Talk:Kontakt-5

The DM-53 round wasn´t even introduced at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.2.9 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Information is not verifiable
I hope no one will mind if i delete this section:

"The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans tested the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "when fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829A1 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with Kontakt-5 ERA.[1]"

This link leads to a post on Liveleak - requoting this Wikipedia entry.

This "circle of verification" is ridiculous.

91.46.116.187 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kontakt-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129010848/http://www.niistali.ru/security/armor/relict to http://www.niistali.ru/security/armor/relict

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kontakt-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040306124152/http://members.rediff.com/wolf17679/k-5.html to http://members.rediff.com/wolf17679/k-5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Performance in Ukraine?
Now that that conflict is 'hot'.. I'm curious what data will be available showing how effective ERA / Relikt or other measures are against Javelins in the Ukraine. Or multiple Javelins, for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Composition now reveiled: https://twitter.com/golub/status/1557339554885079041?s=21&t=P2rT-V6qf8_i7CQrZsL5Ig --Blockhaj (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the rubber inserts are прокладка, a part of the kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor seen on the roof in the video. "прокладка" just means padding, it is a part of the ERA. That is to say, nothing was revealed, we already knew rubber was a part of the composite. Here is a diagram: http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-72B.files/image034.jpg "9" points to the "прокладка" in the right side of the image; sorry for the low resolution.
 * As a side note, the tank in the video is T80-BVM number 659, which was captured in early march (at least, the first images of it appeared on the second of march) in the conflict and was refielded by the ukrainian forces three days later, on the fifth. This twitter video was posted almost half a year later and the tank looks to have been heavily scavenged, which makes me think that the manufacturer of the vehicle is not the one responsible for the missing explosive elements in the reactive panels, as the twitter thread would seem to imply. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)