Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: ERA russe per contrastare proietti apfsdf

Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA,Used by T-90S
 
The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later
version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only
against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around
1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300
mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which
corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U
(~720 mm total).  
We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what
methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis
are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that
the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with
a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We
later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed
to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of
Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely
a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm
plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because
the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the
front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely
opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe
'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm
thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick
plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it
to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This
is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set
in motion.  
Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a
couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat
mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been
conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the
massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with
relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%.
What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with
about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely
up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that
it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are
apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of
plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the
penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the
first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this
represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the
nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on
the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent
hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20%
(to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very
inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear
phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the
optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target
material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This
resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator
mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass
loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail.
The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw
induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is
established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which
suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction
in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially
worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the
T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.  
Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in
other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its
original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is
increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! -
161%.  
So was I surprised by the results? Not really. I had expected penetrator
yaw to be the primary defeat mechanism, but otherwise we had verified the
effectiveness of Kontakt-5 before it became general public knowledge,
which is great bragging rights.  
Of course, now the goal is to do a rigorous mathematical proof.  
Anyway,  
 
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:  
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION  
"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made
on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have
been supported by comments made following tests in the US.  
"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May,
IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved
firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive
reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of
ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy'
Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS
tank gun projectiles.  
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU
penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams
tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun
projectiles.  
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

Proiettili DU in servizio secondo Jane's defense review.. 
DU ammunition types taken into service (non-exhaustive)
(France)
OFL 105 F2 105mm APFSDS (for AMX-30B2 tank)
OFL 120 F2 120mm APFSDS (for Leclerc tank) 
(Russia)
3UBM-13 115mm APFSDS (for T-62 tank)
3BM32 125mm APFSDS (for T-72 tank)
3BK21M 125mm HEAT-FS (for T-72 tank)
(UK)
L27A1 CHARM 3 120mm APFSDS (for Challenger 2 tank)
(US) 
M829/A1/A2/A3 120mm APFSDS (for Abrams tank), 
M774 105mm APFSDS, M833 105mm APFSDS, M900 105mm APFSDS (for M60-series
tanks and IAV), 
M919 25mm APFSDS (for Bradley IFV)
PGU-14/B 30mm API (for A-10)
Cosě non ci scorniamo piů tra DU e non DU



[CUT]
Beh, che dire, dati tecnici a parte le ERA non mi sono mai state simpatiche.
Vuoi perchč inizialmente fornivano protezione solo contro i colpi HEAT, vuoi
perchč l'idea che dopo essere stati colpiti il carro resti sostanzialmente
indifeso non mi ha mai entusiasmato.
Certo, se fosse vero quanto dichiarato, sarebbe un bel passo avanti per le
ERA, anche se IMHO restano parecchie lacune nel loro concetto.
Non puoi fermarti a cambiare le mattonelle "saltate" nel mezzo della
battaglia, quando si č colpiti una discreta zona resta scoperta in quanto
oltre alla mattonella colpita direttamente quasi empre "saltano" quelle
attorno e soprattutto un veicolo dotato di ERA diventa una "mina antiuomo"
per i fanti attorno.
Tempo fa su RID era apparso un'articolo nel quale si riportavano le
esperienze israeliane in fatto di ERA; la cosa che mi colpě maggiormente fu
leggere che i carri dotati di ERA venivano colpiti apposta con semplici RPG7
in modo che l'eplosione delle mattonelle ERA investisse i fanti posti nelle
vicinanze falciandoli con un effetto tipo mina Claymore; tanto che gli
israeliani furono costretti a smontare le mattonelle durante le operazioni
urbane. (Se riesi a procurati le immagini trasmesse dai giornalisti durante
le ultime operazioni israeliane in palestina noterai che i mezzi sono sempre
sprovvisti di ERA)
Operazioni combinate carri fanteria come quelle svolte dagli USA in Iraq
sarebbero state quindi molto piů problematiche se la difesa dei mezzi si
fosse basata su mattonelle ERA anzichč su corazze passive "classiche"; ci si
sarebbe trovati davanti al dilemma se rischiare gli uomini o i mezzi....
Resta poi il fatto che le ERA al momento non possono nulla contro le cariche
in tandem; quei sistemi cioč dove una prima carica fa detonare la mattonella
e una seconda passa attravero il varco generato dalla prima carica.

