You misidentified a tungsten carbide slug that was in regular use with the Republican Guard, then go on to argue minutiae.
The U.S. Army didn’t put ERA on the front of the M1A2 SEPSv1 or v2 with the newer TUSK upgrades because they had plentiful protection already.
The BRL would know the approximate amount of damage kinetic rounds and chemical energy rounds could commit to an Abrams, and would have that armored accordingly, if not to surpass that threat and any future known threats, particularly with their established understanding that 65 percent of all rounds strike the turret.
At this point you’re a reductionist stonewaller. I’ll not spend days arguing terms with you, when the sum of it is that all say the same thing… the Abrams’ armor array and its turret ring are better than what is presented in game.
The cages first showed up before the use of kamikaze drones in the beginning of the war not long after Ukraine was given javelins. You would also see them attaching polls to put buckets with fire hoping to confuse the the missiles in missing.
And the term cope cages was well before this conflict. It’s been used to describe the cages on strikers too.
I don’t know. I don’t think there is any ERA out there that can actually stop modern tandem missiles. Unless you are talking about an hard kill APS system them yes they can stop the munitions.
The standard from factory is just pure cages, solidier with the fear of anti tank just improvises with what they have, many types, many version.
Now the cages is just for FPS/Drone mainly since no sign of NLAW/Javelin since last year.
In the future, many tanks gonna get it, Merkava, Type 10 currently using it, we gonna have a fashion show soon.
And the term cope cages was well before this conflict. It’s been used to describe the cages on strikers too.
You mean the Stryker’s slat armour? The point of that slat armour was to help against regular RPGs, and to that affect it apparently worked decently well i.e. it won’t fully protect the vehicle but it negates quite a lot of the impact and thus could save the crew:
The specific reason people were calling the Russian thing “cope cages” is because they were hastily made and of pretty “poor” make at that, so the thinking was it was made to stop Javelins, which it wouldn’t as like I said the Stryker’s slat armour couldn’t fully stop RPGs, thus if this is why Russia made them then they are useless i.e. cope cages.
However if the Russians learnt anything from their previous wars it was that an RPG in urban combat are extremely dangerous as they can be fired from above into the top of a tank, that cope cage may be effective in such a scenario.
This is likely why Merkava’s were seen with something similar recently.
I don’t disagree that the javelins have stopped being used and the cages serves a new purpose. But the original introduction was to try and defeat the Javelin that was defeating the ERA on the tanks.
Again my point is that RELIKT/K5 is not as good as it is clamed to be.
I do believe that the kamikaze drones are the more popular weapon systems now tho.
The javelins are heavy and not the most ideal weapon systems for an offensive war. On top of that the kamikaze drones are way cheaper then a Javelin missiles.
Meh, like i said, that’s just the media from both sides claimed, not from the guy who design and approved it.
No, the test from Soviet is below at TsNIIO 643a facility.
Spoiler
Weapons used are:
RPG-7(tanderm)/26(non-tanderm)/29(tanderm) folowing pen value (650/500/750)
9M14/9K115-2/9M113/Kornet with pen value (600/460/650/850)
The only APFSDS is 3BM42 Mango fire from T-80U at distance 1500mm.
Result with infantry weapons
T-90, only RPG-29 pen with ERA, all other can’t not pen, even withouth K5.
T-80U, only RPG-29 pen, 3 times with K5, 5 times without K5, only RPG with tanderm pen 1.
Result with missiles:
T-90 with K5, non pen. withouth K5, pen 1. Other non pen
T-80U with K5, Kornet pen 2 times, without K5 pen 5 times. Other non pen.
Result with 3BM42:
T-90, non pen, withouth K5, pen 1.
T-80U only tested without K5, 1 nearly pen (3mm left), 1 punch to half the armor, 1 hit the turret.
Beside from Ru, back in 1990, Britain and US bought some T-80U with K5 on it to test and that the reason why modern rounds got their improvements to punch thourh K5.
Test from Rheinmetall Waffe Munition also show that K5 is much better then expected.
In the ussr testing it claims the newer rpg 29 could pen with the ERA. And the rpg 29 is from the 80s so not really modern munitions. As for the U.S test to the say what munitions where used?
Have you found any documentation on this test. Im curious about the part that say: could be seen as “50% protection” due to peripheral effects.
I know K5 is a knife ERA and uses this to cut off the tip of the round, but DU is a self sharpening round and may be less effected by K5. Hence why all they did was make A2 longer and heavier.
No, the principle of K5 when dealing with a projectile is “deflective”, not “cut through”, they uses explosive to move the plates to make the round deflect from it’s direction. The cut effect is only existed on the Duple ERA from Kharkiv.
Spoiler
If you want to know more about some basic principle of ERA/NERA, can visit 2 books:
Armour: Materials, Theory, and Design (Paul J Hazell , 2015)
Technology of Tanks (Richard M. Ogorkiewicz , 1991) (Part 15 - Armour Protection)
M829A3/DM53 uses the capped/splited tip to make a way for the rest of the rod to go to the armor withouth changing the direction of it.
Yeah i’m surprised there are none of hull ammo being hit on the Abrams so far (at least at what i did look through) The close one was USMC M1A1 that got hit by AH-1W Hellfire in 2003 in Iraq
Then again i’ve heard that Hull ammo rack has some unreliable issue .
So most of the time crew would use it to store other things like food or personel stuff which is kind of funny.
