Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Damian90

  1. Official weight for T-14 and T-15 provided is 55 metric tons. Obviously this means that due to smaller internal volume at such weight, T-14 have superior protection over T-15.
  2. I have interesting observation. The US Army M1A1SA and some M1A2SEPv1/v2 tanks, have serial numbers ending with letter M on their turrets. What does that mean? It means that the M suffix is a code for the NGAP or Next Generation Armor Package, as the same M suffix can be seen on the newest M1A2SEPv3 tanks. Ok, so what is the difference? Well, the M1A2SEPv3 have turret and hull front armor thicker than previous generations. My theory is that NGAP armor have two generations. 1st gen. NGAP was an upgrade for M1A1SA (possibly also M1A1FEP) and M1A2SEPv1/v2. Pic. M1A2SEPv2 and M1A2SEPv3 While 2nd. gen. NGAP armor is an improved variant for M1A2SEPv3/v4, that is designed not only to protect against current modern threats but also possible future threats, by not only using improved armor composition, but also making it significantly thicker and heavier.
  3. https://военное.рф/2019/ФорумАрмия64/ So it seems that during Army 2019, Anatoly Tarnayev, chief engineer at Plant no.9 in Yekaterinburg (this plant developes large calliber artillery weapons), said that all research and development work on 152mm high pressure smoothbore tank gun 2A83 had been... cancelled. T-14 MBT's will be armed only with 125mm smoothbore gun 2A82.
  4. Wasn't XM827 WHA rod? Or at least one of variants tested?
  5. Low magnification makes finding targets easier, cause you see more, your vision is not reduced to a very narrow FoV. It's like Nick Moran explained why in general during WWII American tank crews in M4's had better situational awareness than their German counterparts. In German tanks, gunner vision was reduced only to a narrow FoV of his telescope sight. In M4 medium tank, gunner had a periscope sight combined with unity sight, and later both periscope sight, unity sight and telescope sight. If I can be frank, I really dislike Leopard 2's day sight, even tough it have a very good double axis stabilization for it's mirrors, I preffer M1/M1A1 sight, even if it only have single axis stabilization of it's mirrors.
  6. Meh, crunchies... which sounds funny to me, in the army I was a crunchie, in the Air Cav. BTW so your answer means yes?
  7. Ha so I was not wrong that Active Protection Systems are implemented in SB Pro PE! Will also NATO vehicles receive them? Like a Trophy HV module for M1A1/M1A2?
  8. Claessen, Luitenant-kolonel A.H.J., Tanks & Pantserwagens — De Technische Ontwikkeling, Blaricum, 2003, p. 96 Allegedly this source claims that Challenger 2 might use Tungsten as part of it's "Dorchester" armor.
  9. Yeah I recall it was mentioned on TankNet years ago.
  10. Did I seen it right, is Afganit active protection system on Kurganets-25 functional, or am I just seeing things?
  11. @dejawolf Ok I have now solid confirmation that M1A2C front hull armor is thicker than in previous versions. This is M1A1M, it have same hull and turret dimensions as all M1A1's and M1A2's previous to M1A2C, notice where front lights and their bushguards are placed, just next to the edge where upper front hull plate joins with lower front plate. And now M1A2C, it's clearly visible that the edge where upper front plate and lower front plate are welded togheter, is much further to the front compared to lights and their bushguards.
  12. I think I confirmed that hull front is thicker On this photo we can see that anti slip coating pattern is different with additional strip in front just above the edge of the armor, also front lights are moved forward and large space without anti slip coating left behind them, compared to the older prototypes and tank variant Here the old hull anti slip coating and lights placement relative to it is even better visible.
  13. Ah yes true. In US protection is always provided for angle of impact 30 deegres from turret/hull longitudinal axis, not at 0 degrees, so protection will differ.
  14. Another proof that M1A2C turret front armor is thicker.
  15. It is possible, a threat assesment through ballistic tests can be adjusted through changing distance and propelant charge. The thing is US is very reluctant to release true data even for the basic M1... despite the fact that this variant is not in service for decades now and it's armor protection can be considered as obsolete.
