Countering DU Rounds

[EmperorNortonII]

Hey- I've been talking with someone about tanks. However, some of what he has said runs counter to my intuitions and what I've read. In short, there doesn't seem to be much (anything) online about DU rounds and just how effective they are against modern armor.

Specifically, I'm curious as to how effective reactive armor might prove against it. I was under the impression that reactive armor was mostly developed as a means of countering ATGMs. A uranium tank round seems like it would be too massive and dense to be significantly effected by an explosion in front of it. However, I'm no expert, and I can't find anything online that says one way or another.

Also- I am of the understanding that the M1A2 uses a German-designed gun and older-model British-designed armor. That is correct, yes? Are there any parts of the M1A2 that are foreign-designed, or copied/inspired primarily be not-American sources?

 

[Chrom]

Hey- I've been talking with someone about tanks. However, some of what he has said runs counter to my intuitions and what I've read. In short, there doesn't seem to be much (anything) online about DU rounds and just how effective they are against modern armor.

Specifically, I'm curious as to how effective reactive armor might prove against it. I was under the impression that reactive armor was mostly developed as a means of countering ATGMs. A uranium tank round seems like it would be too massive and dense to be significantly effected by an explosion in front of it. However, I'm no expert, and I can't find anything online that says one way or another.

Also- I am of the understanding that the M1A2 uses a German-designed gun and older-model British-designed armor. That is correct, yes? Are there any parts of the M1A2 that are foreign-designed, or copied/inspired primarily be not-American sources?

Uranium is not (that) significally better than tungsten in that regard. It have better after-armor effect and self-sharpering properties what was difficult to achieve in previos generation of tungsten rounds.

Either way, modern ERA work well against APFSDS. For example, russian NII-Stali claims last ERA provide up to 2 times reduction in APFSDS rounds penetration capabilites. On the other hand, modern HEAT warheads work much better against composite armor and highly exageratted figures of passive HEAT protection for modern tanks are not applicable against modern HEAT rounds.

 

[eckherl]

Hey- I've been talking with someone about tanks. However, some of what he has said runs counter to my intuitions and what I've read. In short, there doesn't seem to be much (anything) online about DU rounds and just how effective they are against modern armor.

Specifically, I'm curious as to how effective reactive armor might prove against it. I was under the impression that reactive armor was mostly developed as a means of countering ATGMs. A uranium tank round seems like it would be too massive and dense to be significantly effected by an explosion in front of it. However, I'm no expert, and I can't find anything online that says one way or another.

Also- I am of the understanding that the M1A2 uses a German-designed gun and older-model British-designed armor. That is correct, yes? Are there any parts of the M1A2 that are foreign-designed, or copied/inspired primarily be not-American sources?

Let me see:

He most likely thinks that modern Russian ERA is effective against defeating modern KE tank muntions, though it does offer some protection levels at extended engagement ranges for older generation KE tank munitions it is skeptical with the newer rounds with the likes of DM53/63 or M829A3, both rounds are designed to effectively defeat K5,K6 and future generation Russian and Ukrainian ERA. DU is still one of your most effective tank slayers that is currently still used, Tungsten metallurgy properties have made significant advancements in mushrooming and rod bending prevention with the Germans and Americans making the most advancements in this area, as you most likely already know the Germans have gone to a 55 caliber length gun tube due to getting away from DU ammunition, UK will follow suite by going to the L55 also for the Challenger 2. Russia, U.S, France and China just to name a few still use DU as a primary armor defeating Round , there is alot to be said with the rational behind it. And yes ERA is designed to primarily defeat shaped charged munitions.

The M1A2 armor is UK designed but has upgraded properties along with a hefty amount of DU plating making it one of the best protected tanks in the world at the 60 degree frontal. Yes we do use the German L44 gun under the designation M256, other things that we have borrowed from our German comrades would be the panoramic sight system with a few upgrades, suspension components also has origins from Germany. Hope this helps.

 

[Chrom]

Let me see:

He most likely thinks that modern Russian ERA is effective against defeating modern KE tank muntions, though it does offer some protection levels at extended engagement ranges for older generation KE tank munitions it is skeptical with the newer rounds with the likes of DM53/63 or M829A3, both rounds are designed to effectively defeat K5,K6 and future generation Russian and Ukrainian ERA. suspension components also has origins from Germany. Hope this helps.

