Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:53 am

    Russia can't afford to have a Soviet sized armed force.

    But actually the old Soviet forces were split into three tiers of readiness.

    The high readiness units were near frontlines or based in Eastern Europe and had the latest stuff. They were pretty much ready to start fighting straight away.
    The Second tier units didn't have all their stuff and a lot of their stuff was older kit... the first tier had T-64s and then T-80s, while the second tier had T-72s and some upgraded T-62s, they were also not fully manned so they would take a couple of weeks to get conscripts with relatively recent service and equipment they most likely trained on when they were in service a few years back, while the third tier units had all their kit in long term storage and skeleton manning, and when formed up... which could take a month, had obsolete equipment like T-55/54 tanks and BTR-50 APCs.

    Basically the new revision has removed the tier 2 and tier 3 units and has begun the removal from storage of all the old stuff.

    The new units will the high readiness highly mobile and well equipped and well trained units.

    In comparison the new force will actually have more ready to use forces, but will not be able to fight a long sustained war, these forces are mainly for small or short conflicts... the bigger stuff will be covered by nukes.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 106
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  ali.a.r on Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:13 am

    Thats a huge change. Whenever I think of the Russian Army, I always have this mental image of hundreds of tanks crashing through the enemy. But the new tank force of less than 2000 tanks, (to be honest) it just sounds wrong.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:40 am

    That is not the total number of course. Even today, most vehicles are stored.

    But yes, the old Soviet armored fist of like 30 thousand tanks is history. And for the better.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:41 am

    The Soviet Army fist of 30,000 tanks never existed.

    The idea that they could get all 20,000 tanks on the battlefield at one time is a myth too.

    The reality is that in the opening stages there would have been about 2,000 Russian tanks on the front line in Eastern Europe ready to fight straight away from the first tier units that were all forward deployed.

    After a week the second tier units would have joined the battle, and after a month or two the third tier units would have been ready.

    On NATOs side they would not have had many less forward deployed, and after a week when Soviet second tier units arrived the NATO units from NATO countries would have arrived to match them.

    After a month or two the main force from the CONUS would have arrived.

    Throughout the entire campaign both sides would have rough parity, though not all forces would be sent to Europe by either side... western forces still had national borders to defend and the Soviets did too, with forces needed in the South and East and North of the Soviet Union and of course similar concerns in the west.

    Most armour comparisons in Europe from the cold war ignore French armour and several other armoured units that could be deployed, but include all three tiers of Soviet Armour... which as I mentioned would not be available on day one anyway, and much of it would never leave the Soviet Union as it was positioned in the Far East against Japan and China, or north against Norway and Finland etc, or south vs Turkey.

    The current structures actually means there is more ready to fight forces with excellent equipment that is far better than most of the Soviet stuff.

    Just look at the armament of the Corvettes being built now.

    Or the difference between a Mig-35 and a Mig-29B.

    Even the difference between an OSA and the latest model TOR.

    More importantly they have decided that they are now a purely defensive force so if NATO or China want to invade then it will be tactical nukes that stem the tide, not huge armoured forces.

    For little fights like against Georgia, or a border dispute their small compact and efficient forces will be able to deal with easily, and for the bigger stuff they have and are prepared to use nukes.

    The improved equipment and mobility will actually give them better global reach than they ever had before to be honest.

    The mobility and improve logistics of commonality and standardisation mean even their logistic tails should be much shorter and more effective... more like NATO.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:21 pm

    In terms of one simultaneously operating group of 30,000, ofc that never was. But, I was speaking in generalities, if we look at soviet tank force in the 80s:

    Согласно информации Министерства обороны СССР, на 1 января 1990 года в строю имелось 63 900 танков, 76 520 боевых машин пехоты и бронетранспортёров[20]

    From information by the ministry of defense, USSR, on January 1, 1990, the armed forces had 63,900 tanks and 76,520 BMPs and BTRs.

    Absurdly impressive? Indeed, of course this included T-55s, T-62s, probably stored T-10s and other older stuff. But given massive modern tank production, much of this first was contemporary and effective equipment. Those days are long gone though.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KXADEmADJxY/TxhE_3yaKyI/AAAAAAAACaM/hzdj1KorfYs/s1600/Relikt_Grigoryan-3.jpg
    Random sexy photo of BMP-3 with finally a good measure of protection.

    http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w8_2012/0003_wallpapers.htm

    Gur Khan added a bunch of wallpapers, from Tagil show.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:40 am

    The T-55/54 is the worlds most mass produced tank... there were likely 100,000 built, but the idea that tens of thousands of Soviet tanks were going for Europe is silly. They would have hit the same wall the Germans hit at the gates of moscow... logistics and support chains stretched that thin break.

