Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We don't know what actually amount of money of these 1,8 milliards will go directly on shells producing, how much on production preparation for absolutely new ammunition and how much on official's villas and cars %). And we don't know terms of contract and producing capabilities. May be I very pessimistic, but I supposed, that first numder in 100 millions is a real funds for shells %)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, of course. How can you assume then, then what was presented isn't a yearly contract for example, and in fact around 60K 3BM60 rounds were procured on a yearly basis starting 2013? Same BS, different opinion spectrum, and just as valid if we really concentrate on what information we have available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haiduk 218 T-90As? Who gave you these numbers Mr. Poroshenko? The T-72B3 numbers are more like 800 and more being upgraded. From memory T-90As should be 450-500 (I can't remember the exact figure) Plus the T-90s in reserve which make it to around 700. Our MoD thought saving the money over years for the T-14 was worth it. (And I'm sure it is) T-72B3s are a very half *** upgrade, Also intended to save money for T-14. But in all reality, It is enough for now. T-90As would more be used in a situation like a war in Ukraine vs NATO, But T-72B3s would compliment them, As they are in larger numbers. 

I was just recently talking to a army colleague who was a tank commander on a T-72B then transferred over to the T-72B3 in the southern military distract. His complaints on it was that the Commander still has the ancient periscope. I finally got to ask him actually (I've been wanting to ask him for months) how long it would take to identify western class tanks at long distances, During drills they would practice on tank sized targets, And from 2 KM it is possible to identify and engage 2 tank like targets in 16-18 seconds total (spotting, Identifying, Aiming, Firing)

Although it is difficult to identify with the commander's sight on the B3 at those ranges, The gunner has no problem spotting AFVs. 

Today I ran another test (guys I haven't taken any screenshots I don't even know how to upload them here) T-90AM at 1980 meters distance versus M1A2. I also discovered another bug while at it. The M1A2 ate all 13 APFSDS, All HEAT. When the T-90AM (A.I.) ran out of HEAT and AP, He didn't fire anymore even though he had 4 ATGMs left. There has to be a look into the Armor, And spotting in this game again. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is obviously an outlier case, possibly exposing a behavior problem that would only occur in such outliers.  I tested T-90AM against M1A2 probably hundreds of times and never saw such an extreme outlier.  If we can't reproduce it, we can't report a bug.

Do you have a save of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ! I forgot about T-72B3 ! Russian Wiki says about 1000 such tanks, but this number also very doubt. 

2012 - 120 шт.
2013 - 270 шт.
2014 - 294 шт.
2015 300 шт.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is promotional publication. If we have underrporting data in promotion then that is anti-promotion.

One of the great tricks of the defense industry is rarely will the customer actually find out if you have been truthful in performance numbers.  P/k ratios for missiles (even with live fire testing), efficiency of sensor platforms and even protective layers have all had their classic examples of divergence between what's on the box and performance regardless of nationality.  The only reason I have any sort of faith in the M829A4 is simply because as part of the acceptance it was likely accepted after a very specific flavor of live fire testing specifically for its ability to achieve reliable results in said live fire test.  

It'd be a real shot in the arm for some companies however, if some countries all ditched K-5 in favor of newer ERA arrays, and I imagine claiming to neutralize the M829 makes for good selling points at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically they tested it against Relikt or something built  according to Relikt specifications obtained thanks to the almighty dollar  and found effective. The Russians probably know that you know, they have almighty dollars too and a rich history of using HUMINT  and could have changed Relikt in such a way that would  invalidate the test's results. But they never saw war with the US as a real possibility until very recently so they probably didnt think it was necessary. The US too btw, they wanted something to beat Relikt just in case Russia started selling it widely to targeted client-state considered hostile by the US.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically they tested it against Relikt or something built  according to Relikt specifications obtained thanks to the almighty dollar  and found effective. The Russians probably know that you know, they have almighty dollars too and a rich history of using HUMINT  and could have changed Relikt in such a way that would  invalidate the test's results. But they never saw war with the US as a real possibility until very recently so they probably didnt think it was necessary. The US too btw, they wanted something to beat Relikt just in case Russia started selling it widely to targeted client-state considered hostile by the US.

