Kieme(ITA) Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Some very good pictures, thanks for sharing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Freaking watermarks, gaahhhh. Looks legit tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 LOckAndLOad, Truly amazing pics! Danke mucho! Looks like 80% of the side has something akin to OPLOT-M integral armor and ERA, which, in my estimation, isn't taken down to the level of the roadwheels in order to avoid the possibility of clogging the running gear with mud. Some sort of flexible metal grid reinforced elastomer shielding (as seen on T-90) appears to be covering that gap. The overall armoring scheme definitely supports the notion of a crew capsule, but I do find it interesting that the rear side hulls switches to slat armor. If the object ending roughly halfway between the start of the slat armor and the rear of the tank is the exhaust, then I find it odd no effort was made to shield it. There is what appears to be a mount with armored flap slightly image right of the gun. I suspect imaging equipment of some sort. I note with interest the tank has an LED headlight assembly, rather than the time honored incandescent sort. Too bad we don't get to see the other side of the tank. Very interesting stowage arrangement for towing cable, spare track links and towing clevis or several. Watermark's in the way, and I can't tell. Clever siting of low visibility convoy light under an overhang and out of the path of being scraped off, too. Something else I noticed is that there appears to be significant position swapping between the small object on the turret roof I believe to be a wind sensor and the thicker mast with LWR and probably other detectors installed. Did you happen to notice the apparent single-barrel Koalitsija SPH visible just over the image right track guard in your second pic? The gun tube is quite distinctive. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) It appears that all new gen vehicles have LED headlights. Noticed that thing under the barrel too. Masts don't have LWR, they are the usual wind sensor and antenna, probably with cameras like on T-90AM. Slat armor is consistent with T-72 Rogatka, T-90AM and T-72B3 urban combat edition (also note similar, if not exactly the same, side ERA): ps: don't care much about the new SPH. want more Boomerang instead. Edited April 10, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Why rear part of side skirts are slat armour, not ERA blocks? I've seen it on many tanks. Edited April 10, 2015 by Alexey K 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 If Google serves me right, T-72B3 Urban kit uses Relikt ERA. In the mean time, Khlopotov has a pic without watermarks: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u3qkno4vmac/VSetBAw1uGI/AAAAAAAAK-U/MZcP4DWSDaY/s2531/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Interesting that there's no apparent IR lights (unless they're mounted apart from the normal light arrays). What are most Russian night driving systems these days anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The thing on the front hull is obviously some kind of observation device, probably for the driver. And then there's a camera at the back. There's a lot similarities with T-72B3 urban and T-90SM so far: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUSKER2142 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Why rear part of side skirts are slat armour, not ERA blocks? I've seen it on many tanks. Weight vs. reward. I can't figure the little shelf on the glacis plate, in this pic somewhat obscured by a flap of sheet metal. Maybe the crew capsule has a slab-sided front, with a wedge of armor and ERA in front of it, but I can't see why they would leave part without overlap. Edited April 10, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Ha sweet, chassis looks to be the same as 2S19M2. I think they will at least have a go at putting it on the 7 road wheel chassis at some point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Ha sweet, chassis looks to be the same as 2S19M2. I think they will at least have a go at putting it on the 7 road wheel chassis at some point. It is t-90 based chassis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It is t-90 based chassis. I know, I think they will change it at some point though. If turret is as modular as it was designed to be at least. The T-14/15 chassis is certainly big enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I know, I think they will change it at some point though. If turret is as modular as it was designed to be at least. The T-14/15 chassis is certainly big enough. Yes, porting it to Armata chassis is a plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Great pictures! Thanks for posting them.Weight vs. reward.That is what I was thinking too. The backend is also pretty heavy due to the engine anyway, so ERA might thrown off the suspension a bit on uneven terrain. Also, thinking about it practically... for ERA to really make a difference the tank would have to be presenting itself more-or-less 90deg to the enemy threat. That makes things generally bad, even with ERA It's less than probably 25% of side exposure and not center mass so it's a pretty good gamble that ERA isn't really necessary in the back 1/4 of the side.Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It is also possible that ERA is focused on the most valuable part of the vehicle: the crew compartment (at least from the crew's point of view). Since the design is revolutionary for russian concepts, maybe this tank is more comfortable too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) I think there may be two types of ERA present. red is probably new heavy ERA green probably also has ERA inserts of same "heavy" type, but hard to tell yellow appears to be same ERA on the T-72 "TUSK" kit. red and green together probably provide protection for crew capsule and central autoloader within safe angles of maneuver (+/- 30°) against HEAT and AP. yellow probably features ERA oriented in layers inside the box such that it is more effective against shots from the side (from 30-90°), providing protection for the autoloader outside safe angles of maneuver, but possibly only against LATWs. This would explain the presence of the same ERA on an urban survival kit for T-72. Edited April 10, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The turret seems well sloped and smallish, it could be very well armored for a 55 tons tank since its basically only a gun with mecanisms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Hull with armored crew capsule seems to be on the level of western tanks for protection. Edited April 10, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 LOckAndLOad, I'm a bit confused. Was under the impression the T-90AM didn't exist and was merely the logical extension of the existing T-90MS. Is this correct? If so, what is the tank called that you linked to the pic of? Turning now to the cameras, I think there's a lot more to them than we expect. Notice, for example, the rather impressive capabilities of Android based thermal imaging: soldier at 500 m and a vehicle at 1500! Do you have any tech data on the cameras shown in your pics, please? That same tank has what appears to be a multifunction mast incorporating front and rear facing cameras and, under the shroud, what I believe to be the LWR detectors. But what really intrigues me is the welter of masts on the T-72BM3 TUSK, if you will. Love the splinter paint job! Looks like a multifunction mast, a satellite link and the two darker ones doing goodness knows what. As for Bumerang, recommend you brace yourself for a cowbell themed pic. Regards, John Kettler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Yeah, there's no T-90AM in service. Sometimes I'm using that designation due to being used to it in CMBS. AM is just a home designation, while SM is an export designation. Dunno about optics, haven't seen such data. LWR detectors are small circular looking. You can see two on each side of the gun on this photo, and perpendicularly placed two on each side of the turret can be seen on this one. That's 6 sensors in total. This picture from the above should give better idea of the rear coverage. Same setup can be seen on T-72B3 TUSK. The latter is kinda sucky. Just as sucky as the whole B3 upgrade is. Holes in ERA coverage is the main concern. Beside the one about flying turret decease that hasn't been cured on it. ps: there are no capital letters "o" in my written nickname. Those are zeroes. Had to use them long time ago cuz some guy already registered the same nickname. Stuck with zeroes since then most of the time. No need to use capital "o" when writing my nickname. Edited April 10, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) Not sure of credibility, but: http://belsat.eu/en/articles/russias-next-generation-armata-main-battle-tank-breaks-down-during-parade-rehearsal/ Wonder if such a powerful engine in comparrison to the previous tanks means its handling and driving is significantly different enough to screw with new drivers abilities and patterns? Edited April 11, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) L0ckAndL0ad, Based on some quick research on LWRs, in #679, I make it that the faceted device directly above the obscurant launcher is an LWR. This makes sense, given the apparent coverage of around 120 degrees. Additionally, in one of the other pics, you can see the same thing mounted on the rear of the turret roof and facing aft. This appears to be a more evolved version of the LWR for Shtora-1, as seen here. Are you sure the two optronic devices on either side of the guns (in first link from your #696) are LWRs? They certainly don't look like the other such installations on the tank, which is why I think they are probably cameras. Your two remaining links there are virus blocked for me. Any thoughts on all those masts atop the TUSK T-72BM3? there sure is a lot of stuff up there. I'm pretty confident of my estimated satcom link, having seen similar rigs on pics of British tanks. Regards, John Kettler Edited April 11, 2015 by John Kettler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Not sure of credibility, but: http://belsat.eu/en/articles/russias-next-generation-armata-main-battle-tank-breaks-down-during-parade-rehearsal/ Wonder if such a powerful engine in comparrison to the previous tanks means its handling and driving is significantly different enough to screw with new drivers abilities and patterns? Seems at least reasonable, as its power plant is very unusual and not in a configuration known for reliability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Not sure of credibility, but: http://belsat.eu/en/articles/russias-next-generation-armata-main-battle-tank-breaks-down-during-parade-rehearsal/ Wonder if such a powerful engine in comparrison to the previous tanks means its handling and driving is significantly different enough to screw with new drivers abilities and patterns? Total BS. There's been quite a few articles trashing Armata recently, and this one is based on one of them. Original article said that it's being crewed by conscripts and has a gas turbine engine (a la T-80), which is an obvious lie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.