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


+71
Azi
sepheronx
Arkanghelsk
Podlodka77
Scorpius
Cheetah
Tingsay
Rasisuki Nebia
Shaun901901
Broski
Lennox
Swede55
Mir
ALAMO
RTN
jhelb
flamming_python
Russian_Patriot_
x_54_u43
Backman
limb
Kiko
TMA1
Lurk83
lyle6
The_Observer
Atmosphere
SeigSoloyvov
lancelot
mnztr
Stealthflanker
Viktor
JohninMK
Sujoy
xeno
Mindstorm
TheArmenian
d_taddei2
AlfaT8
dino00
thegopnik
ahmedfire
AJ-47
marcellogo
Arrow
PhSt
Kimppis
miketheterrible
BenVaserlan
Vann7
Cyberspec
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
GarryB
kvs
bolshevik345
LMFS
Hole
hoom
medo
ult
The-thing-next-door
franco
George1
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
calripson
magnumcromagnon
PapaDragon
Isos
kumbor
75 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5744
    Points : 5941
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Werewolf Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:05 am

    If they use it it won't be for spearheading or any plans to make any difference on the battlefield.

    My guess would be, give little hints as Russia wants to test their tank and trying to attract US spies and efforts for propaganda war and maybe throwing all their assets on one location where they believe that one T-14 will be used. They would happily waste 100.000 Ukrops for just one foto of captured or destroyed Armata and the chance to study it. The West doesn't value human lifes at all.

    Russia might use this ruse to figure out more about western intel. They probably have inflatable Armata traps which might be used to fool satellite intel.

    Or

    They actually gonna test it in most controlled environment to have some tests done on low intensity and low risk targets.

    GarryB, Hole, lyle6, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34888
    Points : 35406
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:17 am

    Exactly... T-14 is more of a system and would work best surrounded by like systems including Kurganets and Boomerang based vehicles and presumably are designed to operate with artillery and close air support, which is not to say they would not be good on their own, but their current T-90s seem to be very much good enough... their ability to hit tank sized targets at 5km with standard anti armour rounds suggests they would be best used at distant targets that don't even realise they are under fire.

    Would be interesting if they developed new HE rounds with a semi armour piercing version that penetrates into light vehicles before it explodes... the standard HE Frag round has a range of safety fuse settings that allows it to explode on impact or after shallow penetration of light materials like buildings or cars, but having an actual armour piercing round with a HE filler would be very potent against a range of targets.

    Armour is good protection against smaller HE charges, but it works against you if penetrated by something that explodes because the armour goes from protecting to containing and intensifying the explosion by reflecting it around inside the vehicle.

    I wonder if they will use ground based robot vehicles with 30mm cannon and rocket launchers... they could fit one of those audio based weapons fire detection systems that hears enemy fire and determines the source and types of fire... sending in a few would allow you to map out locations various calibre weapons are located which can be directly engaged from T-90s sitting back a km or so.

    Werewolf, zardof, Hole, lyle6, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:01 am

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 324087
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 T499704

    medo, kvs, ALAMO, galicije83, zardof, LMFS, Hole and like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Nov 06, 2022 2:03 am

    3BM69/70 APFSDS:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 ZFtV1MT
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 WZHWTCB
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 3qL4cvz

    >900 mm long DU/WHA shaft with muzzle velocity of ~2000 m/s = gg; no re

    GarryB, Werewolf, kvs, ALAMO, galicije83, zepia, LMFS and like this post

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg


    Posts : 1391
    Points : 1488
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 31
    Location : Oldenburg

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg Fri Nov 11, 2022 5:14 pm

    Is the T-14 in production currently?
    Tolstoy
    Tolstoy


    Posts : 100
    Points : 96
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Tolstoy Sat Nov 12, 2022 6:05 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Is the T-14 in production currently?
    Yes. Started from last February. 132 T-14 expected to be produced in the first tranche.

    Hole and Belisarius like this post

    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:48 pm

    lyle6 wrote:3BM69/70 APFSDS:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 ZFtV1MT
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 WZHWTCB
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 3qL4cvz

    >900 mm long DU/WHA shaft with muzzle velocity of ~2000 m/s = gg; no re

    900mm long KE projectile is enough to penetrate 900mm of armor protection of any tank at 2000m...so this round is perfect for any wester tank for easly kill

    GarryB, kvs, lyle6, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:39 am

    galicije83 wrote:
    900mm long KE projectile is enough to penetrate 900mm of armor protection of any tank at 2000m...so this round is perfect for any wester tank for easly kill

    Ah, but NATOids are funny. They insist that their tanks have passive armor with thickness efficiency equal or even greater than 1, and at the same breath claim subcaliber shots that can pierce more steel than the length of the shaft even at normal. jocolor

    GarryB, kvs, The-thing-next-door, TMA1 and Belisarius like this post

    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:13 am

    This is bullshit from them. They do not have tanks with passive armore with thickness efficiensy greater then 800mm-850mm against APFSD....

    Also they best round is around ~780mm long so that is max what this round will pen of armor...

    GarryB, kvs, The-thing-next-door, Hole, lyle6, TMA1 and Belisarius like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 753
    Points : 757
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  TMA1 Sun Nov 13, 2022 9:03 am

    Agreed. They arent magicians. The length of the apfsds and the speeds discussed can only infer a pen of about maybe 800mm RHA. seen a lot of tests using relatively modern computer programs showing apfsds penetration depths on yt. Thry are neat, but I have yet to see an enterprising lad use one of these programs in combination with the latest we know in tank armor. Im talking the steels, ceramics and fibres in the right places and in the right configurations. This might be hard to program into the software though as things like ceramic composite matrices are complex structures and I dont think many of the programs seen on yt are capable of rendering such complicated objects. I bet that kind of software is only seen on a university or government level. I do wonder if these kinds of structures greatly reduce penetration. It used to be that generally penetration stayed the same even with newer armor, it just lowered weight in the tank. Now though with rumors we hear for example in the Armata, with CCM and other materials, I wonder if it isnt just weight reduction but also penetration reduction as aell.

    I will say one thing though that America does seem to have more advanced sabots for their darts. Arent they made mostly of carbon fibre? Also with a lighter sabot does it bring greater efficiency? I think it might but since Russia has gotten their longinus to speeds up around 2000 meters a second, this might not matter anyways.

    Edit:added some thoughts.
    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sun Nov 13, 2022 9:24 am

    This data is for DU sabots, not tungsteen, because they have less penetratio with same lenght then DU sabots. So i guess for 900mm dart of tungsteen aloy will have it around 800mm or so of penetration...

    No, the weight is important in this case also. If sabot is longer it means it has more weight with more speed it has more Kinethic energy witch means it has more penetration. In our case energy is massure by MJ.

    GarryB and TMA1 like this post

    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sun Nov 13, 2022 9:33 am

    You know mate there is a story in one of the Russians institutes in past. When some general asked one proffesor. What do you need to make batter round for tanks. He answer: i need only pancake. General was stuned with answer. But how?
    Proffesor said: Easy i need only speed for it and pancake will pen any armor on planet. Off course we do not have possibility to make pancake goes on that speed or any other object right now. In future maybe. So we need also greater mass of projectiles for penetration beside speed

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3469
    Points : 3471
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  ALAMO Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:00 am

    galicije83 wrote:This data is for DU sabots, not tungsteen, because they have less penetratio with same lenght then DU sabots. So i guess for 900mm dart of tungsteen aloy will have it around 800mm or so of penetration...
    No, the weight is important in this case also. If sabot is longer it means it has more weight with more speed it has more Kinethic energy witch means it has more penetration. In our case energy is massure by MJ.

