any proof of your statements?
And any proof to Your statements? I was aksing for hard proof, and still nothing, because You have no proof to Your silly statements about complete inferiority of western designs.
what is the Leopard 2 A4 turret dimentions, left AND right side? Gun mantle?
60 or 65?
Why nobody try to measure?
Oh, but they were messured (we have photos), and Militarysta is currently working to have new photos of messures in better quality.
Maybe I have more of them somewhere on my HDD, but I would wait for new better quality pics.
I may admit, mostly they are not drawings to make such estimations, so it looks for me in same questions very funny.
Ah yes, but You was a person claming for years and still doing it, inferiority of western and Russian tanks compared Ukrainian "wunderwaffe's", and claiming that You know better what is a thickness of turret front armor of Leopard 2 or M1 tank. We proved that hese was pure fantasy of Yours.
What You do next? Shows us a pictures of old Soviet tanks after tests of modern ATGM and tells us that these tank are equivalent to much modern machines with improved armor protection. Are You thinking that people are idiots?
I don't know You have some pseudo patriotic complex that "hurraa Ukraine is the best and rest are loosers, they can't do anything properly", it is not even patriotism, it's a symptom of nationalism or even some sort of technological chauvinism.
I made a short note about Chinese turret design which was the "inspiration" for this biasad statements.
Why biased, and Your statements are what, i do not seen any criticism of BM Oplot from You, not even a single word, and we should belive You? It's obvious that You are biased, some people belive that You are directly connected (money if something would ask) to Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau, I do not know and these do not interest me, but there is something stragne that person claiming to be independent expert, are not making even one, single critical observation of his "beloved" machine. Even I, person that like, even much US designs, like the M1, have pointed many times that design is not perfect, and upgrades, even extensive ones, would be needed.
I see people without understanding of the question - since then the Chienise introduced TWO variants of their new turret - they are ready to learn on thair mistakes.
Of course they are learning, as any human being, I do not see here or anywhere else statements that they are unable to learn.
Chinese turret design has both emphasis of western and soviet design.
I do not see any emphasis on western design style for tank turrets in their designs. Turret bustle there is not even for ammo storage in seprated magazine, far from western emphasize on crew survivability.
Russian T-90A turret - it is a complete disaster - "shot trap", weakened zone on all over the turret, as ERA is implemented in a most atrocious way.
"Complete disaster", "shot trap", I do not see complete disaster nor shot trap, and Your faith in ERA is really silly, like it would be some super armor, ERA have disadvantages also, like anything else, and I see a smart move in NII Stali statements about decision to go from explosive reactive material in to non explosive, that will probably also have multi hit capability. Even Knife and Duplet have disadvantages.
For example if Knife cassette is hit over it's edges, the effectiveness will drop, most probably in very significant way, the question is probability of such hit, but it is possible. Dupet on the other hand is heavy, some people may even consider ti as way too heavy for ERA.
Besides this, tests on proving grounds or in laboratory are allways in perfect conditions, who knows, maybe in real condition protection of BM Oplot sometimes will drop to avarage. And I see weak points in it's design.
Why glacis plate do not have two layers of Knife/Duplet, but only one? Weight issues?
Why still that dangerous autoloading systems with exposed propelant charges? I seen the same statements from Israelis and British, and hey, they had projectiles or propelant charges stored in armored containers, no such thing in BM Oplot for example. Why nobody was thinking about this issue and crew survivability? Over confidence in armor protection? Oh in history of AFV's many lost their lifes due to over confidence in armor.
Western MBT - they differ, but mostly not better then Chinese.
The only western MBT that is not better than Chinese is Italian C1 Ariete, that I must say it, is a complete joke, such turret geometry and only thin RHA armor over it's sides? Same for K2 Black Panther by the way, complete lack of understanding that side armor is also exposed to hits over frontal arc. Or again, weight issues.
And by western I mean NATO. We need to remember that in NATO philosophy, crew is most important. You can repair, rebuild or build new tank, and it is much cheaper (in any meaning) than replacing a crew, especially well trained crew. + If crew know, that it have much higher chances to survive even armor perforation, they will fight better.
I don't consider anyone stating such delirium a person adequate to talk with.
Ahh, but isn't it very comfrotable approach, and it's not giving Your statements higher creditability, someone may think that You do not wan't to talk because You have nothing constructive to add.
And I must say it is partially true, especially when I see this ridicoulus "war" between You and Khlopotov... it have some good points though, both of You sometimes may unintentionally slip some usefull informations, not nececary ones that should be available to public.
And honestly I do not care about this, but when I see a statements of complete superiority or inferiority of some designs from You or something else I'am just sick.
For example You consider that BM Oplot is some super tank, at least it looks like. But in fact in many things it is prehistoric for today standards, it can shoot GLATGM but it seems that designers of FCS are not completely using this advantage. If You want to use precision guided munitions, it would be good to have as high as possible zoom for sights, so the gunner can guide missile in to weak zones precisely. In this perfect is just new FCS mounted in M1A2SEP with maximal 25x and digital 50x zoom for main sight or TC CITV. This have also other advantages, why even tank should fire itself to far located targets? Lase it, computer will calculate distance, then it will calculate coordinates and voila, TC can send them to artillery via BMS.
This is proper thinking about tank being part of bigger system and using advantages of new technologies.
This makes difference between me and You, You are making hard statements that are or biased, or based on partial informations.
I remember Your excitement when photos of M1 side turret armor appeared in the internet. You were quick in to making hard statements. I took this photos and spend months looking at them, and I find some details, that permitt me to assume that Your statements are based on uncomplete informations, making them false.
And I give here this example.
Andrei_bt assumed that M1's side armor composite inserts are made of only 3 layers, mounted on spring, that are mounted in to bolts, mounted to the turret backplate. And I would accept such design if, there would not be one, single and small detail, the backplate photos. The backplate is smooth, there is not even one single attache point for these bolts. So what we assume is that bolts are placed inside another set of layers, we do not known structure of these layers, but this is actually most plausible explanation.
As we can see, backplate is smooth, so we assume that it looks like this:
Don't treat the blue layers as they look on drawing, it is just simplified, my personal opinion is that to decrease weight, they look similiar to the red layers.
Insert is visible on engine deck. As we can see, no attacke points even on these bolts, also they do not seem to be welded to backplate either.
So Andrei, maybe reckonsider Your attitude, if not to UVZ designs, to at least non soviet designs... especially that You have tendency to ignore their history and the changes and improvements they went through their service life.
BTW, the M1 on photos is not dedicated anti tank weapon victim, it was disabled by IED, most probably it started to burn and was left behind BLUFOR without any fire extinguishing action, this is why it have such extensive damage. It was a complete loss, after shiping to US it was most probably examined by specialists from TACOM and GDLS, then cut and send for remelting.
The version of this M1 is most probably M1A1HA (manufactured from 1988 to 1990/1991 or M1A1HC (manufactured from 1990 to 1992/1993) not a more modern variants, so also it's protection is lower, it is possible that it's armor design is a bit different to the later variants.
People on the TankNet believe that DM53 will penetrate ~72 cm at 2 km.