Questo thread mi pare molto interessante (seguite il link)
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000151.html



Ad essere fiscali ci sono tre diverse denominazioni per le munizioni
decalibrate sovietiche (ora russe), c'è il codice riferito al penetratore
vero e proprio, il codice dell'assemblato penetratore+sabot ed il codice
riferito al proiettile completo, 
p.es
. nel caso del BM32 i codici sono
rispettivamente 3BM32, 3BM33 e 3VBM18. Tutto questo per dire che il primo
proiettile listato da Jane's è proprio il 3BM38 di cui parlavo io in un
altro thread, 3UBM13 è il codice riferito al proiettile completo (c'è la U
invece che la V in quanto il munizionamento da 115mm del T-62, a differenza
di quello da 125mm, è fisso e non con carica di lancio separata).
ciao
A.
P.S. Probabilmente in deposito ci sono ancora stock del vecchio 3BM29, per
quanto è possibile pensare che sia stato dismesso in quanto le sue
performances sono inferiori al 3BM42 che è in tungsteno. Inoltre, andando
sul munizionamento HEAT da 125mm, ci sono anche i proiettili 3BM25 e 3BK27,
più recenti del 3BK21 (entrato in servizio nel 1982 insieme al resto della
prima generazione di munizioni sovietiche con DU, cioè 3BM28 e 3BM29) il cui
liner non è ufficialmente noto (come composizione) e _potrebbe_ essere DU.

La Kontakt-5 è stato un notevole progresso tecnologico all'epoca della sua
apparizione. Era in grado di 'sconfiggere' gli APFSDS DM23 e M829 da 120mm
che era quanto di meglio Germania ed USA avessero a disposizione all'epoca
(per non parlare dei DM13 e degli M827). Nel contempo il T-80U (che è stato
il primo carro equipaggiato con la nuova ERA pesante) poteva usare il nuovo
APFSDS BM32 che, pur se poco efficace contro il Leopard 2A4, poteva
penetrare frontalmente l'M1A1 fino ai 2000m.
Gli svantaggi di questa corazzatura reattiva, oltre al fatto di non essere
stata subito messa in campo in quantità enormi, al crollo dell'URSS erano
relativamente pochi i T-80U in servizio, risiedevano principalmente nel
fatto che la Kontakt-5 non riesce a coprire uniformemente il carro, ma
lascia sprotette delle zone che costituiscono circa il 30-40% del bersaglio
offerto (c'è da dire che, comunque, essendo le aree scoperte principalmente
presenti nella parte bassa dello scafo e nella parte alta della torretta, la
possibilità che un proiettile che colpisca frontalmente il carro becchi
l'area non protetta è inferiore alla mera percentuale di copertura sopra
indicata).
Comunque, ripeto, considerando che si tratta di un progetto di vent'anni fa
e che riusciva a garantire una protezione paragonabile a quella che
offrivano le pesantissime e costosissime corazze occidentali ad un carro di
una categoria di peso inferiore, direi tanto di cappello alla Kontakt-5!
ciao
A.

Sai per caso che tipo di corazzatura è quella del t-80um2 (il famoso black
eagle)?? Dalle foto mi pare un'evoluzione della kontakt



Infatti, č una nuova ERA chiamata Kaktus.
ciao
Amedeo

Valori di protezione dell'armatura stimati per tutti i carri post-ww2  
These are armour values for post WW2 tanks. Most are taken from posts on
the Tanknet discussion forum; thus are calculated estimates not hard and
fast facts, indeed there is considerable disagreement on the values for
the various marks of Leopard. 
 
The red numbers are the values for FFT2. They are in the format xx/zz
which is front armour then side armour. If it says xx(yy)/zz the xx is the
front hull armour, the value in brackets is the turret armour and that
after the slash side armour. When firing at a tank roll 1d6, 1-2 hits the
hull armour, 3-6 hits the turret armour. If you are firing at a hull down
tank and hit it, the hit is always on the turret.
 
If you want traditional FFT "one rating for the entire front" values,
multiply the turret numbers by two and then add to the hull values. Divide
the total by three.
 
If anyone has any values to add, or would like to disagree you can mail me.
 
