VladimirSahin wrote:Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf. But the closer the M1A2 gets the worse it will be for the T-72B3 which as stated by TR1 is not as armored as the M1A2 is, albeit not by a huge factor. In a real war these tanks will face IFVs and infantry too also many other things. So you must also compare other things, Such as the fact that the M1A2 has no escape hatch but the T-72B does. But this is just a example of course. I'm not sure about other things since I am not considered a "expert" yet
Exactly that was my point he ignored and didn't want to hear or ask on Otvaga.
Василий Фофанов wrote:Artemus написал wrote:
Вы правильно понимаете. Шансов абсолютно никаких.
You understand right. Chances are absolute none.
Шансы есть всегда. Ни для одного боеприпаса попадание не гарантирует пробитие, а пробитие не гарантирует поражение. Но, да, шансы не очень велики.
There are always chances. For no tank round hit is a penetration garanteed, penetration does not garantee destruction. However the chances are slim.
So, i our TR1 ivan would ask the correct question i think we would get a to the exact point i was making over the last 6 pages, that the B3 would most stop A3 over distance above ~2km, not all, but he could stop at first engagement ranges and effective engagement ranges which lie significantly above 2km mark. I've never said anywhere that B3 would just eat M829A3 up without problem, that is what the other side tried to imply. I can understand that by ignoring the ranges above 2km which represent common engagement ranges in tank duells or campaigns, can be ignored and that the protection is measured at point blank ranges to have reliable armor, but that was never the comperision for this one since it is older tank against a newer.
He also added.
Василий Фофанов wrote:Иван В. написал wrote:Каковы шансы против А2?
How are the chances against M829A2
Тоже довольно плохие к сожалению. Для парирования требуется "реликт".
Also very slim, sadly. For "parrying" (effectively) it needs "Relikt".
That quote implies what we already know from him anyway. That the K5 has some effect on APFSDS aka decreasing its effectiveness. The notion made by him collorates with what NII Stali said about effectiveness of Relikt that it will be highly effective against APFSDS and Tandem HEAT rounds. This suggests or at least indicates that Relikt will have/has such high effectiveness that it barely leaves anything of the penetrator, notion to the word "parry".
To the point made here about the presence of M829A3 in US Army inventar, he said:
Василий Фофанов wrote:Иван В. написал wrote:
А сколько снарядов А3 поступило на вооружение США? Сколько на вооружении стран НАТО, аналогов этого снаряда?
How many rounds of M829A3 are present in US storage? How many are in NATO countries, do analogues exist?
Этих снарядов очень мало, и аналогов ему не существует. Я пару лет назад выкладывал информацию о его статусе, здесь.
There are only very small number of such rounds and there are no analogues. A few years back i already posted information on its status, here.
Василий Фофанов wrote:
Compared to past procurements of similar rounds, the number of M829A3 rounds has been relatively limited, as it is regarded as an interim response to the array of reactive and other armours expected to appear in coming years. The procurement programme appears to have ended as no M829 series funding was requested for FY11 or 12. Low-rate production, for 5,000 rounds, began during FY02. The first award for full-rate production came in FY03 and covered 8,490 rounds at USD3,450 each, followed by the exercise of the FY04 option in March 2004 for 8,040 rounds at USD3,409 each.
The Program Year 2 lot failed their acceptance tests, and as a result, the FY05 buy of 7,050 rounds was restructured to allow ATK components that are not part of the problem (the penetrators and pre-preg material for the composite sabot) to be procured while they await the final report on the causes of the failures. An improved sabot design was approved in early 2006 and USD1.2 million provided to incorporate this change into Years 3 and 4 ammunition. This also allowed the Year 4 (FY06) buy to proceed, this being contracted for in February 2006 and covering 7,500 rounds at USD5,070 each for delivery between November 2007 and May 2008. A further 8,000 rounds were funded at USD5,729 each in FY07, followed by two final batches, of 8,000 each, in FY08 and FY09.
The procurement schedule for the M829A3 as of February 2012 is:
FY Quantity Total cost (USD thousands)
2006: 7,000 43.5
2007: 7,000 47.0
2008: 8,000 47.0
2009: 3,000 32.8
2010 & later: 0 0
So, now we have more information on the that too and can bet this question to grave.