Relikt in the short term is a non-factor given its current level of proliferation and deployment. More realistically it represents a good jumping off point to defeat tomorrow's ERA.  The threat has never been realistic simply because at this point in the game Russian client states that have money, or are not crippled with their own internal problems are fairly limited.  

In regards to changing Relikt, I am doubtful.  There's practical "throw" weights to ERA, and making something better adapted to say, a slower heavier projectile might just result in making something too slow to deal with older projectiles.  There's a pretty narrow window of adjustment for anything that's trying to defeat a sabot type round, and frankly detonating earlier, or later isn't going to have as much of an effect if we're dealing with something that's basically designed to physics its way through ERA effects.  

Further while M829A4 has only just gone from being an experimental round, Relikt has been offered for export for some years.  In terms of using technical exploitation it is a much earlier problem to solve, the tiles exist they are for sale/have been on display somewhere they could walk off from.  The M829A4 has not.  

Russia is not the Soviet Union.  It has some decided intelligent capability, but no longer the resources, the third party actors, or ideological pull it used to have.  And in regards to stealing secrets frankly they're lightyears worse than the Chinese these days, who do have the money and third party actors.  

Also HUMINT is marginal in this case, and frankly I wish folks would stop acting as if that abbreviation was some magic invocation for perfect intelligence.  There's not many folks who work on modern defense projects these days that have a grasp on the entire system (simply because of technical complexity and cross disciplinary design) that comprising one or two people will not strictly give you the sort of picture you need  (or one more useful than sitting down with scaled photos and slide rules will give you). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not talking about getting the tech specifics of the round but more about knowing that it was tested against Relikt. I agree they are not as efficient  in stealing tech as they used to bebutbthry still rely much on human intelligence. . I didnt know the specifics of how heavy ERA works and that going heavier and slower would defeat it. Doesn't that reduce the round's capability against normal armor ? It seems that segmenting the round is efficient too.

 

 

In regards to changing Relikt, I am doubtful.  There's practical "throw" weights to ERA, and making something better adapted to say, a slower heavier projectile might just result in making something too slow to deal with older projectiles.  There's a pretty narrow window of adjustment for anything that's trying to defeat a sabot type round, and frankly detonating earlier, or later isn't going to have as much of an effect if we're dealing with something that's basically designed to physics its way through ERA effects.  

Further while M829A4 has only just gone from being an experimental round, Relikt has been offered for export for some years.  In terms of using technical exploitation it is a much earlier problem to solve, the tiles exist they are for sale/have been on display somewhere they could walk off from.  The M829A4 has not.  

Russia is not the Soviet Union.  It has some decided intelligent capability, but no longer the resources, the third party actors, or ideological pull it used to have.  And in regards to stealing secrets frankly they're lightyears worse than the Chinese these days, who do have the money and third party actors.  

Also HUMINT is marginal in this case, and frankly I wish folks would stop acting as if that abbreviation was some magic invocation for perfect intelligence.  There's not many folks who work on modern defense projects these days that have a grasp on the entire system (simply because of technical complexity and cross disciplinary design) that comprising one or two people will not strictly give you the sort of picture you need  (or one more useful than sitting down with scaled photos and slide rules will give you).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could have changed Relikt in such a way that would  invalidate the test's results.

Well, "changed Relikt" wouldn't be Relikt anymore ;) That would constitute a new generation of ERA altogether. Given that Relikt was adopted nearly a decade ago it is not a surprise that in fact the Russians do have something in the pipeline, but it seems to be earmarked for T-14. I have not seen anything on plans to fit it to older AFV designs.