AAAV – 6cm KE, 32cm HEAT (all round) 1CL/1CL
AAV-7 + Appliqué – side 5cm KE. 20cm HEAT 0/1L
AML – 12mm Max 0/0
AMX-10P – 40mm Al max @ 70? °, side penetrated by 7.62mm AP @ 70m 1/0
AMX-13 – Hull Front 15mm@55deg, Hull side 20mm, Turret Front 25mm@45deg,
Turret Side 25mm 1/0
AMX-30 – Glacis 187mm, Hull side 57mm, Turret Front 20-30cm, Turret Side
41.5cm. 4/1
Ariete – Glacis 62cm KE 78cm? HEAT, Hull Side 9cm KE 36cm HEAT, Turret
Front 75cm KE 89-111cm? HEAT, Turret Side 14cm KE 22cm HEAT. 14L/3C
Arjun – Glacis 47cm, Side Hull 60mm, Turret Front 50-57cm KE 83-85 HEAT.
10C/2
ASU-85 – Front 45mm@45deg, Side: 13mm 1/0
BTR-50PK Front & Sides 10mm 0/0
Centurion early – Glacis 132mm, Hull Side 51mm, Turret Mantle 152mm 4/3L
Centurion Mk5/2 – Glacis 26cm KE/HEAT, Hull Side 6cm KE 30cm HEAT, Turret
Mantle 20-23cm KE/HEAT, Turret Side 14cm KE 30cm HEAT 5/3L
Challenger I – Glacis 55cm KE 80cm HEAT, Side Hull 8cm KE 47-49cm HEAT
(+ERA 13cm KE & 82-84cm HEAT) , Turret Front 62cm KE 97cm HEAT, Turret
Side 22cm KE, 33-38cm HEAT 12C/3LC
Challenger II – Glacis 66cm KE 100cm HEAT, Side Hull 10cm KE 47-49cm HEAT,
Turret Front 96cm KE 145cm HEAT, Turret Side 34cm KE 52cm HEAT 13C(19C)/6C
Chieftain - Glacis 120mm@70° (350mm LOS), Hull Side 38mm + 15mm Aluminium,
Turret Front 200mm@60deg, Turret Side 130mm@?deg 8/2L
Chieftain + Stillbrew (1986) - Glacis 120mm@70° (350mm LOS), Hull Side
38mm + 15mm Aluminium, Turret Front 55cm KE, 73cm HEAT, Turret Side
130mm@?deg 8(11L)/2L
Conqueror - Glacis 260mm, Turret (average) 350mm 6/2
CV-9040 – “Front” 17-20cm 4/0
EBR-75/90 – Hull & Turret Front 40mm, Turret side 30mm, Hull side 16mm 1/0
Fox – Front 2.75cm Side 2cm 1/0
Hotchkiss Schützenpanzer Front 15mm@60°, Side 15mm 1/0
HS-30 Schützenpanzer – Front 35mm@? 1/0
IS-3m – Turret front 22cm. Turret side 22cm. Glacis 24cm Hull side 9cm 4/3
IS-4 – Turret Front 25cm, Glacis 32cm 6/3
Jägdpanzer Kanone & Rakette – Front 50mm@60?deg, Side 30mm@?deg 2/1
K1A1 – “front” 70cm KE, 100cm HEAT‡ 14C/?
Leclerc – Glacis 60cm KE & 106mm HEAT, Hull side: 8-9cm KE, 38-42cm HEAT,
Turret Front 80-81cm KE, 140-142cm HEAT, Turret Side 28cm KE & 47cm HEAT
12C(16C)/5C
Leopard 1A? – Glacis 14cm, Hull sides 35mm@50deg, Turret Front 18-27cm,
Turret sides 60mm 4/1
Leopard 1A3 – Turret Front 21cm, Turret Side 6cm
Leopard 1A1A1 – Glacis 15cm. Turret Front KE c40cm HEAT 45-48cm 3(8)/1L
Leopard 1C2 – Turret Front c60cm 3(12)/1L
Leopard 2A1 – Glacis 50cm KE 52cm HEAT, Hull Side Turret Front 57cm KE
83cm HEAT, Turret Side 21cm KE 29cm HEAT 11L/3L
Leopard 2A4 – Glacis 60cm KE 71cm HEAT, Hull Side 6-7cm KE, 37cm HEAT,
Turret Front KE 70cm HEAT 100cm, Turret Side 27cm KE 42cm HEAT 13L/3L
Leopard 2A5 – Glacis 62cm KE 75cm HEAT, Hull Side 17cm KE, 52cm HEAT,
Turret Front c100cm KE c130cm HEAT, Turret Side 29cm KE 46cm HEAT