Eckherl, you know as well as i'm what it is pretty weak argument - "developed specifically to..." without futher explanation WHAT advances allowed such properties. I can also say what new ERA was "specifically designed to defeat modern APFSDS round". And given the fact what ERA in the last 10 years was developed and changed to much higher degree than APFSDS (which btw didnt changed much...) - my point is stronger.

We know basic mechanic and know what ERA properties allow it to defeat modern APFSDS. But i dont see what can be done with APFSDS to make it immune to ERA.

Sure, modern APFSDS could be affected by ERA to slightly less degree than older APFSDS due to increased length. On the other hand, modern ERA employ such technicues as 2 or even 3 layers with delayed fusing, with metal sheets bouncing inside steel brick, allowing even more prolonged effect. You cant defend APFSDS round against such ERA.

ERA was INITIALLY developed to defeat HEAT. But starting from "K-5" it is already not completely true. "Relict" and later ERA's were developed specifically with APFSDS and tandem-warheads in mind, and at least according to NII Stali achieved pretty good results with that.

 

[martitrmartitr]

Sure, modern APFSDS could be affected by ERA to slightly less degree than older APFSDS due to increased length. On the other hand, modern ERA employ such technicues as 2 or even 3 layers with delayed fusing, with metal sheets bouncing inside steel brick, allowing even more prolonged effect. You cant defend APFSDS round against such ERA.

I don`t really see how increased length would protect you more against ERA.
The main mechanisms is getting the penetrator to yaw, and even cutting of a part of the penetrator. I believe I read that it cuts of the back part, but when looking for my source I found another that said that i cuts of the front. (but hes an idiot ) If it is the back, then a longer penetrator would mean that a larger part is cut off.
Original source was somwhere on the "symposium on impact physics".

 

[Chrom]

I don`t really see how increased length would protect you more against ERA.
The main mechanisms is getting the penetrator to yaw, and even cutting of a part of the penetrator. I believe I read that it cuts of the back part, but when looking for my source I found another that said that i cuts of the front. (but hes an idiot ) If it is the back, then a longer penetrator would mean that a larger part is cut off.
Original source was somwhere on the "symposium on impact physics".

Modern penetrators behave partially like "liquid stream" , partially like hard solid dart. As such cutting part of penetrator will affect longer penetrators less than shorter - the part cutted will be relative smaller in longer penetrators. Also, modern DU rounds have "self-sharpening" property, and cutting they front do not affect them nearly as much as older penetrators.

Modern ERA propose in such cases cutting penetrator in several places, and also prolonged pressure on dart by delaying explosion and reflecting metal sheets inside thick steel brick. This approach also work well against tandem HEAT warheads.

The downside is - such ERA become pretty bulky and heavy, but still it offers much better protection per-weight basis than common composite armor.

 

[eckherl]

Eckherl, you know as well as i'm what it is pretty weak argument - "developed specifically to..." without futher explanation WHAT advances allowed such properties. I can also say what new ERA was "specifically designed to defeat modern APFSDS round". And given the fact what ERA in the last 10 years was developed and changed to much higher degree than APFSDS (which btw didnt changed much...) - my point is stronger.

We know basic mechanic and know what ERA properties allow it to defeat modern APFSDS. But i dont see what can be done with APFSDS to make it immune to ERA.

Sure, modern APFSDS could be affected by ERA to slightly less degree than older APFSDS due to increased length. On the other hand, modern ERA employ such technicues as 2 or even 3 layers with delayed fusing, with metal sheets bouncing inside steel brick, allowing even more prolonged effect. You cant defend APFSDS round against such ERA.

ERA was INITIALLY developed to defeat HEAT. But starting from "K-5" it is already not completely true. "Relict" and later ERA's were developed specifically with APFSDS and tandem-warheads in mind, and at least according to NII Stali achieved pretty good results with that.

