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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
considering a youtube channel ran by us military personel says your wrong about it not having spall liner ima have to say your wrong
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
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.
2 Likes
- Youtube videos aren’t a valid source.
- Crew testimonies aren’t a valid source.
- A video titled ‘‘Why putin is terrified of new Abrams’’ is just typical clickbait nonsense.
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
1,5 inch / 38.1mm
lol. 😆 (still no sources)
Have I had a discussion with you before you?
2 Likes
You merely asked for what the thickness should be and then edited your comment afterwards, I answered your initial question.
If you wanted the sources, just ask for them next time.
Anyways, the ultrasonic readings of the M1 show 38.1mm as do the M1A1 hull blueprints from the CATTB stress testing report.
1 Like
I get the distinct feeling you’re around 14 years of age given the over-use of emoji’s, ‘‘bro’’ and need to ridicule anyone who disagrees.
Anyways, if you have a better source to offer, I’d be happy to reconsider my stance on the matter.
1 Like
There is a spall liner system. Not a makeshift system added after production of the tank like cheap Russian tanks.
1 Like