Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Damian · May 20, 2013

collegeboy16 said:
Question: If I were to store two-piece ammo(125mm ammo + propellant stub) vertically under the turret ring(about the diameter of a T-90's) of a tank with unmanned turret using carousel, how much would I be able to store? (each round canister is about a meter high)

Probably approx 28, just like in 6ETs autoloader series for T-64, T-80 and T-84 series of MBT's.

collegeboy16 · May 20, 2013

Damian said:
Probably approx 28, just like in 6ETs autoloader series for T-64, T-80 and T-84 series of MBT's.

Just as I thought. Are there other designs that maximize ammo load? I am particularly interested in the Abrams Block-3's solution since IMO ammo beneath turret ring is safer than in turret bustle.

Damian · May 20, 2013

collegeboy16 said:
Just as I thought. Are there other designs that maximize ammo load? I am particularly interested in the Abrams Block-3's solution since IMO ammo beneath turret ring is safer than in turret bustle.

There were 3 known types of autoloader, two for M1 Block II (this is M1A1 and M1A2) and one for M1 Block III.

The Block II autoloaders were Meggitt Compact Autoloader, it fit in to existing turret bustle and hold 34 rounds, second was FASTDRAW system, which also fit in to existing turret bustle and hold 36 rounds. However as far as I am aware, only Meggitt design is ready for installation if nececary.

3rd autoloader design was for TTB technology demonstrator of the Block III M1, it is placed under unmanned turret, isolated from crew and engine compartments, and hold 44 rounds.

Meggitt Defense Systems - Compact Autoloader
(Meggitt Compact Autoloader - there is also avaiable video in this link)

(FASTDRAW autoloader)

(TTB autoloader)

Of course there were more types of autoloaders in different development phases in USA, very interesting is autoloader for the M1128 MGS, however due to restricted size of vehicle interior, it can hold only 18 rounds. It might change tough, with ECP upgrades for the Stryker FoV, base hull can be enlarged slightly and more ammunition can be stored inside.

militarysta · May 20, 2013

Meggit in 2A5 turret bustle. One of the tested modernisation. Nobody decide to included autoloader in turret bustle (in leo-2) casue to "good enought" human loader and...cost of that solution.

hest · May 20, 2013

militarysta said:
It's mean that if SC jet penetrate turret or hull but doesn't hit in catrige/ammo then tank will not be destroyed or even disabled. And there was [d]dozen[/b] of sucht example:
a) Merkava Mk.IV and III in South Leanon in 2006
b) Abrams in Iraq
c) T-72B in Chechenia
In all cases even if HEAT (SC) jet penetrate the hull or turret but desen't direct hit into ammo or crew then nothing therrible was hapend.
Behind armour effect is to small in HEAT warhed cases to destroy tank or kill crew or ignit ammo if jet does not hit into vital part (crew/ammo).
And even in offcial descripsion Cowboy uniform for Russian crews there is mentioned that T-72B in Chechania was able to fight even after 3 and more perforaton.
So if SC jet does not hit in ammo/crew then there is not posisble to destroy tank. Here is no magic.

If you are claiming that there is no difference between 5 g stream remnant and powerfull ATGM penetrating Leopard 2 hull from 15 degrees front with dozens times greater effect, then you are alone with your error, the internal means of effect reduction (screens, material cover, personal protection, less sensitive propellant) are effective only to a certain point, certain overpressure and fragment energy, they will be of no help against serious perforation.

C is an example, tank could survive several perforations because of ERA protection and residual effect was weak, for tank without ERA it is disastrous consequence as was proven.

A and B is about the same, the predominant weapons in those conflicts were mostly outdated models, and tank was able to survive due to this reason (thought there are also bad examples, Merkava combat losess). Abrams in Iraq was perforated by hand held weapons in hull, turret side, but old model and low effect of them did not cause it's neutralsation, completely different situation against more powerfull weapons. One was perforated by rpg-29 which hit in turret side LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2 which resulted in 1 killed and 2 injured, there were also other cases with rpg-29, also resulting in killed or serious damage. The weapons he survived were mostly outdated rpg clones, no more threat than rpg effect after ERA against T-72B in Chechnia.

And agian - those article about monblock penetrator have not many common whit modern non monoblock penetrator developed to overpas ERA. DM53/63 M829A3, M338, and propably KEW-A3 will pass those ERA even with sucht small angle.

It is vague and weak "argument". Segment is old idea and it's behaviour is different depending on angle, for example past leading segment increased penetration against angles close to normal, this advantage was lost from 13 degrees, the same if it is intended to improve performance after ERA plate from 60 degrees, behaviour will be different for other situation. We are talking about angle of 80 degrees from normal, ERA screen will give lateral impulse to penetrator as much of it's axis is within plate effect zone under this angle, and by characteristics of these 120 mm rounds in comparison with 140 mm, they are not likely to avoid ricochet with less than 80 degrees (10).

And presenting obsolate Kontakt-1 on T-72BW is not a example.It can be useful against PG-7WR but not double modern warched (whit precursor).

Kontakt is still effective protection against most predominant threats, but agree that it is vulnerable against tandem charges. No currently deployed vehicle has anything better, except soon for Oplot.

Front hull sides have 130mm tick compoiste modules (so 260mm LOS for 30.) and 60mm hull sides (120mm RHA).
In any COIN Leo-2 modes we have protection mucht better then T-72/90 screens whit ERA:

It is joke of completely passive protection which is unable to disrupt powerfull HEAT or give lateral impulse to APFSDS, only solution against old rpg models.

And this is bullshit.
Leopard-2 hull rack have 1/4 volument as T-72/90 hull ammo have:
Leopard-2A4:
whole ammo in 2 places, what is impotant -only in ONE pace in hull:

T-71/PT-91/T-90 ammo in caroussel and in any possible space in hull:

Now You have "perspective"?

If perspective is requested, it means that you must show from angle which says something useful, I previously have shown http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6915/90ssa.jpg that autoloader is not exposed in combat due to it's low placement, only additional ammunition is, that is why it is removed or placed in isolated compartment (as T-90MS) to increase survivability. Additional ammunition howewer is no such issue in conventional warfare because it is protected by main armour. Leopard 2 hull rounds are much greater threat for crew being more exposed, and not being covered completely by strong armour (part is reached from weak lower glacis)

And it's takes circa 180s (3min) to reloade those turret rack, and how many times takes reload caroussele?
WHat is more important - caroussele mahanism can jam (faliture) when catrige is crossing arm -it's quite offten. Manual loading 2A46 takes circa 25s for one shoot.

First there are 22 main rounds in autoloader vs 15 main rounds in Leopard 2 (which are exposed in frontal arc, not like autoloader covered by terrain), so Leopard 2 will need to repelnish it before, second, manual loading in T-72, 80 does not require to disrupt engagement and rotate turret in combat, exposing weak zone, this is primitve

And it was used ONLY in COIN. In any rest possible cases - whole 42/44 pieces are put in any possible space in hull. What is mucht whose ten placed ammo in ONE place.

Two dozens of rounds stored without any isolation in Leopard 2 hull, accesible in part from lower glacis are not any safe for crew.

militarysta · May 21, 2013

Lidsky M.D said:
If you are claiming that there is no difference between 5 g stream remnant and powerfull ATGM penetrating Leopard 2 hull from 15 degrees front with dozens times greater effect, then you are alone with your error, the internal means of effect reduction (screens, material cover, personal protection, less sensitive propellant) are effective only to a certain point, certain overpressure and fragment energy, they will be of no help against serious perforation.

And again - form dozens pdfs about behind armour effect there is simple answer - tank will not be destroyed after ATGM hit if jet after armour does not his ammo or crew. And even if HEAt jet hit and kill someone from crews it's still does not mean "destroyed tank".
There was 100 SC 115mm diameter tests about behind armour effect. And result was more or less the same:

You are replicate old myths about behind armour effect of SC warhed (HEAT).
In reality proven by tests even strong SC haven't enoiught "behind armour effect" to ignit ammo or kill crews if on jet path will not be placed those ammo or crew members. It's simple, and I don't see any reson to replicated old myths about SC and "behind armour effect". Just read M.Held pdfs or diffren literature.

C is an example, tank could survive several perforations because of ERA protection and residual effect was weak, for tank without ERA it is disastrous consequence as was proven.

Greate but I was talking wbout T-72BW hit in turret rear or rear sides or between wheels in hull. And story was the same - SC warhed hit tank in place without ERA, penetrate it,and...doesn't hit into ammo or crew so tank wasn't destroyed. In T-72B it's very little space, and ussaly crews where injured after sucht perforation. But tank wasn;t destroyed, and if crew wasnt on jet path then nobody was killed. Suprise -even in T-72.
And ERA have nothing to do here.

A and B is about the same, the predominant weapons in those conflicts were mostly outdated models, and tank was able to survive due to this reason (thought there are also bad examples, Merkava combat losess). Abrams in Iraq was perforated by hand held weapons in hull, turret side, but old model and low effect of them did not cause it's neutralsation, completely different situation against more powerfull weapons.

Iranian clones of the PG-7WR and captured AT-4 wasn't "predominant" it's bullshit.
First one have SC warhed whit precursor and circa 600mm RHA the second one have circa 550mm RHA. And there where cases when PG-7WR go trought M1 hull sides and what? Again -nothing more then slighty injury one crew member. The same about story when captured AT-4 or again PG-7WR perforate turret side at 90.

One was perforated by rpg-29 which hit in turret side LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2 which resulted in 1 killed and 2 injured, there were also other cases with rpg-29, also resulting in killed or serious damage.

They are known two comfirmed situation like this. And no more.

The weapons he survived were mostly outdated rpg clones, no more threat than rpg effect after ERA against T-72B in Chechnia.

Rather you swapped examples -in Chechnia there wher outdated RPG-7 clones, in Lebanon and Irag there where licenced Iranian PG-7WR clones, Metis, Kornets, and Iranian clones of ITOW. More or less those whas more modern weapons then in Chechnia. Of course they are outaded SC too, but in many cases SC warthed where quite modern smugled from Iran. In Chechenia tehere was no modern anti-tak weapons.

It is vague and weak "argument". Segment is old idea and it's behaviour is different depending on angle, for example past leading segment increased penetration against angles close to normal, this advantage was lost from 13 degrees, the same if it is intended to improve performance after ERA plate from 60 degrees, behaviour will be different for other situation. We are talking about angle of 80 degrees from normal, ERA screen will give lateral impulse to penetrator as much of it's axis is within plate effect zone under this angle, and by characteristics of these 120 mm rounds in comparison with 140 mm, they are not likely to avoid ricochet with less than 80 degrees (10).

You are mixed apples and oranges. Test or rather one theoretical article about ERA and slopped targest is based about monoblock penetrator, I'm talking about modern non-monoblokc penetrators developed to overpas ERA. Those are two diffrent things.

Kontakt is still effective protection against most predominant threats,

Exept situation when SC warhed will hit Konkat-casette whit angle slose to 90. In that scenario Kontakt-1 efectivness is very very low.

but agree that it is vulnerable against tandem charges. No currently deployed vehicle has anything better, except soon for Oplot.

Of coure they are sevrals mucht better solutions then Konkat-1/5 screens:
1) ARAT-2
2) CR2 Street Fighter
3) IBD Revolution armour
4) IBD on Leo-2A4CAN
5) Duplet on Oplot-M
etc

It is joke of completely passive protection which is unable to disrupt powerfull HEAT or give lateral impulse to APFSDS, only solution against old rpg models.

Yes, yes, yes, solution is not from Russia or not based on ERA so is "unable" Sure.
a) from what you are know that is "completly passive "?
b) "pasive protection exapmle":

those israeli module on Rosomak is circa 80mm thick -whit such LOS it have circa 300mm LOS and it's stoped SC warhed whit circa 350-360mm RHA penetration. It light armour for APCs. It's thicknes effectivnes is circa 1,2 so rather low, but mass is really small.

Module on Leo-2A4+ CAN is 35cm thick (350mm LOS) at least. For 90. its 350mm LOS or 60. its 400mm LOS, for 30. degree it's give 700mm LOS and for 20. more then 1000mm LOS. Even is it have only 1.2 thickens efectivens (it can be better of course) -like for this israeli armour on Rosomak -APC then it shoud stopped:
90. 420mm + 60mm RHA hull side= 480mm RHA vs SC
60. 480mm + 70mm RHA hull side = 550mm RHA vs SC
30. 840mm + 120mm RHA hull side = 960mm RHA vs SC
20. 1200mm + 175mm RHA hull side = 1375mm vs SC
And this is for thickenss efectivens like for those Israeli module. And it can be better.

