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 recommend doing it from imgur
  2. alanch90
    T-14 at IDEX will be a mock up. But interesting new info: - FCS can do automatic target search and recognition - New (and better) footage of shell ejection.
  3. alanch90
    News from the real south. TAM 2C program sees light at the end of the tunnel. An agreement was reached between the Argentinian Government and Elbit to start the upgrade of 74 TAM to 2C standard.
  4. alanch90
    Any available time frame of when the development of that engine is planned to be finished?
  5. alanch90
    Not the smartest move. Just killed the possibilities of T-90MS.
  6. alanch90
    You mean the one on the Ariete? Or the newer meant to replace it as part of the MLU program? If you mean the first, then it most likely will have problems in the Altay since the tank is heavier than the Ariete and the engine is less powerful than the MTU. If you mean the second, with 1500 hp, it is still in development phase and by the time its clear for export, the Turks may have made enough progress with their own engine. Either case the most important aspect is not clear which is the political willingness of Italy to defy EU stance on Turkey´s militarism. And right now Italy is not the most stable country in the world politically, to say the least. The Prime Minister just resigned hours ago. The safest path forward for the Altay program depends on how fast they need to get the tank into production with an interim powerpack. I see two options. The Chinese powerpack used on VT-4, which while underpowered as the Ariete´s, is readily available and surely cheaper and more modern and politically safer at the same time. On the other hand, the Korean Doosan/DST powerpack, which is supposed to be mature enough in the short term, would serve the Altay just as good or even better than MTU/Renk, On the down side, it may be very expensive. But if the development of an indigenous powerpack fails, the Korean solution is the best one.
  7. alanch90
    At this pace, they are going to have the Altay in production in 5 years at best.
  8. alanch90
    Do you have a source stating explicitly that Renk 304 is the transmission used on Merk Mk.2-3? I´m convinced from photo evidence that´s indeed the case but i´ve been unable to find a source proving it unequivocally.
  9. alanch90
    This confirms that the side hull module has explosive contents. It reads "נָפִיץ" ("explosive") there.
  10. alanch90
    Yeah i noticed that too. Wasn't expecting to see the Dorchester getting replaced. Guess that the new armor is going to be called "Port Down armor".
  11. alanch90
    More on the Challenger 3 and Warrior 2. This is from September 28th. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/12523/html/?fbclid=IwAR3MXJBHlgabki4BwkB6946JiX_NGFedgjEDuR2oBpJzdDZ5Xm-G3HHlWNM
  12. alanch90
    "Serial production and deliveries of the newest Armata tank to the Russian army will begin in 2021." How many times we've heard that? Is there any reason to believe that next year is for real?
  13. alanch90
    Why would anyone want 57mm for cutting infantry in half in close quarters? In any case, the 30mm guns are the least problematic among the many BMPT drawbacks.
  14. alanch90
    Most likely SA cameras, those are mentioned as part of the equipment. But they were part of the discussion. The engineers/higher ups were pushing for 2 man crews in order to get lighter tanks (which should be the main priority) but were met with resistance by soldiers. 3 man crews proposed as a compromise while the soldiers were adamant in that 4 men (and weight like the current abrams) were preferable, after all the crews dont concern themselves with the strategic/operational/logistic aspects of deploying tanks, they care about the job they already are familiar with. So i think variants 1-2 represent what the engineers like while variant-3 is the soldiers favorite.
  15. alanch90
    Thats a second coaxial machinegun as described by the table below. Why put two 7.62 coaxials? Who knows
  16. alanch90
    Variants 1-2 have no turret hatches so unmanned turrets and the hulls seem to point to 2 man crews. The document tells that 2 man crews were proposed to soldiers and instantly rejected while they could be somewhat open to 3 man crews while 4 men was the preferred. After all thats how they are accostumed to do stuff, thats why tanks arent usually designed by crewmen. So the engineers kindo off gave up and hence drew Variant 3 the way the soldiers said the liked. But now they have to come up for stuff for the not-loader to do in order to justify his presence in the vehicle. I think that isolating gunner and TC is a bad idea and giving each individual tank its own drone also overloads the TC even more as he has to command both the tank itself (driver+gunner) and the drone (emergency loader/operator).
  17. alanch90
    Variant 1 and 2 have the most potential. They could make the same hull but interchangeable turret/gun and make most of the armor modular so that the tank can be scaled from low 50 tons (or preferably even lower) to almost 60. The developmental risk here is the 2 man crew and more difficult manual loading backup. Variant 3 i think it's pointless (most conservative/compromised of the 3) BTW why does it have 2 crewmen in the hull and 2 in the turret? Are those 2 in the turret TC and manual loader (=gunner and driver in the hull, TC and loader in the turret)? However given soldier feedback this is likely the most favored option. Why develop a next generation tank that is philosophically the same as you current one in service? Besides starting from a projected weight of 65t doesn't bode well for the future.
  18. alanch90
    Officially there was only one penetration (by Kornet) which led to total destruction of the tank which makes me think about a hit to the rear of the hull side were most of the ammo is stored.
