Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
exsonic01

Recent presentation about Nozh ERA

Recommended Posts

Recent conference of armored vehicles presented research / observation data for Ukraine Nozh ERA. 

http://sd.net.ua/2020/01/20/donbass-tanki-artylleriya.html

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4420448.html

I'm relying on google translator. 

Most of the armored vehicles were destroyed or damaged by artillery (total 45% of armored vehicle damage)

Nizh ERA successfully defended against 3BM42 Mango and 152mm top attack EFP (probably from ICMs) 

Ukraine researchers examined 55 Bulat tanks operated during Donbass war, and they found 17 vehicles were protected by Nizh 

One of observation of Nizh ERA on Bulat was defense against 9M133 tandem Kornet. 


I think Bulat and Nizh's defensive performance is underestimated in CMBS. But if carefully think about this, this performance of Nizh shown in Donbass campaign presentation makes sense. Morozov design bureau has an experience of designing K-5 ERA during cold war. They should be able to develop something better than their old cold war era armor. There were a lot of underestimation or negative speculation about Nizh ERA around here and there, but based on those facts, I think Nizh ERA should be upgraded as well in this game. Accordingly, I think Bulat tank's survivality should be buffed for next version of this game. 

Other interesting point is that, artillery HE on top armor would not be likely to penetrate top armor of tanks. I mean, if it hits weak engine room or thin places, of course it will wreck tank. But if HE dropped on top of the armored area, it would not guarantee a kill. But of course it will bring huge damage. I mentioned before somewhere in this forum, but HE rounds are not meant to penetrate something. In this example, ERA cover can even defeat EFPs. 

We really need DPICM / FASCAM for this game. There is no question about it if this game truly want to depict the "realistic" armored warfare. Doctrine & TO&E of forces during Donbass war would not be the same with the ones of full scale war between US and Rus, I got that. However, it is also true that the damage potential & role of artillery is greatly limited in this game. Forcing artillery to not to use ICMs and FASCAMs and claiming "realistic combat" does not makes sense. Of course, to prevent arty spam, it would be needed to introduce off-map counter battery action. The presentation data also indicates very active CB missions during Donbass campaign (65% of arty killed by arty). I know, Donbass campaign cannot be compared with hypothetical US-Rus war, but technology and artillery doctrine wouldn't be hugely different from what we saw from Donbass war.  

In addition, for next version, so many things are needed for CMBS. More operations of drones (UA drones should be included of course), more recon ability (GSR and thermal) and more light infantry / low tier SF team to faster speed and better stamina as recon teams. Plus, I wish, (and I guess many others also think the same) new module of CMBS should leave from assumption of previous versions. Rather, it would be better to start from more realistic situations and more realistic weapons of 2015. Or, how about move to 2020? 

If next module depicts 2020 or at least late 2010s, (which I really wish), then new weapons would be needed:  T-90AM should be moved to T-90M, T-72B3 obr.2016 should be introduced as well as T-72B3, and T-80BVM maybe? Also there should be Stryker with autocannon / Javelin ATGM. A-10 is still in service so should be included. And plus we need new M1A2C. And of course there are more. 

I'm not sure about T-14, as the program is very likely to further delayed. 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Nizh ERA successfully defended against 3BM42 Mango and 152mm top attack EFP (probably from ICMs)

Who knows a Russian 152mm top attack EFP munition? 8-0

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the game's Bulat model 'Nizh' or 'Nozh'?

I have a feeling they are different systems and there definitely appear to be some issues with the claimed working mechanism of 'Nozh'.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, akd said:

Sub-munitions deployed by 152mm artillery,

I mean does anyone heard of a 152m top attack EFP in the Russian service. AFAIK they don't exist but maybe I missed something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Does the game's Bulat model 'Nizh' or 'Nozh'?

It's the same system. 'O' of Russian is sometimes substituted for 'i' in Ukrainian. English 'cat' is 'kot' in Russian and 'kit' in Ukrainian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Morozov design bureau has an experience of designing K-5 ERA during cold war. They should be able to develop something better than their old cold war era

  1. Kontakt-5 was developed by Moscow NII Stali.
  2. Nozh ERA is a product of Ukrainian Mikrotek company. The same that produced a copy of Soviet APS.
  3. I'd seriously doubt Morozov's design capabilities - 35 years passed since their glorious time in Soviet Union. They're absolutely cash-starved - unable even to pay salaries in full. They've received pre-payment for BTR-4E and still were not able to deliver the vehicles and produced one new tank for the Ukrainian Army during the past 10 years (sic!).
Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IMHO said:

I mean does anyone heard of a 152m top attack EFP in the Russian service. AFAIK they don't exist but maybe I missed something.