You are basing all of this on KE projectiles of M829A1 and older, newer projectiles have better materials to prevent the shearing effect of the projectile, you are not going to get a approximent 30% projectile mass loss while penetrating K5 or K6, and yes we have also tested with the cavities of T-80s with the main armor cavities filled with titanium and rubber, yes we have tested Ukrainian T-84s which are about equal to the Russian T-90 tank including with the welded constructed turrets. Again - I will state that the Russian and Ukrainian heavy ERA arrays do offer some protection levels at extended engagement ranges at the current time. There is alot to be said why NATO still uses 120mm guns still on their tanks, and please do not state that we don`t have the funds for a bigger size caliber, it is just not needed at the current time. How much does a fully combat loaded T-90M/S weigh, pretty soon you are going to run out of room and have no choice but to go with a all new vehicle design.

 

[Chrom]

You are basing all of this on KE projectiles of M829A1 and older, newer projectiles have better materials to prevent the shearing effect of the projectile, you are not going to get a approximent 30% projectile mass loss while penetrating K5 or K6, and yes we have also tested with the cavities of T-80s with the main armor cavities filled with titanium and rubber, yes we have tested Ukrainian T-84s which are about equal to the Russian T-90 tank including with the welded constructed turrets. Again - I will state that the Russian and Ukrainian heavy ERA arrays do offer some protection levels at extended engagement ranges at the current time. There is alot to be said why NATO still uses 120mm guns still on their tanks, and please do not state that we don`t have the funds for a bigger size caliber, it is just not needed at the current time. How much does a fully combat loaded T-90M/S weigh, pretty soon you are going to run out of room and have no choice but to go with a all new vehicle design.

While K-5 may indeed work not so well against modern APFSDFS rounds (or better to say, modern APFSDS rounds may have enouth penetration after ERA to defeat enouth passive armor) , it is pretty biased to tell what designers of newer ERA developed in later 199x and 200x didnt considered M829A2 or A3. And as i said, they have much better chances to counter that round than APFSDS round desingers countering modern ERA. Just basic logic here...
There are only few things APFSDS desingers can do - all of them are pretty well known. Thereas ERA is developed and changed every year.
To make an analogy, the difference between M829A1 and M829A3 is like difference between M1A1 and M1A2SEP. While the difference bettween K-5 ERA and modern proposed ERA is like T-34 vs T-95.

Note, i dont even tell what M829A3 cant penetrate T-90 armor with ERA - this is for another disscussion. Just what modern ERA will very considerable affect M829A3 perfomance.

Also, according to YOUR logic there is a reason why russian designers still use 125mm gun and not bigger caliber... russia "is just not needed it at the current time" ? "Pretty soon you (USA) are going to run out of room and have no choice but to go with a all new vehicle design"?

May be USA just finally got a bit of mind and realised what it dont need to defeat modern T-90 horders in the next 15 years? When NATO have such advantage in aviation, and Russia have such ineptness to carry any major war anyway?

 

[eckherl]

While K-5 may indeed work not so well against modern APFSDFS rounds (or better to say, modern APFSDS rounds may have enouth penetration after ERA to defeat enouth passive armor) , it is pretty biased to tell what designers of newer ERA developed in later 199x and 200x didnt considered M829A2 or A3. And as i said, they have much better chances to counter that round than APFSDS round desingers countering modern ERA. Just basic logic here...
There are only few things APFSDS desingers can do - all of them are pretty well known. Thereas ERA is developed and changed every year.
To make an analogy, the difference between M829A1 and M829A3 is like difference between M1A1 and M1A2SEP. While the difference bettween K-5 ERA and modern proposed ERA is like T-34 vs T-95.

Note, i dont even tell what M829A3 cant penetrate T-90 armor with ERA - this is for another disscussion. Just what modern ERA will very considerable affect M829A3 perfomance.

Also, according to YOUR logic there is a reason why russian designers still use 125mm gun and not bigger caliber... russia "is just not needed it at the current time" ? "Pretty soon you (USA) are going to run out of room and have no choice but to go with a all new vehicle design"?

May be USA just finally got a bit of mind and realised what it dont need to defeat modern T-90 horders in the next 15 years? When NATO have such advantage in aviation, and Russia have such ineptness to carry any major war anyway?

