In my post I am not comparing the Centauro to any tank, not just because it would be a sure defeat but because the final objective being to have omogeneous units, there is not sense at all to mix such units in the same tactical formation.
It is unfair to compare a T-14 with a wheeled tank... a wheeled tank is not for every job... it has a very specific set of features that make it good for some situations and some jobs, but it is not meant to be your Main Battle Tank.
T-14 is a heavy tracked tank and is too big and expensive to be a standard MBT.
There are situations and environments where a wheeled tank is not only a better choice but a much better choice...
if someone would want to have a wheeled tank destroyer armed with a high pressure gun I strongly advice them that they would have to take a step further and adopt something specifically designed for the role, as the Centauro certainly was, not just try to adapt an already existent vehicle to the role.
The point I am trying to make is that the Russians didn't stumble to these concepts.... this was not a case of them designing and making the Armata T-14 and then thinking.... hey we could make a BMP out of this too lets called it T-15, and while we are at it lets make an artillery vehicle called 2S35 Coalition and an armoured recovery and engineer vehicle called a BREM T-16.
They didn't then think lets make a BMP-3 replacement and call it B-11 and a BTR-82 replacement and call it K-16... and then think suddenly... hey... lets see if we can make entire divisions out of just our new vehicle families.
They decided from the outset to create four new vehicle families in the heavy tracked, medium tracked, medium wheeled and light wheeled categories and to then replace pretty much all their existing vehicles with vehicles from these families to reduce the different types to a minimum.
The Typhoon family of light wheeled vehicles may not have been intended to carry 152mm artillery or 125mm smoothbore tank guns, but the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang were.
They can get their 152mm truck mounted gun to fire safely to targets 70km away... it has arms it deploys to stabilise it during the shots, but it really does not seem to move all that much when firing... I suspect the support legs are for firing at more extreme angles perhaps where the truck chassis has less stability which makes sense.
The point is that the 125mm smoothbore gun armed Boomerang vehicle could be fitted with arm stabilisers too to be used to support the vehicle when firing the main gun... that is no big deal... put wheels on them and they could be used as training wheels to stop it rolling when shooting on the move at targets sideways...
Nothing against that. I just say the gun mounts are specific. The Centauro we are talking about for instance, both the 105 and 120 mm guns are high pressure but LRF or Low Recoilless Fitting. Pretty much the same as Spruts if I am not wrong.
I don't see why the long recoil model mechanism used in the Sprut could not used in the Armata turret and applied to the newest gun.
Probably the one with the 57 mm cannon would be already very good in such environment, maybe the BMPT too.
In wide open deserts where you can see the enemy at long range the 125mm gun would have value because it would retain better penetration out to greater ranges, but when the enemy has T-55s or doesn't even have tanks then the 57mm gun would be fine... especially when being used with 120mm gun/mortars and 152mm artillery support.
What do you mean? There is no Epocha turret with the 2A91 gun...
Why do you think that? There were all sorts of guns competing to be the BMP turret gun... including 30mm cannons which lost to the 73mm gun that won.
There is essentially zero chances in Europe and other temperate lands that you can go off road from point A to point B without having to cross streams and other forms of low, damp ground. You only need to get stuck in one of them to lose a lot of time, even if you where riding trouble free for the rest of the travel.
Why do you think a wheeled amphibious vehicle would get stuck and a non amphibious fording tracked vehicle would just breeze right on through?
What an inhumane idea, enemy would be rendered moderately sleepy and unwilling to fight
Only if British Bobbies are there to save them and take them to see the doctors at the NHS... as long as they can get you there before Boris sells it all to Donald...
... and still have way worse ground pressure levels than the tracked vehicles.
And like with small single engined fighters it is not a case that the lowest number automatically wins. Reducing tire pressure can allow your fast wheeled vehicles travel over soft ground they wouldn't normally be able to drive through. It does not make them fly like a hovercraft, but it means they have much better cross country performance than say a truck, while at the same time having the same high road speed and road endurance as that truck.
Actually the tracked vehicles have greater ground clearance. The big wheels needed to get good off-road capacities demand big suspension and high hulls, that is, they are a problem not a solution.
V shape hulls and wheeled design is good for surviving mines...
I am eager to see the 65 t wheeled tank...
Really you are just proving my point, some vehicles need tracks, either when they are heavy or when their operation demands the best possible off-road capabilities.
Modify an Abrams to run on its road wheels... it would sink like a pig.
65 ton armoured vehicles are unnecessary and too much trouble to move around the place.
I have read they in fact tested the Centauro but didn't buy it, do you have any information about the reasons given? It may be a simple case of protection of the industrial bases / defence sovereignty, but maybe there were sound technical reasons? In any case the firepower of the latest Centauro II with the 120 mm cannon is a serious thing...
They did test them and the things they learned went in to making the Boomerang family.... perhaps that is why it is further ahead than the Kurganets family?
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
