In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.
Even Konet and Chrizantiema seem to be too weak to perforate frontal turret armour Leo2A5 or M1A2...
two interesting facts:
1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.
2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep. No perforation.
Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA of course.
So You can image how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead, that's one of the resons why GLGATM (like Refleks, Kobra, Invar) are not in use in West. 650-900mm RHA penetration it to little to perforate modern western MBT.
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
is BS, becouse in most western tank there is active armour.
Leo2A5-A7 have NERA NRxA "wedges". It's mass efficiency is about 4-4.5 (for polish NERA - germans NERA should be better...) One weighs 500kg. So active working NERA/NRxA pannels propably give protection like ~4000kg additional armour. When we realize that armour mass on Leoard-2A4 turret is ~8900kg we can image how increased protection of Leo2A5 armour with this "wedges".
Of course "insert" in amrour cavity is not only passive
- it's myth base on erly burlighon. In M1A2 they are NERA/NRxA layers - in turret sides, and propably in turret front. Leclerck XXI (since T9)have NERA layers in turret.
Leopard2? In Leopard-2 germans rejected burlinghton becouse it was to weak against soviet APFSDS. erly Leo2 have their own solution - simmillar to Burlinghton against SC, but slighty better against KE penetrators. And it's not only passive to...
What funny - this is confirmed by the estimates of erly M1 and Leo2. First one against KE have 350mm RHA (for 740mm LOS propably), erly Leo2 have about ~410-470mm RHA (first value for 740mm LOS, second for rare 840mm LOS).
Russians tanks are pretty good, but marketing stuff, and obvius lies distort the picture. Like about T-90MS:
The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT
Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.
By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.
If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.
Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм
It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~840mm).
If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.
think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)
And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m
Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc. - for me this talking about russian havy ERA is ussaly rubish...
Even polish simply ERAWA and ERAWA-2 can reduce for more then 30% some APFSDS. Of course Im talkig about BM-15 (3BM15). The same ERAWA can't reduce significantly more modern APFSD (DM-33, "Pronit" etc).
In my opinnion talking about 1,5 for Relikt is just wrong, but it's look greate for marketing and PR guys.
Rather better idea is finding that the possibility of penetration of the some type of rod (penetrator) is reduced for ~20% (kontakt-5) to 40% (Relikt) and after taht we have penetration base armour. It's big diffrence. So we can count not base armour x 1,5 (like in marketing stuff) but reduce penetation capabilities for 20-40% and afer taht thinking if rod with lower abilities can perforate base armour.
In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.
It's much less than other estimates assume, but I have certain conditions to make such a claim. Except that I leave some things for myselves :-)
Of. course this 500-650mm RHA for basick T-90A means that tank have very good protection.
All because active working ERA can reduce (Kontakt-5)
DM53 for 700-750mm to only 560-600mm RHA pnetration, and in case Relikt to only ~450-500mm RHA. So in theory T-90A turret can withstand even modern amo. Of course with Relickt, not old Kontakt-5.
It looks worse when we take M829A3 -this APFSDS should pass 600-640mm RHA after Kontakt-5, and ~500mm RHA after Relikt.
Of course the above is my speculation. I may be wrong. But as I said - I have my reasons to believe so.