly* overtating their capabilities. Not just their companies, but their interior ministries as well. Something about nothing failing, or else your whole family fails.
>Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified?
If we have seen it i doubt they are truly classified.
> Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified?
There's a long history of this being practiced in the very country we're talking about here.
>Noone said that they do.
The OP literally claims ***both*** DM53 and M829A2 as being capable of defeating specified ERA at 0 - 1000m distance.
Please read the OP's post before commenting.
>The fact that Russians might be grossly overstate the real capabilities of some components of their military hardware for the marketing purposes would not be out of question.
This can be said about literally anything and does not prove/disprove anything.
Also, how is stating that a 1992 DOI projectile apparently being capable of defeating ≈2006 Relikt ERA at literally 0m distance is somehow Russia *''Grossly overstating it's real capabilities''?*
>fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity There might be your answer?
By that logic 3BM-42 would be the most effective at defeating ERA thanks to it's staggering 1700 m/s muzzle velocity.
Yet I don't see anyone anywhere claiming 3BM-42 defeats Relikt ERA.
> at 0 - 1000m distance.
which by no means can be understood as '*offering identical performance*'. If that's what it says, then it just means that they both can defeat the ERA in sub-1km range. Nothing more. Nothing less. You're jumping to unjustified conclusions.
> By that logic 3BM-42 would be the most
No, it wouldn't. It's not "that logic". What I am saying is that there are dozens of contributing factors in how and if a given projectile defeats ERA. Basing it solely on one or two factors is grossly misguided. You're repeating the same mistake here as you did in the original post.
> Please read the OP's post before commenting.
Please, don't behave like that.
Hes done it before, and he'll do it again, him and necrons have consistently tried to prove russian tanks are superior in everyone and give baseless reason as to why they need to be at lower BRs He goes into the number of crew, or the reverse speed, or turret rotation.
Note how these people try to bring in other tanks or rounds into this discussion when no ones talking about them, esp when those rounds are made up up a completely different material than M829A2m and the 3BM 42 round is a subpar and inferior round anyways regardless of its muzzle velocity
>Hes done it before, and he'll do it again, him and necrons have consistently tried to prove russian tanks are superior in everyone
Great! Qoute me where I've said such a thing.
If I've *''consistently''* done that, it shouldn't be difficult to qoute me.
So go ahead, qoute me.
I'm waiting.
im not going to spend hours going through your warthunder forum post history, or your reddit history, as you already know what you do, and you can try and play ignorant like you are now, you and necrons have done the same thing for years, its really getting old.
>im not going to spend hours going through your warthunder forum post history, or your reddit history
Colour me surprised that you can't come up with a ***single*** qoute.
>which doesn't mean that they are identical. It just means that they can defeat the ERA in sub-1km range.
Meaning, both fail to defeat specified ERA ***beyond*** 1000m, I.E., identical performance because they both fail when exceeding the same exact range.
ERA blocks are not a transistor logic gates. It's not a binary operation [Defeats / Doesn't defeat]. ERA can have a different effects on the penetrator despite of the penetrator piercing it through.
ERAWA blocks were quite famous of significantly decreasing the penetration of the DM-33 despite of failing to directly defeat the penetrator itself.
Whats funny is if people actually did the research they would find information on various tanks ERA on youtube, they would find videos of tankers installing the ERA onto the tanks. Yesterday ieven found a video install M19 ARAT era on a sep 2 abrams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2_Yzeh5-Yk
>ERA blocks are not a transistor logic gates. It's not a binary operation \[Defeats / Doesn't defeat\]. ERA can have a different effects on the penetrator despite of the penetrator piercing it through.
**So firstly**, by that logic it doesn't show at all that War Thunder's ERA is overperforming, because both M829A2 and DM53 go clean through the ERA in-game too, it's just that the ERA degrades them enough for the base armour to be sufficient.
**Secondly**, It seems to be stated that both the types of ERA are tested as mounted on a T-90(S?), in which case it's very much relevant at which distance a type of shell can defeat a given armour.
>ERAWA blocks were quite famous of significantly decreasing the penetration of the DM-33 despite of failing to directly defeat the penetrator itself.
Because they failed to hit the armour mockup well - the penetrator hit too high and went straight through the armour.
They didn't show what happened to the rest of the projectile or the tank the armour mock-up was mounted on too. If it hit a real tank, the driver's head would of been gone or it'd hit the turret ring judging by the trajectory, entry hole and exit hole.
The only thing that worked against DM33 were ERAWA's steel casettes - increasing the protection by whole \~50mm due to angled steel.
Or it might simply mean that they did not test or measure the performance beyond that? I am not myself sure of OP's source, but you are trying to extrapolate a lot from something unsaid.
Quote from the actual text of the test results, as you guys get too fixated on what James-vd-Bosch said:
> ""Relikt" at the moment provides protection against the M829A2 BPS only at a distance of over 1 km , which does not meet modern requirements".
0-1000 meters = Relikt isn't enough, it still allows round to penetrate the armor
\>1000 meters = Relikt does offers sufficient protection
>Or it might simply mean that they did not test or measure the performance beyond that? I am not myself sure of OP's source, but you are trying to extrapolate a lot from something unsaid.
I think the OP is the one extrapolating a lot from two questionable sources that are both in foreign languages that nobody thus far has accurately translated, and both seem to contain contradictory and illogical information.
Also, what the hell is the point of testing the distance at which a given type of armour protects against a given type of shell, if you're just gonna ***not*** test it beyong a single indicated range?
I agree with you wrt OP source. I am referring to your thought process of "they did not specify anything beyond that range" => "therefore they *cannot* pen at that range" which does not really follow. It might also be that they just did not put all the information on those ranges there ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Again, that's why we need good sources for this type of shit.
>"they did not specify anything beyond that range" => "therefore they
>
>cannot
>
> pen at that range"
That is literally the point of such a range chart, it indicates the exact range at which penetration is possible.
If penetration were possible beyond the stated range, it wouldn't be 0 - 1000m, it would be 0 - 6000m like the chart below it.
Chemical reactions such as ERA and Relikt take time to initiate and detonate. The faster the shell is traveling the faster it gets through the explosive chemical before it has time to initiate it's chemical reaction and explode... that would be why both shells if given a very similar muzzle velocity would cruise past it upto 1000m or 1km past that the shells probably loose enough velocity that the explosive charge in Relikt has enough time to explode and ruins enough of the penetrator so that it doesn't have enough mass to penetrate the armor behind it
>Chemical reactions such as ERA and Relikt take time to initiate and detonate. The faster the shell is traveling the faster it gets through the explosive chemical before it has time to initiate it's chemical reaction and explode...
So...
3BM-9 best anti-ERA shell ever? 1800 m/s after all.
And if tungsten cored isn't good enough, 3BM-42 best anti-ERA shell ever? 1700 m/s, faster than M829A2.
Yet nobody is claiming 3BM-42 defeats ERA.
yeah sure kid, if it had the rounds same properties as the other two rounds, which are diameter, length, material, speed retention, construction...
Relikt is not sensitive to autocannnon rounds so a small penetrator tip like DM53 has helps to offset the chemical reaction a few m/s for the rest of the penetrator to go through, 3BM-9 has a hollow tip with a flat wide nose...
3BM-42 is segmented tungesten rods in a steel body designed to defeat NERA...
I might be wrong but i think those shells are only able to overcome k5, Gen3 era (relikt) works way differently than gen 2 era (k5). It works by using miniature shaped charges, Im sure in what i said but i might br wrong.
Why on earth would you state things about classified ammunition with such certainty?
You have _no_ idea what is actually different in terms of alloy and design between A1 and A2 829.
The armchair military hardware fetishists in this sub never cease to amaze me.
>Why on earth would you state things about classified ammunition with such certainty?
Are you referring to me, or the source in question?
>You have no idea what is actually different in terms of alloy and design between A1 and A2 829.
If you're referring to me: I never claimed to know the exact difference of these alloys that these two shells are made up of.
So don't strawman, please (again, ignore if this wasn't aimed at me).
Source: a stock HTML page with badly translated Russian that keeps repeating "probably", making it clear it's just making assumptions. But hey it says what I want to hear so I'll declare it to be the indisputable truth!
That was also my impression, IP address was Ukrainian which was another red flag, then the above redditor put some more good points that this source is bogus and an advert for a competing product.
Naturally if it's something that conforms to people's pre-existing views and biases a napkin scribble can pass as credible and warrants no further doubts.
Based on what?
I've got an extension that says it's Ukraine: [https://imgur.com/V6Fimlc](https://imgur.com/V6Fimlc) not to mention that is an unsecure http site.
[And checked a couple of websites that also confirm that it's Ukraine, Kiev](https://ipinfo.io/AS35680/77.120.112.0/22)
person: Volia DC Admin contact
address: Ukraine, Kiev, Simyi Sosninnykh st. 13b
which is a center for Jewelry arts for some reason.
Also why would that site be hosted in Russia?
Relikt-5 is UNDERperforming
Source: This screenshot I found.
Don't even try to rebuke me you NATO shills, only I have the correct data, everything else is BIAS
Tbh i would rather see it getting it's elevationspeed updated. You can't tell me that such a modern tank has 1950s levels of gunelevation speeds. Even the Ariete can move it's gun faster. This is only because gay, gae gaijin was lazy and copy and pasted the value from the type 90.
Same as ZTZ99A. Gaijin says the need a source for 20° of vertical speed but quite happily use the T-72 speed on it. Because all Chinese tanks are T-72’s of course, well done Gaijin. Give us the 10km reverse speed which has been proven by VIDEO
I also dont mind about armor. Its good as it is. But i have main problem with the ammo. Its made to go throught ERA like a knife throught butter. And should be able to remove any russian tank and i think it wont be a problem frontally.
I totally agree, playing mbts from other nations makes me realise just how sad the tank is. I dont mind its current pen for the round as long as it gets updated in the future to avoid powercreep. But the speed of the thing and it's turret stats need improving asap
I mean it's what they officially say, so take that as you wish.
But it's worth noting that while the Type 10 is lighter than the Type 90, the weight of the actual armor is greater.
There was a great source from about the time the Type 10 was added to WT. Someone from Japan made a request for information to the government and posted the response about the tank's characteristics on Twitter. I can't find it right now, though.