If perspective is requested, it means that you must show from angle which says something useful, I previously have shown that autoloader is not exposed in combat due to it's low placement, only additional ammunition is,

And in any case when additional ammo is neede -so in all (exept COIN) situation then those ammo is at least 4x bigger target then ammo rack in Leo-2. I give perspective draws:

whole T-72/90 hull is full of the ammo.

that is why it is removed or placed in isolated compartment (as T-90MS) to increase survivability.

Yes, whole rest ammo apart those 22 rounds must be removed from T-72/90 to give chanse to survive after hull hit.

Additional ammunition howewer is no such issue in conventional warfare because it is protected by main armour.

Indeed I posted this situation here:

Angles are few times bigger for T-90/72 then for ammo rack placed next to main armour, for Leo-2 it's only few degrees more from right ammo side.

Leopard 2 hull rounds are much greater threat for crew being more exposed, and not being covered completely by strong armour (part is reached from weak lower glacis)

Lower front hull in Leo-2A4 have bigger thickness then in T-72, it's first, second : during conventional warfare those hull rack is 4x smaller then whole ammo put in all possible space in T-72 hull. Third: during COIN operations they are left only11-16rounds in those ammo rack in hull - to achive protection by thicker upper hull sides (60mm) and..aditional armour modules (circa 350mm LOS).

It's mucht safer solution then 22 pieces ammo put in carouselle achive to hit from any angle, and not protected by side skirts.

hest · May 21, 2013

militarysta said:
And again - form dozens pdfs about behind armour effect there is simple answer - tank will not be destroyed after ATGM hit if jet after armour does not his ammo or crew. And even if HEAt jet hit and kill someone from crews it's still does not mean "destroyed tank".
There was 100 SC 115mm diameter tests about behind armour effect. And result was more or less the same:
URL]
You are replicate old myths about behind armour effect of SC warhed (HEAT).
In reality proven by tests even strong SC haven't enoiught "behind armour effect" to ignit ammo or kill crews if on jet path will not be placed those ammo or crew members. It's simple, and I don't see any reson to replicated old myths about SC and "behind armour effect". Just read M.Held pdfs or diffren literature.

You just talk and show pictures without knowledge. What do you know about after armour effect ? Fragments, overpressure of 100 atm and 200 dB noise are safe for crew ? (and this is for rather weak perforation) This is high mortal probability and even if not, crew will be effectively disabled as well as internal equipement, and this is loss in combat. Claiming that perforation will have no consequence is great bullshit.

Greate but I was talking wbout T-72BW hit in turret rear or rear sides or between wheels in hull. And story was the same - SC warhed hit tank in place without ERA, penetrate it,and...doesn't hit into ammo or crew so tank wasn't destroyed. In T-72B it's very little space, and ussaly crews where injured after sucht perforation. But tank wasn;t destroyed, and if crew wasnt on jet path then nobody was killed. Suprise -even in T-72.
And ERA have nothing to do here.

Click to expand...

What has to do is after armour effect, and warhead, weak residual perforation with screening will present less of a threat, serious one not.

Iranian clones of the PG-7WR and captured AT-4 wasn't "predominant" it's bullshit.

Not, majority of weapons in iraqui stocks were 70s models or clones (unless americans supplied them AT-4

), of low quality, and these were the survivable after hit.

First one have SC warhed whit precursor and circa 600mm RHA the second one have circa 550mm RHA. And there where cases when PG-7WR go trought M1 hull sides and what? Again -nothing more then slighty injury one crew member. The same about story when captured AT-4 or again PG-7WR perforate turret side at 90.

There are few recorded situations involving dangerous weapon (tandem, of course, because they were rare compared with predominant equipement). About losess:

- Hit in turret side, 1 killed and 2 wounded (video)
- Hit in rear, 3 wounded.
- RPG against commander's hatch, 1 killed and 3 wounded.

Of course there were more cases with perforation of hull or turret sides, but outdated and weak RPG could not bring serious consequences than temporal paralysis.

So it depends much on the weapon, weak RPG clone, withstandable, powerfull one is serious threat for crew as shown.

Rather you swapped examples -in Chechnia there wher outdated RPG-7 clones, in Lebanon and Irag there where licenced Iranian PG-7WR clones, Metis, Kornets, and Iranian clones of ITOW. More or less those whas more modern weapons then in Chechnia. Of course they are outaded SC too, but in many cases SC warthed where quite modern smugled from Iran. In Chechenia tehere was no modern anti-tak weapons.

In Chechnia there were more dangerous weapons (access to army stocks) than were in either Lebanon or Iraq (main equipement belongs to 60s or 70s era), and smuggled are only weak chinese or irani clones. In Lebanon they also had some acess to Syrian army stocks, howewer ATGM were limited to outdated TOW models (70% of what was smuggled), rest being also mostly other outdated models, and these are not hand held weapons.

You are mixed apples and oranges. Test or rather one theoretical article about ERA and slopped targest is based about monoblock penetrator, I'm talking about modern non-monoblokc penetrators developed to overpas ERA. Those are two diffrent things.

Problem is you do not understand "overpass ERA" and situation from very small angle, 9 degrees, monoblock or not monoblock it is given lateral impulse.

Exept situation when SC warhed will hit Konkat-casette whit angle slose to 90. In that scenario Kontakt-1 efectivness is very very low.

But better protection than most of rest of currently deployed vehicles.

Of coure they are sevrals mucht better solutions then Konkat-1/5 screens:
1) ARAT-2
2) CR2 Street Fighter
3) IBD Revolution armour
4) IBD on Leo-2A4CAN
5) Duplet on Oplot-M
etc

1 ARAT-2 is same as Kontakt, only appeared 2 decades later against same threat, but better from angles close to normal.
2 This is joke of passive protection increasing tank weight to more than 70 tons, and does not correspond to powerfull RPG from all angles.
3 "That's a proposal and has not been used on serial tanks yet"

and it does not solve the problem of protection under all angles.
4 Same innefective passive and heavy, and has nothing to do in conventional conflict (35 degrees engagement) because this is heavy add on armour, and cannot be present as Kontakt-5 screens.

Duplet is only one of those which can provide effective protection, by effective is meant against tandem RPG from all angles. Leopard 2 armour and ARAT-2 are also "effective" in the sense that they protect against the most widespread weapons of their zone (which are not the most powerfull : ) )

Yes, yes, yes, solution is not from Russia or not based on ERA so is "unable" Sure.
a) from what you are know that is "completly passive "?
b) "pasive protection exapmle":
those israeli module on Rosomak is circa 80mm thick -whit such LOS it have circa 300mm LOS and it's stoped SC warhed whit circa 350-360mm RHA penetration. It light armour for APCs. It's thicknes effectivnes is circa 1,2 so rather low, but mass is really small.

Module on Leo-2A4+ CAN is 35cm thick (350mm LOS) at least. For 90. its 350mm LOS or 60. its 400mm LOS, for 30. degree it's give 700mm LOS and for 20. more then 1000mm LOS. Even is it have only 1.2 thickens efectivens (it can be better of course) -like for this israeli armour on Rosomak -APC then it shoud stopped:
90. 420mm + 60mm RHA hull side= 480mm RHA vs SC
60. 480mm + 70mm RHA hull side = 550mm RHA vs SC
30. 840mm + 120mm RHA hull side = 960mm RHA vs SC
20. 1200mm + 175mm RHA hull side = 1375mm vs SC
And this is for thickenss efectivens like for those Israeli module. And it can be better.

a) Because there is no space for plate movement, and no energy for lateral impulse.

It is weak example against bad quality HEAT and stream element ricochet angle, so from all this only can be deduced can it is protection against outdated weapon under set up angle.

And in any case when additional ammo is neede -so in all (exept COIN) situation then those ammo is at least 4x bigger target then ammo rack in Leo-2. I give perspective draws:

whole T-72/90 hull is full of the ammo.

What is this childish game ? you are negating depth

So autoloader on low level is not exposed, only additional rounds are, well protected in conventional warfare, and retired in COIN.

Yes, whole rest ammo apart those 22 rounds must be removed from T-72/90 to give chanse to survive after hull hit.

While Leopard 2 has only 15 ready and safe rounds.

Indeed I posted this situation here:
Angles are few times bigger for T-90/72 then for ammo rack placed next to main armour, for Leo-2 it's only few degrees more from right ammo side.

It is absurd negating perspective, and totally wrong.

What is not exposed

Leopard 2 exposed ammunition

Lower front hull in Leo-2A4 have bigger thickness then in T-72, it's first, second : during conventional warfare those hull rack is 4x smaller then whole ammo put in all possible space in T-72 hull.

Hull of Leopard 2 is joke of protection compared with thicker and covered by ERA hull. Lower part has even reduced thickness, and ammunition can be reached.

Third: during COIN operations they are left only11-16rounds in those ammo rack in hull - to achive protection by thicker upper hull sides (60mm) and..aditional armour modules (circa 350mm LOS).

It is complete idiotic design of only 15 main rounds, and rest which cannot be easily loaded and require turret movement and disengagement of enemy, first. Second, it is criminal for crew, to operate with dozen of exposed rounds without isolation (this is why they are removed in T-72, howewer in Leopard 2 cannot be due to low capacity of 15 rounds). Third, that heavy additional protection is not present for conventional conflict, so no discussion, and it is not protection, because does not protect tank from anything more than weak RPG from 35 degrees.

It's mucht safer solution then 22 pieces ammo put in carouselle achive to hit from any angle, and not protected by side skirts.

Carouselle is safe design and not exposed as experience demonstrates, and it is also better protected. Additional Leopard 2 rounds are serious danger for crew and the "solution" is to reduce them to 15 (such a smart solution

)) ).

Damian · May 22, 2013

Meanwhile in Turkey.

militarysta · May 22, 2013

Lidsky M.D said:
What is this childish game ? you are negating depth

No, You are just unable to understand that for any posible angle T-72/90 ammo placment is dangerous. Tanks almoust never are on the same ground level - on will be higher second will be slighty low, APFSDS ammo have balistic path of fly. It's never direct line from gun to tank. In fact for most angle caroussel and aditional ammo is possible to hit. You just can't see perspective, what is funny becouse I had posted ammo placment on perspective draws.

So autoloader on low level is not exposed, only additional rounds are, well protected in conventional warfare, and retired in COIN.

They are not protected in both cases:

Leopard 2 exposed ammunition

And this draw is not accurate becouse it's only shown ammo hight, what more it's bad draws. In fact ammo rack have some angle and it's saller -and what is more important:
a) it's hide after thick hull front armour
b) it's "short"
c) it's rotate for about 20 degree from hull side to incarase protection from left side form typical angle :

So more or less it's mucht smaller target, and place whit some angle to achive better protection.

Hull of Leopard 2 is joke of protection compared with thicker and covered by ERA hull. Lower part has even reduced thickness, and ammunition can be reached.

Those "joke":
a) haven't bige gap for driver periscope on it's front.
b) lower front hull is two times thicker then T-72 lower front hull
c) hull sides are thinner (60mm vs 80mm) but whole ammo rack is placment whit some angle. In fact ist short target and well hidden after main armour.
And in T-72/90 we have ammo placed low but:
a) under turret and avaible to hit from any angle axept direct front
b) additional ammo placed in whole hull what is dedly danger. More or less T-72 is famous from it's "flying turet" abilities.
d) those 3 ERA panels are insignificant protection

While Leopard 2 has only 15 ready and safe rounds.
(...)
It is complete idiotic design of only 15 main rounds, and rest which cannot be easily loaded and require turret movement and disengagement of enemy, first. Second, it is criminal for crew, to operate with dozen of exposed rounds without isolation (this is why they are removed in T-72, howewer in Leopard 2 cannot be due to low capacity of 15 rounds).
(...)
Additional Leopard 2 rounds are serious danger for crew and the "solution" is to reduce them to 15 (such a smart solution

And this is again misunderstand and typical manipulation. Stricte anti-armour ammo is more in 15 ammo rack Leo-2 then in 22 carousell T-72/90 Why?
Typical ammo load on tank (first use ammo):
M1A1: 12x sabot, 5x HEAT
T-72M: 9x sabot, 2x HEAT, 11 HE-FRAG
Leopard-2: 10x sabot, 5x HEAT

AT ammo carried in T-72/90 is more or les 9x APFSDS + 2 HEAT (11 pieces) and 11 HE-FRAG, in Leo-2 there is 10 APFSDS, and 5 HEAT.
So more or less AT ammo number is the same for both tanks.
In newest leo-2 version (2A7, Revolution, etc) 2A5DK there is programed fuzed DM-11 what is mucht better solution then obsolate HE-FRAG.