The new Russian T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) is equipped with a new generation of explosive reactive armour (ERA), according to a source at the Tractor Plants company.

The ERA, developed by the NII Stali research institute "can be described as an innovative one" the source said. "Its specifications exceed those of Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, and Relict 9 [ERA systems]". He did not provide IHS Jane's with further details, saying only that the ERA has "no known world equivalents".

The source said the new armour's resistance to armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding-sabot (APFSDS) rounds was significantly increased in comparison with the older ERA systems. "The high protective characteristics of the new armour aren't provided by the simple increase of explosive mass in its containers," said the source. He pointed out that the detonation of an ERA box would not damage the electronics and other equipment installed under the armour.

"The new ERA can resist anti-tank gun shells adopted by NATO countries, including the state-of-the-art APFSDS DM53 and DM63 developed by Rheinmetall [and] anti-tank ground missiles with high-explosive anti-tank warheads," the source said.

http://www.janes.com/article/52464/russia-s-t-14-armata-mbt-has-new-gen-era

That's the company rep's spiel. Ultimately it will be up to BFC to take their best educated guess as to it's actual performance should they decide to include T-14 in the future.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your first point, knowing something is not effective or has been compromised is not the same as being able to do something about it.  There's likely going to be the next generation of ERA out there somewhere though and it will likely be based on the understanding that previous generations are compromised.  

In regards to the rest:

All rounds are compromises, practically speaking a three ton bolder traveling at 30 m/s will wreck a tank, as would a speck of dust traveling at .9 of light speed or whatever.  M/s isn't always the consummate measure of round performance.  A heavier round will still impact with significant energy, and further as a historical example the M829A3 is something like 100 m/s slower than the M829A2 while still being able to reliably go through most threat armor arrays.  We're not talking about going from 1,500 m/s to 900, it's fairly modest drops.  

Segmenting the round is another one of the techniques used.   It's all part of making something that is effective on multiple tiers, I just tend to talk about the denser round because the drop in velocity was something that threw me for a minute too when I first heard about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About armoring of T-90A again. In RuNet exists an article "T-90A vs M1A2. Other opinion". I don't know who is author, possibly it is copywriting, but it very interest. Here it full article, posted on Russian WoT forum: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/727654-т90а-vs-m1a2sepv2-другое-мнение/

I translate a place about T-90A glacis armor:

 

The glacis has 215 mm of thickness under 68 degrees (60 mm rolled steel + 105 mm 5-layer filler of three STEF plates and two hard steel plates + 50 mm rear plate of rolled steel). This construction has resistance about 530 mm KE and about 600 mm CE. Also on the glacis mounted Kontakt-5 ERA, which have to reduce effectiveness of KE on 20 % anf CE up to 50 %, so total 730 mm against KE and 1100 mm against monoblock CE. But need to say that effect of ERA on every type of kinetic ammunition is individaual. For example, soviet APFSDS 3BM42 Mango during test from 1500 m after glacis hit, have defeated ERA and deepen on 300 mm /means 300 mm LOS - my comment/ in the armor mssive w/o penetration. 3BM42 has 515 mm of penetration from 1500m, so we have 200 mm of penetration degradation. Tests of T-80UD armor with K-5, handed over to NATO /means UKR T-80UD given to USA/ showed that degradation of penetration of DM53/55 is 150 mm and US M829A3 is 80 mm. So, against US M829M3, the resistance of most protected glacis zones of  T-90A will be on 600-610 mm level, that maintains it's hit from 6000 m.

Under article in comments, the author adds: "I forgot about 16 mm hard steel plate on glacis, I thought it was removed, but not". So to calculated above 600 mm we should to add 16mm*1,3/ 0,38= 55 + 600 = 655 mm resistance against CE. For KE 16*1,34/ 0,38=56+530=586 mm against KE. I took coefficients by Zaloga, though it can be optimistic variant, because in latest discussions about armor strength calculations the coefficient for hard steel assumes 1,1...1,2 depending of sort of steel.   

