Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Scav said:

Do we know if it still uses the "USSR" style of composite like on T-90 and T-72 hulls? 
Or is it more like NATO armour/T-72B turret?

Also, there's ERA on there too, which should be taken into account.

 

Sides don't appear to be too thick apart from the skirts/ERA.

I´m 99 percent sure that front hull is NERA  like "NATO armour/T-72B turret". Also i do suspect that it makes a lot of sense if the tank uses "reflective plates" just like T-72B/90 or an upgraded derivative. Some pages ago i did a very rough estimation on potential T-14 armor effectiveness if thats the case (although i was using a LOS thickness estimation that was wrong), i should make another one. On the other hand, its been published that the russians did make investigations regarding NxRA and that may be also what is present in T-14, if thats the case then the armor effectiveness may very high.

About the sides, there is at least one confirmed type of ERA and an unconfirmed type of module. The confirmed on is 4S24, covering the ammo section (thus protecting against Tandem HEAT). The unconfirmed type of modules are those which protect the crew compartment and given the overall thickness my guess is that those may vey well may be Malachit modules just like in the front hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

For future use

Hey guys, look, a photo of Armata in Syria was posted!    Totally real!

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

You feel like you want to actually say something, comrade @LoooSeR?

   We need to start sending people to labor camps for that "Malakhit" meme. Nobody was able to find any sources about Malakhit ERA being used on T-14, while there are multyply articles dated early/mid 2000 describing Object 187 that mention that ERA and noting that it was Relikt predecessor. Why would Armata have worse version of Relikt when tanks with Relikt ERA are already in service? 

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

   We need to start sending people to labor camps for that "Malakhit" meme. Nobody was able to find any sources about Malakhit ERA being used on T-14, while there are multyply articles dated early/mid 2000 describing Object 187 that mention that ERA and noting that it was Relikt predecessor. Why would Armata have worse version of Relikt when tanks with Relikt ERA are already in service? 

I see your point. This is the first time i see someone casting doubts about the name of the ERA used on T-14.

I read too in multiple instances about a 90s prototype referred to as "Malakhit".

But i think that everyone agrees that the ERA on T-14 isnt Kontakt or Relikt, right?

What could be happening is that the name "Malachit" got "recycled". 

 

 

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

I´m 99 percent sure that front hull is NERA  like "NATO armour/T-72B turret". Also i do suspect that it makes a lot of sense if the tank uses "reflective plates" just like T-72B/90 or an upgraded derivative. Some pages ago i did a very rough estimation on potential T-14 armor effectiveness if thats the case (although i was using a LOS thickness estimation that was wrong), i should make another one. On the other hand, its been published that the russians did make investigations regarding NxRA and that may be also what is present in T-14, if thats the case then the armor effectiveness may very high.

About the sides, there is at least one confirmed type of ERA and an unconfirmed type of module. The confirmed on is 4S24, covering the ammo section (thus protecting against Tandem HEAT). The unconfirmed type of modules are those which protect the crew compartment and given the overall thickness my guess is that those may vey well may be Malachit modules just like in the front hull.

Thanks, I remember reading somewhere that the manufacturer actually gave an armour protection figure (900mm vs KE with ERA) and that there was ERA on the front.

Assuming that's correct, then I think it might be reasonable to assume it's Relikt or perhaps an improved version thereof and that without this ERA the protection would range around 600mm.

Certainly doesn't seem unreasonable given the LOS or the armour levels previously achieved on T-90 etc.

 

Still I wasn't able to confirm this rumour so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

I've always wondered why the side looked the way it does, there's three panels that are hinged to each other while the rest isn't....

Spoiler

unknown.png

Those three panels are right next to the crew compartment and I assume those aren't the same as the rest, but why are the front ones not hinged too?
What's the purpose of it?

These front panels are also larger than the rear ones as can be seen by the height difference and they also look a little bit thicker if you ask me, maybe they're NERA and not ERA?

 

The box above the side panels has also intruiged me, it looks very much like the boxes on T-72s etc that are for storing equipment, but the size of them makes me wonder why they would leave such a large gap (relatively speaking) in the coverage of the ERA between the hull and the turret.

There's gotta be a reason for it all, the front panels being NERA sort of makes sense as they would be able to sustain multiple hits, which would potentially increase survivability for the crew, but ERA tends to be more effective for the same volume so......