More or less first use APFSDS ammo in T-72/90 is the same/less then in Leopard-2: 9 vs 10
And what after that? After that T-72/90 is defenceless becouse reload caroussel takes a lot of time to reload, as I remeber at leas 50s for single ammo complet so for 22 rounds it's takes at least 18minutes(!) to 20-25minutes (!!!)
russian training standards (2003) are:
-Manually load gun from conveyor(obj. 172, 172M, 184): 45sek(excellent); 50sek(good);1 min(satisfactory).
-Manually load gun from conveyor(obj. 219, 219R, 434, 447A, 478): 1min.10sek(excellent); 1min.15sek.(good); 1min.20sek(satisfactory)
-Manually load gun from non-mechanized racks(obj.172, 172M, 184, 219, 219R, 434, 447A, 478): 45sek(excellent); 50sek(good); 55sek(satisfactory)
So we have 22 ammo in carousell in T-72/90 (whit only 9-11 AT rounds) and after that...uuuu 18-25minutes to reload it. Single use tank on battelfield.
In Leo-2 time to reload whole turret bustle is under 3minutes(!) (15 rounds max 10s to reload one shell). It can be done on battelfield after any possible terrain cover needed to rotate hull.
Time to reload caroussel autoloader: >18min
Time to reload Leo-2 turret rack: <3min

You just talk and show pictures without knowledge. What do you know about after armour effect ? Fragments, overpressure of 100 atm and 200 dB noise are safe for crew ? (and this is for rather weak perforation) This is high mortal probability and even if not, crew will be effectively disabled as well as internal equipement, and this is loss in combat. Claiming that perforation will have no consequence is great bullshit.

First - it's You next manipulation. I didn't wrote about "no consequence" or "safe for". No it's not. Crerw can be wounded, can be shocked, but tank will not be destroyed if SC jet didnt hit in to ammo rack, or didn't hit crews members.
Second -Rather You are trying to wrote about smth. without any knolwedges. How many studies on this topic had you been read? Zero?
Just UTFG read and learn about this:

BEHIND ARMOR DEBRIS DISTRIBUTION AFTER KE ROD PERFORATION OF RHA PLATES FOR DISTINCT OVERMATCH CONDITIONS
Karl Weber

Behind-armour Debris Modelling for Highvelocity
Fragment Impact (Part 2)

Behind Armour Effects of Explosively Formed Projectiles

behind_armor_debris_investigation_part_2.arnold_rottenkolber.2003

SHAPED CHARGE ATTACK OF
SPACED AND COMPOSITE ARMOUR
I.Horsfall, E.Petrou, S.M.Champion

Behind Armour
Effects at Shaped
Charge Attacks
Prof. Dr. M. Held
Schrobenhausen, Germany

And more or lest they are hundrets tanks and IFV crews which survive SC penetration. In Russia (Chechnia), Poland (Afganistan), USA (Iraq, Afganistan), GB, Israel, etc.
You are writting bullshit about dedly SC penetration which kill crews or tank after any perforation. No, it does not work in sucht way.

What has to do is after armour effect, and warhead, weak residual perforation with screening will present less of a threat, serious one not.

I was talking about many exmaples when turret rear on Ob.184 or hull sides where perforated by RPG granades. There is inly 80mm RHA or 100mm cast. And there was no ERA and no "dedly behind armour effect". Mirracle? No, just normal.

ARAT-2 is same as Kontakt, only appeared 2 decades later against same threat, but better from angles close to normal

It's based propably on NII Stalii solutions (main casette) but it's prooven anti double warhed capabilities. ARAT -2 is good and it's exist.

This is joke of passive protection increasing tank weight to more than 70 tons, and does not correspond to powerfull RPG from all angles.

This "joke" exist and agian - as ARAT-2 is enought agianst smaller tandem warhed or against warhed whit precursor (RPG-29 etc)

Same innefective passive and heavy, and has nothing to do in conventional conflict (35 degrees engagement)

Yes sure, not from Russia and not based on ERA so "innefective ".
Those protection whit thickens efectivnes like for old polish CAWA-2 modules, or like lightweight Rosomak front armour (1,2) is enought to stopped most used RPG-7 granades. For 30 degree it's enought to stopped circa 960mm penetrationRHA SC, and for 60. degree circa 550mm RHA penetration SC.
But this estimatous it's based on 1,2 the effectiveness of the thickness (exist 1,5 decade eago on CAWA-2 and decade ago on lightweight Rosomak ad-on front hull armour) -in reality it can be highter ex: 1.5)[/g]

In fact hull armour on Leo-2A4+ CAN may protect agians most hand holded AT weapons from 60-90. and agiasn ATGM for 30-20 degree. All is based on effectiveness of the thickness.
I shown on simple example, exist now 1.2 effectiveness of the thickness (CAWA-2, Israeli armour on Rosomak) that evenwhit sucht low value (1.2) is possible to protect:
Module on Leo-2A4+ CAN is 35cm thick (350mm LOS) at least. For 90. its 350mm LOS or 60. its 400mm LOS, for 30. degree it's give 700mm LOS and for 20. more then 1000mm LOS. Even is it have only 1.2 thickens efectivens (it can be better of course) -like for this israeli armour on Rosomak -APC then it shoud stopped:
90. 420mm + 60mm RHA hull side= 480mm RHA vs SC
60. 480mm + 70mm RHA hull side = 550mm RHA vs SC
30. 840mm + 120mm RHA hull side = 960mm RHA vs SC
20. 1200mm + 175mm RHA hull side = 1375mm vs SC

In reality it can be 1.4 or more. And in that scenario it will be enought to protect tank sides.

hest · May 22, 2013

militarysta said:
No, You are just unable to understand that for any posible angle T-72/90 ammo placment is dangerous. You just can't see perspective, what is funny becouse I had posted ammo placment on perspective draws.

No, you just proved you are able to represent only in 2 dimensions, which does not correspond with reality. Hadn't I shown the scheme of T-90 you wouldn't have seen the difference in height with your pictures.

Tanks almoust never are on the same ground level - on will be higher second will be slighty low, APFSDS ammo have balistic path of fly. It's never direct line from gun to tank. In fact for most angle caroussel and aditional ammo is possible to hit.

Oh, really, you cannot say more than something absurdly obvious and vague. I invite you to talk about impact probability against lower hull. T-72 or T-80 are already low while also having less exposed lower hull, it is normally covered by terrain and significantly lower than line of fire of tank or ATGM in conventional combat (and we are realistic here, no tanks on hill or upwards down ) You may confuse situation with Leopard 2 or Merkava which lower hull part is on heigh of main armour of T-80. Talking about depression of trajectory for 1700 m/s projectile or of guided missile is vague and funny "argument".

In urban fight for example, RPG can have lower line of fire and could hit that part (still not the most likely case), but I guess you didn't know that contrary to your "solutions", this part is protected by ERA

They are not protected in both cases:

I don't know why you still manipulate by marking more than what is autoloader, this shows that autoloader is less exposed storage, additional ammunition is, but it is removed for such situation and this is by experience of conflict. By height this vulnerable additional storage is clearly covered by ERA and main frontal armour, not like Leopard 2, by lower hull.

And this draw is not accurate becouse it's only shown ammo hight, what more it's bad draws. In fact ammo rack have some angle and it's saller -and what is more important:
a) it's hide after thick hull front armour
b) it's "short"
c) it's rotate for about 20 degree from hull side to incarase protection from left side form typical angle :
So more or less it's mucht smaller target, and place whit some angle to achive better protection.

Incredible, rotating ammunition storage will sure solve the problem (poor tank crew). It is not serious, it will not reduce the great probability of hit.

a) No, in height part of it can be reached throught lower hull element, thinner than already reduced upper hull. So no talk about good armour coverage.

b) No it is not, two dozen of rounds are not any small target, it is only illusion, and what matters is height not so width, because as height reaches line of fire probability of hit rises exponentially. In equation of vulnerability, product of P of hit and P to penetrate

Autoloader low placement, much lower than line of fire and covered by terrain: P of hit of autoloader < P of hit of Leopard 2 hull storage (much greater in height and more exposed)

Autoloader covered by hull with ERA, P of penetration < P of penetration of Leopard 2 (weaker upper and lower hull).

I did not count Leopard 2 turret ammunition, also exposed but isolated, with it Leopard 2 has even more probability to suffer loss

- Blow out of turret ammunition, tank is disarmed
- Blow out of hull ammunition, catastrophic for crew

With autoloader it is much lower, and only one place.

For conventional conflict with line of fire and terrain (autoloader unlikely to be hit) it is the same, but T-72 additional ammunition is all covered in height by main armour, upper hull, Leopard 2 more vulnerable lower hull on part is on level of T-72 upper hull, not to mention that turret ammunition is exposed, turret having greater urge to rotate than hull.

Those "joke":
a) haven't bige gap for driver periscope on it's front.
b) lower front hull is two times thicker then T-72 lower front hull
c) hull sides are thinner (60mm vs 80mm) but whole ammo rack is placment whit some angle. In fact ist short target and well hidden after main armour.
And in T-72/90 we have ammo placed low but:
a) under turret and avaible to hit from any angle axept direct front
b) additional ammo placed in whole hull what is dedly danger. More or less T-72 is famous from it's "flying turet" abilities.
d) those 3 ERA panels are insignificant protection

a) Ammunition is covered by ERA and main armour, not like in Leopard 2, and vulnerable part of Leopard is more exposed due to height.
b) Lower front hull of Leopard 2 is higher and compares with T-72 upper hull, not with lower, and it is not protected by ERA.
c) The angle is funny argument. And no, it is not well hidden when it can be reached through lower hull part.

And good to know that before this discussion you had no idea of why there were only 3 ERA screens on hull side and their function.

And this is again misunderstand and typical manipulation. Stricte anti-armour ammo is more in 15 ammo rack Leo-2 then in 22 carousell T-72/90 Why?
Typical ammo load on tank (first use ammo):
M1A1: 12x sabot, 5x HEAT
T-72M: 9x sabot, 2x HEAT, 11 HE-FRAG
Leopard-2: 10x sabot, 5x HEAT

Is this stupid or what ? Complect is optimised depending on demand)) T-72 or T-90 can have the same amount of ready sabot than Leo-2, while using other 12 for different purpose (in Leo is 5) or can exploit it and increase number of anti-armour rounds or vice versa. 22 autoloader rounds is more than 40% greater capacity than of Leo-2. And do not tell me that they will use mostly sabots in urban conflict or to deal against infantry or fortifications

For this 15 rounds are clearly not enought.

In newest leo-2 version (2A7, Revolution, etc) 2A5DK there is programed fuzed DM-11 what is mucht better solution then obsolate HE-FRAG.

Programmable fuse is nothing new and not unique to them, and low amount of ammunity is a problem.

And what after that? After that T-72/90 is defenceless becouse reload caroussel takes a lot of time to reload, as I remeber at leas 50s for single ammo complet so for 22 rounds it's takes at least 18minutes(!) to 20-25minutes (!!!)
russian training standards (2003) are:
-Manually load gun from conveyor(obj. 172, 172M, 184): 45sek(excellent); 50sek(good);1 min(satisfactory).
-Manually load gun from conveyor(obj. 219, 219R, 434, 447A, 478): 1min.10sek(excellent); 1min.15sek.(good); 1min.20sek(satisfactory)
-Manually load gun from non-mechanized racks(obj.172, 172M, 184, 219, 219R, 434, 447A, 478): 45sek(excellent); 50sek(good); 55sek(satisfactory)
So we have 22 ammo in carousell in T-72/90 (whit only 9-11 AT rounds) and after that...uuuu 18-25minutes to reload it. Single use tank on battelfield.
In Leo-2 time to reload whole turret bustle is under 3minutes(!) (15 rounds max 10s to reload one shell). It can be done on battelfield after any possible terrain cover needed to rotate hull.
Time to reload caroussel autoloader: >18min
Time to reload Leo-2 turret rack: <3min

There are 40 % more rounds in autoloader than ready to use in turret, 22 vs 15, and former will need to reload before, important is continuity of combat, so Leo-2 losess ability to fight significantly earlier.

Leo-2 is primitve, it needs to rotate hull to reload, and it must to abandone combat zone (you think this is as simple ?) otherwise it will be blown up, it instantly looses combat value after depletion of 15 rounds, T-72 or T-80 have the option to reload manually and still give some response, howewer this will not be as necessary due to greater amount of ready to use ammunition. Rest of tanks, Abrams, Leclerc, etc do not have such problem.