  19. alanch90
    Its this one And some years ago in youtube there was the footage recorded by Hezbollah from the same incident were the rotation of the missle (characteristic of beam riders like Kornet) was clearly visible, so far i couldn't find it again. Same tank after the hit The whole incident was covered here https://defense-update.com/20060801_lebanon-merkava.html
  20. alanch90
    Metis-M level for sure. Kornet likely. Nonetheless, there is one instance of a confirmed Kornet impact on the turret front and didn´t penetrate. https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7360479_B2
  21. alanch90
    That's because there is a big difference of angle in your image. I chose to make my estimation on that picture and that side specifically because of the angle of the channel in relation to the camera. And i find plausible that those were indeed the requirements in terms of CE protection. By the time Mk.4 was in development the IDF was experiencing asymmetric warfare in the first Lebanon War and plenty of attacks by ATGMs to the tanks weakspots. If this is achieved or not is something we can´t know but as you well say the only instance a Mk4 was penetrated was by a Kornet, and lets be fare there are no infantry ATGMs capable of penetrating more than that. In addition we don't know where that missile hit the tank could have been the turret sides or even the hull side which is much weaker but certainly not the front of the turret as an impact of a Kornet there left only superficial damage to the armor module (that specific instance was captured and is available in youtube). After all even if the turret armor both for the front and the sides is of the same exact nature (which, given the angles, the triangular channels, the placements pattern of exterior bolts, is highly likely) there is up to around 250mm of RHA of difference in the turret front and side walls which points that there is a difference in protection requirement between the frontal and side aspects and in addition since the sloping is more pronounced in the front, the reactive layers become more effective than the sides. Perhaps its related to the need to be defended against APFSDS (my guess is that the reference threat weapon are the KEW series fired from Egyptian M1) from the front. My best guess is that in terms of CE protection the plausible effectiveness given the dates and types of expected threat weapons is as follows: 152mm tandem (Kornet) 130mm tandem (Metis-M) 105mm tandem (RPG 29) 85mm tandem (RPG 7) Turret front Likely Likely Definitely Definitely Turret side ??? Probable Probable Definitely Hull front ??? Probable Definitely Definitely Hull side Unlikely Unlikely Probable Definitely We should keep in mind that the israelis have been tinkering with ways to integrate NERA and ERA since the days of Mk.3 If we go by chinese sources (posted in page 9 of this thread), the israelis were embedding layers of ERA in between NERA. Years later when Mk.4 was unveiled, some of the first articles about it by people like David Eshel refer to its armor as a sort of a "hybrid" type. By 2008 the Rafael patent describes armor types which are indeed hybrids of NERA and ERA, that is NxRA and SLERA. In addition we have confirmation that at least the side turret modules do contain explosives but those modules aren´t segmented the way ERA bricks are, so it is explosive but is not ERA so we are running out of options other than SLERA. On the other hand, the damage to the front and side modules reveal that they use long non segmented reactive layers visually almost indiscernible between each other which further reinforces my impression that none of them are ERA and both are very likely of the same nature. That's not what it's claimed. They claim that their SLERA and NxRA while not as volume/mass effective as ERA are closer to it than NERA while having some multi hit capability. So yes, it is a tradeoff after all which makes a lot of sense if you want to cover the entire 180 degrees arc with a very high protection level even if it is for a limited amount of hits. And yes ERA would still make sense when you are more weight restricted as in lighter AFVs. I'm not assuming (and no one should) that my estimates are perfect firstly because by definition an estimate is imperfect and secondly because i'm no professional nor i have professional tools for this kind of task. I use the best pictures i can get, all which have been posted as a response i already have them in my archive and were already considered.
  22. alanch90
    The one i made days ago kind of validates this one. But mine has the advantage of being based on a real life image.
  23. alanch90
    Well we have seen both sides of UFP modules and there are no "warning-eplosives" signs. Makes sense to not have explosives right above the engine. Besides Mighty_Zuk (BTW, why was he banned??) confirmed that to me.
  24. alanch90
    If the empty triangular channel is a byproduct of the module geometry and not a needed feature to achieve the required protection level, then i have to conclude that the vast majority of the vertical aspect (at least at the turret side, i will make another estimation like this for the front module) maintains a module LOS thickness of no less than around 480mm not accounting for the side turret wall (50mm RHA?). That by itself is very thick (for comparison M1A2 has around 350-400mm including the side turret backplate/wall). Another matter entirely is estimating how that thickness translates into practical protection. One thing is certain, the side modules are SLERA (and perhaps the front too, the ones at the UFP are NxRA since they have no warning signs of containing explosives). In the 2008 Rafael patent on SLERA and NxRA (shared on this very forum) both types are described as having comparable volume/mass efficiency to ERA but also being capable of sustaining multiple shots (though not as many as NERA). All the pictures we have seen about damaged Mk.4s point that the "multi hit capability" at least against ATGMs is very limited. But alas, we may be looking at a very high protection effectiveness (in terms of RHA equivalency) indeed. Small addition: If the 480mm represents the actual SLERA and its sloped back at 60 degrees (of which i'm very sure of), then the actual thickness of the SLERA is 240mm. Take that and slope it to 75 degrees, which is the angle of the front turret module, and you get around 920-930mm. Add to that a probable empty triangular channel of 160mm and we get 1080mm of module LOS length which is surprisingly close to the 1079mm that i estimated yesterday and also virtually the same figure that others have estimated. So, right now i´m pretty confident that the front LOS is 920-930mm of SLERA + (depending of the vertical point) up to 160mm of air + around 250-300mm RHA . That's a lot of armor.
  25. alanch90
    Point taken. However it's a complex matter on the Mk4. Firstly on other images showing "vertical slices" of the turret modules, the actual LOS thickness of the armor is mostly maintained across the height of the turret internal volume. Besides that, the inner "empty triangle" in between the armor should be accounted for as well. And in addition we have very thick turret walls (judging by eye the seem to me like 20-30cm in thickness).
×
×
  • Create New...