Mike E

Peirre Spray really has to stop trying his hand at designing attack helicopters 

Sorry everyone, I'm actually in London for the week. So no signatures till later.

Both went nowhere with development most likely being cancelled. Bagira was to be an extremely long (55 caliber) 140 mm that could achieve over 900 mm of penetration firing a 7 kilo round at just over 1800 m/s. In all honestly that isn't very impressive considering the round only weighs 7 kg. Vityaz is more...in the air so to speak. Little to no information on it, except for that it could fire a 5 kg rod at around 2000 m/s. My guess would be that it is similar in theorey to the 2A82-1M; uses a long barrel, higher pressure chamber, and more powerful propellant to up penetration.
The important part here is that no current or planned vehicle uses them (they aren't even marketed...) and as such, both have been cancelled IMO.
For now Ukraine continues to use the KBA-3, which is just their indigenous 2A46M.

Replacing the Gavin with a expensive wheeled APC?
 

 
What the hell is it with people thinking wheeled and tracked APC's are interchangeable 

I don't get this at all...let wheeled APC's be wheeled APC's, and tracked APC's be tracked APC's. One should not replace the other, rather compliment it. Same goes for IFV's. 
 
Is Russia really the only country that understands this? Kurg-IFV & Kurg-APC, Bumer-IFV & Bumer-APC, heck...even a heavy-IFV. 
 
- Also, replacing APC's with IFV's... I didn't know this until now, but the Boxer is actually *cheaper* than our Stryker. 

I don't think that Leclerc's protection is mostly based on steel laminates; it would be a lot less bulky if that were the case.  I just think that it has steel laminates underneath.
 
The French were, AIUI, some of the first to really nail the metallurgy on that stuff.  Not surprising they'd swagger a bit about it.
 
My guess?  It's NERA on top of a steel laminate structure.  Why NERA?  Because fucking everything is NERA these days.
 
Some pictures earlier in this thread establish pretty convincingly that the flat steel plates we see on armata are just sheet steel covers, and not the actual armor.
 
Most likely explanation IMO is that armata has modular armor packages, just like leclerc or merkava IV, and we haven't seen the definitive armor package yet.

I don't think it's all that thick either, as everything I've seen seems to indicate it's relying on the slope of the armor much more than the thickness of the armor. Like here for instance:

 
That's why I named this thread the way I did, because the Merkava really seems like a further ev olution of the Chieftain, which makes sense given the Merkava's origins. My personal tinfoil hat theory is that the reason the armor is still technically classified is because the armor is really much thinner than they want to let on.

