Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    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.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    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.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    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...

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Pugnax on Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:08 am

    Guys kharkhiv was the premiere soviet tank factory,lets not rub salt in old wounds.With the dissolution of the 3cp some thing were lost,including the kiev armour school.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Soviet Cold War Tanks

    Post  Pugnax on Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:23 am

    If im wrong im sorry the t-55 ag info excites me because it is a survivable veteran,60 years old and still functional.Nevertheless remember maskirovka  et al....the ukrainians made out well,its a fact.Old t-72 was a mass  fast charge pig of a tank.Working from t-64 and t-80s the oplot is very good.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:36 am

    Guys kharkhiv was the premiere soviet tank factory,lets not rub salt in old wounds.With the dissolution of the 3cp some thing were lost,including the kiev armour school.

    Kharkov had nothing to do with the development or construction of the T-90 tank... any data they have is either estimates or speculation, and we have seen videos to prove their data is wrong.

    They were the premier tank makers of the Soviet Army, because that was their role... develop and produce expensive but state of the art tanks for breakthrough operations... T-64 and then T-80.

    The problem is a lack of funding for the last 25 years and separation from the rest of the Soviet Union republics.

    Generally new diesel engines came from the Ukraine, but most optics came from Belarus and plenty of components came from Russia.

    With the breakup of the Soviet Union the systems were broken up too, and Russia is really the only part of the Former Soviet Union that came has come out of the crisis with a functioning MIC. There were lots of areas they needed to work on themselves and they invested a lot of money on diesel engines and other components. For Thermal Imagers they were so far behind and the Soviet states were also so far behind they purchased French technology to catch up.

    Now they are making third gen Russian thermal imagers and investing on QWIP technology and moving forward themselves.

    Kharkov has been starved of funds and work and while their ability with modern armours and modern ERA is still better than many countries... they are falling behind because of a lack of investment by their own government.

    The sudden investment by the Russian military in late 2008 proved that years of neglect and prototypes don't prepare an MIC for mass production of modern products... that costs extra and takes time.

    I would suggest that details released by Kharkov regarding T-90s... Which they don't make nor have access to, is largely for the purposes of marketing, rather than a real comparison of performance, and their numbers are clearly wrong.

    BTW most tanks have a range of traverse speeds including backup manual speeds, and 16 degrees per second means over 20 seconds to turn the turret around once. I doubt even the manual speed is that slow, but for precise aiming a slow rate of turn allows the gunner to follow real world targets... a target doing 50km/h that is 3km away could easily be followed with a turn rate of 16 degrees per second.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:12 am

    The T-55 was a simple cheap tank that has probably been produced in more numbers than any other tank in history... especially when taking into account T-54 and of course tens of thousands of Chinese knock offs.

    The fact remains that without a new gun the T-55 is a threat only to medium and light armoured vehicles and its armour can be penetrated by most ATGMs and RPGs in service.

    It is much better than nothing except when fighting a modern war against a well equipped opponent. For COIN ops or anti guerilla use it is fine, but it cannot be compared with a modern vehicle.

    The T-64 and T-80 were expensive tanks few could afford, while the T-72 was the cheap and simple mass production tank, which is really in the same boat as the T-55, though even in the reduced performance export models has better armour and a better gun than T-55s.

    Oplot fixes the main problem with the T-64 and T-80 and that was that their propellent stub cartridges were not protected in the underfloor autoloader... so even with just the ammo in the autoloader (22 rounds) any penetrating hit on the vehicle would send a shower of sparks and hot fragments onto the floor of the turret where the incredibly flammable propellent stubs were stored and they would inevidibly ignite all at once in a chain reaction to immediately kill the entire crew and take the turret off.

    The Oplot has its ammo moved to its turret rear AFAIK, which solves the problem, but makes the ammo exposed to enemy fire.

    The T-72 does not have exposed ammo stubs sticking up vertically unprotected, both the stubs and the projectiles are horizontal and under armour plate to sparks and hot fragments cannot reach the vulnerable propellent.

    This means that if you take the extra loose ammo out of a T-72 they are much harder to destroy and the crews survival chances increase dramatically.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:39 am

    Pugnax wrote:If im wrong im sorry the t-55 ag info excites me because it is a survivable veteran,60 years old and still functional.Nevertheless remember maskirovka et al....the ukrainians made out well,its a fact.Old t-72 was a mass fast charge pig of a tank.Working from t-64 and t-80s the oplot is very good.