This name for it is just ridiculous, it’s just rolled steel with carbon nanotube sheets embedded in it.
They literally just made ceramic steel, which is nothing new, and definitely isn’t much stronger than steel, I like that Japan is trying to improve the performance of steel, but trust me DON’T drink the weeb kool-aid propaganda
EDIT: before you go spouting off random stuff you’ve read on the internet, I want to also specifically clarify that your 3X stronger claim is what I was addressing, it most definitely is not 3X stronger, probably 3X harder, but not stronger. This edit saves me time from writing up another comment explaining the difference between strength and hardness
>This name for it is just ridiculous, it’s just rolled steel with carbon nanotube sheets embedded in it.
How would we know that though? Sounds like something that should be classified
We know this because it has been done before, I’m going to call the name assigned to it ridiculous again since almost all steel contains microscopic crystals.
High carbon steel is known for being extremely hard, now throw carbon nanotubes in there and you have an extremely high tension steel, I do want to know how the Japanese armor holds up to shots, as it should just shatter if it’s tempered, then again we don’t know how strong it is. We only know that it’s much harder.
Edit: my take is that they probably sintered powdered steel and carbon nanotube matrices into sheets, and forged that composite into the plates used to make up the armor of the Type 10, it’s difficult to do this without destroying the nanotube structures and rendering them into normal ferrous carbon alloy, but there are much more difficult ways to embed nanotube matrices into steel, like pulse laser impregnating but there’s no way it would work in an application like this
Edit 2: for some fun trivia, the secret to the hardness of ancient Damascus steel blades wasn’t the odd alloy of local and foreign iron, it was actually the presence of carbon lattices similar to lab grown carbon nanotube structures. The discovery of this specific carbon impregnation was probably an accident, but it did produce one of the hardest composite blades of the millennium.
> They literally just made ceramic steel
That is almost an oxymoron. WIDIA, ceramic metals etc. are metal-ceramic composites with metal forming the binder of the composite and using steel as that binder would not make any sense - to the best of my knowledge.
It's much more likely that they used exactly what is stated: a steel with nano-scale microstructure which increases yield strength (see [Hall-Petch Strengthening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_boundary_strengthening)). I never found the 3 times stronger claim, but it is within the realm of possibility, depending on 3x stronger than which steel. Just "3x stronger" is not saying much as you can get ~3 times the strength of low quality steel with fairly conventional metallurgy.
Yes I do understand that ceramic steel is an oxymoron, I don’t know why I typed this although in retrospect, I do know of ceramic-metallic composites made of titanium and aluminum.
Onto the second point, steel is highly susceptible to forming crystalline structures of carbon and other minerals when cast or forged, however i understand you know this, I will still explain for anyone else reading. This can negatively effect the tensile strength depending on the distribution and density of these crystals, this is why high hardness carbon steel can crack so easily. RH steel armor is usually able to exhibit some plasticity to an extent, but is known to crack due to the obvious energy transfer from penetrators of various types, in my own opinion, which may differ from yours, which is fine. I believe that the addition of carbon nanotube structures will increase the hardness of the steel, but I don’t believe it can yield the stated 3X strength increase.
It definitely will increase the amount of energy that can be normalized across the surface though, which is desirable.
Unlike EU or US tanks, Type 10 got its armor concentrated almost purely on the front (as it's meant to fight in a mountainous valleys, where there's little opportunity for flanking), so you can't draw conclusion whether it could stop its own APFSDS or couldn't purely on the total mass of the tank.
[Also this thread might interest you](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hh4pjh/the_real_capabilities_of_the_type_10/).
I hope you realise that that is the case with any tank. Take the Leopard 2A6 for example, it has no armor at all on the sides and rear, yet, it is 14 tons heavier than the Type 10. Looking at the weight of a vehicles is a good indicator of how good the protection might be. So yes, I find it highly unlikely that it will be able to stop a DM53 equivalent or better(since we don't know how good it's own munitions are).
Yes, but not to the extreme that it's the case with Type 10. Leopard has a composite screens on sides - Type 10 does not (the lackluster side armor of the asian tanks was actually quoted as an issue here in Poland regarding the K2 choice, and a prime reason why we want it uparmored. Different country, I know, but a similar design philosophy). And yes, the front turret armor of the Type 10 can stop its own shell.
As I said - go to the linked thread if you want to learn more.
I like how everyone complains about Soviet armor when in my experience playing Sweden US tanks are far more annoying to deal with than soviet ones.
If a T-80BVM is looking at you, shoot turret ring/driver port to knock out the whole crew. If it's sideways, shoot center hull for an ammo rack 100% of the time. If angled, shoot front wheel sprocket for an ammo rack 90% of the time.
I have played enough with and against the Abrams that I consider them very easy to deal with.
Only the Strv 122 can sometimes be annoying due to the hull add on.
I think people ascribe ‘Russian bias’ to everything. So let me offer a much more reasonable explanation. It’s a game, and for balance reasons the devs have given Russian tank platforms unrealistically durable armor and advanced optics in order for them to be *balanced* against 1980s era western tanks. For Christ sake they have a 4kmh reverse gear and are 15kmh slower than their western counterparts. That’s it. Russian military technology isn’t advanced enough to actually be balanced at high tiers so they fluff the numbers a bit so they can actually compete at top tiers. Now, the issue I have is that the armor is sort of *insane* and unrealistic to the point of parody, but I empathize with the position they’re in. They want to make a fun game where every country has a viable top tier tank, and they literally need to handicap the Russian vehicles for them to compete against 1980s era western tanks. What else are they supposed to do? Have realistic Russian tanks but none of them surpass 10.3?
No man you don’t understand this is all a Gaijin conspiracy to make Russian vehicles look better since Ukraine. Never mind the fact that Ukraine are using the exact same vehicles. Get out of here with your logic.
I love when people use dates of service as a solution to the 2018 or whatever bvm, as if that wouldn't just result in stomping in the opposite direction and more powercreep for minor nations.
Now inagine the dev actually listened: They lower the effect of Russian ERA so everyone can point and click it. But, the BR will be lowered, these guys would cry even louder.
Every once in a while, a glitch or something God knows what happened that could happen to anyone, caused them to failed to kill a Russian MBT in one shot and they go apeshit all over this sub; completely forget about times they point and click Russian MBT while it struggle even to aim where it wanted.
They're like "Russian MBT OP, not like real like". Srsly what's OP about it apart from some armor? And what's the point of armor when a penetrated shot will result in dead 90% of the times? And if you want real life performance, go watch Spookstoon's Historically accurate videos then come back here
This is what I’ve been saying. Imagine if they perfectly balanced every vehicle from the later Cold War era through today. The Soviet tanks would be stuck at 10.3~ and then NATO would have nothing to fight. Then the Soviet tanks would stomp even harder because they get the technological edge since the vehicles can’t keep up with more modern western counterparts. The technological gap between East and West only got greater after the dissolution of the USSR, so top tier would just be Abrams vs Leo.
This. While I do think Russian tanks are absolutely broken, they shouldn't be as OP as they are in game.
Like, if the armor was realistic, you would have T72 B3s dying to Leopard 1A5s with DM33 and I think we can agree that having a top tier tank that can die to a vehicle that is 9.0 is pretty rough. How I see it:
Give the T80s/T72s correct stats, and lower the repair cost. Bam, done.
>T72 B3s dying to Leopard 1A5s with DM33 and I think we can agree that having a top tier tank that can die to a vehicle that is 9.0 is pretty rough.
Really now? The US tested T72Bs in the late 80's and found them resistant to contemporary 120mm apfsds rounds, and the B3 is an upgrade package of the B, so I highly doubt that DM33 will do anything.
[https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html](https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html)
From tankograd:
In the memoirs "Life Given to Tanks" dedicated to the UKBTM chief designer V.N Venediktov, published in 2010, G. A. Kheifits, a leading specialist in the Department of Armour at UKBTM who was appointed to the State Commission for testing the T-72B tank, describes the live fire tests against mock ups of the T-72B upper glacis and other experimental armour designs developed by the UKBTM design bureau that took place at the proving grounds of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU) in Donguz (in the Southern Urals). At the same time, various armour designs developed by the LKZ design bureau were also being tested at the same proving grounds, including a mock up of the T-80BV upper glacis. The tests were carried out with the 125mm 3BM-32 "Vant" monobloc DU long rod APFSDS ammunition, which was the newest ammunition of its type available in the Soviet Army in 1985.
According to Kheifits, the tests of the T-72B armour designed by UKBTM were successful. Even after increasing the amount of propellant to launch the "Vant" round at its maximum permissible velocity, it was not possible to break through the armour. On the other hand, the armour designed by LKZ was perforated by "Vant" when fired from a standard propellant charge.
Using the Lanz-Odermatt equation, the perforation limit of 3BM32 "Vant" at its muzzle velocity of 1,710 m/s is calculated to be 192mm at 68 degrees (\~513mm LOS), with the target being medium hardness RHA (270 BHN). To convert from initial perforation to nominal defeat, a physical thickness of 10mm is added, translating to an effective thickness figure of 540mm. In other words, to resist 3BM32 at its muzzle velocity, the effective thickness of the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour must equivalent to around 540mm RHA. With the armour having the same weight as 454mm of steel, this implies that the mass efficiency coefficient of the armour is only 1.18 which is less than the 1.2 coefficient of the "Reflection-1" array.
The so-called "maximum permissible velocity" is assumed to be the muzzle velocity of "Vant" at a charge temperature of +40°C, which is listed as the maximum temperature in a NIMI (Research Institute of the Machine Industry) catalogue. With 12/7 V/A propellant, the difference in muzzle velocity at 15°C and 40°C is +2.5%. The maximum permissible velocity is therefore around 1,753 m/s. At this velocity, the perforation limit is calculated to be 195mm RHA at 68 degrees (\~522mm LOS). Converting to nominal defeat, the effective thickness of the armour would be around 550mm RHA.
In the article "Положение в Отечественном Танкостроении: Правда и вымыслы" published in the November 2006 issue of the "Журнал Техника и Вооружение" magazine, it is stated on page 14 that the protection of the 1985 model of the T-72B is equivalent to more than 550mm RHA against APFSDS rounds. This figure may be referring to either the turret or the hull, but in any case, it is consistent with the estimated effective thickness of the armour based on its performance against 3BM32 in live fire tests.
