|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:K-1 ERA
MikkoLn
7/30/2004 9:52:02 AM
|
The problem is that it's not easily possible to translate reactive armour aid to some kind of RHA-protection value generally. It's much a thing that either works very well and manages to cripple much of the penetrators power or then not at all. This is particularly true with early reactive armour vs. HEAT rounds, though also K5 could manage relatively fine results of some one third of then used western 120mm rounds (with us tests rounds were A2) penetrating power diminished. Like said before, reactive armour as such is however much too unexpected in it's performance in order to be added to basic protection as of some RHA value.
For the most of 80's the KE penetrators that NATO generally fielded, especially for 105mm guns were not very advanced as of their performance (if comparision point is later developments of 90's where 105mm calibre L7 derivatives have done 600-700mm RHA results with advanced munitions which really shows what can be done with real development and what is their real potential). Even though L7 was probably finest gun of the cold war time, and could beat anything soviets had in long range accuracy, the armour carried by soviet tanks had increased so much by the early 80's (from the 250-300mm of early 70's to nearly 500mm of the early 80's) that then used KE penetrators just couldn't have kept the page. As the HEAT was then the desirable AT-projectile, reactive armour add-on gave soviets pretty good starting point to take on long range NATO tank gun fire with very acceptable losses and then take advantage of the closer range firefight and overwhelming quantity. The advent of more powerful 120mm rounds naturally balanced the situation in NATO's favour again, but it also have to be remembered that whereas for the whole 80's majority of the total armoured stock of NATO in Europe still consisted of 105mm gun armed vehicles relying on unimproved KE and HEAT rounds soviets were in turn fielding much more considerable numbers of vehicles recently retrofitted with reactive armour, and decent passive steel armour. Only in 90's most of the armies were re-arming with new vehicles or improved weaponary that took the performance of both 120mm and 105mm weapons to whole new level. Soviets couldn't of course fully keep up with the development at that point very effectively, but appereance of new 125mm rounds in the early and late 90's and heavy reactive armour has shown that they are still seeking to offset the balance, even with obsolescent designs. And what can be observed from K5, also managed to do that, at some degree.
For the total effectiveness of both design it's naturally true that both M1 and LeopardII were at the time of T80 much more advanced in their design, layout and many other key capacities. In the first response of mine I just commented the armour protection, not taking into consideration totally different level damage taking capability and survivability, nor overall capabilities.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
