Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

alanch90

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    372

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by alanch90

  1. alanch90
    I don´t know, the Kinzhal is stated to have a capacity for 80 rounds and a stable 80 round per minute RoF.
  2. alanch90
    Simple, cheap and elegant solution. If this works as i imagine, then it would not have a blind zone above the tank, like many systems such as Trophy have. I have a couple of doubts: does Arena work on the move or its only effective when the tank is stationary? What is the price of this modernized version, is it low enough to be adopted widely across the russian tank fleet (if so, it would be a game changer)?
  3. alanch90
    It´s very sad how everything capitalism has achieved for the former Soviet republics is dragging them back to the 3rd world.
  4. alanch90
    Good news is that i managed to unf*ck my estimation. Bad news is that the extra steps taken were not really necessary (won´t go into detail) because at the end of the day i only needed a good indication of the percentage of thickness increase in M1A2C, which ended up being 13 percent. Anyways, being able to see the 3d model in WT helped me a lot realizing what i was doing "wrong", however the only measure that really needed correction was the height of the turret face. In the end, the thickness goes from 860mm in M1A2 to 971mm in M1A2C. Of course,there is an obvious margin of error but this is the best i can do with an horizontal picture and the tools i have, surely more trustworthy measurements will be possible once we get a top-down view of M1A2C.
  5. alanch90
    Hi guys small update on my M1A3C visual study. I made two distinct LOS thickness estimations, one with reference to the 66mm smoke grenade launcher (not a perfect solution, since because of picture perspective, the grenade launchers appear as bigger than they actually are) which yielded a LOS increase of aprox. 287mm over the older M1A2 turret. The second estimation, assuming an LOS thickness for the M1A2 turret thickness of 860mm resulted in an estimated 973mm for M1A2C turret. This second solution, IMO, is more trustworthy but there is some margin of error since it´s not that easy to estimate the exact spot where the armor module starts, to do so i used the 3d model as used in the game Warthunder, which yes, as a game has its issues but at least the developers did have access to a real Abrams to measure it. UPDATE: I just realized that i may have f*cked up the second estimation, i will need better techniques for estimating the reference LOS 860mm on the M1A2 turret, expect news in a few days or some hours depending on real life stuff.
  6. alanch90
    Also according to that website: "A planned M1A3 model is expected to debut in 2020"
  7. alanch90
    Well i made a rough estimation of the LOS height and length increase/decrease of the M1A2C turret compared to M1A2. Firstly i had to make sure that the scaling was good, after all the two pictures were not taken from exactly the same angle and distance, and in addition the picture resolution is not the best for this kind of comparison. In short, whoever put the two pictures together made an excellent job, the scaling is pretty much on spot. In terms of LOS length, M1A2C is about 87 pixels longer but in terms of LOS height, its about 11 pixels shorter. Now if anyone could tell me the exact measurement of one element present in the turret (for example, the height of the armored glasses on the commander's cupola) i could make a rough conversion of pixels to centimeters.
  8. alanch90
    More visual cues for identifying M1A2C
  9. alanch90
    That's a weird and surprising concept art. Track, sprocket and running wheels are just like the Leo 2, but there are 6 instead of 7 although more separated which would suggest similar vehicle length. The layout sugfgest a forward engine placement (or perhaps is a hybrid electric type, with one engine in the front and the other in the back?), the whole vehicle seems like a leopard 2 driving in reverse. The absence of crew hatches in the front suggest an entrance through the back of the vehicle, ala Merkava. If this is the case, unless the powerpack is super compact (much more than MTU engine used in Leo 2). Its hard to speculate about a big module of passive armor on the front. Its hard to judge where the crew actually sits but they might be just under the turret ring. In fact, only if the engine is of similar dimensions as in the Euro powerpack and the crew is sitting that far back, only then i can imagine a big block of armor between the engine and the crew compartment. And yes, that is some thick side armor right there. If the layout is as i´m picturing it, then its reasonable that all the ammo be placed in the turret bustle, as in the patents we got a couple of weeks ago. The turret seems to be almost unnaturally flat, perhaps that menas that in order to depress the gun, part of the roof hinges open. I can see a vertical slit halfway to the bustle (in the picture seems near the commanders CITV), perhaps its the for a machinegun? In the hull front i can spot optical devices very similar as those in the turret, might be cameras or laser detectors. As for the main gun itself, it should be a 130mm but doesn´t look like it, it seems too short (if the overall vehicle dimensions are as i imagine) and that muzzle break ...
  10. alanch90
    Oh come on @LoooSeR, have some sense of humor!
  11. alanch90