    Well, the German tests didn't prove that. Germans don't use DU ammo deliberately and for a reason. Still, the round they are using equals M829 equivalent version. The penetration differences are of cosmetic character.
    There was a solid discussion in Germany some 10-15 years ago, as they have figured that the ammo they have stocked won't be enough for defeating the new Russkie tanks. And "a new" was not T-14, buy a mass modification of T-72B3 and the followers.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Broski like this post

    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:20 am

    Well germans say for DM 53/63: it can penetrat fro 650-740mm..can we be realistick here ther is no from-to penetration here its only one real value of penetration and it is in this case this first one 650mm at 2000m at 0⁰....



    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3469
    Points : 3471
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  ALAMO Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:28 am

    There is no "one and only" penetration value because too many variables define that at the very end. Some of them can't even be calculated, as are random in their structure.
    But what we have, is a serious discussion in one of the most advanced armor producers on the planet, that ended up without any conceptual change in the projectile's construction. They kept staying away from DU. That gives us a serious hint, agree?
    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 112
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 42
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  galicije83 Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:04 pm

    Well even Russians made t penetrators..its far more cheaper then du with slightely less penetrations.

    Yes its to much variabil in penetration but there is no from to..you can tell its around 740 or around 650 as Russians says for their sabots...but as i mention with DU you will have equal or more penetration from same lenght then with T penetrator witch has less.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10254
    Points : 10240
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:19 pm

    Not all apfsds are the same. So a tank may have a frontal armor of 800mm RHA against one apfsds but against another it can be 750mm.

    Some apfsds are very good against composite materials but would be very bad against RHA. I think it is the case for the last german apfsds.

    That's why all those values represent nothing today. They were very precise for t-55 to t-72A era tanks but after that they stated using composite armor.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:39 pm

    Exactly. It really depends on the type of target. Which is exactly why Russia has DU and WHA shafts in use instead of just one or the other.

    For instance, DU has the better penetration due to adiabatic shear banding, the 'self-sharpening', where the material erodes faster than it can accumulate at the interface between shaft and armor and most of the energy gets expended on a narrower hole than otherwise.

    However, this frangibility doesn't lend itself to resisting lateral disturbances from reactive armor and so DU shafts snap and break compared to WHA shafts which are much stiffer and would bend but not break.

    So against something like the Abrams, with its purely passive composite arrays, you might want to use the 3BM69 DU shaft for maximum penetration. For the Armata with its Monolith heavy ERA, the WHA 3BM70 would do.

    Other than that, DU is the cheaper material. Its basically waste by-product of nuclear industry, and far more easier to machine than WHA. Of course its a radioactive hazard, but if you get to the point that you need to manufacture industrial quantities of heavy metal subcaliber shots in short spans of time the danger is not that big of a deal.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34888
    Points : 35406
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Mon Nov 14, 2022 9:49 am

    Another factor is that while DU is nuclear waste in the west, in Russia their new fast neutron reactors means it is potential fuel for nuclear power plants.

    The radiation hazard from DU rounds is probably more problem than it is worth.

    For WWIII then no real problem because everyone is dead anyway... so stock some up for WWIII and just use other ammo till then.

    If tungsten rounds are not doing it they can always shift to 152mm rounds instead.

    Penetration performance is never precise, there are so many variations on armour that a hit to the left a few cms might mean guaranteed penetration, while hitting where you hit and it doesn't penetrate.

    Russia is generally very conservative when it talks about penetration performance so an armour penetrating 9mm pistol round might penetrate x amount of armour at 20m range generally it will often penetrate 50% more in practise but the figure given you can rely on for the round to penetrate cleanly and do damage to the target behind. Western figures for the same product will be 50% higher with small text saying sometimes penetration will be less or damage to target behind armour not assured.

