Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

T-14 turret has much less chances of being hit by anti tank fire compared to manned tank turrets. Firstly because of the very small volume/surface which if hit would result in mission kill compared to manned turrets (from the front, the T-14 turret vulnerable area is around the same size as other tanks mantlet which are also weak points) and also the APS which is claimed, not proven, to intercept APFSDS.

Share this post


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

T-14 turret has much less chances of being hit by anti tank fire compared to manned tank turrets. Firstly because of the very small volume/surface which if hit would result in mission kill compared to manned turrets (from the front, the T-14 turret vulnerable area is around the same size as other tanks mantlet which are also weak points) and also the APS which is claimed, not proven, to intercept APFSDS.

Small size from the front, yes, from the side it's not that small.

Mantlet on some tanks is weak, but others like the 2A5 isn't, though that's mostly an exception to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scav said:

Small size from the front, yes, from the side it's not that small.

Mantlet on some tanks is weak, but others like the 2A5 isn't, though that's mostly an exception to the rule.

The mantlet being reinforced with composite armor, perhaps to the point of being nearly as strong or as strong as the rest of the turret front, is neither unique to the Leopard 2A5-7, nor is it very uncommon.

 

Other tanks like the Abrams, Merkava, and perhaps the T-tanks (barring the T-14), plus maybe the Challengers (though not too sure) have well protected mantlets.

 

Leclerc, K2, T-14 etc are perhaps closer to being the exception.

Share this post


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

The mantlet being reinforced with composite armor, perhaps to the point of being nearly as strong or as strong as the rest of the turret front, is neither unique to the Leopard 2A5-7, nor is it very uncommon.

 

Other tanks like the Abrams, Merkava, and perhaps the T-tanks (barring the T-14), plus maybe the Challengers (though not too sure) have well protected mantlets.

Hm, Abrams seems to have quite a thin mantlet in comparison with the rest of the turret though, Merkava is definitely also one that has good protection around the gun, but the T-series really does have a weaker area around the gun than the rest of the turret, even on the T-90A it's only protected by normal steel blocks, Challenger 2 did seem to have an OK mantlet but it's still thinner than the rest of the turret front, so unless there's some armour block or spallshield behind that I would still consider it weaker than the rest of the turret.

Spoiler

Image result for Challenger 2 cast turret

 

Share this post


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

Meanwhile...

Whoever made this, IMO in attempt to make "naked" turret he kinda overdid that  - I mean, he got rid of all APS launcher "tubes" mounted on turret, and kept only those which T-15's hull already has. So APS now covers only ~120 deg frontal arc, and (unlike what T-14 actually has) in some situations could not be quickly pointed towards threat elsewhere, because one needs to rotate entire hull to do that.

 

On the other hand 299 - and also 299-based HIFV - has about 20-25 (depending on the picture) modules of what seems to be some version of APS Arena mounted around its turret

Share this post


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

Guys has anyone made actual progress trying to measure T-14 UFP thickness? Because i think that i got something

Officials claim 900mm (of what? ERA and armor, or armor after ERA?). I think it's definitely possible. But it's not really relevant at all. With the removal of most of the armor from the turret, they have a lot of weight to allocate to the hull front. 

So we can basically treat the hull front as tough as shit, and turret as weak shit, as a rule of thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Officials claim 900mm (of what? ERA and armor, or armor after ERA?). I think it's definitely possible. But it's not really relevant at all. With the removal of most of the armor from the turret, they have a lot of weight to allocate to the hull front. 

So we can basically treat the hull front as tough as shit, and turret as weak shit, as a rule of thumb.

Link?

Share this post


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

Link?

I guess I'm going by 2015 information right now because it seems I can't really find any sources for that anymore. Even the links posted to the wiki page on multiple languages were either changed or outright deleted.

From now on it's just rule of thumb then. Not that armor thickness past perhaps the 500mm is of any importance anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i get back home from work ill make a longer post about the issue, but ill say for now that i find highly likely that T-14 uses the same or very similar armor package as the one on the T-90A turret. In fact T-14 UFP could very well have the exact same LOS thickness as the maximum LOS thickness of T-90A turret from the front (about 900mm).

Share this post


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

When i get back home from work ill make a longer post about the issue, but ill say for now that i find highly likely that T-14 uses the same or very similar armor package as the one on the T-90A turret. In fact T-14 UFP could very well have the exact same LOS thickness as the maximum LOS thickness of T-90A turret from the front (about 900mm).

I have my doubts, but why would it matter? The T-14 has clearly a lot more available weight to spare for additional armor.

Share this post


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

I have my doubts, but why would it matter? The T-14 has clearly a lot more available weight to spare for additional armor.

