Militarysta

Better video: More or less SMK (Samobieżny Moździerz Kołowy = Selfpropeled Motar Wheeled) is quite modern and in NATO unike type of weapons. It have some advantages. Manufacurer data: http://en.hsw.pl/i/fmfiles/rak-m120-wieza/m120-mortar-turret.pdf

Propably the most interesting was T-80B armour in turret (hull -the same as T-72A) T-80B (1978-1984) Psyhical thickness in the thickest place before crew comparment: 715mm psyhical thickenss at 30. degree from turret centre - 530mm psyhical thicnes in thinest place whit kvarc "sepcial armour": 520mm Wery simple armour, heavy weight, but...cheap and effective! Material thickens effectivens is well known (vs. APFSDS and HEAT) cast steel circa 270-330HB - 0,85 vs APFSDS and HEAT kvarc "snadbars" - 1.22 vs HEAT and 0.77 vs APFSDS Whole turret protection looks good, very good: for LOS thicknes equal 715mm: vs APFSDS: ~590mm (sic!) vs HEAT: ~670mm for LOS thicknes equal 530mm vs APFSDS: ~440mm vs HEAT: 500mm for LOS thicknes equal 520mm vs APFSDS: ~430mm vs HEAT: ~490mm And for compare older NATO 120mm rifted and 105mm APFSDS munition: (2km, plate slopped at 60 degree (angle) so the most comfortable conditions for penetrator, for 0. angle penetration must be mucht worse) 105mm rifted: M111 (???) - 340mm RHA M774 (1979) - 360mm RHA M833 (1983) - 500mm RHA 120mm L-44 Leo-2: DM13 (1979) - 440mm RHA DM23 (1985) - 480mm RHA

It was planned to use 6TD family, but there wehere tested UTD gas turbine too. In end of the 80s' LKZ and CHzTM start to "melt"in one. For example - some T-80U where produced in Charkiv :-) The plan was to produce one tank in LKZ and ChZTM in 90s'. But there was war between UWZ, LKZ, and CHZTM in 80s and UWZ win. 3 prototypes Ob.477 where build. They are still in Ukriane. Then was build circa ~13 Ob.477 Molot on Ukriane until 1993, after that - 3 Ob.477A2 Nota (propably mostly on Ukraina) one was sent to UWZ whit all documentantion. Propably both left (2) prototypes where converted to "Biala".

Yes exatly this idea - but "elevator" for casette is on middle position not on turret floor. Apart this - picture is correct about idea how it work bottom part is not correct - chine autoloader is above in second compertment

ps. Your picture is not woking...link not response

This is better ones: As you can see - I marked better both chine type main rack whit ammo - uper one whit propelant charge and bottom whit round. Both are in the same separate comparment whit blow-out plate in top. This rack must be slighty higher then in turret couse reloding process. The redy use atuloader in turret have eight casettes on bottom of the turret floor -as on draw beloow - idea of the placment is like in AZ in T-72. But... to reloade casette is raise slightu up to have one level whit both chain main rack (autoloaders). I marked all 3 position of casettes - top for gun loading, middle for reloade redy autoloader (frist use) and bottom - when this 8 casettes are placed. The "elevator" for casettes is like rolled AZ autoloader arm, and it cane rotate from edge to edgge of the first use autoloader (rack) to "chose" casette whit propper round. I hope this draw can explain most of You questions :-)

btw - I missed something -better draw in progress ;-)

BTW- to reload "redy autoloader" turret must be in "0" position and both chain autoloader in both rack (upper and down) are in the same time loaded one casette in "ready autoloader". After reload all 8 casettes turet can be "free" in andy position couse separate autoloader is used to chose casette and loaded gun. And in normal work this "redy autoloader" have 8 casettes whit propelant charge (up) and round (down). And autoloader arm can "rotate" from edge to edge of this rack in turret comparmetn to "chose" casette whit chosen type of round and after that lift it to loading position. And thats all :-)

EDIT: @ Lightning better way to explain - this is Ob.477 casette: Upper for aditional propelant charge, bottom -for catrige. Imagine AZ autoloader mechanism but not whit upper partf from bottom carusele but whit "cran" (rader metal "frame") who lift it from upper part of autoloader. It looks like AZ mehanism but roled edit -circa like this:

