Jump to content


Photo

Armata


  • Please log in to reply
1012 replies to this topic

#61 dejawolf

dejawolf

    Grand sack of flour

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trondheim, norway

Posted 30 December 2014 - 2036 PM

what fofanov writes on the T-95:

 

http://fofanov.armor...BT/n_tagil.html


  • 0

#62 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 2247 PM

what fofanov writes on the T-95:

 

http://fofanov.armor...BT/n_tagil.html

 

It is very old and it seems he does not care about it anymore. He stated that "The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull", but I don't think this is possible, especially with crew in the hull, because in that case, you cant place enough armor in the side against flank. This is the weakness of crew in the hull, as the hull can not be rotated to change the protected direction like the turret, so a flank ambush will guarantee penetrate the tank at some smaller calibers, e.g even with 40mm auto cannon. With turret, you can have thicker side armor than the hull, and can be rotated

 

The main advantage of crews in hull is low profile, which is harder to hit, and the tank is stronger since most of its mass is static. But for offensive tank without hull down position, and the precision of modern guns, aiming a bit lower is not that hard. Also, the LOS thickness of the hull is limited, e.g. the Leopard 2 has 1.5m LOS for armor, I doubt this could be applied for hull armor


  • 0

#63 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 31 December 2014 - 0603 AM

Actually hull can be better armored than turret, with my collegue we were discussing this issue and he made some drawings, I won't show all of them here but one can be shown, tank concept is inspired by several real world technology demonstrators and prototypes.

 

ws49zl.jpg

 

Front hull armor effective thickness is 1,5m or more, shaped so eventuall additional armor modules or ERA can be installed without problems. Turret is of course unmanned, and is smaller than it looks like because it can mount addon armor present on drawing and APS components.

 

"Naked" without addon armor such vehicle can weight ~50 metric tons, with full set of addon armor it's weight will increase to ~60 metric tons.


Edited by Damian, 31 December 2014 - 0606 AM.

  • 0

#64 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1108 AM

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret. And the hull can not be rotated to face the most dangerous direction, so its side will always be static. When a large formation goes forward side by side, they always expose the flank, this is simple geometry. And I doubt the hull can be armored to the +- 30 degree like the turret (which means side armor thickness is at 1/2 of front armor) because there is no space for it. That is the weakness of the hull

 

And IIRC, the LOS of leo 2 is nearly 2m, even bigger than your future tank. The foremost point of the wedge runs to the front of the tank.


  • 0

#65 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1129 AM

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret.

 

hull side 250-300mm without any problem on some real soviet project + external armor modules 300-500...


  • 0

#66 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1235 PM

Uh huh. And where are they now?


  • 0

#67 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1300 PM

the same place where the Soviet Union now...

 

but some "new" tanks based on soviet design


  • 0

#68 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1314 PM

So I thought....


  • 0

#69 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 31 December 2014 - 1332 PM

When it was announced that the T-95 was one of the cancelled projects, I was completely gutted since I was really hoping to finally get a good look at this monster which had been lurking in the shadows for the last couple of decades, creating arguments and debates all across the cyber world.

 

Now I'm thinking the same thing about the Armata.  I'd like to see the tank rolling off the production lines (good for maintaining skills, jobs, etc), looking all sleek and menacing but I just don't know...


  • 0

#70 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 31 December 2014 - 2316 PM

 

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret.

 

hull side 250-300mm without any problem on some real soviet project + external armor modules 300-500...

 

 

Even 500 seems too little for all around protection against full caliber KE. Current front armor is 800+, and I guess to keep up with next gen ammo, 1m+ LOS is required.

 

In theory, hull armor must always sacrifice 700mm for the track, while a similar space can be used for turret side armor. Of course if you ignore the width limit then the hull side can have as much armor as needed, or just use pure heavy metal which may triple the weight easily.

 

The armata and T95 place all three crews side by side, so I doubt they could get that much of armor (250-300mm) for the side.


  • 0

#71 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 01 January 2015 - 0322 AM

Any idea what it looks like?

 

I'm guessing a beefy hull with a low profile saucer turret.


  • 0

#72 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 01 January 2015 - 1220 PM

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret. And the hull can not be rotated to face the most dangerous direction, so its side will always be static. When a large formation goes forward side by side, they always expose the flank, this is simple geometry. And I doubt the hull can be armored to the +- 30 degree like the turret (which means side armor thickness is at 1/2 of front armor) because there is no space for it. That is the weakness of the hull

 

And IIRC, the LOS of leo 2 is nearly 2m, even bigger than your future tank. The foremost point of the wedge runs to the front of the tank.