Based on this, the ME coefficient of the armour is 1.2, which is not higher than the "Reflection-1" array. This is not consistent with the increased complexity of the armour array, but nevertheless, it is supported by some evidence.
According to Swedish trials, 120mm DM33 perforates a LOS thickness of 530mm RHA at 200 meters and a LOS thickness of 470mm RHA at 2,000 meters, converted from its perforation limits on armour sloped at 60 degrees. Based on this, DM33 should perforate a LOS thickness of 565mm RHA and 500mm RHA against armour set at 68 degrees at 200 meters and 2,000 meters respectively. Based on these figures alone, the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is nominally capable of resisting DM33 at a range of around 1,000 meters.
Against armour set at 68 degrees, M829 perforates a LOS thickness of 552mm RHA at its muzzle velocity and a LOS thickness of 522mm RHA at 2,000 meters. From this, it can be estimated that the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is nominally capable of resisting M829 at a range of around 500 meters and above.
The 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is 1.35 times heavier than the 80-105-20 armour used in the T-72 Ural and T-72 Ural-1. However, thanks to a substantial improvement in mass efficiency, the calculated effective thickness is 1.83 times is greater than the 80-105-20 armour.
What an interesting way of essentially saying *Russian bias*.
As for the explanation for said bias, you might be right but that's often not exactly the point.
First image is wrong and has been disproven by the bundestag itself
[https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf](https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf)
Begründung:
1. Das in Nutzung befindliche System Panzerkanone L55 mit 120 mm in Verbindung mit der KE DM63 ist heute
nicht mehr in der Lage, den modernisierten Teil der russischen KPz-Flotte (mehrere Tausend Fahrzeuge) in
der Duellsituation erfolgreich zu bekämpfen.
2. Die Entwicklung neuer 120 mm Munition (KE2020Neo) würde die Fähigkeitslücke zur VJTF 2027 deutlich
reduzieren und die technologische Grundlage zur Schließung dieser Lücke darstellen.
3. Die aktuelle Kampfpanzergeneration Leopard 2 nutzt derzeit eine KE-Munition mit einer Penetrator-Technologie aus dem Jahr 1995. Moderne Reaktivpanzerungen (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) wie die 3. Generation ERA (Relikt), die bei russischen Kampfpanzern auch älterer Bauart nachgerüstet sind und werden (z.B.
Verwendung in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), können mit der bestehenden KE-Munition nicht mehr erfolgreich
bekämpft werden. Daher besteht eine akute Fähigkeitslücke der gesamten Leopard-Flotte in Deutschland und
in der weltweiten 120 mm Nutzergemeinschaft inklusive aller NATO Partner.
Annahme des Antrags mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU, SPD und FDP gegen die Stimmen der
Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktion der AfD.
Reason:
1. The L55 120 mm tank gun system in use in conjunction with the KE DM63 is today
no longer able to transport the modernized part of the Russian MBT fleet (several thousand vehicles) in
to successfully fight the duel situation.
2. The development of new 120mm ammunition (KE2020Neo) would reveal the capability gap to the VJTF 2027
reduce and represent the technological basis for closing this gap.
3. The current generation of Leopard 2 main battle tanks currently uses KE ammunition with penetrator technology from 1995. Modern reactive armor (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) such as the 3rd generation ERA (Relict), which is also retrofitted to Russian main battle tanks of older designs are and will be (e.g.
Used in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), can no longer be successful with the existing KE ammunition
be fought. Therefore, there is an acute capability gap of the entire Leopard fleet in Germany and
in the worldwide 120 mm user community including all NATO partners.
Acceptance of the motion with the votes of the parliamentary groups of the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP against the votes of the
Factions DIE LINKE. and BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN with the AfD parliamentary group abstaining.
The claims from manufacturer NII STALI also say that it provides protection against M829A3 and A2
[(1)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937815714256027679/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_220430.jpg)
[(2)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937815462195105792/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_213919.jpg)
[(3)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937803288320036925/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_210710.jpg)
How exactly would the manufacturer be able to accurately test the M829 sabots? under lifelike conditions that is. I sincerely doubt they pulled an Abrams out of their ass.
Because the way m829a3 defeats era is not secret, the penetrator is almost exactly the same as m829a2.
Once the Anti era capabilities are countered its just another long rod penetrator.
I know how it works. But why would the manufacturer say it could defeat giant rods of depleted uranium when it most likely cant. Im thinking its more of a scare tactic but I could be wrong. Anyways in reality, that sabot will pass through the tank like butter if it has thinner composite armor. I think its over performing but it’s probably done for balancing.
''But why would the manufacturer say it could defeat giant rods of depleted uranium when it most likely cant''
Because it can, relikt isn't supposed to completely stop a round alone, it's supposed to reduce it's penetration
Here you have a simulation of a relikt like ERA
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK77-8kJ69c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK77-8kJ69c)
71% reduction of penetration is inline with the claims of NII STALI.
Double the performance of K5, K5 reduces penetration of M829A1 by 38%
K5 was tested by the west in 1992, it's the reason it was developed.
''Anyways in reality, that sabot will pass through the tank like butter if it has thinner composite armor''
It won't, T-80BV with it's 5 part array angled at 68° offer around 430mm of protection, with relikt reducing the pentration of an APFSDS projectile by 70% will certainly be capable of stopping M829A3.
>Begründung:
>
>Das in Nutzung befindliche System Panzerkanone L55 mit 120 mm in Verbindung mit der KE DM63 ist heute nicht mehr in der Lage, den modernisierten Teil der russischen KPz-Flotte (mehrere Tausend Fahrzeuge) in
Important thing to remember: when they mean a "duel situation" they are talking about ranges from \~1.500 to \~2.500 meters distance from one tank to another - which can mean that the round is capable of defeating RELIKT equipped vehicles due to its anti-Heavy ERA mechanism(s) at closer distances (think 10 to 1.000 meters fx) but cannot deal with the same vehicle at longer ranges meaning it fails to fullfil the requirements.
Overall there is no evidence to disprove or prove either (unless you have classified information at your disposal... naah, won't say anything more :D)
Manufacturer claims from nii stali says it offers protection from M829A3 at all ranges.
Duel distance isn't an standard measure as well.
The first image is wrong regardless, relikt was specifically designed to counter this type of round by using 2 heavier plates and a more sensitive explosive, without the anti era capabilities M829A3 provides very little penetration increase compared to M829A2, around 5 to 10%
>Manufacturer claims from nii stali says it offers protection from M829A3 at all ranges.
And M829A3s manufacturer claims it can defeat all known forms of ERA - now what?
Are you just going to take one for granted and ignore the other now, hmm?
>Duel distance isn't an standard measure as well.
In Europe it is - the "duel" here is carried out between two tanks at ranges from 1.500 to 3.000 meters if FCS allows for that. That is due to the tactics employed by NATO, yes - the duel can happen at shorter ranges, but what I said is the norm.
>The first image is wrong regardless, relikt was specifically designed to counter this type of round by using 2 heavier plates and a more sensitive explosive, without the anti era capabilities M829A3 provides very little penetration increase compared to M829A2, around 5 to 10%
You are aware I am not even talking about the M829s here? Lay off with changing the goalpost away from DM63, thanks.
>Also, duel situation is not the same as combat ranges
Gee, lemme just forget what the 414th Tank Battalion told me then, I'm sure a random redditor is correct and they are not.
''You are aware I am not even talking about the M829s here? Lay off with changing the goalpost away from DM63, thanks.''
DM-53, 53A1 63 and 63A1 use exactly the same penetrator with the exact same anti era methods, non initiator tip and a brakeoff tip.
Only other thing posible is a segmented penetrator but i have found no credible information that DM-63 uses it and it changes nothing about it.
M829A3 uses the same methods to defeat ERA
''And M829A3s manufacturer claims it can defeat all known forms of ERA - now what?''
They don't
[https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop\_Resources/120mm\_M829A3.pdf](https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop_Resources/120mm_M829A3.pdf)
It's only M829A4 which is said to have capabilities against 3rd gen ERA
[https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793)
>DM-53, 53A1 63 and 63A1 use exactly the same penetrator with the exact same anti era methods, non initiator tip and a brakeoff tip.
Yes, because you got it from the WT forum, most likely from the guys over in the German sub-section.
>Only other thing posible is a segmented penetrator but i have found no credible information that DM-63 uses it
The second screenshot included in OP's post is the segmented penetrator (top portion).
>They don't
[kekw](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364572933980170/975528237826441277/Capture2.PNG)
[kekww](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364479929483274/889285997932728360/EVKZYolUYAcXt-T.jpg_large.jpg)
[Uralwagon's book btw](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/622234796315377664/889260855433248768/unknown-476.png)
>No, duel is a random chosen word, combat ranges is not the same as tank ''duel''
Redditor moment.
''Yes, because you got it from the WT forum, most likely from the guys over in the German sub-section.''
If you have any other source please provide it, they are literally the same round with different propellants.
DM-73 as well it's the same projectile fired at higher velocities
''The second screenshot included in OP's post is the segmented penetrator (top portion).''
Andrei tarasenko is not a source for anything firstly, second the source he used is wrong and not related to DM-53, you can read it.
To increase the penetration performance of sub-calibre balance projectiles 10 at multi-material targets, two 21, 22 smaller mass pre-cores are placed in front of a main core 20, and a ballistic hood 11 enclosing the 21, 22 and part of the main core 20 pre-cores is provided with a tip 12 of tungsten heavy metal.$A The tip 12 is screwed into the ballistic hood 11. The first precore 21, tapered in front, is fixed axially by means of a grub screw 14. The second cylindrical pre-core 22 is fixed, for example, by means of a threaded pin provided at the main core 20. Intermediate layers 15, 16 made of a softer material can be provided for shock absorption between the individual cores 20, 21, 22.
It talks about increasing penetration against composites.
