Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The only official info on the Merkava 4's armor is that it uses a "continuous (i.e high coverage) semi-reactive armor".

 

Can you share this original source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Bronezhilet said:

This is a list of materials I've found in the papers I have about SLERA, NxRA and NERA. It is by no means complete or containing only materials that are actually fielded, it's just what I've found:

  • Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) hardened with Desmodur N100
  • GAP (hardened) with CaCO3
  • GAP (hardened) with Guanidinazotetrazolat
  • GAP (hardened) with varying amounts of RDX
  • "Rubber or GAP" with a layer of Dottikon
  • Perbunan
  • NBR
  • PU
  • FKM
  • SI
  • Dyneema HB26
  • Carbon reinforced rubber
  • Glass reinforced rubber
  • Kevlar reinforced rubber
  • PBO reinforced rubber

 

I've seen three more materials:

  • Mica reinforced rubber
  • Some mix with asphalt
  • PTFE with magnesium / aluminium dust and acetone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 2:10 PM, alanch90 said:

i did state quite a few reasons for why its likely that the russians kept the bulging plates, both historical and practical ones.

 

No, you didn't state reasons. You made a few claims and simply declared them true, without having a single source. In your own words: "Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it."

 

And why should the T-14 use this kind of armor instead of anything even closely resembling the armor arrays used on their next-gen prototypes? Because they couldn't afford to use better armor? Because they magically can invest 12 metric tons just for the hull front armor array - while improving side protection, underbelly protection and roof protection at the same time?

 

By your logic we also could assume that it uses simple steel armor, because the T-72's turret had pure steel. We could argue that the smaller size of the T-14 and the fact that using pure cast steel is cheaper than multi-layered armor would be an advantage. Then we say that the turret front has an armor thickness of 950 mm - without source - and do some napkin math like "950 mm * 0.97=921 mm, that is close to 900 mm!". Now it is proven with "historical and practical reasons"!

 

The T-90 was designed as cheap stopgap solution until a true next gen tank (Object 195, Object 477/A) would have become available. These development projects continued after the end of the Soviet Union. It was supposedly chosen over the T-80U for cost reasons. The T-14 Armata is not a stopgap solution and not designed to be a low-cost tank.

That the T-90A's internal turret armor array is identical to the one used on the T-72B is pure speculation, just like your claims that Object 187 used exactly the same armor as the T-72B (which the so-called Malachit ERA fitted to the last prototype of the Object 187 easily disproves). The T-90S as a (downgraded) export tank might use a similar arrangement of multi-layer plates (based on a single screenshot from the LS-DYNA software that was part of a marketing poster), but that the material composition and thickness remain unchanged are not confirmed. Assuming that the T-90A the export T-90S has the same armor array as the export T-90S is also pure speculation.

 

On 1/4/2019 at 2:10 PM, alanch90 said:

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.

 

It is napkin math on your side; the tankograd blog isn't perfect either and has a few mistakes, but he clearly mentions that the protection level are dependent on the types of ammunition used and explains how he comes up with his values (i.e. mentioning the relation to the penetrator geometry and the avialable ammunition at that time). He mentions that increasing the elongation of the penetrator material decreases the efficiency of the armor, likewise he tries at least to factor in L/D ratio and different penetrator constructions.

 

On 1/4/2019 at 2:10 PM, alanch90 said:

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.

 

Your "calculation" is purely assuming that the armor has to look like that, because other armor looked like this. Even Paul Lakowski did that better (he factored in weight and used an estimated density to assume the filler, his results still were horrible wrong) and he came up with some of the most incorrect armor estimates.

 

The efficiency of modern longrods and composite armor is depending on numerous factors. Old armor like the one used in the T-72B is likely achieving a lower efficiency against newer penetrators with longer rods made from more resilient material. The amount of armor available is highly depending on weight - just "guessing" the armor thickness, ignoring weight and deciding that a certain armor composition is likely based on pure arbitrariness isn't going to be anywhere close to realistic. Then proclaiming that "the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it" is just silly, if not even dumb. That your math doesn't even add up according to your own logic (the 10-15% protection increase from replacing the cast steel shell with welded steel for some reason is applied to the whole armor array, including the protection provided by the HHS and NERA plates!).