All being said, this 'vehicle' he drew up lowers his already bottom-level reputation.
As a response to him;
A crew of five would be a disaster and everyone knows it. Combine a smallish-vehicle with a mid-size turret and five crewmen...yeah it doesn't work well. Low profile vehicles like the T-72 and T-90 can get away with having a small crew compartment because they don't need to store a fourth crewman. Having two loaders means the turret needs to accommodate at least three crewmen, AT LEAST, along with a load of armor per the Abrams and Leopard 2. That simply won't work...and why have two loaders in the first place? NATO rounds are exclusively single-piece in tanks, and two men aren't needed to lifting a single rounds. All that will do is make the turret more crowded, making it harder AND slower to load as a result. Being as I've followed his content for the past seven years; I can tell you his argument for more crew is that if need be, you have more man-power to be mobilized outside of the vehicle...but they are in a vehicle, mobilizing them is pointless and risks more lives. All that means it more people will be fatally injured if the vehicle is penetrated or destroyed.
T-72's take half of fourteen seconds to reload, and one would be hard-pressed to find a loader that could reload in four seconds...never mind in repetition.
By "smaller less powerful" ammunition he was referring to Soviet & Russian carousels, which have historically had a maximum length cap of the ammunition, namely APFSDS. Still no reason for him to generalize, as almost every other type of autoloader (note this problem lies in the way of storing munitions....not even the AL) can fire long-length projectiles. And while autoloaders introduce a new possible failure point, manned vehicles have one too; it's called the loader. Heavy ammunition breaking the AL is so off it almost isn't funny.
Diesels do not have sparkplugs but a lot of them use a 'hotplug' (whatever they are called) which are basically elements....but they almost never need replacing, and I'd be worried if the average tanker couldn't replace one (a decimated engineer is just...without words).
Referring a tanks armor profile with percentages is beyond retarded. 20% Chobham....whhhaaaaaaa?
Colli nailed the problem with such nano-particles. They are strong at the nano-scale, because of their carbon bonds... At the larger scale, imperfect bonding would be numerous and the quality of the material low. It's just like steel armor; simple imperfects at the smallest of levels can compromise performance. This is why RHA was developed, and also why steel continues to be improved with changes in grain. The difference is that Carbon won't be easy to worth with, like steel...
Larger than an Abrams but much lighter... Must be that 60% Carbon :/ Why bother making the vehicle larger *even it were lighter*, simply put it means a larger target, and one that's considerably harder to transport...yet BTD hates on weight, for making vehicles harder to transport... Once again, there are no words to describe this insanity.
Low-ground pressure from the vehicle being LOW? Please.... He doesn't seem to realize that wider-tracks are *heavier*, and actually lower the agility of said vehicle. Ground pressure is important not that important...and since is making a vehicle unrealistically wide a good thing? At 16 feet wide, it could hardly fit on a road regardless of lanes, never mind bridges, tunnels, or dare I say it; aircraft! In regards to thinking ground pressure will solve all the vehicles problems; I....just....don't...know...
Has more power and torque and weighs less; in his imagination. Yes, no current tank could catch up to one that is in mans' head.
Wankels by themselves are on the boundaries of being failures for any use... They guzzle fuel and oil like nothing else out there. - His main argument against the Abrams was it not being fuel efficient. Oh, the irony. (Oh, and it being a diesel....)
And a howitzer....it's like he removed his brain and threw it out the window. To begin, the gun he is describing would not be a howitzer... The 2A82-1M gun (still 125 mm) has 17% more muzzle energy than the LONGER L/55 gun, which itself has noticeable improvements over the L/44. Euro 140 mm guns would have even more power than the 2A82, never mind a 145 mm... Honestly he must have made this all up on the spot. Muzzle energy =/= effective range, at least not directly.
Didn't a Chally or Chally 2 nail a tank at over 5 km once? The effective range of the L/44 probably isn't much over that, especially with heavy ammunition like the M829A3 (it travels at under 1600 m/s point-blank...so I doubt it'll go very far out past 4 km). Newer FCS/gun could probably manage a hit on an Abrams before the Abrams could directly hit it...but the chances of a penetration are almost nil. As for areas of engagements where this would be possible; don't ask me.
BTD also apparently doesn't understand rifle ammunition. Surprise surprise.
How can a MANNED TURRET be stabilized? That's stupid beyond belief....and exactly what is a hull stabilizer? Torsion bars are used because they are cheap and easy to maintain, if needed they can be further improved with hydro-pneumatic add-ons, as rumored to be on Armata.
I laughed when he claimed a tank-mounted autocannon lessens the need of SPAAG systems... Whatcha going to do, point it in the air and blind fire? This sounds less and less like a tank design and more of toddlers creation. He even acts like it will fend off fixed wing aircraft, sure it will...just...sure...
In the comments he actually made it SIX crewmen...not five, SIX. I guess the whole engineer thing was serious. I also love how he came up with fake figures, like the turret being 20 tons and able to traverse 360 in four seconds. Must have taken BTD 'four seconds ' to think that up.
He also continues the argument that if one crew member in killed in a T-62, you lose 1/3 of the crew. He fails to mention that in the "T-Wolf", two crewmembers would be lost...at least... Then he claims rifled guns are superior to smoothbores...
BTD posted this eight years ago, but he deserves no mercy. An absolute idiot he must be...