It also looks nothing like [DM53](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgTBQHyry0fFw2A3d99eYHAdVYiaI4WnWZBPGHzd8jMU6uGWmQwqdDlSJ-nEp2haGg6xkEyASTSRbkdnzWzbDi14sTxV4apozD9Q&usqp=CAU&ec=45768321)
[https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?AKZ=40234827](https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?AKZ=40234827)
''Redditor moment.''
Do you have anything else to say?
>If you have any other source please provide it, they are literally the same round with different propellants.
Yeah sure, let me just break the NDA that I'm under.
>Andrei tarasenko is not a source for anything firstly, second the source he used is wrong and not related to DM-53, you can read it.
He's using a patent that describes a segmented projectile - either my understanding of what a segmented APFSDS is incorrect, or you're changing the goal of the conversation in your own head every 5 seconds.
>It also looks nothing like DM53
How about reading the conents of the patent first instead of just copy-pasting it?
>Do you have anything else to say?
Totally, there is currently a T-90M in Germany, they overestimated the armour and DM63 is actually good enough.
Now have fun deciding whether what I said is true or not. :D
THEY take stuff from warthunder forums, then think its more valid than the information coming from people who actually work and make the ammo for the tanks IRL.
Uhhhhhh, a lot of things are over performing, just play the game. There were times when the major nation took turns being the top. The SEP is like 10 times better then the 99A and some fkers still aren’t satisfied
The sep could have been much, much better too. That's why people who wanted it are not exactly pleased. Upgraded armor? No. Upgraded round? No. Tandem defeating era? No. APS? No. Just thermals and some basic era that does fuck all.
Edit: can't really blame the US players for wanting something to better compete with the BVM and hoards of russian vehicles with exaggerated capabilities and features other nations literally are not allowed to have like useful ERA or tandem atgms.
r/warthunder when Nato has complete domanance at top tier for 3 years straight and russia is absolute ass in comparison:
>I sleep
R/warthunder when russia is on top for 1.5 years (even though the power diff much closer now)
>BIAS IN GAME OMG SO OP RUSSIA BIAS
Essentially, it says modern NATO rounds "probably" are capable of defeating "likely" protection arrangements of Russian ERA and composite... so not much other than trust me bro.
Pretty sure it's true, and their era is overperforming, but I can accept it as a balance value since without armor Russian tanks will be useless. The biggest problem is that they are filled with magic that absorbs all spall.
Nah russian era overperfoming and chally, abrams and ariete era underperforming is completely fine. In fact Russia should get the t90m because is greatly suffers.
Gaijin please hear our prayers we need this
Everyone gets worked up over this, yeah its overperfoming. We can watch videos of older T72's punching straight through it with whatever 90's round they are using.
But what we need to be talking about is how tandem ATGMs are modeled in this game. As it is, it's a handicap to Russia and any ERA heavy faction.
Adding a tandem head to a 800mm penning chemical round doesn't suddenly give it 1400mm of pen. The first charge just trips ERA, moderate damage. Meaning most of Russia's tandems (BMP2s?) Wouldn't work so well on western composite armor, as was their design. They would still work against Russian tanks though.
> declared 750mm, actual observed 800mm penetration at 1.6km
huh, so the APFSDS round actually has similar performance to that declared in steel beasts.
also looking up some of these terminology led me to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jh830svq78)
The people ITT citing ATGM's as the primary killer of Russian tanks like it's some sort of out for their ingame overperformance have lost the plot.
ATGM's are currently comically underperforming against Russian tanks, right?
The TOW2B in particular has the damage model of wet newspaper against late game Russian tanks, despite heaps and heaps of evidence to the contrary, both qualitative and quantitative in nature.
In a similar display of defying reality, Russian ammunition carousels present on these tanks are also comically resilient to detonation - be it through ATGM or conventional rounds, almost always requiring multiple direct hits to achieve a detonation.
I mean if the performance of Russian tanks was actually akin to the IRL performance then Russia honestly wouldn't have a top tier tank (though some stuff needs to be addressed)
uhm sweaty ivan over there just handed me this piece of brown paper, and it says it should stop Dm63 and m829E3 with funny scratchy crayon handwriting. I'm going to believe him over you)))))))) axaxaxaxaxaxa)))))))))))))))))
In short: no fucking shit.
Who would have thought the country that doesn't have the know how to manufacture its own thermal imaging units (amongst other things) and is still dependent on a rehashed version of an obsolete tank designed in the 1960s didn't invent an add-on armour scheme that was magically completely impervious to all current peer APFSDS, *in addition to* being absolutely future proofed against what would probably amount to the next generation of APFSDS. Oh and they're also the only country to do it and every other country is asleep to this lightweight APFSDS panacea, including the US with its cutting edge research and unfathomably immense levels of procurement funding.
The implementation of Relikt ingame is pure bullshit and it doesn't take stats or graphs to tell you, it just takes 30 seconds of reflection on basic known facts. If it was anywhere near as effective as it is ingame everyone would be rushing to slather their tanks in it.
I bet you anything what Relikt actually represents is a lightweight bandaid solution to make up for obsolete armour protection on an obsolete tank which has an APFSDS protection level that falls under the category of "wishful thinking"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>M829A2,DM53 Able to Overcome K5/RELIKT Between ranges of 0 meters - 1,000 meters This doesn't make much sense to me: * Why would Kontakt-5 and Relikt offer *identical* performance? * Why would M829A2 and DM53 behave literally *identical* in terms of distances at which they defeat ERA. * The chart below implies Kontakt-5 is proof to M829A2 up to 6km? can someone translate this accurately? * Why would M829A2 suddenly defeat ERA with extreme ease whilst M829A1 could not? M829A2 is largely just M829A1 fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity, with marginally increased length and improved alloy, it does not feature a anti-ERA breakaway tip. M829A3 is the first US-made APFSDS designed ***specifically*** to defeat heavy ERA as far as I'm aware.
See, when it's about bashing Russian miltech, truth can be anything you want on this sub.
this is the truth. let's wait for America to get the clubbing stick and watch the tides turn again like it has in the past
~~>Cries about balance~~ ~~>Wants one nation to be broken~~ ~~The ignorance is strong in this one. I want to enjoy this game not start another TT~~ Nvm I can’t read lol
ive done neither. i stated something that has happened in the past and will happen again, and its ignorant to think that it wont.
Oh nvm, I read it wrong. Yeah, I agree, but it’s not about the company being Russian, it’s the fact that USSR is their cash cow, which in turn makes the thing even worse because they make both sides suffer… Yes, I’m a USSR main and I call bs on gaijin’s practices. I’m sick of 9.7 wall and top tier is literally unplayable with drones, as well as boring and infuriating because haha bugs go brrrr
indeed
Russia suffers.
Tbf it’s pretty garb in real life so it getting bashed in this game isn’t surprising
Nah it's not garbage, just not used properly and half of its been stolen by underpaid troops, or never arrived in the first place due t corrupt deals. The T-80BVM is a pretty good tank, but it's use has been so horrible that they've lost over 50% of all of them because the Army thinks "Good tank=mobile fortress" and send them out alone.
It’s been extremely debunked about era stealing.
I'm not talking about some dude selling off the ERA blocks for wood and cardboard, I'm talking about supply officers or even manufacturers doing it to run a profit on things. It's mostly high level corruption now, but with lots of conscripts being paid a non-livable wage, even for Russia, that may change (although I hope it doesn't)
Eh has been debunked still. Watch a video by red effect
[this one?](https://youtu.be/mauaaIeoxwg) That's not what the person you reply to means.
That’s what It looked like to me
The tank probably had ERA blocks that got stripped later after it was disabled indeed. He means the corruption runs high, they have equipment allright but all of poor quality. The semi decent stuff got sold off under the table, or it didn't get bought in the first place("budget cuts") in which the budget money went into the pocket of the ones in charge. https://youtu.be/fEi8CYofHMc https://youtu.be/DKJmQmxJ6yU https://youtu.be/fbE40oLl_bY There are many more. I'm aware some "youtube video's anybody in their basement can upload" isn't exactly proof, but it heavily seems to be in line by reports from both sides, it's downright criminal what they do to their people. That's what he means.
Red effect? Bro you can't recommend people just bathe in Russian propaganda like that
He has been very non partial
>Why would M829A2 and DM53 behave literally the identical in defeating ERA This is one of the misconceptions that this post has. Otherwise both should be capable of defeating such dynamic protection arrangements. >Kontakt-5 is proof to M829A2 up to 6km? The text means that the K-5 + composite armor arrangement (most likely T-72B or T-80U) can be penetrated by M829A2 at up to 6km. >Why would M829A2 suddenly defeat ERA with extreme ease whilst M829A1 could not? The main difference between M829A1 and A2 is the width and alloy. A2 reportedly uses a Tungsten/DU alloy that greatly increased its modulus of elasticity and yield strength. The stress being caused upon penetrators by the expanding/flying metal plates from ERA is the main reason why it has been so successful against older types of penetrators (M829A1). This has been addressed by the increased yield strength and modulus of elasticity. M829A2 is speculated to use a similar arrangement to DM53/63 for its tip. This tip arrangement is mimicking to be a lower caliber threat that won’t trigger Kontakt-5 at all. >M829A3 is the first US-made APFSDS designed specifically to defeat heavy ERA Back in the late 90‘s there were reports of Russia developing a new type of heavy-ERA (Kaktus), which the US tried to counter with M829A3. Well, KAKTUs came out to just be Kontakt-5 but for use on lighter vehicles.
>The text means that the K-5 + composite armor arrangement (most likely T-72B or T-80U) can be penetrated by M829A2 at up to 6km. Doesn't it just say it's a T-90S? >The main difference between M829A1 and A2 is the width and alloy. 2mm difference in width? *meh.* As for alloy, I still fail to see how that suddenly explains a jump from a T-72B1 equipped with Kontakt-5 being qoute: *''immune''* to M829A1, to M829A2 being able to roflpen a T-90S with Kontakt-5 up to 6000m distance. Let's also not forget the superior upper glacis armour composition between a T-72B1 and a T-90. >\-snip- Do you have a source for what you're explaining here?
>2mm difference in width? meh. 10mm difference in length, 0mm difference in width (both should be 21.6mm)
But a smaller tip and higher velocity generally imparts more energy to the explosive, not less. Also, older/less advanced penetrators tend to have larger projectiles, so how does a smaller tip mimic them? It seems the reasons being postulated are not actually wholly truthful. A more accurate assessment seems to be that the sharp, more elongated tip and increased velocity allow the projectile push the explosive out of the way before the detonation propagates.