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scav

Blue part is just sheet metal. Probably there is a big wire, part of anti-mine electromagnetic protection system... or nothing at all.

Spoiler

t-14-6.jpg

 

0_d2200_2d94f44f_orig.jpg

 

XdgtI.jpg

 

dKMHk.jpg

 

   Here is T-14 without those metal sheet covers (from this thread, lol)

Sdm9mox.jpg

 

Spoiler

yiVB7.jpg

 

   T-15 side ERA modules:

ZTXZKWA.jpg

 

Spoiler

Alabino220415part2-19.jpg

 

Alabino220415part2-20.jpg

 

   Side era - middle part are optimized more against HEAT thats why they are thinner and lighter.

zZXjs.jpg

 

 

   More about T-14 here - http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/armata/armata17.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scav

For me, at least visually, its very clear that even the front section where the lights are mounted there are ERA modules. Now, the very first "module" right besides i think its the same type of ERA too (lets just call it "Malachit" even if Comrade Looser threatens us with a trip to the gulag), look at its thickness, its very similar to the ERA where the lights are mounted and also the modules mounted in the front hull.

 

The next four side panels are like half the thickness, i dont know what they are, perhaps they are NERA/Nxra or "Malachit" (in which case the difference in thickness should be explained). The last five modules are 2S24, only effective against HEAT. I'll try to make some comparisons when i get back home.

 

As for the effectiveness of the front hull armor, my previous estimation assuming a LOS thickness of 950mm and the use of "reflective plates" (the same ones from T-72B), resulted in an effectiveness of around 820mm for the lowest estimate and 870mm for the highest. If you want to check that very rough estimation i think that i posted it in page 57 or 59 of this thread. Those figures should be revised but im expecting of not getting any value lower than 750mm. On top of that, if the front ERA is at least as effective as Relikt, then it should increase the total effectiveness by about 40 percent.

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

For me, at least visually, its very clear that even the front section where the lights are mounted there are ERA modules. Now, the very first "module" right besides i think its the same type of ERA too (lets just call it "Malachit" even if Comrade Looser threatens us with a trip to the gulag), look at its thickness, its very similar to the ERA where the lights are mounted and also the modules mounted in the front hull.

Wait, so you mean to say that the armor piece behind the front lights itself is also ERA?
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

With the rest I agree, I think it's likely that the frontal side section next to the fender is the same as the following modules and that they just decided to make it fit more closely with the fender to prevent dirt from getting in there too easily.

 

33 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

The last five modules are 2S24, only effective against HEAT. I'll try to make some comparisons when i get back home.

I didn't know 2S24 was only effective against HEAT, I'd assumed it was like Kontakt-5 but just a version that's more easily mounted and covers a larger area.

 

34 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

As for the effectiveness of the front hull armor, my previous estimation assuming a LOS thickness of 950mm and the use of "reflective plates" (the same ones from T-72B), resulted in an effectiveness of around 820mm for the lowest estimate and 870mm for the highest. If you want to check that very rough estimation i think that i posted it in page 57 or 59 of this thread. Those figures should be revised but im expecting of not getting any value lower than 750mm. On top of that, if the front ERA is at least as effective as Relikt, then it should increase the total effectiveness by about 40 percent.

85%+ efficiency?
That seems very high for what is essentially NERA with thicker steel layers, substantially higher than almost any NATO tank.

The ERA is about what I guessed as well, though that's assuming normal KE rounds and not one specialised to deal with heavy ERA.

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

Wait, so you mean to say that the armor piece behind the front lights itself is also ERA?
 

Exactly my point. Look at this:

Spoiler

VGNNdpw.png

5 hours ago, Scav said:

I didn't know 2S24 was only effective against HEAT, I'd assumed it was like Kontakt-5 but just a version that's more easily mounted and covers a larger area.

