Wiedzmin написал(а):что защиты он давать не будет
Engineers who worked for decades on armor development, have a wealth of past experience and vast subjects of analysis, created a world class tank whose main point of armor has no function. Great logic.
If I were to guess its function, it would probably be for normalization of the round. Surely you can put in a bit of effort to think of a possible reason to have it.
Wiedzmin написал(а):500 сразу ага
I don't appreciate your sarcasm.
Wiedzmin написал(а):я напишу что это попадание СПГ-9, как вы это собираетесь опровергнуть ? просто потому что "большая дырка" или что ? я могу написать что это попадание Метиса, или Конкурса, это вы как опровергнете ?
I remember it very well from the day it happened and heard the stories of the crewmen who served on that tank, and remember the reports on the incident. You can think whatever you'd like. I'm not here to convince you on every single bit.
Wiedzmin написал(а):я их могу вполне оценить, никто из западных стран подобные решения в броне не использует, это очень хорошо говорит о том насколько они "эффективны".
So there is no western tank, currently, that is able to withstand any type of 125mm shells? Is this what you're saying?
Wiedzmin написал(а):т.е каким образом любой вид NERA влияет на ОБПС вы объяснить не в состоянии, но оно почему то обязательно должно хорошо сжитать пробиваемость ОБПС ?
I tend to believe official sources.
Wiedzmin написал(а):вот только беда, последний не особо то и держит собственные 120мм ОБПС.
And how do you know the Leopard 2A5 is unable to withstand 120mm APFSDS? Also, if you can, please specify which type of APFSDS is that. DM33 - DM63.
I, for example, have heard of South Korean tests on their K2 against their recently developed APFSDS fired from an L55 gun at point blank range. Now, I don't know what they mean by point blank. Could be 200m, could be 500m, could be 1km. But I believe them, and it does seem like quite a feat, even if we consider their APFSDS developments are still not on par with US, Russian, Israeli-German, or French ones (not my analysis).
Wiedzmin написал(а):модульность - рекламная фишечка для слабоумных, под которой скрыт обычно совсем другой смысл, а именно - навесные модули имеют малую живучесть, из за чего их надо часто менять, от того что эти модули можно менять, сколько вы там "поколений" брони не впишите, они не будут обретать новые качества на порядки лучше чем то что было, простой пример, первые модели чобхема это 550-650 от КС, последующие до 800-850, но это все в составе защиты определенного танка, а не модуль "сам по себе".
Of course you need to replace them after they're hit. Their protective capabilities are compromised. Even a tank without modular armor would require armor replacement in the area it was hit, otherwise risk entering combat with a weak spot. The module itself doesn't have to have low survivability. A simple slightly thick steel cover will keep it mostly intact. It gives a tremendous advantage in that a tank can be repaired within several hours instead of several days or weeks in a factory.
I don't understand your last remark. You can have different modules, with different levels of protection. Had a 3rd generation armor on a tank you're still keeping in service? Slap a 4th gen module instead of it:
The protection given to the Merkava 3D Baz increased quite significantly compared to the standard Merkava 3.
Wiedzmin написал(а):естественно, иначе то как ? танк стал намного больше, защиты стало не особо больше, т.е он в лучше случае по корпусу имеет уровень защиты существующих танков, либо чуть чуть выше.
So then it means the T-14 has a significant design flaw, don't you think? If it's insufficient against 120mm APFSDS (which both Russian sources and some western sources would disagree with, to some extent) without the APS, and clearly the T-14's hull was not designed in a way that relies solely on APS, then that means that upon first armor penetration to the hull, the crew will either be half dead half badly injured, or entirely dead. I think it would be plain stupid to assume the ballistics department would put such a tremendous and irrepairable flaw.
Wiedzmin написал(а):которые вы выдумали сами ? т.к например 3 поколение ПТУР было создано в 80е года...
No, I didn't make these up. And how is the date of the creation of 3 gens of ATGMs related to it? I only cited 2000+ as being the time around which these armor solutions started popping up. Not an actual criteria for the classification of an armor as such.
Wiedzmin написал(а):т.е вы не знаете ни состава брони, ни как она работает, но вот магическое слово "новое поколение" должно давать какие то супер показатели
Logic dictates that an improved version of something would perform better.
Wiedzmin написал(а):она больше любого другого танка элементарно по высоте, вы зря недооцениваете вес стали.
Not that much taller. It's related to other things like roof armor and wheel travel as well. The Merkava's hull is raised slightly, and in the Mark 4 there is a significant amount of roof armor, several hundred millimeters thick.
Wiedzmin написал(а):чем больше внутри пространства, тем тяжелее танк, и тем меньше в нем брони.
Not unless it increases the tank's overall size, which it doesn't really. A front mounted engine frees up quite a lot of room inside the tank. It is not related to the tank's height.
Wiedzmin написал(а):она не самый бронированный и не самый защищенный танк
In active service it is. There is currently no other tank that is equipped with an APS other than the T-14, which is still not in service. The APS alone puts it one level above, and so will happen with the T-14 when it's ready.
Other than that, there are only a few tanks who actually meet the Merkava 4's passive armor capabilities - Challenger 2TES, M1A2 SEPv3 TUSK v1+2, Leclerc XLR and Leopard 2 EVO. Out of these the Leclerc XLR is not yet in service, and the rest are only competitive with the side armor but still lack top protection and rear protection, of which the Merkava 4 currently seems to have the most.
(The Merkava 3 on the other hand, does not have a very impressive amount of hull armor).
The only disadvantage here with the Merkava 4 is that its non-isolated ammo compartment at the rear has become exposed in recent years. It was supposed to be one of its greatest protective features, but now it's its biggest disadvantage. Tank vs tank combat doesn't occur anymore on the scale that asymmetrical warfare does, so the feature of not having ammo inside the turret became irrelevant (which is why the Merkava 3 and 4 have ready racks). This should be fixed with the Rakiyah though, but it'll only be fielded, at best, in 2027.
Side note: I believe this was relevant to the discussion at some point, regarding vulnerability, or lack of it, of the Merkava in its frontal arc to the Kornet.
http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm