Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+75
Isos
Hole
limb
Mir
ALAMO
lyle6
thegopnik
Tolstoy
Gomig-21
Dr.Snufflebug
T-47
marcellogo
Kiko
Scorpius
Belisarius
sepheronx
ludovicense
diabetus
Azi
caveat emptor
Backman
Podlodka77
Krepost
pukovnik7
AlfaT8
Lennox
Broski
Arrow
Russian_Patriot_
galicije83
TMA1
Atmosphere
lancelot
Tingsay
PhSt
The_Observer
mnztr
LMFS
RTN
kvs
kopyo-21
Sujoy
Big_Gazza
AJ-47
Austin
Mindstorm
ahmedfire
hoom
nero
medo
ultimatewarrior
calripson
magnumcromagnon
DerWolf
Cyrus the great
Cyberspec
ult
0nillie0
Nibiru
flamming_python
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
JohninMK
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
xeno
franco
George1
KomissarBojanchev
The-thing-next-door
Interlinked
GarryB
KoTeMoRe
Werewolf
PapaDragon
79 posters

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sat Jun 24, 2023 8:30 am

    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?

    Sure it can, in an indirect mode. And with a full charge. Like any ballistic artillery.
    But we are talking a different thing now.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 25, 2023 10:30 pm

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 FzeVGiBX0AAMRro?format=jpg&name=medium
    New APFSDS just dropped. Diet Vacuum edition.

    Still fits the modified AZ autoloader for T-90M/T-80BVM/T-72B3 but the penetrator is the longest that still can.

    But more importantly it got rid of the retarded Svinets-1 guide cams which introduced asymmetric barrel wear every time its fired in favor of the sounder Vacuum style sabot design.




    GarryB, franco, psg, kvs, ALAMO, Tolstoy, zardof and like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 1181
    Points : 1179
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  TMA1 Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:52 pm

    Nice find! Does it have a known code name and number?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:36 am

    Sure it can, in an indirect mode. And with a full charge. Like any ballistic artillery.
    But we are talking a different thing now.

    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.

    Ballistics is ballistics... whether it is a flat shooting APFSDS or a slower shell with the same ballistics as a HE Frag round... like a HEAT shell.

    Having aiming marks out to 11km for HE rounds means aiming marks for HEAT rounds of a similar weight and muzzle velocity... obviously would be pointless firing HEAT rounds to that distance because they need to hit point targets to be effective while HE Frag rounds are aimed at larger structures or groups of enemy that are spread out.

    My point is that firing a missile at a target 30km away you would use max elevation and rely on the fact that once it leaves the barrel the missile can turn upwards and climb more steeply to gain max ballistic range... there is no need for a vertical aim point and actually turning the vehicle so it is pointing up hill would improve range by increasing elevation.

    The add on piece might be simply a rear mounted ramjet with fuel tank added and the flip out control surfaces used to climb to maximise range and well as steer into the target.

    Firing guided rounds doesn't require high level precision from the ballistics computer... at any range, though a good aim on the target would reduce the amount of manouvering the round is required to perform to hit the target.

    zardof likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:49 am

    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.

    Not sure what you are talking about, but I can say what I am talking about Laughing
    I was answering to lancelot, who spotted the range difference for GLATMS and modern missiles like Kornet-D.
    It is a size limitation.
    Russian existing tanks are limited to approx. 1m long round, combining the projectile and propeller charge.
    In 125 mm cal.

    While Kornet is 152 mm cal, first of all.
    And if one insists -  I mean there will be a goal like that to achieve - it can be 1.5m long container.

    Is it possible to increase the range of existing Russian GLATMs?
    Probably, yes.
    Yet you are still limited not only with dimensions, but with the construction of a missile and propeller charge.
    This piston is there because works as an exhaust gas deflector to cover and protect laser beam receiver. Russkie ain't stupid, so if they have constructed something like that - it means it was needed.
    All existing missiles are laser beam riding, with build in laser beam emitter assigned with the tank FCS.
    That means, all are limited to the line of sight, and cant operate against invisible targets.
    So here is a serious question : why do you need a 5km+ missile, if there are hardly any places in let's say Europe where the LoS is more than 2500m?
    Yes, I know, Kornet reached 10 km - but they didn't have to make any sacrifices there, just put more energetic/slow burning propellant and the case is solved.
    So long story short, your idea is constructing a brand new missile, that can be used without an existing guidance channel.
    Possible? But of course.
    But as you are to construct a new missile anyway, why insist it to be a missile rather than a normal artillery round, with GLONASS or laser guidance? It will cost 1/3rd of the price, right? The thing is already resolved at technical ground, constructed, works. You just need to make a 125mm Kitolov/Krasnopol.
    Or you are to make a combo, like RAP equivalent of Krasnopol, with let's say radar terminal guidance. Thing already resolved, radar will stand g-load and barrel pressures.
    TI guided? Well ... possible, harder to achieve but possible.
    You are making a new weapon system anyway, correct?

