Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:40 am

    You raise a good point... That looks more effective v. HEAT than APFSDS for sure. 

    Longer/heavier rods won't even notice the attempts to change their path and distort them, at this point there is no point in that addition.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:06 pm

    Here is a [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7cdm9VOpB1oC&pg=PA1216&lpg=PA1216&dq=%E2%80%9Cforced+segmented+penetration&source=bl&ots=fV8BhUQax_&sig=qaPehwV7zG8RmDq_cZvMIcGby50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Uw1yVa7wBY3XoASvrpXYDA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cforced segmented penetration&f=false]study on the performance of segmented penetrators.[/url]

    Pretty interesting stuff...especially because the now-cancelled M829E4 was going to be triple-segmented. 

    The e-Book as a whole has a TON of ballistic information on just about everything... If you have time go through it.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5294
    Points : 5497
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:17 pm

    We can discuss such things, however as a recomandation do not link further "Steel Beasts" Video game figures, those numbers are at least 50-125% exaggerated and some numbers lower, they do not reflect anything of the real world. If you have to use numbers, which i personally dislike because for exact numbers you either need two know all factors or majority of it, which is top secret, but if you use numbers please rely on more believable sources that also count as tank experts and not a Video game company that made this awfull RHA protection list that is used in almost very Wikipedia article and is thrown around like a hardcore fact for all tanks.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:56 pm

    I disagree... Their figures may be off in some areas but they are the the closest thing we have to the real deal. They also show the basic armor profiles very well.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5294
    Points : 5497
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:20 am

    Mike E wrote:I disagree... Their figures may be off in some areas but they are the the closest thing we have to the real deal. They also show the basic armor profiles very well.

    If you want the closest thing to the real deal read the estimations which are actual estimations based on limited knowledge of tank building projects and technology of real experts, Hunnicutt, Green, Fofanov, Gordon, Kholopotov Zaloga and whoever there is.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:30 am

    These are estimations just like theirs... In fact they are probably more accurate give the people behind them are working more a company and not just their own site. 

    Plus I don't really see how they are over-optimistic... Maybe for HEAT figures but certainty not KE ones.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5294
    Points : 5497
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:55 am

    Mike E wrote:These are estimations just like theirs... In fact they are probably more accurate give the people behind them are working more a company and not just their own site. 

    Plus I don't really see how they are over-optimistic... Maybe for HEAT figures but certainty not KE ones.

    The HEAT figures are completley out of line. Just look at the lower glacis of the hull figures of M1, they count the FUEL (high octane JET FUEL) tanks as spaced armor... the penetrator defeats the armor ignites the cerosine but it is still counted as space armor... Sure why not. The lower glacis of the hull is on every single tank a weakened zone, be it through the arrangement and design decisions or due tactically not being in LOS of enemy fire like down position. All tanks lower hull glacis can be penetrated by RPG-7/29 and surely 2200mm RHAe is the funniest thing i've ever seen on any tank. Maybe Russia should instead of placing their fuel tanks at the sponson area, they should mount them right infront of turret or behind lower hull position right infront of the driver, he certainly will like it.

    Sorry, but those numbers are funny.

    May i quote:

    Fofanov to the same numbers of Steel beast on otvaga.

    I see no reference specifically to the spectacular claims about the security. Actually even painfully unclear on what tool armor "1960 mm" this been tested? Smile

    Like I said, these figures are insane for one toy. Like this -

    Posted a picture of Challanger 2 armor values of Steel Beats.

    http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=999&p=23 Post 670

    The numbers are at least 1.5 x2 times exaggerated, the KE values are also exaggerated.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:11 am

    The outrageous numbers for the side LFP is due to the fuel tanks as you mentioned... I don't know why they count it as spaced armor, unless they are suggesting the amount of penetrated needed to directly harm the crew or something like that. A penetration there by KE or HEAT would ignite the fuel undoubtedly... If it is anything but diesel the whole entire tank will be wrecked. 

    I already mentioned the HEAT values are exaggerated. 

    However I can assure the KE values, for the most part, are not (at least not to the same extent). The LFP of the Abrams is at least 400 millimeters thick, never mind the additional DU plates. Overall it would indeed amount to ~620 mm RHAe v. KE. Based on the thickness of the Abrams' turret (more so than the LFP) the claimed ~950 mm is not far off either. - I retract this, the actual number is closer to 800 mm. EDIT

    If anything, the UFP of the Abrams is what is over-rated. Based on current information it is no more than 100 mm (in fact less) thick, and even with DU/composites and sloping it simply will not reach that high of a figure (I estimated around 80 degrees of slope, which equals ~460 mm assuming the plate is 80 mm thick). - Supposedly it actually is equivalent to 600 mm RHAe.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:38 am

    Amazingly enough... The World of Tanks Forum has a great thread on the Abrams' armor. Linked here

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Rpg29vert
     - Strongest armor on an Abrams (variant unknown but I'd guess A1) that got penetrated by a RPG. 
    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Dsc04669rk

    Penetration on the Lower Plate... No information on what caused it. Possibly a KE round from a friendly. 
    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Dsc04663p
    Turret ring... Not all that thick. This is off an Abrams SEP too...
    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Img_2610
    Absolutely horrid-looking armor estimate I just completed... The original turret figures seemed to be rather off. This is based on information from that thread.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:15 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Pretty interesting stuff...especially because the now-cancelled M829E4 was going to be triple-segmented. 