    T-64 had way more issues than T-72 ever did in exploitation, don't let the hype fool you.

    If the T-64 was a success, both operationally and tactically, there would not have been a T-72.


    The T-55 upgrade is not that big of a deal, Russia has some very good T-55 upgrades as well.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:36 am

    The T-64 was a bit of a problem child, and the T-80 has an excessively thirsty engine arrangement.

    Both were high tech frontline tanks, while the T-72 was the cheap mass production tank that would make up the numbers.

    The T-72 was never meant to face frontline western tanks... it was the numbers tank that poured through the gaps created by the T-64 and T-80. Ove time its armour and capabilities improved but it was the numbers tank till Russia and the Ukraine split along with the rest of the Soviet Union.

    Once they were not longer trapped making the T-72 cheap and producible and had to compete with the T-80 as a quality tank... when they decided they couldn't afford two different tanks that had few compatible parts the T-72BA and T-80 went head to head and the Russian military chose the T-72BA, which became the T-90.

    The Russians had Omsk to produce the T-80 in huge numbers so it wasn't as if UVZ won the competition by default... the T-90 was just a better tank. Omsk couldn't make the new diesel engine for the T-80 but otherwise it was pretty much the T-80U vs T-90 and the T-90 won.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:35 pm

    T-72B also had thicker armor than T-64, and even T-80B, marginally. Wink

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:00 am

    Yes... most things were different and the T-64 was supposed to be better, but things like wheels... the T-64 went to small wheels but later changed to T-72 like wheels with comments about shedding tracks being a problem with the smaller wheels.

    As mentioned the T-64/80 have a different ammo arrangement in their autoloaders where the projectiles are horizontal but the propellent stubs are vertical and exposed which makes them vulnerable to armour penetrations. Whether it is a solid penetrator or HEAT plasma jet there are hot sparks and fragments flying round inside the compartment during a penetration and the exposed ammo is almost always ignited in the T-64/T-80 series, whereas the T-72 and T-90 have both the projectile and propellent stub horizontal under armour plate in the autoloader so fragments, sparks and even burning material in the crew compartment will not set it off.

    This means that penetrations are dangerous for all T-64 and T-80 vehicles, while with T-72 and T-90s only carrying ammo in the underfloor autoloader is safe... the main fire hazard is loose spare ammo in the crew compartment.

    Going into combat with 22 rounds in the autoloader is much much safer in the T-72 and T-90.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Soviet Tanks

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:09 pm

    http://zapret-no.livejournal.com/25893.html

    Not exactly Russia, but still interesting. Part of Kharkov tank factory, where a huge number of tanks was stored after Soviet army left Europe.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:34 am

    Question guys. Whats the difference between the "cassette" loader and the "basket" loader, as in the difference between the ones used on the T-64/80 and the T-72/90?

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:32 pm

    The T-72's autoloader stores both the projectiles and propellant charges horizontally, underneath a firewall. Both the projectile and the propellant are raised into position by an elevator simultaneously then rammed separately into the breech.

    Like this.



    The T-80 stores the projectiles horizontally, and the propellant charges vertically.

    Here's a hard to find image of the T-80's magazine. It's actually a T-84, but it's the same setup.



    However, unlike the T-72, the T-80 loads in one smooth motion. This is why the T-80 has a slightly faster rate of fire.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:55 pm

    Nice vids Zivo.

    Basically cassette and basket generally refer to both or either system... which are basically automated ammo handling systems.

    The T-80 system evolved from the system from the T-64, and the T-72 system was developed separately.

    The T-80 system is faster but is fatally flawed.

    The whole reason the Black Eagle had a rear turret bustle autoloader and removed all the under floor ammo is because in the T-80 autoloader the ammo stubs are positioned vertically and are exposed... and are made of propellent impregnated cardboard. They are supposed to combust completely in the chamber during firing so all that is left is a small stub steel shell case.

    The problem is that any penetration in the crew compartment will send a shower of sparks and hot fragments and any contact with the propellent stubs on the floor will start a fierce fire and explosion of propellent with all the stubs igniting each other together.

    In the T-72 they are horizontal and separated from the crew compartment by steel armour plate, which means any fragments or hot sparks that enter the crew compartment can't contact the propellent stubs and will fairly rapidly burn out.

