Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Search the Community: Showing results for tags 'era'.
Found 2 results
How does steel beasts model the interaction between heavy ERA like K5 vs APFSDS. From my research it appears there are many factors that go into the effectiveness of ERA in defeating an incoming long rod. Like Speed rod width and angle of penetration. For example rod diameter for K5 is optimal at around 40-45mm with initiation being unreliable with rounds that have a smaller diameter. One thing that is very clear is that modern rod design has several methods of defeating ERA like K5 and Relikt. Rounds like the M829A2-A3 seem to both have different tip designs to defeat ERA. Other Rounds like the Dm-53/63 have segmented rods as well as complex tip design. So while the DM-53 is on par with M829A1/A2 vs RHA it can defeat armor packages protected by ERA with a much much higher RHA equivalent and I have read statements from German officials, (not from primary sources) that suggest that the Leopard 2 tanks and L55 120mm feel comfortable defeating T-80U and T-90/90A tanks from any practical range they chose to engage at. How does Steel Beasts incorporate this knowledge or do they not accept it as true. Thanks