Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
GarryB wrote:
Really?
Even a bog standard T-72 can lob HE shells to about 11km can't it... does it do that blind without any aiming at all?
GarryB, franco, psg, kvs, ALAMO, Tolstoy, zardof and like this post
Sure it can, in an indirect mode. And with a full charge. Like any ballistic artillery.
But we are talking a different thing now.
zardof likes this post
GarryB wrote:
Now I am confused.
We were talking about very long range use of gun fired missiles and someone said the ballistics computer wont handle targets more than 5km away, so I mentioned that the ballistics computer already dealt with targets 11km away when firing HE rounds.
ALAMO likes this post
I don't think that's possible? But anyway the sub-projectile is still one solid piece, it just sits as far back into the integral charge as possible while maximizing the protrusion in the front. This way you get a solid 700 mm projectile out of the 740 mm limit. Not as good as the 950 mm long monster projectiles for the Vacuum-1/2 mind you but it should impregnate that impregnable NATO armor just fine.ALAMO wrote:lyle6, so they split the penetrator and placed half of it in the propeller charge, figuring some mechanism to click them together while loading?
Nyeto. NATO tankers are advised to follow up though, so they know with what shell they were sent to hell with. And pray to their overlord satan that its not something hilarious like a froot!TMA1 wrote:Nice find! Does it have a known code name and number?
GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B, Hole, TMA1, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post
lyle6 wrote:
I don't think that's possible? But anyway the sub-projectile is still one solid piece, it just sits as far back into the integral charge as possible while maximizing the protrusion in the front. This way you get a solid 700 mm projectile out of the 740 mm limit. Not as good as the 950 mm long monster projectiles for the Vacuum-1/2 mind you but it should impregnate that impregnable NATO armor just fine.
jon_deluxe likes this post
kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B, lyle6, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post
GarryB, Sprut-B, lyle6, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post
jon_deluxe likes this post
Probably not, telescopic penetrators seem very hard to manufacture and complexity is expensive.ALAMO wrote:
The more I think about that, the more certain I get that it can be archivable.
What you would get, is a sort of telescopic penetrator. Those are not monoblock either, and the joint point is small and probably weak - yet it works somehow.
So yes, my guess is that it can be done, only question remains if it is worth to bother.
And the T-14 is already armed with subcaliber shells that can pierce 1000 mm of armor now.ALAMO wrote:
At the moment, maximal absorption point is somewhat 740 mm long rod for upgraded loaders, and that is more than enough to deal with any existing NATO tank. And as those reach the end of the road, I would not expect any monumental changes here, we won't se a NATO tank with armor protection reaching 1000mm in the next 30 years.
And watching the path that more modern tank hubs followed, we won't see them even in 50 years ...
GarryB, Werewolf, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B and jon_deluxe like this post
GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post
GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post
Isos, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
GarryB, franco, Sprut-B, Hole, lancelot, Mir, Broski and like this post
Hole and jon_deluxe like this post
GarryB, Werewolf, Sprut-B, Hole, lancelot, Mir, Broski and like this post
Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.Isos wrote:But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.
The T-14 has superior situational awareness than most MBTs - it would be difficult to outflank it at the best of times and even then the APS gives it an unfair advantage by denying first round hits.Isos wrote:
But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.
Russia makes it look easy because its ground forces are highly trained, have iron discipline, are extremely experienced and have superior coordination, tactics and equipment - they are the best on the planet bar none.Isos wrote:
Those numbers are shit. We see everywhere how easy it is to destroy tanks with appropriate tactics and weapons.
Because its fundamentally broken at its core - the losers of WW2 were its first teachers. Of course they would just be perpetuating garbage throughout.ALAMO wrote:
This conflict gives us the impression that the western tank building school is fuked up for real.
And it is not my private opinion, but a professional one.
All of them are way too heavy, bulky, and overcomplicated for war.
The logistics effort is enormous. Even planning a simple route is a challenge.
Too heavy for Ukrainian soil in Spring. - that would be a great joke, if not talked seriously.
Too heavy for Ukrainian soil in Autumn. - yeah, very funny, but why do you repeat that again, my two stars friend?
Perform bad in Winter, tracks get frozen to the ground. Like fukin serious? Shocked
Cooling system is ineffective and engine overheats in Summer conditions. No fukin kidding me! Shocked
GarryB, Sprut-B, Hole, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
That was the idea the US had that was behind the FCS program. They wanted to make light vehicles which would be half the weight of the M1. They would use active protection to protect against enemy fire. The program was a bit of a disaster and ended up cancelled after tens of billions were spent on R&D.ALAMO wrote:This conflict gives us the impression that the western tank building school is fuked up for real.
And it is not my private opinion, but a professional one.
All of them are way too heavy, bulky, and overcomplicated for war.
GarryB, ALAMO, Hole, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
This time it was General Rain.It was all General Winter, remember kids!
GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B and jon_deluxe like this post
Tolstoy wrote:It's not so much the HEAT rounds as much as the APFSDS rounds that are destroying Russian MBTs, BMPs and other armoured vehicles.
Russia better starts working on an APS that can neutralize NATO's APFSDS.
Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.Isos wrote:But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.
The T-14 has superior situational awareness than most MBTs - it would be difficult to outflank it at the best of times and even then the APS gives it an unfair advantage by denying first round hits.
This is just plain wrong. The T-14 will have full access to sensor fusion data from the tactical network aside from the feed from its onboard sensors. And unlike other tanks its combined workstations actually allows the crew to handle numerous sensor streams all at once, and execute various combat tasks simultaneously and more importantly, seamlessly.Isos wrote:
Yes and no. A good situational awerness goes through external sensors, datalink and comms. Not through tank's own sensors. A enemy tank vehind a house won't be seen and will smash your t-14 easily. Good thermals help a lot though but any modern tank will have very good thermals anyway including upgraded tanks.
So I doubt we can say t-14 is better in that field.
You won't even land a hit. The first shot gets deflected by Afghanit and then the thermal opaque smokes pop up.Isos wrote:
It could however survive two or three hits easily because its turret is unmanned, apfsds would need to hit very precisely the ammo. A hit on the turret itself must be useless too because it's empty.
GarryB, Sprut-B, Hole, Mir and jon_deluxe like this post
General Winter won a war in Russia!
It's not so much the HEAT rounds as much as the APFSDS rounds that are destroying Russian MBTs, BMPs and other armoured vehicles.
Russia better starts working on an APS that can neutralize NATO's APFSDS.
Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.
Because its fundamentally broken at its core - the losers of WW2 were its first teachers. Of course they would just be perpetuating garbage throughout.
That was the idea the US had that was behind the FCS program. They wanted to make light vehicles which would be half the weight of the M1. They would use active protection to protect against enemy fire. The program was a bit of a disaster and ended up cancelled after tens of billions were spent on R&D.
Yes and no. A good situational awerness goes through external sensors, datalink and comms. Not through tank's own sensors.
It could however survive two or three hits easily because its turret is unmanned, apfsds would need to hit very precisely the ammo. A hit on the turret itself must be useless too because it's empty.
flamming_python, Big_Gazza, Sprut-B, Hole, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
ALAMO