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

More or less, but they are not starting from zero. They had already explored unmanned turrets or externally mounted main guns, and likely also had an autoloader for 140mm designed, and that is a direction they can choose. I mean look at the russians and how they took advantage of the technology developed for Objects 187-195, for example.

In my opinion, it doesnt make sense for Sweden to adopt somewhere in 2020 Leclercs when they already operate Strv 122, and even more when both french and germans have embarked on devolpement of the ´Europanzer 2.0´ precisely to replace both Leo 2 and Leclercs. At this point if the Swedes have enough funds for making a big contract for newer tanks, they should just invest them into a propper replacement for Strv 122, whatever if they decide to bet on the ´Europanzer 2.0´ or develop a new national tank, for which case they already have conceptual work done for Strv 2000.

Werent russian tankers being issued with a new ballistic helmet?

But thats how they will market it for export ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). Yeah i can already see that all the way down to the robot voiced youtube videos.

For starters, if you take out the hull composite armor from the T-90 and the frontal fuel tanks, you can liberate enough space to sit two more people besides the driver, but at the expense of protection. Actually thats not a complex modification. For something like Koalisia thats no big deal, but makes one wonder what they did to seat two "bow gunners" in the BMPT. EDIT: i retract what i said, after viewing again the Koalitsia, i noticed tha gunners and commanders hatches are place behind the drivers, meaning that the thick composite migh be still there (and the historic weak spot around drivers vision block remains as well). And also there is a thick add-on block of unknown nature. Now just replace the Koalitzia turret with the T-14 and you get a cheap mans 4th gen MBT.

Yes i agree to that, if they tried to mount a thick frontal hull armor then the whole hull would be inbalanced, needing further modifications. But in the end what matters is that if this hypothetical "T-X2" would be cheap enough compared to T-14. Would make a good export tank nonetheless.

I was about to say the same as @Mighty_Zuk. If anything i ask myself if the russians could put an unmanned T-14 like turret on an armored T-72/90 chassis, like they did with the Koalitzia.

So, if you knew the exact details of track dimensions, roller wheels, etc, you could estimate the maximum theoretical weight at which the tank would have comparable ground pressure as previous soviet/russian designs?

@skylancer-3441 i dont know the weight for the Molot prototypes, but weren´t those built on modified T-64 chassis?

Everyone is entitled have their own interests. Nonetheless, i remember that at in an article from ARMOR on T-72B its stated that prior to the unveiling of the armor of said tank, experts used to estimate its effectiveness using the BDD armor on T-62M as reference (source: https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/t-72b-armor-article_jmo_may2002_4.jpg). It wouldn´t surprise me if nowadays people more knowledgeable than myself were using similar theories as mine to try to figure out T-14 armor levels. In absence of strong evidence, speculation is all that is left to make a judgement, however inaccurate it may be. I thought that 50 tons were a "hard limit" for soviet/russian design, unless the roads, trains, bridges and overall infrastructure were improved significantly since the dissolution of the USSR. On the other hand i wouldn´t be surprised if the military and UVZ were revising the requirements, after all mass production wont start for a long time; the requirements for a 2025 tank cannot be the same as in 2010´s, and that will have an impact on weight. Its either that or the T-14 slowly turning into a ´Russian Arjun´.

@SH_MM you are either cherry picking parts of my posts or missing the point entirely. I will go with the latter; the point of my posts was NOT to come up with an "X" figure for me to say that i had cracked the armor enigma on the T-14, but rather to test an hypothesis knowing how limited we are on definitive data and thus admiting the limited reach of the possible conclusions.. Its a tank thats not even in service, so stop demanding people to come up with sources that only the guys at NSA could possibly get their hands on. If your answer at everything T-14 related is gonna be "GIVE SOURCES!" then we should just close down this whole thread and reopen it in 10 years time, and that if we are lucky. 3 things got me curious and thinking about T-14 armor, the first one that it is claimed to have unprecedented levels of protection, secondly that it can physically fit a very thick module on the front, thirdly that even having a very thick armor its still suplemented with ERA (and that ERA is not of the same type of the ones currently in service), and finally that with all that the tank is very light, pretty much discarding the use of any kind of weight inneficient armor array. So, knowing the dominant criteria for russian equipment aquisition (i mean, they are still using weapons designed more than half century ago adn are totally OK with them), i just happened to ask myself if it was possible that they would still be using the same array thats been in service since 1985. And the results were that indeed that very array could provide a good enough base armor but not too good to dispense with ERA. Not even that, but i gave at least 3 differente estimates and the lowest one (which has to be discarded because it would only have any validity of T-14 was using cast armor, and we know that it isn´t) is high enough to resist most of (if not all) APFSDS in service, and my highest estimate (applying the 10-15 overall effectiveness increase when switching from CHA to RHA) got pretty close to what is claimed in media, and even then i admitted that if the array is the way i theorize, it would be more efficient than what the numbers were showing. About the weight, the "12" tons, that was calculated by another user (who also offered 9 tons as alternative), so i dont take credit nor responsability for such estimation. Do you know what the "next gen" armor looks like? Because Obj 187 was running trials against T-90, what makes you think that it had a radically different armor array? I mean if we go by your criteria, we could also claim that Obj 187 was not using a different armor than T-90 unless you give sources or go sneak into Kubinka and cut us open the Obj 187 for everyone to see whats inside. I repeat myself because perhaps i´ve not been clear enough: i have no doubts that the russians have developed a lot of newer armor arrays in the last 3 decades, but if they can satisfy the protection requiremens by using the old "bulging plates", then they have every reason to use them instead of anything newer, and thats the criteria they always used when it comes to weapons aquisition. In the end, SH_MM you seem to know your stuff. If you really want to disprove my theory about T-14 using ´bulging plates´ you should present your own estimation on the effectiveness of such armor in a 950mm thick block with 45 degree slopping and see what kind of results you come up with.

