And then when they start talking about it's performance in combat....
"Firstly, the Ukrainian armed forces since 1993 were subjected to systematic degradation potential."
"Secondly, the army was totally unprepared for action in March 2014, and the situation of parliamentary coup d'etat led to the temporary inertia in the command structures of the armed forces, and to the growing importance of volunteer units and the Interior Ministry."
"First of all vehicles operate without a visible and effective support for infantry, worse usually forces platoons, and not companions or groupings battalion."
"We also lacked aviation support"
I think you get the idea... They lay out the typical excuses for why almost twenty BM's have been destroyed by people not much-more well armed than your average "terrorist" group.
Mike E wrote: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.
They tested against export versions of the ERA systems, before BitnikGR's 'Youtube' channel was taken down, he had uploaded back in '2011' a radio interview with a top Russian MIC insider, the interview main discussion point was about 'RAE-2011' and the export tank 'T-90MS' and it's improvements over 'T-90S'. The interview was broken up in to 3 parts, in the 2nd part of the interview the 'industry insider' explicitly stated that the chemical composition of the ERA tiles on domestic and export tanks were completely different from each other.
What worked well against the export ERA, doesn't necessarily mean it will work well against domestic ERA for that very reason, but as 'collegeboy' said, the Russian MIC aren't the type that likes to gamble and take chances.
Mike E wrote: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.
compromises have to be made somewhere to achieve the goal of increasing resilience to reactive armor. btw wouldnt this mean instead that segmented penetrators would have worse performance over purely passive RHAe steel and not opposite as you suggested.
and Nozh concept sounds pretty hard to beat- its fighting fire with fire, adding thickness wouldnt do much here since the SC jet would still just cut through. spaced segmented rounds seems to be the best answer so far- if they can make it so that the precursor arrives much earlier so the armor is virtually without ERA by the time the rest of the penetrator arrives.
Last edited by collegeboy16 on Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Mike E wrote: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.
compromises have to be made somewhere to achieve the goal of increasing resilience to reactive armor. btw wouldnt this mean instead that segmented penetrators would have worse performance over purely passive RHAe steel and not opposite as you suggested.
I would assume not, simply due to the fact that RHA is not a very "hard" material and hence takes less energy to penetrate.
Mike E wrote: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.
compromises have to be made somewhere to achieve the goal of increasing resilience to reactive armor. btw wouldnt this mean instead that segmented penetrators would have worse performance over purely passive RHAe steel and not opposite as you suggested.
I would assume not, simply due to the fact that RHA is not a very "hard" material and hence takes less energy to penetrate.
well compared to monobloc of the same dimensions and initial energy its worse. i forgot to add what im comparing it to .
We need a brand new measure for tank armor. RHAe capability seems representative BUT the problem is there are many type of RHA... Russian RHA may not be the same type and composition as US one... Even US have multiple type of RHA.
Or perhaps there's one "universal" RHA that one can use as reference ?
Another thing i notice is comparing tank gun life based on "EFC"... Same as RHA this require reference value (A round with EFC of 1 or any agreeable value) and given that Russian round is different to other country... well
There is however a better measure. Based on physical abrasion of the round toward the gun. The method is old (Sourced from US Army handbook in 1965) But i found that to be better... It's more covenient to say that this tank gun can fire xxx number of rounds before need to be condemned due to barrel abrasion.
Here's the respective handbook. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/462060.pdf
I'm already using some of the equations there for calculation of EFC (Where i realized that "EFC" of Russian gun CANNOT be compared with other's) Barrel erosion.
Mike E wrote: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.
This shows that...as you can see how the "knives" impact the rod. 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).
Spot on.
That is exactly the highly effeciency with Nozh but can be almost useless when CE/KE penetrators hit at an angle it will reduce the effeciency to levels of K1 or Blazer and have almost no effeciency against Sabots when Sabots hit at 90° to ERA plate. So this is the dilema that was tested by NII Stali of Nozh and Duplet, the problem i see it seems to have one negative point adopted or it might appear like Duplet.