Ah, well I assumed Russia had something similar to SADARM, SMArt, BONUS 155mm rounds, but perhaps not.  Regardless, I would assume that is the class of weapon they are referencing.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Most of the armored vehicles were destroyed or damaged by artillery (total 45% of armored vehicle damage)

Important remark. Most of these losses caused in particular situation - several UKR brigades about two months had been shelling with heavy artillery and MLRS without any right to response toward Russian territory. They also couldn't maneuver. So, if not take to account this border standing under fire, we can receive other result.

Hm... I never heard about 152 mm EFP on Donbas. Maybe that was MLRS sub-ammunition? Russians several times stroke UKR basecamps with cluster ammunition of heavy Smerch MLRS  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Hm... I never heard about 152 mm EFP on Donbas. Maybe that was MLRS sub-ammunition?

  1. They're bigger - not 152mm.
  2. We'd have had pictures with sensor modules and whole unexploded submunitions.
1 hour ago, akd said:

Ah, well I assumed Russia had something similar to SADARM, SMArt, BONUS 155mm rounds, but perhaps not.

Not for tube artillery - we couldn't fit the sensor module :)

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IMHO said:
  1. Kontakt-5 was developed by Moscow NII Stali.
  2. Nozh ERA is a product of Ukrainian Mikrotek company. The same that produced a copy of Soviet APS.
  3. I'd seriously doubt Morozov's design capabilities - 35 years passed since their glorious time in Soviet Union. They're absolutely cash-starved - unable even to pay salaries in full. They've received pre-payment for BTR-4E and still were not able to deliver the vehicles and produced one new tank for the Ukrainian Army during the past 10 years (sic!).

Well, design of Nizh is not Mikrotek, but Morozov. And yes K-5 development was in NII Stali but it wouldn't make sense if Morozov have no idea about K-5's design principles and techniques, because they designed a tank with K-5. Morozov should have enough knowledge about K-5 which they could exploit to design their own ERA.

Fair about budget issue, but we never know what and how they dealt with budget issue - they could just delay the project instead of downgrade the Nizh project. Or they could keep the Nizh R&D budget intact but just cut or delay budget for manufacturing. We just would never know about Nizh project. We can only assume, based on those reports, that Morozov did learned something from ERA of cold war designs, and applied such lessons to their ERA. 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:

K-5 development was in NII Stali but it wouldn't make sense if Morozov have no idea about K-5's design principles and techniques, because they designed a tank with K-5.

KhBTM used to build tanks with thermals, does it mean Morozov's plant can produce I2 matrices? KhBTM used to build tanks that shoot DU projectiles, does it mean they know uranium metallurgy?

1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:

Fair about budget issue, but we never know what and how they dealt with budget issue - they could just delay the project instead of downgrade the project. Or they just keep the R&D budget intact but just cut or delay budget for manufacturing

Morozov's plant chose to delay the delivery on Thailand's order for three years - a feat that forever deprived them of whatever future as tank producer they might have had, - yet somehow they continue investment into R&D. Yeah, we do believe in fairy tales!

1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:

We can only assume, based on those reports, that Morozov did learned something from their cold war designs and exploited based on those lessons. 

  1. There are no "their designs". "Nozh" design was created by NII Stali in late 60s - early 70s like every other Soviet ERA since NII Stali was responsible for all ERAs in Soviet Union. They created and tested Nozh, Kontakt/Relikt and a bunch of other more exotic designs. Back then they decided that Kontakt/Relikt was the most promising.
  2. What reports? I'd say you what report would be most welcome - a report on full scale range testing of Nozh. AFAIK the first and the only limited test of Nozh was conducted 12 years ago.
1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:

Well, design of Nizh is not Mikrotek, but Morozov

As far as I remember the full list includes four companies but BTsKT Mikrotek is listed as the main designer in every publication.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IMHO said:

KhBTM used to build tanks with thermals, does it mean Morozov's plant can produce I2 matrices? KhBTM used to build tanks that shoot DU projectiles, does it mean they know uranium metallurgy?

