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
    T-14 side armor was indeed changed, the modules are very similar to 2S24
  2. alanch90
    I´m refering to this "There is a new armor package inside the turret and the hull..." (1:04). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94E8DGLmjw&list=PL72124C26D466E6CB&index=370&t=0s the engineers need to accommodate a lot of new stuff in an already weight limited tank, thats why my first intuition was that they were making the armor lighter. If i had to speculate i would bet that the protection requirements are to be able to resist Svinets 1-2 and whatever the Type 99A shoots. At this moment there is little to no practical reason to be protected against unicorn projectiles such as Vacuum.
  3. alanch90
    Sorry for the double post. What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.
  4. alanch90
    Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog: Has the US moved away from DU armor?
  5. alanch90
    Didnt BMP-3 have a toilet already?
  6. alanch90
    Nice find!
  7. alanch90
    The performance of the turret compared to the front hull, the context of 125mm apfsds used at the time and above all, this: " M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion. Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA." (http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm)
  8. alanch90
    A lot of people, myself included, but there is controversy sorrounding the interpretation on statement made by Lindstrom. Thats why im asking here for opinions.
  9. alanch90
    Hi guys im here today for clarification about the infamous swedish tank trials: there is controversy about DU armor being tested or not by the swedes, whats the general consensus about the issue on this forum?
  10. alanch90
    Just took another look at the Obj 195 autoloader patent and realized that we already got a look at the spent stub turret ejection system: The apparatus seems to "hinge" against the ejection hatch, and most likely folds out of the way against the turret wall when its not needed. Now the only missing piece for figuring out the general function of the autolader would be the main gun cartridge ejection, and in the description of 2A82 patent, its mentioned that its breech opening and ejection characteristics are "special", although i cant understand the real meaning (you can only get so much from google translator), if somebody could properly translate the post i would appreciate it. (https://zen.yandex.ru/media/gurkhan/2a82-super-pushka-dlia-armaty-5c31c4349175d500aabd6073)
  11. alanch90
    The whole turret is a ballistic hole anyway
  12. alanch90
    The spent cartridge ejector might be a different apparatus altogether, after all i find it hard to believe that an unmanned turret wouldnt have systems to deal with misfires and the like. There has to be more to it than just a way to load the gun. On the other hand, ejecting cases sideways has its benefits, for example you can use the entire turret roof surfice for sights and gadgets, and ERA instead of having to dedicate surfice for a case ejector hatch. Another advantage of the lateral hatch being located so near the breech is that it contributes with dealing with fumes.
  13. alanch90
    Its very close to the that patent on obj 195 autoloader that you posted on this thread almost 4 years ago. Seems plausible, and it would also mean (if this is effectively the design) that the amount of ready to fire shells doesnt change between 125mm and 152mm.
  14. alanch90
    I agree with all your points. However, and only in theory, a larger EFP warhead will always have greater range and energy conservation than multiple much smaller EFPs (such as those used by Trophy), and even if they are in range, those little projectiles wouldnt be capable of stopping a much bigger one who also has the force of gravity on its favor. Such a scenario will condemn tanks to always dedicate a significant portion of their weight to roof protection, which the Merkava can do, but not every other MBT (im thinking about the Abrams equipped with Trophy). Future APS will be forced to use more than one hardkill type, specializing against specific threats. For example, some cheap and slow moving RPG or LAW may be easily intercepted with something "equally" as simple/cheap such as Arena, while full blown top attack ATGMs may be intercepted only by anti-missile missile, like the monstruosity Raytheon developed years ago. A combination of several types of hardkill solutions may be whats needed to protect the AFV against the variety of threats-
  15. alanch90
    It all depends on two things depending on the distance (speciffically altitude) and trajectory of the ATGM firstly there is the issue with threat identification, since APS wont just intercept every flying thing on the battlefield, if it detects an incoming ATGM but whose trajectory doesn`t lead directly to the tank, there is the possibility that the system judges that ATGM to be a non-threat to the vehicle and therefore not initiate interception. Secondly there is an issue with the maximum intercepting range of the hard kill APS, i envision an ATGM that will be designed to detonate outside the intercepting range of specific systems. And that without mentioning possible decoys and countermeasures on the part of ATGM, people can get very creative when designing weapons. In the future the race of ATGM vs APS will be very interesting. I imagine something along the lines of TOW 2B, that thing demonstrated detonation at least 10 meteres above the target. I wonder, would trophy (for example) be able to intercept such missile? Even if it recognizes the threat, can it intercept something flying at that altitude?