 

Your conclusion is also wrong. As the performance of ammunition is depending on the exact interaction between penetrator and armor, your hypothetical armor array based on the T-72B's simple NERA likely won't reach 760 mm equivalent protection against modern APFSDS rounds, thus it won't protect against any APFSDS round without ERA. The efficiency factors estimated from the tankograd blog are based on old style APFSDS from the 1980s with limited L/D ratio.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

 

Spoiler

"And why should the T-14 use this kind of armor instead of anything even closely resembling the armor arrays used on their next-gen prototypes? Because they couldn't afford to use better armor? Because they magically can invest 12 metric tons just for the hull front armor array - while improving side protection, underbelly protection and roof protection at the same time?"

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, alanch90 said:

/.../

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.

   There are number of things that could be noted even without having folder of documents with "TOP SECRET" written in Russian on top of it. But this thread is not too active for a reason - speculations from nothing are not interesting.

 

15 hours ago, alanch90 said:

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.

   Very high level of protection of crew are possible, especially if new ERA/"MERA" is used (which was described in this thread BTW). Weight of T-14 is unknown and numbers i saw (like less than 50t) were claimed to be journalists BS/complete BS. T-14 is not light. In fact we suspect that currently Army and UVZ are working on writing/re-writing TTZ (requirements) specifically for T-14, because it doesn't fit "older" TTZ/expectations (speculated that one of them was weight).

 

   Other parts of you post i skipped through, they are uninteresting for me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurkhan's post about 2A82-1M cannon

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

Also from text and number of material bought for cannons production says that no T-14s were finished in 2018 and only 24 cannons could be/were made so far.

 

From otvaga - patent was found for 2A82, another link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   There are number of things that could be noted even without having folder of documents with "TOP SECRET" written in Russian on top of it. But this thread is not too active for a reason - speculations from nothing are not interesting.

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Very high level of protection of crew are possible, especially if new ERA/"MERA" is used (which was described in this thread BTW). Weight of T-14 is unknown and numbers i saw (like less than 50t) were claimed to be journalists BS/complete BS. T-14 is not light. In fact we suspect that currently Army and UVZ are working on writing/re-writing TTZ (requirements) specifically for T-14, because it doesn't fit "older" TTZ/expectations (speculated that one of them was weight).

 

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´.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

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

So, 477 and 477A never existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Centre of Gravity for the T14 turret must be fore of the turret ring? Would that be the case for other russian tanks?  Its likely that western tank's turret's centre of gravity is circumcised by the turret ring.

 

This should affect the ease with which to obtain adequate longevity from interface between turret and hull.  Perhaps it ok with 125mm t14 turret but not with 152mm t14 turret.  Thus needing a new turret for 152mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 4:55 AM, alanch90 said:

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

Only some of those prototypes, and apparently it was modified. IIRC they even used longer torsion bars, and as a result their placement (and that of roadwheels) was no longer "coaxial" (which is what T-64/64A/etc has https://i.imgur.com/No1TfOQ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/orKZYZy.jpg, unlike T-72/T-80)

Besides, they also tested T-80-derived chassis, and apparently in the end deciced to use that instead of T-64's one, even though T-80's chassis was some 2.1 metric tons heavier.


Last i looked at what was claimed so far on weight of Molot, it was 57 tons, and later (post-soviet) Kharkov development was described as 60+.

considering that they all have 7 roadwheels, simply adding 16.7% more mass to what is largest known GVW of T-64 or T-80 would lead possible weight limit beyond 50 tons.

And than there is another thing. In early 2000s Omsk Design Bureau claimed some non-secret patents on some of their work related to Object 640, where they proposed not only that tank itsel, but an entire family of vehicles on that 7-roadwheel T-80U-derived chassis. http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/221/2210720.html Looking at Leclerc and M1A2 Abrams as goals they wanted to surpass, they derived a weight of 4550 kg per roadwheel as a limit, which would allow them to have 63.7 metric tons as maximum weight.


...
According to what Gurkhan (Alexey Khlopotov) once published on Burlak turret in his Blogspot - in late 2000s even though apparently there was some actual weight limit during development of what is now known as T-90M/MS, alternative proposal had included not only what they were actually asked to design (a new turret) but also suggestion to make tank's hull some 3 feet longer to include 7th roadweel (and a fuel tank inside). Which, as they claimed, would increase weight to some 52.5 metric tons. (and Gurkhan mentions that it was probably more than that, more like 55)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would create a weight limit, but not a ground pressure limit.