I do not buy into the argument that Russia is the leader in ERA designs any longer, Both Germany and Israel have come up with some impressive vehicle packages, there are some out there that will even state that China has some pretty good packages also. Due to the size of Russian T-series vehicles you will run out room a heck of alot quicker than we will, thus one of the reasons why Russia is pushing for a possible unmanned turret for future generation tanks. When we run out of design capabilities for 120mm KE projectiles then we will not have any problems going with a bigger gun, that portion has already been tested.

When did I ever state that the 125mm is substandard in the armor penetration field, the gun is still very capable at shorter engagement ranges firing KE projectiles. Also I would like to ask you this question, do you think that Russia or the Ukraine got their hands on round design layouts and metal/material properties for the U.S M829A3 or German DM 63.

 

[Chrom]

I do not buy into the argument that Russia is the leader in ERA designs any longer, Both Germany and Israel have come up with some impressive vehicle packages, there are some out there that will even state that China has some pretty good packages also.

Becouse you just believe so? Show me any proof. At least Russia fielded undoubtly most advanced ERA right now, and NII-Stali can show already developed possible upgrades. Both Germany and Israel didnt showed anything more advanced than old K-5 yet... May be they have something better deep in secret bunkers, but we dont know...

Due to the size of Russian T-series vehicles you will run out room a heck of alot quicker than we will, thus one of the reasons why Russia is pushing for a possible unmanned turret for future generation tanks.

It is the other way around. True, internal space is a bit more cramped. But external dimensions are not... Western tanks are already at the edge of they maximal size - M1A2 should be already stripped part of equipment to comply standard railroad sizes. Other western tanks also have pretty big problems with size and weight after all these recent upgrades. Thereas T-90 still have some room for external equipment. And well, unmanned turrent is NOT due to any size. I'm sure you'll understand the main benefits....

When we run out of design capabilities for 120mm KE projectiles then we will not have any problems going with a bigger gun, that portion has already been tested.

There will be problem. Look at L55 induction. Either way, this is not the question. The question was about your weak argument - "if USA dont replace 120mm gun then it must reliable penetrate any armor". As i pointed out, same argument hold true about any other gun - be it russian 125mm or american 20mm bushmaster.

When did I ever state that the 125mm is substandard in the armor penetration field, the gun is still very capable at shorter engagement ranges firing KE projectiles.

Shorter than what? Than ATGM missiles? Or than 155mm gun? Let me remind you - neither is in NATO service.

I dont believe current 125mm ammo can penetrate M1A2SEP frontal armor with 100% probabilty. I dont believe M829A3 can penetrate T-90A frontal armor with 100% probability. In weaker zones - yes. In stronger zones - definitly no.

Inducing any large caliber gun will require full-scale replacing of tank forces, with all associated logistic - not just relatively cheap SEP or TUSK upgrades.
Cant see why West would want it. Against 3rd world countries 120mm is as good as anything else. Against Russia... well, do you believe NATO pockets are bottomless? There are other things which can happely suck taxpayer money just as well. F-35, or Iraq... Puma in Germany...

Also I would like to ask you this question, do you think that Russia or the Ukraine got their hands on round design layouts and metal/material properties for the U.S M829A3 or German DM 63.

Definitly yes. These rounds are widespread enouth. You cant guard something what every other soldier can snath even AFTER it is being used and destined to scrap. Something what can be easely dismissed by "oops, i didnt hit shooting-mark". "oops, it must have fallen... somethere... on the road..." .

It is just ammo which many tankers have. Besides, noone can change basic APFSDS principles. It is just a long dart. Made from pretty well known material. Countering it do not even require hands on the round itself.

 

[eckherl]

Becouse you just believe so? Show me any proof. At least Russia fielded undoubtly most advanced ERA right now, and NII-Stali can show already developed possible upgrades. Both Germany and Israel didnt showed anything more advanced than old K-5 yet... May be they have something better deep in secret bunkers, but we dont know...
It is the other way around. True, internal space is a bit more cramped. But external dimensions are not... Western tanks are already at the edge of they maximal size - M1A2 should be already stripped part of equipment to comply standard railroad sizes. Other western tanks also have pretty big problems with size and weight after all these recent upgrades. Thereas T-90 still have some room for external equipment. And well, unmanned turrent is NOT due to any size. I'm sure you'll understand the main benefits....

