Your information is rubbish and in accurate.

ten years ago on tank net we were speaking with a Cyprite tanker who had just recieved T-80U from the Russians. They were told explicitly by their russian technical advisors that while their K-5 armor covert tank was immuned to penetration from the M-829 it could NOT stop the M-829A1.

I spoke with a German ballistic scientist about those German tests and he confirmed that the 120mm DM 53 was able to defeat any K-5 covered russian tanks at any range they chose to engage.

I'll let you in on a secret. Spaced plate armors and flyer plate armors have been shown to be able to reduce penetration based on rod diameters. But the strength of the rod can counter act this and the sectioning of the warheads can truncate this effect. THe 120mm DM-53 has both technologies as does the M-829A3, while the M-829A2 employes n the strengthened DU rod material.

All tank designs are a comprimise and you can't design them to be immune to all threats from all angles, so all tanks can be defeated. You just have to know how and were. Back a few years they were testing a teflon shaped charge that didn't detonate ERA type armors instead cut a whole through them to allow the follow on main charge to cut through the main armor.

THe Nosh armor is intreging, but even that can be defeated.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by psteel]

Originally posted by psteel
Your information is rubbish and in accurate.

ten years ago on tank net we were speaking with a Cyprite tanker who had just recieved T-80U from the Russians. They were told explicitly by their russian technical advisors that while their K-5 armor covert tank was immuned to penetration from the M-829 it could NOT stop the M-829A1.

Yup and those T-80U's were introduced in 1986 and with integrated K-5 meaning it is problematic to adapt to newer American weapons. As it stands i think it's quite obvious that back in the 1980's the standard T-80 models of the time were well able to 'bounce' DU shots of then standard M1 105 calibre. One can even say that that the M256 was a obvious response to the K-5 which would have been very effective against the smaller calibre and the standard Abrams APFSDS round of the time. If your not following me this basically means that i believe the record indicates that the Russians were generally ahead in both firepower and armor till around the 90's when the newer Abrams M1A2 with newer APFSDS started catching up.

I spoke with a German ballistic scientist about those German tests and he confirmed that the 120mm DM 53 was able to defeat any K-5 covered russian tanks at any range they chose to engage.

Because i suspect it was also a response hence the test firing? Why are they trying to blow up K-5 in the 90's when by the 90's a very large majority of east bloc ( including reserve units) tanks had been fitted with such? What would have happened in a 1988 war? Right....

I'll let you in on a secret. Spaced plate armors and flyer plate armors have been shown to be able to reduce penetration based on rod diameters. But the strength of the rod can counter act this and the sectioning of the warheads can truncate this effect. THe 120mm DM-53 has both technologies as does the M-829A3, while the M-829A2 employes n the strengthened DU rod material.

Which are all relatively recent responses to the type of ERA that the Russians were slapping onto T-55's in 1985! It's not that i suspect K-5 dating from 1985 T-80U's are going to stop M829A3 but that it is in my opinion pretty silly to compare 1980's Russian reactive armor to US and German 90's perpetrators! It's like the Russians have been on vacation since 1985!

All tank designs are a comprimise and you can't design them to be immune to all threats from all angles, so all tanks can be defeated.

Sure and that's why the Russians have spent so much effort in taking their tank defenses to the active ARENA! Maybe they have decided that they have taken passive defenses just about as far as it will practically go at this point? Either way we are still comparing 60 ton tanks to 40 ton tanks so these direct comparisons are pretty unfair to either side given that the T-80 is in physical dimensions only about 3/4 as large as the Abrams...

You just have to know how and were. Back a few years they were testing a teflon shaped charge that didn't detonate ERA type armors instead cut a whole through them to allow the follow on main charge to cut through the main armor.

Sounds cool and as always i am most interested to hear your opinions and information on these issues; don't hold back!

THe Nosh armor is intreging, but even that can be defeated.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by psteel]

And in my opinion we are likely to see things being developed that defeats the previous things for all eternity.

Stellar

Your information is rubbish and in accurate.

I beg your pardon, do you care to elaborate or is it just plain old slander?

In any case, if you so strongly disagree, please feel free to contact Janes publication and Mr. Leland Ness, because it’s their information, not mine.