    Not suggesting Russian claims of 650mm penetration at 2km means the real penetration is 975mm (50% more)... but assuming the angle of incidence is correct it should always penetrate at least 650mm of RHA.

    kvs, galicije83, Scorpius and Broski like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13611
    Points : 13756
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kvs Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:19 am

    TMA1 wrote:Agreed. They arent magicians. The length of the apfsds and the speeds discussed can only infer a pen of about maybe 800mm RHA. seen a lot of tests using relatively modern computer programs showing apfsds penetration depths on yt. Thry are neat, but I have yet to see an enterprising lad use one of these programs in combination with the latest we know in tank armor. Im talking the steels, ceramics and fibres in the right places and in the right configurations. This might be hard to program into the software though as things like ceramic composite matrices are complex structures and I dont think many of the programs seen on yt are capable of rendering such complicated objects. I bet that kind of software is only seen on a university or government level. I do wonder if these kinds of structures greatly reduce penetration. It used to be that generally penetration stayed the same even with newer armor, it just lowered weight in the tank. Now though with rumors we hear for example in the Armata, with CCM and other materials, I wonder if it isnt just weight reduction but also penetration reduction as aell.

    I will say one thing though that America does seem to have more advanced sabots for their darts. Arent they made mostly of carbon fibre? Also with a lighter sabot does it bring greater efficiency? I think it might but since Russia has gotten their longinus to speeds up around 2000 meters a second, this might not matter anyways.

    Edit:added some thoughts.

    You know what they say about computers: garbage in equals garbage out. Any simulation is only reflecting the limited set of assumptions and parameterizations of
    physical processes. This does not mean it is a waste of time, but it is not proof of much if there are factors that produce leading order effects that are ignored.

    Software here is custom models composed by researchers and nothing off the shelf. I know there are fluid dynamics packages from vendors such as Fluent. But
    if you want to solve custom problems, then you write custom code. To produce parameterizations you need empirical data from field testing and laboratory
    measurements. Youtube fanbois are not going to be lifelong researchers in materials science.

    Heterogeneous materials are challenging to model. But with the right set of properties they can deliver much in terms of function. I am sure there is an endless
    search for such useful characteristics and that any advances are top secret.

    The material of sabot darts is chosen to be stiffer than the nominal target armour which is assumed to be metal. There are high speed videos showing what
    happens to a bullet when it hits bullet-proof glass and it basically spreads like a liquid drop hitting the pavement. The glass is not as malleable as metal so the
    metal ends up yielding and the impact energy goes into its deformation. The trick is for the more brittle glass not to shatter and fail in this manner. Once you
    get into composite materials, the armour is no longer a malleable metal and the carbon fiber sabot dart does not have the advantage it had before.

    GarryB and lyle6 like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13611
    Points : 13756
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kvs Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:25 am

    The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself. When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
    as lung penetrating particulate. People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU. Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
    does not just go through the system. The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
    keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

    DU is a hack solution.

    limb
    limb


    Posts : 1186
    Points : 1212
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  limb Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:00 pm

    kvs wrote:The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself.   When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
    as lung penetrating particulate.  People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU.   Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
    does not just go through the system.   The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
    keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

    DU is a hack solution.  


    Isn't aerosolized tungsten just as deadly?
    White phosphorus smoke also destroys bones, but its still used. Burning rubber is highly toxic, but we still use rubber tires for APCs. DU saves lives by giving tankers an edge in destroying western tanks.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1147
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:39 pm

    kvs wrote:The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself.   When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
    as lung penetrating particulate.  People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU.   Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
    does not just go through the system.   The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
    keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

    DU is a hack solution.  


    Considering that it will only be used on nato filth, why sould anyone care?

    limb likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:41 pm

    kvs wrote:The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself.   When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
    as lung penetrating particulate.  People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU.   Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
    does not just go through the system.   The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
    keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

    DU is a hack solution.  
    When you put it that way DU sounds awesome. DU shafts are not just armor piercing, and incendiary, but they even have poison damage!  Twisted Evil  

    Of course its still only a f*cking moron who would use it for armor. But as projectiles, DU really seems like the perfect material.

    kvs likes this post

    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1199
    Points : 1205
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  thegopnik Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:57 am

    only thing I know of DU is that it offers 80mm-100mm more penetration than tungsten based on the svinets and vacuum rounds.

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:01 am