    lyle6, so they split the penetrator and placed half of it in the propeller charge, figuring some mechanism to click them together while loading?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 26, 2023 12:12 pm

    A higher ejection speed and a nose mounted target sensor should allow a decent speed... always firing it up into the air at max elevation would make sense because a missile diving down nearly vertically on the target could have two widely spaced much smaller HEAT warheads with the front to take out ERA or NERA and the rear charge to cut through the roof armour of the vehicle... especially if it can fly into the rear turret bustle ammo store on western tanks.

    No calibre increase is really needed and with front mounted optics you could put a ramjet in the rear and a centreline fuel tank with a warhead directly behind the nose sensor and the rear charge just in front of the ramjet.

    ALAMO likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:25 pm

    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?
    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.

    TMA1 wrote:Nice find! Does it have a known code name and number?
    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! Razz

    GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B, Hole, TMA1, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:16 am

    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.

    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.
    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 ...

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:24 am

    Nice to know despite all our barking the engineers in Russia just keep making new missiles and rounds... Smile

    They think they make them to defend Russia from its very real western enemies, but in actual fact they also make it for our interest and entertainment... Twisted Evil

    kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B, lyle6, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:30 am

    Watching the show, one could get an impression that a dedicated anti tank/armor round is a 152 cal HE falling down like a rain Laughing

    GarryB, Sprut-B, lyle6, Broski and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:43 am

    Well the advantage there would be that if you make it right it can be carried on T-14s, but also used by ground based Coalition vehicles... armata and wheeled versions, and also a naval version for naval gun support roles for landings or supporting land troops inland.

    And if it is successful imagine a 203mm version for ground and naval use with more HE and more range etc etc.

    The sky is the limit but the budget to create it can be shared between the Army and the Navy...

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:52 pm

    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.
    Probably not, telescopic penetrators seem very hard to manufacture and complexity is expensive.

    And the beauty of the APFSDS is that its a dumb heavy metal arrow that uses only kinetic energy to pierce armor. The only real enabling technology here is advanced metallurgy - for the gun to have the pressure withstand to accelerate the projectile at the necessary velocities and for the projectile itself to withstand piercing through complex multilayer targets - and Russia always had excellent metallurgy.

    Its also supposed to be made cheap enough that all the tanks have some in their loadout at all times. Russia doesn't want a repeat of the WW2 experience where mass anti-armor shell shortages meant that the Soviet T-34s had to resort to very unfavorable tactics just to be able to kill German armor.

    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 ...
    And the T-14 is already armed with subcaliber shells that can pierce 1000 mm of armor now. Razz

    Talk about firepower overmatch. Twisted Evil

    GarryB, Werewolf, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3274
    Points : 3266
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Arrow Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:20 pm

    And the T-14 itself has over 1000mm of armor Very Happy

    GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11534
    Points : 11502
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:42 pm

    But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.

    Those numbers are shit. We see everywhere how easy it is to destroy tanks with appropriate tactics and weapons.

    GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:47 am

    Exactly... it is like stealth... from one direction this plane appears on a radar screen as the head of a pin, and this German tank has 2.5 metres of armoured protection... but from the side it looks rather bigger and even if it didn't how many heads of pins are flying at 10,000m altitude at 800km/h, and with the tank, it can be penetrated by 30mm cannon fire from the sides and rear, or the humble land mine can destroy it...

    Peak numbers give an indication of how far things have progressed, but don't bet your mortgage on them... like the max range of AAMs...

    Isos, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:01 am

    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

    And here comes T-72B3M and gives a fuk if that is Summer, Winter, Spring, or Autumn. Just drive&shoot. Magic!

    GarryB, franco, Sprut-B, Hole, lancelot, Mir, Broski and like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:16 am

    Yeah, but German tanks are intended to fight Russia so how could they possibly know their tanks were ever going to be tested on the eastern front in such testing conditions... and it is not like shitty Russian tanks could do any better...

    Quote from the 1930s... now approaching the 2030s and not much has changed really...

    Hole and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7341
    Points : 7433
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:26 am

    Yeah, I love to hear/read this mantras more and more Laughing
    General Winter won a war in Russia!
    Sure! Because winter has not affected both sides, right? Laughing
    Only German fuel was freezing. Only Germal oil was getting thick as melasa. Only German soldier was sitting in a trench with -20 deg.
    And only German soldiers lacked the winter uniforms.
    Funny, as the last one might be true to some degree, but who is to be blamed for that? Superb German planning, of course, and splendid logistics, that Soviet Untermenschen lacked. That is why they managed to equip army with valonki and vatniks, and fur coats from Mongolia.
    It was all General Winter, remember kids!