    The Soviets had lots of tanks, but it was pretty clear there was no intention to be sipping tea on the English channel by morning.

    The Soviets had lots of experience of fighting in Soviet territory and they didn't like it.

    Their intention was similar to the Maginot line, which was at the same time enormously successful, and an enormous waste of time.

    The Maginot line was a barrier to prevent a direct German invasion of France and it worked superbly. Its ulterior intent was that by forcing the Germans to go around the line they would have to invade France by invading a whole lot of other european countries.
    The hope was that while germany starts slogging its way through these countries the French could send troops to assist their new instant allies in the war against Germany and the hard slog of trench warfare will be conducted away from France.

    In the case of the Soviet Union the Warsaw Pact territory was their Maginot line along with the heavy tank forces they kept there.
    avatar
    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  runaway on Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:26 am

    Good news, but no new info...

    Russia will complete the first prototype of the new Armata main battle tank by 2013 and begin production and deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces in 2015, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and the CEO of tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko told Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Lenta.ru news portal reported.

    Uralvagonzavod and the military are testing the main components of the new tank. No other details were reported. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry has signed a contract worth six billion rubles with Uralvagonzavod to upgrade 170 T-72 main battle tanks, to be carried out at a specially prepared facility in Omsk, Lenta.ru said.

    “The Russian armed forces will have a new main tank with fundamentally new characteristics, fully automated loading and separate crew compartment by 2015,” Lieutenant-General Yuri Kovalenko, former First Deputy Head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Automotive Armor Directorate said last April.

    Kovalenko said work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.




    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 am

    [qutoe]Kovalenko said work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.[/quote]

    This is interesting...

    The object 195 has an enlarged hull with the crew of three seated side by side at the front under the heaviest armour on the tank. The turret is unmanned with an external gun and all the ammo stored below the turret ring separate from the crew compartment.

    The Black Eagle is a redesign of the T-80 and removed the under turret autoloader and moved it into the turret bustle.
    In many ways the turret bustle autoloader/ammo handling system was like a magazine for a rifle. You could remove the entire bustle and replace it will a bustle full of ammo.

    In other words, you drove into combat and fired off your 31 rounds in the rear turret bustle and then withdrew... a crane would remove the empty turret bustle and replace it with a full one and you drove straight back into battle.

    The objection was that the ammo in the bustle wasn't well protected from enemy fire and if it was targeted then often would burn out rendering the tank unarmed and vulnerable to the fire spreading down into the engine compartment and setting the engine compartment on fire... which is obviously a complete mobility kill.

    Perhaps they listened to my suggestion of an ejection system, so they could have the T-95 layout with external gun and ammo below the turret ring and therefore protected by frontal hull armour, plus an extra turret bustle autoloader in a removable configuration that can be jettisoned if necessary. The main ammo supply in the turret should allow lots of ammo to be carried as the space for two crewmen is there as well as the underfloor autoloader.

    This means turret armament could include a cannon like a 300 weapon with plenty of room for ammo and the ability to elevate separately from the main gun so it can hit targets the BMPT was designed for.

    They could also have a couple of remote 30 cal MG turrets with plenty of ammo to give the tank plenty of close in firepower against infantry.

    The rear turret bustle could carry even more ammo and because it is parallel to the gun the ammo can be rammed straight into the breach without being rotated. It means that long rod penetrators could be used or even long missile rounds.

    The original underfloor autoloader of the T-90/80/72/64 series tanks held 22 rounds, but with no crew in the turret it could have 2 layers of armoured ammo storage bins. That means 44 rounds in the turret plus31 more rounds in the rear turret autoloader all ready to fire without needing human intervention.

    75 rounds ready to fire should mean they will likely run out of fuel in a battle before they run out of ammo.

    In the remaining space in the turret they could fit 500 rounds of 30mm ammo, 8,000 rounds of 30 cal for two turret mounted remote control positions and the coaxial weapon. Perhaps even an auto grenade launcher for indirect fire... the 40mm Balkan looks like it would be ideal... fitted to the turrets with the PKT MGs. 600 grenades with an effective range of 2.5km would be very useful.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia Announces 'Massive' Tank Scrappage Scheme

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:04 am


    Russia Announces 'Massive' Tank Scrappage Scheme

    Outmoded tanks and armored vehicles will be scrapped in a "massive" scheme launched by the defense ministry last year, a senior military official said on Friday.

    "From 2011 onward, in accordance with a government decree the Defense Ministry has begun taking outdated automobiles and armored vehicles out of service and getting rid of them," Gen Maj Alexander Shevchenko told reporters in Moscow.

