Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:58 pm

    Pugnax wrote:Werewolf ,let up on the kid,dont be so harsh or mean.The only way to project this site is in a positive,corrective way.The videos of T-80 B did nothing but shame Russian foundries,poor quality is evident everywhere,finish of product exterior is fine . interior an issue.Leo 2A6 looks better each time a poor quality version of home grown tech is viewed.Get on the ball!I am a foundry worker that  work is done by trained monkeys in a meth lab....children could make better casts.
    imma have to disagree with this, finishing touches for aesthetic reasons in a war machine does not make sense. If anything it just makes things even more expensive, and besides these things should look and work as rugged as possible. Hell, the crew should expect their tank to be as ripe for abuse as possible, the more confident they are with the equipment, the more confident they become to finish the mission and even take risks that lack of confidence in the machine they wouldnt take. And besides, T-/72B/80/90 have close to 60% of their weight as armour, M1Abrams, Challys, Leo2s , etc. dont even come close so if anything I have to ask why the other side focuses on aesthetics while it is armour that matters more.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:11 pm

    Pugnax wrote:Werewolf ,let up on the kid,dont be so harsh or mean.The only way to project this site is in a positive,corrective way.The videos of T-80 B did nothing but shame Russian foundries,poor quality is evident everywhere,finish of product exterior is fine . interior an issue.Leo 2A6 looks better each time a poor quality version of home grown tech is viewed.Get on the ball!I am a foundry worker that  work is done by trained monkeys in a meth lab....children could make better casts.
    I'm not very well aware of all this, but I suspect, that appearant crudeness of the Russian (or Ukrainian, Chinese and so on) tanks comes from the pipes, wiring and various devices being sticked on the walls of the interior. This is done for simplicity and safety reasons. All of these things can break or catch fire, in this case it would be easily seen, as opposed to when they're hidden, a small fire would be much harder to detect and put down (note, that the same scheme is applied to ships and submarines, and for the very same reasons).


    Oh, that leclerc discussion reminds me of one thing. There was a joint tank project between Germany and France, which preceded Leclerc, but never materialized (it was called like "Napoleon" or something). Anyone know more details about it?


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:02 pm

    ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:56 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    The question that i ask myself all the time is, do you have any piece that is known to mankind as a brain?

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:04 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    The question that i ask myself all the time is, do you have any piece that is known to mankind as a brain?
    Maybe he's not actually a person, but rather, some experimental AI computer program Smile .... Beta version, I suspect.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:39 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.


    The T-90A has a welded turret.

    For the sake of your own credibility, do a little research before making inflammatory comments. If you don't know, ask, but be nice about it.

    Falsely accusing UVZ of theft of intellectual property wont win you any favors.

    will the armata have one piece ammo?
    Very little is known about the Armata MBT's autoloader.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:22 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    What do You want them to do? Weld the ammo together.
    You are the funniest person here, darling.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:02 am

    Regular wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    What do You want them to do? Weld the ammo together.
    You are the funniest person here, darling.
    one-piece ammo is passe, havent you heard? next gen tanks with 140mm and 125mm will all have two-piece rounds or maybe even liquid propellant rounds. attack 
    Also, I dont see how one can confuse T-series autoloader w/ Leclerc's.

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:03 am

    Regular wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok i said in advance i dont know much about tanks, but the outline on that picture didnt look like t-72 t-90 ,more like leclerc. but whatever and obnoxious comments i dont read.
    next question: will the armata have one piece ammo?
    What do You want them to do? Weld the ammo together.
    You are the funniest person here, darling.
    so you dont know?
    thanks for the insults...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:12 am

    will the armata have one piece ammo?
    No one actually knows but the first one will have a 125mm gun so I suspect the two piece ammo will continue to be used as standard.

    The larger calibre 152mm ammo will require two piece ammo just like the proposed NATO 140mm ammo would require two piece ammo AND an autoloader as the two parts become too heavy to handle inside a turret.

    122/125mm ammo is about the limit... the 2S1 has manual loading of shells (122mm) , while 2S3 uses automatic loading (152mm).