I spoke with a German ballistic scientist about those German tests and he confirmed that the 120mm DM 53 was able to defeat any K-5 covered russian tanks at any range they chose to engage.

This is very interesting, what is his name, when did you speak with him and what else did he say?

I’m very curios about this part: “was able to defeat any K-5 covered russian tanks at any range they chose to engage.”

What is “any range” exactly?

I'll let you in on a secret. Spaced plate armors and flyer plate armors have been shown to be able to reduce penetration based on rod diameters. But the strength of the rod can counter act this and the sectioning of the warheads can truncate this effect.

That’s a secret, to whom? And since when, WWII? That’s as much of a secret as the “magic” of the shaped charge warhead.

Back a few years they were testing a teflon shaped charge that didn't detonate ERA type armors instead cut a whole through them to allow the follow on main charge to cut through the main armor.

That must have been really “a few years” back, because I’m not sure exactly how teflon is supposed to cut through metal plates of K-5.

Originally posted by manson_322
seems you did not read my previous entire post

Late reply, came back from overseas and saw your post before but had no time replying

He left out that it wasn't chosen because Relikt was,

- Cheaper (close to 30%)
- It was designed for the T-72 unlike the Kaktus which had to be modified to be fitted on a T-72. In essence the technology was there but the design wasn't
- Relikt was also easy to remove. Both are modular designs but the Kaktus uses interwoven plates instead of blocks like the Relikt

And about the "advanced" anti-tandem properties he mentions, its a observation of niistali since NO data has been released for the Kaktus which is deemed as a working prototype. The T-72 modernisation program began in 2006 and was won by a company not individual parts. This meant that cost and other factors won it, not individual pieces of equipment

also you are stating the factors not the coefficients , 0.65 is cofficient , factor for relikt is is 1.5-1.6

So it is supposedly less or equal to the Kaktus

For anyone interested, here is the Relikt on the new modernized T-80

Hey can someone help me?, I can't find my/other's posts, what's going on, the "Post" link on people's "profiles have been disabled

I use the subscriptions in the Member center

lets hope the T95 will show up at the parade on the 9th....

The teflon shaped charges could cut through the scaled flyer plates so they would have little trouble with K-5 outer plates too. You should know that under the right ballistic conditions water can be turned into a jet to penetrate steel. Once the material being 'jetted' reaches a critical velocity [~2km IIRC] the material properties take second seat to the shockwave thats driving the material to 6-12km tip speeds.

The Teflon charges were previewed in a research paper from "International Journal of Impact Engineering."

The German ballistic scientist asked to remain annonmous and thus will remain so.

The German 120mm DM-33 and 105mm DM-63 both had truncated 'fingers' in there noses to defeat spaced and flyer plate armors from the early 1980s on [although the Germans didn't feel the need to purchase the 120 DM 33 until the 1990s]. Thats because the German tanks of that period [Leopard 1] were receieving spaced bulging plate armor with perforated plates. These would tend to cut the penetration of soviet APFSDS in 1/2 due to their construction [thick brittle sheathed penetrators].

The WW-II German "schutzen" armor was designed to defeat the Soviet ATR shots that were extremely hard brittle sharp penetrators. It was found that if such a penetrator passed through a spaced plate in anything other than a perfectly perpendicular impact [ or any impact on the mesh armor] would impart lateral stress on the penetrator that would shatter the penetrator. Since the bulk of the penetrators success relied on that sharp hard nose, defeating it cut the penetration in 1/2 or completely shattered it. Thus the base 30mm "face hardened" armor was more than able to defeat the remaining fragments.

Research into applicate armor show that using many small ERA type bricks to cover curved surface , offer poor coverage and can be quickly by passed. By the 3-5 hit, your guarranteed to hit exposed armor, even if the initial coverage was 100%. At best frontal ERA coverage on these soviet/russian tanks is 50-80%, so its likely exposed armor would be struck with the second or third hit.

The German approach on the Leopard 1 was to use large slabs of spaced standoff armor to cover 90% of the turret from all aspects. The tanks were expected to fight defensively in hull down positions. In addition to offering more initial coverage it also takes more hits to get around this type of armor.




[edit on 7-5-2008 by psteel]

What type of warhead does this M829A3 carry? I find this very interesting.