Almost nothing? Big adverbs you use there. Granted if the target knew what was happening and was maneuvering in a more "intense" fashion, sure, it'd be the biggest deterrent to an incoming projectile. Though, that still does not discount the environment, who's effects as we know varies more greatly as the distance increases....
Words in that fields have zero value; at the range taked into examination in mine previous post (2200 m) a modern FCS employing an up-to-date APFSDS achieve a fire dispersion at point angle of few millirads with a contribution of not-standard deviations from this figure (due to not computable environmental factor variation during the round's flight pact) of at maximum 30% of that figure .The increase in the dispersion's value linked to not computable environmental factor are
,therefore, in the range of some cm
; now even a very small variation in the vector of the intended target
can cause,in the same situation, a miss of several meters
,a difference of some orders of magnitude, clear ?
Therefore the adverbe employed not only is not "strong" but even conservative ,considering the parametrical figures involved.
And as I've mentioned, even though they're using more reactive explosives, that alone would not account for the dramatic increase in protection. But regardless, even though that is from NII STALI, any person learned in Armor will still tell you that 1,000 mm RHAe from an ERA is near absurd, and more evidence is required.
1) NII Stali declare to have continually and significantly reduced the quantity of explosives employed in theirs dynamic protection systems
,while obtaining a constant increase of the effciiency (the Institute is closer to a true breackthrough
in the dynamic protection field ,at the point that it declare that Relikt E
RA -stimed today a true monster and creating enormous problem to foreign KE and CE penetrator's designers- is today for Russian sector a thing of the past !!
2) The question of 1000 mm equivalency, is a gross inference from a pasted estimation (about 250-280 RHA mm equivalent) of the rough equivalence in RHA mm provided by first version of K-5 ERA ,operationally deployed in Soviet tanks in 1984 ...., also in that instance the western intellicence and analyst community (exactly like for R-73 ),was totally deceived by the the false tracks provided by the same Soviets with guided information leaks and horribly ,and purposely downgraded, export models .
The shocking awakening for westren scientifical community of the sector ,caught completely "off guard", happened only a decade later since K-5 operational introduction when the extensive live tests of Manfred Held ,before, and Leland Ness ,after, camed like a pair of true punch in plain face; them opened suddenly an unexpected and nightmarish scenario for the entire western sector ,still busy at celebrate theirs "performance" in Gulf War against Iraqi T-55s ,Type-59s and monkey models of T-72M