Search results

The photos in question: Just after one HEAT round from rpg or missile.

Penetration against tank armour is more complex than comparison of steel values. 3BM42 round against armour structure: Penetration: 7-layer target under 30 degrees incidence (thickness, 630 mm), from 3300 m 7-layer target under 60 degrees incidence (thickness 620 mm), from 3800 m 3-layer...

Yes, it is stated, heavy armour variant with DU. He missunderstood or did not read the document "Based on the circumstances surrounding each of the two impact breakthroughs for which samples inside the vehicle were collected. (...) the round fired for the second event was a non-DU KE round...

The 3 mentioned went inside the crew compartment "Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when breakthrough into the crew compartment occurred" Only one is said to have ocurred after 2 previous impacts. The other impacted the armour for the first time. The...

The aim was to test the consequences of contamination, likely those which could happen in combat, one penetration unexpectedly destroyed the sensors as it went throught the armour into crew compartment. This was clearly not the case: Based on the circumstances surrounding each of the two...

Yes, seems T-80U with Kontakt-1

Khrizantema-SM Khrizantema-SM Note the target, T-80U or UD ------------ Interesting M1A1 heavy armour tank 1989 test results, frontal turret armour. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabl.htm (number 22) Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when...

Good news, powerfull machine. They seem to be in place on the finished one.

Basic Hellfire had a penetration of 900 mm, regardless of the rather good value it was a single warhead design which became innefective with appearance of ERA and did not employ powerfull precursor warhead to weaken composite armour, so it is not that impressive for newer armour of M1A1HA of...

I was talking after ERA.. -- There are several about modern Hellfire II (around 1000, 1100 mm), for basic Hellfire I have source, book ("Защита танков", authors from NII Stali, MGTU), more than 900 mm, and other american sources, FAS, also 900 mm, if they refer to the basic version...

You can read about results of tests of such weapons and about the description of the mechanism, the damage of main warhead of tandem ATGM before it's initiation in several articles, (and worse performance against ERA plates of greater surface) there were also such problems for example, during...

Yes, from document http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214851.pdf The problems were confirmed by US officials In our January 1991 report on the status of improvements to the Hellfire missile system, we concluded that the interim improved missile had performance shortfalls. Although Army tests have...

It's not like such hit is safe for crew, with disabled members, unfortunately hatch is vulnerable zone. Yes, but single shot of weak weapon by insurgent is not very serious compared with multiple hits which vehicles received in other experiences, and powerfull effect of more modern weapon can...

Yes, because it was just single hit and weak weapon, but what if engagement of greater intensity ? Of course it is important that crew survived, but it caused injury and disorientation, and crew will not be able to respond for a certain time, this can be caused even by abundant weak rpg, thus it...

About Hellfire 1982 production basic version, penetration of 900 mm RHA with 178 diameter, single warhead, insufficient for late of decade against composite armour and ERA 1990 interim version with small precursor to initiate ERA of first generation Kontakt against modernised T-64B, T-80B...

Maybe it was not posted here. It shows the importance of preventing penetration, even that of weak effect (residual penetration of ... 50 mm) the crew suffered injuries and disorientation, no argument for safety if being out of stream path.

Description of M1 Abrams penetrated by old RPG http://wlstorage.net/file/m1-penetration-iraq-2008.pdf

Those are yours, but in opposite way. Who has nothing to add is limited to such emotional nosense. Ask and may be explained.

It is a response to the claim "this protects against .., then it will protect against this". I only point at the flaw of such thinking. The point is that it does not has to share the same characteristics, so there is no assurance that it will be as effective against it. The same, it is not...

We are discussing the conclusions which can be made on the test of this configuration in particular.