The front turret resistance w/o ERA in this article calculated in 600 mm against KE and 800 mm against CE 

This composition of glacis radically differ iеself from the picture of T-90A glacis cut, which I posted on page 4. If anybody can to calculate roughly its resistance, try it. I will try tomorrow too :)  

 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The article assumes T-90A glacis composition and LoS thickness of a late T-72A.
  • The article assumes T-90A turret passive armor array composition is the same as on T-72B. 
  • The article claims that side panels are not ERA.
  • The article claims that cardboard casing is more dangerous and explosive then brass one, when in fact it is in reverse. 

There are other bits and bobs, but according to the text you gave us T-72B '89 is better armored then T-90A '05. 

 

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a PBEM, I just destroyed two T-90s with one Abrams round. Is this realistic? The round went through the rear part of the first T-90 and into the side hull of the second one.

From what I can see, that APFSDS impacted the engine compartment, which means it went through around 3.7m LOS of varied strength metals, exited through an ERA panel and managed to conserve enough KE to breach another Relikt Array. Knowing that Sabots mostly disintegrate upon impact with metals, I'd say this is a very optimistic representation on one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the CMx2 engine internal components such as engines are modeled abstractedly and armor piercing projectiles do not disintegrate, they keep going until they run out of energy, so you tend to see two-for-one specials more often than in reality. It's not anything particular to Black Sea, it happens in the WW2 titles also.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the CMx2 engine internal components such as engines are modeled abstractedly and armor piercing projectiles do not disintegrate, they keep going until they run out of energy, so you tend to see two-for-one specials more often than in reality. It's not anything particular to Black Sea, it happens in the WW2 titles also.

Penetrating two tanks is not unheard of (various German big guns vs Shermans/T-34s, M26s vs T-34/85s, M1A1 vs T-72M1s), but it is unrealistically common in Combat Mission in my opinion.  

These two statements do a nice job of defining the current state of CM post-penetration ballistics. Whereas the actual projectile/armor interaction is very well modeled (with a few outlier exceptions), the post-penetration effects on the projectile do not seem to modeled (beyond first-order effects?). The lack of dynamically changed projectile deformation, shear, disintegration, or other physical changes seem to be what's causing some of the excessive performance. This is obviously an extraordinarily complex topic and to model it in-game and keep any kind of framerate would require extreme simplifications.

Having said that, I don't think any engine block presents much of an obstacle to modern armor piercing projectiles. Engines utilize light-weight metals, chosen for their thermodynamic properties. Magnesium (rare), aluminum (very common), and other materials (rubber hoses, water/anti-freeze, air gaps and cylinder spaces) do not present anywhere near the resistance of a layered, composite, armor. High powered rifle rounds (.50 caliber class) can easily penetrate engine blocks.

It is not solid metal.

Penetrating an ERA block from the opposite direction it is designed to resist would, in my opinion, almost totally negate the ERA block's resistance values. (Since that resistance is predicated on the explosive properties of the block, coupled with shearing movements of the overlay armor. Penetrating from the back of the block may not even allow for any detonation of the block.)

So, rear armor, then engine block, then ERA from behind does not offer a tremendous amount of resistance (as measured in relative terms to the RHAe of modern glacis/front turret protections).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skipped a lot of posts on this last page to throw in my 2 cents on a comment by Vlad. When he said Russia never rly thought war with the west was a serious possibility until recently.

I really hope the higher ups on both sides truly realize that a real US Russian war would be a bloodbath and almost certainly go nuclear.

Its like Gen LeMay urging Kennedy to strike the Soviets. He assured the President the US would win. Kennedy asked about US casualties and LeMay aswered 'only 30-40 milliom'

Kennedy was obviously appalled. Anyways sorry and continue.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he said Russia never rly thought war with the west was a serious possibility until recently.

