And you are unable to provide any data to back up your claim of 60% reduction of BM42 by Duplet equipped with ХСЧКВ 34, 19, and 19A elements other than this test footage video, which was tested on a rig of the UFP but we don’t know if it is made to the specifications of the BM Oplot tank. We know of the difference between the patent (showing rubber dampener in UFP) compared to steel plate in the actual tank.
Moreover, the test never says how much penetration of the UFP was achieved after going through Duplet, only says so about the turret, which has Duplet without steel plate separation. In this case it cannot be proven that Duplet only provides 60% reduction of BM42 when official data states 2.6 times effectiveness compared to Kontakt-5, and 80-90% reduction in sub caliber munitions.
How can the characteristics be the same when it weighs 70% less, obviously this element uses new materials and these claims of being same or better than the older ERA are misleading and/or untested. Or they are refering to improved protection when compared to the weight savings. There is no testing of this new element, only speculation by the manufacturer
It does not match, Duplet with ХСЧКВ 34, 19, and 19A elements mentions 80-90% reduction of penetration by sub caliber munitions as per the manufacturer’s brochure, not 60-90% as stated in this new element’s brochure.
They have identical protection data against old HEAT and APFSDS. Given the identical design (based on cumulative jets), everything is approximated for the rest in exactly the same way.
It is useless to deny it. Both claim up to 90% of the old PG-7V and 3BM15
Both Ralin and Huskiy have been reduced to speculation and calling my sources flawed while they continue to push absurd claims that Duplet should be modelled based on an unproduced/untested element produced by a different company that is 70% lighter than actual Duplet elements.
There is no documentation showing only 60% reduction in BM42 APFSDS, only documentation stating 80-90% reduction for sub caliber munitions available in an official brochure, supported by an official test conducted against Kontakt-5.
I will now stop arguing these absurd claims until new information is presented.
Once again, two different companies make two different dynamic protection systems, some claim that their protection is better than others and for some reason we immediately believe them… The fact that the new company employs people who worked in the old one does not mean that they are not interested in lying from a marketing point of view, especially without confirming this in their statements with anything other than words. This is the same as comparing the statements of the manufacturer Duplet regarding Relikt, only they are not believed about Relikt, but they are believed about Duplet… Why? By the way, for my own interest, I want to ask, are there any published tests of Relikt with shelling, a report and a photo like other dynamic protection systems or were only the manufacturer’s statements used during setup (this is just a thought)