First - it's You next manipulation. I didn't wrote about "no consequence" or "safe for". No it's not. Crerw can be wounded, can be shocked, but tank will not be destroyed if SC jet didnt hit in to ammo rack, or didn't hit crews members.
Second -Rather You are trying to wrote about smth. without any knolwedges. How many studies on this topic had you been read? Zero?
Just UTFG read and learn about this:

Ha ha, what is destroyed tank, disintegrated, ? Do not change the subject. Let's be realistic, if tank is neutralised in combat, it is lost, that is wheter crew is wounded, dies, or equipement is damaged. You just tried to escape to fact of great vulnerability of Leopard 2 by claiming that ATGM is no danger and will not make loss, only bullshit. By the tone I guess you neither understood the after armour effects well, you should know that danger are not only fragment but overpressure and blast, and you ignorantly only talked about the fragments.

Pressure blast is big danger for crew and it's true that main effects are local in proximity to the perforation, (that is why they were able to survive in cases with weak warheads) crew has big probability to die or be severly injured without direct stream impact.

NII Stali:

"With a speed of 9 ... 10 km / s and a mass of 5 ... 10 g, slipstream is able to break 50 ... 80 mm of steel armor (...)

The resulting fragmentation at a penetration flow, excess pressure inside the machine ... 100 150 atm. and the noise level of the order of 150 ... 200 dB can disable both the crew and internal equipment."

And there are more articles if you want about consequences, in english. Even more, you do know what is the way on which GCV designers will improve survivability after penetration ?

"The extra space also helps distribute pressure from the blast and thus lessens its impact"

It is clear that you had erroneous concept with "fragments only"

It's based propably on NII Stalii solutions (main casette) but it's prooven anti double warhed capabilities. ARAT -2 is good and it's exist.

Ha ha ha,

Where is it proven ? I want to hear more bullshit and your "understanding" of ERA working principle.

This element is only against plain RPG, which otherwise would penetrate and damage crew.

Kontakt also has proven double warhead capabilities

Yes, howewer NII Stali did show tests with RPG-29.

This "joke" exist and agian - as ARAT-2 is enought agianst smaller tandem warhed or against warhed whit precursor (RPG-29 etc)

Yes sure, not from Russia and not based on ERA so "innefective ".
Those protection whit thickens efectivnes like for old polish CAWA-2 modules, or like lightweight Rosomak front armour (1,2) is enought to stopped most used RPG-7 granades. For 30 degree it's enought to stopped circa 960mm penetrationRHA SC, and for 60. degree circa 550mm RHA penetration SC.
But this estimatous it's based on 1,2 the effectiveness of the thickness (exist 1,5 decade eago on CAWA-2 and decade ago on lightweight Rosomak ad-on front hull armour) -in reality it can be highter ex: 1.5)[/g]

You just have shown ricohet of cumulative stream elements of bad quality warhead under great angle (did you know ? ) Your conclusions have no value.

In fact hull armour on Leo-2A4+ CAN may protect agians most hand holded AT weapons from 60-90. and agiasn ATGM for 30-20 degree. All is based on effectiveness of the thickness.

Click to expand...

This most is for armament in Iraq or Afganistan, plain RPG and dubious for angles from normal to 60 degrees.

militarysta · May 23, 2013

Lidsky M.D said:
Ha ha ha, Where is it proven ? I want to hear more bullshit and your "understanding" of ERA working principle.
(...)
This element is only against plain RPG, which otherwise would penetrate and damage crew.

And yours next manipulation and childish behaviore

ARAT-1 internal layout is based on 4S24 whit some minor changes. Even Tarasenko (vel Andriej BT) wrote about this. But ARAT-1 have problem whit precursor or double SC. ARAT-2 is modernisated whit added external SLERA layer -to neutrlisated precursor.
On your manipulated post fragment you had shown only turret side part when is only "added" external SLERA pannel - nothing more is not needed couse there is 380mm LOS thick main armour behind those SLERA. So it's enought against most 105mm SC warhed.
Hull module ARAT-2 consist ARAT-1 casette + added SLERA.

So against SC + precursor we have SLERA external layer (to neutralise precursor) and typical ARAT-1 casette to neutralise/reduce to minimum main warhed.
The same scenario is about CR Street Fighter addons.

(..) about RPG-29)

Those RPG-29 is nothing super now. Only circa 600mm RHA from main warhed + precusrsor. It's low in compare whit any modern protection.

You just have shown ricohet of cumulative stream elements of bad quality warhead under great angle (did you know ? ) Your conclusions have no value.

You just unable to describe what you see on photos, or you are just blind idiot:
a) those modular pannel on Rosomak is passive only -no active layers. It's clearly visible on photos after RPG granade (two..) detonations. So there is no "ricohet of cumulative stream".
b) those "bad quality warhead" used on tests was produce in Poland in Bumar, and have circa 360-400mm RHA penetration.
c) I had included those "great angle" - LOS is circa 300mm for 80mm thick module.
So Your conclusions have no value about those passive module and polish production RPG-7 granade. Thickness effectivnes is circa 1.2 at least for sucht LOS.
In fact on Canadian leo-2A4+ CAN hull (and turret sides) modules shoud give protection at least as I describe: whit thickens efectivnes like for old polish CAWA-2 modules, or like lightweight Rosomak front armour (1,2) is enought to stopped most used RPG-7 granades. For 30 degree it's enought to stopped circa 960mm penetrationRHA SC, and for 60. degree circa 550mm RHA penetration SC.
But this estimatous it's based on 1,2 the effectiveness of the thickness (exist 1,5 decade eago on CAWA-2 and decade ago on lightweight Rosomak ad-on front hull armour) -in reality it can be highter ex: 1.5)

No, you just proved you are able to represent only in 2 dimensions, which does not correspond with reality(...)
I invite you to talk about impact probability against lower hull. T-72 or T-80 are already low while also having less exposed lower hull(...)
You may confuse situation with Leopard 2 or Merkava which lower hull part is on heigh of main armour of T-80.

Click to expand...

I rather show Yours next manipulation - you had to try shown whole propblem only as "how hight is ammo rack in tank". It's simple, and bullshit. You completly neglacting fact that ammo autoloader/ammo rack have 3 dimensions: hight, width, deept, and it's placed in some point of the tank. Volument of caroussel is bigger then ammo rack in Leo-2 it's first, second - additional ammo + caroussel have circa 3,5x bigger volument then hull rack in Leo-2. Those are facts unable to negate it. Next problem is that is not relevan how hight is tank becouse gunner always aim in center point of the tank (center point of the mass) - slighty under turret. So it's not relevan if Leo-2 is 50cm higher or not. In both cases gunner will be aim on central point of the mass. After that we have:
FCS error
stabilisation error
ammo depression
All of this give some elipse when projectile where hit the tank whit some possibility. Whit hand AT weapond (RPGs) it's simpler becouse on 100-200m shooter can aim in some point.
In fact ammo carousell on T-72 and T-90 is in COIN operation (ex: urban warfare) bigger target then "short" hull rack in Leo-2. Possibility to hit is bigger then in hull rack. Just find any 3D model and mark ammo there. And think for what angle possible is hit. Carousel is low target -indeed -but it's very long and very width. What makes problems in COIN opertions.

rest tommorow

hest · May 23, 2013

militarysta said:
And yours next manipulation and childish behaviore

ARAT-1 internal layout is based on 4S24 whit some minor changes.

Nothing to do with tandem.

But ARAT-1 have problem whit precursor or double SC. ARAT-2 is modernisated whit added external SLERA layer -to neutrlisated precursor.

This is only your ignorant assumption, nothing to do with tandem warhead and no evidence, only because you'd like it to. No more funny childish bullshit.

On your manipulated post fragment you had shown only turret side part when is only "added" external SLERA pannel - nothing more is not needed couse there is 380mm LOS thick main armour behind those SLERA. So it's enought against most 105mm SC warhed.
Hull module ARAT-2 consist ARAT-1 casette + added SLERA.

So against SC + precursor we have SLERA external layer (to neutralise precursor) and typical ARAT-1 casette to neutralise/reduce to minimum main warhed.

It is not manipulation, there is only single element on turret, your "theory" is bullshit, unsustained and your desire to make it as you like is funny. Two elements mean anti-tandem ? :lol:

and of course they did not bother to protect turret. It is not how it works. This element is totally useless to protect against tandem warhead RPG, and your "300 mm" :lol:

. You are talking only with silly emotions and no single "evidence".

You just unable to describe what you see on photos, or you are just blind idiot:
a) those modular pannel on Rosomak is passive only -no active layers. It's clearly visible on photos after RPG granade (two..) detonations. So there is no "ricohet of cumulative stream".
b) those "bad quality warhead" used on tests was produce in Poland in Bumar, and have circa 360-400mm RHA penetration.
c) I had included those "great angle" - LOS is circa 300mm for 80mm thick module.
So Your conclusions have no value about those passive module and polish production RPG-7 granade. Thickness effectivnes is circa 1.2 at least for sucht LOS.
In fact on Canadian leo-2A4+ CAN hull (and turret sides) modules shoud give protection at least as I describe: whit thickens efectivnes like for old polish CAWA-2 modules, or like lightweight Rosomak front armour (1,2) is enought to stopped most used RPG-7 granades. For 30 degree it's enought to stopped circa 960mm penetrationRHA SC, and for 60. degree circa 550mm RHA penetration SC.
But this estimatous it's based on 1,2 the effectiveness of the thickness (exist 1,5 decade eago on CAWA-2 and decade ago on lightweight Rosomak ad-on front hull armour) -in reality it can be highter ex: 1.5)

HEAT jet elements do ricochet, if not complete, with reduced effectiveness under great angle (but I guess you were not in course of this). And warhead construction does also matter (angle, etc). Further, you just expose self supporting assumptions made from specific case, or weak evidence.

I rather show Yours next manipulation - you had to try shown whole propblem only as "how hight is ammo rack in tank". It's simple, and bullshit. You completly neglacting fact that ammo autoloader/ammo rack have 3 dimensions: hight, width, deept, and it's placed in some point of the tank. Volument of caroussel is bigger then ammo rack in Leo-2 it's first, second - additional ammo + caroussel have circa 3,5x bigger volument then hull rack in Leo-2. Those are facts unable to negate it. Next problem is that is not relevan how hight is tank becouse gunner always aim in center point of the tank (center point of the mass) - slighty under turret. So it's not relevan if Leo-2 is 50cm higher or not. In both cases gunner will be aim on central point of the mass. After that we have:
FCS error
stabilisation error
ammo depression
All of this give some elipse when projectile where hit the tank whit some possibility. Whit hand AT weapond (RPGs) it's simpler becouse on 100-200m shooter can aim in some point.
In fact ammo carousell on T-72 and T-90 is in COIN operation (ex: urban warfare) bigger target then "short" hull rack in Leo-2. Possibility to hit is bigger then in hull rack. Just find any 3D model and mark ammo there. And think for what angle possible is hit. Carousel is low target -indeed -but it's very long and very width. What makes problems in COIN opertions.

Click to expand...

No, read designer's motives, publications about the subject, etc. Line of fire (if you are familiarised with this term) and terrain does matter for probability of hit, that is essentially exposure, and it is kept in mind, reflected in armour design. About tihs later..

Regular · May 23, 2013

militarysta said:
Rather you swapped examples -in Chechnia there wher outdated RPG-7 clones, in Lebanon and Irag there where licenced Iranian PG-7WR clones, Metis, Kornets, and Iranian clones of ITOW. More or less those whas more modern weapons then in Chechnia. Of course they are outaded SC too, but in many cases SC warthed where quite modern smugled from Iran. In Chechenia tehere was no modern anti-tak weapons.

Sorry, but how can You say that? I might not know more about tanks than You do, but what RPG-7 clones are You talking about? Who cloned them from what? In the first war Chechnya had Soviet legacy arms including RPGs, ATGM systems, tanks, artillery and even air force. Same weapon systems were present in second conflict up until later stages. I wouldn't call them modern systems, but they had almost same AT equipment as Russians at the time did

militarysta · May 23, 2013

Rest from yesterday.

Lidsky M.D said:
Is this stupid or what ? Complect is optimised depending on demand))

Rather you are stupid, and have no knowledges. In T-72/80 and others always HALF of autoloader rounds where HE-FRAG -it's notice in any instruction, becouse more then 60% tergets for tank guns are not armoured in attack.

In NATO doctrine tank have mostly anti-tank task so more or less whole ammo is AT (HEAT and APFSDS) while in Leo-2 turret busstle is 10-11 APFSDS and 4-5 HEAT (MZ munition, it's not really multifuncion, and against infanty HE-FRAg is mucht better)

22 autoloader rounds is more than 40% greater capacity than of Leo-2

22 -100%
15 - x
x = 15*100/22
x= 68%

22-100%
15- 68%

Diffrence is not 40% but 32%. Again - don't lie, it's really primitive and simple to notice.

