Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

alanch90

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alanch90

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. alanch90

    The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

    More or less, but they are not starting from zero. They had already explored unmanned turrets or externally mounted main guns, and likely also had an autoloader for 140mm designed, and that is a direction they can choose. I mean look at the russians and how they took advantage of the technology developed for Objects 187-195, for example.
  2. alanch90

    The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

    In my opinion, it doesnt make sense for Sweden to adopt somewhere in 2020 Leclercs when they already operate Strv 122, and even more when both french and germans have embarked on devolpement of the ´Europanzer 2.0´ precisely to replace both Leo 2 and Leclercs. At this point if the Swedes have enough funds for making a big contract for newer tanks, they should just invest them into a propper replacement for Strv 122, whatever if they decide to bet on the ´Europanzer 2.0´ or develop a new national tank, for which case they already have conceptual work done for Strv 2000.
  3. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    But thats how they will market it for export ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). Yeah i can already see that all the way down to the robot voiced youtube videos.
  4. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    For starters, if you take out the hull composite armor from the T-90 and the frontal fuel tanks, you can liberate enough space to sit two more people besides the driver, but at the expense of protection. Actually thats not a complex modification. For something like Koalisia thats no big deal, but makes one wonder what they did to seat two "bow gunners" in the BMPT. EDIT: i retract what i said, after viewing again the Koalitsia, i noticed tha gunners and commanders hatches are place behind the drivers, meaning that the thick composite migh be still there (and the historic weak spot around drivers vision block remains as well). And also there is a thick add-on block of unknown nature. Now just replace the Koalitzia turret with the T-14 and you get a cheap mans 4th gen MBT.
  5. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Yes i agree to that, if they tried to mount a thick frontal hull armor then the whole hull would be inbalanced, needing further modifications. But in the end what matters is that if this hypothetical "T-X2" would be cheap enough compared to T-14. Would make a good export tank nonetheless.
  6. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    I was about to say the same as @Mighty_Zuk. If anything i ask myself if the russians could put an unmanned T-14 like turret on an armored T-72/90 chassis, like they did with the Koalitzia.
  7. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    So, if you knew the exact details of track dimensions, roller wheels, etc, you could estimate the maximum theoretical weight at which the tank would have comparable ground pressure as previous soviet/russian designs?
  8. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    @skylancer-3441 i dont know the weight for the Molot prototypes, but weren´t those built on modified T-64 chassis?
  9. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Everyone is entitled have their own interests. Nonetheless, i remember that at in an article from ARMOR on T-72B its stated that prior to the unveiling of the armor of said tank, experts used to estimate its effectiveness using the BDD armor on T-62M as reference (source: https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/t-72b-armor-article_jmo_may2002_4.jpg). It wouldn´t surprise me if nowadays people more knowledgeable than myself were using similar theories as mine to try to figure out T-14 armor levels. In absence of strong evidence, speculation is all that is left to make a judgement, however inaccurate it may be. I thought that 50 tons were a "hard limit" for soviet/russian design, unless the roads, trains, bridges and overall infrastructure were improved significantly since the dissolution of the USSR. On the other hand i wouldn´t be surprised if the military and UVZ were revising the requirements, after all mass production wont start for a long time; the requirements for a 2025 tank cannot be the same as in 2010´s, and that will have an impact on weight. Its either that or the T-14 slowly turning into a ´Russian Arjun´.
  10. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    @SH_MM you are either cherry picking parts of my posts or missing the point entirely. I will go with the latter; the point of my posts was NOT to come up with an "X" figure for me to say that i had cracked the armor enigma on the T-14, but rather to test an hypothesis knowing how limited we are on definitive data and thus admiting the limited reach of the possible conclusions.. Its a tank thats not even in service, so stop demanding people to come up with sources that only the guys at NSA could possibly get their hands on. If your answer at everything T-14 related is gonna be "GIVE SOURCES!" then we should just close down this whole thread and reopen it in 10 years time, and that if we are lucky. 