sesha_maruthi27
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 3,963
- Likes
- 1,803
The multilevel tank protection.
The Ukrainian Approach.
The Ukrainian Approach.
Yes, but not in serial production.Looking at NII STALI website give you an idea when Contact-5 and Relic was adopted
which problem?Yes, I have seen but the Problem remain same, Their is a new upgrade with ERA put over the vulnerable area, But that doesn't solve the problem, It need a total new deign..
you have a good fantasy drawing some "assumed" abrams armor which does not exist.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.
It is what it is, on photo.Andrei_bt assumed that M1's side armor
You knowladge about ERA is close to zero, so I don't consider this discussion deserving attention."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.
Outstanding style of measurment - try to bent the ruller more for better resultOh, but they were messured (we have photos), and Militarysta is currently working to have new photos of messures in better quality.
may you provide me such "my" statements about "complete inferiority of western designs".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.
Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.
The Problem we all can see, The inclined roof..which problem?
the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
See there are some people which assume Chobham armour would include no ceramics - and ceramics are known for having some big advantages as armour material - but they say "it could be just false claims made to irritate the enemy" and they want a proof that ceramics are used in the armour. But nobody ever wanted a proof that there is DU in the armour (maybe we could take the way damaged M1A1HA/HC were treatened as proof), although DU is from the known characteristics not better than ceramic armour can be. I think it is possible/probable that they use DU armour but I don't doubt for no reason that Chobham might include ceramics.We should consider that heavy metal alloys used in armors and APFSDS penetrators (at least these modern ones) are very different than these widely known to public. Also they do not act alone but as a whole with other materials. They are only one of many elements of protection... but still we should threat them as important element.
Where exactly do you see a problem with Western turret design?the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
Would you please give me/us the name of the source which includes this values or how you came to these values.Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.
As far as I see the steel behind the flat frontal box (i.e. in front of the main gun) is not as high as the armour box. Just the down-pressing of the ruler (to closely match the real thickness) might have lead to the "bending". You might have noticed that the measuring tape is not exactly parallel to the mantlet side, but both bending and slightly off angle shouldn't falsify the armour thickness much. ~50 cm seems to be correct.Outstanding style of measurment - try to bent the ruller more for better result
That's not really true. ATGMs have a large CEP, all I know have a CEP greater than 0.5 m (so up to two - three kilometers range late APFSDS have a better accuracy) - higher zoom does therefore not increase the accuracy, but only increases the maximum distance for spotting and identifying enemies.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.
How would any one know that if its in serial production or not , they would just do that quietly if they want to.Yes, but not in serial production.
What is that real problem with Leo-2 turret design ?the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
Correct 1.2 for export and 1.4 - 1.5 for non export over base armour , so it should be 120 --130 mm for export and 140-150 mm for non export.Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.
Russian Shtora-1 does not react on modern western lasers emission wavelength. Solved on Ukrainian "Varta".On a russian forum some time back, I read someone say that the Shtora electronic protection suite is what differentiates the Russian T90 from the Indian T90s, and that this difference is significant. A T-90 with the Shtora, apparently, is miles ahead of a T-90 without it. Kinda like the difference between a Su-30 MKI, and the Chinese MKK. Can anyone shed some light on this?
It has more WEIGHT , not armor.T-90 has 30 tons less armor than M1A2 Abrams.
In hull? Not in turret?Abrams uses DU in its hull armor
Quit this, no export\non-export Kontakt exist.Correct 1.2 for export and 1.4 - 1.5 for non export over base armour , so it should be 120 --130 mm for export and 140-150 mm for non export.
Correct 1.2 for export and 1.4 - 1.5 for non export over base armour , so it should be 120 --130 mm for export and 140-150 mm for non export.
Why are you posting 3 years ago old "news"?Pakistan shows Upgraded Al-Khalid , seems Ukraine is helping in upgrading their Al-Khalid tanks
Modernised Al-Khalid
Modernization of Al-Khalid Main Battle Tank (MBT)
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
W | Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank | Pakistan | 0 | |
T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective | Defence Wiki | 0 | ||
W | Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S. | Land Forces | 6 | |
W | Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia. | Pakistan | 68 |