And do not tell me that they will use mostly sabots in urban conflict or to deal against infantry or fortifications

Tank wasn't use in urban combat, and against infanty they are used whit Panzergrenadier + Artilery, not alone and never alone. Using alone tanks in urban is Soviet/Russina idea - and it's fails during I Chechenia conflict and in others (Budapest etc).
In NATO tanks are using against infanty always whit Mechanizated Infanty (Panzergranadiers) and whit artilery support. Using tanks alone in urban is forbiden in all instructions!
And in case of emergency there was 4-5 HEAT DM-12 (MZ munition) - it';s not as good as HE-FRAG but it';s give some capabilities. Now it';s repleced by full HE-FRAG (Poland-Denmark,) or by HE + AirBust munition like DM-11. What is mucht better then normal HE-FRAG.

Programmable fuse is nothing new and not unique to them, and low amount of ammunity is a problem.

This "nothing new" in unavaible yet in Russian tanks

And for your poor knowledges - one programable DM11 is equal (in effectivnes) as circa 2-3 normal HE-FRAG So even 4-5 DM-11 is equal to 8/10- 12/15 typical HE-FRAG used in other world. Thats the reson why in Denmark, Germnay, Israel is used now programable munition (DM-11 and Kalanit)

There are 40 % more rounds in autoloader than ready to use in turret,

lie

32% so rather closer to the 30% not 40%

22 vs 15, and former will need to reload before, important is continuity of combat, so Leo-2 losess ability to fight significantly earlier.

Definetly not, becouse in Leopard-2 10-11 rounds are APFSDS in T-72/90 it's circa 9 (or 11 whit HEAT). Accoding to all avaible for me instructions (PT-91, T-72M1, Ob.184, etc).
Number of rounds is the same. Or even bigger in Leo-2A4 becouse in fact whole ammo is AT:
10-11 APFSDS
4-5 HEAT
In T-72/90 we have 9 APFSDS and 2 HEAT.
Give me part of instruction whit diffrent numbers. Bigger known myself number in instruction is 12 APFSDS posted in PT-91 instruction.

In normal combat T-72/90 loose AT amunition the same fast as Leo-2.

Leo-2 is primitve, it needs to rotate hull to reload, and it must to abandone combat zone (you think this is as simple ?)

But in Leo-2 reload takes under 3minutes, and can be done anywhere whit hidden hull (hull down position) in Europe is really simple, it's not flat desert. Crews are trening this many times using AGDUS (MILES) - think again not used in /Soviets/Russia. Oh forgot - now Russia bouight AGDUS clone from Germany. :thumb:
Crew do this really fast. Under 3minutes. In fact in can be use in hull down position (easly to find in Europe) or in case of emergency whit use smoke granades (two slavo eacht whit 4 granades whit interval 2 minutes -again from instruction).

T-72 or T-80 have the option to reload manually and still give some response, howewer this will not be as necessary due to greater amount of ready to use ammunition.

T-72/90 are defenceless after used main caroussel ammo:
1) number HEAT/SABOT post in any avaible instruction is smaller then 15 rounds in Leo-2 bustle.
2) reload carouselle takes 18-20/25 minutes. During this time tank is defenceless couse problem whit find and cary out two pices ammo from any possible hull space.
3) maunal reload 2A46 takes circa 50s (avarage) in fact it's hopeless solution
T-72/90 is single use on battelfield whit sucht long reload caroussel time, what more - only circa HALF of the caroussel round are AT rounds (11) while all Leo-2 bustle are AT rounds (15)
What number is bigger 15 or 11? '
Instruction is instruction - give me part of them whit diffrent loade for caroussel.

Ha ha, what is destroyed tank, disintegrated, ? Do not change the subject. Let's be realistic, if tank is neutralised in combat, it is lost, that is wheter crew is wounded, dies, or equipement is damaged (...)

Known M1 pirced by tandem RPG-7 granade - crew was in fight,. and responde using MG
Known M1 whit turret side penetration - the same
Dozen examples from Chechenia (Komsomolskoje battle for example) -tanks pirced 2-4 times by RPG - agai crew responding by all possible way - 2A46, MG, etc
Merkava in Lebanon - the same
Ayou are posting bullshit based on false statment:
"penetrated by SC tank = unable to fight crew"
They are dozen examples when crew was able to fight, even when one crew mamber was wounded. This what you are postin is bullshit and fairy tails based probaly on obsolate books or soviet propaganda.

understood the after armour effects well, you should know that danger are not only fragment but overpressure and blast,(...)
Pressure blast is big danger for crew and it's true that main effects are local in proximity to the perforation, (that is why they were able to survive in cases with weak warheads) crew has big probability to die or be severly injured without direct stream impact.(...)

Bullshit after bulshit.
You started to be bullshitgenerator

"dedly pressure theory" where popular 3 decades ago. It was rejected after M. Held research.
I posted this here. Mortality for sevral used HEAT warhed was circa 10% in typical scenario.

hest · May 23, 2013

militarysta said:
Rest from yesterday.

Rather you are stupid, and have no knowledges. In T-72/80 and others always HALF of autoloader rounds where HE-FRAG -it's notice in any instruction, becouse more then 60% tergets for tank guns are not armoured in attack.

In NATO doctrine tank have mostly anti-tank task so more or less whole ammo is AT (HEAT and APFSDS) while in Leo-2 turret busstle is 10-11 APFSDS and 4-5 HEAT (MZ munition, it's not really multifuncion, and against infanty HE-FRAg is mucht better)

It is a joke, tell me how useful are this 10 sabots to deal against fortifications, give support, or in COIN, as in Chechnia (yeah, such anti-armour mission

)) )

22 -100%
15 - x
x = 15*100/22
x= 68%

22-100%
15- 68%

Diffrence is not 40% but 32%. Again - don't lie, it's really primitive and simple to notice.

Ha, You proved you fail even elementary calculation :lol:

22 is 1.46 times 15, you do not understand what is percentage.

Tank wasn't use in urban combat, and against infanty they are used whit Panzergrenadier + Artilery, not alone and never alone. Using alone tanks in urban is Soviet/Russina idea - and it's fails during I Chechenia conflict and in others (Budapest etc).
In NATO tanks are using against infanty always whit Mechanizated Infanty (Panzergranadiers) and whit artilery support. Using tanks alone in urban is forbiden in all instructions!
And in case of emergency there was 4-5 HEAT DM-12 (MZ munition) - it';s not as good as HE-FRAG but it';s give some capabilities. Now it';s repleced by full HE-FRAG (Poland-Denmark,) or by HE + AirBust munition like DM-11. What is mucht better then normal HE-FRAG.

You are able only to throw obvious words and say nothing of value. Soviet, russian doctrine emphasizes interaction with support forces, artillery, etc, a tank is not a tank destroyer, for breakthrought, it has to support forces and deal with enemy infantry, fortifications, the 4-5 HEAT of Leo-2 is a joke making tank useless as support and for irregular warfare, because of it's legacy of NATO stricly defensive operations.

This "nothing new" in unavaible yet in Russian tanks
And for your poor knowledges - one programable DM11 is equal (in effectivnes) as circa 2-3 normal HE-FRAG So even 4-5 DM-11 is equal to 8/10- 12/15 typical HE-FRAG used in other world. Thats the reson why in Denmark, Germnay, Israel is used now programable munition (DM-11 and Kalanit)

Programmable fuse is available for long, only novelty for you. HE-frag apperared in Germany only last year ? :clap:

lie 32% so rather closer to the 30% not 40%

Definetly not, becouse in Leopard-2 10-11 rounds are APFSDS in T-72/90 it's circa 9 (or 11 whit HEAT). Accoding to all avaible for me instructions (PT-91, T-72M1, Ob.184, etc).
Number of rounds is the same. Or even bigger in Leo-2A4 becouse in fact whole ammo is AT:
10-11 APFSDS
4-5 HEAT
In T-72/90 we have 9 APFSDS and 2 HEAT.
Give me part of instruction whit diffrent numbers. Bigger known myself number in instruction is 12 APFSDS posted in PT-91 instruction.

You will deal with infantryÐ± Ñ‰Ðº ÑˆÑ‚ irregular warfare with sabot, what is this ? You cannot understand that complect is changed ? These 4-5 HEAT are a joke.

In normal combat T-72/90 loose AT amunition the same fast as Leo-2.

No, you are unable to understand that 22 is 40 % more than 15 rounds, it can be optimised, and that there will no be response from Leo-2 to disrupt engagement or support forces, with only 15 rounds.

But in Leo-2 reload takes under 3minutes, and can be done anywhere whit hidden hull (hull down position) in Europe is really simple, it's not flat desert. Crews are trening this many times using AGDUS (MILES) - think again not used in /Soviets/Russia. Oh forgot - now Russia bouight AGDUS clone from Germany. :thumb:
Crew do this really fast. Under 3minutes. In fact in can be use in hull down position (easly to find in Europe) or in case of emergency whit use smoke granades (two slavo eacht whit 4 granades whit interval 2 minutes -again from instruction).

No, it is by no means simple and ability to respond is necessary, which is none for Leo-2 after 15 rounds and latter withdrawal from combat, and it is primitive, fail, inferior to rest of NATO vehicles, Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, and to T-80, T-72, T-90 all with decent amount of ready ammunition.

And tell me where should be withrawal in irregular warfare when it is necessary to provide support.

T-72/90 are defenceless after used main caroussel ammo:
1) number HEAT/SABOT post in any avaible instruction is smaller then 15 rounds in Leo-2 bustle.
2) reload carouselle takes 18-20/25 minutes. During this time tank is defenceless couse problem whit find and cary out two pices ammo from any possible hull space.
3) maunal reload 2A46 takes circa 50s (avarage) in fact it's hopeless solution
T-72/90 is single use on battelfield whit sucht long reload caroussel time, what more - only circa HALF of the caroussel round are AT rounds (11) while all Leo-2 bustle are AT rounds (15)
What number is bigger 15 or 11? '
Instruction is instruction - give me part of them whit diffrent loade for caroussel.

No. Apart from sabot there is a combination of different ammunition, HEAT, fragmentary, now ATGM (HEAT or fragmentary), special ammunition. Of course greater capacity allows better optimisation. In fact Leo-2 ability to support or for breakthrought is poor or none with 5 HEAT (for this sabot is useless). Even after depletion of sabot there can be response from T-90 with HEAT, ATGM and good amount of HE-frag (according to instruction, first shot of frag will disrupt enemy tank's engagement), and it is esecially important for support or assault. Also to note that manual fire can be performed at slower rate if necessary, contrary to Leopard 2.

For irregular warfare those 15 rounds of Leo-2 are very poor.

Known M1 pirced by tandem RPG-7 granade - crew was in fight,. and responde using MG
Known M1 whit turret side penetration - the same

Where ? The turret side penetration was fatal, 1 dead and 2 wounded. Weak RPG of 300 mm penetration will sure have poor effect if you refer to them.

Dozen examples from Chechenia (Komsomolskoje battle for example) -tanks pirced 2-4 times by RPG - agai crew responding by all possible way - 2A46, MG, etc

Those were well protected tanks with ERA.

Merkava in Lebanon - the same

Another example of mostly weak RPG. The same you could claim Abrams is inmune to APFSDS because of Iraqui engagements.

Ayou are posting bullshit based on false statment:
"penetrated by SC tank = unable to fight crew"
They are dozen examples when crew was able to fight, even when one crew mamber was wounded. This what you are postin is bullshit and fairy tails based probaly on obsolate books or soviet propaganda.

And scientific armour research institute must be wrong contrary to your fantasy. So must be american GCV designers which adress the problem of pressure blast.

You proved your ignorance on this with the following:

- "Only impact of stream will ignite ammunition". False, it is not strictly necessary, because local fragments can start ignition (aknowleged and treated with measures, protective screen, etc.)

- "Crew will be seriously damaged only with direct hit" False, local fragments, overpressure and sound level are cause of serious damage or death.

Further you thought fragments where the only effect, and brought literature (only about them) without understanding, which did not explain the problem.

Bullshit after bulshit.
You started to be bullshitgenerator "dedly pressure theory" where popular 3 decades ago. It was rejected after M. Held research.
I posted this here. Mortality for sevral used HEAT warhed was circa 10% in typical scenario.

