Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 257
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post11 Mar 2020, 00:59

knowan wrote:And the Abrams has armored doors separating the crew from the ammo; those systems can fail.

With the weight of the T-14 turret containing an explosion for longer than the blow off panels on the Abrams, there is a greater probability of catastrophic failure of the crew protection.


Admittedly I have no evidence for this but I would expect the cabin/ammo barrier in T14 to have been designed to withstand an ammo cook off much like the one in the Abrams. The bigger issue to me is if a penetrator managed to compromise that barrier. Then again if that were to happen the crew would probably be dead anyway...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2263
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post11 Mar 2020, 11:24

Something like this re armored capsule. Still doesn't matter to a 500 lb ljdam.
Attachments
T-14.jpeg
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1050
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Mar 2020, 16:48

@knowan
And the Abrams has armored doors separating the crew from the ammo; those systems can fail.


Loader need to open door to take round and there is also problem if door isnt't seal right, part of ammo explosion could enter in turret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJtarUgPIg

In case of T-14 you have solid peace of steel between rounds and crew so no explosion will enter in crew space.
Mostly likely explosion will exit were APS tubes are, blowing them and turret sheet cover above them.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg

Btw officials confirmed DU sabot was intercepted with APS and it was success,why people expect APS disintegrate DU sabot I don't know, it probable damaged it enough so sabot lose its penetrating capability.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2651
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post11 Mar 2020, 19:58

Let's just have the men drive around armored greyhound buses and call it a day...
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:08

milosh wrote:Loader need to open door to take round and there is also problem if door isnt't seal right, part of ammo explosion could enter in turret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJtarUgPIg

In case of T-14 you have solid peace of steel between rounds and crew so no explosion will enter in crew space.
Mostly likely explosion will exit were APS tubes are, blowing them and turret sheet cover above them.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg


And the force on the crew protection of the T-14 is much greater. And it can still fail if the blast isn't vented fast enough or if it is stronger than expected due to more HE projectiles detonating than expected.

Further, in the event of an ammo detonation the Abrams can remain in combat; it will have lost most or all of its main gun ammunition, but it will likely still have one round in the tube and operational machineguns. And when it retires it can be quickly repaired.
If the T-14 suffers an ammo detonation, it loses the entire turret; it has no armament or combat capability remaining, repairs will take more time and be vastly more expensive.


milosh wrote:Btw officials confirmed DU sabot was intercepted with APS and it was success,why people expect APS disintegrate DU sabot I don't know, it probable damaged it enough so sabot lose its penetrating capability.


Don't trust Russian propaganda, they're up there with Iran and North Korea for grandiose claims.

The T-14 and T-15 have extensive passive protection to protect against both shaped-charge and KE penetrators. If their APS was as good as Russian propaganda claims, the designs would be totally different, sacrificing passive protection for increased APS coverage.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1050
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 21:39

knowan wrote:And the force on the crew protection of the T-14 is much greater. And it can still fail if the blast isn't vented fast enough or if it is stronger than expected due to more HE projectiles detonating than expected.


So they projected new tank and didn't take in consideration worst case scenario? I really doubt that.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 01:24

milosh wrote:So they projected new tank and didn't take in consideration worst case scenario? I really doubt that.


A steel plate isn't going to protect the crew if 10+ kg of high-explosive detonates on the other side of it.

If Russia wanted the crew protection system to work even under worst case scenarios like that, they wouldn't have put the ammunition in the hull at all.

The designers put the ammunition in the hull, because the crew protection system in the T-14 is a compromise between crew protection and keeping the turret as small and light as possible.

A better system would have been the ammunition stored in a larger turret with blow out panels on the turret roof, but that would have substantially increased the turret size and required significant armor protection to prevent the tank being easily disarmed.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2651
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 01:45

The next generation coming from China is going to push numbers. The next generation from the West is chasing that never ending quality over quantity motiff. I'm not sure you shouldn't be going for something in between as a safeguard.