3 things got me curious and thinking about T-14 armor, the first one that it is claimed to have unprecedented levels of protection, secondly that it can physically fit a very thick module on the front, thirdly that even having a very thick armor its still suplemented with ERA (and that ERA is not of the same type of the ones currently in service), and finally that with all that the tank is very light, pretty much discarding the use of any kind of weight inneficient armor array. So, knowing the dominant criteria for russian equipment aquisition (i mean, they are still using weapons designed more than half century ago adn are totally OK with them), i just happened to ask myself if it was possible that they would still be using the same array thats been in service since 1985. And the results were that indeed that very array could provide a good enough base armor but not too good to dispense with ERA. Not even that, but i gave at least 3 differente estimates and the lowest one (which has to be discarded because it would only have any validity of T-14 was using cast armor, and we know that it isn´t) is high enough to resist most of (if not all) APFSDS in service, and my highest estimate (applying the 10-15 overall effectiveness increase when switching from CHA to RHA) got pretty close to what is claimed in media, and even then i admitted that if the array is the way i theorize, it would be more efficient than what the numbers were showing. About the weight, the "12" tons, that was calculated by another user (who also offered 9 tons as alternative), so i dont take credit nor responsability for such estimation. Do you know what the "next gen" armor looks like? Because Obj 187 was running trials against T-90, what makes you think that it had a radically different armor array? I mean if we go by your criteria, we could also claim that Obj 187 was not using a different armor than T-90 unless you give sources or go sneak into Kubinka and cut us open the Obj 187 for everyone to see whats inside. I repeat myself because perhaps i´ve not been clear enough: i have no doubts that the russians have developed a lot of newer armor arrays in the last 3 decades, but if they can satisfy the protection requiremens by using the old "bulging plates", then they have every reason to use them instead of anything newer, and thats the criteria they always used when it comes to weapons aquisition. In the end, SH_MM you seem to know your stuff. If you really want to disprove my theory about T-14 using ´bulging plates´ you should present your own estimation on the effectiveness of such armor in a 950mm thick block with 45 degree slopping and see what kind of results you come up with.
  11. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    @SH_MM i did state quite a few reasons for why its likely that the russians kept the bulging plates, both historical and practical ones. After that reasoning the next logical step was to try tests if said array would provide enough protection, if the estimates were to be too low, then that would have discarded my hipothesis. But not only in the LOS estimate the T-90A array fits almost too well but in the actual effectiveness estimation, the lowest possible result is high enough against currently fielded and near future threat weapons. On the other hand, the highest result kind of adds up to the claims made at the media ("900mm RHA"), and also i did clarify that the result could be even higher (than around 836-874mm) because of a number of variables that could not be taken into account with the calculation method that i used (meaning, the likely increased effectiveness of the NERA-bulging plates section of the array because of the higher number of sandwiches that could be fitted at an optimal angle and/or slight and small improvements in metallurgy and materials used). As for the calculation method, there are 2 possible criticisms: the first one aimed at the method itselfs in which case any kind of "napkin mathematics" should not be aimed at myself but rather at the author of the article at tankograd. The second criticism which can be directed at myself would not be against the calculation method but its actual implementation, meaning that i screw up the numbers which i already admitted that is always possible, but the follow up to that criticism should be to remake the calculation. After arguing for the feasibility of the bulging plates array being used, my conclusion is to ratify my hypothesis given the track record of the russians on using the same designs and methods until their potential is fully exhausted. Caution: im not saying that the russians can´t or haven´t designed new armor packages in over 3 decades since the dissolution of USSR, its certain that they did BUT the reasons to keep using the bulging plates outweight the ones for fielding newer, better and more expensive packages.
  12. In other words, better base armor than the likes of T-90A, combined with comparable ERA (copy of Relikt?) equals better overall protection equivalencies. Nothing surprising there. That said, im having doubts about M829A4 being capable against this chinese tank.
  13. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Question is: why would the russians include more expensive armor elements within an already expensive new tank that they are having problems buying? The whole point of my estimation was to prove that even by using 35 year old armor, the T-14 would be meeting current protection needs without having to field a fancy new and expensive armor package. After doing the math i was truly surprised by the effectiveness of such armor even using the lowest possible estimate.
  14. alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    I guess that the main advantage of having a mostly unprotected turret is that you can have the luxury of using a super heavy hull front, having "just" 9-12 tons of heavy armor in a 50 ton tank and still being capable of withstanding anything the enemy can throw at you is quite remarkable. By comparison, the Abrams turret weights about 20 tons, mostly because of the armor, and that was before they started using DU!
×