    The e-Book as a whole has a TON of ballistic information on just about everything... If you have time go through it.
    ?!? sauce for the cancellation? even if the round were insufficient against the newly arrived threat(T-14) its still going to be ordered simply because its better than what they have. say what you want about US procurement, but they strive real hard to provide best tools(or at least what they deem as best) for their people.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:34 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Pretty interesting stuff...especially because the now-cancelled M829E4 was going to be triple-segmented. 

    The e-Book as a whole has a TON of ballistic information on just about everything... If you have time go through it.
    ?!? sauce for the cancellation? even if the round were insufficient against the newly arrived threat(T-14) its still going to be ordered simply because its better than what they have. say what you want about US procurement, but they strive real hard to provide best tools(or at least what they deem as best) for their people.
    For their people....you gotta be kidding.

    They canceled the development of the E4 years so, mostly due to budgetary concerns. My guess would be they will reboot the program for the A3... In about a decade.

    The E4 will be triple segmented... To be honest I have a feeling these kind of rounds won't do well against Relikt.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:04 am

    Mike E wrote:
    For their people....you gotta be kidding.
    for their people... to become better people killers(which is like their job as a soldier). there, much better?
    Mike E wrote:
    They canceled the development of the E4 years so, mostly due to budgetary concerns. My guess would be they will reboot the program for the A3... In about a decade.

    The E4 will be triple segmented... To be honest I have a feeling these kind of rounds won't do well against Relikt.
    again, i havent read anything anywhere but here that its cancelled. and its much wiser to reserve judgement on the new round- the Russians themselves certainly dont underestimate the Americans, why should we.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:13 am

    Better...

    I've heard that it's been canceled, and that it is in testing. Either way I have a feeling it will be delayed because multi-segmented rounds are not ready for the limelight. 

    Possibly they will issue an E4 variant now and they improved A4 later.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:19 am

    Actually... Just did a read-up and the E4 will be almost identical to the A3, except for that it is supposed to perform better against ERA. I doubt it will do much against Relikt as nobody has a clue on its performance. - US has tested K-1 and K-5 and is probably basing its knowledge on that.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:27 am

    Mike E wrote:Better...

    I've heard that it's been canceled, and that it is in testing. Either way I have a feeling it will be delayed because multi-segmented rounds are not ready for the limelight. 

    Possibly they will issue an E4 variant now and they improved A4 later.
    um, E means experimental you know, once it enters service its replaced by A.
    also, it doesnt make sense for them to continue to test something that has been canceled, doesnt it? and what makes you say multi-segmented rounds are not yet ready? sure the spaced segmented penetrators arent ready yet- you have to have above 2km/s impact velocity to produce holes wide enough to not interfere with following segments, but the nonspaced ones are. rounds as early as mango have the latter; it has 2 tungsten penetrator segments.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:34 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Better...

    I've heard that it's been canceled, and that it is in testing. Either way I have a feeling it will be delayed because multi-segmented rounds are not ready for the limelight. 

    Possibly they will issue an E4 variant now and they improved A4 later.
    um, E means experimental you know, once it enters service its replaced by A.
    also, it doesnt make sense for them to continue to test something that has been canceled, doesnt it? and what makes you say multi-segmented rounds are not yet ready? sure the spaced segmented penetrators arent ready yet- you have to have above 2km/s impact velocity to produce holes wide enough to not interfere with following segments, but the nonspaced ones are. rounds as early as mango have the latter; it has 2 tungsten penetrator segments.
    Does not matter... It is still experimental and I will call it as such. 

    They were planning a next-generation round that was supposed to penetrate far more RHAe than the A3... Maybe this was the current-E4 project before some changes. maybe not. 

    They are not ready because they have not proven themselves... In fact, their performance versus composites and ERA may be inferior to a solid projectile (tests have been on RHA as with most rounds). 

    and the Mango was a rather unimpressive round...your point? 

    The DOD has spent millions developing a new round that is no better than their current round... Sounds about right.  lol1

    Spaced-models are in theory superior. We will have to wait and see. There are other technologies that should be invested in instead TBH.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:20 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Does not matter... It is still experimental and I will call it as such. 