    The scheme involves T-80, T-64, T-55, tanks as well as a number of army trucks.

    Shevchenko did not disclose the exact number of vehicles to be destroyed, but the Soviet Union produced thousands of these types of tanks from the 1950's to the 1990's and stored many of them.

    The ministry could not be reached for comment.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120323/172346264.html

    There will be a lot of vehicles they will want to get rid of because they are not domestic products anymore, or simply not worth upgrading.

    This should save a lot of money and perhaps generate some income depending on what they do with the scrap.

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 25
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:28 am

    Waste of time, money, human resources....Time for radical changes.....T-34-T55....we need smt like that with respect to fighting vehicles...The armor is crap, and its OUTDATED....It doesn't even conform to russia's current reform and milittary doctrine....Give some university engineers to come up with an innovative design...DARPA does projects like that, russia should try it...Time to give the recycling of soviet machinery a rest...Time for Russian Innovation.History proves you did it many times.Now do it again! russia
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:22 am

    There is simply not enough money or justification for throwing everything out and buying all new stuff.

    What they are basically doing is throwing out the really old stuff and the obsolete stuff and the stuff that was made outside Russia (ie T-80 and trucks and certain vehicle chassis).

    They will then look at the stuff that has potential... like the BMP-2, and upgrade it to a high level and spend the rest of their money on new stuff when it becomes available.

    The new stuff needs to go through thorough testing and then they need to tool up and start production which all takes time and money.

    Throwing out the obsolete stuff frees up space and saves a lot of money, upgrading stuff that is not obsolete takes the pressure off new vehicle production and allows existing service personel to get used to using thermal sights and modern communications and battle management systems etc etc.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  medo on Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:07 pm

    http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/03/23/getridof/

    Hm, here they say, they will scrap T-55, T-62 and T-64, not T-80, what make more sense to me. T-55, T-62 and T-64 are around half a century old, so it doesn't have sense to keep them in any reserve. T-72 and T-80 yes, but T-55 and T-62 are too old.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:26 am

    The critical thing is to get rid of the T-54/55 and T-62 because that eliminates two calibres... 100mm rifled tank gun and 115mm smooth bore tank gun. This means in terms of tank gun fired ammo they just have 125mm and perhaps a few 152mm for experimentation.

    The T-64s are probably quite worn out by now as most T-64s in Russia came from East Germany. The way it worked was that whatever stuff you had you kept so a lot of high tech quality stuff was forward deployed on Soviet Territory in the Ukraine and Belarus and the Eastern European states in Soviet units.

    I rather suspect the T-80s will be transferred to the Navy, and there are quite a few older models that should just be scrapped, but there is probably 1,500-2,000 that could be kept in service and used till they are worn out and then scrapped.

    Regarding the old model T-72s even if their turrets are obsolete (for the very early models) you can give the chassis a quick upgrade as use the chassis base for other things like a MSTA base for MSTAs that operate in units of T-72s so there is a commonality of components. They could even use them for BTRTs to replace BMP and BTR vehicles in heavy brigades equipped with T-72s.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 761
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:19 pm



    "Armata" project and its MBT incarnation accepted by russian MoD, prototype expected by 2013 and production from 2015.


    http://lenta.ru/news/2012/03/23/armata/
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:31 am

    Smile

    Can't wait till we can start a "First photos of Armata" thread... Smile
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  TR1 on Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:45 pm

    http://siloviki-ru.livejournal.com/66178.html

    Training of 200th OMSBr.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:51 pm

    Confirmation that Armata will have an unmanned gun turret with all the crew in the front hull...


    New Russian Tank to Have Remotely Controlled Gun

    Russia’s future main battle tank (MBT) will be equipped with a remotely controlled gun, the Izvestia newspaper said on Monday citing a defense industry source.

    The gun will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment, which would be made from composite materials and protected by multi-layered armor. The crew compartment will be also isolated from the motor compartment to increase survivability on the battlefield.

    The secret project, dubbed Armata, has been approved by the Russian Defense Ministry. It is being implemented by the tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod in Russia’s Urals region.

    Work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.

    The prototype of Armata MBT is expected to be ready by 2013. The first deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015.