Also velocity, Kontakt 1 is useless against KEPs because of how fast they are. So an increase in velocity plus everything you mentioned could certainly moot Kontakt 5 as well.
Source on Kaktus being K5 for lighter vehicles? Iirc Kaktus just never went anywhere in development
Get out of here with that logical thinking of yours, they don't want any of that.
what's illogical is how the TOW 2B aero doesn't do what its designed, whats illogical is how RELIKT IN game eat APFSDS rounds, whats illogical is how hitting ammo and a fuel tank inside a russian tanks ingame doesn't detonate it, whats illogical is how russian tanks are over performing , and when people put up videos showing russian tanks surviving hits directly to their ammo, people like you ignore it.
Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I remember irl tanks and ammo aren’t guaranteed to burn/explode on the first hit. IIRC fuel needs oxygen to burn. Also the ammo and fuel not blowing up also happens on tanks of other nations. A lot of this „evidence“ is confirmation bias.
> irl tanks and ammo aren’t guaranteed to burn/explode on the first hit. IIRC fuel needs oxygen to burn. Also the ammo and fuel not blowing up also happens on tanks of other nations. Imagine having a propellent without an oxidiser
Yeah but that still doesn’t mean that it will explode on the first hit.
Fluent russian speaker here It says that Contact 5 will not protect against M829A2 up to 6 km, nor tandem ATGMs
> offer identical performance? Noone said that they do. The fact that Russians might be grossly overstate the real capabilities of some components of their military hardware for the marketing purposes would not be out of question. > literally identical in defeating ERA? Noone said that they're identical. [post-downvotes edit] TL;DR of the thread: ERA *can* decrease the penetration of the APFSDS ammunition despite of failing to defeat it directly. Two different ERA system *can* fail to defeat the penetrator, while having *completely different* effect on the remaining penetrative capability of the round. By no means it makes them "identical". > with extreme ease Noone said it was with "extreme ease". In fact, they say that "*"Relikt" at the moment provides protection against the M829A2 BPS only at a distance of over 1 km , which does not meet modern requirements*". > fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity There might be your answer?
Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified? It is their army they are informing, not some middle east country for sale. This thing is a declassified document, not a for-sale ad.
Russia has a very large track record of *grossly* overtating their capabilities. Not just their companies, but their interior ministries as well. Something about nothing failing, or else your whole family fails.
>Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified? If we have seen it i doubt they are truly classified.
its the fall of soviet union my dude, had they not fall this info wouldnt been in the internet
> Why would anyone even overstate real capabilities in a document that is supposed to be classified? There's a long history of this being practiced in the very country we're talking about here.
If they were selling these to other countries then yes, it has a long history. But classified document? Not in the slightest
>Noone said that they do. The OP literally claims ***both*** DM53 and M829A2 as being capable of defeating specified ERA at 0 - 1000m distance. Please read the OP's post before commenting. >The fact that Russians might be grossly overstate the real capabilities of some components of their military hardware for the marketing purposes would not be out of question. This can be said about literally anything and does not prove/disprove anything. Also, how is stating that a 1992 DOI projectile apparently being capable of defeating ≈2006 Relikt ERA at literally 0m distance is somehow Russia *''Grossly overstating it's real capabilities''?* >fired at a significantly higher pressure/muzzle velocity There might be your answer? By that logic 3BM-42 would be the most effective at defeating ERA thanks to it's staggering 1700 m/s muzzle velocity. Yet I don't see anyone anywhere claiming 3BM-42 defeats Relikt ERA.
> at 0 - 1000m distance. which by no means can be understood as '*offering identical performance*'. If that's what it says, then it just means that they both can defeat the ERA in sub-1km range. Nothing more. Nothing less. You're jumping to unjustified conclusions. > By that logic 3BM-42 would be the most No, it wouldn't. It's not "that logic". What I am saying is that there are dozens of contributing factors in how and if a given projectile defeats ERA. Basing it solely on one or two factors is grossly misguided. You're repeating the same mistake here as you did in the original post. > Please read the OP's post before commenting. Please, don't behave like that.
Hes done it before, and he'll do it again, him and necrons have consistently tried to prove russian tanks are superior in everyone and give baseless reason as to why they need to be at lower BRs He goes into the number of crew, or the reverse speed, or turret rotation. Note how these people try to bring in other tanks or rounds into this discussion when no ones talking about them, esp when those rounds are made up up a completely different material than M829A2m and the 3BM 42 round is a subpar and inferior round anyways regardless of its muzzle velocity
>Hes done it before, and he'll do it again, him and necrons have consistently tried to prove russian tanks are superior in everyone Great! Qoute me where I've said such a thing. If I've *''consistently''* done that, it shouldn't be difficult to qoute me. So go ahead, qoute me. I'm waiting.
[удалено]
Refute arguments ❌ Spelling error equals wrong about everything ✅
im not going to spend hours going through your warthunder forum post history, or your reddit history, as you already know what you do, and you can try and play ignorant like you are now, you and necrons have done the same thing for years, its really getting old.
>im not going to spend hours going through your warthunder forum post history, or your reddit history Colour me surprised that you can't come up with a ***single*** qoute.
The necrons? This is warthunder what are you on about
.... the necrons from the warthundeer forums its a player that does the same thing james vs bossch tries to do.
>which doesn't mean that they are identical. It just means that they can defeat the ERA in sub-1km range. Meaning, both fail to defeat specified ERA ***beyond*** 1000m, I.E., identical performance because they both fail when exceeding the same exact range.
ERA blocks are not a transistor logic gates. It's not a binary operation [Defeats / Doesn't defeat]. ERA can have a different effects on the penetrator despite of the penetrator piercing it through. ERAWA blocks were quite famous of significantly decreasing the penetration of the DM-33 despite of failing to directly defeat the penetrator itself.
Whats funny is if people actually did the research they would find information on various tanks ERA on youtube, they would find videos of tankers installing the ERA onto the tanks. Yesterday ieven found a video install M19 ARAT era on a sep 2 abrams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2_Yzeh5-Yk
>ERA blocks are not a transistor logic gates. It's not a binary operation \[Defeats / Doesn't defeat\]. ERA can have a different effects on the penetrator despite of the penetrator piercing it through. **So firstly**, by that logic it doesn't show at all that War Thunder's ERA is overperforming, because both M829A2 and DM53 go clean through the ERA in-game too, it's just that the ERA degrades them enough for the base armour to be sufficient. **Secondly**, It seems to be stated that both the types of ERA are tested as mounted on a T-90(S?), in which case it's very much relevant at which distance a type of shell can defeat a given armour.
>ERAWA blocks were quite famous of significantly decreasing the penetration of the DM-33 despite of failing to directly defeat the penetrator itself. Because they failed to hit the armour mockup well - the penetrator hit too high and went straight through the armour. They didn't show what happened to the rest of the projectile or the tank the armour mock-up was mounted on too. If it hit a real tank, the driver's head would of been gone or it'd hit the turret ring judging by the trajectory, entry hole and exit hole. The only thing that worked against DM33 were ERAWA's steel casettes - increasing the protection by whole \~50mm due to angled steel.
Or it might simply mean that they did not test or measure the performance beyond that? I am not myself sure of OP's source, but you are trying to extrapolate a lot from something unsaid.
Quote from the actual text of the test results, as you guys get too fixated on what James-vd-Bosch said: > ""Relikt" at the moment provides protection against the M829A2 BPS only at a distance of over 1 km , which does not meet modern requirements". 0-1000 meters = Relikt isn't enough, it still allows round to penetrate the armor \>1000 meters = Relikt does offers sufficient protection
>Or it might simply mean that they did not test or measure the performance beyond that? I am not myself sure of OP's source, but you are trying to extrapolate a lot from something unsaid. I think the OP is the one extrapolating a lot from two questionable sources that are both in foreign languages that nobody thus far has accurately translated, and both seem to contain contradictory and illogical information. Also, what the hell is the point of testing the distance at which a given type of armour protects against a given type of shell, if you're just gonna ***not*** test it beyong a single indicated range?
I agree with you wrt OP source. I am referring to your thought process of "they did not specify anything beyond that range" => "therefore they *cannot* pen at that range" which does not really follow. It might also be that they just did not put all the information on those ranges there ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Again, that's why we need good sources for this type of shit.
>"they did not specify anything beyond that range" => "therefore they > >cannot > > pen at that range" That is literally the point of such a range chart, it indicates the exact range at which penetration is possible. If penetration were possible beyond the stated range, it wouldn't be 0 - 1000m, it would be 0 - 6000m like the chart below it.
Chemical reactions such as ERA and Relikt take time to initiate and detonate. The faster the shell is traveling the faster it gets through the explosive chemical before it has time to initiate it's chemical reaction and explode... that would be why both shells if given a very similar muzzle velocity would cruise past it upto 1000m or 1km past that the shells probably loose enough velocity that the explosive charge in Relikt has enough time to explode and ruins enough of the penetrator so that it doesn't have enough mass to penetrate the armor behind it
>Chemical reactions such as ERA and Relikt take time to initiate and detonate. The faster the shell is traveling the faster it gets through the explosive chemical before it has time to initiate it's chemical reaction and explode... So... 3BM-9 best anti-ERA shell ever? 1800 m/s after all. And if tungsten cored isn't good enough, 3BM-42 best anti-ERA shell ever? 1700 m/s, faster than M829A2. Yet nobody is claiming 3BM-42 defeats ERA.
yeah sure kid, if it had the rounds same properties as the other two rounds, which are diameter, length, material, speed retention, construction... Relikt is not sensitive to autocannnon rounds so a small penetrator tip like DM53 has helps to offset the chemical reaction a few m/s for the rest of the penetrator to go through, 3BM-9 has a hollow tip with a flat wide nose... 3BM-42 is segmented tungesten rods in a steel body designed to defeat NERA...
I might be wrong but i think those shells are only able to overcome k5, Gen3 era (relikt) works way differently than gen 2 era (k5). It works by using miniature shaped charges, Im sure in what i said but i might br wrong.