In turret comparment autoloader looks like oversized T-72 style autoloader whit two "arms" to lifted up amunition: one for catrige only and second for aditionall propelant charge. In fact those 8 rounds (in 16 parts) was separated too, only two "lifted" arm for amunition was in open space.

fagfafF

Give me 5minut I will draw main idea :-)

1) In Ob.299 there was the same problem like in other tanks whit poer-pack in front of the vehicle - mass balnace. To heavy front whit engine and armour. In result gas turbine (lightweight) must be placed and...not very impressive main armour. In case autoloader in Ob.299 - LKZ choose this abnormal hight one-line casttes: OK - bonus is obvious - two times more 152mm ammo. But there is sucht disadvantage of sucht solution - end of catrige is placed above vehicle hull and rurret need very big and thick protection to cover this part. It was obvious problem. 2) I have Boxer-Molot autolader plans and ok, it was complicated but really? Part placed in turret between Tk and Gunner was in shape and idea like AZ autolader but on only 45 degree angle and ~8 rounds capability. It wasn't mucht more complicated the typical AZ. Main part in saparate compare was like two Leclerc autolader one aboe second - top whit round bottom whit aditional charge. Of course this autolader have flaws -in fact it was 3 separate autoloaders in one system. This project was rejected couse GRAU needed new longer gun and posibilities to use unitary 152mm rounds or rounds whit much longer penetrator (sources are diffrent here - Apuchtin claims ones, other guys from Charkiv -others)... 3). Yes, definition of the "capsule" can be fluent, but in fact T-14 have crew completly separate form flammable factors. In Abrams you have gunner and open turret bustle rack whit 18 rounds for 4s during loading the gun. It is always danger for crew. In Merkava is even worse - you have this stupic ammo conteiner in whole crew comparment, and even in MK.IV you have 4 rounds in conteinter after the bulkhead between anegine and crew comparment. OK, those conteiners are fireproof and scharpnel proff but you know this photo: http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/26.1.jpg ATGM hit in rear main ammo rack. No, defiently i would preffer to sit in T-14 or at least Abrmas then in Merkawa or other tank - like Leopard-2, or T-72 4) Armata APS can NOW intercpet top-attack ATGMS and others. It's more then sure. 5) In case asking about "Biala" project - I was thinking about asking ChzTM un Ukrspecexport seales on internatinal exibiotion and others. Really - fun guaranteed :-)

This "slat armour" iw worth shit. It's usles. It's teh same stupid as 90% ukrianian "wanabe-slat-armour"in 2014 and 2015. Most poor idiots don't even know in what purpose there are bar(slat) in this type of armour :/

@UP "Biala" ("The White") project (propably Ob.477A2/A3) was sucesor of the Nota (Ob.477A2) - so after colapse common Ukrianian-Russian tank in 2001 (Nota) Ukrianian industry start to developed pure Ukrainian IV gen tank - "Biala" (The White). IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is secrest is that is the same tank whit diffrent aditional equipment. Ask Ukrianian about "Biala" and wacht reaction - a lot of fun guaranteed!

T-14 have a real capsule, and it's crew is very good protected. Even better then M1 or other known now tanks, couse there is no contact between crew and ammo in any way. This idea was taken form LKZ from end of the 70s'. In one think Armata is trully the best now - this tank was project to overcome top-attack anc NLOS and BLOS anti-tank munition. Armata protection from the top is glorious: and it consist 3 "layers" based on Afganit APS: 1st - multispectral granades in IR, thermal, and radar viev to "hide"tank (VLS luncher) 2th - hard kill granades from this VLS luncher) 3th - EMP generator All this together give a chance to defeat BONUS, SMART, CSS, and other "top attack" artilery munition, the sam in case Javelin and Spike. What is important - Aramat APS have sensor based in UV and IR base, not radar active. But form the other side - second APS efector - thos under turret can defeat APFSDS-T but they use acitve radar.

BTW: in Ob.477 Molot - most (32 complets)of ammo was in isolated aditional compare whit blow-out plate above. Only this 8-9 between crew members was unprotected.

