Molota_477

The GAODE(GUIDE) DEFENCE mainly works on electric-optic techs such as IR and missle/rocket fuses, they almost have nothing experience in armored vehicle design, this shit was most likely made by themselves for a shining look, as for their main purpose, obviously for selling the rocket weapons systems. 

On 10/27/2018 at 9:34 PM, Akula_941 said:

for some reason the hull looks like KV-1

I believe its driver will be killed by ERA explosion

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

each round apperently was some sort of special shell with variable shape propellant charge.

Wasn't it only the ob.490A intended to use the variable shape propellant charge?

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Brits designed a type of DU armor, where thin depleted uranium plates were used in combation with an interlayer material and probably would have acted as a form of NERA.

Hi, Yes, I know this patent, and it makes sense that DU material is very likely used in NERA as sandwich's back plate, because its high flow strength.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

These are some very nice illustrations of possible armor arrays, but they certainly do not reflect the actual products. It is interesting that the author supposed that glass is one of the go-to solutions against shaped charges; even in NERA plate arrays (example 5). While glass has proven to be a possible interlayer material for NERA, it isn't particularly effective; so maybe this is deliberate misinformation or did the original Leclerc use glass as part of its armor?

 

As you can read in the article, these are only illustrations of different armor technologies and concepts, not actual armor arrays. Example 3 is showcasing the T-80U's turret ERA, but at the same time shows a modular construction (ERA and ceramic armor are a detachable module bolted ontop of the steel-titanium armor). Example 4 shows the external wedge-module of the Leopard 2A5 (simplified with just one NERA layer and incorrect mounting mechanism) in combination with base armor optimized for protectiton against KEPs. Example 5 shows a fully modular armor array (a concept used on the Leclerc and Merkava 3 & 4), but at the same time is used to showcase DU armor, which both of these tanks seem to lack, while the Abrams doesn't have fully modular armor. These are interesting illustrations, but rather show concepts of armor design, they certainly do not reflect actual tank armor.

Yes, I do know these diagrams just simply illustrate some concepts, each color block just stands for an armor type which may have more complex details in real design.

I am very curious about the sequence of these armor material inserts, especailly the DU package in example 5 was place in the front as a face plate which I suppose it won't offer so much protection from shape charge or KE round in such small oblique, but there is little open research related to the ballistic performance of DU plates, so maybe it is a possible solution.

Hi guys, I would like to take this place to ask that how credible is this article?

Screenshot from Magazine RAIDS Les Chars de Combat en Action 3,.

All of tanks mentioned in this article have taken part in the Sweden trials, I suppose that maybe the author would have some materials related to the true armor layout.

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

M1A2C

 

What is the black cylindrical device to the right of the turret?

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

i saw that somewhere... uh expected something better.

 

So, why they need turret bustle if autoloader have ammunition in hull? 

The turret bustle is used to contain electronic units, especially batteries.

ZTZ-99A Autoloading—

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is CPS (in the FCS category)

It should be Commander's Primary Sight, corresponding to GPS(Gunner's Primary Sight)

Excuse me, just out of curiosity, where can find these original reports?

It's not GL-5, “Raptor” just a corporate project from Nanjing "Hercules" Defense Company, which is a new private company built recently(in this year. Of course, also it may be an individual company from a state-owned enterprise), while GL-5 came from NORICON.

"Raptor" just a joke as for me, its performance absolutely do not meet PLA's requirements.

15 minutes ago, Monochromelody said:

That's an AMX 30 prototype(1961)

supplement.

Modified MBT-2000（many details very closed to the VT-4 mod.2012,but with 6TD-2 engine） and BK1871（the initial prototype of Type-90 II/MBT-2000）appear in a last year documentary video.【央视纪录片】军工记忆-链接世界 CCTV9

Modified MBT-2000↑

The BK 1871 on the left, note its very sloping UFP , and side by side is the MBT-2000 FP-1, FP means "Formal  Prototype", which was designed a new hull nose structure.

More pics about BK1871:

There are also another interesting details of MBT-2000 )

On 4/27/2018 at 10:00 PM, LoooSeR said:

The R&D programm for Armata ERA is called "Bronepoezd-2" (Armored train-2), ar at least it is what is belived.

   Malakhit ERA was mentioned during Object 187 development, and claimed to be a base for Relikt ERA. Also Malakhit AFAIK never was pre-trigger type of ERA.

Can you post more details about these R&D programs? 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

I find funny how he put watermarks on BTVT drawings.

This is my blog , I was not very  familiar with this platform at that time, the system put Watermarks automatically but I didn't know about it, if necessary I will delete this post, sorry about that.

In short:
The text in PDF says that the structure of the special armor is unknown, and only the hull base armor layout and the performance of some modules are known.
Because Merkava's special armor is modular design,  maybe it was presumed that the LFP also can be fitted with additional armor.

No idea about those illustrations' original source,  It may be the author's record during his visit to Israel.

8 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

BTW from where you took that schematics of armor?

P 179 & P 240

12 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Is this book (《装甲防护技术基础》（The basic technology of armor protection）) availiable in PDF/electronic version?

Yes, it is a useful course book and very easy to be found in Chinese Internet, however its hardcover is very rare now.

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also: Despite the thickness there being odd on the T-9/4, it makes sense that it's a "9" and not a "3" because the roof armor was there to protect against RPG warheads, not ATGMs, whilst the turret sides at a certain angle were indeed supposed to provide protection against ATGMs. 

But its angle looks very strange.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Can you upload PDF to a site from which other mortals can download it, please? Our Hacking powers failed.

 

Sure, you can download it from here https://drive.google.com/file/d/19zgh1r1ULfYJLfwNlOEpBywqXh4igTLu/view?usp=sharing 

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese):

Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》（The basic technology of armor protection）, and others are come from this issue： http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm

The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history)

Photo of Mr.Zhang and General Tal.

The cast turret base and weld frame.

Special armor covered, those colored parts most likely are heavy NERA or Built-in-ERA structure modules, while others are lighter module I guess.

T-3/4 module before shooting by a HEAT warhead of HOT missile. According to previous picture, it should be the side armor of the turret. So we can assume that the front arc of Merkava III's turret, looks likely ±30°，which can withstand more than 700mm even 800mm penetration from CE threat.

Still the T-3/4 module,before hitting by a RPG warhead. 

I am confused this number as T-9/4 at my first look, but it is more likely a distorted "3". There are some reasons: (1) Its thickness doesn't seem to fit on top of the turret. (2) In this pic the threat is RPG warhead, moreover, its incidence normal angle is smaller than the previous HOT warhead, which can be used as a useful basis for judging.

Built-in ERA structure, the left side is Israeli scheme, and Russian scheme at right side.

The armor layout of tank Merkava Mk III. The solid line is base steel armor's equivalent thickness, including spaced armor array inside the hull( The table above shows the thickness and inclination of the base steel armor,  unfortunately many  notes are missing in the PDF) and the dotted line is the special armor's protection capability against KE ammunition, up to 450mm RHA on turret front and 350-400mm on the UFP.

Hope you guys will enjoy this post

5 hours ago, Militarysta said:

This cermics-steel armour pretend to be only in turret and hull front placed AFTER NERA layers. AL something something tiles or corundium bricks.

Somethink like this:

 

 

Looks like the ceramic T-80UD

7 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

everyone can make a mistake )

But there is no need for a repeat offender.