Of course, ignoramus. I have dozens of publications both in english and russian, I will just leave with proffesional explanation:

NII Stali http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf

flow of fragments formed during the pene-
tration process, overpressure inside the vehi-
cle (100"¦150atm) and the noise level of about
150"¦200dB could disable both the occupants
and the internal equipment

btw, I want to laught at your thoughts, explain how this should protect against tandem RPG :lol:

Regular · May 24, 2013

Using alone tanks in urban is Soviet/Russina idea - and it's fails during I Chechenia conflict and in others (Budapest etc).

You didn't answer me about RPG clones in Chechnya.
Were do You get this from?
You should not state things that are false or based on assumption.
In first Grozny assault Russian tanks didn't even have machine gun ammunition and most of their era tiles weren't filled with explosives too, they were sent there NA URA in a column as show of power. Stupid mistake made by stupid people. Would they have used M1A2SEP, Leopard 2A7+ or Battle mechs, they would face same fate.
By the way Chechens had tanks in Grozny too, I don't know how successful they employed them, but You clearly underestimate their capabilities. They even had more experienced and better trained command than Russians there. Not to mention that Chechens even offered Soldiers bribes for friendly fire, defection, information or even physical elimination of officers.
Second Chechen war - 15 tanks knocked out, only 1 completely destroyed (2 in some sources) Tanks were used as support platforms there.

Budapest siege is another example. Axis had tanks there too. How the hell they could counter King Tiger if not with tanks?

militarysta · May 24, 2013

Lidsky M.D said:
btw, I want to laught at your thoughts, explain how this should protect against tandem RPG

I don't know seems to be magic that SLERA M32 casette placed on 380mm LOS thick turret side shoud be enought
Those turret side is for 90. circa like 500-550mm RHA vs HEAT (looking at penetration case (AT-4 whit HP granade) those side for 90.). Whit SLERA it will be enought agaisnt RPG-29 and PG-7VR.

Of course, ignoramus. I have dozens of publications both in english and russian, I will

So read those "dozens of publications" becouse havent is not enought. You shoud read this. And theis from International Balistic Symposhium -for example from M. Held.

just leave with proffesional explanation:

This is not "proffesional" but marketing article to explain how russian ERA is necessery, needed, etc. It's marketing in extended form - interesting, but pure marketing.
Whit interesting compare from russian ERA/SLERA, and posible to compare (given time) whit german NERA:

(BTW: again proof that double german NERA is efective as 4S24 or other "newest rusian SLERA" -it's clearly visible on photos)

In opposide to your only source -pure marketing article I had posted scientific work about behind armour effect for SC warhed.
You marketing "source" is sevral levels lower then thesis from M.Held work. You have no arguments, and no sources.
The truth is that:

1. The bigges danger is residual jet and spalls
2. The medium danger is light
3. Rest is minor or non existing.
4. Heave you seen somewher yours "dedly overpressure theory" element?
No? Uuuuuu think why -maybe it's not so "dedly" or important? :lol:

You are posting bullshit based on outdated "dedly overpressure theory".
Maybe in your homland language will be better

Ð¢ÐµÐ¿ÐµÑ€ÑŒ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð½ÐµÐµ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð¼Ñƒ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸ÑŽ Ð¸ ÑƒÐ´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ðµ. Ð¡Ð°Ð¼Ð° Ð¿Ð¾ ÑÐµÐ±Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ°ÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð¹ ÑƒÐ´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ñ‹ Ð½Ðµ ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°Ñ‘Ñ‚ Ð² ÑÐ¸Ð»Ñƒ ÑÐ²Ð¾ÐµÐ¹ Ð½ÐµÐ±Ð¾Ð»ÑŒÑˆÐ¾Ð¹ Ð¼Ð°ÑÑÑ‹. Ð£Ð´Ð°Ñ€Ð½ÑƒÑŽ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ñƒ ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°Ñ‘Ñ‚ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ñ‹Ð² Ð·Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð° Ð’Ð’ Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ° (Ñ„ÑƒÐ³Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ðµ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ðµ). Ð£Ð´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ð° ÐÐ• ÐœÐžÐ–Ð•Ð¢ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ½ÑƒÑ‚ÑŒ Ð·Ð° Ñ‚Ð¾Ð»ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð½ÑƒÑŽ Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ³Ñ€Ð°Ð´Ñƒ Ñ‡ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ· Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ€ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ðµ, Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ñ‚Ð¾Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÐµÐ¹, Ð¿Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¼Ñƒ Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ Ð´Ð¸Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ñ€ Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ€ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ñ Ð½Ð¸Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÐ½, ÐºÐ°ÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾-Ð»Ð¸Ð±Ð¾ Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¸Ð¼Ð¿ÑƒÐ»ÑŒÑÐ° Ñ‡ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ· Ð½ÐµÐ³Ð¾ Ð¿ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ´Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒ Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¾Ð·Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ð½Ð¾. Ð¡Ð¾Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ‚ÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾, Ð½Ðµ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÑ‚ ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒÑÑ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð²Ð½ÑƒÑ‚Ñ€Ð¸ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ¾Ð±ÑŠÐµÐºÑ‚Ð°..

ÐŸÑ€Ð¸Ñ…Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ð»Ð¾ÑÑŒ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÐµÐ»ÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ð¸Ð· 115-Ð¼Ð¼ Ð¸ 125-Ð¼Ð¼ Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ñ‹Ñ… Ð¿ÑƒÑˆÐµÐº ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ð¼ ÑÐ½Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð¾Ð¼, Ð¸Ð· Ð ÐŸÐ“-7 ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð³Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð°Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð¡Ñ‚Ð°Ñ€ÐµÐ½ÑŒÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ñ€Ñ‚Ñ‘Ñ€, Ð´Ñ‹Ñ€ÑÐ²Ñ‹Ð¹ ÐºÐ°Ðº Ñ€ÐµÑˆÐµÑ‚Ð¾, Ð±Ñ‹Ð» Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ñ€ÑƒÑˆÐµÐ½ Ñ„ÑƒÐ³Ð°ÑÐ½Ñ‹Ð¼ Ð•ÑÐ»Ð¸ Ð½ÐµÑ‚ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð° Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¿Ð»Ð¸Ð²Ð° Ð¸Ð»Ð¸ Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð², Ð²Ð¾Ð·Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ñ ÑƒÐ´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ñ‹ Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¶Ðµ Ð½ÐµÐ·Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð½Ð¾. ÐšÑ€Ð¾Ð¼Ðµ Ñ‚Ð¾Ð³Ð¾, Ð½Ðµ Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¼ÐµÑ‡Ð°Ð»Ð¾ÑÑŒ ÐºÐ¾Ð½Ñ‚ÑƒÐ·Ð¸Ð¸ Ñƒ Ð²Ñ‹Ð¶Ð¸Ð²ÑˆÐ¸Ñ… ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¿Ð°Ð¶ÐµÐ¹, Ð¼Ð°ÑˆÐ¸Ð½Ñ‹ ÐºÐ¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ñ‹Ñ… Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð´Ð°Ð»Ð¸ Ð¾Ñ‚ Ð ÐŸÐ“. Ð‘Ñ‹Ð»Ð¸ Ñ€Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸, Ð³Ð»ÑƒÐ±Ð¾ÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¾Ð¶Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ Ð±Ñ€Ñ‹Ð·Ð³Ð°Ð¼Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð°, Ð½Ð¾ ÐºÐ¾Ð½Ñ‚ÑƒÐ·Ð¸Ð¹ Ð¾Ñ‚ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ – Ð½Ðµ Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð¾.

ÐžÐ±Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÑÐ»ÑƒÐ¶Ð±Ð° Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ¶Ñ‘Ð½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… ÑÐ¸Ð» Ð”Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ð¸ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ»Ð° Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑÑ„Ñ„ÐµÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¸ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… ÑÑƒÐ±Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð² Ð´Ð»Ñ 155-Ð¼Ð¼ ÑÐ½Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð¾Ð², Ð²Ñ‹Ð±Ñ€Ð°Ð² Ð² ÐºÐ°Ñ‡ÐµÑÑ‚Ð²Ðµ Ð¾Ð±ÑŠÐµÐºÑ‚Ð° Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ðº Â«Ð¦ÐµÐ½Ñ‚ÑƒÑ€Ð¸Ð¾Ð½Â». Ð”Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‡Ð°Ð½Ðµ Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ð»ÑŒÐ·Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð»Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð¾Ð´Ð¸ÐºÑƒ ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ñ… Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ð¹, Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ð¼ÐµÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð² ÑÑƒÐ±Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÑ‹ Ð½Ð° Ð±Ð°ÑˆÐ½Ðµ Ð¸ ÐºÐ¾Ñ€Ð¿ÑƒÑÐµ Ð¼Ð°ÑˆÐ¸Ð½Ñ‹ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´ Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ð»Ð¸Ñ‡Ð½Ñ‹Ð¼Ð¸ ÑƒÐ³Ð»Ð°Ð¼Ð¸. Ð’Ð½ÑƒÑ‚Ñ€Ð¸ Ð¼Ð°ÑˆÐ¸Ð½Ñ‹, Ð½Ð° Ð¼ÐµÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ… ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¿Ð°Ð¶Ð° Ð² Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ñ‚Ð°ÐµÐ¼Ð¾Ð¼ Ð¾Ñ‚Ð´ÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð¸, Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð²ÑÐµÐ¼Ñƒ Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÑƒ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¼ÐµÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð»Ð¸ Ð´Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‡Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ, Ñ‚ÐµÐ¼Ð¿ÐµÑ€Ð°Ñ‚ÑƒÑ€Ñ‹, ÑƒÑÐºÐ¾Ñ€ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð¹. Ð’ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ†ÐµÑÑÐµ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ð¹ Ð½Ð° Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐµ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ»Ð¸ 32 Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð° ÑÑƒÐ±Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð². ÐœÐ¾Ñ‰Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð² Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð° Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°, Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð·Ð°Ñ‡Ð°ÑÑ‚ÑƒÑŽ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ð²Ð°Ð»Ð° Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ðº ÑÐ²ÐµÑ€Ñ…Ñƒ Ð´Ð¾Ð½Ð¸Ð·Ñƒ, Ð´Ð° ÐµÑ‰Ñ‘ Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð»ÑÐ»Ð° Ð¿Ð¾Ð´ Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ‰ÐµÐ¼ Ð²Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐºÑƒ Ð² Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ½Ñ‚Ðµ. ÐŸÑ€Ð¸ ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð¼ ÑƒÑÑ‚Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð² Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐµ Ð´Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‡Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ ÐÐ• Ð—ÐÐ¤Ð˜ÐšÐ¡Ð˜Ð ÐžÐ’ÐÐ›Ð˜ ÐŸÐžÐ’Ð«Ð¨Ð•ÐÐ˜Ð¯ Ð”ÐÐ’Ð›Ð•ÐÐ˜Ð¯ Ð˜ Ð¢Ð•ÐœÐŸÐ•Ð ÐÐ¢Ð£Ð Ð«[15].

