I know that. I'm looking down the road when we get CKEM and RBLRP ammunition in about five to ten years in the inventory. At that point you are looking at about 15+ Mjoule strikes and you might as well as hang the armor question up. The shock of the strike is going to render anybody useless inside a reasonable-sized tank even if the shot doesn't pierce. I don't see the paperweight going anywhere or doing anything either; after you been hit with the equivalent muzzle energy of a 12 inch naval gun.

Herald

Dwightlooi :
""Bluewings... I think it is you who is being overly optimistic.""

Well , maybe I am ... It is just that I tend to trust the Russian 's ERA because I saw some tests results and when I run simulations I do get the same results too .
All I am going to say is if the Irakis had Kontakt ERA (second generation , not -5)  on their T-72s during GW1 , 73-Easting would have ended up very differently ;-)
The US 2nd ACR Squadron would have won anyway because of the inability of the Irakis to fire in the sand storm (lack of TIS) but the battle would have been fought at a much closer range , because the 2nd ACR was moving fast and would have not killed as many T-72s as they did during the wave .
I tried to run 73 Easting in simulation using T-80UM-1 equipped with Kontakt-5 (but without ARENA) and the outcome of the battle is very different !! Of course , I used the ammo the Irakis had at the time (crap 3BM12 or 3BM15 hard steel core) and the T-80s managed to dammaged few Abrams from long range and even kill some from less than 400m during the "sand storm dogfight" !
The US still won the fight but with some losses .
When I run the same battle with the T-80s firing 3BM42 APFSDS , they win easily . Of course , the Abrams were outnumbered in 73 Easting so it is easy for the T-80s with a good ammo to run the show .

""The M829A1 itself could defeat Konkakt-5""

Only 20% of the time = 1 shot out of 5 . I 've got the numbers . This is not good enough for a TC ! It is worrying !

""the problem is that its ability to reliably penetrate the front armor of Russian tanks every time""

Exactly .

""The A2 basically lengthened and toughen the rod to practically make the Konkakt-5 style ERA largely irrelevant""

It still wasn 't good enough , the A2 do not defeat Kontakt-5 every time . This is the reason why the USA fielded the A3 which is ~as I said~ a different fish .
Btw , the French PROCIPAC APFSDS looks very promissing . The latest tries show something better than the A2 or the DM-53 , but still under the M829A3 .

""It is harder to get ERA to degrade long rods.""

ERA does not only degrade rods by shortening them down but by destroying the alloy cohesion with a shock wave , making them very fragile for the "main punch" if they survive the hit . You can also add the yawn to the equation which can be as big as 30 degrees .
I tell you : ERA works .

Cheers .

Oh I know they work. They just don't work like you think they work nor do they offer wonderous protection like you think they do.

(1) Heavy ERA -- since their inception -- has only broken (shortened) the leading long-rods of their time occasionally.
(2) When they don't succeed in one they have minimal effects on the penetrator's performance.
(3) The MAXIMUM yaw ever claimed by heavy ERA against relatively willowy penetrators like the DM53/M829A1 is about 2~3 degrees under ideal impact angles.

Why do Russian tanks paste ERAs all over? Because they are not as good with engineering base armor. Because it is light and offers very good protection against single warhead HEAT rounds. And, because some of the latest iterations offer some amount of protection enhancement (albiet somewhat unreliable enhancement) against some long rod penetrator types under some conditions as a side benefit.

Dwightlooi :
""(1) Heavy ERA -- since their inception -- has only broken (shortened) the leading long-rods of their time occasionally.""

Well , I know now that you do not really know what you 're talking about Dwightlooi or you wouldn 't say occasionaly .
Of course , heavy ERA performs better against shape charges rather than against APFSDS , but it  is still very efficient versus KE rounds . 
Ask yourself why the West keep developping rounds like the M829A3 or the DM53 or  the OFL 120F2 or PROCIPAC when a M829A1 or a DM43 can already penetrate all known naked russian armor ... Try to tell me what the reason is .

