Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


LoooSeR
 Share

Recommended Posts

   Losses of AFV of Ukrainian army during 2014-2016 anti-terrorist operation (MoD statistics).

YbSJPrP.jpg

Black - destroyed, red - damaged (can be repaired). Left is IFV, then tanks, APCs, others.

 

   Sources of losses:

5HI28qS.jpg

   Most common is artillery and MRLS fire (~45%), infantry weapons (RPG and small arms) - 17%, enemy tanks and IFVs - 14%, IED/mines - 13%, ATGMs - ~11%.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Meplat said:

Do you think we'll see a move from Eastern/ComBloc patterns toward Western or (ideally) original designs?

   By who? Who will move from Eastern patterns to Western ones? Ukraine is not in the shape to create original design and put it into production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
4 hours ago, Stimpy75 said:

@Looser

İ have this pic from a T-64 book

could you plz tell me what is written esscpecially the vehicle at the bottom with bustle mounted AL

Spoiler

zOu4M2S.jpg

 

T-64BV modeled in 2015 by A. Kostur. T-64BM Bulat modeled in 2015 by A. Kostur.
Variant of deep modernization of T-64 modeled in 2015 by A. Kostur.


Also, if you are really interested - you can check this untranslated book about T-64 with big numbers of drawing and photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure if you all have seen this before. This is a chart that shows of the technical details of the BM Oplot tank and VT4 tank.  Richard Gao over at the SinoDefense Forum was so kind enough to translate the original chart:

 

COMPARISON OF SPECS BETWEEN VT4 AND OPLOT

 

I am not sure if about the protection values.  According to the chart, the turret front and hull front of the Oplot are rated at:

 

KE(3BM42/OFL120F1)>= 1100 mm**
CE(<Kornet-E>) >= 1300 mm**  

 

As far as I know, the 3BM42 has the ability to penetrate roughly 500 mm of RHA (260 BHN?) at 2000 m. The OFL120F1 penetrates around 560-600 of RHA (260 BHN?) at 2000 m. Could anyone  please explain this information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me how to understand even the information alone (if we let the exact ammo type aside). How can the armour protection be rated to 1100 mm for an ammo with 500 mm penetration? I understand that these values are more or less relative due to the nature of the armor being no RHA at all but still what does it mean? That it needs 2+ hits into the exactly same place to penetrate or what is the meaning of such value? I understand simple protected/non-protected but not to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

 Could anyone  please explain this information?

 

Yes, it's marketing fairytails. Knive ERA is well known and abilities to stop APFSDS are known too. Nope it does not work in sucht way on most covered by ERA area.

And without a lot of RHA before and after Knive efectivens is less then old polish ERAWA-2 ERA. Knive/Nozh ERA abilitiest to protect are highly depend on place where SC/penetrator hit casette.

And no way that Knive overcome Kornet. This is possible only for low-hight part of frontall hull module, but not in it's upper part par or on turret.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

Yes, it's marketing fairytails. Knive ERA is well known and abilities to stop APFSDS are known too. Nope it does not work in sucht way on most covered by ERA area.

And without a lot of RHA before and after Knive efectivens is less then old polish ERAWA-2 ERA. Knive/Nozh ERA abilitiest to protect are highly depend on place where SC/penetrator hit casette.

And no way that Knive overcome Kornet. This is possible only for low-hight part of frontall hull module, but not in it's upper part par or on turret.

 

Its Duplet ERA. That explains the resistance against Tandem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Not sure if you all have seen this before. This is a chart that shows of the technical details of the BM Oplot tank and VT4 tank.  Richard Gao over at the SinoDefense Forum was so kind enough to translate the original chart:

So basically, the VT4 is a way more advanced tank. That was to be expected. One thing is surprising though... Main gun seems like it is based on old 2A46, not the much better 2A46M... asymmetric recoil mechanism is not good for accuracy. Also no quick change barrel... This is very strange, since 2A46M is also quite old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Its Duplet ERA. That explains the resistance against Tandem. 

No, it's not. On Bulat its Knive not Duplet. And both of them have efficency depend on place (hight) of hit in casette and present (or not) hard 20mm+ HHS outern plate in ERA casette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Militarysta said:

No, it's not. On Bulat its Knive not Duplet. And both of them have efficency depend on place (hight) of hit in casette and present (or not) hard 20mm+ HHS outern plate in ERA casette.

Yes but the document is about BM Oplot, not Bulat. And Duplet is explicitly mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, heretic88 said:

So basically, the VT4 is a way more advanced tank. That was to be expected. One thing is surprising though... Main gun seems like it is based on old 2A46, not the much better 2A46M... asymmetric recoil mechanism is not good for accuracy. Also no quick change barrel... This is very strange, since 2A46M is also quite old. 

 

What is *doubly* weird is that the Chinese gun internals are hard-chromed. The 2A46 family did not introduce that until the 2A46M - so the Chinese made the effort to modify production tooling and procedures to allow a good chroming, but didn't also copy the rather simple front-change screw mechanism that is very well known? Really is a baffling combination of gun "features".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

What is *doubly* weird is that the Chinese gun internals are hard-chromed. The 2A46 family did not introduce that until the 2A46M - so the Chinese made the effort to modify production tooling and procedures to allow a good chroming, but didn't also copy the rather simple front-change screw mechanism that is very well known? Really is a baffling combination of gun "features".

 

 

Because it is copy of 2A46 gun, not 2A46M. Design is old, with single recoil buffer, short cradle, no fast barrel change feature. But materials, some details, finishing touches could be sinicized. One example is barrel, made with more modern technology than orginal, another one are gun trunnions, that fit in vintage, T-54-style frame mounting, not T-62+ sockets integral to turret front casting. It is a bit of steampunk in it, mix of old and new developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

What is *doubly* weird is that the Chinese gun internals are hard-chromed. The 2A46 family did not introduce that until the 2A46M - so the Chinese made the effort to modify production tooling and procedures to allow a good chroming, but didn't also copy the rather simple front-change screw mechanism that is very well known? Really is a baffling combination of gun "features".

Ukrainian KBA-3 is also strange... While it is a copy of 2A46M, the barrel isnt chromed! Weird... And even though on the chinese gun the asymmetric recoil mechanism seems to be a big disadvantage, it still has better dispersion... I think there are lot more improvements inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway where did the table come from? Is that from Thailand? 

 

Also any idea why only several features of VT-4 are deleted from the table and nothing from Oplot-M? The selection of what was deleted is also pretty weird for me (such as engine dimensions - why would that be secret?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Beer said:

Anyway where did the table come from? Is that from Thailand? 

 

Also any idea why only several features of VT-4 are deleted from the table and nothing from Oplot-M? The selection of what was deleted is also pretty weird for me (such as engine dimensions - why would that be secret?)

Perhaps because VT-4 ended up being selected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

   Hey look, another Azovets!

http://arey.net.ua/Don

Quote

Don is designed to be a heavy armored personnel carrier (APC). But it is also much more. Don comes equipped with a new hybrid power plant, a newly-designed combat module — the Sword of Arey, a digital combat management system—Checkmate, and a new and highly reliable system of armor protection.

/.../

 

AioaAzP.png

 

kqOk1cr.png

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...