What I want to say is the final decision of equipping K-5 for T-80U was people in charge in Morozov. They should had adequate knowledge about K-5 and its principle and capability to make that decision. And I think that experience somehow helped them to design their own. After all, ERA is not that seriously difficult mechanism to understand, neither serious degree of metallurgical knowledge is required to design and research one. Not to mention ERA is not related with thermal too. 

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

Morozov's plant chose to delay the delivery on Thailand's order for three years - a feat that forever deprived them of whatever future as tank producer they might have had, - yet somehow they continue investment into R&D. Yeah, we do believe in fairy tales!

You and I are not in the position to make any call about UA's R&D capability and manufacturing at all, neither in position to correctly comment about reasons behind how they decided to develop Nizh and delay Thaliand order. (Unless you are UA government official. And I'm not related with UA in any forms) 

In this case, we can only speculate and express our 'opinion', at least we both agree about that, right? Your idea is also your opinion based on what you believe, but you don't need to undermine other's opinion as "fairy tale" before you bring your support evidence for your version of "fairy tale", right? To answer your claim, I don't know and I maybe wrong. But evidences shown in the report (presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference I linked in original post) is suggesting that UA made a descent ERA and they fielded in Bulat tanks. 

2 hours ago, IMHO said:
  • There are no "their designs". "Nozh" design was created by NII Stali in late 60s - early 70s like every other Soviet ERA since NII Stali was responsible for all ERAs in Soviet Union. They created and tested Nozh, Kontakt/Relikt and a bunch of other more exotic designs. Back then they decided that Kontakt/Relikt was the most promising.

I also agree, I don't expect they made totally something new. I also wrote in this post and previous post, they get some hint or they take some advantage from what they learned from experiences with K-5 and knowledge related with past doctrine / design principle of T-64 series and T-80 series. My opinion is, based on those, they developed something upgraded when compared old cold war soviet design such as K-5. Again, I am not saying their ERA is revolutionarily upgraded, but they just made something more or less better presumably based on their cold war experience. 

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

What reports? I'd say you what report would be most welcome - a report on full scale range testing of Nozh. AFAIK the first and the only limited test of Nozh was conducted 12 years ago.

Report means the presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference, which supports Nizh showed good operational capability in Donbass war.

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

As far as I remember the full list includes four companies but BTsKT Mikrotek is listed as the main designer in every publication.

https://defence-ua.com/index.php/en/publications/defense-express-publications/5144-oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections-while-simultaneously-upgrading-and-improving-legacy-designs

http://uamicrotech.com/2018/11/23/oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections/

Well I only have UA sources so... I don't know, all I'm sure is Morozov "participated" in research and they made final decision to put Nizh in Bulat. But who knows? Maybe you are right. 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
  1. 9 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

They should had adequate knowledge about K-5 and its principle and capability to make that decision. And I think that experience somehow helped them to design their own. After all, ERA is not that seriously difficult mechanism to understand, neither serious degree of metallurgical knowledge is required to design and research one.

Principles are well known - you and I know them as well. But to implement these principles in an efficient device one needs to do a lot of live fire testing. Really A LOT - e.g. Bradley ERA acceptance testing involved 1'500 live fires. And that means a lot of money - something KhBTM is in dire need of.

10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

You and I are not in the position to make any call about UA's R&D capability and manufacturing at all, neither in position to correctly comment about reasons behind how they decided to develop Nizh and delay Thaliand order. (Unless you are UA government official. And I'm not related with UA in any forms) 

In this case, we can only speculate and express our 'opinion', at least we both agree about that, right? Your idea is also your opinion based on what you believe, but you don't need to undermine other's opinion as "fairy tale" before you bring your support evidence for your version of "fairy tale", right?

Firstly I think I read enough Ukrainian source material - interviews etc. to have an opinion. And the fact that Morozov's plant is not capable of producing anything at the moment - that's a sum of these sources not my own opinion. Secondly I consider this obvious that if a company has no money for payroll and it reneges on a contract that spells its life or death - that probably indicates that the company is not capable of any serious undertakings. You're saying that's not so and there was some secret plan behind it. I'd say the burden of proof is on your side :)

10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

they get some hint or they take some advantage from what they learned from experiences with K-5 ... I am not saying their ERA is revolutionarily upgraded, but they just made something more or less better presumably based on their cold war experience. 