    Experience in Chechnia is that a penetration with a T-80... boom. Penetration of the T-72 with the loose ammo in the crew compartment removed and no boom.

    Only solution for T-80 was to move the autoloader to the turret bustle.

    For the T-72/90 move the extra ammo to an armoured box between the turret and engine and the rear turret bustle in a separated protected position.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:34 pm

    Absolutely

    Another issue with the vertical propellant storage is that it produces a significantly larger target vs the T-72/90's magazine. By being cylindrical in form, any hit on the T-80's lower hull could result it a catastrophic detonation of the ammunition.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Soviet Cold War Tanks

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:54 pm

    Thanks a for the explanations Zivo and Garry.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:39 am

    Tank on a platform of "Armata" will receive a brand new layout with an uninhabited combat module - CEO "Uralvagonzavod"

    MOSCOW, March 12. (ARMS-TASS). Tank based on currently being developed combat platform "Armata" will receive a brand new layout, which has no analogues in the world, in particular, an uninhabited "tower." This was the general director of the Scientific and Production Corporation (NGOs) "Uralvagonzavod" Oleg Sienko.

    "It is a new machine, which has a new layout, which no one," - he said on the radio station "Echo of Moscow", adding that the new tank on the basis of "Almaty was" will, in particular, uninhabited combat compartment.

    Sienko said that this universal platform can be created about 30 machines for different purposes, it involves a different placement of the engine - both front and back, depending on what type of combat vehicle will be "installed" on this platform - BMP or such as SAM. For the main battle tank (MBT), which will be produced at its base, developing new ammunition and a set of dynamic protection of the new generation. In the "Armata" will be used "a totally different technology on the armor, all cars will increase survivability in the real battle," said Sienko.

    CEO NGOs stressed that the importance of the new MBT is also the engine. "It needs only a new engine: a fundamentally different, easy to me, - he said. - Engine, which can be changed in a matter of minutes, which is extremely important in certain conditions." "Of course power also plays a role," - said the head of the corporation, adding that now the tanks came to those performance results that correspond to wheeled vehicles. In "Almaty was" in particular, will be "very different performance results, making this car the pride of Russian tank production, although it can not be called a pure tank," added the CEO.

    Sienko said he hoped that by the end of this year, the corporation will be able to complete the main work on the "Armata" will continue to be refined only individual nodes. He informed that "Armata" will not be on display at an international exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September, not least because it is still secret development.

    The platform is developed rapidly, the parameters that you specify "Uralvagonzavod" in the Defense Ministry, he seeks to accomplish, Sienko said. CEO emphasized that "nothing in the world is not done on a universal platform, all platforms are different," and Russia is the only country which today is going to release a new series armored vehicles, and other countries are on the path of modernization.

    In the case of MBT based on the platform, "Armata", "Uralvagonzavod" hopes to produce a certain time "tank-dream," joked Sienko.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Regular on Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:03 pm

    ^^ That is amazing. Russians will be first to create universal platform when Americans and other countries were talking about this concept way before but it didn't see the light. I hope that unmanned turret will be more sophisticated than Falcon turret. I bet it will be.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:54 pm

    Regular wrote:^^ That is amazing. Russians will be first to create universal platform when Americans and other countries were talking about this concept way before but it didn't see the light. I hope that unmanned turret will be more sophisticated than Falcon turret. I bet it will be.
    It is, with all its fancy sensors, a more powerful 2a82 gun, NERA/ERA, lighter armor, APS that can deal even against APFSDS, and stealthy shaping and materials. Also, ammo vertically stored under the turret ring that is not exposed to enemy fire.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:56 am

    Here is the Fully Interview with Oleg Sienko

    Arsenal: Russian Heavy Tank. Existing patterns and perspectives platform "Armata"

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Armata platform

    Post  Zivo on Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:34 am

    Sienko said he hoped that by the end of this year, the corporation will be able to complete the main work on the "Armata" will continue to be refined only individual nodes. He informed that "Armata" WILL NOT be on display at an international exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September, not least because it is still secret development.

    MF Mad

    I'm getting tired of waiting.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  VladimirSahin on Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:22 am

    Here with a question,  Does anyone know how much tanks are in service for example list of how much t-72b3 or t-72ba's ect ect.  And is there a some sort of way to see how what we have and how much kinda like a inventory?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:00 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:00 pm