It's time to invest in some sort of 6x6 automation that is soft skinned overall, but has point protection over vitals. Significant amount of heavy rounds would need to hit it to kill off redundant systems. The thing would be equipped with the equivalent of the EODAS, only networked between automatons. And the weaponry could consist of remote aimed machine guns and vertical launch ATGWs. The weapons would be dispersed in 3-dimensions within the hull so no one hit could disable all of them with less than a half dozen or more heavy rounds, or literally a long sustained barrage of mid-caliber rounds. And you could add some passive defenses on it so they aren't just sitting ducks to a bunch of incoming hits. Automatons could rapidly direct counter-fire much faster than a human.

That and armed RC cars so troops can sneak up on enemy encampments in complete darkness. The RC units could dispatch minor targets that threaten humans operating in the area. Maybe they carry IEDs in them. Maybe they can fling .45 or .308 bullets in a pinch. Both humans and their stealthy RC units would provide localized targeting. If big guns are in range, give them hell. Let the MBTs and mobile infantry evolve into capabilities that allow for highly mobile indirect fire platforms. Organized artillery units cannot be everywhere. Nor should they be exposed to possible counter-fire when opportunistic indirect fire is available to guns already within reach. Fire and move out.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2263
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 06:37

knowan wrote:A better system would have been the ammunition stored in a larger turret with blow out panels on the turret roof, but that would have substantially increased the turret size and required significant armor protection to prevent the tank being easily disarmed.


Yes and no.
Ammo.png


Putting the ammo in the turret exposes the ammo to more lines of fire. The trade off being that the turret can move to reduce the opposing attack angles (and thus reducing risk).

Putting ammo in the hull reduces risks from lines of fire frontal and rear due to increased armor in front and the engine behind (in the case of T-14).

Can eliminate the turret risk by eliminating ammo in the sides (and only placing ammo in the rear). In the diagram above, that's removing the storage in yellow. But again if one does the same in the hull, the largest cross section is again protected and the risk area is actually less in the hull than in the turret. Placing the ammo in the hull also means the turret can be smaller which is again advantageous in a hull down position. The difference again being that the turret is movable.

It also depends on operational philosophy. If defensive, then the tank could be in a hull-down position with only the exposed turret. In a hull down position, the ammo in the hull is not exposed whereas ammo in the turret would be (even if only from the rear. The advantage for ammo in the turret would be in maneuver warfare (which is where US tends to use its tanks).

The disclaimer being that all this is largely irrelevant when hit by a LJDAM.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2651
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 13:13

You bring up an interesting point. Maybe tanks should have dual motors to enhance protection both front and back. Single motors are better use of space, but a single motor hit almost always means no more movement. Twin motors, with high power to weight ratios helps, and on opposite ends of the hull, help assure you stay mobile even while losing one. You can begin scooting immediately under electric when in a pinch. A hybrid assures much quicker mobility in an emergency because electric motors have great torque for only as long as you have stored power, and a large battery storage is a vulnerability. Electric drives don't offer that added protection of a ICE motor, but you probably need them too for minimal emissions while parked.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1050
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 20:24

knowan wrote:If Russia wanted the crew protection system to work even under worst case scenarios like that, they wouldn't have put the ammunition in the hull at all.

The designers put the ammunition in the hull, because the crew protection system in the T-14 is a compromise between crew protection and keeping the turret as small and light as possible.

Yes but protection as it is now is very good. Any weapon is compromise, Armata is universal hull, same hull is used for T-14 and T-15, because T-15 is ifv+apc chassis need to be long, so why not use it to store autoloader and ammo.

Btw T-14 have turret ammo bustle but it is used to reloading autoloader while tank isn't in combat:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 03:22

weasel1962 wrote:Yes and no.
Ammo.png


Putting the ammo in the turret exposes the ammo to more lines of fire. The trade off being that the turret can move to reduce the opposing attack angles (and thus reducing risk).

Putting ammo in the hull reduces risks from lines of fire frontal and rear due to increased armor in front and the engine behind (in the case of T-14).

