T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°826
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB, psg, dino00, kvs, zardof, Hole, Broski and Belisarius like this post
Arkanghelsk- Posts : 3891
Points : 3897
Join date : 2021-12-08
- Post n°827
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
блок с готовыми поражающими элементами - Block with ready made sub munitions
привинтная головка - separate warhead
корпус со стабилизатором - stabilization housing
It seems this round will shower the enemy with fragmenting submunitions that can be detonated remotely, with good effectiveness against infantry and ATGM
dino00 and Hole like this post
marcellogo- Posts : 671
Points : 677
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
- Post n°828
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB- Posts : 40234
Points : 40734
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°829
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
It carries 5,5 kg of prefabricated shrapnel.
That is A LOT.
Well the fragmentation material will be metal so it is rather heavier and denser than HE material, the original HE shells are about 23kg for the entire projectile weight and if they have about 6kgs of HE and 5.5kg of fragmentation material designed to be thrown forward in a destructive cone then I would say the remaining weight is over 10kgs which is actually rather a lot for shell case and electronics and fuses.
It seems this round will shower the enemy with fragmenting submunitions that can be detonated remotely, with good effectiveness against infantry and ATGM
I suspect when it says remote I think it might mean remote from the target... ie air burst. As opposed to contact burst or delayed penetration burst.
I would expect thagt having the metal in front it should be used as a SAPHEI round also, so to be used against fortifications.
Suspect against soft targets like a building or light structure not actually designed to be armoured or well protected this round could use delayed fusing to penetrate into the target and explode in side with rather devastating effect.
It seems to be very much like an AHEAD round which makes it rather interesting in terms of potential for hitting hovering flying targets too...
Hole likes this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°830
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Hole- Posts : 11057
Points : 11037
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°831
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
kvs likes this post
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
- Post n°832
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
They want to shit on it badly
limb likes this post
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
- Post n°833
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
The US have been instensely using the M830A1 MPAT since 1994 which is laser rangefinder timed fuse. Russia absolutely never put ainet in service, let alone used it. 100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round. South korea and france have the timed airburst K280 and Nexter EXPL F1 in full scale service since 2008 and 2011 respectively. Russia is 10 years behind in programmable airburst tank rounds compared to NATO nations and South Korea.thegopnik wrote:https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-xm1223-multi-mode-proximity-airburst-round/ @limb if you are going to shitpost do a proper job.
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
- Post n°834
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
limb wrote:The US have been instensely using the M830A1 MPAT since 1994 which is laser rangefinder timed fuse. Russia absolutely never put ainet in service, let alone used it. 100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round. South korea and france have the timed airburst K280 and Nexter EXPL F1 in full scale service since 2008 and 2011 respectively. Russia is 10 years behind in programmable airburst tank rounds compared to NATO nations and South Korea.thegopnik wrote:https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-xm1223-multi-mode-proximity-airburst-round/ @limb if you are going to shitpost do a proper job.
Wagner tank crew in their famous T-90M interview claims they were using airburst rounds near Bakhmut. Not seen in footage nor from reports.
GarryB likes this post
Belisarius- Posts : 853
Points : 853
Join date : 2022-01-04
- Post n°835
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB, kvs and Hole like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2454
Points : 2448
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°836
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
3OF26 is the HE round. I'm assuming you're saying here that in all of the SMO the Russians exclusively used contact fuses for all their HE shell needs at least for the 125mm caliber. In which case I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit because 1) Reputable sources have established that the Ainet airburst fuse setting system is installed on several T-80/90 variants; 2) multiple video evidences of airbursting ammunition that may or may not be Ainet fused 3OF26 are demonstrated; 3) claims by actual operators on the ground of their usage; and 4) lastly, because you have no way of accessing the information required to declare that and I quote: "100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round" and anyone who says so that are not a senior ranking officer of the Russian Army is just blatantly lying.limb wrote:
Russia absolutely never put ainet in service, let alone used it. 100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round.
Sounds impressive until you realize the M830A1 has an 80mm subcaliber HEAT warhead. The armor penetration of shaped charges is directly proportional to the liner cone diameter - thus the bigger the better. The most basic PG-7L has a 93mm diameter HEAT warhead.limb wrote:
The US have been instensely using the M830A1 MPAT since 1994 which is laser rangefinder timed fuse.
I take it back. I'm actually impressed they managed to **** it up so bad a tank shell performs worse than a shoulder fired rocket. That takes real talent ... at fucking up
As an airburst munition it probably is just as shit. Unlike proper high explosive fragmentation shells which use the energy of the explosion to shatter the shell body into supersonic shrapnel, shaped charge warheads concentrate most of their energy towards collapsing a liner into a super high pressure metal jet - exactly the opposite of the former. They are not nearly as effective as airburst munitions which is probably why the M830A1 is designated against airborne targets that are very rarely armored to begin with.
K280 is a clone of the M830A1. Same caveats applies.limb wrote:
South korea and france have the timed airburst K280 and Nexter EXPL F1 in full scale service since 2008 and 2011 respectively.
I have no information on the French round to comment apart from that it apparently exists as a single row in a table in wikipedia. But consulting Nexter Arrowtech's product brochure for 2023 an airbursting HE shell can be found in the HE IM3M that is still listed as in development. Unless of course, you know more than the manufacturer when it comes to their own products.