  1. Ummm... Ok, here's Thai Oplot order. Thai Army has some examples of Nozh ERA and, presumably ,Thai Army representatives were shown the results of Nozh tests before buying it. Does it mean Thai Army can go and  design a new ERA? The same with tank designers, they take an element - ERA in this case - check that it meets their requirements and bolt it on on their new shiny tanks. Knowing design principles for ERA would me mean having knowledge and results of tests. What will happen if you you this or that plate material? If it's a steel what happens if you make it harder but brittle or vice verse? What if you make it thicker or thinner? What happens if you put in more or less insensitive explosives? How ERA interfaces with solid rods and composite rods? What happens if you increase or decreas the rod speed? How blunt or sharp nosed rods interacts with the plate and explosives? Etc. - a million questions.
  2. So what makes you believe that KhBTM has this understanding and a multitude results of tests on hand whereas they don't have money to pay salaries and pulled the rug under their crucial customer?
10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Report means the presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference, which supports Nizh showed good operational capability in Donbass war.

  1. Is it the first "Nozh uber alles" stuff you've come across? Believe me you can look up many more of them :) They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple . Many more penetrators were developed since that time both in Russia and in the West.
  2. How come they mention 152mm top-attack EFP no one heard of? :)
  3. When they mention Mango and provide a picture for the results. https://topwar.ru/28864-bronetehnika-ukrainy-itogi-potencial-perspektivy.html Here's the article dated to June, 2013. You can see the same picture that's given in the presentation.

Presentation (look at the left bottom corner):

3455208_900.jpg

Article of June 1, 2013

1370025391_nozh_in_action.jpg

So "Nozh defeating Mango in Donbass war" is a straight lie, no one heard of 152mm top attack EFP they claim were defeated by Nozh... Well, well, well :)

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the reality of Ukrainian weapons production.

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4425155.html

And

And here's the reality of Ukrainian war machine in general:

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4427305.html

The resolution of the Special Parliamentary Commission into the multiple mysterious fires at the Ukrainian ammo storage facilities:

Quote

Как было установлено в ходе предварительного расследования и доложено президенту Порошенко, основным мотивом подрыва 65-го арсенала стало сокрытие от аудиторской проверки факта хищения боеприпасов на общую сумму около 560 млн. грн. Недостача была обнаружена предыдущим аудиторским отчетом №234 / 1/13/31 от 28 февраля 2017 года, а 30 марта 2017 г. ЦРАУ должно было предоставить аудиторам объяснения и документы по этому поводу, но 23 марта 2017 г. арсенал взорвался. Порошенко, узнав об истинных причинах пожара на 65-м арсенале ЦРАУ в г. Балаклея Харьковской области, приказал дальнейшее расследование прекратить.

В частности, во время досудебного расследования в уголовном производстве по факту взрыва 23 марта 2017 г. 65-го арсенала ЦРАУ (воинской части А1352) в г. Балаклея Харьковской области было установлено, что военнослужащие спецподразделения «Сармат» в ходе антидиверсионных учений заложили взрывчатку внутри и снаружи арсенала , замаскировав ее под огнетушители.

It's too long to translate - Google may help but in short:

  • The ammo storage was blown up not by Russian saboteurs as was stated by then Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor but by Ukrainian SoF detachment "Sarmat". They concealed the explosive devices in fire extinguishers.
  • The reason why the facility was blown up was because an audit of Feb, 28, 2017 discovered a lack of ammo to the tune of 23 mln USD and a secondary audit to confirm the results of the first one was planned to take place on March 30, 2017. But the facility was blown up on March 23.
  • The results of the preliminary investigation were delivered to Petro Poroshenko - then the President of Ukraine. Poroshenko ordered to stop further investigation into the matter.
Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IMHO said:

Firstly I think I read enough Ukrainian source material - interviews etc. to have an opinion. And the fact that Morozov's plant is not capable of producing anything at the moment - that's a sum of these sources not my own opinion. Secondly I consider this obvious that if a company has no money for payroll and it reneges on a contract that spells its life or death - that probably indicates that the company is not capable of any serious undertakings. You're saying that's not so and there was some secret plan behind it. I'd say the burden of proof is on your side

Well, unless you are UA official, my stand is the same. I don't care, no matter how much read about this issue. Whatever materials you and I read is only officially published materials by UA government, and we will never know what is behind them, we can only speculate. And such speculation should be regarded as opinions, so I will consider your idea is just your opinion. Maybe your speculation might be close to real. I don't need to prove anything because I'm just telling my opinion based on that conference presentation, which shows UA made descent ERA and they are using them. But I already expressed regarding my opinion "I don't know about it, and I maybe wrong". And yeah, you maybe right. Is this satisfies you?