 

Presumably, in use, is ground pressure limited, which is compensated by increasing track length.

 

Presumably, in transit, is weight limited, but transport vehicles also get upgraded, and so too does rail lines.

 

Russia's china to europe rail line is now a major line, providing faster movement than sea, and cheaper movement than air.  I would expect ease of tranport east and west has improved for russia's military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kal said:

What would create a weight limit, but not a ground pressure limit.

 

Presumably, in use, is ground pressure limited, which is compensated by increasing track length.

 

Presumably, in transit, is weight limited, but transport vehicles also get upgraded, and so too does rail lines.

 

Russia's china to europe rail line is now a major line, providing faster movement than sea, and cheaper movement than air.  I would expect ease of tranport east and west has improved for russia's military.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 8:55 PM, LoooSeR said:

Gurkhan's post about 2A82-1M cannon

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

Also from text and number of material bought for cannons production says that no T-14s were finished in 2018 and only 24 cannons could be/were made so far.

 

From otvaga - patent was found for 2A82, another link.

Is this secret information ? If yes, Gibsonm needs to report it to the Russian military attache in Australia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Track dimensions (width) could help, but IMO that it is not entirely reliable method, at least when it comes to Soviet/Russian designers pushing their vision and their proposals.

Because ever since late 40s to any criticism about ground pressure they have a trick up their sleeve - removable track extensions.
NIof35E.jpg
But it didn't go well enough apparently

But that idea was not about to die so easily. In early 60s they made another version to test with T-54 again https://i.imgur.com/T1BrFY2.jpg, then in mid-60s they made some of those for T-64 https://i.imgur.com/nl0x1PO.jpg 
And then in the 80s BMD-3 was tested with some widened track - which looks like if it's has those things installed, and one of the official descriptions of BMP-3 also mentions widened track as a mean to reduce its ground pressure from ~0.6 to 0.42 kg/cm2 (which could allow to claim in some tablechart or smth, that it's /again/ superior to Bradley, which in it's basic form IIRC had a ground pressure of 0.52 kg/cm2) - could've been some of those too.

Spoiler

da6SwBn.jpgTm2xGa8.jpg
MRVZzN0.jpg


...
UPD:
apparently Red Army was trying to do that for the first time even earlier, in late 1930s http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/04/where-infantry-cant-pass.html 
/Fading institutional memory and poorly-maintained databases and archives, i guess... So they were in business of inventing a wheel over and over and over again/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask myself if a solution could be to implement a remotely operated T90-MS turret on the T14 chassis. 

Supressing both crewmen from the turret can save volum, and so save weight. The only problem is to improve the loader number of ammunitions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Serge said:

I ask myself if a solution could be to implement a remotely operated T90-MS turret on the T14 chassis. 

Supressing both crewmen from the turret can save volum, and so save weight. The only problem is to improve the loader number of ammunitions. 

 

I don't understand the logic here. Put an old tank's old turret made within the boundaries of a 70's design, in a 2010's tank that already has an especially designed turret? 

 

Moving 2 of the crewmen to the turret will also cause a disconnection in the dynamics of the crew. Communications with the driver will become inevitably more difficult. Not to mention that catastrophic kills will again be enabled on the T-14, as the crew will no longer be separated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

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.

The answer to that would be no as well, because then you'd have to redesign the hull to a substantial degree in order to relocate the commander and gunner. In the Koalitsiya they are in the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

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.

The issue is not costs but program management. Somewhere they have managed to get the testing and certification process messed up, as the T-14 is definitely not going through the tests quickly enough. 

If they really are having trouble implementing technologies that are now trivial in the west, then trying to upgrade a Soviet T-something tank to utilize the same technologies would be met with a similar dead end. The T-14 is the only way to go forward, but first they need to actually work out their MIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The answer to that would be no as well, because then you'd have to redesign the hull to a substantial degree in order to relocate the commander and gunner. In the Koalitsiya they are in the turret.

Alabino110416-44.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

-circumcised pic-

Guess I was wrong. Makes one wonder how much was actually spent modifying these vehicles to do that, just for the sake of a parade, when the intentions are to get this turret mounted on a T-14 chassis only, for actual service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By LoooSeR
      Well, we have thread about Yemen conflict and Ukrainian war, so in light of recent changes in situation in Syria, this thread became relevant enough, IMO.
       
       

       

×