It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Funny since i saw no logic nor any equations to back that up. First it was the amount of HE needed to get into the steel, which was disproved, then it was a shock wave. Because you are so inconsitant with your claims you try to use personal attacks as a way to hide them

There's no point in correcting you and besides you haven't psoted one source to support your side of the mortar argument.




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
chinawhite, I've been down this road with rogue1 before, be careful. He does use different accounts, and when you put him on the spot he'll start sending you insulting u2us and will definitely try to get you banned or get points deducted by instigating conflict and lying to admins.

I'm not the first forum member that dealt with it, and will not be the last, so watch out there partner.


LOl, right. Who's insitigating conflict
The moderators know the truth, it was right there in B&W in your posts
What you're going to accuse me of changing your posts now ?
This is typical of you, you have no argument with the post, so you resort to this. BTW, this isn't chinawhite using another account like before ?


This cracked me up though;


I rely on logic and physics


No he doesn't, he simply does not understand basic formulas, much less physics. In other threads I tried posting various physics formulas, he didn't get them. Rubbish, all it is.

Again chinawhite, don't let him get to you and don't let him provoke you, its how he works.


Right, right. You care to dispute what I say, or are you just having a go. I think the problem is you know I'm right as usual. But hey, I still enjoy your stories, keep posting as long as people know that they are just that, fairytales.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
What you're going to accuse me of changing your posts now ?


You made up quotes about me
www.abovetopsecret.com...


BTW, this isn't chinawhite using another account like before ?


This is the first time you actually acussed me of this. LoL. My posts must have worked on your ego

Like i would spend type five thousand words to arguing with myself to discredit both accounts?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
yes and im sure you can provide something stating it's not possible for an 81mm


The burden of proof lies on the first claim, which was a mortar round will destroy all of the ERA on the tank. You are on that side and thus the burden is on and not me.

There wouldn't be instances of a mortar hitting this tank because that would not be a standard occurance and would not be tested as such.

But what we know is,
A) The exterior 15mm of hardened steel is able to stop a precursor charge
B) A shaped charge has more penerating power than a non-shaped charged explosive
C) The mortar does not have a shaped charge
D) A shaped charge focuses its energy in one spot while a mortar is a area effect weapon in comparison, thus unconcentrated
E) ITS A 81MM mortar ROUND. Not 61mm and not 120mm



Well 81mm rounds aren't the only morthar round


It may well be so, but the argument is a 81mm round and nothing else. Im well aware what can and cannot kill or mission kill a tank

How is aiming a mortar round at a moving target even possible?.


They're obviosly going to be packed with more explosives than a precursor charge


A precursor charge is designed to go though metal, which it is effective at doing. A mortar is designed to blow up bunkers will multiple hits. See the difference in roles

A example would be a hammer and a knife to make a hole through meat. The hammer is heavier whats the problem



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
This is the first time you actually acussed me of this. LoL. My posts must have worked on your ego


They sure do, the more you post the more certain I am that I am far smarter.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
But what we know is,
A) The exterior 15mm of hardened steel is able to stop a precursor charge


LOl right, what type of precursor chrge ? what lining does it use, what is it's diamter, what is the weight of explosive ?
The Hellfires 100mm precursor charge would very very easily penetrate 15mm of " hardened " steel. DUH.


B) A shaped charge has more penerating power than a non-shaped charged explosive


Once again that all depends on the weight of explosive. So your saying a 100g precusrsor charge has more penetrating power tha a 500lb JDAM ?


C) The mortar does not have a shaped charge


Whoa the first bit of truth you've posted. still doesn't help your argument.


D) A shaped charge focuses its energy in one spot while a mortar is a area effect weapon in comparison, thus unconcentrated
E) ITS A 81MM mortar ROUND. Not 61mm and not 120mm


LOL, you've just repeated yourself twice, so in fact you only have 3 points, LOL. All of which are wrong or as usual based on your vagaries.



How is aiming a mortar round at a moving target even possible?.


Not the argument, your usual tctics of deflecting the argument away from your inconsitaces. Who says the tank has to be moving at all, who says the tank isn't hit whilst driving through a barrage. The Chechans have hit plwenty of Russian tanks with mortars




A precursor charge is designed to go though metal, which it is effective at doing. A mortar is designed to blow up bunkers will multiple hits. See the difference in roles


Once again a complete defelction of the argument/ The fact remains you can't back up a single thing you say and don't understand explosives at all.


A example would be a hammer and a knife to make a hole through meat. The hammer is heavier whats the problem


LOL, last time I heard meat dosesn't explode, it is an inert substance, so an inane metaphor, bearing no relaiton to the subject at all.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

The burden of proof lies on the first claim, which was a mortar round will destroy all of the ERA on the tank. You are on that side and thus the burden is on and not me.
Yes and im sure an ERA tile is invulernable to mortar explosions.




