lancelot wrote:
Claiming the armor of the Leopard 1 is 70 mm 'at its thickest' like they did is also a huge red herring. The Leopard 1 has basically the same protection as an APC. The truth is a 30 mm autocannon can penetrate it in nearly all of its surface. I would rather be in a T-62 to be honest.
As for reactive armor, they can like get Kontakt-1, if not of their own production, the Poles have a roughly similar equivalent. But like you said this is a waste of time on the Leopard 1 since even an autocannon can penetrate it and the Kontakt-1 will be of zero help in addressing that. Like you said what they should be doing is adding cage armor to it. At least it would offer some protection against HEAT shells.
ERAWA is much better than vanilla Kontakt-1, but there must be something behind it to cover. It disrupts cumulative stream by a solid factor, but even it that would be 70% reduction, 70 mm behind will be pierced anyway. No double warhead is needed here.
Considering cages, I was more focused on antidrone application.
Those tanks will be devastated by the drones, having a roof protection of only 8 (EIGHT !sic!) mm steel plate, with only ammo magazine and driver's seat covered by an astonishing 30 mm.
There is one more thing worth mentioning, as the western shitstream is already busy proving how those tanks are not pathetic, and "
Russkie are using T-55!!!" ...
At the moment, propaganda spin is busy pretending that it was all fine with the tank, as it was a LIGHT one.
It is quite funny, as it is heavier than T-62, which is armed with an enormously more potent gun. T-62s thinnest armor is DOUBLE the L1s, while the thickest is THREE TIMES of it.
If we add BDD to that, it gets the weight of L1, having around QUADRUPLE the protection level
Sometimes the propaganda made to cover the absurdity of this situation runs so far from the common sense, that became absurd itself.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Explosions in Khmelnitsky region