    Russian experts believe that the appearance of the remotely controlled gun would eventually lead to the development of a fully robotic tank which could be deployed as part of a spearhead in the offensive.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120326/172401704.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6013
    Points : 6425
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:53 pm

    Russian armoured vehicles to roll on single platform

    Russia is the first to be switching to a uniform combat platform in three major types of ground vehicles, which will presumably make them easier and cheaper to build and maintain, while their modular design will allow to develop different systems, depending on their purpose. The first platforms of this kind of modular design will be produced in two to three years.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has approved the design of a new heavy crawler platform for the Russian armed forces, says Major General Alexander Shevchenko, Chief of General Tank Automotive Directorate. The development of “perspective technologies” for the Russian military is now going through a major transformation. And what comes out of this can forever change the country’s army.

    “Standardization can simplify both the maintenance and combat application of the military hardware, increase modularity in its design, including possible usage of versatiletarget modules on chassis to meet different objectives. All platforms have the so-called “open architecture” avionics to make it easier to add new systems,” says Viktor Murakhovsky, an expert on armoured vehicles. “Different hardware complexes can be built on the basis of a single sighting-system node by adjusting the number of various observation channels to create a system for a combat, reconnaissance or a command vehicle.”

    A new versatile armoured platform, “Armata,” is expected to “set to rights” the Russian armoured forces, plagued by chassis and components of every stripe. The most popular tank, the T-72, and its upgrade, the T-90, will be revamped to stay in the Russian army, except for its first-line units , which are to be equipped with the cutting-edge “Armata” by 2015 to 2025. But the T-90 won’t disappear for good as its recent modification, known as the T-90S, is in fact set to keep its export market. It was announced that the T-90S will make its reappearance at the upcoming Defexpo-2012 show in India.

    The Russian armed forces will have as many as four versatile base platforms: the “Armata” crawler platform for heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other types of motorized infantry brigades weighing up to 65 tons. Among other projects are the “Kurganets-25” medium crawler platform in the 25-ton range and two wheeled platforms – a medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family.

    The idea to build modular-design platforms was up in the air for quite a while. The collapse of the Soviet Union crippled the production of already existing hardware and stalled its further development. The West was the next in line to dip its toes in this water, with the American line of the “Stryker” wheeled combat vehicles and a whole family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) clearly coming off the charts.

    Still, no Western army ever considered bringing all vehicles of all weight classes onto a single, unified platform. The US tried to grapple with this task in its modernization program called Future Combat Systems (FCS), which was cancelled after over-ambitious plans of the US military command to outfit its vesicles with cutting-edge equipment threatened to drain its funds.

    Russia had it easier, having had to learn from the FCS example, which proved that any sweeping modernization can only bust the budget. In this sense, Russian armoured vehicles, which are capable of employing both the existing equipment and systems that are still under development, have much more chances to come off the blueprints and into reality.
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5674
    Points : 6323
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Viktor on Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:32 pm

    Well 65tons Armata. Thats a monster in making.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1171
    Points : 2065
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:18 pm

    avatar
    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 215
    Points : 231
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:10 am

    GaryB

    What’s this??

    “The Russian tankers had learned from previous conflicts in the Caucasus that if you don't carry the extra ammo in the crew compartment then any penetration will not lead to an internal explosion.”

    When did you become a yank??

    British terminology is Tankie, not tankers. Same in Kiwi army.

    Next thing you’ll be calling guys that go deep – Sub Mareeners. Just ‘cause Yanks can’t pronounce English [like Subaru – Soobaroo to them], no reasons to follow the monkey.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 am

    British terminology is Tankie, not tankers. Same in Kiwi army.

    I don't know why I used that word... I would normally have said tank crew... it really annoys me when I hear such aberrations of English... the worst is going to the gas station to get some gas but when they get there they get petrol instead of LPG... Smile

    BTW a bit redundant having a word for Tank crew in New Zealand now isn't it? Twisted Evil

    Journalists ofc had to say something stupid-now this T-72 is better than brand new T-90!

    Well in a way that is sort of true as an upgraded T-72 with full thermal night vision systems and new air conditioning and navigation and communications and battle management hardware and of course with Relict ERA would only have slightly inferior protection to the T-90S but would be slightly cheaper.

    Obviously the T-90MS is far superior to the upgraded T-72 but it is also more expensive.

    Hopefully there will be new contracts signed with India to supply upgraded T-90MS tanks for the Indian Army too...

    I think it really comes down to how much the Armata will cost, because in the future brigade structure of the Russian Army only the heavy brigades will need tank level protection vehicles, though any artillery support units separate from brigades might have tank based vehicles for 152mm calibre artillery vehicles, they are replacing their 122mm SPA with 120mm mortar vehicles, but it is largely unknown what they will do with their longer barrel 152mm gun vehicles and of course their heavy 203mm and 240mm weapons. The rocket artillery will be getting MZKT vehicles it seems which is standardised with the Iskander units, but with tube artillery you have to wonder what their plans might be.

