Russian Armor Pen of 4.6 HK and 5.7 FN

[TGS]

We've obviously heard a lot about these weapons in context to performance in flesh ad nauseum. Please don't do that here in this thread.

__________________________________________


We already know that HK's 4.6x30 MP7 round and FN's 5.7x28 P90 and Five-Seven round are generally only capable of penetrating soft armor....most rifle rated hard armor it's challenged against in open-source tests using US-sourced armor is a no-go.

So, what about these rounds versus Russian armor? Common wisdom suggests no, hints by industry professionals under NDA suggest no, but that Russkie stuff is hard to get your hands on....so wouldn't it be cool to see how it performs against a few different Russian armor sets from the era of its inception?

Here's a fun video:

[BWT]

Really cool videos. Thanks for sharing - he has a ton of other promising content.

It is a shame as he pointed out that the P90 was developed in the 90’s and the issues armor was superior to it prior in 1985. Also interesting the Soviets used a “scaled” design analogous to dragon skin (although better).

[jbrimlow]

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

[TGS]

Really cool videos. Thanks for sharing - he has a ton of other promising content.

It is a shame as he pointed out that the P90 was developed in the 90’s and the issues armor was superior to it prior in 1985. Also interesting the Soviets used a “scaled” design analogous to dragon skin (although better).

I was (and still am) very unfamiliar with Russian body armor. I know a significant amount of Russian troops died from hemothoraxes from blunt trauma sustained by their armor stopping 7.62x54R during the Soviet-Afghan War, but I never saw the armor taken apart like this or knew that it was overlapping scales. In the 2000s I think they adopted a more conventional style armor system like ours with a soft vest and a smaller single plate front and rear, in which case the 4.6 and 5.7 would still have some validity compared to a 9mm which even when using unicorn AP ammo only has AP capabilities out to 40m or so.

Just to be clear, the P90 was developed in the 80s and entered production in 1990 (hence the name, P90). The NATO proposal for the PDWs was in 1986, if I recall correctly. Only the HK MP7 was developed through the 90s. But yeah, same point nonetheless: it's no wonder then that so few nations adopted these for their intended purpose given the Russian armor of the time.

[TGS]

So, I've been doing some more reading on Soviet body armor from the 80s through the 90s into the early 2000s. Figured I'd post some thoughts even if there's only a few people interested in this topic.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions offered by Oxide in this video. From what I can find, the USSR and later the Russian Federation has never really been consistent in their body armor issuance like nations in the west. Oxide tested the 6B3 and 6B5, and claimed the 5.7 and 4.6 was flawed since "millions of conscripts" would be wearing the 6B5. From what I can tell, the 6B3 and even the earlier 6B2 were still in use into the 2000s due to financial troubles in Russia and especially the former Soviet satellite states, both of which the 5.7 and 4.6 are easily capable of defeating.

It looks like that at least in some Soviet satellite states, kevlar vests similar to western designs like the PASGT were in use/still are in use. As I mentioned previously, the Russian Federation abandoned their titanium/boron carbide scale system and went towards a more "conventional" system similar to RBA or Interceptor vests where you've got a kevlar vest with a single rifle plate front and back (actually, sometimes just front for the Russians), but it started earlier than I thought in the 90s. So, you'd still have capability to defeat the soft armor portions of those vests with the 4.6 and 5.7.

Lastly, only one of their infantry helmets would stop 4.6 or 5.7...and it was used for a very short time, seemingly for the same reason the 6B5 was dropped so quickly, even before the MP7 was even fielded: weight. Interestingly, it seems that the 6B2 and 6B3 actually outlasted the 6B5 for what I'm guessing is this same reason.

So, it seems incorrect to assert that these two rounds would have been useless claiming that all the troops you'd be facing would be wearing 6B5, when Russia never got anywhere near full fielding with 6B5 (actually dropping it fairly quickly), and the not-so-insignificant fact that Russia wasn't the only country in the game for NATO to contend with.

[BWT]

So, I've been doing some more reading on Soviet body armor from the 80s through the 90s into the early 2000s. Figured I'd post some thoughts even if there's only a few people interested in this topic.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions offered by Oxide in this video. From what I can find, the USSR and later the Russian Federation has never really been consistent in their body armor issuance like nations in the west. Oxide tested the 6B3 and 6B5, and claimed the 5.7 and 4.6 was flawed since "millions of conscripts" would be wearing the 6B5. From what I can tell, the 6B3 and even the earlier 6B2 were still in use into the 2000s due to financial troubles in Russia and especially the former Soviet satellite states, both of which the 5.7 and 4.6 are easily capable of defeating.

It looks like that at least in some Soviet satellite states, kevlar vests similar to western designs like the PASGT were in use/still are in use. As I mentioned previously, the Russian Federation abandoned their titanium/boron carbide scale system and went towards a more "conventional" system similar to RBA or Interceptor vests where you've got a kevlar vest with a single rifle plate front and back (actually, sometimes just front for the Russians), but it started earlier than I thought in the 90s. So, you'd still have capability to defeat the soft armor portions of those vests with the 4.6 and 5.7.

Lastly, only one of their infantry helmets would stop 4.6 or 5.7...and it was used for a very short time, seemingly for the same reason the 6B5 was dropped so quickly, even before the MP7 was even fielded: weight. Interestingly, it seems that the 6B2 and 6B3 actually outlasted the 6B5 for what I'm guessing is this same reason.

So, it seems incorrect to assert that these two rounds would have been useless claiming that all the troops you'd be facing would be wearing 6B5, when Russia never got anywhere near full fielding with 6B5 (actually dropping it fairly quickly), and the not-so-insignificant fact that Russia wasn't the only country in the game for NATO to contend with.

I had a friend in an Army Cavalry officer who I’d consider not an expert but I mean… it is his profession. Anyway, he and his brother an Army Infantry officer were discussing tanks, etc. and the subject of Russian equipment and tanks came up and some of the features one of them offered, etc. he indicated he definitely didn’t want to see them on the battle field, but then remarked “But the Russians only have about a Battalion of them where as we have about 2-3 Brigades”, etc.

It seems the Russians weapon and technology development never stopped, but your comment here reminded me of that sentiment. They have created (and still do) some amazing technologies - but they often don’t deploy them in large scale numbers.

I’m no expert or even work in that field, but it seems his analysis there applies here too.