Kontakt-5: One plate, loss of segment and slight effect on main projectile
Relikt: First plate will take out initial segments, then back plate interacts with rest implying additional loss.
With 2 plates interaction time doubles. Just as first segments are taken out by first plate, next segments are taken out by second at same position. Residual segment is not relevant if there is as it will still affect the integrity.
Projectile would need to be relatively long, and after Relikt would suffer loss from 1/3 to half of it's lenght.
Rheinmetall wrote the following about the DM 53 on the old product page:
In response to the need to improve the combat effectiveness of the LEOPARD2 main battle tank in dealing with present and future threats,a new, performance-enhanced kinetic energy (KE) projectile was developped: the 120mm x 570 DM53 (LKE II),capable of defeating all state-of-the-art armoured targets. This projectile was designed and optimised especially for penetrating double-reactive armour.
It is contradiction as NERA on Leopard turret needs space to work and it's principle of destabilisation, essential component of protection, cannot be realised in armour cavity.
Also as compared with modern ERA, it is much more limited effect on projectile, especially modern one.
The armour inside still will have some effects against APFSDS, even the rather "primitive" armour of the T-72B performs better than it's weight in RHA against APFSDS.
The NERA layout of the Leopard 2A5/6 differs essentially from ERA. The Leopard 2 armour has far thicker layer (made of HHS) and more layers than modern ERA. It would be having a "much more limited effect on projectile", if it would follow the exactly same design priniciple as Kontakt-5/Relikt... but it doesn't do that. The relation from steel, space and energetic material are different, so are the hardness and the number of layer.
It still does not represent working method.
After explosive reaction frontal and back plates start moving at same time, but in opposite direction. Back plate bounces and turns to opposite direction replicating movement of first plate at a latter time. This interval to arrive at same position is enought for main warhead to detonate and cumulative jet to be disrupted by plate. APFSDS will deal with double interaction with both plates with longer duration.
Against segmented penetrator, first plate will cause strong destabilisation of atleast first 2 segments, especially first. Even if residual segment incides against second plate, it would still project against main projectile causing destabilisation, or affecting integrity of an additional segment if there is.
Here is shown destabilising effect against APFSDS
Segment after stronger destabilisation may not even inflict on second plate or it will be of reduced effect.
Sure, 3BM-22, which is not even a monobloc round, has a bad L-D-ratio and is not specifically designed to perform better against sloped or spaced armour. NATO started to incorporate specialized tip designs in the ammunition beginning in 1987. DM33/43/53, M829A1/2, CHARM-1/3 etc. will all perform far better against ERA and sloped armour.
Definetly M892 M829A1, M829A2 are monoblock, DM13-DM43 mnoblock too, in russia...vel it's funny becouse propaby only one monoblock penetrator is BM32, and BM42 have rod masy by two parts. What about newest russian rounds-no idea, but rumors says that Sniviets-1 have composite sabot and non-monoblock penetrator. IMHO newest germans penetrator are no monobock. How about M829A3 -no idea.
Try to calculate the mass of the projectiles depending on volume and density (e.g. via simulating them as cylinders). If I try to calculate DM53, then I get troubles with getting the reported mass into the dimensions (i.e. a new, denser alloy has to be used).
The Polish segmented penetrators weighed less than a "monobloc cylinder" of the same dimensions (i.e. the overall density of the segmented penetrators was less). So, if DM53 was a segemented design, then they would have to use different alloy types of WHA instead of connection muffs made of steel. I don't know wether this is possible.
Oh, thanks -I haven't that data, and they are preety interesting. So we can say smth.like that:
MJ sabot+projectile
DM53 L-44 11,5MJ muzzle - 1650m/s
DM53 L-55 13,5MJ muzzle -1700m/s
M829A3 12,1MJ muzzle - 1555m/s
MJ projectile only:
M829A3 - 7 kg for whole projectile at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 8.4 MJ (~8.1 MJ)
DM53 - L-55 ~5.8 kg for whole projectile at 1,750 m/s - 8.8 MJ
MJ penetrator only:
M829A3 - ~6 to 6.5 kg for penetrator at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 7.2 to 7.7 MJ (6.9 to 7.6 MJ)
DM53 - 4.9 kg for penetrator at 1,750 m/s - 7.5 MJ
?
It's looks that 15% shorter DM53 penetrator have the same MJ.
Yes, I think it is "roughly" the same muzzle energy. If it is exactly the same depends on how much of the projectile weight is inside the penetrator. According to the values from a German ex-soldier, the difference is 900 g on the DM53. If it is 900 g or more (because caps/tracer needs to be greater) on M829A3, then it will be slightly (just a little bit) worse than DM53.
12,1MJ for sabot+projectile is not possible on muzzle? Are You sure?
It is possible, but not the following part: "
For example DM53 can have only 9MJ during free flight when M829A3 due to using extremly expensive ultralight composit sabot can have for example 11,5MJ ".