Yes of course. The real advantage of the design is the potential (both in weight limit and volume available) to mount much stronger and heavier armor modules in the future. But at least for now i think that its mounting the same (or derived) "bulging plates" array as in T-90A. Meaning that we could reasonably calculate the base armor effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In first place i want to enphasize that what is below is highly deductive and speculative, and therefore could be totally wrong:

So i was thinking lately a lot about how to get a more precise idea of how well the T-14 was protected. Since that tank uses a lot of "recycled"  late soviet technology, the best starting point to try to figure out T-14 capabilities would be to take a look at those prototypes. So thats how i got to the Obj 187, the competing design against would would become the T-90.  Both tanks were using the latest soviet developments on NERA armor, the famous "bulging plates" whiose first version was mounted on the T-72B. In terms of armor design, the main difference between Obj 187 and Obj 188 was that the latter only featured such NERA array at the turret, since that couldn´t fit into its hull, relatively "thin" and heavily sloped. On the contrary, Obj 187 featured a much less angled UFP, but with much more volume available, ideal for mounting a NERA array, the ALWAYS TRUSTY Wikipedia states that Obj 187 hull had an LOS thickness of 950mm (of course the link to the source is dead), which doesn´t seem weird, since the turret (if im not mistaken) had an equal LOS thickness. Years passed and nowadays the T-90 models still use that exact NERA array (granted, since A model, in a welded turret which increases the overall effectivenes by 10-15 percent). In other words, russian engineers don´t consider those "bulging plates" obsolete, nor sort of a "bottleneck" in protection performance. Even more, since its introduction,  T-90 has seen a major armor upgrade only once, and that was an upgrade to the outer ERA (Kontakt 5 into Relikt), leaving the same base armor untouched.Perhaps in the coming years we´ll even see a new version of T-90 but replacing Relikt with Malachit, who knows.
 

Now, think about this: if T-14 was using a completly new, "next gen", "wunderwaffe" base armor, then why bother adding ERA, and even more, not Relikt but an even more advanced type? The only explanation i find is that the russians don´t consider the base armor by itself as enough against present and near future threats, its not like tomorrow NATO tanks are going to start rocking the Rh130. Hell, the americans aren´t even sure if they are going to replace the Abrams with a tank or something that uses a conventional gun. So, in the face of not-so-changing threats, why using a fancy new base armor risking for its capabilities/design being leaked? Oh, and when it comes to soviet/russian tanks, there is a tendency for sensitive stuff to be leaked, for example just from the first public showing of the T-14 we got a PRETTY GOOD look at its composite roof armor. And here we come to the "over 900mm of effectiveness", claimed at various websites, without any substantial evidence. It just so happens that figure is roughly the equivalent of what a T-90M (+Relikt) could be considered, so stating "over 900mm" is just the same as to say that T-14 has higher protection than the aforementioned tank.

So these things were going in my head when i started considering that perhaps the T-14 was using that exact same ´bulging plates´ array and the increased frontal protection was to be explained mainly with the addition of the more advanced ERA. Considering the near future threats, the risks of leaks, and the need to keep costs down, using the tried and mastered armor makes a hell lot of sense, and when it comes to weapon design, the russians are pragmatic above everything else. So, to prove my point i had to be sure that T-14 has enough LOS thicknes at the UFP to mount such an array, meaning that it needs to be as minimum as thick as the T-90A turret. We know that the maximum LOS thickness of said turret is around 900mm, but the estimates (many of those on this very thread) vary from  more than 1000mm to less than 500mm.  What was needed was actually an image showing T-14 and T-90A from the same distance and perspective, and then i remembered this image:

 

Spoiler

sYkT0IxvOjecN5eop8yO1BHRwzJLb7AmJgvj_wpI


The next step was to edit the image so that the turret armor and T-14 UFP would be side by side and see what comes up:

 

 

Spoiler

f2x6ViY.png

The top comparison features both tanks without any scalling on my side. For the bottom one, i tried to scale the T-9A turret down a bit, since it is closer to the camera and because of that in the original picture it appears as larger when compared to T-14 hull. Of course that IM NOT a profesional at image analysis nor i have any kind of "pro software" i just made that edit by eye using the tankers (specifically, their headgear) for reference. As you can see, in the rough "scaled" comparison T-90A armor package would fit like a glove into T-14 UFP. Needles to say, any kind of a real professional at this kind of analysis (which i presume are abundant on these forums) can pick it up from here and make a proper comparison.

Conclusion:
IF Malachit ERA needs some empty space in relation to base armor in order to function as designed, IF therefore T-14 frontal armor is angled more like Obj 187, IF the russians are still using the same armor package as the one equipped on T-90A, THEN we can estimate T-14 base armor as comparable as to the T-90 frontal turret at its thickest LOS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, having proved that T-14 most likely can fit a 900+LOS thick armor module at the front, and hinted at the posibility that said module may be housing the good old bulging plates that have been in service since T-72B, i went ahead and tried to make an estimation to try to see if that armor package could meet the protection needs of the tank. For reference, i used the article about T-72B on tankograd (https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html#nera) since it is the best and most in depth insight into the bulging plates armor in english.  I tried to extrapolate the estimation methods on that article for the T-72B/90 turret and adopt them to a 950mm thick armor, with both front and back plates sloped at 45 degrees.