Can eliminate the turret risk by eliminating ammo in the sides (and only placing ammo in the rear). In the diagram above, that's removing the storage in yellow. But again if one does the same in the hull, the largest cross section is again protected and the risk area is actually less in the hull than in the turret. Placing the ammo in the hull also means the turret can be smaller which is again advantageous in a hull down position. The difference again being that the turret is movable.

It also depends on operational philosophy. If defensive, then the tank could be in a hull-down position with only the exposed turret. In a hull down position, the ammo in the hull is not exposed whereas ammo in the turret would be (even if only from the rear. The advantage for ammo in the turret would be in maneuver warfare (which is where US tends to use its tanks).

The disclaimer being that all this is largely irrelevant when hit by a LJDAM.


I don't think the T-14 is designed for hull down combat; the gun apparently only has 5 degrees of gun depression, and while the turret is a small target it has only limited armor protection.
While a turret hit wouldn't injure or kill the crew, the poor armor protection means hits from anything beyond a light AT weapon is highly likely to disable the turret.



milosh wrote:Yes but protection as it is now is very good. Any weapon is compromise, Armata is universal hull, same hull is used for T-14 and T-15, because T-15 is ifv+apc chassis need to be long, so why not use it to store autoloader and ammo.

Btw T-14 have turret ammo bustle but it is used to reloading autoloader while tank isn't in combat:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg


Good point, universal chassis is another reason for compromises I didn't think of.

Does that turret bustle have any sort of blow out panels, or is it expected the distance of the bustle from the crew will provide sufficient protection in the event of a detonation?
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 05:53

@weasel1962
I dont believe any MBT can survive a hit from a 500lbs JDAM or SDB striking at terminal velocity (unless it has some kind of advanced hyper-alloy armor called adamantium/vibranium/unobtanium). If that was the thinking of all military planners in the services then there would be no use for any kind of ground force. The talk and discussion of an MBT having mutual support from varying sectors is indeed relevant. That is why pretty much every major military power practices and contemplates combined arms.

@milosh
Testing the seal on the ammo blast doors of the tank is basic PMC. You typically do not deploy without running basic PMC on vital components or field user accessible parts.

Further protection to the crew is afforded by an automatic fire suppression system. This fire suppression system is so effective that according to tank crew accounts during the push through Iraq, disabled M1 tanks that had to be destroyed by other M1 tanks were unsuccessful because the fire suppression system put out the fire in the crew compartment too quickly to have any lasting/significant damage. From my understanding the US military was/has been looking to use another chemical agent that isnt as hazardous to the crews health.

I would also like to point something out regarding active protection systems. From my understanding they are primarily used to defeat ATGMs, RPGs, and other chemical warheads. They are less effective at defeating/defending against HV kinetic rounds due to their (you guessed it) high velocity. From my understanding attempts to upgrade APS to defend against HV kinetic rounds by disrupting their trajectory thus reducing ability to defeat armor as seen in this Trophy APS advertisement (time index 1:30)


Also how effective is ERA against current advanced ATGMs like Javelin, Spikes, Brimstone and the latest anti-armor variant of the Hellfire? All of which have tandem warheads designed to negate the protection values of ERA. I know someone is going to pipe up with "heavy" ERA. Unless that "heavy" ERA destroyed the missile itself and its main charge and the tank has a robust composite and NERA underneath those ERA blocks, newer ATGMs (especially with a top attack profile) are still a nasty threat to any MBT
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2263
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 07:21

CL, I agree. I also note Knowan's comment on lack of depression. The lack of depression is a function of a smaller silouette to reduce target size. It doesn't mean it can't do hull down.

I think it probably reflects the Russian view on defence that a tank would need more prepared positions, than just relying a natural crest for a hull down. That probably why many later Russki tanks have a dozer blade which I won't be surprised to see eventually on operational T-14s. The lack of the depression being I suspect offset by thicker front armor, whether turret or hull.

To increase gun depression, the tank needs to be taller = bigger target if not in hull down. Again its a question of trade offs rather than any real inferiority on the part of design which is more the point I'm making.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1050
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 14:54

First two and last two wheels have computer controlled suspension so maybe use them for gun elevation:
Image
PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests