Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

UGVs at UMEX-2018 (UAE, Abu Dabi)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3116735.html

 

5279656_original.jpg

 

Quote

   Serbian military-industrial association "Jugoimport-SDPR" showed robotic tracked platform. The weight of the device is 400 kg. In addition to optoelectronic equipment, it is equipped with weapons in the form of a 7.62 mm machine gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher. Controlled remotely, the duration of work from the batteries is at least two hours. Abu Dhabi (UAE), February 2018 (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a2

 

Quote

   At the stand of the emirate group International Golden Group (IGG) was shown an updated version of the robot Fantom, created by Ukrainian developers. The device weighing about 650 kg on a chassis with a wheel formula 6x6 and uses a hybrid engine. Can travel up to 20 km. Controlled by a radio channel at distances up to 10 km, or by fiber-optic cable at distances up to 5 km. As reported, the system is intended for transport tasks, including the delivery of weapons, ammunition, food and evacuation of wounded, as well as some combat missions, for which the "Phantom" is equipped with a 12.7 mm caliber machine gun, as well as anti-tank missile system "Barrier" (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a3

 

Quote

   Next to the first "Phantom" was shown a more recent development of Ukrainian engineers - Phantom 2. This is a heavier device weighing about 2600 kg also on a wheeled chassis with four-wheel drive with the formula 8x8. UGV is equipped with an installation B8V20-A, which is a 20-barrel unit for unguided 80 mm caliber rockets. In addition, it can also be equipped with a twin 23 mm automatic cannon. It is planned that this machine will be able to hit various targets, including armored vehicles, fortified points, the enemy infantry, etc., and also will be able to deliver the goods. The device is controlled remotely with ranges similar to the first version (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a7

MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System), already covered it in robotics thread.

 

a6

 

Quote

   The E-stonian company Milrem Robotics showed at the exhibition a new modification of its famous robotic vehicle THeMIS. The new version has been refined from the point of view of application in conditions of desert and hot climate. As a result, the size of the platform was increased to accommodate various equipment or combat loads, cooling systems, etc. (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a5

Quote

   Australian company Marathon Targets showed their products - ground-based robotic target systems T30 and T40. According to the company's representatives, they provide more realism in carrying out various trainings in comparison with traditional stationary targets (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Ejder Yalcin

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T-4ifjzMJrg/WpZoxJgqrAI/AAAAAAAAPs0/qGuI0qsWjZ8cDAJMi_CHKX-b_MPV2NRqACLcBGAs/s1600/Nurol_Makina_Ejder_Yalcin_and_Ejder_Toma_armoured_vehicles_for_Senegal.jpg

 

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Seems rather chaotic. How do I find the grand total of destroyed tanks and AFVs there? 

General stats are on the right part of that page.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

compared to:

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

 

 

- I also belive the mantlet to be rather "thin". 380-400 might be a rather optimistic estimate. 350 mm might be closer to reality.

 

-I also believe that the composite armor does not extend all the way to the bottom. It might jut follow the Leopard 2 example shown in red:

 

strv122_hull.jpg.a273a315a831c6ca73fc884

(lower front hull could be spaced armor)

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

1421877579-puwno.jpg

in both cases the lower front hull could be spaced armor.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

What I find most interesting is this seems to confirm that the Type 90, at least for the hull, doesn't have a 60 degree frontal arc of protection. Odd decision, really.

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model.

 

 

Yes - this was the intent. I was not expecting the small diagram to gather much attention outside of a General WT community who did not understand specifics. I highlighted only general areas of protection outside of RHA. Not specific area's of the protection and thickness composure.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all.

 

 

The actual composite blocks are covering the middle and top of the hull (Yes to later mentioning if Type10 and Type90 share general block placements). The bottom flooring is spaced steel - not the same level of protection. But of that to protect against explosive discharge.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

 

 

Not the same. The tests were conducted at the primary composite blocks at the turret sides frontally. This is the primary defense against JM33. Mantlet is not protected by ceramic and other materials, basic lining only.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

Without fabric covering , revels external block shell. I will be happy to aid if you have questions or needed context - I will give what I can without breaking privacy agreement.

 

D0CMBL3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

Because of BREXIT, it can be longer. The MIV program is an advantage during talks. They can keep pressure on both Germany and France. 

Share this post


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

 

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

 

Inside talk is that the flat top version of this will (eventually) replace the Bushmaster PMV. 

 

The Phase 2 contenders were also asked to price up their 8x8 trucks for Phase 3 (IFV, previously notionally tracked). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.03.2018 at 10:30 PM, Laviduce said:

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doubt.

 

Wiedźmin's job:

XoryQlu.jpg

 

And I fully agree whit this above. No special armour in corner - just turret roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 Abrams' TUSK belly plate is made of spaced aluminium plates and mainly works thanks to its massive thickness, reducing ground clearance by up to 11.5 inches (292 mm). AFAIK there is no other material, at least a photo of the belly plate in the TB 9-2350-264-12&P-1 shows no other materials.

 

The Leopard 2A6M, Boxer, Puma and other German AFVs use mine protection kits from RUAG, which are made of composite plates. The outermost layer is a steel plate, but it also includes on or more layers of plastic fibre to absorb the energy. In case of the Leopard 2A6M, the belly plate reduces ground clearance only by 50-100 mm, but is supposed to provide the same level of protection as the TUSK's much thicker spaced aluminium solution... however the Leopard 2A6M's plate is heavier. In case of the Puma IFV, the mine protection consists of two sandwich plates with more than 100 mm empty space between them.

0V6iZuI.png

RUAG's mine protection system. In theory it might also include ceramic materials against EFP mines, at least IBD Deisenroth is offering this as part of its AMAP-M anti-mine armor.

Share this post


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

 

It is nothing but an opinion, better to find some internal photos or drawings. If so it is rather "strange" design.

The K2 and Type 10 seem to follow a similar turret protection design philosophy:

 

c2qKz67.jpg

 

main-qimg-ebb6b07903af2296e264cb38faa8c9

 

 

 

 

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 LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • 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 
          
×
×
  • Create New...