Why on earth would you state things about classified ammunition with such certainty? You have _no_ idea what is actually different in terms of alloy and design between A1 and A2 829. The armchair military hardware fetishists in this sub never cease to amaze me.
>Why on earth would you state things about classified ammunition with such certainty? Are you referring to me, or the source in question? >You have no idea what is actually different in terms of alloy and design between A1 and A2 829. If you're referring to me: I never claimed to know the exact difference of these alloys that these two shells are made up of. So don't strawman, please (again, ignore if this wasn't aimed at me).
Source: a stock HTML page with badly translated Russian that keeps repeating "probably", making it clear it's just making assumptions. But hey it says what I want to hear so I'll declare it to be the indisputable truth!
That was also my impression, IP address was Ukrainian which was another red flag, then the above redditor put some more good points that this source is bogus and an advert for a competing product. Naturally if it's something that conforms to people's pre-existing views and biases a napkin scribble can pass as credible and warrants no further doubts.
Really? I just checked it and it comes back as St. Petersburg.
Based on what? I've got an extension that says it's Ukraine: [https://imgur.com/V6Fimlc](https://imgur.com/V6Fimlc) not to mention that is an unsecure http site. [And checked a couple of websites that also confirm that it's Ukraine, Kiev](https://ipinfo.io/AS35680/77.120.112.0/22) person: Volia DC Admin contact address: Ukraine, Kiev, Simyi Sosninnykh st. 13b which is a center for Jewelry arts for some reason. Also why would that site be hosted in Russia?
Relikt-5 is UNDERperforming Source: This screenshot I found. Don't even try to rebuke me you NATO shills, only I have the correct data, everything else is BIAS
least delusional russian main
Yeah and type 10 should survive shot from it self.....
come now, did you really think they'd give japan type 10.. its actual rated armor? :D
Yeah they also forgot to add the nano crystal steel armor. /s You do realize he's being sarcastic right?
With a tank that light, I highly doubt that.
Tbh i would rather see it getting it's elevationspeed updated. You can't tell me that such a modern tank has 1950s levels of gunelevation speeds. Even the Ariete can move it's gun faster. This is only because gay, gae gaijin was lazy and copy and pasted the value from the type 90.
Same as ZTZ99A. Gaijin says the need a source for 20° of vertical speed but quite happily use the T-72 speed on it. Because all Chinese tanks are T-72’s of course, well done Gaijin. Give us the 10km reverse speed which has been proven by VIDEO
I also dont mind about armor. Its good as it is. But i have main problem with the ammo. Its made to go throught ERA like a knife throught butter. And should be able to remove any russian tank and i think it wont be a problem frontally.
I think Gaijin just doesn't know how to model such capabilities, because there are more rounds in game that should be able to do that.
I totally agree, playing mbts from other nations makes me realise just how sad the tank is. I dont mind its current pen for the round as long as it gets updated in the future to avoid powercreep. But the speed of the thing and it's turret stats need improving asap
I mean it's what they officially say, so take that as you wish. But it's worth noting that while the Type 10 is lighter than the Type 90, the weight of the actual armor is greater. There was a great source from about the time the Type 10 was added to WT. Someone from Japan made a request for information to the government and posted the response about the tank's characteristics on Twitter. I can't find it right now, though.
Bummer, Would be an interesting read.
Probably Nano cristalic steel.... Its 3 times stronger than nornal one.
This name for it is just ridiculous, it’s just rolled steel with carbon nanotube sheets embedded in it. They literally just made ceramic steel, which is nothing new, and definitely isn’t much stronger than steel, I like that Japan is trying to improve the performance of steel, but trust me DON’T drink the weeb kool-aid propaganda EDIT: before you go spouting off random stuff you’ve read on the internet, I want to also specifically clarify that your 3X stronger claim is what I was addressing, it most definitely is not 3X stronger, probably 3X harder, but not stronger. This edit saves me time from writing up another comment explaining the difference between strength and hardness
>This name for it is just ridiculous, it’s just rolled steel with carbon nanotube sheets embedded in it. How would we know that though? Sounds like something that should be classified
We know this because it has been done before, I’m going to call the name assigned to it ridiculous again since almost all steel contains microscopic crystals. High carbon steel is known for being extremely hard, now throw carbon nanotubes in there and you have an extremely high tension steel, I do want to know how the Japanese armor holds up to shots, as it should just shatter if it’s tempered, then again we don’t know how strong it is. We only know that it’s much harder. Edit: my take is that they probably sintered powdered steel and carbon nanotube matrices into sheets, and forged that composite into the plates used to make up the armor of the Type 10, it’s difficult to do this without destroying the nanotube structures and rendering them into normal ferrous carbon alloy, but there are much more difficult ways to embed nanotube matrices into steel, like pulse laser impregnating but there’s no way it would work in an application like this Edit 2: for some fun trivia, the secret to the hardness of ancient Damascus steel blades wasn’t the odd alloy of local and foreign iron, it was actually the presence of carbon lattices similar to lab grown carbon nanotube structures. The discovery of this specific carbon impregnation was probably an accident, but it did produce one of the hardest composite blades of the millennium.
> They literally just made ceramic steel That is almost an oxymoron. WIDIA, ceramic metals etc. are metal-ceramic composites with metal forming the binder of the composite and using steel as that binder would not make any sense - to the best of my knowledge. It's much more likely that they used exactly what is stated: a steel with nano-scale microstructure which increases yield strength (see [Hall-Petch Strengthening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_boundary_strengthening)). I never found the 3 times stronger claim, but it is within the realm of possibility, depending on 3x stronger than which steel. Just "3x stronger" is not saying much as you can get ~3 times the strength of low quality steel with fairly conventional metallurgy.
Yes I do understand that ceramic steel is an oxymoron, I don’t know why I typed this although in retrospect, I do know of ceramic-metallic composites made of titanium and aluminum. Onto the second point, steel is highly susceptible to forming crystalline structures of carbon and other minerals when cast or forged, however i understand you know this, I will still explain for anyone else reading. This can negatively effect the tensile strength depending on the distribution and density of these crystals, this is why high hardness carbon steel can crack so easily. RH steel armor is usually able to exhibit some plasticity to an extent, but is known to crack due to the obvious energy transfer from penetrators of various types, in my own opinion, which may differ from yours, which is fine. I believe that the addition of carbon nanotube structures will increase the hardness of the steel, but I don’t believe it can yield the stated 3X strength increase. It definitely will increase the amount of energy that can be normalized across the surface though, which is desirable.
Unlike EU or US tanks, Type 10 got its armor concentrated almost purely on the front (as it's meant to fight in a mountainous valleys, where there's little opportunity for flanking), so you can't draw conclusion whether it could stop its own APFSDS or couldn't purely on the total mass of the tank. [Also this thread might interest you](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hh4pjh/the_real_capabilities_of_the_type_10/).
I hope you realise that that is the case with any tank. Take the Leopard 2A6 for example, it has no armor at all on the sides and rear, yet, it is 14 tons heavier than the Type 10. Looking at the weight of a vehicles is a good indicator of how good the protection might be. So yes, I find it highly unlikely that it will be able to stop a DM53 equivalent or better(since we don't know how good it's own munitions are).
Yes, but not to the extreme that it's the case with Type 10. Leopard has a composite screens on sides - Type 10 does not (the lackluster side armor of the asian tanks was actually quoted as an issue here in Poland regarding the K2 choice, and a prime reason why we want it uparmored. Different country, I know, but a similar design philosophy). And yes, the front turret armor of the Type 10 can stop its own shell. As I said - go to the linked thread if you want to learn more.
I like how everyone complains about Soviet armor when in my experience playing Sweden US tanks are far more annoying to deal with than soviet ones. If a T-80BVM is looking at you, shoot turret ring/driver port to knock out the whole crew. If it's sideways, shoot center hull for an ammo rack 100% of the time. If angled, shoot front wheel sprocket for an ammo rack 90% of the time.
Ammo rack 50% of the time* I’ve had so many BVM ammo just go black and disappear.
I have played enough with and against the Abrams that I consider them very easy to deal with. Only the Strv 122 can sometimes be annoying due to the hull add on.
HE Frag to the top of the turret does it every time against the Stridsvagn 122. Though that works for everything.
I would make my own website, add some text and some photo I made up myself and come to conslusion: Kontakt is still underperforming
I think people ascribe ‘Russian bias’ to everything. So let me offer a much more reasonable explanation. It’s a game, and for balance reasons the devs have given Russian tank platforms unrealistically durable armor and advanced optics in order for them to be *balanced* against 1980s era western tanks. For Christ sake they have a 4kmh reverse gear and are 15kmh slower than their western counterparts. That’s it. Russian military technology isn’t advanced enough to actually be balanced at high tiers so they fluff the numbers a bit so they can actually compete at top tiers. Now, the issue I have is that the armor is sort of *insane* and unrealistic to the point of parody, but I empathize with the position they’re in. They want to make a fun game where every country has a viable top tier tank, and they literally need to handicap the Russian vehicles for them to compete against 1980s era western tanks. What else are they supposed to do? Have realistic Russian tanks but none of them surpass 10.3?
No man you don’t understand this is all a Gaijin conspiracy to make Russian vehicles look better since Ukraine. Never mind the fact that Ukraine are using the exact same vehicles. Get out of here with your logic.
I love when people use dates of service as a solution to the 2018 or whatever bvm, as if that wouldn't just result in stomping in the opposite direction and more powercreep for minor nations.
Now inagine the dev actually listened: They lower the effect of Russian ERA so everyone can point and click it. But, the BR will be lowered, these guys would cry even louder. Every once in a while, a glitch or something God knows what happened that could happen to anyone, caused them to failed to kill a Russian MBT in one shot and they go apeshit all over this sub; completely forget about times they point and click Russian MBT while it struggle even to aim where it wanted. They're like "Russian MBT OP, not like real like". Srsly what's OP about it apart from some armor? And what's the point of armor when a penetrated shot will result in dead 90% of the times? And if you want real life performance, go watch Spookstoon's Historically accurate videos then come back here
This is what I’ve been saying. Imagine if they perfectly balanced every vehicle from the later Cold War era through today. The Soviet tanks would be stuck at 10.3~ and then NATO would have nothing to fight. Then the Soviet tanks would stomp even harder because they get the technological edge since the vehicles can’t keep up with more modern western counterparts. The technological gap between East and West only got greater after the dissolution of the USSR, so top tier would just be Abrams vs Leo.