12L(20L)/4C
Leopard 2A6 – Chinese estimate 58-70cm (looks low)
Luchs – Front 50mm, Side 30mm 1/1
M41 – Hull Front 25mm@30° and 31.7mm@45°. Turret Front: 25.4-38mm@?deg,
Side 25mm 1/0
M47 – Glacis 202mm, Hull side 76mm, Mantle 115mm@30deg, Turret Side c95mm
(Flawed casting 85% resist)  3/2
M48 – Glacis 110mm@60deg, Hull side 76mm, Turret Front 110mm@40deg, Turret
Side 64mm@30deg (Flawed casting 85% resist)   4/2
M59 APC – Front 15mm, Sides 10mm 0/0
M60 – Glacis 109mm@65deg, Hull Side 48-53mm, Turret Front 254mm, Turret
Side 140mm@10° (Flawed casting 85% resist) 5/2
M-60P (Yugo) Front 15mm@15deg, Side 10mm 0/0
M-80/M-80A (Yugo) Front Hull 14mm@70° = 40mm, Turret Front 25mm@30° =
27.5mm Side Hull 14mm@20deg, Side Turret 14mm@30° 1/0
M-84 (Yugo) Glacis KE 36cm HEAT 40cm, Hull Side: KE 7-12cm, HEAT 21-26cm,
Turret Front KE 40-45cm HEAT ?, Side Turret 16cm 20cm 8L/2
M-84A (Yugo) & AB (Kuwait) Glacis KE 36cm (+16mm HHS (47mm LOS) probably
boosts to c38cm?)  HEAT 40cm, Hull Side: KE 8-12cm, HEAT 21-26cm, Turret
Front KE 50-55cm HEAT ?, Side Turret 16cm 20cm 10L/2
M1 (81) – Turret Front 40cm 8C/3C
M1A1 (85) – Glacis 35-49cm KE 51-80cm HEAT (depends on how full front fuel
tank is), Hull Side 9cm KE 68cm HEAT, Turret Front 44cm KE 80cm HEAT,
Turret Side 24cm KE 44cm HEAT  9C/4C
M1A1(HA) (87/88) – Glacis 56-59cm KE 51-80cm HEAT (depends on how full
front fuel tank is), Hull Side 9cm KE 68cm HEAT, Turret Front 66cm KE
108cm HEAT, Turret Side 30cm KE 48cm HEAT 13C/5C
M1A1(HC) & M1A2 - Glacis 56-59cm KE 51-105cm HEAT (depends on how full
front fuel tank is), Hull Side 9cm KE 68cm HEAT, Turret Front 88cm KE
131cm HEAT, Turret Side 30cm KE 48cm HEAT (Chinese estimate front 60-70cm)
 12C(17C)/5C
M1A2(SEP) (00) & M1A1D – Front 97cm KE 150cm HEAT 12C(20C)/5C
M2A2 – Glacis 13cm KE, 17cm HEAT, Hull side 6cm KE, 7cm HEAT 3/1
Magach 7C – Turret Front 38cm KE, 94cm HEAT, Turret Side 18cm KE, 52cm
HEAT, Glacis 40cm KE, 57cm HEAT; Hull Side 14cm KE, 45cm HEAT 8C/4C
Magach 7D – Glacis 40-43cm KE, 57cm HEAT, Turret Front 38-52cm KE,
85-125cm HEAT‡ 8C/4C
Marder Front 125mm, Side 50mm 2/1
MBT-70 “Front” 35-40cm 8/?
Merkava Mk1 Turret 52-53cm KE & 71-75cm HEAT[1st Gen] or 53-56cm HEAT [2nd
Gen]. Hull 30-33cm KE 51-56cm HEAT  6L(10L)/?
MTLB – 14mm Front 9mm Sides 0/0
Pz-61 – Turret Front 165mm@50° (256mm LOS) 5/2
S-Tank – Front 26cm 5C/2L
Saladin – Front 3.15cm, side 1.5cm 1/0
Scorpion – Front 6.1cm, side 3.15cm 1/1
SPz 11-2 – Front 10mm@60?deg, side 8mm 0/0
T-10 – Glacis 120mm@55deg, Hull side 80mm, Turret Front 200mm@24° 5/2
T-10M – Glacis 230mm, Hull side 80mm, Turret Mantle 250mm, Turret side
100mm 6/2
T-55 – Glacis c190mm, Hull Side 79mm, Turret Front 203mm, Turret Sides
150mm 4/2