Ð’ 2008 Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ñƒ Ð½Ð° 24-Ð¼ Ð¼ÐµÐ¶Ð´ÑƒÐ½Ð°Ñ€Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¾Ð¼ ÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð¸ÑƒÐ¼Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð±Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¸ÐºÐµ Ð´Ð¾ÐºÑ‚Ð¾Ñ€ ÐœÐ°Ð½Ñ„Ñ€ÐµÐ´ Ð¥ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ´ Ð¸Ð· Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ¿Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð°Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ð° Defence and Security Systems Ð°ÑÑ€Ð¾ÐºÐ¾ÑÐ¼Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÐºÐ¾Ñ€Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸ EADS Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð¸Ð» Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´ Â«Behind Armour Effects at Shaped Charge AttacksÂ» (Ð—Ð°Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¾Ðµ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð²)[16]. Ð’ Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð±Ñ‰ÐµÐ½Ñ‹ Ñ€ÐµÐ·ÑƒÐ»ÑŒÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‹ Ð½Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ¹ÑˆÐ¸Ñ… ÑÐºÑÐ¿ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð², Ñ Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ð»ÑŒÐ·Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸ÐµÐ¼ ÑÐ¾Ð²Ñ€ÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð¸Ð·Ð¼ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ñ‹Ñ… ÑÑ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð² Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ðº, Ð¿Ð¾ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸ÑŽ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÑŽÑ‰Ð¸Ñ… Ñ„Ð°ÐºÑ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð² ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð². Ð—Ð´ÐµÑÑŒ Ð½ÐµÑ‚ ÑÐ¼Ñ‹ÑÐ»Ð° Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð²Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ñ‚ÑŒ ÑÐ¾Ñ‚Ð½Ð¸ Ñ†Ð¸Ñ„Ñ€, Ð¿Ð¾Ð»ÑƒÑ‡ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð² Ñ…Ð¾Ð´Ðµ ÑÐºÑÐ¿ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð². Ð”Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾ Ð¾Ð±Ñ‰ÐµÐ¹ ÐºÐ°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð¸Ð½Ñ‹ Ð·Ð°Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ñ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð², Ð¿Ð¾ÐºÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð½Ð° Ð¸Ñ‚Ð¾Ð³Ð¾Ð²Ð¾Ð¼ Ñ€Ð¸ÑÑƒÐ½ÐºÐµ Ð¸Ð· Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´Ð°. Ð˜Ð½Ñ‚ÐµÑ€ÐµÑÑƒÑŽÑ‰Ð¸Ð¹ Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ„Ñ„ÐµÐºÑ‚ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ (Blast) Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¼ÐµÑ‡ÐµÐ½ ÐºÐ°Ðº ÐÐ•Ð—ÐÐÐ§Ð˜Ð¢Ð•Ð›Ð¬ÐÐ«Ð™ (ÑÐ¾Ð³Ð»Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ Ð¾Ñ‚ÐµÑ‡ÐµÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÐºÐ»Ð°ÑÑÐ¸Ñ„Ð¸ÐºÐ°Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸ – Ð½ÑƒÐ»ÐµÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¿ÐµÐ½ÑŒ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ, ÑÐ¼. Ñ‚Ð°Ð±Ð»Ð¸Ñ†Ñƒ 1). Ð§Ñ‚Ð¾, ÑÐ¾Ð±ÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾, Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð»ÐµÐ¶Ð°Ð»Ð¾ ÑÐ¾Ð¼Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸ÑŽ Ð² ÐºÑ€ÑƒÐ³Ð°Ñ… ÑÐ¿ÐµÑ†Ð¸Ð°Ð»Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð². Ð Ð²Ð¾Ñ‚ ÑÐ°Ð¼Ð° ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ (Residual Jet Material) Ð¸ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ¸ (Spalls) Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð»ÑÑŽÑ‚ ÑÐµÑ€ÑŒÑ‘Ð·Ð½ÑƒÑŽ Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ. ÐžÑ‚Ð¼ÐµÑ‡ÐµÐ½Ð° Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¶Ðµ ÑÑ€ÐµÐ´Ð½ÑÑ ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¿ÐµÐ½ÑŒ Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¸ Ñ„ÑƒÐ³Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ñ Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ° Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñ€ÑƒÐ¶Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‹ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸, Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ Ð»Ð¸ÑˆÐ½Ð¸Ð¹ Ñ€Ð°Ð· Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ‡Ñ‘Ñ€ÐºÐ¸Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ‚ Ð²Ñ€ÐµÐ´Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ð¾Ð±ÑÑƒÐ¶Ð´Ð°ÐµÐ¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¼Ð¸Ñ„Ð°.

Ð—ÐÐšÐ›Ð®Ð§Ð˜Ð¢Ð•Ð›Ð¬ÐÐ«Ð™ Ð’Ð«Ð’ÐžÐ”
Ð•ÑÐ»Ð¸ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð¸ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ¸ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ Ð»ÑŽÐ´ÐµÐ¹ Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¶Ð°Ñ€Ð¾-/Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ°, Ñ‚Ð¾ ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¿Ð°Ð¶ Ð±Ð»Ð°Ð³Ð¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð»ÑƒÑ‡Ð½Ð¾ Ð²Ñ‹Ð¶Ð¸Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ‚:

And you become "the king of the idiots" whit your overpressure theory and so importnat googled "proffesional explanation" from marketing brouchre. The truth is:

Ð—ÐÐšÐ› Ð®Ð§Ð˜Ð¢Ð•Ð›Ð¬ÐÐ«Ð™ Ð’Ð«Ð’ÐžÐ”
Ð•ÑÐ»Ð¸ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð¸ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ¸ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ Ð»ÑŽÐ´ÐµÐ¹ Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¶Ð°Ñ€Ð¾-/Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ°, Ñ‚Ð¾ ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¿Ð°Ð¶ Ð±Ð»Ð°Ð³Ð¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð»ÑƒÑ‡Ð½Ð¾ Ð²Ñ‹Ð¶Ð¸Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ‚:

rest tommorow :wave:

will be fun becouse (as mostly always) you are writing without checking any sources.

militarysta · May 24, 2013

Regular said:
Sorry, but how can You say that? I might not know more about tanks than You do, but what RPG-7 clones are You talking about? Who cloned them from what? In the first war Chechnya had Soviet legacy arms including RPGs, ATGM systems, tanks, artillery and even air force. Same weapon systems were present in second conflict up until later stages. I wouldn't call them modern systems, but they had almost same AT equipment as Russians at the time did

Sorry for lack of time to answer. Word "clones" is wrong here.
But show me photo whit any tandem warhed in Chechen hands. Almoust all avaible AT weapons in Chechen hands where from middle 1980s.
Tommorow I will write back - I'm sorry, but the lack of time now.

hest · May 24, 2013

militarysta said:
I don't know seems to be magic that SLERA M32 casette placed on 380mm LOS thick turret side shoud be enought

Yes, this single element will magically defeat main warhead, while rest don't :lol:

the same as will Kontakt. Pathetic statement and bias. Follow on, I laught at stupid.

ÐÐ°Ð²ÐµÑÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð¿Ð»ÐµÐºÑ Ð”Ð— Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð»ÐµÐ³ÐºÐ¸Ñ… Ð¼Ð°ÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ðº Ðœ1Ð1 also anti-tandem lol.

Those turret side is for 90. circa like 500-550mm RHA vs HEAT (looking at penetration case (AT-4 whit HP granade) those side for 90.). Whit SLERA it will be enought agaisnt RPG-29 and PG-7VR.

No 500 but 300 mm thickness (visible, not real). If AT-4 penetrate, means there is less than it;s stated penetration, not same

.It is armour designed for great angle, from front, not optimised for anything else, it could be penetrated by average monoblock warhead.

So read those "dozens of publications" becouse havent is not enought. You shoud read this. And theis from International Balistic Symposhium -for example from M. Held.

You presented article about fragments only, wrong, now you try to change but wrong anyway. You do not show experimental data or conditions.

:

rofl:
This is not "proffesional" but marketing article to explain how russian ERA is necessery, needed, etc. It's marketing in extended form - interesting, but pure marketing.
Whit interesting compare from russian ERA/SLERA, and posible to compare (given time) whit german NERA:

(BTW: again proof that double german NERA is efective as 4S24 or other "newest rusian SLERA" -it's clearly visible on photos)

It is article from scientific research institute, and it is not lie, maybe scientifical mind cannot be understood by you. It is akso backed up by numerous sources.

What do you show is your total inability to make comparison, with thicker and double element nothing to do with shown, the same as your elemental calculus fail to understand what is percentage.

In opposide to your only source -pure marketing article I had posted scientific work about behind armour effect for SC warhed.
You marketing "source" is sevral levels lower then thesis from M.Held work. You have no arguments, and no sources.
The truth is that:
1. The bigges danger is residual jet and spalls
2. The medium danger is light
3. Rest is minor or non existing.
4. Heave you seen somewher yours "dedly overpressure theory" element?
No? Uuuuuu think why -maybe it's not so "dedly" or important?

This does not show experimental data or conditions, and I have sources higher than this, from research institute, also from US http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA233058

Pressure blast is serious damage, effect of which cannot be exactly predicted.

You discredit US institute, Russian, US GCV designers, learn something and do not show ignorance.

You are posting bullshit based on outdated "dedly overpressure theory".
Maybe in your homland language will be better
Ð•Ð©Ð ÐžÐ”Ð˜Ð ÐšÐ£ÐœÐ£Ð›Ð¯Ð¢Ð˜Ð’ÐÐ«Ð™ ÐœÐ˜Ð¤ Â« Â« Ð’Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾-Ð¿Ð°Ñ‚Ñ€Ð¸Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ ÑÐ°Ð¹Ñ‚ Â«ÐžÑ‚Ð²Ð°Ð³Ð°Â» Ð’Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾-Ð¿Ð°Ñ‚Ñ€Ð¸Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ ÑÐ°Ð¹Ñ‚ Â«ÐžÑ‚Ð²Ð°Ð³Ð°Â»

You are going back to forums, and this is bullshit by itself, something to check..

And you become "the king of the idiots" whit your overpressure theory and so importnat googled "proffesional explanation" from marketing brouchre. The truth is:

At the moment you did not show anything, but continue with your emotional discussion.

militarysta · May 24, 2013

Lidsky M.D said:
This does not show experimental data or conditions, and I have sources higher than this, from research institute, also from US http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA233058

You are pure idiot unable even to read what you posted as "argument" :lol:

"no exist"
"none has proven"
"has not yet been completly defined"
"no means are currently avaible"
"can not be directly assessed"
"there where considered inconsequential"

But you, my little mooron, know of course:

Lidsky in his boundless wisdom had wrote said:
Pressure blast is serious damage,

And you had given link to article when is clearly written:
"there where considered inconsequential"
genius :hail:

You are going back to forums, and this is bullshit by itself,

this "bullshit" is based on:

[1] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«ÐšÑƒÑ€Ñ Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð¸Ð»Ð»ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð¸, ÐºÐ½Ð¸Ð³Ð° 5. Ð‘Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÑ‹Â» // Ðœ.: Ð’Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð·Ð´Ð°Ñ‚, 1949, Ð¡Ñ‚Ñ€. 37.

[2] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«Reactive ArmorÂ», Travis Hagan // Explosives Engineering MNGN 498; March 18, 2002.

[3] Ð¨Ð¸Ñ€Ð¾ÐºÐ¾Ðµ Ð¿Ñ€Ð°ÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ðµ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÑ‹ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»ÑƒÑ‡Ð¸Ð»Ð¸ Ð² Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ñ‹ Ð’Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¸Ñ€Ð¾Ð²Ð¾Ð¹ Ð²Ð¾Ð¹Ð½Ñ‹ Ð¸ Ð² Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐ»ÐµÐ²Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ Ð¿ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð¾Ð´, Ð²Ð¿Ð»Ð¾Ñ‚ÑŒ Ð´Ð¾ Ð½Ð°ÑÑ‚Ð¾ÑÑ‰ÐµÐ³Ð¾ Ð²Ñ€ÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ð¸.

[4] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«ÐžÑ‚ÐµÑ‡ÐµÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð¾Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ñ‹Ðµ Ð³Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð°Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¼Ñ‘Ñ‚Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð¿Ð»ÐµÐºÑÑ‹Â», Ð›Ð¾Ð²Ð¸ Ð.Ð. Ð¸ Ð´Ñ€. // Ðœ.: Â«Ð’Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ Ð³Ð¾Ñ€Ð¸Ð·Ð¾Ð½Ñ‚Â».

[5] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«ÐŸÑ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÐ¸ Ð² Ð¼Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ÑÐ»Ð¾Ð¹Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð¾ÐºÐµÑ€Ð¼Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¼Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð°Ð»Ñ‹Â», ÐŸÐ°ÑˆÐºÐµÐµÐ² Ð˜.Ð®. // Ð§ÐµÐ»ÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÑÐº, Ð®Ð£Ð“Ð£.

[6] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«ÐœÐµÑ‚Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð¾Ñ„Ð¸Ð·Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð¸ Ñ€Ð°ÑÐ¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´ÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÑÐ½ÐµÑ€Ð³Ð¸Ð¸Â», ÐŸÐ¾Ð½Ð´ Ð ., Ð“Ð»Ð°ÑÑ Ðš. Ð’ ÐºÐ½.: Ð’Ñ‹ÑÐ¾ÐºÐ¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ñ€Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ ÑƒÐ´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ ÑÐ²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ // Ðœ.: ÐœÐ¸Ñ€, 1973.

[7] ÐŸÑ€Ð¸Ð²ÐµÐ´Ñ‘Ð½Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ Ñ€Ð°Ð´Ð¸ÑƒÑ: Ñ€Ð°Ð´Ð¸ÑƒÑ ÑÑ„ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð·Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð°, Ð¼Ð°ÑÑÐ° ÐºÐ¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð° Ð¼Ð°ÑÑÐµ Ð·Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð° Ð’Ð’.