There will be problem. Look at L55 induction. Either way, this is not the question. The question was about your weak argument - "if USA dont replace 120mm gun then it must reliable penetrate any armor". As i pointed out, same argument hold true about any other gun - be it russian 125mm or american 20mm bushmaster.
Shorter than what? Than ATGM missiles? Or than 155mm gun? Let me remind you - neither is in NATO service.

I dont believe current 125mm ammo can penetrate M1A2SEP frontal armor with 100% probabilty. I dont believe M829A3 can penetrate T-90A frontal armor with 100% probability. In weaker zones - yes. In stronger zones - definitly no.

Inducing any large caliber gun will require full-scale replacing of tank forces, with all associated logistic - not just relatively cheap SEP or TUSK upgrades.
Cant see why West would want it. Against 3rd world countries 120mm is as good as anything else. Against Russia... well, do you believe NATO pockets are bottomless? There are other things which can happely suck taxpayer money just as well. F-35, or Iraq... Puma in Germany...
Definitly yes. These rounds are widespread enouth. You cant guard something what every other soldier can snath even AFTER it is being used and destined to scrap. Something what can be easely dismissed by "oops, i didnt hit shooting-mark". "oops, it must have fallen... somethere... on the road..." .

It is just ammo which many tankers have.

How do you know that no one has designed something better than K-5, just because we do not have it strapped and welded all over our turrets doesn`t mean that we are lagging in technolgies for it, we just do not need to use it for armor protection when fighting other tanks like the small cramped Russian T- series has to rely on.

And isn`t the L55 still a 120mm? we could place them in our M1s to if we needed them, but because of round preference it is not needed, how many times have the Russians stretched out their 125mm Also I know that it must of been a typing error, but we do not use a 20mm bushmaster but instead a 25mm.

Do you think that we have actually issued M829A3 rounds to Iraqi theater of operations and that the Germans have accidently misplaced DM63 rounds, why Chrom this is not Russian Military forces that we are talking about here, but world class Armies.

 

[Chrom]

How do you know that no one has designed something better than K-5, just because we do not have it strapped and welded all over our turrets doesn`t mean that we are lagging in technolgies for it, we just do not need to use it for armor protection when fighting other tanks like the small cramped Russian T- series has to rely on.

Eckherl, it is BAD argument. It dont lead anywhere and dont contribute to discsussion. "How do you know what noone have designed anything better than F-22"??? "We dont need anything better than J-10 to fight overexpencive ,slow ,fragile birds like F-35!"

Only 3 years ago i would be ridiculed to hell by mentioning "Abrams" and "ERA" in one phrase. These peoples said what only backwards russians with they inherit inability to produce decent composite armor could field such weak excuse as ERA. Now the very same peoples sing "ERA is good! ERA is future! USA is ahead of all!" Do you think USA MOD's thought much different? Iraq and Lebanon experience changed they mind. I havent heard of any major ERA developments 6-7 years ago in USA....

BTW, T-90 is "small and cramped" EXACTLY becouse it offer better protection than M1 serie...

And isn`t the L55 still a 120mm? we could place them in our M1s to if we needed them, but because of round preference it is not needed, how many times have the Russians stretched out their 125mm Also I know that it must of been a typing error, but we do not use a 20mm bushmaster but instead a 25mm.

You cant easely place higher caliber gun. At very least it will require completele turret replacement and major changes in hull. Not to tell about ammo and other issues. It would be much cheaper to just produce new tank...

Do you think that we have actually issued M829A3 rounds to Iraqi theater of operations and that the Germans have accidently misplaced DM63 rounds, why Chrom this is not Russian Military forces that we are talking about here, but world class Armies.

It is completely irrelevant if newer rounds are deployed in Iraq. If these rounds got to ANY unit - be it combat or training - they ARE compromissed. Hell, for all we know they could be compomissed while they were in drawning board...

P.S. There must be reason why both russians and West hanging on they 120/125 mm guns, forced to spend a LOT of money on new ammo, with constant gun vs armor race , without insuring penetration...

And the reason here is not what 120/125 mm is "enouth". No. True reason is what inducing anything large is MAJOR pain in the ass.

 

[FSMonster]

ERA is a sandwich of a metal plate=>explosive=>ceramic plate=>explosive=>metal plate.

