Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Bigger not always better

    Share

    Khepesh
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1629
    Points : 1698
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Ахетатон и Уасет

    Bigger not always better

    Post  Khepesh on Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:05 pm

    Okay, just a one off photo to show that smaller is better in this case, and this is not sort of juxtaposition of tanks seen everyday. Yep, T-72 is a generation ahead of Conqueror, but interesting to see them side by side with the smaller being better, except leg room, in all respects. They have hammocks in Conqueror turret? ballroom, cinema?....

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:35 pm

    The fact alone speaks for itself that most rounds hit any tank at turret, that comes from FCS and that a smaller object like T-72 at tank engagement ranges would had much lower chances to be hit than a bigger tank.


    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  kvs on Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:57 am

    I suspect the T-14 turret can survive direct hits and still be functional even after penetration. The space used for
    the crew can be used creatively for additional layers to intercept any fragments that do penetrate the outer
    shell. And the outer shell can be much more robust due it having to cover a much smaller volume.

    With the above considerations the T-14 can be taller giving more room for the crew compartment and the
    shell/powder carousel.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:19 am

    I'm still awaiting information about the cook off solution. Will the hatch that enters the turret and carousel be the blow off panel or are the blow off panels located somewhere else, they certainly must have a solution to that.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  kvs on Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:35 am

    Werewolf wrote:I'm still awaiting information about the cook off solution. Will the hatch that enters the turret and carousel be the blow off panel or are the blow off panels located somewhere else, they certainly must have a solution to that.

    Having the blow off hatch(es) in the turret is the best solution. It gives access and at the same time relieves the explosive stress
    to protect the crew compartment. Having them at the sides is not feasible and none are evident. Having one at the bottom puts
    the tank at extra risk from mine detonations. It will be hard to directly hit the hatch on the turret just like the existing turret
    hatches.

    There must have been field tests of this aspect. Probably for the first time since they would write the tank and the crew off in such
    cases in the past. The T-14 is innovative in many ways.

    VeeTee
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 18
    Join date : 2015-04-25
    Location : finland

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  VeeTee on Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:32 am

    Somehow I feel the conqueror would not have fared well in urban combat. But it's obviously not designed for that anyway. I think it was designed to go against IS-3s, which also are smaller.
    T-14s and the whole Armata system will be really interesting in many ways.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:15 am

    kvs wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:I'm still awaiting information about the cook off solution. Will the hatch that enters the turret and carousel be the blow off panel or are the blow off panels located somewhere else, they certainly must have a solution to that.

    Having the blow off hatch(es) in the turret is the best solution.  It gives access and at the same time relieves the explosive stress
    to protect the crew compartment.  Having them at the sides is not feasible and none are evident.  Having one at the bottom puts
    the tank at extra risk from mine detonations.    It will be hard to directly hit the hatch on the turret just like the existing turret
    hatches.

    There must have been field tests of this aspect.  Probably for the first time since they would write the tank and the crew off in such
    cases in the past.  The T-14 is innovative in many ways.

    That is also my guess, but somehow i would prefer an enclosed carousel that has redirected blow off panels so the equipment in the turret does not get damaged, so after cook off's that the tank can be repaired easily and cost effecient by throwing out burned bend carousel and autoloader mechanism and then put back the turret on it.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:40 pm

    I suspect the ammo will be protected but if the worst case scenario happens and all the propellent goes up at once even if the turret is blown up into the air and lands a few metres from the tank the crew wont be effected... just as they arent effected by propellent burnt when the main gun fires.

    A propellent explosion does not have the raw energy of a HE explosion so turrets might be blown off but the hull is unlikely to be shattered like it would if a whole load of HE rounds detonates.

    HE rounds need a detonation to function as explosives... otherwise it will burn much slower than propellent will burn.

    It is possible that new propellent using electricity to enhance its performance could be made rather less sensitive to fire, which means a very energetic reaction when firing projectiles down the barrel but a rather less energetic reaction if it catches fire in the vehicle or in an ammo dump.

    the whole point of an unmanned turret is to separate the crew from the ammo and fuel... I doubt they would neglect precautions regarding fuel and ammo fires.

    the quickest solution to a damaged turret would be replacement... in fact based on the comments about moving the engine rather than having front and rear engined hulls suggests any damage to the turret would lead to replacement of a range of turret types... while the damaged turret is replaced or stripped of useful parts and components for other repairs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Bigger not always better

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:10 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:10 pm