2 hours ago, IMHO said:
  • Ummm... Ok, here's Thai Oplot order. Thai Army has some examples of Nozh ERA and, presumably ,Thai Army representatives were shown the results of Nozh tests before buying it. Does it mean Thai Army can go and  design a new ERA? The same with tank designers, they take an element - ERA in this case - check that it meets their requirements and bolt it on on their new shiny tanks. Knowing design principles for ERA would me mean having knowledge and results of tests. What will happen if you you this or that plate material? If it's a steel what happens if you make it harder but brittle or vice verse? What if you make it thicker or thinner? What happens if you put in more or less insensitive explosives? How ERA interfaces with solid rods and composite rods? What happens if you increase or decreas the rod speed? How blunt or sharp nosed rods interacts with the plate and explosives? Etc. - a million questions.
  • So what makes you believe that KhBTM has this understanding and a multitude results of tests on hand whereas they don't have money to pay salaries and pulled the rug under their crucial customer?

I'm not sure what is the idea you wish to convey, but is that "Thai army tested and saw Nizh but they can't design new one, so "UA made decent ERA" is wrong"? Is this correct? 

Then bringing Thai army example to this argument makes no sense. Thai army or any company in Thai has no comparable experience neither any capability of MBT development, design and manufacturing like Morozov. Morozov has their experience and archives from cold war, and what you are doing is comparing Morozov's capability with Thai in the same degree, but I don't think that is correct. Totally different environment. I don't know about design capability of Morozov in full detail. But I, or anyone can easily deduct that Morozov could do something based on their experience and based on old designs.  

2 hours ago, IMHO said:
  • Is it the first "Nozh uber alles" stuff you've come across? Believe me you can look up many more of them :) They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple . Many more penetrators were developed since that time both in Russia and in the West.
  • How come they mention 152mm top-attack EFP no one heard of? :)
  • When they mention Mango and provide a picture for the results. https://topwar.ru/28864-bronetehnika-ukrainy-itogi-potencial-perspektivy.html Here's the article dated to June, 2013. You can see the same picture that's given in the presentation.

First of all, I never said Nizh is uber alles. I just said it showed "good" performance during Donbass war according to presentation, so this game needs to buff Bulat and Nizh performance to reflect that observation.

Are you working for UA DoD or defense industry? How do you so sure about claims like "They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple"? What if they just didn't published for public? I don't know about them as well, but I'm curious, where does your such high confidence regarding your claims coming from. Do you obtains some classified materials somehow? If yes, then OK, I will trust you. But if not, it is just also your opinion. I respect yours, but you also need to respect other's opinions. 

Plus, at this point, based on your tone of your writing, you just don't trust the presentation and regard it as propaganda, right? Well, if you want to believe that, then you can believe that way and there is nothing I can do about that. But you need to understand that me and some people more trust the publications from international journals and conference presentations more than forum keyboard warriors, and you need to respect and being polite towards other's "opinion"s, rather than undermine and being rude.  

At this point the argument can be politics and propaganda thing, so if you want to write about that,  do that in different post, not in this post.

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Here's the reality of Ukrainian weapons production.

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4425155.html

And here's the reality of Ukrainian war machine in general:

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4427305.html

The resolution of the Special Parliamentary Commission into the multiple mysterious fires at the Ukrainian ammo storage facilities:

All of those are totally not related with Nizh ERA performance. First link can be a circumventional / situational background at best, but second link is totally out of topic. Those cannot be the direct evidence regarding any claims of Nizh ERA performance, and they tell nothing about Nizh ERA performance. You also know that, right? 

Well, I don't like your attitude anyway so this will be my last time wasting towards your reply. But I wish you to say, calm down, and next time, better respect other's opinions too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As mentioned there appear to be some major issues with the alleged working mechanism of 'Nozh':

i5.gif

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1528-no-nozh-doesnt-work-as-advertised/?tab=comments#comment-111895

I'm also one of the person who is also curious about the theory behind the performance shown in the presentation. 