There wouldn't be instances of a mortar hitting this tank because that would not be a standard occurance and would not be tested as such.
the top of the tak armor is very thin,a powerful 120mm mortar will do it.


But what we know is,
A) The exterior 15mm of hardened steel is able to stop a precursor charge
Yes and you never specified how strong ofa precursor charge. Precursor charges can avry significantly as i've shown in my past post.


B) A shaped charge has more penerating power than a non-shaped charged
explosive
Not neccesarily,it;s aso about destructive power. For example can an RPG damage a tank more than a JDAM or artillery shell?



C) The mortar does not have a shaped charge
Only valid claim amde so far.......



D) A shaped charge focuses its energy in one spot while a mortar is a area effect weapon in comparison, thus unconcentrated
You're on a roll 2 correct statements.



E) ITS A 81MM mortar ROUND. Not 61mm and not 120mm
Pretending no other mortars will be fired ,yea they just wont be used.





It may well be so, but the argument is a 81mm round and nothing else. Im well aware what can and cannot kill or mission kill a tank
We're now talking of full scale war where anything can be fired at atank. U honestly think 81mm's are the only mortars going to fired at a tank.


How is aiming a mortar round at a moving target even possible?.
Who said it had to be moving. If it'sa barrage it's going to hit the tank. Why are you trying to chnage the topic/run away from it so fast?????? probabaly more antics to stray us away from the issue.




A precursor charge is designed to go though metal, which it is effective at doing. A mortar is designed to blow up bunkers will multiple hits. See the difference in roles
A mortar has more destructive power than a precursor charge. Do you honestly think 15mm of hardened steel protects better than a bunker's solid walls????



A example would be a hammer and a knife to make a hole through meat. The hammer is heavier whats the problem
What a cruddy analogy, you call this an accurate simulation of the difference between a mortar and a precursor charge hitting ERA. Meat doesn't explode or disrupt the knife cutting through it.


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
READ ALL of the words in the links.

A tank is vulnerable to artilelry and large mortars like the 120mm are considered artillery.




[edit on 20-7-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 20-7-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOl right, what type of precursor chrge ? what lining does it use, what is it's diamter, what is the weight of explosive ?


A RPG-29 rocket or a PG-7VR. One of the facts outlined from the source is it is able to defeat an percussor round of a rocket. That was part of the kontakt-5 design to be able to take on "hard" threats like sabots and tandem warheads.


Once again that all depends on the weight of explosive.


We are talking about specific examples of a perussor charge and a 81mm warhead. It will devivate between 1~2 kg of explosives in a mortar and about 200-300 gs in a percussor round.


LOL, you've just repeated yourself twice, so in fact you only have 3 points


No i didn't B and D have different meanings.

B refers to the fact that the shaped charge has more penerating power than a non-shaped charge while D refers to the fact that the Mortar round is a area effect weapon in comparison to a shaped charge



Who says the tank has to be moving at all, who says the tank isn't hit whilst driving through a barrage.


I did not change my argument or tried to divert anything. Urmumma said that the tank would be targeted by many mortar rounds instead of a 81mm round being discussed. I asked HIM are they going to purposly aim for an tank with a mortar and how one would try to aim at a moving target with it


The fact remains you can't back up a single thing you say and don't understand explosives at all.


Where is your explaintion about shockwaves?. Since i do physics i would like to see your equation.

"""I rely on logic and physics"""


bearing no relaiton to the subject at all.


Mortar is a blunt object while the kinfe is a shape object. It just shows what your trying to do. If you dont understand BASIC logic then why accuse other people of doing your style of post



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Yes and im sure an ERA tile is invulernable to mortar explosions.


Who claimed that?.

I am claiming a 81mm mortar round will not kill the ERA



the top of the tak armor is very thin,a powerful 120mm mortar will do it.


And that matters because?.

A) It has nothing to do with it
B) stop trying to side track the argument


Yes and you never specified how strong ofa precursor charge.


It would presumerbly be russian and unable to penerate the outter layer of the kontakt-5. We know these as constant factors


For example can an RPG damage a tank more than a JDAM or artillery shell?


We but we are not talking about bombs but percussor charges and mortar rounds. If i was going to refer to something else i would have told you


Only valid claim amde so far


Did you jsut copy mad scientist/rouges post?


Pretending no other mortars will be fired


WE are not talking about a battle situtation but a isolated incident of a 81mm round setting off a kontakt-5 ERA or like the original poster claimed, all of the ERA on the tank. They are not factors in this argument.


We're now talking of full scale war where anything can be fired at atank


We're, is a strange word. It would refer to everyone but all i see is you mentioning other weapons that could be used?


Do you honestly think 15mm of hardened steel protects better than a bunker's solid walls


Can a 81mm mortar destroy a bunker all buy it self or by continual bombardment?.


What a cruddy analogy


Mortar is a blunt object while the kinfe is a sharpe chaped charge



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


Who claimed that?.

I am claiming a 81mm mortar round will not kill the ERA
mAybe maybe not but an 81mm easily get through 15mm of steel if it can damage a bunker.Why do you still asume an 81mm is the only one being fired.




And that matters because?.

A) It has nothing to do with it
B) stop trying to side track the argument
Side track the argument?!??!?!?!?
Lol!!! and it does matter since the tanks topa rmor is very thin and vulnerable to attack eveen with ERA.


It would presumerbly be russian and unable to penerate the outter layer of the kontakt-5. We know these as constant factors
Sure.
Dodn't you know taht the strentth of precursor harges can avry by amlot depnding on the missile.


We but we are not talking about bombs but percussor charges and mortar rounds. If i was going to refer to something else i would have told youI was simply giving you ana anlogy of why a shaped chrge is not always as good as a conventional explosive in pentration and power.
Lol precursor charges themselves can vary sifnificanly in terms of penetrating power and mortars can vary in explosive power as well. I was simply giving you analogy there.



Did you jsut copy mad scientist/rouges post?
can you read??? it's not exactly the same thing.



WE are not talking about a battle situtation but a isolated incident of a 81mm round setting off a kontakt-5 ERA or like the original poster claimed, all of the ERA on the tank. They are not factors in this argument.
you actually think the enemy will be kind enough to not fire other mortars
Well if an 81 mm did hit the tile it would most likely explode or if not destroy the ERA. A mortar has a few lbs of explosive while most precursors only have 100g.A mortar can take out a hard bukner. 15mm of steel si nothing.



We're, is a strange word. It would refer to everyone but all i see is you mentioning other weapons that could be used?
Complete bull what kind of scenario are you going to find where oly 81mm's are goign to be fired.



Can a 81mm mortar destroy a bunker all buy it self or by continual bombardment?.
yes the entire bunker would take an assault but what matters is how much damage a single mortar will do for example a part of a wall or pillar which of course casuses significant damage. That's quite a clever antic u tried to use to sidetrack the argument but as usual it didn't work.



Mortar is a blunt object while the kinfe is a sharpe chaped charge
Once again your analogy is garbage.

1 meat does not explode(im not sure what kind of imagination you have but last checked when i had lamb chops meat doesn't exoplode when hit with a hammer or knife).
2.) ERA is really that soft and chewable!?!?!??!?

ERA use solid slabs. A knife will not get through a slab of rock but a hammer sure will.



[edit on 21-7-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
mAybe maybe not but an 81mm easily get through 15mm of steel if it can damage a bunker.


And how is dirt the same as metal?. You seem to be all up for statin it wouldn't but haven't provided anything which shows the effect of a mortar round on metal and what type of damage it does. Metal is very dis-similar to a bunk to get though because....*Insert obvious*



Why do you still asume an 81mm is the only one being fired.


IF we were talking about what can destroy a tank, they would have used examples of a hellfire, Komet, LOSAT, any "purpose" built ATGM, artillery rounds with smart warheads etc.

BUT because WE are trying to discuss the effectivness of a 81mm round mortar hit on the kontakt-5 there is no other weapon being fired on the tank. eg only factor which is a constant factor as well as the kontakt-5. NOw can you get that though your head


Side track the argument?


Refer to above. I seriously think you believe your on track so i wont try to mock your intelligence on this one. Unlike rouge1 you dont seem to act stupid when being asked your opinion. If you were rouge1 i would have called your post a strawman argument but i seriouly doubt your understand why it is


Don't you know taht the strentth of precursor harges can avry by amlot depnding on the missile.


Again, We know the most important constant factor. And will presume to know another factor which is a russian precussor charge. Also we can assume that it is in the 200-300g range of explosives in the charge in a shaped charge configuration

Factor 1# The precussor charge we are talking about cannot penerate the kontakt-5 outer lining of metal
Factor 2# The precussor charge is presumerly from a russian weapon, RPG-16, 29 or the PG-7VR
Factor-3# 200~300g of explosive charge

I did not make a general statment that its inveneruble to ALL precussor charges but ONE precussor charge. No one is talking about a hell fire or other missiles which you like to compare with. Now we also know a shaped charge has MORE penerating power than a non-shaped explosive. My example being 1cm^2 concentration compared to the mortar round which would be 10cm^2(highly unlikey) and 10m^2 concentration. Using that, we can work out the average amount of explosive per square centremeter. eg you can do the maths. 200~300 grans in 1cm^2 to 1~2 kg in a 10cm^2 area.

Now you shold read, re-read and read again to make sure you understood this properly before you start to say heel fire or JDAM again


mortars can vary in explosive power as well.