All being said, this 'vehicle' he drew up lowers his already bottom-level reputation.
As a response to him;
A crew of five would be a disaster and everyone knows it. Combine a smallish-vehicle with a mid-size turret and five crewmen...yeah it doesn't work well. Low profile vehicles like the T-72 and T-90 can get away with having a small crew compartment because they don't need to store a fourth crewman. Having two loaders means the turret needs to accommodate at least three crewmen, AT LEAST, along with a load of armor per the Abrams and Leopard 2. That simply won't work...and why have two loaders in the first place? NATO rounds are exclusively single-piece in tanks, and two men aren't needed to lifting a single rounds. All that will do is make the turret more crowded, making it harder AND slower to load as a result. Being as I've followed his content for the past seven years; I can tell you his argument for more crew is that if need be, you have more man-power to be mobilized outside of the vehicle...but they are in a vehicle, mobilizing them is pointless and risks more lives. All that means it more people will be fatally injured if the vehicle is penetrated or destroyed.
T-72's take half of fourteen seconds to reload, and one would be hard-pressed to find a loader that could reload in four seconds...never mind in repetition.
By "smaller less powerful" ammunition he was referring to Soviet & Russian carousels, which have historically had a maximum length cap of the ammunition, namely APFSDS. Still no reason for him to generalize, as almost every other type of autoloader (note this problem lies in the way of storing munitions....not even the AL) can fire long-length projectiles. And while autoloaders introduce a new possible failure point, manned vehicles have one too; it's called the loader. Heavy ammunition breaking the AL is so off it almost isn't funny.
Diesels do not have sparkplugs but a lot of them use a 'hotplug' (whatever they are called) which are basically elements....but they almost never need replacing, and I'd be worried if the average tanker couldn't replace one (a decimated engineer is just...without words).
Referring a tanks armor profile with percentages is beyond retarded. 20% Chobham....whhhaaaaaaa?
Colli nailed the problem with such nano-particles. They are strong at the nano-scale, because of their carbon bonds... At the larger scale, imperfect bonding would be numerous and the quality of the material low. It's just like steel armor; simple imperfects at the smallest of levels can compromise performance. This is why RHA was developed, and also why steel continues to be improved with changes in grain. The difference is that Carbon won't be easy to worth with, like steel...
Larger than an Abrams but much lighter... Must be that 60% Carbon :/ Why bother making the vehicle larger *even it were lighter*, simply put it means a larger target, and one that's considerably harder to transport...yet BTD hates on weight, for making vehicles harder to transport... Once again, there are no words to describe this insanity.
Low-ground pressure from the vehicle being LOW? Please.... He doesn't seem to realize that wider-tracks are *heavier*, and actually lower the agility of said vehicle. Ground pressure is important not that important...and since is making a vehicle unrealistically wide a good thing? At 16 feet wide, it could hardly fit on a road regardless of lanes, never mind bridges, tunnels, or dare I say it; aircraft! In regards to thinking ground pressure will solve all the vehicles problems; I....just....don't...know...
Has more power and torque and weighs less; in his imagination. Yes, no current tank could catch up to one that is in mans' head.
Wankels by themselves are on the boundaries of being failures for any use... They guzzle fuel and oil like nothing else out there. - His main argument against the Abrams was it not being fuel efficient. Oh, the irony. (Oh, and it being a diesel....)
And a howitzer....it's like he removed his brain and threw it out the window. To begin, the gun he is describing would not be a howitzer... The 2A82-1M gun (still 125 mm) has 17% more muzzle energy than the LONGER L/55 gun, which itself has noticeable improvements over the L/44. Euro 140 mm guns would have even more power than the 2A82, never mind a 145 mm... Honestly he must have made this all up on the spot. Muzzle energy =/= effective range, at least not directly.
Didn't a Chally or Chally 2 nail a tank at over 5 km once? The effective range of the L/44 probably isn't much over that, especially with heavy ammunition like the M829A3 (it travels at under 1600 m/s point-blank...so I doubt it'll go very far out past 4 km). Newer FCS/gun could probably manage a hit on an Abrams before the Abrams could directly hit it...but the chances of a penetration are almost nil. As for areas of engagements where this would be possible; don't ask me.
BTD also apparently doesn't understand rifle ammunition. Surprise surprise.
How can a MANNED TURRET be stabilized? That's stupid beyond belief....and exactly what is a hull stabilizer? Torsion bars are used because they are cheap and easy to maintain, if needed they can be further improved with hydro-pneumatic add-ons, as rumored to be on Armata.
I laughed when he claimed a tank-mounted autocannon lessens the need of SPAAG systems... Whatcha going to do, point it in the air and blind fire? This sounds less and less like a tank design and more of toddlers creation. He even acts like it will fend off fixed wing aircraft, sure it will...just...sure...
In the comments he actually made it SIX crewmen...not five, SIX. I guess the whole engineer thing was serious. I also love how he came up with fake figures, like the turret being 20 tons and able to traverse 360 in four seconds. Must have taken BTD 'four seconds ' to think that up.
He also continues the argument that if one crew member in killed in a T-62, you lose 1/3 of the crew. He fails to mention that in the "T-Wolf", two crewmembers would be lost...at least... Then he claims rifled guns are superior to smoothbores...
BTD posted this eight years ago, but he deserves no mercy. An absolute idiot he must be...

Thanks for letting me know.... IIRC Relikt does indeed use less explosives in mass than K-5, possibly I misunderstood and they meant each charge weighed 50%. 
 
Nozh is especially susceptible per; 

rather than the ideal...

Thank you Sturgeon. 
 
@Tied Where I am at, 'based' just means you don't care what other people think, but it's fine. 

Sure thing Mike E, the discussion of ERA is here.
 
All ERA only works when it is at some obliquity to the threat, Nozh isn't unique in that respect.

Pakistan is yet to have received a T-90MS for testing. Oplot-M going head-to-head will be with the MS will be interesting, to say the least...The Ukr/Paki nuts at PD were going nuts and claiming the Oplot will actually be acquired. Simply put, Pakistan has rejected the MBT-3000, and hence the Oplot-M is the only vehicle they current have in possession, that they are actually considering. - Ukraine does not have the industry to build a few, nevermind a few hundred.
In regards to a possible deal with Ukraine, Pakistan would do it is as a way of keeping commonality with their T-80UD's, which will allegedly receive a few upgrades including either Nozh or Duplet.
Outside of that, the Oplot-M didn't offer them anything that other vehicles do not. T-80UD's even had heat issues in the Pakistani Deserts, IIRC.
This isn't completely relevant to the above, but Nozh (never-mind the more powerful Duplet) has major problems with detonating neighboring ERA modules, and even blowing inserts/track-covers off the vehicle... Ukraine went for the easy solution by adding more explosive, but that came with drawbacks (aforementioned issues and just the weight... Oplot-M has FIVE TONNES of the stuff). Relikt actually uses less mass of explosives (roughly 50% less) than K-5, yet achieves twice the performance against KE.