Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Ukrainian armor - Oplot-M, T-64M Bulat and other.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Proper, god-fearing Soviet tanks use four-stroke diesel engines.  When the tank is cruising, the engine should be happy and produce very little smoke.  But when the engine is suddenly changing RPM, th

BM "Oplot"     Ukrainian designers managed to make biggest panoramic sight i ever saw - overall weight of it is reaching 500 kg.            Oplot-M, or BM "Oplot" after addoption to service i

Undisputable evidence of Russian aggression against the Mighty and Unified Independent State of Ukraine! Behold these vehicles personally blessed by Ramzan Kadyrov when issued to GRU GSh FSB GIBDD spe

Ukrainian Oplot-M in Pakistan, it showed itself as better vehicle for Pakistan than MBT-3000, according to Tarasenko Andrey's information.

419918_original.jpg

Pakistan is yet to have received a T-90MS for testing. Oplot-M going head-to-head will be with the MS will be interesting, to say the least...

The Ukr/Paki nuts at PD were going nuts and claiming the Oplot will actually be acquired. Simply put, Pakistan has rejected the MBT-3000, and hence the Oplot-M is the only vehicle they current have in possession, that they are actually considering. - Ukraine does not have the industry to build a few, nevermind a few hundred.

In regards to a possible deal with Ukraine, Pakistan would do it is as a way of keeping commonality with their T-80UD's, which will allegedly receive a few upgrades including either Nozh or Duplet.

Outside of that, the Oplot-M didn't offer them anything that other vehicles do not. T-80UD's even had heat issues in the Pakistani Deserts, IIRC.

This isn't completely relevant to the above, but Nozh (never-mind the more powerful Duplet) has major problems with detonating neighboring ERA modules, and even blowing inserts/track-covers off the vehicle... Ukraine went for the easy solution by adding more explosive, but that came with drawbacks (aforementioned issues and just the weight... Oplot-M has FIVE TONNES of the stuff). Relikt actually uses less mass of explosives (roughly 50% less) than K-5, yet achieves twice the performance against KE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Mike E!

 

There were some pictures in this very thread earlier that, IIRC, showed what looks like chain detonation of Ukrainian ERA.

 

As was discussed in another thread, Nozh uses a novel mechanism to defeat threats; the ERA is filled with linear shaped charges.  As to whether this actually works, the jury is still out (Russian computer modelling suggests that Nozh does not work).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pakistan is yet to have received a T-90MS for testing. Oplot-M going head-to-head will be with the MS will be interesting, to say the least...

The Ukr/Paki nuts at PD were going nuts and claiming the Oplot will actually be acquired. Simply put, Pakistan has rejected the MBT-3000, and hence the Oplot-M is the only vehicle they current have in possession, that they are actually considering. - Ukraine does not have the industry to build a few, nevermind a few hundred.

In regards to a possible deal with Ukraine, Pakistan would do it is as a way of keeping commonality with their T-80UD's, which will allegedly receive a few upgrades including either Nozh or Duplet.

Outside of that, the Oplot-M didn't offer them anything that other vehicles do not. T-80UD's even had heat issues in the Pakistani Deserts, IIRC.

This isn't completely relevant to the above, but Nozh (never-mind the more powerful Duplet) has major problems with detonating neighboring ERA modules, and even blowing inserts/track-covers off the vehicle... Ukraine went for the easy solution by adding more explosive, but that came with drawbacks (aforementioned issues and just the weight... Oplot-M has FIVE TONNES of the stuff). Relikt actually uses less mass of explosives (roughly 50% less) than K-5, yet achieves twice the performance against KE.

 

Based Mike is Based

 

Welcome to the Lion's den my friend!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the plates hanging off the turret ERA?  I've seen them on T-80s as well.

 

Just stand-off spaced armor, or something fancy?

They distort GSR.  Things like the AN/TPQ 36 and 37. It also messed with some laser guided artillery rounds. We learned about not designating certain parts of Russian tanks because of these skirts as well as the anti-laser systems they had. 

*edit, LoooSer already answered. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Mike E!

There were some pictures in this very thread earlier that, IIRC, showed what looks like chain detonation of Ukrainian ERA.

As was discussed in another thread, Nozh uses a novel mechanism to defeat threats; the ERA is filled with linear shaped charges. As to whether this actually works, the jury is still out (Russian computer modelling suggests that Nozh does not work).

Thank you.

I've seen those pictures and even a few others... It's all due to the large number and high explosive power of Nozh bricks.

Nozh & Duplet in theory work great, but their design prohibits consistent performance. If the 'knives' do not break or shatter the incoming long-rods, they will have little impact. An impact flat on a brick will also yield little performance for the ERA, as the round will only be hit with one or maybe two 'knives'. Mind telling me what thread this was discussed in? This one here is what attracted me so I haven't had the time to look over any others.

@Tied I'm pretty stuck in...but like anyone else, accepting to change opinion.

Thank you as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

I've seen those pictures and even a few others... It's all due to the large number and high explosive power of Nozh bricks.

Nozh & Duplet in theory work great, but their design prohibits consistent performance. If the 'knives' do not break or shatter the incoming long-rods, they will have little impact. An impact flat on a brick will also yield little performance for the ERA, as the round will only be hit with one or maybe two 'knives'. Mind telling me what thread this was discussed in? This one here is what attracted me so I haven't had the time to look over any others.

@Tied I'm pretty stuck in...but like anyone else, accepting to change opinion.