Unless the 81mm mortar round has increased by a dramtic size, they are normally in the range of 1~2 kg of explosives per round. You can also use the higher estimate if you want but you still get the same results.


can you read???


Your logic is the exactly the same with his one for this quote you had done. Its clearly copied


a single mortar will do for example a part of a wall or pillar which of course casuses significant damage.


The mortar will be effecting a large surface area and most of the explosive charge will be absorbed by the dirt around it. While we are trying to work out the peneratin a 81mm mortar round will have. I pillar is normally wood and to put it in your way "your analogy is garbage". Bunkers are usually dug in dirt and its walls are lightly packaged dirt

Because a mortar is used to destroy a bunker does not mean it will be as effective againest steel. One of the reasons why they are not used as tank busters and shaped charged ATGMs are.


That's quite a clever antic u tried to use to sidetrack the argument but as usual it didn't work.


And we were talking about 81mm mortars rounds on kontakt-5 and you go and say

I'll quote you
" the top of the tak armor is very thin,a powerful 120mm mortar will do it."

That my friend is called side tracking. I think you seriouly dont understand why your wrong or what your actaully doing. I am in a discussion about a 81mm round on kontakt-5. This does not include other things like smaller sized mortars, larger sized mortars and other weaponary. If you want to talk about armour peneration then this is the wrong thread to talk about it in. Do a OrBat, force concentration, why their fighting and the list of possible weaponary before ill think your serious about having a debate on this

No one is claiming that it will stop a hellfire or it will survie a hellfire attack. If you cant understand this, try to think like this way.

The Tank is being used for field trials and a 81mm round is being fire into the kontakt-5 to see whether it explodes. No battle, no war, AND NO OTHER WEAPONS


Once again your analogy is garbage.


Ignorance is Bliss



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
No matter what, this tank is going to be good anyways but here is a new 3D picture:

Pic:


Source: news.xinhuanet.com...

Cheers



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
this is super special awesome that they released the t-95
russia is growing more powerfull by the day



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It's interesting that no one ( including apparently Iskander) mentioned Drozd , and like systems, and considering the following:


Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"


So given that they had already retrofitted this to to a substantial fraction of their front line tanks one starts to wonder how non penetrating tank shells and ATGM/RGPS that infrequently hit were going to stop all that....

www.fas.org...

www.defense-update.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

russianarmor.info...

www.defense-update.com...

warfare.ru...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I smell some thing fishy about the T-95.
And since when has Konakt5 or any newer version been better than Dorchester armour???



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Sorry to say it but... What does the phrase "there is something fishy about it" mean???

I do not have english as my first language so beware that i sometimes do not understand some things like phrases.

Hmmmmm StellarX, it seems to me that the 120 MM gun off the Abrahams isnt just powerfull enough to cut throught the armour off the latest russian tanks...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Hmmmmm StellarX, it seems to me that the 120 MM gun off the Abrahams isnt just powerfull enough to cut throught the armour off the latest russian tanks...


Well i don't know that for a fact and i just telling you what i know and what i think accurate. Fact is before the introduction of the M1 ( and even then the M-1 were only clearly superior to T-64,72,80 by around 1990,) the Russians not only had a qualitative superiority but a numerical superiority and yet they still introduced both active and passive defenses before the US.


According to reports there were 5 K5 equipped tanks at baghad airport which engaged the charging cav units - and to the horror of the american tankers- these very same T-72`s (they had been blowing up for weeks) actually bounced DU shots.

ok they were then killed after taking more hits - but they fired back (and hit)

K5 is underated

and the Leo2 achieves better penertration than the M1 with tungsten ammo not du load

"harlequin"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


We can check with Harlequin for the source...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The thing about Konakt5 is it's reactive armour??? Right???
So how does it offer protection against a KE round like DU???
When this contact occured i doubt the US fired DU rounds.
A DU round fired from a modern tank will KO any known tank in the world at 1000m........Even a Challenger2 that has added on armour which makes the tank weigh 75 tons.........



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Kontakt-5 works by shearing the penetrator with those little plates of metal, not blowing the penetrator away or dulling the tip with explosive force

They were *supposed* to have aquired the parts from polish T-72M1 previously

www.highbeam.com...:141213121#prof

btvt.narod.ru...

also they copied the british armour boxes on captured chieftan tanks (of using baffled dead space) to improve RHa against HEAT loads (which actually worked well - the US tankers had to use DU load against all the T-72`s) and also applied adition 30mm glacis armour (again angled for extra reinforcement)

the combination of ERA and spaced armour boxes (so it would seem frothe first link) was enough to not be an `insta` kill.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Hmmmm still waiting for the explenation off the phrase: "there is something fishy about it" .

BTW i searched the innet and came up with this new concept art:




How does it look like in your perspective??? It looks deadly for me!!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join