Watch the Video of Duplet tested by NII Stali from minute 02:10. You can see that the Duplet ERA is mounted on T-64 in very long ERA tiles and the RPG-7 warhead hits the lower part right above the end of lower glacis. This type of Long ERA makes it dificult for the ERA to properly work against KE and Tandem HEAT rounds since only the precursor and Spike of Sabot is effected, but the rest of the penetrator is not. Look at the Armata ERA.
It has also long ERA tiles, well not as thick and long ERA tiles as Duplet but still...
EDIT: The other big problem with Nozh and even higher problem with Duplet is that it uses massive amounts of explosive charge. While russian K5 use 800 grams, Nozh uses up t 3kg and duplet is Nozh double layered, that is why it is called Duplet meaning up to 6kg ERA. While T-72/90 are equipped with 1,5 tons of Kontakt-5 ERA the contant of this 1.5 tons ERA tiles of explosive is less than 500kg while the T-64BM is equipped almost with 4.5 tons of ERA which contant of explosive charge is close to the entire K5 weight. That is why often near by ERA tiles are blown apart, this along with the problem that Ukraine has expiring ammunition and explosive which reported by Andrei BT have an increased pressure when initiated, meaning bigger unwanted explosion.
We need a brand new measure for tank armor. RHAe capability seems representative BUT the problem is there are many type of RHA... Russian RHA may not be the same type and composition as US one... Even US have multiple type of RHA.
Or perhaps there's one "universal" RHA that one can use as reference ?
Another thing i notice is comparing tank gun life based on "EFC"... Same as RHA this require reference value (A round with EFC of 1 or any agreeable value) and given that Russian round is different to other country... well
There is however a better measure. Based on physical abrasion of the round toward the gun. The method is old (Sourced from US Army handbook in 1965) But i found that to be better... It's more covenient to say that this tank gun can fire xxx number of rounds before need to be condemned due to barrel abrasion.
Here's the respective handbook. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/462060.pdf
I'm already using some of the equations there for calculation of EFC (Where i realized that "EFC" of Russian gun CANNOT be compared with other's) Barrel erosion.
It is hard to make a new unified value for estimation of penetration as an equivalent to penetrators performance, because performance various depending of what composition the composite armor has, so we rely on RHA steel which is to the biggest deal comperable for all, so a homogen material is always the best choice to test weapons penetration on it, since there is no constant of composite armor in their effeciency or composition, angles of interior plates and spaced armor etc.
Last edited by Werewolf on Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:06 am; edited 1 time in total
I think the T-14 uses multiple blocks within the one ERA structure. Russia has histroically gone for the smaller bricks and there is no reason why they would change that.
Collegeboy... The energy of which is worse? Not sure I understand.
And yes, the efficency of Nozh/Duplet dterorates significantly when placed almost vertically... Ukraine made the mistake of ignoring this on the Oplot-M, whose turret is covering in vertical bricks. Vacuum-1 would go through it like butter. - Oplot-M also exposes the frontal section of the bricks...any hit there would probably mow through them and then the hull.
RHA is used because it is of a similiar quality no matter where it is from. Different countries have different specifications but those differences are minor.
The missing detail in the above posted sabot graphic is that you have more than one panel of knife ejecting ERA. So even if it hits at the base of one panel, it can be sliced and diced by the adjacent ERA panel. Thus the graphic is misleading in some sense. The panels have to communicate and it is rather easy to set up a signaling system as to which set of panels react depending on where the sabot hits. Of course near various edges like the front of the glacis there is no solution to this problem. But I would think there would be research effort to come up with other approaches to slice up sabot rounds at these locations.