@SH_MM i did state quite a few reasons for why its likely that the russians kept the bulging plates, both historical and practical ones. After that reasoning the next logical step was to try tests if said array would provide enough protection, if the estimates were to be too low, then that would have discarded my hipothesis. But not only in the LOS estimate the T-90A array fits almost too well but in the actual effectiveness estimation, the lowest possible result is high enough against currently fielded and near future threat weapons. On the other hand, the highest result kind of adds up to the claims made at the media ("900mm RHA"), and also i did clarify that the result could be even higher (than around 836-874mm) because of a number of variables that could not be taken into account with the calculation method that i used (meaning, the likely increased effectiveness of the NERA-bulging plates section of the array because of the higher number of sandwiches that could be fitted at an optimal angle and/or slight and small improvements in metallurgy and materials used). As for the calculation method, there are 2 possible criticisms: the first one aimed at the method itselfs in which case any kind of "napkin mathematics" should not be aimed at myself but rather at the author of the article at tankograd. The second criticism which can be directed at myself would not be against the calculation method but its actual implementation, meaning that i screw up the numbers which i already admitted that is always possible, but the follow up to that criticism should be to remake the calculation. After arguing for the feasibility of the bulging plates array being used, my conclusion is to ratify my hypothesis given the track record of the russians on using the same designs and methods until their potential is fully exhausted. Caution: im not saying that the russians can´t or haven´t designed new armor packages in over 3 decades since the dissolution of USSR, its certain that they did BUT the reasons to keep using the bulging plates outweight the ones for fielding newer, better and more expensive packages.

In other words, better base armor than the likes of T-90A, combined with comparable ERA (copy of Relikt?) equals better overall protection equivalencies. Nothing surprising there. That said, im having doubts about M829A4 being capable against this chinese tank.

Question is: why would the russians include more expensive armor elements within an already expensive new tank that they are having problems buying? The whole point of my estimation was to prove that even by using 35 year old armor, the T-14 would be meeting current protection needs without having to field a fancy new and expensive armor package. After doing the math i was truly surprised by the effectiveness of such armor even using the lowest possible estimate.

I guess that the main advantage of having a mostly unprotected turret is that you can have the luxury of using a super heavy hull front, having "just" 9-12 tons of heavy armor in a 50 ton tank and still being capable of withstanding anything the enemy can throw at you is quite remarkable. By comparison, the Abrams turret weights about 20 tons, mostly because of the armor, and that was before they started using DU!

So, having proved that T-14 most likely can fit a 900+LOS thick armor module at the front, and hinted at the posibility that said module may be housing the good old bulging plates that have been in service since T-72B, i went ahead and tried to make an estimation to try to see if that armor package could meet the protection needs of the tank. For reference, i used the article about T-72B on tankograd (https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html#nera) since it is the best and most in depth insight into the bulging plates armor in english. I tried to extrapolate the estimation methods on that article for the T-72B/90 turret and adopt them to a 950mm thick armor, with both front and back plates sloped at 45 degrees. Estimation: Summary: TL;DR: Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it. Lastly: as i said before, i suck at maths so all this could be totally wrong. Please be nice in your responses. And happy new year!

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.

Yes of course. The real advantage of the design is the potential (both in weight limit and volume available) to mount much stronger and heavier armor modules in the future. But at least for now i think that its mounting the same (or derived) "bulging plates" array as in T-90A. Meaning that we could reasonably calculate the base armor effectiveness.

When i get back home from work ill make a longer post about the issue, but ill say for now that i find highly likely that T-14 uses the same or very similar armor package as the one on the T-90A turret. In fact T-14 UFP could very well have the exact same LOS thickness as the maximum LOS thickness of T-90A turret from the front (about 900mm).

Guys has anyone made actual progress trying to measure T-14 UFP thickness? Because i think that i got something

Who made that model? Is it official? If it is, would be the first official image of the "naked" turret. BTW i dont see the point of such vehicle.

T-14 turret has much less chances of being hit by anti tank fire compared to manned tank turrets. Firstly because of the very small volume/surface which if hit would result in mission kill compared to manned turrets (from the front, the T-14 turret vulnerable area is around the same size as other tanks mantlet which are also weak points) and also the APS which is claimed, not proven, to intercept APFSDS.

So it is confirmed that the "Barak" upgrade is mainly (and only?) an FCS upgrade?

No i dont, but there are drawings and tables showing claimed performance You shuldnt speculate with weight alone. The Abrams turret (without the DU inserts) weights by itself 20 tones. And T-14 turret has no heavy armor, so the tanks weight is better optimized.