Responder al tema

Mensaje: <blockquote data-quote="Oscar949" data-source="post: 1793487" data-attributes="member: 29094">Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz(...)During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.La verdad, si el K-5 ofrece una reducción tan significativa contra el M829A1, de **** madre. Me alegro. Ahora, que tiene que ver eso con lo que estoy diciendo? Esos 250mm son el resultado de la reducción de penetración del M829A1 contra el K5. Que luego el M829A3 tiene una mucho mejor performance contra el K-5, bueno, que le vamos a hacer. Asi es la carrera Arma-Armadura...No se si suponen, cuando yo doy ejemplos es meramente teórico, lo que importa es lo que explicaba. Reduzca 15, 20, 50 o que % no importa, lo que importa es el hecho de que lo hace y que el RHA no es algo estático como se quiere hacer ver en determinadas fuentes.Hombre, malabarismo no se si son, pues son ejemplos para explicar el hecho. Cosa que parece que estas de acuerdo y no criticas.</blockquote>

Verificación: Guerra desarrollada entre Argentina y el Reino Unido en 1982