The problem with Zaslon is the entire block that has to be installed into the hull is quite large with only two warheads, meaning you can have only 4 APS countermeasures for side hull, not the frontal projection and unlikely to be installed for rear projection since that would be a real problem in urban warfare. This huge blocks leaving a gap in armor where otherwise ERA could have been installed or NERA. Other systems have double the APS launching tubes or even more. and not just side 90° projection but also for frontal and top sphere.
afghanistan hard kill interceptor, if i am not mistaken. so it really is an EFP. erroneously thought all this time its HE-frag. very elegant in operation in theory too i might add. instead of fragile swiveling mount prone to battle damage the interceptors themselves change their orientation/ rotate around to their targets. they also split their targets lengthwise, delivering the most damage. not only that each interceptor has greatly overlapping sectors with the nearby of its kind and are ready to pop out at moment's notice- as long as the radar can function well the system can cope with about as much projectiles as there are interceptors that overlap that sector.
collegeboy16 wrote: afghanistan hard kill interceptor, if i am not mistaken. so it really is an EFP. erroneously thought all this time its HE-frag. very elegant in operation in theory too i might add. instead of fragile swiveling mount prone to battle damage the interceptors themselves change their orientation/ rotate around to their targets. they also split their targets lengthwise, delivering the most damage. not only that each interceptor has greatly overlapping sectors with the nearby of its kind and are ready to pop out at moment's notice- as long as the radar can function well the system can cope with about as much projectiles as there are interceptors that overlap that sector.
That is speculation...the Warheads themselfs have a HE-Frag designation so that is more likely to be the case then the speculations.
Werewolf wrote: That is speculation...the Warheads themselfs have a HE-Frag designation so that is more likely to be the case then the speculations.
makes a lot more sense then. its a lot easier to implement and just as effective- also retains that secondary antipersonnel capability. just not as cool as an EFP slicing missiles cleanly in half with linear EFP tho.
Werewolf wrote: That is speculation...the Warheads themselfs have a HE-Frag designation so that is more likely to be the case then the speculations.
makes a lot more sense then. its a lot easier to implement and just as effective- also retains that secondary antipersonnel capability. just not as cool as an EFP slicing missiles cleanly in half with linear EFP tho.
An EFP APS warhead would have hard time trying to hit precisley incoming Sabots with a tiny forming knife, when it is false aligned just a single degree it will miss and have zero effect, to complex such a system would have to be to always precisely cut into the incoming threat and EFP can fly up to 50 meter or more, i don't think it is appreciated by anything in the surroundings while Fragments can't penetrate armor, EFP warhead of that size which is bigger than human head would probably pierce side armor of a BMP-3.
Guys I got a question on western tanks, Specifically the FCS of them. The M1A2 SEP uses a very advanced FCS as to my knowledge, Even the M1A1s in 2003 had excellent accuracy, I read about hits at about 3 KM with the M829A1 accurately onto tanks. Does anyone have information on the FCS used in the M1A2 SEP V or on the M1A1 FEP. Im assuming it should be accurate as a aim bot with all those funds they freaking have. Now onto my question, Would any of you tank experts compare them to lets say Russian tank FCS technologies?
VladimirSahin wrote:Guys I got a question on western tanks, Specifically the FCS of them. The M1A2 SEP uses a very advanced FCS as to my knowledge, Even the M1A1s in 2003 had excellent accuracy, I read about hits at about 3 KM with the M829A1 accurately onto tanks. Does anyone have information on the FCS used in the M1A2 SEP V or on the M1A1 FEP. Im assuming it should be accurate as a aim bot with all those funds they freaking have. Now onto my question, Would any of you tank experts compare them to lets say Russian tank FCS technologies?
lel. FCS of all modern tanks are actually very similar in capability. most can detect AFVs at 5km or so; ident. from at least 2.5 km and have very high hit (90% is the number most commonly touted) probabilities at 2 km and below.
now with that in mind, what would really matter are the measures taken to reduce your own signature be it IR, radar, or visual. most tanks could avail of multispectral cammo and ofc. tactics like hull down, deploying smokescreens, etc.
I have come up with an idea...why don't we all name our favorite *non-Russian* modification of the T-72 (I'm bored xD).
For some reason, to me, the M-84 has always seemed to be a solid vehicle. As such it, namely the M-95D and M-90 Vihor would have to be my personal favorite.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
.