T-55 M1983 (+BDD) Turret 38cm KE, 45cm HEAT; Glacis 41cm KE, 38cm HEAT 8/2
T-62 – Glacis 204mm, Hull Side 79mm, Turret Front 242mm, Turret Side 153mm
5/2
T-64 - Glacis 375mm, Hull Side 80mm, Turret Front KE 410mm, HEAT 450mm 8/?
T-64A – Glacis 299mm KE, 410mm HEAT. Turret Front 364mm KE 450mm HEAT. 7L/?
T-64B – Glacis 40cm KE, 48cm HEAT. Turret Front 32-41cm KE, 50-60cm HEAT‡
8L/?
T-72 – Glacis KE 36cm HEAT 40cm, Turret Front 38cm 8/2
T-72A – Glacis KE 36cm HEAT 40cm, Hull Side: KE 7-12cm, HEAT 21-26cm,
Turret Front KE 39cm HEAT 57cm, Side Turret 16cm 20cm 8L/2
T-72B - Glacis 50cm KE, 55cm HEAT, Hull Side KE 7-12cm, HEAT 21-26cm,
Turret Front 45-50cm KE, 50-60cm HEAT, Side Turret 26cm KE, 34cm HEAT
10LR/4
T-72BM – as “B” + K5 Heavy ERA +25cm KE: 15LR/4
T-72G/M – as basic T-72: 8/2
T-72M1 – Glacis 40cm KE. 48cm HEAT. Turret Front 35cm KE (average not
max), 45-50cm HEAT 8L/2
T-72S – as “B” 10LR/4
T-80 – Glacis 48cm KE 54cm HEAT, Turret front 42cm KE, 49cm HEAT‡ 9/4
T-80B – Glacis 48cm KE 54cm HEAT, Hull Side 7-12cm KE, 21-26cm HEAT,
Turret Front 42cm KE, 50cm HEAT, Turret Side 26cm KE, 34cm HEAT 9L/4
T-80BV – Glacis 50-54cm KE, 67-91cm HEAT, Hull Side 7-12cm KE, 21-26cm
HEAT, Turret Front 44-48cm KE, 62-86cm HEAT, Turret Side 26cm KE, 34cm
HEAT 9LR/4
T-80U – Glacis 52cm KE, 57cm HEAT, Hull Side 7-12cm KE, 21-26cm HEAT,
Turret Front 48cm KE 64cm HEAT, Turret Side 26cm KE, 34cm HEAT 10LR/4
T-80UM (+K5) – Glacis 68-72cm  KE 96-104cm HEAT, Hull Side 7-12cm KE,
21-26cm HEAT, Turret Front 66-68cm KE 110-114cm HEAT, Turret Side 26cm KE,
34cm HEAT 14R/4
T-84 – Glacis 68-72cm  KE 96-104cm HEAT, Hull Side 7-12cm KE, 21-26cm
HEAT, Turret Front 72-74cm KE 104-108cm HEAT, Turret Side 26cm KE, 34cm
HEAT 14R/4
T-90 – Glacis 67-71cm KE, 99-107cm HEAT, Hull Sides 7-12cm KE, 21-26cm
HEAT, Turret Front 65-71cm KE, 100-110cm HEAT, Turret Side 28cm KE, 34cm
HEAT 14LR/4
Type 61 (Japan) – Turret front 64mm@45deg?, Hull front 46mm@60deg?, Hulls
Sides 25mm 2/1
Type 62 (China) – Turret Front 50mm LOS, Hull front 25mm@60deg, “side”
20mm 1/0
Type 74 (Japan) - Glacis: 65mm@52deg, Hull Side: 50mm, Turret Front:
60mm@?deg (+ mantle) poss total 20cm, Turret Side: 50mm@45 2(4)/1
Type 88C “Front” 65cm KE (seems too high?)
Type 90 (Al Khalid) – Glacis 45cm KE 54cm HEAT, Turret Front 60-63cm
(59cm?) +ERA +2cm KE 102-112cm +ERA + 15cm HEAT  9L(12C)/4
Type 90 (Japan) – Glacis 40-42cm KE, 67cm HEAT, Turret Front 80-84cm KE,
130-143cm HEAT (front 50-56cm Chinese estimate)  8L(16C)/?
Type 98 – Turret Front KE 70cm HEAT 80cm, Glacis 50-60cm 13L
Type 98C – “Front” KE 80cm HEAT 100-120cm 16L
Vickers MBT Mk 1 – Hull Front 60mm@60?deg, Hull Side 40mm, Turret Front
80mm@45?deg + Mantle. Turret Side 40-60mm 2(4)/1
Vihor (Yugo experimental) – 70cm KE & 100cm HEAT 14C/?
YPR-765 Front & Side 3.33cm 1/1L