 

2S24 is, lets say, a less explosive ERA compared to all previous soviet types, contains 2 times less explosives than Kontakt 1, making it compatible with light vehicles which could have been seriously damaged themselves by the use of Kontakt 1 (thats why the development of 2S24 started).  According officially to Nii Stali, it offers protection against 14mm AP bullets, 30mm ammo (doesnt specify if that includes apfsds) and RPG penetrating 500mm (doesn´t specify if that includes tandem warheads). Source: http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/nkdz/addon_era_bmp3_btr90/
Here is another article (from some years ago) about the development of 2S24, and russian experimentation with NxRA and other stuff (which might point in the direction that they might have followed if they decided to make T-14 armor without the T-72 ´reflective plates´) http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/nkdz/addon_era_bmp3_btr90/
 

 

5 hours ago, Scav said:

85%+ efficiency?
That seems very high for what is essentially NERA with thicker steel layers, substantially higher than almost any NATO tank.

The ERA is about what I guessed as well, though that's assuming normal KE rounds and not one specialised to deal with heavy ERA.

I only extrapolated the same estimation method used for T-72B on Tankograd (the author there concluded in rating the turret at 550-600 KE,)


Now a couple of notes. Just checked the russian Nii Staly website on Relikt ERA, there it specifies a 40 percent of performance vs KE BUT also refers to this types of modules as 2S23(http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/relict/relikt_t72m_t90sm_bmpt/).  BUT on the other hand, on the english site, Relikt is described as composed by 2S24 and 2S25 (http://www.niistali.ru/en/products-and-services/#RELICT).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

   Suppliers of "stuffing" for an armored personnel carrier on the universal platform "Boomerang" overpriced parts by 5-6 times, using their monopolistic position in the market. This was said in an interview with TASS by Alexander Krasovitsky, the general director of the Military Industrial Company, which produces armored personnel carriers. According to him, in the near future due to the replacement of components with cheaper ones, it will be possible to reduce the cost of the combat vehicle by at least three times.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 5:09 PM, LoooSeR said:

Blue part is just sheet metal. Probably there is a big wire, part of anti-mine electromagnetic protection system... or nothing at all.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

(Not sure why I didn't see your reply before...)

 

On 7/19/2019 at 11:45 PM, alanch90 said:

I only extrapolated the same estimation method used for T-72B on Tankograd (the author there concluded in rating the turret at 550-600 KE,)

Hmm, I think he was referring to the turret cheeks that are around 750mm thick though.

I'll re-read that part on his blog.

 

On 7/19/2019 at 11:45 PM, alanch90 said:

Now a couple of notes. Just checked the russian Nii Staly website on Relikt ERA, there it specifies a 40 percent of performance vs KE BUT also refers to this types of modules as 2S23(http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/relict/relikt_t72m_t90sm_bmpt/).  BUT on the other hand, on the english site, Relikt is described as composed by 2S24 and 2S25 (http://www.niistali.ru/en/products-and-services/#RELICT).

Wouldn't be the first time that the English site has labelled things wrong, but it could be the other way around as well.

Thanks for the links.

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

Hmm, I think he was referring to the turret cheeks that are around 750mm thick though.

I'll re-read that part on his blog.

 

The increase of effectiveness relative to LOS is explained by two aspects:
1) The use of RHA instead of CHA (as in T-72B turret) which on itself would make the overall effectiveness higher by about 10-15 percent.
2) Because of the bigger volume available, it would allow to placing many more "reflective plates" compared to the T-72B/90A turret (in both of these tanks, depending on the angle, a projectile would have to go at most through 3-4 reflective plates)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Third time is the charm. I made yet another thickness estimation but this time i used a picture with much higher resolution, which should yield much more precise results. Also took advantage and calculated several parts of the upper front hull of T-14. 

U2D2rpL.png

So, the hull armor keeps getting thinner and thinner at every estimation i make.  Anyways, this estimation (~780mm) is very close to the maximum physical thickness of T-72B turret (from the front), but the question about the possibility of "reflective plates" being re-used yet again on T-14 remains unclear.

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

Third time is the charm. I made yet another thickness estimation but this time i used a picture with much higher resolution, which should yield much more precise results. Also took advantage and calculated several parts of the upper front hull of T-14. 

U2D2rpL.png

So, the hull armor keeps getting thinner and thinner at every estimation i make.  Anyways, this estimation (~780mm) is very close to the maximum physical thickness of T-72B turret (from the front), but the question about the possibility of "reflective plates" being re-used yet again on T-14 remains unclear.

 

522mm LOS of armor (total thickness minus reactive layer) almost equals to 400mm armor sloped to 40 degrees.

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...