ERA stoping APFSDS rounds ?

[BloodBane611]

they are claiming the “Relikt” Could stop APFDS rounds, not Kontakt-5 which is plausible but likely to not 100%.

Ummm, NO, they're not. Read the fricking article. This isn't some jerkface posting up some BS info on tanks. This is one of the most respected military information sources on the planet, reporting that a large military alliance has found russian armor to be better than previously thought.

Originally Posted by Janes

When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own.

That's pretty self explanatory, read it again if you missed it the first time.

Originally Posted by M1126 Stryker

One thing the article got wrong is that the M829A1 was used in the testing.

Source?

[Ninja2dan]

I myself was a little confused with that article. It states they used the M829A2, as used during the Cold War. Yet that round wasn't in use until the mid-1990's. The M829A1 model was used during the Gulf War, and I would have assumed they used that round during testing to conform to the whole "munitions and armor of the era".

[M1126 Stryker]

BloodBane611 the M829A2 was designed quickly in order to defeat Kontakt-5 heavy ERA and was introduced in 1993. After the Cold War had ended.

I am not certain if the ERA panels on the hull could stop the M829A1 or just those on the turret but I can try to find out.

[WNxKenwayy]

My big problem is the complete lack of data/testing regimen. Gives no description of how the armor was tested. What, did they just take a block and shoot it head on? Did they shoot just one round per weapon system? Reactive armor only works if you hit it, and it only works once. It bothers me that this article made it seem like the Russian tanks would be 'invincible' against the m1a1's and our air to ground weapon systems which is just laughable.

[[R-DEV]Gaz]

Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy

My big problem is the complete lack of data/testing regimen. Gives no description of how the armor was tested. What, did they just take a block and shoot it head on? Did they shoot just one round per weapon system? Reactive armor only works if you hit it, and it only works once. It bothers me that this article made it seem like the Russian tanks would be 'invincible' against the m1a1's and our air to ground weapon systems which is just laughable.

Have to agree. As an Anti-Tank training NCO, anti-tank weapons have come a lot further along the devlopment trail in the past 20 years than actual tank armour has. There's quite a lot more to exhaustive penetration testing, including angle of strike, etc.

Do not forget that this investigation, although an interesting read, is 20 years too late

[deciuj]

Seems that article is a forgery.

History of Soviet tanks - Tanknet

But none the less the first 2 paragraphs are real.

[jerkzilla]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Gaz

Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy View Post
My big problem is the complete lack of data/testing regimen. Gives no description of how the armor was tested. What, did they just take a block and shoot it head on? Did they shoot just one round per weapon system? Reactive armor only works if you hit it, and it only works once. It bothers me that this article made it seem like the Russian tanks would be 'invincible' against the m1a1's and our air to ground weapon systems which is just laughable.
Have to agree. As an Anti-Tank training NCO, anti-tank weapons have come a lot further along the devlopment trail in the past 20 years than actual tank armour has. There's quite a lot more to exhaustive penetration testing, including angle of strike, etc.

Do not forget that this investigation, although an interesting read, is 20 years too late

Jane's doesn't make full articles public. You have to be a subscriber for those and usually what you find on their web site is less than half the full article. I'm sure the complete read has far more details.

Originally Posted by deciuj

Seems that article is a forgery.

History of Soviet tanks - Tanknet

But none the less the first 2 paragraphs are real.

Interesting...

[BloodBane611]

Why would you quote something not from its main source? But anyhow, had anyone checked, it would be apparent that this is not, in fact, from Jane's. Silly me, supposing that the OP was a direct quote.

Anyhow, apparently its BS.

[[R-CON]77SiCaRiO77]

i found it in a sinodefence thread , and people there seems to think that it was real, so i post it here to discust , aparently , it was a fake :/

[BloodBane611]

It's all good mate, we weren't the only fools to believe it was real.