|
|
|
Subject:
T-80/T-90 armor effectiveness
RandyEsq
1/15/2004 7:21:14 AM
|
| I still have trouble giving the Russian equipment the credit that many sources give it.
"Despite the advances of the most modern versions (Kontakt-5) it's not nearly as good at repelling long rod penetrators as good composite armor is." George W. Herbert, link "... the M829A1, M829A2, M829E3, DM43 and DM53 all postdate that testing, and reportedly all are capable of penetrating what we know of current Russian frontal armor,depending on how effective Kontakt-5 is." Id.
I saw some data suggesting an early estimated 60% reduction in penetrator effectiveness from Kontakt 5. This would, of course, assume that the ERA blocks were properly installed, welded, etc. and that the material itself was up to specs [big assumptions with Russian production]. More significantly, the analysis of Kontakt 5 and the Jane's quote are all dated in 1996-97. DOD obtained Kontakt 5 equipment and subsequently developed the later M829, DM43 and DM53 rounds with improved penetrators [credit to Rheinemetal here]. We cannot determine on public information that added effectiveness of the newer M829 rounds, but it is safe to assume that they were intended to address Kontakt 5. The DM43 and DM53 seem to have been specifically tailored for this threat. Significantly, the GAO 1999 report on antiarmor weapons? effectiveness did not identify any short-comings in tank ammunition then under procurement.
I have to believe that more modern 120mm US (NATO) ammunition has adapted successfully to Kontakt 5. Maybe someone has more recent published data??
|
| |
|
|
|