  16. The problem is that people misunderstand the very beginning of this story, which is protection requirements for the M1 which... we do not know. Often mentioned requirements like 115mm APFSDS at 800m is not for M1 but for XM1 before it got BRL-1 armor package. This requirement was for the US spaced armor that used steel and aluminium layers. However during development of the XM1 in to the M1 armor design was redesigned several times. Heck the FSED phase vehicle wich we can consider very late prototypes or pre production vehicles also changed, the early FSED XM1 had a slightly different armor design especially on turret to the late FSED XM1 and the production M1. Another thing is the steel used for M1 production. Often mentioned steel is RHA but M1's armor is also made from HHS, and hardness ranges from over 300 to over 400 BHN and from over 400 to over 500 BHN, most of the estimations tough seems to use only most standard RHA. Another thing is that NERA type armor do not always have same performance, it can be adjusted both vs KE and CE by use of more energetic reactive layers, for example simple NERA uses rubber between steel plates, while more advanced variants can use polyurethane or other more energetic materials. Same goes with steel plates, as both softer and harder plates can be used. Another factor is simply how much armor volume M1 have at the front. In case of M1 front hull and turret protection was equall, as both have the same thickness of ~750mm. In case of M1IP, M1A1 and M1A2 turret got thickness boost up to ~950mm while hull front remained the same. Of course internal armor composition also changed becoming more effective. IMHO M1 series are simply underestimated considering that by pure armor volume they have the thickest composite armor of all tanks. And M1A2C seems to have slightly thicker armor at the front. And so if we compare pure composite armor thickness with other tanks. Leopard 2 series on avarage have ~650mm on the turret front and ~600mm on the hull front, as considered by current estimations and meassurements. Challenger 1 had on avarage ~460mm on turret front and on hull front ~330mm per current estimations. Challenger 2 had on avarage ~670mm on turret front and ~330mm on hull front per current estimations. Keep in mind I talk here only about physical thickness or armor volume. But then again, even if we consider that all of these vehicles use only NERA type arrays, and these NERA arrays are comparable in performance (and why they should not be?), why the heck M1 series are underestimated and other MBT's are overestimated is beyond me. And then again we also know that at some point NERA type arrays were hybridized with a passive composite arrays. Adding steel/ceramic/steel layers, or stee/depleted uranium alloy/steel layers, or even layers of armor grade titanium alloy. We know US did that with M1's where all above improvements were added. Challenger 1 was never improved in that regard, while Challenger 2 is unclear, some sources claim DU was added to it's Dorchester armor, some says Tungsten. What about Leopard 2? Was some dense metal added? Or perhaps something like titanium? Or perhaps it's only still NERA type with more efficent steel plates and reactive layers.
  17. Some photos from JSMC factory during President Trump visit. Some interesting details of M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3).
  18. It was not a drama but few words of truth about some idiotic communities and products that pretend to know something. And who says there is NERA inside at all? You know what is inside? Heck I have no idea how frontal armor of the M1A1 looks like. As for few other things. Who said I was right that M1A1 used BRL-2, and one more thing, BRL is not short for Burlington, BRL is short for Ballistic Research Laboratory, and BRL-1 was a test module designation considered to be one later used in M1, while BRl-2 was a heavier test module suspected to be used in M1IP. Does M1A1 used BRL-2? Maybe yes or maybe not, there are sources claiming that M1A1 armor was something completely else. And I actually have information from a credible source that seen M1A1 armor modules for turret and hull, who said it clearly, it's not NERA only, there are steel/ceramic/steel layers there as well, or this is what he described. Of course there is possibility that M1IP armor was also not pure NERA, perhaps BRL-2 was exactly that, NERA layers + steel/ceramic/steel layers. Our knowledge about the subject is not written in stone and is constantly evolving, besides there is a lot of researchers that are privy to some informations, but are not willing to share them, I support such stance, and I do it myself. Speaking about M1A2C, from informations I gathered and comparing photographs with M1A2B, I estimate that M1A2C turret front and hull front is thicker by ~100mm or something around that.