[I|I] <-- Something like that and it leans against body of the turret or hull.
The plates are too light to have any significant impact on a heavy rod traveling at 1500 to 1750 m/s.
The best defense against a DU round is a DU plate of armor. Basically, the same material that you'd make the penetrator rod from. Even that has to be combined layers of armor that have different properties, other than hardness. What this mix might be is a closely guarded secret of course.

 

[Chrom]

ERA is a sandwich of a metal plate=>explosive=>ceramic plate=>explosive=>metal plate.

[I|I] <-- Something like that and it leans against body of the turret or hull.
The plates are too light to have any significant impact on a heavy rod traveling at 1500 to 1750 m/s.
The best defense against a DU round is a DU plate of armor. Basically, the same material that you'd make the penetrator rod from. Even that has to be combined layers of armor that have different properties, other than hardness. What this mix might be is a closely guarded secret of course.

NII Stali advertise overwise. And sorry, i believe them more. Cant see why a metal plate cant cut DU dart. Cant see how M829A1 dart is SO much different than M829A3 dart.

Also, you are wrong about "best defense against a DU round is a DU plate of armor". DU plate is only best per-space based (this is why USA choose it, there are very little space left on Abrams exteriors) , but per-weight based even simply plexiglass is better.

 

[FSMonster]

Only 3 years ago i would be ridiculed to hell by mentioning "Abrams" and "ERA" in one phrase. These peoples said what only backwards russians with they inherit inability to produce decent composite armor could field such weak excuse as ERA. Now the very same peoples sing "ERA is good! ERA is future! USA is ahead of all!"

USA started using M1's in urban warfare. IED's and RPG's (shaped charge devices) posed significant enough threat to the rear and sides. Any ERA on M1's is there not because of other tanks but merely an adjustment to a role that is not 'natural' for tanks.

Do you think USA MOD's thought much different? Iraq and Lebanon experience changed they mind. I havent heard of any major ERA developments 6-7 years ago in USA....

ERA is an old technology and has long found its match. Any AT missile equipped with a precursor head will activate the ERA. This is followed by the second (main) warhead which now has an opening to try punch through.

BTW, T-90 is "small and cramped" EXACTLY becouse it offer better protection than M1 serie...

T-90 is primarily an export product. It's small because it's cheaper that way and no engine is available for a heavily armored tank (60 tonnes). While it's a significant improvement over the T-72 series, it still retains all the bad genes that run in the family (weak sides, ammo storage..). Besides, you have the cause and effect logical relation completely reversed: "small and cramped" is the effect in this case, not the cause. Small things are not necessarily better protected, they usually just weigh less.

And the reason here is not what 120/125 mm is "enouth". No. True reason is what inducing anything large is MAJOR pain in the ass.

Western armies have the upper hand as they can afford to buy whatever their analyst conclude they need.
If they think they need a 140 mm gun, they'd put one into their Leos. Their tank ammo has evolved to cover for any gaps.

 

[Chrom]

USA started using M1's in urban warfare. IED's and RPG's (shaped charge devices) posed significant enough threat to the rear and sides. Any ERA on M1's is there not because of other tanks but merely an adjustment to a role that is not 'natural' for tanks.

ERA is an old technology and has long found its match. Any AT missile equipped with a precursor head will activate the ERA. This is followed by the second (main) warhead which now has an opening to try punch through.

Heavy ERA can counter tandem warheads. Such ERA is already developed. Besides, installing precursor warhead already make main charge less powerfull.

/
T-90 is primarily an export product. It's small because it's cheaper that way and no engine is available for a heavily armored tank (60 tonnes).

Was T-80 also export product? Remember, it is same generation tank as M1A1, and it have better protection... T-90 is merery a cheap upgrade of T-72 tank, same as M1A2SEP is a (relative) cheap upgrade of M1A1.

While it's a significant improvement over the T-72 series, it still retains all the bad genes that run in the family (weak sides, ammo storage..).

While i agree what it retain most bad genes, but weak sides was never one of them. Sides of T-XX serie are generally stronger than M1xx serie. Not even to tell about backs and engine protection...

Besides, you have the cause and effect logical relation completely reversed: "small and cramped" is the effect in this case, not the cause. Small things are not necessarily better protected, they usually just weigh less.