    Currently they have in 152mm calibre the MSTA and the 2S5 with an external mount gun, the 2S3 as the older vehicle being replaced by the MSTA. The thing is that if Coalition is expensive they might want to keep an older cheaper model vehicle... perhaps a 2S5 with the Coalition barrel on it with a limited traverse gun instead of the turret.

    Also there is the 2S7 Pion with a 203mm gun which uses a big shell but it lacks the range of the Coalition...

    Will the new Russian Frigates and Destroyers have 152mm guns with 80km range and Glonass guided shells while the upgraded cruisers get a new 203mm gun with perhaps a much heavier shell that is also guided with a range of 100km?

    If that is the case it might be worth combining development as with the Coalition and making a few units of 203mm calibre weapons.

    I would think that against certain targets the plunging fire of a mortar would be useful, so a weapon like the 2S4 could become a useful specialist weapon for mountain warfare where its guided shells using laser homing or even Glonass guidance could make it a very effective weapon.

    The question is, do they want to keep several calibres, or streamline and concentrate on a few (ie they are getting rid of 122mm calibre, but keeping 120mm 152mm. The question is are they also keeping the 203mm and 240mm.

    203mm shells would be very effective for shore bombardment and with the combination of guided shells and UAVs to target things and indeed find targets they might be very effective for their standoff range alone.
    avatar
    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 215
    Points : 231
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:24 am

    Isn’t there a point where recoil is too much for chassis and crew?? Unless we are talking rocket assisted etc, then the propellant charge becomes the major factor – to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [Newton’s Third Law].

    The tank and crew are knocked senseless.
    avatar
    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 109
    Points : 102
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    T-90

    Post  Pugnax on Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:43 pm

    The hubbub about a 152mm gun means that the politburo is still trying to sell the KV-2.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    "Armata" project and its MBT incarnation accepted by russian MoD, prototype expected by 2013 and production from 2015.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:50 am

    Isn’t there a point where recoil is too much for chassis and crew??

    That is mainly for existing vehicles that are upgraded with new guns.

    For instance the T-34 was designed for a 76.2mm gun with a relatively shortish barrel, while the service vehicle got a longer barreled weapon. Come 1943-44 however they decided to upgrade it to a rather more powerful 85mm gun which needed a whole new turret and larger turret ring.

    In other cases a vehicle might be fitted with one gun initially but have a more powerful gun fitted later as part of the plan... the original M1 Abrams had a British 105mm rifled main gun till they changed it for a 120mm German smoothbore. The T-64 started life with the 115mm smoothbore of the T-62 but ended up with the 125mm smoothbore.

    When developing the new vehicles they have a range of options, but a large turret ring to help absorb heavy recoil will likely be part of the design.

    Remember that the Boomerang and Kurganets-25 are both 25 ton weight class vehicles, while the Sprut which is a 125mm gun mounted on the BMD-3 chassis weighs 18 tons.

    The Sprut uses a special 125mm gun that has a longer recoil distance to help spread the recoil on the lighter vehicle but it fires full spec 125mm ammo with the same performance as its tank based equivalents.

    The Armata will have a turret ring design that allows 152mm guns to be dropped in and used, but will come with a 125mm gun for commonality. I suspect the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 will have the gun from the Sprut and share its amphibious capability which should make them very useful and very capabile light vehicles... I call them light vehicles but they will be 7-8 tons heavier than a BMP-3.

    With regards to the Boomerang-10 I rather suspect it wont be fitted with a 125mm gun.

    The Russians were experiementing with a 45mm gun and an upgraded 57mm gun for the BMP-4, now if either of these are accepted they will be used on the IFV, now they could be in addition to the 30mm/100mm weapons of the BMP-3 or they could replace them. The 30mm cannon and 100mm gun of the BMP-3 are useful direct and direct/indirect fire weapons on the battlefield and a 45 or 57mm gun might not totally replace them.

    In the light brigades they might go for a combination of a 45/57mm gun vehicle and 120mm gun/mortar vehicles for fire power. The loss of anti tank performance from not having 125mm guns could perhaps be made up for by having a dedicated Kornet-EM vehicle in the unit able to hit enemy tanks and armour out to 8.5km and point softer targets and aircraft at up to 10km.

    The tank and crew are knocked senseless.

    The Armata will have the crew in the hull with an unmanned turret.

    The replacement will probably remove the crew completely and have an unmanned ground vehicle.

    The issues of view from the hull and situational awareness for a crew that are down in the hull are actually very similar to the issues of a crew in a van hundreds of thousands of kms away from the vehicle itself...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:33 pm