Austin wrote:Mindstorm , Can you please tell what is the approximate penetration figures for KE and CE rounds for Indian T-90S Bhishma using K-5 ERA a composite armour ?
I would like to know some figures the frontal protection and rear and side ones ? Thanks
Finally i get a bit of free-time for write.
1) Level of protection of frontal turret of T-90S against KE penetrators
(in a 30 degree inception angle, except gun mantle area) taking into account K-5
-export variant- ,vary from 770 mm to 860 mm RHA (800 mm average measure),in this area differences in basis passive protection level in respect to the internal T-90A are truly marginal (in the 20-30 mm RHA range) ,in the rear side of turret
,for inception angles over 43 degrees (the worse enemy fire radial arc segment for T-90S's turret design geometrically-wise) we have about 280-310 mm RHA ; in this area for this "overstretched" angles of fire, the effect of ERA become the dominating factor bith against KE and CE ammunitions.
With the improved T-90MS for export, the level of passive armour protection ,thanks to about 10 years of R&D achievements (mostly aimed at the armour layout of the new generation MBT to be accepted in russian ground forces) ,lightening of almsot all internal systems and a contestual increase of the weigth of about 2 tons and half, has reached in the turrett front about 850 mm RHA against KE ; effect of Relikt even in its export version ,of course, bring that figure at levels totally outside the reach of any classical APFSDS now operative or in R&D phase worldwide and would require attack means employing completly new pronciples in order to get a chance to penetrate a similar protected MBT in that area .
Naturally the up-mentioned figures have nothing to do
with the comical metropolitan legends (on tanks moreover with horrible armoured mass/volume index
) about MBT's passive protections level of 950 mm RHA against KE
But, you know, when ,on the basis of -at best- staged pics (the only good quality of which is only that naturally haven't put anybody in a very ,very very bad situation for a very dangerous security's break
..) someone construct odd theories only to mantain in some way alive its "beloved" low level metropolitan legends showing a total blindness for any factual element in direct conflict with it, you can obtain results like this (selled even as the definitive correct draw of Leopard-2A4 armour LOS !!!!!!
Do you remember,Austin, what said the other time ? When someone manipulate parameters, it fatally fall in an unescapable vortex of incompatible models .
In this istance in order to attempt to sustain that A2 is.... 84 cm ,our wizard transform Leopard A4 in a MBT with ....an hull of about 9 meters in length !!
(and more than 11 meters with the main gun
The claimed length of A2 and A1 (84 cm and 65 cm) become of course comically incompatible (you can measure them and see as the difference is marginal) ....an "unlucky" collateral effect of one of the images (the third...that with the comical attempt to increase the wideness measuring from centre of the periscope area in oblique ) showing an indentifiable structural element of Leopard 2 A4 .
Now ,Austin, attempt to measure, above the segment A1, the wideness of side turrett armor ,claimed by militarysta to be 33 cm , it should therefore measure about the half of A1
I could continue with dozen of other obvious titanic inconsistencies ,as with gun mask size or the same size of the turett, but i think that a pair of integral
photos of real Leopard 2A4
will be much more eloquent for clear the field than any other word
Good luck at mantain together a claimed measure of 84 cm for that armour section and a Leopard-2-A4 turrett 2,5 m wide
Naturally if the 84 cm return within the boundaries of much more reasonable figures ,all those parametrical incongruencies magically.....vanish