Thank you as well.

 

I said based, i beleive's is a slang for good 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure thing Mike E, the discussion of ERA is here.

 

All ERA only works when it is at some obliquity to the threat, Nozh isn't unique in that respect.

Thanks for letting me know.... IIRC Relikt does indeed use less explosives in mass than K-5, possibly I misunderstood and they meant each charge weighed 50%. 

 

Nozh is especially susceptible per; 

N%C3%B3%C5%BC%206.png

rather than the ideal...

N%C3%B3%C5%BC%205.jpg

Welcome to the forum, Mike E!

Thank you Sturgeon. 

 

@Tied Where I am at, 'based' just means you don't care what other people think, but it's fine.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that gun tube bent? Maybe is just the angle of the photo. 

 

I think that a piece of the thermal shroud is a bit off center.

 

Thanks for letting me know.... IIRC Relikt does indeed use less explosives in mass than K-5, possibly I misunderstood and they meant each charge weighed 50%. 

 

Nozh is especially susceptible per; 

N%C3%B3%C5%BC%206.png

rather than the ideal...

N%C3%B3%C5%BC%205.jpg

Thank you Sturgeon. 

 

@Tied Where I am at, 'based' just means you don't care what other people think, but it's fine.  :)

 

 

Aha, I see what you mean now.  Nohz is potentially much less effective if the penetrator hits the top of the plate rather than the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Aha, I see what you mean now.  Nohz is potentially much less effective if the penetrator hits the top of the plate rather than the bottom.

      Nozh is more effective when round hit far/upper part of ERA block, and much less effective when projectile hits near lower edge. In first situation ERA block will dump energy to projectile body almost completely (not countring usual losses of energy), while in second situation ERA module detonation will be wasted almost totally - all HEAT warheads will detonate, but majority of them will not be able to affect projectile body because of its location/trajectory.

 

From previous post, picture of what i am talking about:

 

First situation: 

BXsH98R.jpg

Almost all plates/HEAT jets reached APFSDS projectile body. Projectile was hit many times acros big chunk of its body length.

 

 

Second variant:

aL8rHcd.png

 

ERA module managed to damage only tip of projectile, while all other HEAT warheads of ERA just mixed some air. Not very effective. 

 

      Nozh ERA effectiveness is very sensitive to where incoming threat managed to hit particular ERA block. Maybe too sensitive, which can create all kinds of results - from Nozh being able to protect against some tandem HEAT ATGM warheads, to being penetrated by old RPG HEAT grenade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aha, I see what you mean now.  Nohz is potentially much less effective if the penetrator hits the top of the plate rather than the bottom.

Vice-versa as LoooSeR noted and described. Thank you to him. 

 

Relikt use 2 kg of exposives, Kontakt-5 have ~0.5kg. Nozh module have 2-2.5 kg of explosives. Oplot-BM side armor modules have 3 layers of ERA, which would be interesting to see how it detonates and results of such boom.

Maybe my source was mistaken... 4S24 uses 1/2 the explosives as 4S20. 

 

The set of K-5 weighs ~1.5 tons, and the larger (ie more coverage) Relikt kits on the T-72B2 supposedly weighed ~2.3 tons. Considering Relikt uses more mass in metal with multiple charges/plates, that is not a dramatic weight gain. I'd wager that it uses more explosives than K-5, but much more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NII Stali information shows TNT equivalent for single 4S24 unit is about 50% of Kontakt-5, but article by Tractornie Zavody concern (NII Stali is part of it) claims that explosives weight is about 2 kg for one Relikt module. Maybe there are both right?

 

qunGA8QtOAA.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

NII Stali information shows TNT equivalent for single 4S24 unit is about 50% of Kontakt-5, but article by Tractornie Zavody concern (NII Stali is part of it) claims that explosives weight is about 2 kg for one Relikt module. Maybe there are both right?

...

W9cXv.jpg

 

This picture shows that 4S24 unit is 1.36 kg, while TNT equivalent is 0.14 kg. I think we are missing something or there is mistake in article that i linked in ERA thread. Or they could count some additional parts of ERA module.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I wouldn't know... 4S24 is the less potent side panel module and should have less mass explosives than say, K-5. 4S23 could easily have more due to its' multi-layer design. Because we are getting so specific into ERA we should continue the conversation there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I wouldn't know... 4S24 is the less potent side panel module and should have less mass explosives than say, K-5. 4S23 could easily have more due to its' multi-layer design. Because we are getting so specific into ERA we should continue the conversation there. 

I agree.

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 Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
       
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
       
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
       
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
       
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
       
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • 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 delfosisyu
      Hey guys. This is my first post in this forum.
       
       
       
      I want to find out sources for 2 information.
       
       
       
       
      Firstly, a friend of mine told me about the accuracy of T-80B tested in 1980s.
       
       
       
       
       
      T-80B      1000m   1500m     2000m
                      
                      87%       66%       46%
       
       
       
       
       
      I asked him where he found this data. But he told me he forgot where he did find this since too much time passed from that moment.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      The Second one is about Russian ballistic computer's range-finding rate.
       
       
      One day, one of my friends who speaks russian quite well showed me a product info. of russian(maybe ukrainian) gunner's primary sight.
       
       
      It was written that range-finding rate of the sight after laser fired-off 0.3~3.0 seconds. 
       
       
      I totally forgot the address of that product brochure.
       
       
       
      I'd be very appreciated if you help me finding links of these information.
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain

×
×
  • Create New...