UVZ (Uralvagonzavod) "Object 195" or T-95 tank

[paralay]

The T-95 and T-14 are equipped with an active protection system and the design of the "carousel" differs from the classic one. I believe it will not be easy to cause significant damage to the "combat squad".

 

[Andrei_bt]

195 AZ

 

[stealthflanker]

What is wrong with T95 and T14 design? Compare to M1 or Leclerc tank, where ammunition is stored in turret, a penetration of ammunition in T95/T14 will burn the whole fighting compartment, includes the gun, sensors... which are the most expensive components of the vehicle.

The first and foremost priority for armored vehicle is protection of the crew. That's where your armor budget allocated the most. T-95 and later T-14 achieved the "next level" by completely separating the crew from the munitions.

Sensors etc are replaceable element.

 

[yeetmahboi]

While bustle storage makes it very easy to implement blowout panels, a central carousel ala AZ/MZ would be well protected by the thick hull armour in all arcs. The bustle extension also increases turret length, and that sort of constraint is sometimes undesirable.

Design is about managing tradeoffs.

 

[ynm]

The T-95 and T-14 are equipped with an active protection system and the design of the "carousel" differs from the classic one. I believe it will not be easy to cause significant damage to the "combat squad".

Any active protection system is easy to overcome. For example rain down 40mm apfsds from flank almost guarantee penetration in engine and turret segment. Most tank is very weak from side attack. Currently many new tanks design incorporate 30mm or even larger auto cannon for anti drone. It can also be used to flank any tank with ap or apfsds.

The only way to protect the carousel of T14/95 is insensitive ammunition. Rheinmetall even comes to the conclusion that it doesnt need blow out panel for ammo just fire suppression is enough. But that approach is not guaranteed, for example expensive ammunition etc... and there is still chance of ammunition combustion or detonation if opponent is smart enough.

It's very hard to protect from side, especially the hull because there is not enough space to put armor. It's just the geometrical layout of the tank. The hull is narrow, and beside it the tracks take the whole volume. Very few ppl realized this problem, but from tradition layout like T95/14, there is no way to armor the side enough.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Very few ppl realized this problem, but from tradition layout like T95/14, there is no way to armor the side enough.

What layout you propose can fix this problem?

 

[ynm]

You clearly dont know armored warfare. Most tank like M1 or T90 side hull armor is under 100mm, many area is less than 50mm. Modern 40mm apfsds easily +150mm penetration.

But if you really want to protect the side, just put thick enough side skirt armor. The tank will be very wide and heavy but its possible. Like the Challenger 2 TES it is 4.4m wide with very thick side armor. Some M1A3 proposals also have very thick side panels.

The only down side of hull side armor is that it makes the tank very wide, because it must be outside the tracks. But if you really want it, it's possible.

 

[yeetmahboi]

So if I'm getting this right, your opinion is that classic tank layouts (T-14, Abrams, Leo) are under-armoured from the side and the only way to improve this is to add new armour plating, which increase the overall width. Is that accurate?

Modern tanks are narrow because they have to go through roads and be loaded on trains. And, they have separate compartments arranged back-to-back, not side-by-side. I'm not even sure why we are even talking about this. All the weaknesses you listed for the T-14 are endemic to practically every modern tank. Okay, maybe not the carousel autoloader, but ammo in hull is ammo in hull regardless of whether you put it in armoured lockers or a carousel.

 

[paralay]

The only way to protect the carousel of T14/95 is insensitive ammunition.

And if you fill the "fighting compartment" with inert gas? The damage may be limited to a few shells.
The figure shows the arrival of a 57-mm projectile

 

[ynm]

And if you fill the "fighting compartment" with inert gas? The damage may be limited to a few shells.
The figure shows the arrival of a 57-mm projectile

First of all, how do you fill inert gas? There is a hole from the barrel inside out with diameter of 125mm. That not consider tradition Russian tanks have a port to eject stud of used round. Gas will leak through barrel or that port

OK, assume somehow you can keep the gas inside compartment, or refill it with like nitrogen, which is cheap every where. The problem is ammunition doesnt need oxygen to explode. This is chemistry. In both propellant and explosive, the energy is stored in the energy material itself. So, even if you store the round under water, if there is heat, shock or anything initiate, the material will burn and explode. You can think it as both the oxidizer and fuel are stored in the explosive itself. The trick to prevent ammunition burning is not inert gas. The British even stores the round in water but that is no help either. The trick is insensitive ammo, but even with them, there is still a chance to burnt.

And, of course you can try to armor the side with 150mm or 200mm steel to protect against autocanon, its possible, but still, there is a fundamental weakness of T14/95 style compartment when ammo is burnt, it will damage the most expensive components of the tanks.

Lets give an analyse of the tank. T14/95 has 3 compartment, crew, fighting and engine. The crew compartment, there is nothing special, control unit, screen, computer, all is cheap. The engine compartment, the Russian has a tradition of using cheap engine, T14 has X engine but that is not something truly special.

Now, the fighting compartment, the gun, control of gun, optics, radar, autoloader, all of them will be burnt when ammo is explode. It seems that the fighting compartment is the most expensive of all three. Compare to Abrams there is many vids where ammo is burnt but crew in the turret is safe with all the parts like gun, sensors and control unit. The only unit damaged is a steel box of ammo.

And not only that, compare to old style autoloader of T72/80/90 series, the ammo in T95/14 is vertically stored. From the opponent gun point of view, that increase the area 3 or 4 times. So a hit like horizontal shape charge jet in fighting compartment will mostly hit ammo, wherein old T90 the ammo is very low horizontal and much harder to hit.