""(2) When they don't succeed in one they have minimal effects on the penetrator's performance.""

Heavy ERA never has a minimal effect on APFSDS . Even at the best angle ~90 degrees~ ERA still reduce the possibility of  penetration by 30% , which is not "minimal" .
Now , if the 2 Tanks are facing each other and the rod hit the ERA on the side of the turret ~extremely shallow angle~ the rod will be destroyed 80% of the time without even scratching the main armor because the moving plate will hit the rod on its lengh full blow .

""(3) The MAXIMUM yaw ever claimed by heavy ERA against relatively willowy penetrators like the DM53/M829A1 is about 2~3 degrees under ideal impact angles.""

Nope , you 're wrong Dwightlooi . It far more than that and the yaw can be as big as 30 degrees . It even happened that the rod was deflected enough that after going through the ERA brick it simply "ricocheted" on the top side or top turret .
Nowadays APFSDS do not usualy "ricochet" and tend to dig into the armor even at very shallow angles . At extremely shallow angles , the pointy tip will dig in then the rod will brake , leaving 10cm or so sticking up from the armor . Why ?
Because the sheer energy ~square of the speed multiplied by the Mass~ is too strong for the rod strengh .

Demonstration :
"The next factor in determining the effectiveness of a tank?s armor is slope. On the face of it, slope should not impact on armor design at all since the more you incline a plate to armor a volume or profile, the more material you need to cover that profile. Where slope becomes a factor is in the effect it has on the attacking projectile. This means that whatever effects it has, it?s tied to the projectile nose design as much as the armor slope.
Firstly, all projectiles will ricochet. The real question is at what angle and velocity do they ricochet. Ricochet occurs when a attacking projectile glances off the sloped armor of an AFV without digging in far enough to penetrate the plate. If it has no time to dig in before it ricochets, it can?t penetrate even modest amounts of armor. A complex model has been developed to predict the angle at which a projectile is expected to ricochet, this is called the ?critical ricochet angle?.

The longer the rod, the higher the ricochet angle and the faster the rod, the higher the critical ricochet angle. In addition, heavy metal rods of WHA or dU2 ricochet at higher angles that steel. The critical ricochet angle is measured from the vertical plane [i.e. 90° is horizontal]. A rod of 10:1 L/d [Length to rod Diameter ratio] @ 1.7km/s should ricochet at ~78° when made of steel, while its WHA /dU counterpart will ricochet @ 81°. Stretching the penetrator to 15:1 L/d increases the ricochet angle to 82—83°, and it?s likely that 30:1 rods will ricochet at >84—85°.
Tate?s ricochet formula predicts a ±5° variation around these values, so 50% of the 10:1 steel rods should ricochet @
~78°, while ricochet will occur as high as 83°and as low as 73°. The above cases apply to thin plate targets, but if the plate is over 4:1 T/d [plate Thickness / rod diameter ratio] the ricochet angles should go down a few degrees."

Dwightlooi , here is another thing for you to understand better :

"ERA generally works in the following way: A flat layer of explosive is sandwiched between two steel plates, mounted some distance from the main armor wall. When this array is struck by a sufficiently large enough force [HEAT jet or KE penetrator], the explosive is detonated and the ?Flyer plates? are driven apart.
If this impact occurs at angle, the expanding movement of the plates will cut across the p

You are quoting someone else's work here. Attribute the originator of that work by NAME

Remember. I am not a fool

Herald.

""You are quoting someone else's work here. Attribute the originator of that work by NAME""

Sure , it is from Paul Lakowski .

Cheers .

That is Paul Lakowski of Vancouver, Canada? This is the guy who supplies much of the data for the tank simulation game Steel Beasts?

Then this attribution is not the results of weapon  proof or COMBAT that you quote?

Just want to know the quality of the data you present.

Herald

Herald :
"" That is Paul Lakowski of Vancouver, Canada? This is the guy who supplies much of the data for the tank simulation game Steel Beasts?""

