Serge

Re-posting from otvaga.
 

 
 

Seems like we need to revisit old ideas, but this time for APS defeat instead of increasing hit probability.
 

Juste to remind a real case about coaxial auto cannon :
The French AMX-30´s got a 20mm wich can be raised to 40deg. 

Juste to remind a real case about coaxial auto cannon :
The French AMX-30´s got a 20mm wich can be raised to 40deg. 

@Collimatrix look what I found!
 
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-mark-i.9558/page-309#post-1378368

I'm nostalgic about the Teledyne Continental Motors armored gun system (it's the modified General Dynamics Land Systems-Teledyne Continental Motors AGS on the picture below)
 

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:

 

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:
 
 
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.

 

The earlier mentioned P5050 lives on, but it’s been reduced in scope, and is now a technical lifetime extension (instead of a proper MLU). This was to be expected considering the age and state of the tanks, the fact that certain parts are out of/has been replaced in production, and that there will be no replacement tank before 2025.
 
More details here:
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:572045-2018:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0
https://kgv.doffin.no/ctm/Supplier/Documents/Folder/163257
 
In other somewhat Leo 2 related news, the new Wisent 2 ARVs have begun entering service with Norwegian Army units, so there is some neat footage of the beasts out there:
 

 

 
"There is always a bigger fish"
 

https://forsvaret.no/forsvarsmateriell/presserom/de-første-bergingspanservognene-er-overført-til-hæren
 
I also recall mentioning that the Norway was interested in acquiring new AEVs a few months ago, and it’s been announced that we have opted to buy another 6 Wisent 2s in the AEV and mine breeching configurations: https://forsvaret.no/forsvarsmateriell/presserom/forsvarsmateriell-møter-studentene/hæren-får-pansret-ingeniørpanservogn
 

Personally, I blame the end of the Cold War - many 'western' governments more or less convinced themselves that they had no major threats likely and that existing equipment was 'sufficient'... so procurement has often been the first thing on the chopping block to save funds. The IDF & Israeli government crucially has a different view. The issues are pretty simple when you take into account the governments don't care.

If Poland indeed buys M1, Damian will be the happiest man on earth!

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c154835b2d87b00acb731f7/unificirovannye-tipovye-shassi-okr-odnotomnik-5c1bda1855f3da00aa81a727?from=channel
GurKhan artice about pre-Armata work on unified chassis vehicles.
 
 
 
 

 
 

First 3 Leopards 2PL delivered to Bumar Łabędy.

 
Another pic from Tomasz Dmitruk. 

I thought they got their first A7Vs in 1917

Larger picture by Damian90 over at AW forums:
 

 
Looks like they shaved a lot from the hull, at least compared to the Griffin III. Wonder how much it weighs now, compared to the updated Buford (Level 1 configuration).

Griffin II
 

 

Koalitsiya-SV's cannon is rumored to be tested as separate artillery piece ("D-400")

 
 

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iid=162443#folio=1

Puma - Page 14
Not being offered.
Concerns about cost, unmanned turret and limited interior space.
Rheinmetall focusing on Lynx.

Ajax IFV - Page 30
In engineering phase.
Hull needs to be lengthened, 300kg added weight.
Trial hulls made in Canada, turrets in US.
If wins then turret production would move to Australia but Hull would remain in Canada.
Costed option to move Hull manufacture to Australia.
Bisalloy Armour can't be used for hull as it would invalidate qualified UK survivability and reliability test data.
Turret exterior being refreshed.

AS21 Redback - Page 32
Fully committed to bid.
Heavily based on new K31 IFV.
Lance turret not available.
Higher blast protection than K31

photos of spike missiles being launched from Eitan/Namer unmanned turret    
 

For those of you who want data and pictures about VBRG/VXB-170 :
http://www.milinfo.org/2016/01/vehicules-et-materiels-le-vbrg-a-calais.html
In French. 

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4314232545708008 some new pics on NGCV OMFV's MET-D, for example:



and also and another render of GCV:

this picture comes to mind:

 
 
 
 
...
Comparing that Bradley drawing with one of the original Bradley from All Vollunteer 1980-07 https://i.imgur.com/WykRCXe.jpg  (most detailed picture of soldiers in Bradley i've got so far)

Those 6 dismounts got some very generous 202-203 cm of space - that is 67,5 cm (26,5 inches) per person, for sholder or forearm-forearm breadth, which is obviously increases a lot (compared to person in summer clothes or nude) when person is carrying a lot of gear of wearing winter clothes
(which no one seems to be bothered about in 1960s or even early 1980s, so IIRC Bradley was designed with something like 56 cm/22 inches in mind - and when in 1984 they measured 95th percentile soldier in uniform for extreme cold weather ("Anthropometry of the Clothed US Army Ground Troop and Combat Vehicle Crewmen"), in turned out that he needs 62 cm/24.5 inches)