    They were planning a next-generation round that was supposed to penetrate far more RHAe than the A3... Maybe this was the current-E4 project before some changes. maybe not. 

    They are not ready because they have not proven themselves... In fact, their performance versus composites and ERA may be inferior to a solid projectile (tests have been on RHA as with most rounds). 
    more RHAe penetrated does not always mean better round. who cares if your round could penetrate 1m of armor if it snaps like a twig upon encountering heavy ERA/NERA because its so long and thin like a rapier blade. you need to increase resilience of your round then, easiest way is to increase thickness- deducting lengths and consequently penetration. another way is segmented penetrators, as what they are trying to do with m829e4.
    Mike E wrote:
    and the Mango was a rather unimpressive round...your point? 

    The DOD has spent millions developing a new round that is no better than their current round... Sounds about right.  lol1

    Spaced-models are in theory superior. We will have to wait and see. There are other technologies that should be invested in instead TBH.
    my point is that the concept of nonspaced segmented penetrator is proven for decades- its not half-baked. but now that i think about it maybe they were having spaced segmented penetrator for m829e4, not likely, tho imo, since the gun cant provide the necessary muzzle velocity. but we'll see.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:27 am

    Yes...but that doesn't do you any justice. The E4 will penetrate the *same amount of RHA* as the A3, but *it may end off being less effective against composites and/or ERA. 

    The overall strength in the round has less to do with segmentation and more to do with material and design... To be honest all segmentation does to the "strength" of the round is negative. -  Case in point; the E4 uses a soft-metal buffer in between the rod segments, I do not see how this could not be a weakspot. Once hit by ERA it should (in theory?) cause the round to split in half, due to the placed weakspot. 

    It's not half-baked yet it shows no clear advantages *AND* still has yet to be proven effective v. a normal round. The ideas behind such a round seem smart but practice... I don't know.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:58 am

    Mike E wrote:Yes...but that doesn't do you any justice. The E4 will penetrate the *same amount of RHA* as the A3, but *it may end off being less effective against composites and/or ERA. 

    The overall strength in the round has less to do with segmentation and more to do with material and design... To be honest all segmentation does to the "strength" of the round is negative. -  Case in point; the E4 uses a soft-metal buffer in between the rod segments, I do not see how this could not be a weakspot. Once hit by ERA it should (in theory?) cause the round to split in half, due to the placed weakspot. 
    the weakspot limits the impact transmitted to the other segments- they would shear off before the adjacent segment is affected. if its a monobloc however the whole round is affected.and when it does the whole thing is off center and cracks develop before it even reaches the main armor if it isnt in pieces. at least with the segmented penetrator you have some segments that are still ok.
    Mike E wrote:
    It's not half-baked yet it shows no clear advantages *AND* still has yet to be proven effective v. a normal round. The ideas behind such a round seem smart but practice... I don't know.
    how is it less effective against composites and ERA if its more resilient to those, ie retains more of its original penetrating power after armor effects. in my extremes of an example the round capable of 1m penetration in RHAe would only scratch the surface of a modern armor array's base armor since it was snapped into itty bitty pieces by the outer reactive shell.

    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:21 pm

    The weakspot is weak, but that does not mean it cannot transfer energy. A solid-rod would have a greater chance of surviving the ERA as a whole, assuming it is a round of at least some quality. This segmentation guarantees the rod with "break" into halves. 

    As soon as the frontal-segment is slowed by the immediate armor (ie the solid material that typically is outside of the composite, with or without reactive armor) the following segments will transfer their energy. Think of it like this... After the first segments begin to penetrate, the following segment will begin to push on it. This is alright, but as soon as the two hit a composite the energy loss will be dramatic. In a single-rod the loss of energy would be a slope of sorts (continueslly falling though starting at a higher point) versus a more angular shape for segmented rods (lower-energy to begin with, then a "boost" via the other segment). 

    That sounds super ridiculous....but the simplest way for me to say it is the energy from the first segment will be less than half of the single-round (half the mass segment along with the added weight of a buffer) followed by another "less than half" transfer of energy. *Because the original segment will have less immediate mass behind it, it will decelerate much faster than the single-rod. Even when the extra-energy "kicks in", energy will have been lost due to the aforementioned loss in penetration AND energy consumed in the process. The buffer may be weak but that itself will (as you basically said) absorb some of the energy. (1/2 energy -> lower penetration -> less momentum ->  1/2 energy -> energy is consumed during transfer -> continued penetration). 

    This would work well against RHA because it isn't hard to penetrate by default, however denser and stronger composites would require the extra momentum and energy behind that round to be successful penetrated. To be honest this was all done in my head, but to my defense, energy would indeed be lost. 