Yes it is from Paul .
Herald , while one version of Steel Beasts has been released to the general public under the name SB Pro PE (Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition) , the main software is the tool used by the Armies of the USA , Germany , Denmark , Sweden , Canada , Australia , Spain (Do I forgot anyone ?) to train their Armored and Cavalry Corps .
SB Pro PE has in fact been released for the Tankers who wanted to train at home on their PC and not only at the main facilities . The SB (Steel Beasts) staff decided to release a light version of the Simulator to the general public just for the sake of it , its priced $125 which is a fuck**g bargain for such software . We have one of the best if not the best ballitics algorythms in the military market .
Paul Lakowski is a reference in armor , his work is to be taken very seriously and his reputation as a military consultant is not to be discuseed .

""Then this attribution is not the results of weapon  proof or COMBAT that you quote?""

Some are , some are not .
Just ask which are which , I 'll tell you .

Cheers .

I wanted to say that I am not making any free advert for SB ;-)
Herald asked so I answered .
*************************
I 'm not defending ERA without reasons . In the West , we have a much better armor design than in the East because of our better knowledge about alloys and better manufacturing of expensive and high quality materials . We also have a better technology regarding Tank rounds .
But ERA is a cheap and light way to turn a medium Tank into a well armored still medium Tank . Russia is so far the only one to field decent ERA . All the others ~France , Israel , the UK and some other Eastern Nations (China comes to mind) are only fielding NERA or weak ERA .
ERA is not the panacea , far from it , but it works well when you know how to build it . The latest Russian stuff can be a nightmare for a Tank Gunner and a tiring task for the loader , lol ! (It 's why the Leclerc has an autoloader . {Just kidding}) .

Let 's put that into perspective .
Let 's say that an Abrams SEP with M829A2 is facing a T-80UM1 with 3BM42 @ 4000m .
The T-80 will fire first a Reflex or two at the Abrams (you can unload a round from the breach in a T-80 and switch to a Reflex missile while you can 't unload a round on an Abrams . When it 's in , it has to be fired)
The Reflex might hit or miss . If it hits , expect to get some problems with your optics and/or with your FCS (your TIS can also go Out Of Order) . That 's a bad start .
If it misses , the Abrams TC will keep his Tank at almost full speed to close in ASAP to get in range (He wants to fire too and ASAP !) .
Now the two Tanks are about 3000m from each other , both will start to use their APFSDS . The rate of fire is on the T-80 side because loading a round when the Tank is at full speed in the countryside ~as I 've been told many times by US , English and German loaders~ is not an easy task . An autoloader doesn 't care .
Now , all comes to the gunners and especialy the Abrams 's gunner . If he can aim low and target the glacis or the lower hull , the T-80 will die . If he hits the front or the side turret , this is a 50/50 chance to fail to penetrate .
During that time , the T-80 did fire too . The Du rod will hit the Abrams somewhere ... If it hits the front or side turret , the Abrams will survive but if it hits the lower hull or the glacis , we have one Abrams down .
You can see that it is a very undecided fight when plotted against each other alone .
 
I have to say that it would probably be the same if your replace the Abrams with a Leo2A5 or a Leclerc or a Chally .
I may say that the Leclerc and the Chally have a better chance because they both can fire at a longer range than the Abrams which has a 4000m maximum range (FCS restriction , the LRF {Laser Range Finder}is the culprit) .
*********************
It is very easy for us to say that the Russian made Tanks are not good . Well , that 's untrue .
Fortunatly , some people are more clever than some poster here and try to think how to deal with Reflex and ERA ...
(about Reflex missiles , we still do not have a proper defense against them while the Russian have ARENA to stop our ATGMs) .

Cheers .

I may say that the Leclerc and the Chally have a better chance because they both can fire at a longer range than the Abrams which has a 4000m maximum range (FCS restriction , the LRF {Laser Range Finder}is the culprit) .

The LRF, whatever tank it is mounted in, is LOS reflection limited, so you don't know what you write.

Stick to the armor and leave the  EW to others.

Herald