  19. Opposed piston diesels are better than V type diesels. The problem is you need to design them properly. As for designation. It's simple, simply it's still M1A2 platform and system, M1A3 most likely will have a new turret, that is being designed by GDLS, it will be a new platform and a new system.
  20. Ok I noticed something. M1A2C turret had changed, I mean geometry is slightly different at front and armor is thicker. https://www.toledoblade.com/politics/2019/03/16/abrams-titan-tanks-plant-lima-ohio-defense-spending-army Watch video under this link. And now the photos. Ok, it's confirmed, both turret front and hull front are thicker.
  21. Maybe because new FLIR needs a development cycle, something completely normal in real world of adults... As for armor, of course it can be upgraded, NERA efficency can be increased by changing reactive layer to more energetic one, with plates made from better steel or different metals with better properties. And who says there is NERA or NxRA left in the armor? What if it's a completely different design? But yes I am perfectly aware that some people are completely oblivious to such simple truths... but hey Gaijin was incapable to even properly model M1A1 armor considering how realistic they pretend to be. On the other hand not surprising considering that this is not necessary non secret data, but people that know had a good laugh. Tough it's funny they even ignored fact that M1A1 have improved front hull protection, even tough M1E1 prototype have a weight simulator on hull front, clearly implying armor was improved there. Of course I know this obvious evidence would be ignored as it's contradicts the narrative of the Russian company the Gaijin is. So in regard of vehicle protection, SB Pro PE is far closer to the truth, even if it's not intended to be for obvious reasons. Just my little rant here. On topic tough, here is a photo of a fresh new batch of M1A2C's in JSMC facility. Interesting that it seems US Army returns to woodland camouflage pattern as standard.
  22. It's worth to note that the end of connection line next to a CITV mounting point (used of course in M1A2 series), have two connector plugs. My guess is these can be used for AN/VLQ-6 and AN/VLQ-8 "soft kill" active protection systems, which is mounted around there on M1A1 series).
  23. Thanks. From 11th Armored Cavalry Division facebook fanpage.
  24. In general M1A2C is 1st step in a very major modernization. It focuses both on electronics, new APU, improvements in FCS and also significant, significant improvement in armor protection. Next step will be M1A2D, and here it will be more focused on FCS, CITV will be replaced, GPS will be replaced with new designs that have 3rd gen FLIR, new day color cameras, new laser range finders and laser pointers... yes commander CITV or rather ICITV will have now a day color camera and laser range finder besides 3rd gen FLIR, same for new gunner IGPS. ECP1A is M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3), and ECP1B is M1A2D (M1A2SEPv4). So in general, lots and lots of improvements. As for engine, transmission and also suspension, there is a lot of development work, but nothing is decided yet. In terms of suspension I guess US Army would be happy to replace torsion bars with hydropneumatic suspension system, that is developed and ready for M1. In terms of engine and transmission, well the variant with MTU MT883 diesel and Allison 5250MX transmission was designed, integrated and tested but, again replacing engines in the entire fleet is expensive + US Army have other priorities as AGT1500 is simply good enough. Besides US Army invested a lot of money for Cummins and Achates Power opposed piston two stroke modular diesel engines called ACE (Advanced Combat Engine), ACE is lighter, smaller and overall better performing than MT883. This is because opposed piston two stroke diesels, in general have for example better heat rejection characteristics than V type diesels, opposed piston two stroke diesels also have better power density. They did not get popular because they are difficult to design properly, but currently with CAD, simulations and new materials, it is possible to design a reliable two stroke opposed piston diesel. The first variant designed is ACE1000 generating 1000HP, it is meant for vehicles in 30-40 metric tons weight. On the grahics you can see how much space ACE1000 engine takes in Bradley IFV engine compartment compared to it's current V type diesel. Now imagine how much less space next in development ACE1500 variant generating 1500HP designed for platforms in 50-70 metric tons weight will take in engine compartment of MBT like Abrams.
  • Create New...