Here is at least one instance a hull rack that detonated.
I know the engine was destroyed in the process, but I’m not sure if this was due to the ammo fire, or the initial weapon destroying the tank.
Additionally I believe the fire was isolated and did not reach into the crew compartment. I do not know for certain, if this was friendly fire, a scuttling event, or enemy fire
What you posted literally say it cuts off 5-6 cm of the rod to make it blunt. Which is exactly what i was talking about not having the same effect on DU rods do to their self sharpening abilities.
Which leds me to conclude that munitions made of other metals can see 50% protection against KE but not DU munitions. Hence why they put it in parentheses, and worded it in a way of speculation.
An article i read stated that “blunt the head” and “deflect the direction”.
Again APFSDS can not be deflected. And DU is a self sharpening rod which leds me to conclude who ever made this article does not have much understanding of DU penitrators.
That being said it never uses the word deflect so it is possible they are insinuating it causes the round to tumble. I’m not sure if this is possible especially with the way DU likes to sheer and melt, but i would have to see the U.S test results to be sure.
This is your source?
Yeah, he’s from Kiev, independent reporters, and most of his source stated true, also, take a look at my previous post for more about 3rd party source.
And what you reply is a “russian language version” instead of his original is .kiev for Ukrainian.
I appreciate the information provided, thank you.
My conclusion from what is know is that K-5 is extremely effective against non-DU penitrators. Hence the wording from the U.S test. K-5 also presented a problem for M829a1 do to it removing 5 to 6cm of the rod. This would cause a lost of penetration do to the rod having less material to melt through the armor. Which is why for a2 to counter K5 they made it longer to make up for the lost material.
I don’t care where they are from - an extremely amateur website that hasn’t been updated since 2009 is hardly concrete evidence. Being third-party doesn’t make him reliable.
Sure, keep that think for yourself, that’s the style of most easterm europe forum/websties, they are just lazy to code a proper website.
Except uranium is alpha radioactive which is DEADLY ☢️. The rest aren’t
Yes that’s very different
Material entering is one thing. But also active itself. However it would take 15+ years of exposure to du to cause cancer i believe. Still uranium enrichment workers have health considerations
It may be surprising to you, but youtube channels often get things wrong. Actual servicemembers have confirmed both with photo and video evidence, as well as their own accounts that there is no crew-internal kevlar spall liner.
the fact that t90m with spall liners in turret and hull and relikt armour getting exploded and easily captured is insane, and yall say that abrams is just a bottle of plastic with wheels is totally understandable.
If you believe that spall liners are present, you’ll have to provide primary source evidence to support that claim, that means manufacturer documentation, test reports, tank manuals, etc.
This also shows the book is filled with errors because the glacis plate of an M1 Abrams isn’t 2 inches thick.
If they can’t get that right, then I highly doubt they get composite RHAe against various shell types right.
Which variant is he describing and how thick is the UFP of the particular variant he’s describing? Provide sources. Educate me.
Apparently, there is no trustworthy sources for the Abrams, so how could you confidently make an accusation like that?
