Comparing Tanks

It uses ceramic diverting tiles, find a picture of the turret module. 

M829A3 will go through K-5 fine, because of the tip design. When the ERA explodesz, the tip is ejected. 

Relikt hasn't been in service... It will soon.

How is HAP archaic? Is the NxRA archaic too?

Mike E wrote:It uses ceramic diverting tiles, find a picture of the turret module. 

M829A3 will go through K-5 fine, because of the tip design. When the ERA explodesz, the tip is ejected. 

Relikt hasn't been in service... It will soon.

How is HAP archaic? Is the NxRA archaic too?

Relict has been approved for service since 2005 and is used to several reports on T-90A/MS.

The M829A3 like reported by Nii Stali has only a chance of 50-40% to pass through Kontakt-5 without exploding it, if it explodes the performance of any Long rod will suffer to degrees of shattering the entire long rod.

The Abrams is archaic, the approach and design philosphy to protect a tank by only measure of its passive armor, without adopting much more advanced modularity of armor like Merkawa, Leopard2, T-90A/AM and the overall archaic design to protect the tank with mostly its front turret while leaving far more vulnerable in the safe maneuvering angles of 30° +- compared to any other tank is indeed a horrible design for todays times. I am not talking about the armor technology but the design of how the armor is used and what it lacks and it definetley lacks protection and does not meet level of protection of Leopard not to mention T-90A/MS and its TUSK is only useful against Iraq under sanctions, it would be blown apart by Chechens to pieces with what they had or have now.

But no service units have actually used it...[size=42]And if you claim they do, then please link a picture at the very least. [/size]


Like I said, M829A3 uses a special tip for defeating K-5. It will diminish the effects of said ERA.

How do you define modularity?

Mike E wrote:But no service units have actually used it...[size=42]And if you claim they do, then please link a picture at the very least. [/size]


Like I said, M829A3 uses a special tip for defeating K-5. It will diminish the effects of said ERA.

How do you define modularity?

The BMD4M use ERA packages designed on the basis of Relict. The previous attempts using heavy ERA have deformed or cracked light armored vehicles like IFV/APC's the new ERA for LAV's is a derivate of Relict.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2012/01/5-2011-90.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1c_1413120043






Third picture it is mentioned that the BMP/BMD use 4S24 armor which is Relict.

It does not matter what M829A3 uses, Nii Stali said the chances of M829A3 to pierce through Kontakt-5 without setting it off, meaning defeating its entire purpose is around 50-40%, that does not mean it will pierce through it every time, it means it will be defeated 50-60% of all fired Sabots. The blast will shatter M829A3 like any other long rod, the only difference is the M829 has always set off Kontakt-5 with 99% reliability, A2 with little bit less but A3 with much less, however that does not garrantee it will just pierce through the tank regardless of detonation and functioning of K5, it will break the long rod apart or reduce its penetration capabilities significantly.

Modularity is a rather self explaining terminology for tank warfare along with redundancy which Abrams does not have while other tanks have it either by APS or modular approach meaning a layer of protections passive,active or any other measure.

But once again....is it actually in service? The answer is no...

It does matter, because the tip still get sheared off, and the rod will remain almost completely intact. K-5 not detonating is just the cheery on top. 

Removing the tip, and possible a little of the rod, would barely effect penetration. Maybe 10%.

Modular armor is great, but it isn't needed on the Abrams.

Mike E wrote:But once again....is it actually in service? The answer is no...

It does matter, because the tip still get sheared off, and the rod will remain almost completely intact. K-5 not detonating is just the cheery on top. 

Removing the tip, and possible a little of the rod, would barely effect penetration. Maybe 10%.

Modular armor is great, but it isn't needed on the Abrams.

That is what you believe but we know that Kontakt-5 a heavy ERA will shatter long rods and it does not matter if it is a M829 or M829A3, the longer the rod the more abusive the force of ERA will impact on the Sabot. Try to break a stick of one meter in length and try to break same stick of 10 cm or 1 cm in length with same thickness, it gets harder. Long rods are made of very briddle materials and are easy to break. It will not just remove the tip and therefore the a very huge proportion of Sabots meaning of penetration, it will induce a yaw and can break the Long rod in half or reduce its integrity. If ERA detonates it has achieved what it was designed for, actually Kontakt-5 wasn't even designed to have an effect on Sabots but it has so it already achieved more than it was designed for. Reducing penetration capability is certainly better than being shot at without reducing the penetrative capabilities of the incoming threat.

Modular armor is need on Abrams, it is among the most vulnerable tanks from any side except a very narrow angle from the front and upgrade of A3 will improve exactly that, to up armor the sides and not the front just the front like all previous upgrades.

Once again, the energy is *diverted* using the rod tip. The rod itself will barely be harmed in the process. 

There is no such thing as an "M1A3", and the new side armor will be part of TUSK 2. It's more appliquè than modular in any case.

The tip is critical for penetration... do you think the put points on the ends of them for fun?

At the speeds and energies involved even a flattened tip will penetrate some armour but if you want to penetrate a lot of armour then you need a stumpy point... a very sharp point will shear at angles, but the pressures and energies involved means even a blunt tip will penetrate some armour... but it will form a sort of pointed tip in the process of being crushed into the armour.

the point is (pun intended) is that a stumpy point concentrates the energy of the projectile onto a small area of the surface of the armour greatly increasing its ability to punch through.

Cut the tip off or have a needle sharp tip that shears off at impact and a lot of energy is wasted reforming the tip and penetration values will greatly decrease.

If the penetrator was only going to just make it through the armour then cutting off the tip is all you need to stop the round from penetrating.

I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.