    The main reason is that 122-125mm shells weigh 21.8kg and 23kg respectively for the HE shells, while the 152mm HE shells weigh over 40kgs.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:05 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    thanks for the insults...
    What insults, I never insulted You and I couldn't care less. You make a good laugh by spitting stereotypes over and over again. 
    And YES, I don't know if they will bring one piece ammo or not. 
    But as of today Russia is using two piece ammo and it's pretty safe to assume that Armata with 125 mm will be utilising same ammunition. 
    And I think Garry puts everything in clear, but as with new Russian projects we know very little about them.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:49 am

    We know the new Armata tank vehicle will initially use a 125mm main gun and there would be ZERO sense in adapting the newly developed ammo for it into one piece ammo because that would make it not compatible with the vast number of 125mm guns already in service (except the towed guns).

    Making the ammo one piece would just make it longer and heavier and not really offer much of an advantage in combat terms.

    The next generation gun will be 152mm calibre or something similar... they might call it 155mm or 156mm so it doesn't get confused with 152mm artillery rounds... just like the BMP-1 is fitted with a 73mm calibre rocket launcher when western use of standard calibres would have meant it would have been a 76.2mm weapon... even though the ammo are not related and not compatible.

    The weight and size of the new ammo will demand two piece ammo.


    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:40 am

    then armata wont have any better armour penetration, then current russian tanks right?
    Leclerc uses single piece ammo in 120mm ,so how much heavier is 125mm ammo compared to it?
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  runaway on Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:27 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:then armata wont have any better armour penetration, then current russian tanks right?
    Leclerc uses single piece ammo in 120mm ,so how much heavier is 125mm ammo compared to it?
    Leclerc tank has a carosel autoloader in rear of turret, behind gun where there is space in the large turret. Russian autoloader is under gun and smaller, thats why ammo is two pieces.
    And both no and yes, armour penetration may be better with APFSDS if muzzle speed is higher.

    When west upgrades to 140mm they will have to use autoloader. When they do, they can reduce weight by 8 tons by having 3 man crew like they did with Leclerc. And for sure both new 140 and 152 will have two piece ammo.

    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:09 pm

    New autoloader will allow longer penetrators. thumbsup
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:35 pm

    then armata wont have any better armour penetration, then current russian tanks right?
    Leclerc uses single piece ammo in 120mm ,so how much heavier is 125mm ammo compared to it?
    The limiting factor in the 125mm autoloader isn't the weight, it's the length. Because the rounds sit horizontally in the magazine and are loaded horizontally into the breech, they can be no longer than the distance between the breech and the back side of the turret ring, or more accurately, the rammer.



    Since the Armata MBT has no crew in the turret and will have a new autoloader, there are a fewer factors limiting the size of the rounds.

    Realistically, when the Armata MBT enters service, the gun will be capable of defeating all current an near future armored threats on the battlefield, including NATO's heavy AFV's.

    When west upgrades to 140mm they will have to use autoloader. When they do, they can reduce weight by 8 tons by having 3 man crew like they did with Leclerc. And for sure both new 140 and 152 will have two piece ammo.
    And they will sing from the rooftops about the glorious, futuristic autoloader and the 3 man crew. Laughing
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:09 am

    Zivo wrote:And they will sing from the rooftops about the glorious, futuristic autoloader and the 3 man crew. Laughing
    dont forget gun-launched missiles, ERA, APS...cheers 
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:01 am

    dont forget gun-launched missiles, ERA, APS..
    He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.

    In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.

    When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.

    Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:48 am

    GarryB wrote:
    He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.

    In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.

    When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.

    Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.
    and another one: BMPT, hell if they manage to start a new war a BMPT like vehicle would be welcomed like the 2nd coming of Xst.
    though imo they prolly would attempt to leapfrog into drones before implementing the same solutions as the russkies
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:04 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.

    In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.

    When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.

    Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.
    and another one: BMPT, hell if they manage to start a new war a BMPT like vehicle would be welcomed like the 2nd coming of Xst.
    though imo they prolly would attempt to leapfrog into drones before implementing the same solutions as the russkies
    I haven't seen too many people call the BMPT a bad concept. People have said from day one after seeing the Terminator that some western tanks should be converted to serve the BMPT roll.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:03 pm

    There was a version of the Bradley that had no troops but carried about 50% more of all its ammo types that was to be used as a fire support vehicle.

    Obviously it would struggle against enemy ATGMs and in built up areas because it does not have tank level armour but the idea is the same.

    Certainly the trouble the Russians have gone to to remove ammo from near the troop compartment in case of a penetration of the armour it doesn't really make sense to have a vehicle like a BMP-3M IFV with lots of HE rounds.

    The HE firepower of heavier calibre guns seems to have been appreciated by the Russian army... the BMP-2 didn't completely replace the BMP-1 because the 73mm gun and the 30mm gun were found to be useful for different targets... they complimented each other.

    The result was that the BMP-3 had a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm cannon.

    I suspect the Armata BMP-4 will have a high velocity gun able to defeat enemy IFVs like a 45mm or 57mm gun, and that the BTRT or APC/troop transport might just have HMG or light cannon armament (23 x 115mm or 30 x 165mm) to allow more troops to be carried.

    This will mean a fire support vehicle will become useful to replace the 100mm/30mm firepower of the BMP-3M which means the BMPT might be a general fire support vehicle in addition to a tank support vehicle.

    Keeping in mind that the original purpose of the BMPT was to be a BMP-3M that could go where tanks go because it had the same armour and mobility but could hit targets that the narrow elevation range of the 125mm gun could not hit.

    With the armata concept with all vehicles with tank level armour this idea becomes redundant as an APC or IFV can be used as it has tank level armour and can engage targets MBTs can't reach.

    Therefore the BMPT becomes more about firepower and ammo capacity and could be used to support a range of vehicles including APCs/IFVs, and MBTs... as well as convoy escort etc.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:54 pm

    shillelagh tank launched guided missile was created in vietnam years and sheridan tanks
    I'm not even sure that even counts. The shillelagh was used on the Sheridan, basically, it was a missile tank. It couldn't be used in any of the conventional tanks from the era. Soviet gun launched ATGMs were designed to be used in practically all of the tanks made after WWII. The theory of using ATGM on conventional tanks as a supplementary round was significantly more important than its earlier use on "missile tanks".

    The soviets also had their share of these crappy purpose-built missile tanks.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:22 am

    As Zivo points out it was rubbish... it was tested on the Sheridan and the M60A3 from memory and was worse than useless.

    The 152mm calibre was determined by the missile and its electronics so without the missile the standard ammo was low velocity and rather ineffectual for use against enemy armour... and was an extra type of ammo they needed to supply to units.

    On paper the missile was excellent, in practise it was aweful and despite being in several conflicts there is no single example of a kill with the missile.

    The missiles were quietly withdrawn and the whole mess turned the west against tank gun fired missiles.

    The soviet approach was similar and totally different... they had the IT-1 and IT-2 missile tanks with AT-3 Sagger missiles which was rather more effective but a BRDM-2 was cheaper and could do a better job. In the US army it was decided an M113 with TOW missiles could also do a better job than a missile tank so it was also the preferred solution at the time.

    They also wanted to add ATGMs to tanks but limited themselves to current tank calibre guns which reduced the paper performance of the missiles, but resulted in much more practical weapon systems that could be rapidly deployed to existing vehicles with minor changes to sights... even standard autoloaders were compatible.

    The difference is that Sheridan and M60A3 and IT-1 and IT-2 were supposed to be missile tanks, whereas the successful vehicles were the BMP-3, and T-72s and T-80s and T-90s that added missiles as another type of ammo the commander could choose to use in combat.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:17 am

    M60A2 was the space tank, looked amazing but left service pretty fast.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:23 am

    Ahh, yes.

    The 152mm gun had pathetic ballistics because it was a low velocity weapon. As a direct fire support weapon it packed an awesome HE punch, but the low velocity of the ammo made it next to useless in the anti armour role and the M60A2 was a MBT.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:12 pm