Bilal9
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 26,569
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Bhai, a lot of ERA or NERA packages are designed to deal with kinetic energy projectiles, in addition to shaped-charged warheads. The first of such ERA was the Soviet Kontakt-5, fielded in the mid-1980s. More modern Russian eras like Kaktus, Afganit, Relikt have an even better performance against kinetic energy projectiles.
However, these era/nera packages are designed to function alongside a tank's armor. I think Kontakt-5 (as used in T-80U, T-90 series etc) degraded the penetration capacity of a projectile by 30%. After that, the main armor of the tank's hull/turret would be enough to stop a round from penetrating. So once can't simply place even the most capable era/nera blocks ( the Afganit system, as fitted on Armata) onto APC's, IFV's, or light tanks, and expected similar protection level of an MBT. The VT-5's base armor (according to publically available data, the tank is open for export after all) is steel, with some composite elements around critical areas. It's enough to stop autocannon fire, but nothing larger then that.
Overall, I'm really happy the army bought them. It's a very niche vehicle, probably the best overall light tank on sale right now, but Bangladesh has niche requirements. I wouldn't expect it to fight on equal terms against MBTs, but it makes an excellent ambush vehicle. Chicom fire control system and electronics are on par, as demonstrated multiple times at the International Tank Biatholons held in Russia. Their FCS outperformed Russian ones more often than not!
I think the army generally makes wise and rational procurement. This, along with the Nora-B52, are probably amongst the best procurements they've made in the decade, from a cost-effective vs capability perspectiive
Thanks for your detailed comments - agreed. I concur completely.