alanch90
-
Posts
372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by alanch90
-
The increase of effectiveness relative to LOS is explained by two aspects: 1) The use of RHA instead of CHA (as in T-72B turret) which on itself would make the overall effectiveness higher by about 10-15 percent. 2) Because of the bigger volume available, it would allow to placing many more "reflective plates" compared to the T-72B/90A turret (in both of these tanks, depending on the angle, a projectile would have to go at most through 3-4 reflective plates)
-
Exactly my point. Look at this: 2S24 is, lets say, a less explosive ERA compared to all previous soviet types, contains 2 times less explosives than Kontakt 1, making it compatible with light vehicles which could have been seriously damaged themselves by the use of Kontakt 1 (thats why the development of 2S24 started). According officially to Nii Stali, it offers protection against 14mm AP bullets, 30mm ammo (doesnt specify if that includes apfsds) and RPG penetrating 500mm (doesn´t specify if that includes tandem warheads). Source: http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/nkdz/addon_era_bmp3_btr90/ Here is another article (from some years ago) about the development of 2S24, and russian experimentation with NxRA and other stuff (which might point in the direction that they might have followed if they decided to make T-14 armor without the T-72 ´reflective plates´) http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/nkdz/addon_era_bmp3_btr90/ I only extrapolated the same estimation method used for T-72B on Tankograd (the author there concluded in rating the turret at 550-600 KE,) Now a couple of notes. Just checked the russian Nii Staly website on Relikt ERA, there it specifies a 40 percent of performance vs KE BUT also refers to this types of modules as 2S23(http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/relict/relikt_t72m_t90sm_bmpt/). BUT on the other hand, on the english site, Relikt is described as composed by 2S24 and 2S25 (http://www.niistali.ru/en/products-and-services/#RELICT).
-
@Scav For me, at least visually, its very clear that even the front section where the lights are mounted there are ERA modules. Now, the very first "module" right besides i think its the same type of ERA too (lets just call it "Malachit" even if Comrade Looser threatens us with a trip to the gulag), look at its thickness, its very similar to the ERA where the lights are mounted and also the modules mounted in the front hull. The next four side panels are like half the thickness, i dont know what they are, perhaps they are NERA/Nxra or "Malachit" (in which case the difference in thickness should be explained). The last five modules are 2S24, only effective against HEAT. I'll try to make some comparisons when i get back home. As for the effectiveness of the front hull armor, my previous estimation assuming a LOS thickness of 950mm and the use of "reflective plates" (the same ones from T-72B), resulted in an effectiveness of around 820mm for the lowest estimate and 870mm for the highest. If you want to check that very rough estimation i think that i posted it in page 57 or 59 of this thread. Those figures should be revised but im expecting of not getting any value lower than 750mm. On top of that, if the front ERA is at least as effective as Relikt, then it should increase the total effectiveness by about 40 percent.
-
But do you agree that the front ERA is of a new type?
-
I see your point. This is the first time i see someone casting doubts about the name of the ERA used on T-14. I read too in multiple instances about a 90s prototype referred to as "Malakhit". But i think that everyone agrees that the ERA on T-14 isnt Kontakt or Relikt, right? What could be happening is that the name "Malachit" got "recycled".
-
You feel like you want to actually say something, comrade @LoooSeR?
-
I´m 99 percent sure that front hull is NERA like "NATO armour/T-72B turret". Also i do suspect that it makes a lot of sense if the tank uses "reflective plates" just like T-72B/90 or an upgraded derivative. Some pages ago i did a very rough estimation on potential T-14 armor effectiveness if thats the case (although i was using a LOS thickness estimation that was wrong), i should make another one. On the other hand, its been published that the russians did make investigations regarding NxRA and that may be also what is present in T-14, if thats the case then the armor effectiveness may very high. About the sides, there is at least one confirmed type of ERA and an unconfirmed type of module. The confirmed on is 4S24, covering the ammo section (thus protecting against Tandem HEAT). The unconfirmed type of modules are those which protect the crew compartment and given the overall thickness my guess is that those may vey well may be Malachit modules just like in the front hull.
-
Knowing the official size of T-14 i decided to try another LOS estimation of its probable front armor module. This time should be much more precise than my previous attempt (which was made "by eye"). So, around 831mm LOS. Its far from the "950mm" that i imagined previously, but still in the ballpark of the physical thickness of most western tanks in service.
-
@Laviduce could you post the full report? On the other hand, what is the "pip"?
-
Yes of course. The same could be said for the tank itself, right?
-
So, top attack, NLOS, fire and forget, that sounds perfect to attack tanks in hull down position, and thats a game changer that finally justifies an GLATGM in my opinion.
-
What a mess
-
I guess there is not much sense in working in a 152mm gun until the next NATO tanks show up
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
alanch90 replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
The ATGM are still Ataka? The mounting seems changed from last year, now the missiles are placed next to each other horizontally On the other hand at 0:06 three types of APFSDS are visible, can they be identified? -
Some heads should roll for the wasted £400m
-
Could you please link to the specific topic, @Laviduce? i guess this caused all kinds of rage in the Cr1 and Cr2 threads. EDIT: No link needed, found it and the reactions are just like i imagined
-
Improvements over Leopard 2A7 turret? Apart from the gun, what does it mean?
-
Well, there are explosive elements directly in the roof, and underneath those there is some composite armor. In my opinion, the same thickness and composition than the armor in the crew compartment roof, meaning much more than M1, Leo 2, whatever, but less than Merkava 4. Also my opinion is that the side turret armor is pure steel, and if its that thickness that i sugested should be about or more than 200mm which from the POV of the frontal arc, should be able to resist most if not all APFSDS shots fired from 30-40mm autocannons (about 50mm and above i dont know) at normal combat ranges. Another advantage of a pure steel composition is that it would serve both as ballistc protection and structural support functions.
-
Hi guys, just a quick question. I read on another forum that the Cr2 upgraded with the Rehinmetall turret and gun is now being renamed "Challenger 3". I couldnt find anything confirming that, could anybody clarify the issue?
-
See the section between the gunners sight and the guns mantlet? I think thats the physical thickness of the turret sides.
-
Most if not all current MBT are vulnerable against 30mm to the sides of their hull. However, T-14 hull at least in the area of the crew compartment is likely to resist that. On the other hand, the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm which is about what 30-40mm can pen at close range. And i dont think that an IFV, which are normally very voluminous vehicles, can get close enough without being spotted and fired upon with the tanks main gun. Nevertheless a burst of 30mm fire can and most likely will take out a lot of the turret exposed sensors and sights, which would happen to any MBT.
-
Thats seems like about -8 degrees right?
-
For starters, the turret has some thick roof armor (although not as thick as Merkava IV) + ERA. But then, we dont know yet the maximum gun depression.
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
alanch90 replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
@LoooSeR here from minute 34 -
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
alanch90 replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
In this fragment, they are talking about the protection on the sides of T-80BVM referencing the new 2S24 ERA modules and they mention that the tanks sides are now protected against tandem HEAT, that is the result of the combined effect of the 2S24 + the ERA under the sideskirts or the 2A24 modules by themselves inherently offer tandem protection?