    So i followed the trail of sources used on the WEG database and stumbled upon this "The information provided above is from the January 2017 article titled "T-14 Gun-Missil Tank for the Russian Federation," by Jon H. Moilanen published in the TRADOC G-2 Red Diamond Threats Newletter, Volume 8, Issue 01, January 2017." So i tracked that article (available on https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/ace-threats-integration/m/documents/210978 ), and the author back in 2017 stated: "When the T-14 is fielded to operational units in at least limited numbers and additional open source data on capabilities and limitations are confirmed, a T-14 MBT information sheet will be added to the WEG Volume 1 Ground Systems as one of the main battle tanks of the Russian Federation". So, that is effectively what happened and most likely in new years WEG edition, the T-14 will be featured. What i find curious is that TRADOC is having a pretty open minded approach to open source information, said author in that article has a lot of quotations from nearly every single publication on the T-14 available by 2017, from renowned military journals such as Jane´s to youtube military channels (even Matsimus is quoted!). This means that even if the info is not precisely "curated", it´s been judged as credible enough by TRADOC. Correction: ODIN has effectively replaced several TRADOC publicacionts "ODIN offers a web-based version of the Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG), the Training Circular (TC) 7-100 series, and DATE Caucasus (formerly known as DATE 3.0), all on a freely accessible website...PDF versions of the 2016 WEG, TC 7-100 series, and DATE Caucasus will continue to be available on ATN, but will not be updated; all updates for these products will now appear exclusively on the ODIN platform." (OEE Red Diamond May-Jul 18 page 21)
  12. alanch90
    Not just range, NLOS and top attack mean that it can it tanks that are in hull down or turret down positions. And that's something that you can't do with any other ammo.
  13. alanch90
    Well...here's the thing...none of that is accurate but also not exactly wrong either. I mean, to the average person, not a tank-nerd, Afghanit is "similar" to Trophy in the sense that they are both hardkill APS. That publication (which is nothing more than a digital interactive version of the annualized WEG) is meant mainly for the average US serviceman who may initially know as much about tanks and weapon systems as any policeman. But the only reason i saw that publication important enough to share it here is that we have TRADOC "putting the stamp", thus validating, info that has been floating around for years (even if its "not exactly true or false").
  14. alanch90
    In general that database has a lot of...weird stuff. But also very interesting info that can´t be obtained anywhere else (like, for example, the performance of tandem ATGMs against tanks without ERA). Still, its an official publication. Here is you screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/bbycIDM
  15. alanch90
    TRADOC has published information on the T-14 in its public database. https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/T-14_Armata_Russian_Main_Battle_Tank Among other things, they are validating claims on armor effectiveness that are going around on the internet (base armor on the hull front, not accounting for ERA, of 900mm vs KE, 1400mm vs CE). Seems a bit bogus, there is some sketchy info on other vehicles and weapon systems, but still this is an authoritative, official source.
  16. alanch90
    Because of the device on which you shared info yesterday: if ATGMs are detected and tracked with that device, one could wonder what is the purpose of the radar if not to detect other types of threats, like APFSDS.
  17. alanch90
    The fact that ATGMs are detected by optical means only reinforces the claims that the APS can intercept KE, detected with the radars.
  18. alanch90
    Until now i believed that those black rectangular panels were the radars. Are they just covers for the devices for detecting ATGMs?
  19. alanch90
    @LoooSeR that spot as shown in the drawing seems to have been taken by the radar panels
  20. alanch90
    @LoooSeR i´m confused with the weapon systems to be integrated into the IFV fleet, why not just standardize the Kinzhal turret with Kornets for the BMP-3 and Kurganets and the Epokha "only" to modernize older BMP-2? This way it seems a mess from the commonality and logistical viewpoint.
  21. alanch90
    @David Moyes its my understanding that UK is conducting a separate program to upgrade the Challenger 2 with newer engines, is that what that document is referring to?
  22. alanch90
    Yes. We have seen mockups both for 130mm and 140mm, both are as wide as 120mm, but 140mm is like two 120mm cases glued together 130mm: 140mm: What is that monstrosity?!
  23. alanch90
    Indeed, they look like 130mm, look at the length of the case. On the other hand, it's unlikely that they are 140mm since those are two piece.
  24. alanch90
    Seems that the turret front is much more armored than T-14. Perhaps its justified because of the ammo being in the bustle. As for the autoloader, reminds me a lot of Leclerc but the ammo count (16 rounds) is surprisingly low, that would explain the need for the bustle to be detachable.
  25. alanch90
    Not saying that soviet industrial model was perfect, but the criticism based on the false opposition of public vs private has more of a political sense than actual interest into looking at which one would be the most efficient way to develop and produce military equipment. I mean, things like the EFV program, the Future Combat Systems program the F-35 program are all product of the private industry model and from whatever political or economic POV you have, those programs are a catastrophe (in terms of wasted time, public funds, etc.) and a much bigger one than the worst program ever undertaken by the USSR. And yes, the soviets had a higher production output while maintaining technological lead in several fields over NATO until the 80s while at the same time the USSR had a GDP far ,far, far smaller than NATO. The way i see it, thats efficiency. We could discuss about the effects of this model on the rest of the economy and society, but that is another question entirely.
×
×
  • Create New...