  16. alanch90
    Its not a mutually exclusive choice. For example Bill-2 has both top attack and direct attack mode. Actually a top attack (of the overhead type, with an EFP warhead detonating several meters above the target tank) might be the only way to defeat current APS systems.
  17. alanch90
    It is my understanding that T-90M has its autoloader modified to fit the Svinets 1-2 (up to ~700mm length), to handle Vacuum the autoloader would need to be able to handle 1 meter long objects and i doubt that something that large (and placed horizontally) can even fit in the turret ring, most likely is beyond the overall tank layout limits. There is a second issue which causes doubts of T-90M firing the Vacuum, and it is the latter propellant energy: Supposedly its using a higher powered propellant, beyond the limits of the design of D-81 guns (aka 2A46), that only 2A82 can handle. So, in conclusion, if Vacuum could be able to physically fit in the T-90M autoloader, the tank´s gun would have been the 2A82 (because there are no reasons to mount that gun if the tank itself can´t carry the longer APFSDS after all). The fact that is using 2A46 point in other direction. What has me most curious is the question of how relevant Svinets 1-2 are today and for how long, just as they are entering mass production the US is upgrading yet again the armor package on M1 with the SEPV3. Are those projectiles effective against that armor? Who knows...
  18. alanch90
    Current GLATGM suffers from the same disadvantages as most ATGM in service, in that sense first ones are not better or worse than the later. Overcoming APS will be the main feature in the next generation of ATGM. If those features can be added into the smaller GLATGM then the concept will be kept relevant for the future.
  19. alanch90
    It was my impression from a debate on this very thread many many pages ago. I guess that i missed the conclusion of that debate. Could you share your sources so that i stop spreading false information please?
  20. alanch90
    Full episode of TV Zvezda on T-90M This is what i understood from automatic subtitles and just watching: - The tank is firing "Mango" APFSDS - The turret is newly built (thats obvious from internal looks, much more comfortable), has air conditioning (in your face, Abrams!) . Although if this means different armor composition than previous T-90 or T-90A is unknown. - Something about the engine-transmission. The engine is new as it was known but is the transmission of a new type too? - Do they claim that the sideskirts have ERA built in (when most likely is the same crude "NERA" of steel-rubber-steel)? Or they say that referring to 4S24 of which there is footage? - The RWS now mounts Kord 12.7mm - They didn´t credit the israelis for the anti-rpg chains. Bad russians - Arena or simmilar APS can be mounted onto the tank without major modifications (?) Thats it. If some kind russian-speaking soul can translate the whole episode or the most important information, would be greatly appreciated.
  21. alanch90
    Whatever ukraine puts into their T-64 they are yet to develop a new APFSDS to replace their obsolete ones.
  22. alanch90
    Meaning 3 tank platoons, and not going all to the Moscow military district as rumored previously.
  23. alanch90
    What in the name of Photoshop is that?!
  24. alanch90
    Great find. going by that picture the Armata tank is around 50-52 tons and the Armata IFV at 60? Also, why are there 2 blue "stripes" what do they mean?
  25. alanch90
    Germany is getting Trophy APS for a limited number of Leopards "According to the planned schedule initial trials of Trophy on Leopard II are expected to begin this year with integration and testing completed by 2021, fielding 17 tanks (a company of 13 plus four spares) to equip the selected company in 2022. The unit will train and qualify to operate with the system in 2022, thus becoming combat ready for its VJTF deployment in 2023. The procurement is limited at this stage to the 17 systems and is not committing the Bundeswehr to a future APS solution." https://defense-update.com/20190124_germany-to-field-trophy-aps-with-leopard-ii-tanks.html
×
×
  • Create New...