Unfortunately, the developer asks for “other” official data, completely ignoring the difference between Duplet and Duplet 2M, closing the report immediately. And the fact that they take as a basis for the configuration dynamic protection that has never been installed on the tank being configured does not bother them at all.
90% “data” don’t correspond the tests
Text
In other words:
“This is all a lie. It says 90% of any projectile, so it should be 90% of any projectile.”
You’re acting like little kids.
2 Likes
Basing it on 60% reduction is ridiculous considering HKChPWSH weighs as much as ХСЧКВ-19, or even less. This simply cannot be compared to performance of ХСЧКВ-34.
Maybe the protection against BM42 should be 70-80% not 90%. But official data states 80-90% not 60-90% as in the completely unrelated HKChPWSH brochure.
1 Like
You are copying unrelated things. I have sent a video where there is a shelling of the Oplot side ERA and the turret.
There is no 90% reduction of 3BM42 and the results in the game are even better than in the tests
There is no 90% in real tests
These same “official sources” claim 80-90% for Tandem ATGMs and at the same time the same for the PG-7V, which will penetrate several times less.
If you don’t understand that this is nonsense (or rather, the highest value is simply indicated for the weakest shells), then that’s your problem
3 Likes
3 Likes
Isn’t it nonsense to adjust dynamic protection based on other data? To say that the new protection (Duplet 2M) can’t be worse because it’s new, but at the same time to make BM Oplot protection worse than T-80U is not nonsense and this is considering that Duplet, which includes Nizh, was developed to increase protection against kinetic ammunition, among other things?
P.S. This is a rhetorical question and you don’t have to answer, in general it is clear that only a secret document can convince.
1 Like
Where has it ever been stated that the total protection of the BM Oplot against kinetic weapons is superior to the T-80U?
The ХКБМ website states that all BM Oplot armor protects against 3BM42 and CL3069.
1 Like
If other projectiles are not listed here, it does not mean that it is not protected from them.
2 Likes
This determines the level of protection. Of course, protection will also be provided for equivalent shells.
But for some reason 829A2, OFL 120 F1, DM53 and so on are not mentioned here
1 Like
Were tests ever conducted with said rounds?
Again, it doesn’t say how much it protects? 60%, 100%, at what angle and at what distance, we only have such data separately for other dynamic protection and separately for Duplet, but there is no exact data for BM Oplot in the kit as a whole.
Someone were mentioning test with OFL 120 F1 in Dubai but there is no clear data just photo and few pages of some document.
Yeah, but it was also explained it was conducted with different model of Nizh inserts, and here we are talking about different model from that of trialed in UAE
By the way, the fact that there were other armor elements in Dubai does not fit… But other dynamic protection Duplet 2M with other elements fits, that’s how it turns out)
Yeah, but I haven’t seen lines from the act stating any other Nizh model inserts other than ХСЧКВ-25, that is, AFAIK, the only mention ever of model 25 overall.
This is too confusing 2 different models and like 3 versions of Duplet ? And which one in T-84 sold to Thailand ?
Uh, well, it is hard to explain properly, but let’s say you have Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA. It was designed with a single purpose: defeat HEAT jets from hollow-charge projectiles. Its only purpose was anti-HEAT, and could be mounted anywhere on the tank that supported add-on armor.
Ukrainian Nizh ERA, in contrast, was designed to defeat both hollow-charge projectiles and kinetic penetrators (APFSDS). However, it is not like Nizh stands for only one model of inserts in ERA tile (block/brick), but for different, depending on what it should defeat (hollow-charge jets only or both kinetic and chemical) and where should it be fitted (behind tank armor, hull, or top of the turret).
Nizh ERA is a collective name for the principle of how this ERA works. Essentially, it does not launch steel plates via explosion like K-1 or K-5, but has mini hollow-charge elements that, once triggered like ERA, slice with their mini HEAT jets incoming projectile (“nizh” in Ukrainian stands for “knife” in English).
As I said, there is not one unique model for Nizh ERA, but a number of them. I can’t recall each specifically, but Nizh ERA can have different component/insert models inside it, including but not limited to:
- model 19: “regular” version, consists of 11-12 “knives” (mini hollow-charge elements), designed to counter primarily hollow-charge projectiles, as well has a certain degree of efficency against kinetic penetrators like 3BM15 and 3BM42 (unlike Kontakt-1). It is to be put on top of turret armor.
=> model 19A: lighter version of model 19, used against hollow-charge projectile; AFAIK has very low KE protection, thus has no efficency against 3BM42. It is to be put in hull side armor. - model 25 (model 34 prototype?): not a lot is known about it, but from what can be read it is the strongest of all Nizh inserts, this one should almost completely defeat OFL 120 F1 (stronger than 3BM42), however it was not accepted for mass production and only underwent trials.
- model 34: larger and heavier version of model 19, shares the same dimensions exept thickness, consists of 7 heavier “knives” with increased hollow-charge power. Designed to be used against both hollow-charge projectiles and kinetic penetrators, defeats about 50% penetration of 3BM42, however is weaker against monobloc APFSDS like DM43, M829 and so on. It is to be put in hull front and side armor, turret front and side armor.
According to manual, Thai use model 34 elements for turret front, sides, as well as full hull front and one layer of side armor; also model 19 for turret top, and model 19A for two layers in side armor (you can see three rows of ERA in hull sides, yet 2 rows are filled with weaker model 19A and 1 row with much stronger model 34).
The argument right now is whether data for model 34, and all Nizh ERA inserts overall, is estimated with right sources, because there are two manufacturers of said ERA inserts, and there is discussion whether Nizh ERA is modeled according to one manufacturer or another, as test from both in some apsects differ.