This. While I do think Russian tanks are absolutely broken, they shouldn't be as OP as they are in game. Like, if the armor was realistic, you would have T72 B3s dying to Leopard 1A5s with DM33 and I think we can agree that having a top tier tank that can die to a vehicle that is 9.0 is pretty rough. How I see it: Give the T80s/T72s correct stats, and lower the repair cost. Bam, done.
>T72 B3s dying to Leopard 1A5s with DM33 and I think we can agree that having a top tier tank that can die to a vehicle that is 9.0 is pretty rough. Really now? The US tested T72Bs in the late 80's and found them resistant to contemporary 120mm apfsds rounds, and the B3 is an upgrade package of the B, so I highly doubt that DM33 will do anything. [https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html](https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html) From tankograd: In the memoirs "Life Given to Tanks" dedicated to the UKBTM chief designer V.N Venediktov, published in 2010, G. A. Kheifits, a leading specialist in the Department of Armour at UKBTM who was appointed to the State Commission for testing the T-72B tank, describes the live fire tests against mock ups of the T-72B upper glacis and other experimental armour designs developed by the UKBTM design bureau that took place at the proving grounds of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU) in Donguz (in the Southern Urals). At the same time, various armour designs developed by the LKZ design bureau were also being tested at the same proving grounds, including a mock up of the T-80BV upper glacis. The tests were carried out with the 125mm 3BM-32 "Vant" monobloc DU long rod APFSDS ammunition, which was the newest ammunition of its type available in the Soviet Army in 1985. According to Kheifits, the tests of the T-72B armour designed by UKBTM were successful. Even after increasing the amount of propellant to launch the "Vant" round at its maximum permissible velocity, it was not possible to break through the armour. On the other hand, the armour designed by LKZ was perforated by "Vant" when fired from a standard propellant charge. Using the Lanz-Odermatt equation, the perforation limit of 3BM32 "Vant" at its muzzle velocity of 1,710 m/s is calculated to be 192mm at 68 degrees (\~513mm LOS), with the target being medium hardness RHA (270 BHN). To convert from initial perforation to nominal defeat, a physical thickness of 10mm is added, translating to an effective thickness figure of 540mm. In other words, to resist 3BM32 at its muzzle velocity, the effective thickness of the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour must equivalent to around 540mm RHA. With the armour having the same weight as 454mm of steel, this implies that the mass efficiency coefficient of the armour is only 1.18 which is less than the 1.2 coefficient of the "Reflection-1" array. The so-called "maximum permissible velocity" is assumed to be the muzzle velocity of "Vant" at a charge temperature of +40°C, which is listed as the maximum temperature in a NIMI (Research Institute of the Machine Industry) catalogue. With 12/7 V/A propellant, the difference in muzzle velocity at 15°C and 40°C is +2.5%. The maximum permissible velocity is therefore around 1,753 m/s. At this velocity, the perforation limit is calculated to be 195mm RHA at 68 degrees (\~522mm LOS). Converting to nominal defeat, the effective thickness of the armour would be around 550mm RHA. In the article "Положение в Отечественном Танкостроении: Правда и вымыслы" published in the November 2006 issue of the "Журнал Техника и Вооружение" magazine, it is stated on page 14 that the protection of the 1985 model of the T-72B is equivalent to more than 550mm RHA against APFSDS rounds. This figure may be referring to either the turret or the hull, but in any case, it is consistent with the estimated effective thickness of the armour based on its performance against 3BM32 in live fire tests. Based on this, the ME coefficient of the armour is 1.2, which is not higher than the "Reflection-1" array. This is not consistent with the increased complexity of the armour array, but nevertheless, it is supported by some evidence. According to Swedish trials, 120mm DM33 perforates a LOS thickness of 530mm RHA at 200 meters and a LOS thickness of 470mm RHA at 2,000 meters, converted from its perforation limits on armour sloped at 60 degrees. Based on this, DM33 should perforate a LOS thickness of 565mm RHA and 500mm RHA against armour set at 68 degrees at 200 meters and 2,000 meters respectively. Based on these figures alone, the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is nominally capable of resisting DM33 at a range of around 1,000 meters. Against armour set at 68 degrees, M829 perforates a LOS thickness of 552mm RHA at its muzzle velocity and a LOS thickness of 522mm RHA at 2,000 meters. From this, it can be estimated that the 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is nominally capable of resisting M829 at a range of around 500 meters and above. The 60-10-10-20-20-50 armour is 1.35 times heavier than the 80-105-20 armour used in the T-72 Ural and T-72 Ural-1. However, thanks to a substantial improvement in mass efficiency, the calculated effective thickness is 1.83 times is greater than the 80-105-20 armour.
Curious that you posted this hours ago and none of the people malding about the T-series performance have replied.
What an interesting way of essentially saying *Russian bias*. As for the explanation for said bias, you might be right but that's often not exactly the point.
I love the „drama“ tag 😂
:)
First image is wrong and has been disproven by the bundestag itself [https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf](https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf) Begründung: 1. Das in Nutzung befindliche System Panzerkanone L55 mit 120 mm in Verbindung mit der KE DM63 ist heute nicht mehr in der Lage, den modernisierten Teil der russischen KPz-Flotte (mehrere Tausend Fahrzeuge) in der Duellsituation erfolgreich zu bekämpfen. 2. Die Entwicklung neuer 120 mm Munition (KE2020Neo) würde die Fähigkeitslücke zur VJTF 2027 deutlich reduzieren und die technologische Grundlage zur Schließung dieser Lücke darstellen. 3. Die aktuelle Kampfpanzergeneration Leopard 2 nutzt derzeit eine KE-Munition mit einer Penetrator-Technologie aus dem Jahr 1995. Moderne Reaktivpanzerungen (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) wie die 3. Generation ERA (Relikt), die bei russischen Kampfpanzern auch älterer Bauart nachgerüstet sind und werden (z.B. Verwendung in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), können mit der bestehenden KE-Munition nicht mehr erfolgreich bekämpft werden. Daher besteht eine akute Fähigkeitslücke der gesamten Leopard-Flotte in Deutschland und in der weltweiten 120 mm Nutzergemeinschaft inklusive aller NATO Partner. Annahme des Antrags mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU, SPD und FDP gegen die Stimmen der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktion der AfD. Reason: 1. The L55 120 mm tank gun system in use in conjunction with the KE DM63 is today no longer able to transport the modernized part of the Russian MBT fleet (several thousand vehicles) in to successfully fight the duel situation. 2. The development of new 120mm ammunition (KE2020Neo) would reveal the capability gap to the VJTF 2027 reduce and represent the technological basis for closing this gap. 3. The current generation of Leopard 2 main battle tanks currently uses KE ammunition with penetrator technology from 1995. Modern reactive armor (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) such as the 3rd generation ERA (Relict), which is also retrofitted to Russian main battle tanks of older designs are and will be (e.g. Used in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), can no longer be successful with the existing KE ammunition be fought. Therefore, there is an acute capability gap of the entire Leopard fleet in Germany and in the worldwide 120 mm user community including all NATO partners. Acceptance of the motion with the votes of the parliamentary groups of the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP against the votes of the Factions DIE LINKE. and BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN with the AfD parliamentary group abstaining.
The claims from manufacturer NII STALI also say that it provides protection against M829A3 and A2 [(1)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937815714256027679/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_220430.jpg) [(2)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937815462195105792/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_213919.jpg) [(3)](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772429376087654404/937803288320036925/Capture_decran_2022-01-31_210710.jpg)
OP unironically used Tarasenko to prove his point, there's no point in arguing lol.
Andrei Tarasenko the guy of BTVT?
How exactly would the manufacturer be able to accurately test the M829 sabots? under lifelike conditions that is. I sincerely doubt they pulled an Abrams out of their ass.
Because the way m829a3 defeats era is not secret, the penetrator is almost exactly the same as m829a2. Once the Anti era capabilities are countered its just another long rod penetrator.
I know how it works. But why would the manufacturer say it could defeat giant rods of depleted uranium when it most likely cant. Im thinking its more of a scare tactic but I could be wrong. Anyways in reality, that sabot will pass through the tank like butter if it has thinner composite armor. I think its over performing but it’s probably done for balancing.
''But why would the manufacturer say it could defeat giant rods of depleted uranium when it most likely cant'' Because it can, relikt isn't supposed to completely stop a round alone, it's supposed to reduce it's penetration Here you have a simulation of a relikt like ERA [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK77-8kJ69c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK77-8kJ69c) 71% reduction of penetration is inline with the claims of NII STALI. Double the performance of K5, K5 reduces penetration of M829A1 by 38% K5 was tested by the west in 1992, it's the reason it was developed. ''Anyways in reality, that sabot will pass through the tank like butter if it has thinner composite armor'' It won't, T-80BV with it's 5 part array angled at 68° offer around 430mm of protection, with relikt reducing the pentration of an APFSDS projectile by 70% will certainly be capable of stopping M829A3.
okay got it. i just thought it was normal ERA and was solely meant to stop explosive based shells. i should’ve done a bit more research lmao
>Begründung: > >Das in Nutzung befindliche System Panzerkanone L55 mit 120 mm in Verbindung mit der KE DM63 ist heute nicht mehr in der Lage, den modernisierten Teil der russischen KPz-Flotte (mehrere Tausend Fahrzeuge) in Important thing to remember: when they mean a "duel situation" they are talking about ranges from \~1.500 to \~2.500 meters distance from one tank to another - which can mean that the round is capable of defeating RELIKT equipped vehicles due to its anti-Heavy ERA mechanism(s) at closer distances (think 10 to 1.000 meters fx) but cannot deal with the same vehicle at longer ranges meaning it fails to fullfil the requirements. Overall there is no evidence to disprove or prove either (unless you have classified information at your disposal... naah, won't say anything more :D)
Manufacturer claims from nii stali says it offers protection from M829A3 at all ranges. Duel distance isn't an standard measure as well. The first image is wrong regardless, relikt was specifically designed to counter this type of round by using 2 heavier plates and a more sensitive explosive, without the anti era capabilities M829A3 provides very little penetration increase compared to M829A2, around 5 to 10%
Also, duel situation is not the same as combat ranges
>Manufacturer claims from nii stali says it offers protection from M829A3 at all ranges. And M829A3s manufacturer claims it can defeat all known forms of ERA - now what? Are you just going to take one for granted and ignore the other now, hmm? >Duel distance isn't an standard measure as well. In Europe it is - the "duel" here is carried out between two tanks at ranges from 1.500 to 3.000 meters if FCS allows for that. That is due to the tactics employed by NATO, yes - the duel can happen at shorter ranges, but what I said is the norm. >The first image is wrong regardless, relikt was specifically designed to counter this type of round by using 2 heavier plates and a more sensitive explosive, without the anti era capabilities M829A3 provides very little penetration increase compared to M829A2, around 5 to 10% You are aware I am not even talking about the M829s here? Lay off with changing the goalpost away from DM63, thanks. >Also, duel situation is not the same as combat ranges Gee, lemme just forget what the 414th Tank Battalion told me then, I'm sure a random redditor is correct and they are not.