Estimation:

Spoiler

 

The figure of 950mm LOS is not random, if we take the numbers on tankograd seriusly, its the exact maximum LOS of T-72B  turret module (sloped at 55 degrees from the gun) and it would fit like a globe on a T-14 front hull, as demonstrated in my previous post. Lets remember that the armor composition on T-72B turret, from the 30º is 

130 CHA + 280 NERA cavity  + 45 HHS + 90 CHA. Also, the 45º slope i took it from Obj 187 hull and it is a good compromise between the added protective properties of sloped armor and the volume required. For the final estimation, i converted the cast steel into normal RHA of medium hardness, as used in the turret of T-90A.

 

So for my estimation i took the front and back plates (130+45+90) as they are and slopped them to 45º (the fact that those plates have no slope in the turret at 30º attacking angle proves that they are enough for their intended purposes), resulting in a total of 375 LOS ´passive´ steel, and leaving 575mm LOS of empty space in the 950mm hull for mounting the NERA sandwiches. The amount of sandwiches that can fit in that space depends in their own sloping, each sandwich having a total thicknes of 30mm and a 22mm of separation with the next sandwich, so each one needs 52mm. On the other, hand, as noted on tankograd, those sandwiches should be placed at an optimal slope between 60-70 degrees (in this case, from the vertical) for achieveing full effectiveness. After comparing how many could fit in 60-65-70 degrees, in concluded that 60 degrees would be the optimal slope, with a total of 5 sandwiches fitting comfortably, but i also made separate calculations for the possibility of a 6th sandwich could be ´squeezed´ into the array. In comparison with T-72B turret, a shot from 0 degrees at the front should go into 3-4 sandwiches although they wouldn´t meet the incoming projectile at an optimal angle, on the other hand, a shot from a 30º would go into 3 sandwiches but from an optimal angle for their action.

-For calculating the total LOS steel in this hull array, i estimated 615mm counting 5 sandwiches and 663mm if a 6th could be fitted. Following the method in the Tankograd article, we can get the effectiveness vs CE by mulitplying those numbers by 1.4 resulting in in 861mm or 928mm respectively. In addition, the change from CHA to RHA should result in an overall improvement in protection performance in the order ot 10-15 percent rising the effectiveness to 990/947mm and 1067/1021mm vs CE. If i screwed the calculations when converting the types of steel (totally possible i always sucked at math) it wont change by much my conclusions, listed at the end of this post.

 

- As for estimation on KE effectiveness, the method is different. The author considers that the 30º side of T-72B turret at a LOS of 650-700mm has an effectiveness of no less than 600mm vs APFSDS, from those numbers we can deduce a modifier and i selected the 700mm LOS to keep my estimation as conservative as posible, and that results in a 80 percent effectiveness in relation to LOS thickness. By extrapolating that into a 950mm thick block, we should get 760mm of effectiveness vs KE. By aplying the 10-15 percent increase in overall performance with replacement of CHA, we should get 874/836mm of effectiveness vs KE. As a caution, the estimation method does not take into account the increased number of sandwiches and their optimal placement, since a calculation that exact on the effectiveness of individual and colective NERA sandwiches was not done by the author.

 

 

Summary:

Spoiler

 

- For KE, even if we take the lowest estimate of 760mm, we can conclude that the armor module in the hull by itself is enough to protect the crew against every APFSDS in service. It should be noted that most of APFSDS in service are almost a decade old, and new ones (M829A4, L28) are incoming shortly or are already began fielding. Also, the introduction of newer gun of higher muzzle energy (Rh120 L55A1, XM360, etc) justifies combining this base armor with ERA. As a side comment if T-14 is using newer and better steel types and/or even marginally improving the performance of the bulging plates, reaching the 900mm of RHA effectiveness  as claimed on media could be a possibility.  

- For CE, even my higher estimates indicate that the base armor by istelf is not enough to defend against currently fielded HEAT warheads. The presence of ERA is needed to supplement the insufficient protection performance of the fron hull. However, reaching and exceeding the 1400mm of RHA with the addition of ERA is highly likely.

 

- In the end, we can conclude that the good old bulging plates array does provide enough base protection to the tank, and that combined with the economic convenience of said array makes it highly likely that the T-14 is indeed using this armor.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it.

Lastly: as i said before, i suck at maths so all this could be totally wrong. Please be nice in your responses. And happy new year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0.615 (los steel) x 2.3 (width) x 0.8 (height, lessor guess) x 7.8 = 8.8tonne

 

0.663 x 2.3 x 1.0 x 7.8 = 11.9 tonne

 

So approximate range for front upper glacis armour is between 9 and 12 tonnes, using assumptions above.

 

That is heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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 LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • 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?
×
×
  • Create New...