NATO fanboys will swear up and down their shit is lightyears more advanced, but when shit falls to classic Soviet weapons they go into all sorts of contortions trying to explain why its just a fluke and the real NATO weapons were never really tried.limb wrote:
Russia is 10 years behind in programmable airburst tank rounds compared to NATO nations and South Korea.
That means they are still at least 10 years ahead from the rest of the planet in armor technology. NATO blew up all chances at catching up when they went full retard and spent all their money on blowing up brown people in shitholes most people barely heard of.Belisarius wrote:Russia is 10 years behind what it should be if it weren't for what happened in the 90s, and yet it is 10 to 15 years ahead of NATO and South Korea when it comes to hypersonic technology and anti-aircraft defense.
sepheronx, GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, The-thing-next-door, Hole, lancelot and like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°837
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Ainet is not a specified type of tank round, only a system consisting of fuze setter and electronically controlled fuze. It can be used with any type of ammunition with fuze. So you can use a 3Sz7 canister projectile with the fuze, making a 125 mm shotgun with a predestined detonation point. Or use it for 3OF36.
What makes an issue here, is the fact that it was originally fielded only with T-80UK tanks, which number totaled some three dozens. System was later adopted for T-90, but not from the beginning.
M830A1 has a standard, electrically ignited fuze of M774 type. It is not programmable, and the round itself is considered of very low effectiveness.
The ape has no idea what is talking about, and the only bell that rings out there is a new M1147 that is supposed to replace a whole line of M830/908/1028. It's distribution at the moment is homeopathic.
Belisarius wrote:Russia is 10 years behind what it should be if it weren't for what happened in the 90s, and yet it is 10 to 15 years ahead of NATO and South Korea when it comes to hypersonic technology and anti-aircraft defense.
They are a decade ahead in tank business as well, and not sure if not more than that.
It is enough to see what are the NATO ideas for "new" tanks that will be made in metal in the next decade.
GarryB, kvs, triphosgene, The-thing-next-door, Hole, lyle6, lancelot and like this post
TMA1- Posts : 1181
Points : 1179
Join date : 2020-11-30
- Post n°838
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Edit: had to add to a sentence.
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°839
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
For this new Telnik, on a chart, there is some subsystem already where the ammunition computer is located. As I can't figure the shorts of the subsystems, I am not sure what do they operate - one of them can be the autoloader control panel. What does not fit is the fact that there should have been two of them, for the gunner and commander, while there is only one on the drawing.
GarryB and TMA1 like this post
Mir- Posts : 3677
Points : 3677
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°840
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Hole, lyle6, Broski and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40234
Points : 40734
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°841
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
It seems obsolete technology has been getting the job done.
Question: dont they program the shell manually before it is chambered into the cannon or is it all done electronically?
Ammo can be loaded into the gun of a T series tank, but normally they use the autoloader to feed the rounds into the autoloader and then once it is loaded they go back to shooting things. The fuse on the Aniet rounds is induction set to a specific time as it moves through the autoloader into the chamber for firing... the crew don't need to manually set the fuse, it is an electronic fuse.
Just the same that the AHEAD rounds are normally set by an induction coil beyond the muzzle... the first two coils determines muzzle velocity of the shell being fired and the third coil sets the fuse.
Big_Gazza, kvs, Hole, lyle6, TMA1 and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°842
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
What is the very first observation anyone with some clue will made, is the fact that the most distinguished change to the more or less modern concepts presented by the west is a serious weight reduction.
We don't consider SEP3/4, or L2A8, or Ch3 a new tanks as none of them is, so the only two that apply at the moment is M1X and Panther.
In both cases, the end effect is a smaller tank with reduced weight.
As long as it can be considered some serious proposal for M1, Panther is just a dead horse beaten.
Both approaches have clear cons, and none of them gets even close to T-14.
Maybe M1X tries.
Both of them, will be a mature product in a decade if we are going to be optimists.
In both cases, the unit price will kill everybody.
So what we have here, is a whole of NATO being capable to finally design a tank that gets somehow close to the Russkie design, only TWO DECADES after.
And in both cases, tanks are already compromised and inferior to T-14 as it is even today. None of them represents a modular family of vehicles, and to pretend something similar, a usual voo doo is applied. MF51 is "modular concept", you know
Big_Gazza, Hole, lyle6, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post
Hole- Posts : 11057
Points : 11037
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°843
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Maybe Apple should design the next american tank.apple phone
Only 75 Million $ a piece.
Big_Gazza, kvs and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°844
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Hitting a target will be the most expensive one
Our gamer-breed sofa marshalls will feel at home!
Big_Gazza, Hole and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40234
Points : 40734
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°845
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
Maybe Apple should design the next american tank. lol1
Only 75 Million $ a piece.
A new model every six months with a battery to match and if you don't keep up buying new ones you will find all the currently produced ammo is no longer compatible... you need to buy a new tank.
kvs, Hole and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°846
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB, Hole and Belisarius like this post
Hole- Posts : 11057
Points : 11037
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°847
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB likes this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7341
Points : 7433
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°848
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB likes this post
Mir- Posts : 3677
Points : 3677
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°849
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
GarryB, Hole, Broski and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40234
Points : 40734
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°850
Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2
In comparison I still have my PC computer, but I have replaced the insides multiple times to keep it useful.
Can't do that with apples.
Which is ironic because they are more expensive too... you would think it would be the cheap one that is considered disposable.
The-thing-next-door, Broski and Belisarius like this post
|
|