Here is a neat simple little demonstration of how relikt works. The guy just started making videos I hope he makes more of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=zK77-8kJ69c&feature=emb_title
Lurk83 likes this post
miketheterrible wrote:limb wrote:lancelot wrote:AFAIK most NATO tank ammo can't penetrate those tanks with Kontakt-5. Let alone Relikt. Which they cannot penetrate at all frontally.
The T-72B3M AFAIK is supposed to have Relikt.
I personally think all the T-72 and T-80 tanks should be replaced with something else but I guess it does not make economic sense.
T-72B3 UBH still has kontakt-5 on the front.
B3 does. B3M apparently is relikt modules in kontakt casing to keep up same design without any additional changes.
George1, dino00, PapaDragon, slasher and lancelot like this post
galicije83 wrote:B3M used Relict ERA, in cases of old K5. Why is that, asked Russians...
Well they can only uograde front glacis, turret its imposible, because its cast, not welded as its on T90A mod 2004....and with modern ERA they do not need to do that on old tanks as t72b or t80s are, as yanks do with their M1s....this is still much, much cheaper modernization with same effect of armor protection yanks do on their 80s M1s...
I read that the DM63, 73, M829A4, and M829A3 have steel caps that utterly negate anti APFSDS ERA, especially kontakt 5.TMA1 wrote:Here is a neat simple little demonstration of how relikt works. The guy just started making videos I hope he makes more of them.
lyle6 wrote:The T-14's protection is rated for next-gen threats: the very powerful 140/152 mm kind. As such you simply can't compare between it and the T-90M when it comes to withstanding NATO rounds from the front; its simply above the weight class of current NATO anti-armor rounds its not even funny. The fact of the matter is there
>Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?
Because its a short-sighted measure that makes clean-up and repair of damaged hulls significantly more expensive than it has to be? Or that Russia has the technology to reprocess spent DU to make even more fissile materials for electricity and nuclear warheads.
Big_Gazza, kvs and miketheterrible like this post
Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?
I read that the DM63, 73, M829A4, and M829A3 have steel caps that utterly negate anti APFSDS ERA, especially kontakt 5.
Because its a short-sighted measure that makes clean-up and repair of damaged hulls significantly more expensive than it has to be? Or that Russia has the technology to reprocess spent DU to make even more fissile materials for electricity and nuclear warheads.
And western pundits claim that both leopard 2A6 and M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams turret cheek armor has above 1200mm APFSDS protection and around 2000-2500mm HEAT protection, and that their mantlets are as well armored as their cheeks.
And that the leopard 2 hull armor has been continuously upgraded and abrams hull has 600+mm protection against APFSDS. What makes their claims more legitimate than the claim that T-14 can and T-90M are light years ahead in protection compared to NATO 700+mm long APFSDS rounds?
Big_Gazza likes this post
GarryB wrote:
The one area the west has always had a huge advantage over both the Russians and the Soviets was the ability to exaggerate performance by their marketing departments. Remember the Russian tanks are all junk and the Abrams is invincible claims of the early 1990s?
GarryB, dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs and Hole like this post
lyle6 wrote:If you believe any of those ridiculous numbers you are even dumber than the ones who parrot them. Just think about it for a second: why would NATO continuously revamp its armor throughout the years if they had such a comfortable lead in the first place? You only ever do such costly upgrades if the threat was neck-in-neck. Instead it appears that the race is so close that NATO has to squeeze a march on every developments in armor technology just to outpace enemy anti-armor capabilities and field new armor packages every few years. Does that sound like their armor actually boasts such numbers or is it all just hot air?
The T-14 is a clean sheet design that is a break from the traditional manned turret paradigm. That it has significantly improved protection properties should be of no surprise considering it has done away with a significant burden of protecting the turret internal space, and of course the emphasis and integration of active protection from the get go.
Hole wrote:According to some documents from the german parliament the german army needs new ammo urgently because it´s current ammo can´t penetrate modernised russian tanks, which includes the T-72B3. They were shown in some thread here.
GarryB and miketheterrible like this post
GarryB and limb like this post
Combat approved is only good for the footage, not the commentary. Its almost certain that the T-14 does not use any form of electric reactive armor. The current level of technology can only allow for very much physical armors and effectors to defend against projectiles. Supposedly it has a system that does something against magnetic fuzes, possibly something to do with the very thick cables run around the tank, but that's not really far out of reach in comparison to electric armor.Atmosphere wrote:
And then there's the fact that its armor is radically different, being able to destroy the round with electric impulses
https://youtu.be/FqbpauEVY7Q
32:50
To add to that the conventional turret armor has quite a lot of gaps and weakspots: the mantle, the turret ring, and with some idiotic designs even a cutout to make way for the gunner's sight. These don't comprise an insignificant portion of the tank's frontal projection, and are large enough features to be targeted by a skilled gunner with a decent enough FCS. To compare the T-14's frontal hull armor is a veritable wall of solid composite armor, with a perfect ERA coverage.kvs wrote:
The weight of the T-14 demonstrates that getting rid of a manned turret is a substantial advantage. It is the first full sized (by western standards) Russian MBTbut with a weight 15-25 tons less than the M1 in any of its useful configurations. The other western MBTs are all over 60 tons and offer no more armour capability
than the T-14.
The manned turret is a dinosaur feature. Even though Russian design philosophy is conservative and emphasizes robustness, it was time to
use electronics and cameras instead of peep holes in the turret.
Hole likes this post
Probably the latter; what are the designers going to do? Sue the producers for lying? Its a TV show, accuracy takes the back seat compared to making bombastic comments and feats of showmanship as well as taking excellent eye candy.Atmosphere wrote:I also thought that it was a bit strange but keep in mind that combat approved was very specific about it.
They said something in the lines of ''armor plating". We're not taking their commentary about it but rathernthe fact that they supposedly asked the designers.
The fact that they used the term armor plating means it was not confused with the EMP or Monolith.
That is what made me lean towards that claim being legit, unless they were lying about asking the designers.
Atmosphere wrote:It is just that western media is very ignorant and tends to generalise a lot.
Exactly. The West just... stopped. That's it, they just stopped working on next gen tanks the same way they reoriented from peer warfare to COIN ops. Russia, even during the poverty of the 90s and early 00s never stopped developing tanks - continuing the legacy Soviet projects even while the prospect of adoption remains bleak. The T-14 would never have been possible if the Russians haven't done all the groundwork during those two decades, and now its the West that is playing catch-up as a result.ALAMO wrote:
In the last 30 years, Russia is the only country that worked on tanks for real.
Big_Gazza and Hole like this post
|
|