    Most current MBT's don't feature ERA to begin with... In reality it is more popular in lighter, non-Western tanks. ERA *can* shatter a rod but that doesn't mean it *will*. The extremely dense and strong alloys used today (Tungsten alloys are not as brittle as they once were) could probably survive the initial layer of ERA and continue their way into the base armor. But, in the process of doing so they will have consumed most of their energy and will fail to penetrate (assuming we are talking about K-5 and Relikt not the older stuff). - That's one reason I don't put my trust into the estimates of armor on say the T-90, because people seem to underestimates the effect of strong ERA.

    The idea behind armor like DU is to shatter incoming rounds, the probably with that is most modern rounds are just as dense if not more so, and will penetrate them with ease. After all DU is not the strongest material out there...by a long shot.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:53 pm

    Mike E wrote:The weakspot is weak, but that does not mean it cannot transfer energy. A solid-rod would have a greater chance of surviving the ERA as a whole, assuming it is a round of at least some quality. This segmentation guarantees the rod with "break" into halves. 

    As soon as the frontal-segment is slowed by the immediate armor (ie the solid material that typically is outside of the composite, with or without reactive armor) the following segments will transfer their energy. Think of it like this... After the first segments begin to penetrate, the following segment will begin to push on it. This is alright, but as soon as the two hit a composite the energy loss will be dramatic. In a single-rod the loss of energy would be a slope of sorts (continueslly falling though starting at a higher point) versus a more angular shape for segmented rods (lower-energy to begin with, then a "boost" via the other segment). 

    That sounds super ridiculous....but the simplest way for me to say it is the energy from the first segment will be less than half of the single-round (half the mass segment along with the added weight of a buffer) followed by another "less than half" transfer of energy. *Because the original segment will have less immediate mass behind it, it will decelerate much faster than the single-rod. Even when the extra-energy "kicks in", energy will have been lost due to the aforementioned loss in penetration AND energy consumed in the process. The buffer may be weak but that itself will (as you basically said) absorb some of the energy. (1/2 energy -> lower penetration -> less momentum ->  1/2 energy -> energy is consumed during transfer -> continued penetration). 

    This would work well against RHA because it isn't hard to penetrate by default, however denser and stronger composites would require the extra momentum and energy behind that round to be successful penetrated. To be honest this was all done in my head, but to my defense, energy would indeed be lost. 
    you are assuming that there are only 2 segments, and both are of equal sizes. i think a more ideal setup would be more than 2 segments; the smaller segments at the front for the reactive shell and one longsegment, almost like a monobloc's in construction at the back. the smaller segments occupy a length equal to how far along the penetrator the ERA effect reaches. the reactive outer layer will chew on the smaller segments and some would fail, but then the penetrator train still goes on.

    Book.
    Book.

    Posts : 696
    Points : 755
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:28 pm

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 PkhefCE

    http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,23,8552,wojska-ladowe,wyposazenie,ukrainski-pancerz-reaktywny-noz-czesc-ii-noz-i-duplet

    The paper say duplet no1

    do think good? dunno
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:05 pm

    The more segments there are, the most energy that will be consumed penetrating, and the worse this effect will become. It also means more weight in buffer, and less in the actual DU or Tungsten. 

    That graph looks like BS to be honest. No-one knows the performance of Relikt, Nozh, or Duplet and I seriously doubt Ukraine could produce much more than a copy of K-5.

    That site is in Polish(?)....
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5294
    Points : 5497
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:51 pm

    Actually we know the performance of Nozh and Duplett, but not of relikt.

    http://btvt.narod.ru/4/noz/noz.htm

    And

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/02/blog-post_13.html

    Read it do understand more of the problems and benefits that come with it.
    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:58 pm

    Basically... Nozh ("Knife") works by exploding separate parts of the in different locations. An example would be if an APFSDS hit the top module of a Nozh brick, in which case the number of explosive elements below will detonate upwards, thereby shattering the long-rod in theory. 

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 N%C3%B3%C5%BC%205
    This shows that...as you can see how the "knives" impact the rod.  
    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 N%C3%B3%C5%BC%206
    This shows the same thing, but when the rod impacts on a different angle. The loss of efficiency when this happens is very dramatic and means it will have ~30% penetration reduction v. KE. 

    So the "Nozh" and "Duplet" ERA systems are very effective but also very susceptible to changes in circumstance. In fact, if impacted from above, they will have practically no effect o the penetrating rod because only one or two small ERA "elements" will impact them. 

    Another issue is dramatic weight gain...as the article says, the T-64BM Bulat has a whopping 5000 kilograms in ERA, "Nozh" in this case. 

    It is also claimed to not work well against tandem-warheads and also will detonate easier than say, Relikt. Fire a few 30mm shells and the ERA will be worth nothing as a result.

    Because of this "Duplet" was developed...it is basically "Nozh" that is double-layered (and hence even heavier).

    Sponsored content

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 13 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:47 am