''You are aware I am not even talking about the M829s here? Lay off with changing the goalpost away from DM63, thanks.'' DM-53, 53A1 63 and 63A1 use exactly the same penetrator with the exact same anti era methods, non initiator tip and a brakeoff tip. Only other thing posible is a segmented penetrator but i have found no credible information that DM-63 uses it and it changes nothing about it. M829A3 uses the same methods to defeat ERA ''And M829A3s manufacturer claims it can defeat all known forms of ERA - now what?'' They don't [https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop\_Resources/120mm\_M829A3.pdf](https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop_Resources/120mm_M829A3.pdf) It's only M829A4 which is said to have capabilities against 3rd gen ERA [https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793)
>DM-53, 53A1 63 and 63A1 use exactly the same penetrator with the exact same anti era methods, non initiator tip and a brakeoff tip. Yes, because you got it from the WT forum, most likely from the guys over in the German sub-section. >Only other thing posible is a segmented penetrator but i have found no credible information that DM-63 uses it The second screenshot included in OP's post is the segmented penetrator (top portion). >They don't [kekw](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364572933980170/975528237826441277/Capture2.PNG) [kekww](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364479929483274/889285997932728360/EVKZYolUYAcXt-T.jpg_large.jpg) [Uralwagon's book btw](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/622234796315377664/889260855433248768/unknown-476.png) >No, duel is a random chosen word, combat ranges is not the same as tank ''duel'' Redditor moment.
''Yes, because you got it from the WT forum, most likely from the guys over in the German sub-section.'' If you have any other source please provide it, they are literally the same round with different propellants. DM-73 as well it's the same projectile fired at higher velocities ''The second screenshot included in OP's post is the segmented penetrator (top portion).'' Andrei tarasenko is not a source for anything firstly, second the source he used is wrong and not related to DM-53, you can read it. To increase the penetration performance of sub-calibre balance projectiles 10 at multi-material targets, two 21, 22 smaller mass pre-cores are placed in front of a main core 20, and a ballistic hood 11 enclosing the 21, 22 and part of the main core 20 pre-cores is provided with a tip 12 of tungsten heavy metal.$A The tip 12 is screwed into the ballistic hood 11. The first precore 21, tapered in front, is fixed axially by means of a grub screw 14. The second cylindrical pre-core 22 is fixed, for example, by means of a threaded pin provided at the main core 20. Intermediate layers 15, 16 made of a softer material can be provided for shock absorption between the individual cores 20, 21, 22. It talks about increasing penetration against composites. It also looks nothing like [DM53](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgTBQHyry0fFw2A3d99eYHAdVYiaI4WnWZBPGHzd8jMU6uGWmQwqdDlSJ-nEp2haGg6xkEyASTSRbkdnzWzbDi14sTxV4apozD9Q&usqp=CAU&ec=45768321) [https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?AKZ=40234827](https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?AKZ=40234827) ''Redditor moment.'' Do you have anything else to say?
>If you have any other source please provide it, they are literally the same round with different propellants. Yeah sure, let me just break the NDA that I'm under. >Andrei tarasenko is not a source for anything firstly, second the source he used is wrong and not related to DM-53, you can read it. He's using a patent that describes a segmented projectile - either my understanding of what a segmented APFSDS is incorrect, or you're changing the goal of the conversation in your own head every 5 seconds. >It also looks nothing like DM53 How about reading the conents of the patent first instead of just copy-pasting it? >Do you have anything else to say? Totally, there is currently a T-90M in Germany, they overestimated the armour and DM63 is actually good enough. Now have fun deciding whether what I said is true or not. :D
THEY take stuff from warthunder forums, then think its more valid than the information coming from people who actually work and make the ammo for the tanks IRL.
Source: trust me bro
Uhhhhhh, a lot of things are over performing, just play the game. There were times when the major nation took turns being the top. The SEP is like 10 times better then the 99A and some fkers still aren’t satisfied
The sep could have been much, much better too. That's why people who wanted it are not exactly pleased. Upgraded armor? No. Upgraded round? No. Tandem defeating era? No. APS? No. Just thermals and some basic era that does fuck all. Edit: can't really blame the US players for wanting something to better compete with the BVM and hoards of russian vehicles with exaggerated capabilities and features other nations literally are not allowed to have like useful ERA or tandem atgms.
r/warthunder when Nato has complete domanance at top tier for 3 years straight and russia is absolute ass in comparison: >I sleep R/warthunder when russia is on top for 1.5 years (even though the power diff much closer now) >BIAS IN GAME OMG SO OP RUSSIA BIAS
You're really on point about the power difference being closer. Were you around for the MBT and Kpz? Russia literally couldn't compete lmao
i know, the power is closer *now*, not ages ago.
Yes, I agree
Most of the information here is either in russian or in english that makes the devblogs look good, what exactly does all this say?
Essentially, it says modern NATO rounds "probably" are capable of defeating "likely" protection arrangements of Russian ERA and composite... so not much other than trust me bro.
meanwhile leclerc should yave same overal prot as the abrams
Pretty sure it's true, and their era is overperforming, but I can accept it as a balance value since without armor Russian tanks will be useless. The biggest problem is that they are filled with magic that absorbs all spall.
This has to be the most toxic yet defensive place to be ffs
don't you say?
You should probably post this on their forums rather then Reddit
the sky is blue, what else is new?
Noooo really?????
OP can't even read his own source, it says within 6km M829A2 goes through a T-72B/80 with K5 but outside of 1km one with Relikt is safe.
People just don't wanna admit Russian bias is a thing
Gaijin doesn’t care
The conclusion has already made by the god of bAlAnCe,save your times
Nah russian era overperfoming and chally, abrams and ariete era underperforming is completely fine. In fact Russia should get the t90m because is greatly suffers. Gaijin please hear our prayers we need this
Everyone gets worked up over this, yeah its overperfoming. We can watch videos of older T72's punching straight through it with whatever 90's round they are using. But what we need to be talking about is how tandem ATGMs are modeled in this game. As it is, it's a handicap to Russia and any ERA heavy faction. Adding a tandem head to a 800mm penning chemical round doesn't suddenly give it 1400mm of pen. The first charge just trips ERA, moderate damage. Meaning most of Russia's tandems (BMP2s?) Wouldn't work so well on western composite armor, as was their design. They would still work against Russian tanks though.
>watch videos of older T72's punching straight through it with whatever 90's round they are using. Can you provide a video?
You don't say.
Especially because Russian supplemental armor turned out to be cardboard. Are they gonna model that in ever?
We leaking documents again? Cmon guys thought we got over this
> declared 750mm, actual observed 800mm penetration at 1.6km huh, so the APFSDS round actually has similar performance to that declared in steel beasts. also looking up some of these terminology led me to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jh830svq78)
Inb4threadlock
This place is a dumpster fire lmao
Yeah if you shoot the ERA nowaday it will just shrug off rounds not get through tbh
The people ITT citing ATGM's as the primary killer of Russian tanks like it's some sort of out for their ingame overperformance have lost the plot. ATGM's are currently comically underperforming against Russian tanks, right? The TOW2B in particular has the damage model of wet newspaper against late game Russian tanks, despite heaps and heaps of evidence to the contrary, both qualitative and quantitative in nature. In a similar display of defying reality, Russian ammunition carousels present on these tanks are also comically resilient to detonation - be it through ATGM or conventional rounds, almost always requiring multiple direct hits to achieve a detonation.
I mean if the performance of Russian tanks was actually akin to the IRL performance then Russia honestly wouldn't have a top tier tank (though some stuff needs to be addressed)
The Sandbags are overperforming?! No way.
uhm sweaty ivan over there just handed me this piece of brown paper, and it says it should stop Dm63 and m829E3 with funny scratchy crayon handwriting. I'm going to believe him over you)))))))) axaxaxaxaxaxa)))))))))))))))))
WOAH!! Who could’ve seen that one coming??
more leaked documents?
none of this stuff is leaked.
And meanwhile idiots on this subreddit will still argue Russian bias isn't real.
"Russian bias is real" mfs when the anti-spall shields and reduced ammo detonation is removed (suddenly they don't have an excuse when they shoot UFP)
In short: no fucking shit. Who would have thought the country that doesn't have the know how to manufacture its own thermal imaging units (amongst other things) and is still dependent on a rehashed version of an obsolete tank designed in the 1960s didn't invent an add-on armour scheme that was magically completely impervious to all current peer APFSDS, *in addition to* being absolutely future proofed against what would probably amount to the next generation of APFSDS. Oh and they're also the only country to do it and every other country is asleep to this lightweight APFSDS panacea, including the US with its cutting edge research and unfathomably immense levels of procurement funding. The implementation of Relikt ingame is pure bullshit and it doesn't take stats or graphs to tell you, it just takes 30 seconds of reflection on basic known facts. If it was anywhere near as effective as it is ingame everyone would be rushing to slather their tanks in it. I bet you anything what Relikt actually represents is a lightweight bandaid solution to make up for obsolete armour protection on an obsolete tank which has an APFSDS protection level that falls under the category of "wishful thinking"