Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

Posted on otvaga, found docs about Armata soft-kill APS.    System type is reffered as SPN (anti-targeting system). Kit have 4 integrated sensors (multispectral) of working rocket engines an

For future use

Posted Images

On 4/13/2021 at 6:40 AM, alanch90 said:

Where does the gunner sit in the Kurganets? Besides the driver and commander?

The Kurganets you see in the parade is probably a mock up, the real one (please reference zvezda's TV show on kurganets 25) has gunner and commander sit side by side while the driver is in the front of gunner or commander (sorry I realy don't remember wether the driver sits infront of the commander or the gunner)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 2:52 PM, Dominus Dolorem said:

Does anyone have any information or estimates of the T-14's frontal composite armor's physical thickness and layout?

 

Looking at it from above I am struggling to see how the composite armour could offer 900mm of KE protection.

What is most difficult is that so far we haven´t seen any pictures showing what the base armor is like. 
We do have indications pointing to it having a geometry more similar to Object 187´s or other late soviet designs. In terms of LOS thickness, it could be anywhere between 800mm and 1000mm, until we get clear images of the tank without Monolit we can´t be any sure.
Lastly about what the base armor actually is, we have no clue. We do know that Monolit is a type of SLERA/NxRA so it is possible that the base armor is based around a similar technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we do have photographs of the interior, but yes we still have no idea what it looks like underneath thoes front modules.

 

It just does not look like there is that mutch room for thick composite armour in there to me though. Judging by the position of the drivers hatch, the interior photographs and the start of the frontal slope.

This could however just be a quirk of the parade vehicle with the production Armata having 2m thick frontal composite armour for all I know though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dominus Dolorem said:

Well we do have photographs of the interior, but yes we still have no idea what it looks like underneath thoes front modules.

 

It just does not look like there is that mutch room for thick composite armour in there to me though. Judging by the position of the drivers hatch, the interior photographs and the start of the frontal slope.

This could however just be a quirk of the parade vehicle with the production Armata having 2m thick frontal composite armour for all I know though.

It is from the interior pictures that we get the likeliness to Obj 187 since in both cases lots of instruments are bolted to the back plate (or what seems to be a back plate at least)and in a similar angle that seems to be about 60 deg. I made the following estimation a year ago.

5FBBWkL.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all "900mm" vs KE is just a figure that´s floating around the internet but at least TRADOC saw it plausible enough as to support on its publicly available sources. But its just a somewhat educated estimation.
The thickest UFP a T-72 had was the B model 1985 with 587mm LOS. This is a far cry from that. It is more comparable thickness wise to modern western tanks front turrets actually (M1A2 has 860mm LOS at the right turret cheek).
In addition to being a lot more voluminous, the armor was made especially for T-14 (and we have official quotes from designers about that), meaning that it was made based on new armor technology. Lastly, since the UFP is the only heavy armor block present on the tank, it could be allowed to be weight inefficient in comparison to other armor modules on modern tanks. For example, an Abrams has 5 big blocks of armor: 2 for the front turret, 2 for the turret´s sides and 1 for the hull front. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

Ahh thank you for the clarification, it seemed rather thin to me. I guess it is probably just that the T-14 is a big tank and maybe also that I have been rather dissapointed in the armour of many recent UVZ vehicles.

   Protection/armor is dictated by what MoD wants, not by UVZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 3:16 PM, eggs benedict said:

Is there any source clarifying the role of the hexagon on top of the T-14?

It may be related to the Upper Hemisphere Protection System.

http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/uplook_protection/

"The principle of operation of the complex is based on the detection of an approaching high-precision ammunition, striking from the upper hemisphere, and disruption of the operation of its guidance system either by a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or by creating a multispectral aerosol cloud and false IR targets over the protected object"

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

It may be related to the Upper Hemisphere Protection System.

http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/uplook_protection/

"The principle of operation of the complex is based on the detection of an approaching high-precision ammunition, striking from the upper hemisphere, and disruption of the operation of its guidance system either by a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or by creating a multispectral aerosol cloud and false IR targets over the protected object"

IIRC that hex thing was GLONASS antenna.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://vk.com/wall-79534_23437

   Documents on Kurganets protection found by Wiedzmin. People on otvaga looked at those documents some more:

Quote

   The body of Kurganets is made of aluminum alloy ABT-102, the level of mine protection is 3-6 kg of explosive depending on clearance.

 

Spoiler

alGL2lbh.jpg

 

odXb6Plh.jpg

   Details name possibly contain actual thickness of plates. Looks like sides are made out of 40 mm almuniea plates, which is about the same as in BMP-3.

 

   Bottom section of Kurganets-25 chassis is made out of 2 plates of Almuniea alloy (ABT-102), each plate is 30 mm. On top of that designers put a floor plate for soldiers to walk on. 

   They arrived to such layout after several failed tests. First version of hull bottom:

B3VwLmT.jpeg

 

   Results of testing:

Spoiler

jj1xcfi.jpg

   Destroyed hull bottom plates and penetration of floor plate with fragments.

 

 

Quote

   "As a result of the calculations, a two-layer bottom structure was proposed, made of two plates 30 mm thick from AMg 6 material with an offset weld seam. The structure has successfully passed the blast test. The work was carried out by order of JSC NII Stali (contract No. REC "ATDiSN" dated 01.10.2011), and its results were used to design the bottom structure of the new BMP, which is confirmed by the act on the implementation of the research results. "

 

Spoiler

z7inXhZ.jpg

 

9M87mjA.jpeg

 

Quote

The final version of the mine-resistant bottom of Kurganets. From the presentation (~ 2014, the drawing is designated "695. ...", rev. 695 - BMP B-11). Found by Wiedzmin

 

qkayKAK.jpg

 

Spoiler

PipkrVu.jpeg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   So we can now tell that Kurganets ballistic protection (without addon armor modules or addon ERA) is generally on the same level as BMP-3, vehicle will protect dismounts inside from blast of mines with 3-6 kg of explosives (more likelt 3-4, as 6 is achieved only at max clearance of suspension, if we read docs right).

   Also want to note that AT mines would do a number on that thing, for example plenty of Soviet mines have more than 6 kg of explsovies in them (7, 7.5kg in TM-62, TM-89 have 6.65)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   So we can now tell that Kurganets ballistic protection (without addon armor modules or addon ERA) is generally on the same level as BMP-3, vehicle will protect dismounts inside from blast of mines with 3-6 kg of explosives (more likelt 3-4, as 6 is achieved only at max clearance of suspension, if we read docs right).

   Also want to note that AT mines would do a number on that thing, for example plenty of Soviet mines have more than 6 kg of explsovies in them (7, 7.5kg in TM-62, TM-89 have 6.65)

Well, judging from pictures the Kurganets UFP could be 30-60mm of aluminium, plus add on ceramics. In comparison, BMP-3 UFP is 18mm of aluminium at a similar sloped angle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Well, judging from pictures the Kurganets UFP could be 30-60mm of aluminium, plus add on ceramics. In comparison, BMP-3 UFP is 18mm of aluminium at a similar sloped angle. 

   UFP is very small part of overal frontal projection of the vehicle. Also, nobody saw an actual prototype's UFP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

×
×
  • Create New...