Even if it isn't perfect (depends on the angle and area of impact), only a little section of the rod would actually be effected. Which has been my point all along....

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.

Even if it isn't perfect (depends on the angle and area of impact), only a little section of the rod would actually be effected. Which has been my point all along....

Not really, the rod will always come in an angle to armor, because the armor itself is always angled, meaning if it detonates even on ERA tile the pushing steel plate will break the Sabot in half or induce a yaw that will be enough to reduce its penetrative capabilities significantly.

Which is yet another reason the M829A3 uses a plug/tip on the end of the rod. It is designed to fly off of the rod, so a good amount of the energy used to deflect the rod would be wasted. Such a heavy rod would also require more energy, or explosives, to produce any beneficial result. 

Abrams doesn't need spaced armor because the armor is not designed for it. HAP is some sort of blend between silicon carbide ceramics, steel, aluminum, hollow structured metal (which seems to be more speculation, but supposedly was a major design element of Burlington), and steel-covered DU laminate. This itself is designed to do multiple things; metals provide thickness, ceramics provide hardness and cause abrasive effects against jets/rods, hollowed structured metal to absorb energy, and DU to provide density where extra thickness can't be provided. Spaced armor would only add weight and without much role. It itself is not of much use, unless the armor arrays can "trap" the rod using spacing. (Aka, end of the rod is getting through the first layer of armor, most of the rod is in a spaced chamber, and the tip is penetrating a new layer of armor. This, if the second layer is angled, could could massive amounts of yaw and flex in the rod, thereby lowering penetration by multiple times, or snapping it all together. I firmly believe T-14 uses this method.)

Leopard 2 doesn't use spacing in the manner that you think it does. The turret applique uses NERA to absorb energy, and ceramic plates to induce yaw into the rod. In this scenario, the spacing serves no purpose other than being a side-effect of this design. 

There's no scenario where the T-90A uses ceramics in the glacis. To begin, no Soviet or Russian MBT uses ceramics in their glacis assuming it is the typical well angled design. Some projects seemingly did use ceramics, but the Glacis remained almost un-angled. We know for a fact that the hull uses NxRA (there is no alternative, never mind information) we just don't know the thickness. T-90A welded turret uses bulging modules (which could be describes as "cells") like the T-72B, just in a different, and thicker layout. There is some speculation that it could use small ceramic modules (like a few T-64 models), but once again, there is no information to back this up. 

The idea behind the T-72B glacis is simple yet genius at the same time; use multiple, unconnected layers of high hardness steel to harshly deform the rod's front (like mushrooming), and rubber, along with thin spacing, to flex the armor. This artificially increases LOS thickness (flex below the rod pushes it up, so it will slowly "drift" upwards, thereby increasing LOS) while also inducing stress and yaw into the rod. The problem will this, is that rubber & air are not the best methods of defeating penetrators. Sure it absorbs energy, but it simply doesn't provide needed density or hardness outside of that. Hence why it is a reactive armor, because it relies on the fact that it can change.

Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

An excellent image, clearly puts the "Armata does not have turret armor" claim to rest.

Never understood those people anyway.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

The sizes are not accurate. Challenger 2 is over-sized compared to the M1A2 Abrams. The hull of the T-90A has also been shrunk down. It should be the same size as the T-72B next to it. The rest is more or less acceptable but not that accurate overall.

LaVictoireEstLaVie wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

The sizes are not accurate. Challenger 2 is over-sized compared to the M1A2 Abrams. The hull of the T-90A has also been shrunk down. It should be the same size as the T-72B next to it. The rest is more or less acceptable but not that accurate overall.

The rules state you have to introduce yourself in the member introduction forum.

He is right, Chally 2 is oversized, M1 seems little bit to small, maybe just the perception of the already oversized Chally2, T-90A is smaller than the T-72 is also not correct, maybe it is supposed to be T-80B.

x_54_u43 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

An excellent image, clearly puts the "Armata does not have turret armor" claim to rest.

Never understood those people anyway.

That sheet metal must be a mix of depleted uranium and mythril.    

To me, this image shows just how efficient the T-14's minimal turret armor layout is vs contemporary MBT's.

maybe it is supposed to be T-80B.

It's not a T-80B. Even if it was a T-72 model the artist stretched to the T-80's dimensions, it still looks too long.



T-90 vs T-14

Zivo wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

An excellent image, clearly puts the "Armata does not have turret armor" claim to rest.

Never understood those people anyway.

That sheet metal must be a mix of depleted uranium and mythril.    

To me, this image shows just how efficient the T-14's minimal turret armor layout is vs contemporary MBT's.

[/img]

Yes, of course a very official drawing that is. Perhaps you should start taking into account that the T-14 does not have anyone in its turret, no ammo in its turret, and a very compact new design autoloader.

Armata's turret is very well protected against the threats it is intended to face over a 60 degree arc.

The turret of the T-14 and its internal occupation of electronics, autoloader and the little internal volume for maintenane of one crew is that what is in question. The Armor could be direct inwards and not outwards for all we know.

From those artist pictures without the signature footprint reducing casing around the turret many have thought this are just thin RHA steel plates without knowing their actual thickness.

People speculated due the metal casing that the turret armor is so thin that it will not protect against anything, but after pictures have occured about the new gun being longer while pictures of T-14 vs T-90A show roughly same length of the gun suggests that the gun 2A82 goes roughly one meter into the turret, covering alot of metal between it and the actual autoloader and breech. The T-14 turret also does not appear to be very thin when compared to T-90A which already has a strongly armored turret. The more i see, the more it appears to have better armor in its turret than anticipated.

Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?

max steel wrote:
Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?

Leo 2A6s are pretty good, but I'm not a expert in German tech. It should be comparable to the T-90.