Jump to content

Dimitov

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dimitov

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Thanks for clearing things up Damian! I was unaware that Nozh worked this way. So that's why even when the ERA coverage is dense it is still a 50% solution. Are there any signs that Russia is experimenting with more western style tanks and their composites/layered armor. Or are they still trying to minimize the crew compartiment volume like in the T-14?
  2. Can you enlighten me a bit on the T-64BM "bulat"? It uses nozh ERA which claims to cut APDSFS? But these simulations show that the HEAT jet from the Nozh gets smeared all over the rod. http://www.i-mash.ru/materials/technology/57490-dinamicheskaja-zashhita-nozh-mify-i-realnost.html Why didn't the Ukrainians just keep using the proven Kontakt-5 and head into such a experimental direction. Even Relict is still a very conventional design compared to Nozh. Do you have some more information on how effective Nozh is in the current conflict in Ukraine?
  3. Yeah I might have to go back to the drawing board I think Now I still want to have some things cleared up since, Damian said that the Russian armor package is nothing special, how effective is the newest Russian ERA "Relict". Since "Kontakt-5" offers some degree of protection against APDSFS, I read claims that "Relict" offers up to 50% reduction of APDSFS. IF this is true the T-90SM should be a lot better protected than the T-90S. However I have not found any articles of sources to back up this claim. And generally speaking the T-90A is considered better than the T-80U, but it bothers me that the 4th guards use T-80UD tanks, I don't understand why you would not give elite units the best weapons your country has available.
  4. So if I understand it correctly a single number as defensive/armor value would be a lot more realistic than a whole lot of numbers with a lot of uncertainty. I know from wargame fora that people like simplicity and ease of play, which is ofcourse understandable. So dropping the idea of a lot of unrealisic numbers of "armor equivalent" and replace them with a single number based on more factors than armor thickness would be the way to go then. I know the crew is the most important factor of a tank but I would like to model that apart from the attack and defense values of the tanks. What are the most important things that protect a tank apart from crew skill and the armor?
  5. Do you think ~69cm RHAe is a reasonable estimate for the glacis of the t-90 with kontakt-5? It seems like this is more than most NATO MBT's. I don't know if you have ever heard from the wargame: Panzer War - Airland Battle, but I am checking the values for armor the game uses since their penetration estimates are a bit off IMO.
  6. Hello, I have read a lot of detailed articles from exprerts across the web about the history of tanks, a lot of them give information about the armor thickness and composition. But when it comes to estimating the protection not all values are up to date. I noticed that a lot of people are estimating the expected armor efficiency in RHAe with some help of P. Lakowski's Armor Basics. From what I have read I understand that those estimates and values are considered outdated. Now I'm asking if some of the experts here could help me on finding some good estimates for the front armor of Russian tanks. I found this some time ago:t: http://web.archive.org/web/20121122075638/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm Also could you tell me if this site is still up to date (If I recall corectly Forfanov is still active on this forum right?): http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html I am especially intrested in the T-80 and T-90 variants as sources vary a lot in their estimations. I hope some of you can help me. Regards, Dimitov
×
×
  • Create New...