Armor estimates for Russian tanks

[Maj.Hans]

1 minute ago, Dimitov said:

minimize the crew compartiment volume

 

That's maybe not a good solution though.

 

The tank and the crew have to do more together than just fight.  How long does a battle last?  The Gulf War lasted 100 hours, with crews living in and on their vehicles, but individual battles lasted only hours.

 

The Abrams tank is larger than it maybe NEEDS to be, it has a 4th crewman...That paid off in the Gulf War.  It gave the crews room to live in their tanks, it gave them an extra person to rotate around.  I recall some accounts of battles where various crewmen had been rotated into the loader and gunner seats so that they could sleep while the two crew in the driver/commander seat kept scanning and driving.

 

So is it a good idea to cram your crew in?  I guess it depends on what you're doing, doesn't it?  If you leave base for a few hours at a time or a day to go make a raid on Grozny, maybe being shoehorned in is a good thing.  If you're going to go half way across the globe and fight a drawn out war, maybe the space pays off?

[Damian90]

16 minutes ago, Dimitov said:

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?

 

Well T-14, to give it credit, is far more, westernized than previous T tanks.

 

Sure it still follows the idea of minimizing internal volume, and it's good, the same is done in western countries, although.

 

Look, the difference is, that when Soviets were designing their tanks, the requirements were extreme when it comes to reduction of internal volume. This was because they wanted as lightweight tanks as possible, with reasonable protection.

 

This is understandable, but had it's consequences. It's not that Soviet engineers didn't knew about idea of main gun ammo isolation, blow off panels etc. They actually were experimenting with such designs!

 

However they were never implemented, because of ridiculous extreme requirements from the MoD, that forced them to minimize internal vehicle volume to a ridiculous extreme.

 

This is why in T-64, T-72, T-80, T-84 and T-90, all ammo is stored, in crew compartment. And results of this we know, we see.

 

The west aimed at more, balanced approach, and in reality tanks like Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and 2, are so big, externally, not because their internal volume is so large, but because they use very bulky, thick, composite armor.

 

T-14 is a kinda different beast, because it uses unmanned turret, now the requirement for both minimizing internal volume to possible extreme, and in the same time, increasing crew survivability, are not contradicting each other.

 

And NATO most likely will follow this pattern, Germany and France have their MGCS - Main Ground Combat System program for new tank, and US have it's FT - Future Tank concept.

 

I don't what Germans and French plans, but Americans openly said that their new tank, will be smaller and lighter than Abrams, but in the same time, will have just as good if not better composite armor, maybe ERA, but also active protection system. And weight and size reduction will be done through use of unmanned turret, crew will most likely be placed entirely in hull. So in the end you got American T-14.

 

And we seen both Germans and Americans were in the 80's and 90's experimenting with such designs, we have M1 TTB technology demonstrator in US, and EGS/NGP technology demonstrator in Germany.

 

So the concept is known, simply only now technology permitts us to implement it.

 

One more thing. About crew reduction, less than 3 crew members will not work well, just as Maj.Hans said. 3 crew members is absolute minimum.

 

4 crew members is cool, yeah no doubt it that, but in the same time it makes internal volume, perhaps a little too large.

 

Simply there is no perfect solution, but if I would design a tank, not matters with manned or unmanned turret, I think, I would choose to have 3 crew members.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Damian90

[Homer]

 

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I suppose this is based on the actual contract. If the contract has been signed and the date has been set in it, that's what gets announced in public. Of course, if reality behaves a bit different than the plan you have to somehow accommodate. But delays and teething problems in a project that involves ambitious engineering goals are the norm rather than the exception. If no problems occur, it's a hint that the engineering wasn't ambitious.

 

I don't know what it is based upon but this isn't the first or second time I have heard a similar proclamation.  Here's how silly it is: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-claims-t14-armata-tank-is-in-production-2016-3

 

This is the most interesting part of the article if it is an accurate quote:

"Money has already been invested, and if we stop without finishing, then that will be lost money. Everything that has been started will be finished, and money will be allocated to it," Chemezov said.

[Grenny]

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I suppose this is based on the actual contract. If the contract has been signed and the date has been set in it, that's what gets announced in public. Of course, if reality behaves a bit different than the plan you have to somehow accommodate. But delays and teething problems in a project that involves ambitious engineering goals are the norm rather than the exception. If no problems occur, it's a hint that the engineering wasn't ambitious.

I'll quote this post if someone asks about the time-planning of my projects

[Damian90]

Well considering higher price of T-14 compared to T-90 and T-90A, and economic problems, we can assume that per year they won't manufacture a lot.

 

During earlier economic problems when T-90 and T-90A was manufactured for Russian Army, no more than 30-60 per year were made.

 

T-90: USD 2.5 million in 1999, T-90A/S: USD 2.77 – 4.25 million in 2011 (varies by source) and T-90MS: USD 4.5 million.

 

T-14: $3.7 million.

 

However I doubt if this is the real price of T-14.

[Homer]

T-14 is currently $6.8 million.  The $3.7 million is the estimated unit price for a production run of 2300 tanks.  This is the construction cost only and does not include R&D, testing, etc.

[Damian90]

Thanks for info, then yeah, it's more expensive than T-90, nobody should expect huge production per year.