I think this has more to do with what the Russian government wants the people to believe than Russian intentions.  Not to get all overly political but historically the most unifying thing for Russia has been an external threat, (much the same with the US, although terrorism is largely what we've chosen to fear these days).  In terms of establishing regieme survival some manner of danger from the outside draws a lot of attention from more pressing (but difficult to solve) domestic troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I don't think any engine block presents much of an obstacle to modern armor piercing projectiles. Engines utilize light-weight metals, chosen for their thermodynamic properties. Magnesium (rare), aluminum (very common), and other materials (rubber hoses, water/anti-freeze, air gaps and cylinder spaces) do not present anywhere near the resistance of a layered, composite, armor. High powered rifle rounds (.50 caliber class) can easily penetrate engine blocks.

It is not solid metal.

Penetrating an ERA block from the opposite direction it is designed to resist would, in my opinion, almost totally negate the ERA block's resistance values. (Since that resistance is predicated on the explosive properties of the block, coupled with shearing movements of the overlay armor. Penetrating from the back of the block may not even allow for any detonation of the block.)

So, rear armor, then engine block, then ERA from behind does not offer a tremendous amount of resistance (as measured in relative terms to the RHAe of modern glacis/front turret protections).

A car engine block certainly wouldn't be much of an obstacle for .50 or any APFSDS but 2.5m LoS of varied geometry and spacing, even if aluminum, would be sufficient to disintegrate a portion of the sabot. For ERA, I specifically mentioned Relikt because the explosive is configured to ignite in both directions. All of this is not comparable to RHA in resistance, but then modern glacis are rarely beyond 700-800mm LoS, while the while engine compartments are 2000+. I don't know if it would be enough to completely disintegrate the sabot, but conserving enough KE for the second impact penetrating a third Relikt array seems unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again there's a big difference in terms of what that LOS is comprised of.  We got a defective fan for an M88A2 engine with microfractures, so after a few hours of operation it dramatically failed and sent bits of fan all over the inside of the engine compartment.  The "after" photos were a sight to behold in terms of large chucks of metal embedded in various parts of the vehicle.  Also a lot of engine compartments by design are open and dead spaces (also rather famously one of the T-34/85 overpenetrations went in the frontal slope and exited out the back of the engine compartment with sufficient violence to force US forces a few hundred meters away to take cover, and there's more than a few T-72s and T-55s with "exit wounds" in Iraq)

Basically where I'm going is if this happened IRL I'd not be totally shocked.  It is an uncommon event, but one that is based in reality.  The frequency of this event in CMBS is by several magnitudes higher than I'd expect to see though, which includes some rather out there situations (I seem to recall a shot that killed two tanks, went through a building then killing and IFV).

To that end it might be more realistic to somehow drop the "two in a row" kills simply because it is uncommon enough to not require simulation, but that's just my take on it.  I don't know how complicated that would be, or if it'd totally bugger actually desired behavior.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To that end it might be more realistic to somehow drop the "two in a row" kills simply because it is uncommon enough to not require simulation, but that's just my take on it.  I don't know how complicated that would be, or if it'd totally bugger actually desired behavior.  

I would more or less agree, but when it happens in your favour it is very fun and satisfying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer.  This is true.  Though I think the West often underestimates the traumatic effect of centuries of invasion, and 2 major world wars that involved invasions of your home soil within a generation of eachother.  I fear not so much an intended Russian attack, though incidents such as Able Archer 83 are scary food for thought, but rather an escalating crisis akin to the Turkish shootdown of a Sukhoi, except say a full on series of miscommunications and disasters like US/Russ air engagement/brinkmanship/troops sent and then who knows who fired the first shot.

Of course whether this would ever happen is another matter, but its scary to me of how ignorant the average American on the streets is about our national security and the multitude of terrible ways we could all die.

ANNYWAYS Thats enough out of me, never my intention to hijack the thread. Id like to add though that while I can see your point about external threats helping spur the masses why didnt Putin choose say.. China? Why the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...