Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alanch90

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Fully agree, for starters it is based on a tank with no composite armor so protection could not be relevant anyway. However now knowing the background of the company it is clear to me that this vehicle is just a statement to get into the spotlight and get the public talking about them, and in that evidently they succeded. Because its not like the PLA is preparing for a "Grozni scenario".
  2. When you check the interior layout you realize that superstructure is necesary for the crew working space (lots of big screens and stuff to manage all the drones and smart weapons). Still, it weakens the already low protection of the vehicle.
  3. True. However we have that horribly animated video from some months ago, showing the concept of a vehicle specialized in assymetrical warfare.
  4. This "QN-506" is now the third "assymetrical combat specialized" vehicle together with the BMP-T and the future "Carmel". Although this chinese vehicle being based on a T-54 derivative chassis i wonder about its protection capabilities while its weapon systems suggest a direct combat role against enemy infantry. The design seems contradictory. But on the other side, it is equipped with technology (surveliance drones, for example) that the BMP-T should have. The concept behind this new vehicle class is making its way to armies with close to no experience in hardcore urban combat. Interesting.
  5. alanch90


    Well, doing guestimates is ususally the best we can do about modern systems. But we have some data. When it comes to protection analysis, hull armor is secondary to turret armor. As we all know, most of the shots in tank-tank engagement impact the turret. According to this guy The tank has new armor on the hull. It doesnt mean thats to counter 125mm apfsds though. But on the other hand, this upgraded armor package is the first one in almost 2 decades, im sure that they managed to make armor thats either more weight efficient (for the claimed protection against IEDs, for example) or more effective vs conventional threats, or both. To what extent is up for guessing. Both the Svinets 1-2 and Relikt have been introduced recently thats true, but that introduction was way long overdue. They were designed around the early 2000´s. While some improvements can be made, i would expect them to be negligible. Those designs are so old that there is data about their performance. For the APFSDS rounds we have this table, supposedly from Tula which claims a penetration at a 60º target from 2km of 370mm RHA for Svinets 1 and 330mm RHA for Svinets 2, and at minimum double those figures for non-sloped targets (for some reason im unable to attach the table in the post). Both figures imply that they can defeat the original M1A2, but we dont know how effective would they be against the first SEP, let alone the SEPv3. However lets say that both Svinets would penetrate a maximum of 800mm, for the Abrams, having its armor upgraded up to that figure wouldn´t be much of a stretch after 2 armor upgrades and almost 3 decades for research and development (since the introduction of M1A2 armor package). About the Relikt, usually its claimed to be twice as effective vs KE than Kontakt 5, so around 40 percent decrease in APFSDS penetration. Said ERA is so good that it renders M829A3 useless, and thats something admitted by ATK in the brochure about the new round while also claiming the capability to defeat Relikt with the A4:
  6. alanch90


    In terms of armor i think its likely that it can resist Svinets 1-2. Those rounds are not a new design and given their date and also their reported performance i think that they were meant to counter the armor in the original M1A2 (600mm vs KE) or the first SEP upgrade. I find it likely that the newest abrams armor was designed to counter these rounds. However i was referring more on the M829A4 which is claimed by ATK to be able to defeat Relikt protected tanks. Overall, seems to me that the SEPv3 as a whole was meant to not loose overmatch to the newest russian tanks in service.
  7. alanch90


    Dont get me wrong, T-90M is indeed a very nice tank. But SEPv3 already counters it (and that tank is alrady available in larger numbers) and so will future Leo 2 with improved 120mm gun and APFSDS. If the russians would have adopted the T-90M back in 2012 when the T-90MS was announced that investment would have been more valuable in time. However, the russian army standard is the T-72B3, well inferior to T-90M.
  8. alanch90


    In all fairness, mounting the 152mm gun onto the T-14 only will make sense once we see what type of tanks come out of current western development. And that´s not gonna happen at least for a decade away from now. For the time being, new 125mm ammo will do againts 3rd gen tanks. Anyhow, the current situation is that the bulk of russian tank fleet is qualitatively overmatched by everything west of the Ukraine-Poland frontier. The russian goverment already decided that this situation is not desirable and hence they took the ambitious goal of replacing most of their tank fleet with T-14 and now we now that they can´t achieve that. On the other hand, their "Plan B" (modernization of current tanks) is a short-sighted one, it does not solve the qualitive inferiority and in a few years the gap with western tanks will again increase. Thats why i see as increasingly likely that in the coming years we will see an "intermediate tank" between 3rd gen and Armata platform, an overhauled T-90 mounting downgraded of simplified Armata features ,which will be cleared for export and most likely will be a (much needed) commercial success. Something similar happened with the adoption of T-62 and later the T-72, also both UVZ tanks. The russians have the very big advantage that much of the developmental work they would need to do for this hipothetic new tank has already been done in the last of the soviet days. Much of the aspects that would need redisigning in a T-90 chassis to create a new "T-X2" tank have already been realized in the Object 187: It had a redisigned hull armor, mounted the 2A82 and also could use the engines in service with T-72 and T-90 as well as the engine in use with the T-14. In my opinion its a no-brainer.
  9. alanch90


    i think that announcement on the part of UVZ has to be read as a commercial pitch and not as a critique of the T-14 itself. As an argentinian this smells to me as a cheap trick on the part of UVZ to get more money. Why? Ill explain: - UVZ was expecting big contracts for T-14. That didn´t happen and the MOD argued that aquiring the T-14 en masse wasn´t worth because they can get things done with current tank fleet. In other words, the T-14 capabilities werent superior enough compared to other 125mm armed tanks to justify the price tag. On the other hand, arming the T-14 with 125mm had other economic and logistical advantages and should have been easier for the transitional period until the new tank was adopted by the majority of units. - Having been a commercial letdown, i expect that UVZ would have it be pretty difficult to export the T-14 (because its brand new technology, etc.), hence they are not making any money out of the design. The only solution from their point of view would be to offer the tank again to the russian MOD. For that, they have to make something to answer to MOD arguments to reject the tank in the first place, making it distinctively different from 125mm tanks in service so installing a new gun is an obvious choice. In addition, to secure even more funds for development from the government, UVZ is promoting this as the creation of a "new tank" instead of a modification of the already developed Armata. Finally im surprised that UVZ hasn´t created a T-72/90 tank with the T-14 turret, like they did with Koalitsiya-SV. That should be way more attractive in terms of price for the government and also easier to get clearance for export.
  10. Interesting, they are just giving out the system reaction time. BTW is there a way to translate?
  11. alanch90

    Israeli AFVs

    I remember that some months ago in this forum we had a debate in the russian BMP-T. Everyone agreed that a vehicle designed to operate in assymetrical contexts should have a specialized FCS/sensor system, seems that with the Barak the IDF is answering that very issue.
  12. alanch90

    Israeli AFVs

    IDF uploaded this on its spanish youtube channel Ask me what you want translated to english Also an interview with a commander about Gaza and the new tank, i will translate from 0:39 "At the same time we are developing a new Merkava model which will enter service in the Armored Corps within the next 3 years called (Merkava) Tank 4 Barak. This tank will bring many advanced characteristics and will introduce the most advanced technologies a tank can be equipped with. This way the tank will function better on the ground. This enables the crew to operate it during changing situations, be even more lethal and contribute significantly to the Grond Forces of the IDF. We´ve been working to incorporate this new technologies and adapt our techniques and practices to them. I´m convinced that in case we have to use our Ground Forces, we´ll know how to do it in a focused, pragmatic manner and we´ll be successful." All in all seems that the Merkava development heads even more in towards asymmetric warfare and further away from "tank dueling".