Is the BMP-3's AT-10 still underperforming against ERA?

[Traitor]

I'm sure we're all aware by now that the BMP's AT-10 appears to be using a non-tandem warhead due to the poor performance against any form of ERA, even the T-64BV's Kontakt-1.

However, I came across the patch notes for v1.04 from 2016 which includes the following:

FIXED: The AT-10's tandem HEAT warhead from the BMP-3/3M was too weak against ERA.

It appears that the AT-10 is intended to use a tandem warhead, and it was buffed years ago in order to better perform against ERA. However, through testing, the AT-10 still seems consistently stopped by the T-64BV's Kontakt-1 ERA (let alone Nozh and Duplet which are much more modern ERA systems with even better protection).

So, what's going on here? I think there are two possibilities.

1. The AT-10 wasn't successfully fixed for some reason, or it was fixed but subsequently broken again later on
2. The AT-10 was successfully fixed, but the fix was not sufficient, and it needs another buff

Even the non-tandem 9M117 Bastion should be able to penetrate about 550mm of RHA after ERA, which means that even the non-tandem warhead should be able to defeat the ERA and armor of the T-64BV if it hits anywhere but the front of the turret, let alone the tandem warhead that's supposed to be in the game (either 600mm after ERA for 9M117M and 750mm after ERA for 9M117M1).

In my opinion, I think that the AT-10 is still underpowered. I don't necessarily think the AT-10 should be able to defeat Nozh or Duplet ERA as those offer much better protection and the 100mm AT-10 isn't really that big of a warhead compared to other ATGMs, but the tandem warhead on the AT-10 should be able to overcome the ancient Kontakt-1 ERA on the T-64BV at least.

[Armorgunner]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:04 AM, Traitor said:

I'm sure we're all aware by now that the BMP's AT-10 appears to be using a non-tandem warhead due to the poor performance against any form of ERA, even the T-64BV's Kontakt-1.

However, I came across the patch notes for v1.04 from 2016 which includes the following:

FIXED: The AT-10's tandem HEAT warhead from the BMP-3/3M was too weak against ERA.

It appears that the AT-10 is intended to use a tandem warhead, and it was buffed years ago in order to better perform against ERA. However, through testing, the AT-10 still seems consistently stopped by the T-64BV's Kontakt-1 ERA (let alone Nozh and Duplet which are much more modern ERA systems with even better protection).

So, what's going on here? I think there are two possibilities.

1. The AT-10 wasn't successfully fixed for some reason, or it was fixed but subsequently broken again later on
2. The AT-10 was successfully fixed, but the fix was not sufficient, and it needs another buff

Even the non-tandem 9M117 Bastion should be able to penetrate about 550mm of RHA after ERA, which means that even the non-tandem warhead should be able to defeat the ERA and armor of the T-64BV if it hits anywhere but the front of the turret, let alone the tandem warhead that's supposed to be in the game (either 600mm after ERA for 9M117M and 750mm after ERA for 9M117M1).

In my opinion, I think that the AT-10 is still underpowered. I don't necessarily think the AT-10 should be able to defeat Nozh or Duplet ERA as those offer much better protection and the 100mm AT-10 isn't really that big of a warhead compared to other ATGMs, but the tandem warhead on the AT-10 should be able to overcome the ancient Kontakt-1 ERA on the T-64BV at least.

Are you sure that it would penetrate the front of a T-64B? The T-72A has a LOS thicknes of 550mm, the B even more. And that is of compositarmor, not RHA. Not that the old Soviet composite was very good, like later western compositearmor, but anyway.

[Traitor]

10 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Are you sure that it would penetrate the front of a T-64B? The T-72A has a LOS thicknes of 550mm, the B even more. And that is of compositarmor, not RHA. Not that the old Soviet composite was very good, like later western compositearmor, but anyway.

I believe it should, wikipedia claims that the T-64 has the equivalent of 500 mm to 575 mm vs HEAT for the Hull and Turret. Looking into it further, I found this site. Which states that "T-64 front hull protection was also new for tank design. The front hull had composite protection consisting of 80 mm steel plate at 68 °  and 140 mm STB (glass fiber) plate with total thickness of 220 mm ( 587 mm LOS). Such armor was equivalent to 450 mm of steel against shape charge projectiles." I believe this is referring to the T-64A, as one of the design changes was replacing the aluminium armor layer with fibreglass.

So it seems that the wikipedia figures are a little too high. Even then, even the earlier Tandem version of the AT-10, the 9M117M, should be able to penetrate about 600mm of RHA equivalent post ERA, while the more advanced 9M117M1 can penetrate 750mm of RHA equivalent post ERA. So based on what I've seen so far, I believe it should reliably penetrate at least the upper front plate of the T-64B, as the T-64B does not seem to have any noticeably improved armor over the base version, at least from what I can find, just a better gun, fire control system and engine (Unlike the T-72, where the armor was actually increased in the T-72A and later the T-72B).

Edited December 22, 2023 by Traitor
Did not mean to post yet