And relikt is the upgrade from that ERA? Designed for shells such as M829A3?
No. Reread what I said above. DM53. L27. Etc. These are NATO APFSDS that were made to defeat Kontakt-5. They work on a different principle to M829A3 and are vulnerable to Relikt.
Once again, M829A3 was made specifically to go through Relikt design with a 15% total length breakaway tip.
I came up with this nickname after constantly getting uptiered—at one point, I think I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown in the game because of it :D
1 Like
no
the anti ERA darts that it was designed to combat were those that used a special tip to avoid detonating K5
relikt was explicitly designed against this through using more sensitive explosives, and doing so fulfills the generic marketing statements about protection from anti ERA APFSDS
unless you can find a source that explicitly calls out being designed against M829A3 and its anti ERA mechanism and point to a feature in the design of relikt that facilitates this, it is very likely that M829A3 will still defeat relikt
1 Like
M829A3 is stated to counter Relikt and Relikt is stated to counter A3. Anyone who says either of these specifically is just schizo.
Without proof of A3 penning Relikt, its not going to reflect in-game.
1 Like
That’s what I’ve been seeing constantly
I’d rather wait on proof (testing) that can be confirmed than go rely on hypotheticals.
Still, stating that the anti-era on M829A3 does not work in-game is blatantly false (which is the statement I saw earlier).
It does work, just not against relikt
3 Likes
Except we have primary sources and numbers proving M829A3 design philosophy, nothing about hypothetical.
Short history summary:
1992: The DoD patents a Relikt-type ERA (double-action/flyer design).
1999: The DoD is aware that Russia is actively developing novel ERA(Kaktus and others).
2000: The DoD patents countermeasures specifically designed to defeat Relikt-type ERA(A breakaway tip totaling 15% of the total Sabot length because most of the force is applied there).
2000: M829A3 program requirements include upcoming threats.
2003: The M829A3 is finalized for production, featuring a design closely aligned with those countermeasures(15.87% sacrificial tip).
2006: As anticipated years earlier, Relikt enters production.
Thinking Relikt defeats M829A3 would imply the DoD and US engineers are so stupid that they created a new APFSDS mass produced for the next 10 years even though they knew before it entered production that it was already obsolete and on top of it, already knew how to not make it obsolete. Not sure you realize how ridiculous you’d be believing that.
All the primary sources:
Spoiler
1992 DoD patent for double flyer ERA(Relikt design):
US5293806A - Reactive armor - Google Patents
2000 DoD patent on countermeasure to double flyer ERA with APFSDS. Patent APFSDS is similar to M829A3:
US6662726B1 - Kinetic energy penetrator - Google Patents
1999 Open publication from the army mentioning how Russia is heavily working on novel protection/new ERA like Kaktus. If they release that to the public, what do you think they keep for themselves?
https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1999/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1999web.pdf
2002 Army fiscal year report:
LFT&E for this program(M289A3) includes both lethality and vulnerability evaluations. System lethality will be assessed with respect to expected threat tanks.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2002/other/2002DOTEAnnualRpt.pdf?ver=2019-11-07-180204-860#:~:text=to%20penetrate%20and%20destroy%20enemy,is%20possible%20with%20the%20current
5 Likes
Do we have proof of it working IRL?
I’m just curious.
Real life proof from testing is all I need
2 Likes
I will trust the engineers who ran lab tests and patented that a breakaway single-tip design (M829A3) is enough to pierce through both flyer plates as long as the tip is at least 9-15% of the total sabot because Relikt design applies most of its force there.
This is as real as can be. Now it’s only up to you to accept that or go the anti-science route and claim it’s a lie or something.
1 Like
I just prefer real life proof.
Simple as that
2 Likes
So, showing your bias towards speed being the best factor, you say the KH-58 is the best all rounder because its speed is technically 2nd best.
Meanwhile range is a more key factor, although speed is a great factor, speed doesn’t really matter if you can only do 90 mph for 5 mins vs 85 mph for 10 mins.
Man, I wish gaijin game us telemetry on console…
This is real-life proof lmao. This is not theoretical but real tests that were ran and came to this result. Or are laboratories now some kind of alternative dream dimension that aren’t part of the real world?
That’s not happening unless you want to build a time machine to travel 20+ years into the future and file a FOIA request for the classified data they were using.
ok so by your standards Kh58 is the best
because it is the best at long range
I want video footage of M829A3 specifically, working against relikt specifically.
I do not care for much else
2 Likes
so if thats the standard you need why are you trolling, by insisting that A3 cant like you were saying
because I can tell you havent seen a video of relikt stopping A3
so you were either trolling or have very inconsistent standards
3 Likes
So exactly what I said. anti-intellectualism at its finest. Let’s stop believing scientists and patents as soon as the information they say conflicts with what we want to believe. Truly, what a time to be alive as a person of science.
Back to the Dark Ages.
5 Likes
It’s safer for balancing purposes to assume this.
The abrams already even with M829A2 was already significantly superior to T-series tanks utilizing relikt .
The clickbait is literally better than both T-80BVM and T-90M
I frankly don’t really get why A3 was added because it simply wasn’t needed.
2 Likes
Hell, M1IP dusts them.
hmmm
thats not what you were saying…
and not really how that works
I agree, but I guess they wanted to add something to try get people to overlook how they werent going to give the SEPv3 better hull armor