 

Wrong, hull sides can be armored just as well or better if combined with external modules.

 

The vehicle at drawing here have side hull armor over crew compartment is 180mm (composite), over ammunition storage compartment is 90mm and over engine compartment is 45mm, rear is 45mm, additional to this there are avaiable two sets of addon armor, composite 120mm thick + ERA.

 

2gucub9.jpg

 

So side protection is solid, for crew compartment is it 300mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

For ammunition compartment it is 210mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

For engine compartment it is 165mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

 

You can replace ERA with thicker composite armor if necessary.

 

Dimensions of this tank project are:

 

Full lenght - 13 184 mm,
Hull lenght - 9328 mm,
Width with tracks - 3532 mm,
Hull width with basic side skirts - 3625 mm,
Hull width with side skirts + ERA - 4387 mm,

Maximum and minimum ground clearence (vehicle uses hydropneumatic suspension with variable ground clearence) - 588/208 mm,

Vehicle height to turret roof - 2724 mm.

 

Als I would not overestimate Leopard 2 front turret LOS, most of it is empty space.


Edited by Damian, 01 January 2015 - 1224 PM.

  • 0

#73 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 01 January 2015 - 1356 PM

All these have been possible before. Any idea why not undertaken? Have said conditions changed?


  • 0

#74 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 01 January 2015 - 1509 PM

Cold war ended, defence budgets cut, no need for further revolutionary development as existing design had enough modernization potential for existing and possible threats seen for near term future.

 

But at some point design change must happen, unless armor weight could be decreased so we can increase protection without increasing weight above reasonable levels.


  • 0

#75 dejawolf

dejawolf

    Grand sack of flour

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trondheim, norway

Posted 02 January 2015 - 1102 AM

not exactly the same, but similar concept:

bmpt.jpg

 

however, instead of unmanned turret, it has a manned low-profile turret.

48 tons, front hull is T-90 level, close to 800mm, side hull has full-width heavy ERA protection, although in the standard configuration it only protects against ATGMs at 30 degree off angle from front. 

but with improved corrugated ERA on the sides, it protects against ATGM from the sides as well.

pic of corrugated ERA from BTVT.

image001.jpg


Edited by dejawolf, 02 January 2015 - 1103 AM.

  • 0

#76 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 2201 PM

Is there any source that say Russian ERA protect against ATGM from side?


  • 0

#77 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 2243 PM

I can see why the corrugated ERA would work better from the side.

 

ERA needs to be oblique relative to the attack in order to work properly.  The ERA that attaches flat to the sides only works if the attack occurs from a most-frontal angle.  The corrugated stuff is oblique even from a 3 or 9 oclock hit.


  • 0

#78 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 0606 AM

It seems NERA works better against tandem warhead, since the precursor warhead will detonate the whole ERA but not NERA. And corrugated ERA doesn't help against tandem warhead, so this corrugated ERA against ATGM seems to be a fake.


  • 0

#79 lemd

lemd

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 0626 AM

 

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret. And the hull can not be rotated to face the most dangerous direction, so its side will always be static. When a large formation goes forward side by side, they always expose the flank, this is simple geometry. And I doubt the hull can be armored to the +- 30 degree like the turret (which means side armor thickness is at 1/2 of front armor) because there is no space for it. That is the weakness of the hull

 

And IIRC, the LOS of leo 2 is nearly 2m, even bigger than your future tank. The foremost point of the wedge runs to the front of the tank.

 

Wrong, hull sides can be armored just as well or better if combined with external modules.

 

Als I would not overestimate Leopard 2 front turret LOS, most of it is empty space.

 

Damian, you don't understand. What I said was that for the same width, turret can be thicker armored because the hull must leave 700mm for empty air. If your tank can have 300mm at hull side, turret can have 300mm + 700mm

 

Most of Leo2 wedge is empty air, but theoretically, you can fill it with material in secret. War is a top secret business, and you think a naive person like you can estimate what the plan they had prepared in case of war? They can add several layers to that wedge and you still can not have a clue about it from a look. For example, normally Challenger 2 weight over 60 tonnes, but in war, some tanks was up to 75 tonnes. This happens all the time in history.


Edited by lemd, 03 January 2015 - 0629 AM.

  • 0

#80 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 03 January 2015 - 0628 AM

The "Air" has a role. The spacing, angling and the design of the modules is very intentional. If you will it with something it becomes less effective.


Edited by seahawk, 03 January 2015 - 0628 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users