[8] ÐŸÐµÑ€Ð²Ð¸Ñ‡Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ð²Ñ€ÐµÐ¶Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾Ñ‚ Ñ„ÑƒÐ³Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð°Ñ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð³Ð¸Ð²Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ Ð¿Ñ€Ð°ÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸ Ð²ÑÐµ Ð¾Ñ€Ð³Ð°Ð½Ñ‹ Ð¸ Ñ‡Ð°ÑÑ‚Ð¸ Ñ‚ÐµÐ»Ð° Ñ‡ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐºÐ°: Ð³Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¸ ÑÐ¿Ð¸Ð½Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾Ð·Ð³, Ð¾Ñ€Ð³Ð°Ð½Ñ‹ ÑÐ»ÑƒÑ…Ð°, Ð±Ñ€ÑŽÑˆÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¸ Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ´Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¹, ÑÐ¾ÑÑƒÐ´Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÐ¸ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¼Ñ‹. ÐÐµÑ€ÐµÐ´ÐºÐ¾ Ð²Ñ‹ÑÐ²Ð»ÑÑŽÑ‚ÑÑ ÐºÑ€Ð¾Ð²Ð¾Ð¸Ð·Ð»Ð¸ÑÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð² Ð»Ð¾Ð±Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¸ Ð¿Ð°Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð°Ð·Ð°Ð»ÑŒÐ½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¿Ð°Ð·ÑƒÑ…Ð¸, Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ñ‹ Ð±Ð°Ñ€Ð°Ð±Ð°Ð½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð¿ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ¿Ð¾Ð½Ð¾Ðº. ÐŸÐ¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÑÐ¾ÑÑƒÐ´Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÐ¸ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¼Ñ‹ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ÑÐ²Ð»ÑÐµÑ‚ÑÑ Ð² Ð²Ð¸Ð´Ðµ Ñ€Ð°ÑÑÐ»Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¸Ð»Ð¸ Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð° ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ½Ð¾Ðº ÑÐ¾ÑÑƒÐ´Ð¾Ð². (ÐÐ½Ñ†Ð¸ÐºÐ»Ð¾Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ ÑÐ»Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ€ÑŒ Ð¿Ð¾ ÑÑƒÐ´ÐµÐ±Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¼ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸Ð½Ðµ -Ð’)

[9] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«ÐžÑÐ½Ð¾Ð²Ñ‹ Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ»Ð°Â», ÐÐ¿Ð¾Ð² Ð‘.Ð. // Ðœ.: Ð’Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð·Ð´Ð°Ñ‚, 1974.

[10] ÐŸÑ€Ð¸Ð²ÐµÐ´Ñ‘Ð½Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¼Ð°ÑÑÐ° Ð’Ð’: Ð¼Ð°ÑÑÐ° Ð’Ð’ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ðµ Ð² Ð²Ð¾Ð·Ð´ÑƒÑ…Ðµ, ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°ÑŽÑ‰Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð½Ð° Ñ„Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‚Ðµ ÑƒÐ´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ñ‹ Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð°, Ð°Ð½Ð°Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ñƒ Ð·Ð°Ñ€ÑÐ´Ð° Ð½Ð° ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð»ÑŒÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¿Ð¾Ð²ÐµÑ€Ñ…Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¸.

[11] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«Ð•Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¿Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð¸Ð»Ð° Ð±ÐµÐ·Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¸ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸ Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ñ€Ð°Ð±Ð¾Ñ‚Ð°Ñ…Â», ÐŸÐ‘ 13-407-01 // Ðœ.: ÐÐŸÐž ÐžÐ‘Ð¢, 2002.

[12] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«Blast-Induced Pressure Fields Beneath a Military Helmet for Non-Lethal ThreatsÂ», David Mott Ð¸ Ð´Ñ€. // 61st Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Fluid Dynamics, 2008.

[13] Ð¡Ð¼. Â«Ð¢Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ¸ Ð² Ð±Ð¾ÑÑ… Ð·Ð° Ð“Ñ€Ð¾Ð·Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹. Ð§Ð°ÑÑ‚ÑŒ 1Â», Ð’Ð»Ð°Ð´Ð¸ÑÐ»Ð°Ð² Ð‘ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ´ // Â«Ð¤Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð˜Ð»Ð»ÑŽÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸ÑÂ», Ðœ.: Â«Ð¡Ñ‚Ñ€Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÐ³Ð¸Ñ ÐšÐœÂ», 2008. Â«Ð¢Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ¸ Ð² Ð±Ð¾ÑÑ… Ð·Ð° Ð“Ñ€Ð¾Ð·Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹. Ð§Ð°ÑÑ‚ÑŒ 2Â», Ð’Ð»Ð°Ð´Ð¸ÑÐ»Ð°Ð² Ð‘ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ´ // Â«Ð¤Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð˜Ð»Ð»ÑŽÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸ÑÂ», Ðœ.: Â«Ð¡Ñ‚Ñ€Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÐ³Ð¸Ñ ÐšÐœÂ», 2008.

[14] Â«Ð”Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´ Ð¾ Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ñ‹Ñ… Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ñ€Ð°Ð±Ð¾Ñ‚ÐºÐ°Ñ… Ð·Ð°Ñ‰Ð¸Ñ‚Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… ÑƒÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð¾Ð¹ÑÑ‚Ð² Ð¾Ð±Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ñ†Ð¾Ð² Ð‘Ð¢Ð’Ð¢Â», Ð²/Ñ‡ 68054, 1999.

[15] Dansk Panser - i det 21. århundrede

[16] NetComposites Store - buy composite books, market reports and videos
[/i]

And it's consist whit known research in those topic.

I had posted title the newest M. Hled work about SC and behind armour effect - research to explain SC behind armour effect, you even don't find those pdf (2s in google) and had wrote:

Lidsky in his boundless wisdom had wrote said:
This does not show experimental data or conditions

When on first 7th pdf pages all is explain: SC type, distance, barrier, test tank plans and cut-vievs, etc.
You are pure idiot

Next source:

"is uncertain"
"probable incidence of between 1 and 20%"
The newest is M. Held research when exatly those problem (SC behind armour effect including blast and overpressure), and what?
Again in your homland language, meybe you will read this:

Ð£Ð´Ð°Ñ€Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½Ð° ÐÐ• ÐœÐžÐ–Ð•Ð¢ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ½ÑƒÑ‚ÑŒ Ð·Ð° Ñ‚Ð¾Ð»ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð½ÑƒÑŽ Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ³Ñ€Ð°Ð´Ñƒ Ñ‡ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ· Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ€ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ðµ, Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ñ‚Ð¾Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÐµÐ¹, Ð¿Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¼Ñƒ Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ Ð´Ð¸Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ñ€ Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ€ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ñ Ð½Ð¸Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÐ½, ÐºÐ°ÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾-Ð»Ð¸Ð±Ð¾ Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¸Ð¼Ð¿ÑƒÐ»ÑŒÑÐ° Ñ‡ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ· Ð½ÐµÐ³Ð¾ Ð¿ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ´Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒ Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¾Ð·Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ð½Ð¾. Ð¡Ð¾Ð¾Ñ‚Ð²ÐµÑ‚ÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾, Ð½Ðµ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÑ‚[b/] ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒÑÑ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð²Ð½ÑƒÑ‚Ñ€Ð¸ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ¾Ð±ÑŠÐµÐºÑ‚Ð°..
(...)
Ð‘Ñ‹Ð»Ð¸ Ñ€Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸, Ð³Ð»ÑƒÐ±Ð¾ÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¾Ð¶Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ Ð±Ñ€Ñ‹Ð·Ð³Ð°Ð¼Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð°, Ð½Ð¾ ÐºÐ¾Ð½Ñ‚ÑƒÐ·Ð¸Ð¹ Ð¾Ñ‚ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ – Ð½Ðµ Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð¾.
(...)
ÐœÐ¾Ñ‰Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð² Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð° Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°, Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð·Ð°Ñ‡Ð°ÑÑ‚ÑƒÑŽ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ð²Ð°Ð»Ð° Ñ‚Ð°Ð½Ðº ÑÐ²ÐµÑ€Ñ…Ñƒ Ð´Ð¾Ð½Ð¸Ð·Ñƒ, Ð´Ð° ÐµÑ‰Ñ‘ Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð»ÑÐ»Ð° Ð¿Ð¾Ð´ Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ‰ÐµÐ¼ Ð²Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐºÑƒ Ð² Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ½Ñ‚Ðµ. ÐŸÑ€Ð¸ ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð¼ ÑƒÑÑ‚Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ðµ Ð² Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐµ Ð´Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‡Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ ÐÐ• Ð—ÐÐ¤Ð˜ÐšÐ¡Ð˜Ð ÐžÐ’ÐÐ›Ð˜ ÐŸÐžÐ’Ð«Ð¨Ð•ÐÐ˜Ð¯ Ð”ÐÐ’Ð›Ð•ÐÐ˜Ð¯ Ð˜ Ð¢Ð•ÐœÐŸÐ•Ð ÐÐ¢Ð£Ð Ð«
LINK to the orginall source:
Dansk Panser - i det 21. århundrede
(...)
Ð’ 2008 Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ñƒ Ð½Ð° 24-Ð¼ Ð¼ÐµÐ¶Ð´ÑƒÐ½Ð°Ñ€Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¾Ð¼ ÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð¸ÑƒÐ¼Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð±Ð°Ð»Ð»Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¸ÐºÐµ Ð´Ð¾ÐºÑ‚Ð¾Ñ€ ÐœÐ°Ð½Ñ„Ñ€ÐµÐ´ Ð¥ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ´ Ð¸Ð· Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´ÐµÐ¿Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð°Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ð° Defence and Security Systems Ð°ÑÑ€Ð¾ÐºÐ¾ÑÐ¼Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÐºÐ¾Ñ€Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸ EADS Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð¸Ð» Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´ Â«Behind Armour Effects at Shaped Charge AttacksÂ» (Ð—Ð°Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¾Ðµ Ð´ÐµÐ¹ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¸Ðµ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð²)[16]. Ð’ Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð±Ñ‰ÐµÐ½Ñ‹ Ñ€ÐµÐ·ÑƒÐ»ÑŒÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ñ‹ Ð½Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ¹ÑˆÐ¸Ñ… ÑÐºÑÐ¿ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð², Ñ Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ð»ÑŒÐ·Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸ÐµÐ¼ ÑÐ¾Ð²Ñ€ÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð¸Ð·Ð¼ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ñ‹Ñ… ÑÑ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð² Ð¸ Ð¼ÐµÑ‚Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ðº, Ð¿Ð¾ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸ÑŽ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÑŽÑ‰Ð¸Ñ… Ñ„Ð°ÐºÑ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð² ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ð±Ð¾ÐµÐ¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð². . Ð˜Ð½Ñ‚ÐµÑ€ÐµÑÑƒÑŽÑ‰Ð¸Ð¹ Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ„Ñ„ÐµÐºÑ‚ Ð¸Ð·Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð´Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ (Blast) Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¼ÐµÑ‡ÐµÐ½ ÐºÐ°Ðº ÐÐ•Ð—ÐÐÐ§Ð˜Ð¢Ð•Ð›Ð¬ÐÐ«Ð™ (ÑÐ¾Ð³Ð»Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ Ð¾Ñ‚ÐµÑ‡ÐµÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ ÐºÐ»Ð°ÑÑÐ¸Ñ„Ð¸ÐºÐ°Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸ – Ð½ÑƒÐ»ÐµÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚ÐµÐ¿ÐµÐ½ÑŒ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ, ÑÐ¼. Ñ‚Ð°Ð±Ð»Ð¸Ñ†Ñƒ 1). Ð§Ñ‚Ð¾, ÑÐ¾Ð±ÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾, Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð»ÐµÐ¶Ð°Ð»Ð¾ ÑÐ¾Ð¼Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸ÑŽ Ð² ÐºÑ€ÑƒÐ³Ð°Ñ… ÑÐ¿ÐµÑ†Ð¸Ð°Ð»Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð¾Ð². Ð Ð²Ð¾Ñ‚ ÑÐ°Ð¼Ð° ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ (Residual Jet Material) Ð¸ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ¸ (Spalls) Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´ÑÑ‚Ð°Ð²Ð»ÑÑŽÑ‚ ÑÐµÑ€ÑŒÑ‘Ð·Ð½ÑƒÑŽ Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ.
(...)
Ð•ÑÐ»Ð¸ ÐºÑƒÐ¼ÑƒÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÑƒÑ Ð¸ Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¾Ð»ÐºÐ¸ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ Ð»ÑŽÐ´ÐµÐ¹ Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¶Ð°Ñ€Ð¾-/Ð²Ð·Ñ€Ñ‹Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ð¿Ð°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ°, Ñ‚Ð¾ ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¿Ð°Ð¶ Ð±Ð»Ð°Ð³Ð¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð»ÑƒÑ‡Ð½Ð¾ Ð²Ñ‹Ð¶Ð¸Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ‚

You had been writing about "dedly blast and overpressure theory" since week and you had been obviously wrong. Any one source based on research refutes this obsolate theory. What more -you are so silly that you are posted "sorces" which are suporting truth about inconsequential influance of blast and overpressure as behind armour effects. And this is clearly written in your sources

rest layter

Thread starter	Similar threads	Forum	Replies	Date
W	Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank	Pakistan	0	Jun 11, 2021
	T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective	Defence Wiki	0	Apr 19, 2020
W	Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S.	Land Forces	6	Aug 17, 2019
W	Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia.	Pakistan	68	May 3, 2019

Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

More options

Damian

collegeboy16

Damian

militarysta

hest

militarysta

hest

Damian

militarysta

hest

militarysta

hest

Regular

militarysta

hest

Regular

militarysta

militarysta

hest

militarysta

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles