Their a document that shows that they were thinking that DM63 wasn’t good enough
do you think thats the only image of a destroyed T80 BVM?
This likely refers to performance at “combat” ranges (?2km?), so isn’t absolute considering how much velocity is lost due to drag at that point. For war thunder point blank comparison would be more valuable though it has little reason be tested since its incredibly unlikely for tanks to sneak up on one another.
Also The TOW-2B should go though it due to its unique ERA bypass mechanism, which uses two spatially separated warheads to trigger the ERA early, then penetrate with the second charge the now unprotected roof armor.
But of course that isn’t modeled for an unknown reason, unlike all other Tandem / Dual warhead missiles it doesn’t get bonus penetration since there are Game engine related reasons why modeling the second charge is not possible.
1 Like
Show me more, have not since more T-80BVM or T-90M hit in the RELIKT (not the space between them).
The most frustrating thing about ERA that they still have the space between each brick, an FPV hit that spot gonna pen regrardless the cover of the ERA. That’s the problem i saw since the raise of FPV.
Nothing unique with 2B since it’s a top attack with tanderm warhead.
K5 has an improvement since K1 with more “resistant” to the tanderm.
RELIKT also has inherited that without the drawback of K5 since they also improve the explosive compound.
Choose the math/formula to caculate the pen in real time is a headache, we still waiting for more mechanic like bypass ERA with specific rounds, some ERA has more resistant to tanderm like K5, optics/FCS destroyed cause blind in Sim, …
Have you ever seen a cut away?
It’s unique in the sense that it uses a dual EFP (Not HEAT) set up, and they aren’t; co-axial
and on top of that it overflies the target with the aft warhead having a delay to allow the forward EFP to harmlessly trigger any ERA (if present), permitting the follow-on charge to proceed without being effected unless the ERA was multi-hit rated, which no system in service is.
7 Likes
This is true in nearly all br’s except at 10.0.
Actually I take that back, we don’t have any well armored tanks at 10.0. I just love the Wolfpack. Our tanks are all paper. Or they put them in a BR where our well armored tanks get smoked by APDS or APFSDS rounds. So the armor is still sh*t.
Where.
Yeah news to me of a 0% detonation
Again, he was claiming that no APFSDS that currently exists can deal with Relikt whilst citing DM53 & 63, but these two are no the only APFSDS in the world, and more capable projectiles already exist.
1 Like
It’s not a tandem penetrator like BILL 2. It uses two EFP penetrators in the warhead to increase damage to the target.
ERA on the top armor is usually focused on CE protection; and the TOW-2B warhead uses a EFP penetrator that functions more like a small KE penetrator from ~2m standoff distance at detonation.
1 Like
That is not an accurate enough translation.
-
“The DM63 is currently not capable of effectively combating modernized Russian tanks in a duel situation.”
There was no mention of “overwhelming” in the original; it discussed the effectiveness of the ammunition with no mention of “overwhelming”. -
“The KE2020Neo would significantly reduce the capability gap by VJTF 2027 and provide the technological basis for closing this gap.”
Headroom is the incorrect term here as it implies expanding capability rather than closing an existing gap. -
“Modern reactive armors (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA), like the 3rd generation ERA (Relikt), which are characteristic of older series Russian combat tanks, are not sufficiently countered by the current KE ammunition. In engagements against tanks like the KPz T72B3 and KPz T-90(MS), the existing KE ammunition is no longer effective.”
The phrase “no longer effective” suggests a degree of inefficiency or inadequacy, while “no longer capable of dealing with” might imply total ineffectiveness. There is a clear difference; the original German sentence also does not specify the situations in which the ammunition is no longer effective.
In short, the document does indicate that DM63 and DM53 ammunition are not as effective against Relikt and the tanks it armors; it does not state that they are incapable of defeating them. Rather, it suggests that the performance no longer meets the desired, yet undefined, standards.
The document itself is iffy at best
While it is from the German government, it is not from the military but from the “Haushaltsausschuss,” which is the Budget Committee. There are also no sources or any additional information provided about where that information comes from, so it could be completely inaccurate and or leaving out details.
Drucksache 19/23326
Page 5/6
2 Likes
Interesting, more deeper to know, thanks.
Diesel doest explode…it burns when its flashpoint is reached and its vaporized. Exactly what would happen if hit by a oenetrator.
mostly for propaganda, if they adjust the armor in a semi-realistic way for all nato tanks the invincible axis sweden/germany/russia would last like 2 days, abrams challenger and merkava with realistic armor would absolutely demolish them
We see how DM43 and DM53 penetrate T-80BVM front armor in Ukraine…
U do remember the leopard is a nato tank as well and proven to be underperforming in war thunder as well right?
No? 2a7v is good performing if not better than strv, the only nations worth it at top tier are russia sweden and germany because they are the only one with actual working armor
When? Because that one photo from a t80bvm knocked out with a hit in the front below the era is from the start of the war, so no dm 43 or dm 53 where present at that time…
3 Likes