It is totally unrelated opinion but I must tell, these days I don't trust "some" materials from sturgeonshouse, tanknet, or warthunder forum. Problem is, a lot of people there do not share the name of document neither properly cite and use reference. It is very easy to use photoshop to "fix" any screenshots, and too many people just upload mysterious screenshot from "mysterious PDF data they somehow get", citing no reference, and "search yourself". Well, I don't buy any of such claims with mysterious PDF screenshot without clear reference comment. If somehow it is crosschecked by another reference, then I trust. You also need to be careful about that. 

Well, at least the person of that article put some efforts for referencing, so I respect that. Plus, there are some good arguments are back and forth in that posting about Nizh, it was good to read. Thank you for sharing that thread.   

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

you need to respect and being polite towards other's "opinion"s, rather than undermine and being rude.

Fair enough, my sincere apology if I sounded offensive.

18 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

It is totally unrelated opinion but I must tell, these days I don't trust "some" materials from sturgeonshouse, tanknet, or warthunder forum. Problem is, a lot of people there do not share the name of document neither properly cite and use reference.

  1. It checks with other sources to the same effect. There are enough publications discussing Nozh drawbacks.
  2. It corresponds to the basic physical principles of how EFP and HEAT work.
28 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

 Whatever materials you and I read is only officially published materials by UA government

I don't think it makes sense to discuss it further. You'd believe only an official statement by UA government to the effect that Nozh is ineffective and that's an improbable course of events :) I mentioned at least two points that should make people question the veracity of the report. 152mm top-attack EFP penetrator that we yet to find in the former Soviet Union arsenal and the use of photo dated to at least before June, 1, 2013 when illustrating the Nozh performance in Donbass conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be able to help with links to various texts cited in the posts.....No promises on everything though, there's a lot of stuff in that thread and it could take me a while to find them.

PS - FWIW I don't believe either @exsonic01 or @IMHO were being intentionally rude.....You've both raised interesting points, we've got links to consult, so let's see if we can move forward, rather than squabble about the minutia.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I may be able to help with links to various texts cited in the posts

Are you into this field? I read the post till the end and my first off the cuff thoughts are:

  1. Am I correct to say that to fully form an EFP the flyer plate needs to cover many radii of itself?
  2. EFP interaction with the barrier it aims to break is not hydrodynamic so EFP mass directly behind its interaction with the barrier is very significant?
  3. There's a big question mark about what happens when. Like detonation velocity is 3-5Km/s, EFP velocity is 1.5-2.0Km/s vs. certain distance it needs to cover before fully forming. And all of this against a long rod penetrator flying at 1.5-2.0Km/s.

Does it make sense what I write or it's all bull****?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IMHO said:

Are you into this field?

As an interested spectator, but I save a lot of texts and keep links to a lot of others.....However I'm also not terribly well organised.   ;)

@HerrTom might be able to better answer your questions, the only one I would be prepared to venture an opinion on would be #2, where I would agree that the mass of the EFP would be of very great significance, alongside its density and velocity (presumably distance too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IMHO said:

And the fact that Morozov's plant is not capable of producing anything at the moment - that's a sum of these sources not my own opinion.

Despite the plant have many problems, real case of situation with BTR-4 is other. Delay of BTR-4 program happened because of conflict between Ukroboronprom (UOP) and MoD as well as foil of turerrets production in 2018 by other factory. UOP put Finnish steel plates on first party of 12 BTR of 2018-2019 program and MoD representatives have rejected to sign papers. They claimed Finnish plates hadn't any certification markings and shell tests, provided by UOP weren't according MoD standards. Thus, program was blocked during year. Now program is unblocked, MoD agreed to take 12 BTR with Finnish armor, but other vehicles of thіs program must have already Ukrainian steel plates and will produce to the end of 2020.

 

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

So "Nozh defeating Mango in Donbass war" is a straight lie

Nozh can defeat also DM53 APFSDS as well as Mango. Russia supplied some 3BM42 to separs and also could use this ammo during direct Russian tanks actions.  So nothing fantastic even if the photo for 2013.

On the photo you can see ammunitin load for separ tank. There is one Mango  among other Zakolkas.

ammo.jpg

Edited by Haiduk

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...