Militarysta

My job, from my little archive -a few armour LOS thickenss ;-)
 

 

 

 

Leopard-2AV NERA amrour model, made by otvaga forum user:
 

 

Meil Ruakh APS, very good footage of this APS (test fires). 

HELLO COMЯАDES

1) Decision about change gun+amunition system was strange in end of the 80s. Decision about new gun for new tanks where taken 9.10.1984 by chief of the GRAU - general  Litwinienko in circa 3minutes (lol) becouse He thought that bigger gun is alway better so he choose the largest caliber from some proposition: 152,4mm. BUT in the end of the 1980 was made another decision about longer gun and longer APFSDS. In some way it was good decision. But it was taken not only couse rational analys but there was "hidden factor" " little dirty fuc!n war between LKZ, ChZTM and UWZ.Charkiv's was close to bulid it own "new generation tank" and other big producion centers (whit suporting them politics) had tryied to forced something to stop, delay, or slow down Charkiv way to new tank. So new system gun+amunition was greate opurtinity to do that. 
It was even funny -> 1984-1986 Buntar is redy, but new gun 152 then 130mm is ndded -program abondend, 1986-1989 - 3x Molot Ob.477A is redy, new gun again needed, so AGAIN charkiv must rebuild whole project...etc 
And new longer APFSDS was impossible to put in autoloader from Ob.477A (this posted on previous pages). New solution was needed...
 
 
2) New gun was build in better technology whit bigger preassure, and whit longer APFSDS amunition. Old gun was enought or even more then enought. New gun was overkill. But explanation was circa about this spy scandal when someone from ChzTM sell tons of plans to USA. So it was second factor to rebuild project - something on base: :they know that we have 152mm whit max penetration value xxxx so we change this gun and build system whit 1.3 better penetration" Tha same was about armour: between Ob.477A and Ob.477A1/A2 was improved from circa 1000 to 1300mm -so almoust in 1.3.
 
 
3) Well - FCS was whit panoramic sight and independent thermal camera. for TK. What was interesting - system palned for gunner was preatty close to Ka-50 system whit never ended auto detection system and autotracer. The most important (and never finished) was to "put" tank into netware system. It's almoust unkown on west but Soviet have their own and net-warfare system build almoust 20yers before US and NATO ones!  It was Battle Menage System "Manewr" "maneuver in englis" -it was introduced in 1981 and fully operational in 1983. And design for: regiment, brigade and division whit fully automatic transmision and exchange of information between "levels". The same system was planed for Ob.477A but on platoon and regiment level - so scaled down and small version whit new base. And this system was never ended.
BTW: Part of "Maneuver" system was export (in downgraded version) to Chechoslovakia, DDR, Poland, and Bulgary and Hungary. Czech, Hungary and DDR system was destroyed in 1989 just before SU colapse, Poland had part of this system operational up to milenium, and Bulgary...sold them to USA in end of the 1990. What was funny - system bild between 1968 and 1981 was tested in USA in circa 1997-1999 and it was dicoverd that it's very very good and in scenario blue vs red the red whit "Maneuver" system alway win battle... Just funy that in country without toilet paper and whit Lada car and Rubin TV (yes, I rememebr those days and wainting in shop queue 3h to buy ONE toilet paper and ONE almoust rotten lemon -fucken comunist system) build greate BMS whit netwarfare abilities -iofcourse on 80's technical level. Sorry for OT.
 
 
4) There was planned 3 diffrent APS hard kill for new generation tanks: Arena, Drozd-2, and Dożdź - so "Rain" so...today ukrainian Zaslon. And it's not clear if there was planed to choose ONE system or as ussaly in comunism - all 3 was planned to be producet in the same time. IMHO this option. As I know LKZ planned Drozd-2, and Charkiv - "Rain/Zaslon", but its not sure information.

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-)
 
Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project:
 




 
Offcial statment after tests:
 
 
translate:
 
 
 
 
And second:
NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates":
 

 

 
 
 
if You want I can post more resercht like this above.
More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction.  In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive?
Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers:
 

 

 
(my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)

Firstly - Strong Europe Tank Challenge - polish platoon take a part in this competition.
 
http://11ldkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/101_2295.html

(Through these two days the soldiers of 34 Armoured Cavalry Brigade from Zagan performed the most important competition of the competition. It was carrying out activities platoon in offensive and defensive operations. As a platoon conducting defensive operations have earned the highest number of points, ranking the first place. However, during the attack they gave way only to the best platoon in Germany.
 
Galery:
http://11ldkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/4_1057.html
nice photos from there:
 












Today will be known winner od the Strong Europe Tank Challenge
 

Firstly - Strong Europe Tank Challenge - polish platoon take a part in this competition.
 
http://11ldkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/101_2295.html

(Through these two days the soldiers of 34 Armoured Cavalry Brigade from Zagan performed the most important competition of the competition. It was carrying out activities platoon in offensive and defensive operations. As a platoon conducting defensive operations have earned the highest number of points, ranking the first place. However, during the attack they gave way only to the best platoon in Germany.
 
Galery:
http://11ldkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/4_1057.html
nice photos from there:
 












Today will be known winner od the Strong Europe Tank Challenge
 

PLND STRNK

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 :-)

Well,I see.Thank you for your drawing and explanation.

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 :-)

@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!

@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.

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. 

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

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.

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-)
 
Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project:
 




 
Offcial statment after tests:
 
 
translate:
 
 
 
 
And second:
NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates":
 

 

 
 
 
if You want I can post more resercht like this above.
More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction.  In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive?
Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers:
 

 

 
(my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)

OK, as exmaples german NXRA and NERA tests and...NxRA armour on Leo-2A5/A6(famous "wedges" on Leo-2A5)
 

 

btw: You can find those PFD by using title in google :-) Enjoy!
 
 
Soviet ERA and German double NERA:

 
ps. and check this:
https://zapodaj.net/images/47b609390faa3.bmp
and find pfd via google - agin - Enjoy, it very good pdf

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-)
 
Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project:
 




 
Offcial statment after tests:
 
 
translate:
 
 
 
 
And second:
NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates":
 

 

 
 
 
if You want I can post more resercht like this above.
More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction.  In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive?
Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers:
 

 

 
(my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-)
 
Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project:
 




 
Offcial statment after tests:
 
 
translate:
 
 
 
 
And second:
NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates":
 

 

 
 
 
if You want I can post more resercht like this above.
More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction.  In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive?
Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers:
 

 

 
(my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)