Bro read the nickname you coppy ;D
Well your name can’t be found, so you recently changed it from something and it hasn’t been updated yet.
try -ProRok-
1 Like
yes it shows now, i assumed you were VivaLaDowntier because you are on the same squadron but its most likely your secondary acc, so yea you said truth you play since 2015 sorry my mistake
Not to its exact technical specifications such as final explosive mass, but it was still designed specifically against Relikt principles.
was relikt not designed against anti-ERA such as M829A3?
this nickname with the ending Downtier is actually someone from my division who, for reasons unknown to me, wanted to be called the same as me, the only additional account I had in this game was from 2014 and was stolen, then I created the one I am currently playing on
It was made as a response to the newer anti-ERA APFSDS made by NATO, yes. To better resist where Kontakt-5 had essentially become dead weight.
And while this is in part true with for example DM53 being made against Kontakt-5 but failing against Relikt, the breakaway tip of the M829A3 was made specifically to go through these double action/layer designs that were in prototype phase in Russia at the time.
to be fair, it is a funny name
such as M829A3?
It was a fully capable APFSDS-T combat round developed specifically to defeat modern tanks equipped with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), particularly the Russian Kontakt-5.
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.
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
1 Like
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
Do we have proof of it working IRL?
I’m just curious.
Real life proof from testing is all I need
1 Like
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.