To clear it up, just because both use 19A does not mean nizh-lm and nizh-m1 is the same, especially when nizh-m1 is stated by the producer to have substantial kinetic protection
You’re just assuming that 19a means the T-84 has nizh-lm on it, it does not, it’s nizh-m1
What even is the difference between those two?
One is made specifically for light vehicles (nizh-lm), the other is specifically made for tanks (it can be found on many Ukrainian tanks currently)
The difference is that LM offers no kinetic protection, while m1 offers substantial protection, so just because the graph above says the Thais use 19A on the side of the tank, he is assuming it’s LM and not m1
1 Like
Why would Ukraine put any ERA other than the one designed for tanks on a tank? Seems like kind of a dumb argument to be making IMO.
Because he refuses to believe that Ukraine made multi-layer ERA that can degrade APFSDS, and believes that only the 34 (duplet) offers protection, when in reality it’s a layer of duplet and 2 layers of nizh-m1
If the Israelis can do it with SLERA, then why can’t someone else do it by doing their own fancy ERA layering?
Sorry, I believe it’s actually 2 layers of duplet and one layer of nizh m1, graph is kinda hard to read….this is even better btw
The penetration table is both of questionable origin and would also have to be referring to LoS penetration @ 60 degrees or 68 degrees.
3BM-32 is a 380mmx30mm penetrator, it is physically impossible for it to attain >500mm of penetration at normal.
1 Like
he doesn’t care
The armor penetration of the 3BM42 at least matches the officially stated 230mm(60° 2000m)
Are you by any chance confusing the 3BM32 “Vant” with some other projectile?
As far as I know, it is 480 mm long and 31 mm in diameter and consists entirely of uranium.
4 Likes
Well, I still wonder what info was that article using. Fyi, there is a bug report open for that if you are feeling like doing anything with it.
I wonder if Thai themselves know more on this subject tho.
I don’t speak Thai, so idk whether there is info or any mentioning of possible spall liners.
@KoRoBoCHkA_2 Have you tried looking up such info there?
430 not 560.
if you have any further stuff to add to the spall liner report feel free to mention it or send it to me and I’ll add it
Oh, that’s interesting.
Thanks.
So then 430*0.6=258?
Then we need to choose a stronger projectile.
Of course.
The most accurate way is to measure how it happens in real life or ask real military personnel how fast it can be moved.
I heard stories first about a Polish tanker telling about a leopard.
And then about a T-90M mechanic who made a 15 km/h reverse for a tank in improvised conditions.
All these stories are not worth much.
Penetrator length =/= projectile length.
As far as I’m aware that table is taken from a technical state university publication but without any direct ties to the military or any other authoritative source.
Given the fact that the dimensions are publicized we can use the Lanz Odermatt calculator, that gives us values in the rough ballpark of 405mm @ 0° @ 2000m and 235mm @ 60° @ 2000m.
(415mm and 242mm if we do not use Gaijin’s higher standard of BHN target plate)