and on the other side there is evidence apfsds ignores angles so any funny construction inside dosent mater
but again we don’t know simular how dont know if relic can stop high power apfsds (unless there have been news on that)
so conclusion is there is non. theory and result are not the same thing
The wedges remove the fins from the dart and destabilise it. Then, as long as it completely fits inside the cavity, it begins to tumble and hits the main armour at a suboptimal angle, causing it to have severely degraded performance or even shatter. The swedish trials showed that the wedges were incredibly effective.
I guess removing the side turret bustle ERA on the S1 and S2 is up next?
S21 supposedly saved weight by using ERA elements on the turret bustle. Then using that weight to improve frontal turret armor. S1 and S2 i guess only used composites on the bustle sides?
As far as I’m aware it’s about Leclerc XXI having ERA between the composite armor and the storage boxes (if I’m understanding it correctly) so they all keep the ERA but XXI would get some extra between armor components
Maybe? But that wouldn’t explain why the ERA is mentioned as a weight saving measure allowing for new material to be used on the frontal arc to improve protection.
It does essentially hinge on what is actually said in the French magazine article and how true that actually is. But i dont know anything about the magazine to know of the sourcing is garbage and idk where one could find a release to check