In the case of russian tanks "small and cramped" is a cause. T-90 weight 75% of M1A2SEP while having 50% internal volume and frontal area. Guess WHERE the difference landed? I have an idea - may be it landed in T-90 armor?

 

[Chrom]

Western armies have the upper hand as they can afford to buy whatever their analyst conclude they need.
If they think they need a 140 mm gun, they'd put one into their Leos. Their tank ammo has evolved to cover for any gaps.

This is wrong. No pockets are bottomless. Else USA would replace ALL F-15 with F-22 overnight. ALL M113 with marders and strykers. Else Germany would replace ALL IFV's with Puma's.. Compromisses between "needed" and "money" are always there.

P.S. Initally ERA was developed indeed against HEAT warheads. But later, due to advances in ERA technology, it become possible to develop ERA capable both against HEAT (even tandem) and APFSDS (even american). Current western ERA developments which got to public suggest what they are at K-5 stage - capable only against non-tandem HEAT warheads. K-5 is 20 years old. 2 ERA generations are already developed since then in Russia.

 

[FSMonster]

NII Stali advertise overwise. And sorry, i believe them more. Cant see why a metal plate cant cut DU dart.

You sound like you want to believe which makes it very difficult to have a fair discourse with you, void of emotional attachments.
A metal plate in ERA is not meant to 'cut' you seem to have an idea. Do you even know how ERA behaves when it's activated?

Cant see how M829A1 dart is SO much different than M829A3 dart.

Seriously? You can't think of a single reason why a newer KE round might be better than the previous version?

Also, you are wrong about "best defense against a DU round is a DU plate of armor". DU plate is only best per-space based (this is why USA choose it, there are very little space left on Abrams exteriors) , but per-weight based even simply plexiglass is better.

I said anything that's hard in combination with other layers. You go ahead and sit in a turret made of plexiglas. I'm sure you'll have a good view.

 

[Chrom]

You sound like you want to believe which makes it very difficult to have a fair discourse with you, void of emotional attachments.
A metal plate in ERA is not meant to 'cut' you seem to have an idea. Do you even know how ERA behaves when it's activated?

Different ERA's behave different. Some employes several technologies at once to affect HEAT stream and APFSDS darts.

Yes, i want to believe to world-wide leading institute in ERA development. And who you want to believe? Vaguer rumors what may be ERA dont affect M829A3 ? Even without specification WHICH ERA?

Seriously? You can't think of a single reason why a newer KE round might be better than the previous version?

I can think of many reasons why newer KE round may be better than old one. I cant think of a single reason why newer KE round would behave principially different than previous version.

I said anything that's hard in combination with other layers. You go ahead and sit in a turret made of plexiglas. I'm sure you'll have a good view.

Again, per-weight basis there a lot other materials which are better than DU. Even good steel is better. And plexiglass "combination with other layers" is also better. Bulky, yes.

 

[Waylander]

This is wrong. No pockets are bottomless. Else USA would replace ALL F-15 with F-22 overnight. ALL M113 with marders and strykers. Else Germany would replace ALL IFV's with Puma's.. Compromisses between "needed" and "money" are always there.

We indeed replace all our remaining Marders with Pumas. We just don't have that many Panzergrenadier units anymore.

It is completely irrelevant if newer rounds are deployed in Iraq. If these rounds got to ANY unit - be it combat or training - they ARE compromissed. Hell, for all we know they could be compomissed while they were in drawning board...

P.S. There must be reason why both russians and West hanging on they 120/125 mm guns, forced to spend a LOT of money on new ammo, with constant gun vs armor race , without insuring penetration...

And the reason here is not what 120/125 mm is "enouth". No. True reason is what inducing anything large is MAJOR pain in the ass.

Combat ammo does not get to a unit that easy like one might think. Most tankers never use a real KE (If not in war) but use training KEs the whole time.
Getting a functioning complete set of modern DM53/63s together with a L/55 is IMHO not very easy. Even getting a broken one from live firing tests is not easy. It is not as if our test centers shoot these babies and then let the broken ones rot in the landscape.

And when I compare what I got to know about Russian style ammo handling (Due to lots of close relatives having served in the NVA) compared to ours...