1) LKZ stuck whit "heavy universal chassis"in those years. It was needed to use GTD1250 turbine for lightweight resons. And looking for postong on Chlopotows blog armour idea- it was not so impresive: Only 228mm in main part and circa 780mm LOS in slopped upper-part. Of course - gas turbine and torsion will be aditional protection placed befor this, the same - slopped ERA blocks, but still - how can this be comparable whit 1300mm armour block in Molot/Nota or 1100mm thick in Boxer-Molot? 2) 477 was not enought becouse UWZ lobby in end of the 80's forced two smal changed: -other 152mm gun (longer) - posibility to use unitary 152mm ronuds (fucken imposible). all was forced to delay Charkiv project. And it's important to notic that after Utinov ded and Roamnov fail LKZ was downgraded - the same stroy like after Breżniev ded and CHzTM downgraded. UWZ due to political conetion have a flow in and of the 1980's, but the most interesting projects where developed in ChzTM and LKZ. BTW - You propably know that Ob.477A2 Nota was common Ukrainian and Russian project between 1993 and 2001. One form 3 final Nota prototypes and full documentation went to UWZ. And Ob.195 as again UWZ try to made their own IV gen tank - first prototype in 1999 second one in 2001 as I know. And Nota as common project was canceled in 2001...After that was started "Biala" (The "White") project - pure Ukrainian tank, and it was facked up doe to lack of money.

No, it was tank test bed for 152mm gun - nothing more. Just vehicle to test how storng is 152mm recoil.

This very bad quality photo has been sent form one-use e-mail to some militray press agency in Poland :-) As I know - it's Ob.477 Bokser itself. I have some blueprints and photos of Ob.477 but unfortunatly it cant be shown public. More or less impressive beast and far far achead in compert to present in those days UWZ a and LKZ "future tank" project. UWZ in end of the 80s stuck whit Ob.187A1 project - so clasic tank whit 152mm and bigger autoloader, what funny - it's hull is very close to Armata now. In LKZ we had two other options - but only Ob.299 was "new quality" but try to bulid "universal heavy chasiss" whit gas turbine wasn't cheap. And the true problem was incarse crew from two to 3 members. My articles about "road to Armata tank" - 3 parts in polish: 1. http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,8963,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,zanim-powstal-t-14-armata-radzieckie-drogi-do-czolgu-nowej-generacji-czesc-i-pojazdy-ewolucyjne So "evolution" way 2.http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9026,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,zanim-powstal-t-14-armata-radzieckie-drogi-do-czolgu-nowej-generacji-czesc-ii-pojazdy-rewolucyjne "revolution" way 3. Armata itself: http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9069,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,t-14-armata-rosyjski-czolg-nowej-generacji

Well I was posted some infos here: http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9530,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,charkowski-mlot-na-abramsy-i-leopardy-czolg-obiekt-477 And well, Charkiv future tank projects where so interesting :-)

Mucht LOL: CR1

The same armour plates are used in APC Rosomak ( polonisated AMV whit Hitfist-30P turret) -without problem. More or less acording to polish sources the problem is shitty technical culture in ukrainian factor - precisly - bad heating and cooling armour plate before and after welding. In case modern ARMSTAL and ARMOX plate there are some diffrences during welding preapering proces... Exacly the same problem had (un)famosu BTR-3 for Iraq - cracking armour plates...now Dozor-B (which is polish "Mista"/Ocilla project...).

Simple answer: NERA - Non Energetic Reactive Armour (1) NxRA - Non Explosive Rective Armour (2) In (1) case you have layer which "transfer" energy from front plate to backplate -and this backplate is moving and damage SC jet or penetrator rod. Exmaple of sucht layer is rubber in T-72B armour or in Haji armour (T-55 ENIGMA). In NERA armour this layer is passive, not active - it only transfer energy between metal layers. In (2) case you have layer whit is non explosive but reactive - for example GAP mixed whit rubber or GAP+CACo. This layer is not explosive but it change its volume during transfering energy from first to second metal layer of whole "NxRA armour packed" -so BOTH thin metal paltes start to move and both metal plates are damaging SC jet or penetrator. And whole moving of this metal plates is mucht faster then in NERA armour - couse this "booster" form changing layer volume.

Kebap remove: ppk. Kornet vs M60T Sabra was to not shoot down Su-24...