    GarryB, Werewolf, Sprut-B, Hole, lancelot, Mir, Broski and like this post

    Tolstoy
    Tolstoy


    Posts : 237
    Points : 231
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Tolstoy Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:21 am

    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.

    Isos wrote:But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.
    Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:51 pm

    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:
    Those numbers are shit. We see everywhere how easy it is to destroy tanks with appropriate tactics and weapons.
    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.

    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
    Because its fundamentally broken at its core - the losers of WW2 were its first teachers. Of course they would just be perpetuating garbage throughout.

    GarryB, Sprut-B, Hole, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lancelot Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:56 pm

    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.
    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.

    Given the experience the US had fighting inside the major cities of Iraq, it was also thought that just active protection would not have been enough in such close quarters conditions and a heavier vehicle would be required. Any major conflict afterwards be it against Russia or China would also involve city fighting. So vehicles with low armor were discarded.

    GarryB, ALAMO, Hole, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11055
    Points : 11035
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:44 pm

    It was all General Winter, remember kids!
    This time it was General Rain.  lol1

    GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Sprut-B and jon_deluxe like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11534
    Points : 11502
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Isos Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:45 pm

    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.

    Isos wrote:But just like any other tank, sides and rear are like butter for any apfsds.
    Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.

    Uranium tiles won't change anything. You can't protect the side from even basic cold war era apfsds because if you want enough protection you would need just as much armor as on the front so you will end up with a 150t tank. Not realistic.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:34 pm

    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.
    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.

    Just imagine a, a Leopard 2 or an M1 Abrams crew has talk its way through every step across multiple isolated workstations just to do one thing. Fucking disgusting.

    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.
    You won't even land a hit. The first shot gets deflected by Afghanit and then the thermal opaque smokes pop up.

    You frantically scan the smokescreen for a sign of the target but then all of a sudden the T-14 pops out and burns your tank with a perfectly aimed subcaliber arrow...

    gg;no re

    GarryB, Sprut-B, Hole, Mir and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40229
    Points : 40729
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:58 am

    General Winter won a war in Russia!

    General Winter and of course Hitlers interference is what cost the Germans the war on the Eastern front, but we hear this from the german generals that fked up... it is interesting that they blame the Russian winter and not their own logistics or planning and preparation for the conflict.

    They blame Hitler for things but not for not demanding a military force that can fight in the cold, they blame him for demands about attacks and withdrawals and tactics.

    It's not so much the HEAT rounds as much as the APFSDS rounds that are destroying Russian MBTs, BMPs and other armoured vehicles.

    They have not started shooting on the huge open plains of Ukraine, most combat seems to be happening at relatively short range with enemy vehicles appearing from behind trees and bushes at quite short ranges.

    Russia better starts working on an APS that can neutralize NATO's APFSDS.

    Russia is the only country to claim to have such an APS system.

    Armata's designers should place depleted uranium tiles in the side and rear as well to stop APFSDS rounds.

    DU adds enormous weight and complications... an APS that can get the APFSDS round to yaw as it approaches the target is good enough... a nail being hammered sideways into any material... whether concrete or wood will fail as they fold or snap and do not make it through.

    Because its fundamentally broken at its core - the losers of WW2 were its first teachers. Of course they would just be perpetuating garbage throughout.

    Yes, their experience was coloured by pride and arrogance and racism... those Soviets beat them with numbers and the extreme cold and of course Hitler was the blame hound... was his fault too.

    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.

    The hilarious thing is that if they opened it up to any manufacturer then the Russians could have entered the T90M and probably won... Twisted Evil

    Yes and no. A good situational awerness goes through external sensors, datalink and comms. Not through tank's own sensors.

    The APS system uses optics and AESA radar so it can detect things approaching, though obviously not through buildings... but then as you mention most modern vehicles have good modern thermals but even the best wont see through buildings so while you can say the Armata wont see stuff coming through buildings... how does the enemy see through those same buildings to fire at those vehicles in the first place.

    I remember after a HATO exercise somewhere in the Med area a HATO officer said their forces would have been easy to defeat... the enemy just had to shoot the bushes...

    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.

    Being able to survive a couple of hits is about as much as you can ask of a modern tank these days... it should allow you to determine where the threat is and deal with it.... or for someone on your team to do that.

    Before a T-14 approaches the enemy lines a robot T-72 with mine rollers will likely be driven up first with the T-14s and drones watching where the enemy fire comes from...

    flamming_python, Big_Gazza, Sprut-B, Hole, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post


    Sponsored content


    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 07, 2024 9:59 am