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


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2410
    Points : 2402
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

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

    New autoloader will allow longer penetrators. thumbsup
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 L-7oob_13036710011

    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
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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 
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty 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.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1440
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:40 am

    TR1 wrote:M60A2 was the space tank, looked amazing but left service pretty fast.
    avatar
    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 401
    Points : 337
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 26
    Location : Western Poland

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:03 pm

    Sparky Shocked
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1892
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:21 pm

    As Sa'iqa wrote:Sparky Shocked
    yep! Cool 
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:21 am

    Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering.

    I'm hoping someday this changes. These 60+ ton German uber tanks tanks are expensive.

    Just make the tanks smaller and use the money you saved to buy systems like APS, DIRCM, IR camo, etc.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2410
    Points : 2402
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:58 am

    Zivo wrote:
    Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering. 
    Well You can't say M60 was mediocre tank. Or tanks before it. In their days they were only second to Soviet tanks. 
    And there is not much left out of German engineering in Abrams these days. 

    I'm hoping someday this changes. These 60+ ton German uber tanks tanks are expensive.
    It's already changing. Abrams tanks aren't that expensive, and USA has tons of them already. I'm sure that T-90MS isn't cheapest tank in the world too. Both of these tanks reaching limits of upgrading.
    New M1A3 could be lighter by few tons or more. Lighter armor, hydro-pneumatic suspension, fiber optic cables will help with that. Gas turbine will be likely replaced by diesel engine too.
    But still I wouldn't say they are uber tanks and in tank engagement with equal tank nothing could really guarantee it's safety. But state that they are useless garbage is understatement. Russia wouldn't be making improvements in their arsenal how to defeat western armor. 


    Just make the tanks smaller and use the money you saved to buy systems like APS, DIRCM, IR camo, etc.
    Technology is here. APS, IR camo, everything was tested. Their implementation wouldn't be hard and they are already proven systems. Most likely they will come in A3. AN/VLQ-8A is already being used as optical jammer. USA is not leading in those so don't expect miracles.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:06 am

    Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering.
    German main gun, and British Armour.... and now Belgian FN MAG coaxial MG...

    Well You can't say M60 was mediocre tank.
    It was very tall and didn't have the best armour... and it had a British gun.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2410
    Points : 2402
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:37 am

    German main gun, and British Armour.... and now Belgian FN MAG coaxial MG...
    The gun is made in US and they already have new domestic 120 mm to choose from. Newer German designs are on market, but I'm sure they don't have such strong lobbyist as american manufacturers. Armor is not the same as British armor anymore. It went different paths years ago. Not sure if it is more advanced than current British armor, could be weaker but lighter. Machine gun doesn't matter as much as transmission, suspension, electronics all the guts are American. Some countries who try and succeed making tanks have all the guts from different manufacturers.


    It was very tall and didn't have the best armour... and it had a British gun.
    And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world.
    avatar
    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 707
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:03 pm

    "And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world."

    Regular, you forgot British Smile  Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26247
    Points : 26793
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:25 am

    Regular, you forgot British Smile  Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
    British tanks have generally either be under gunned or have a rubbish engine or both. the Centurion and Chieftan was good tanks, and the 105mm is a very good gun, but currently the British tanks are Iranian.  Razz 

    And the plan to upgrade their firepower is to go with a German tank gun.

    Saying the Soviets and Russians were ahead of the west in tank design is not to say western tanks are crap, but the T-90AM would be directly comparable to any western tank yet 15-20 tons lighter, and cheaper.

    The T-84, like the T-90MS is based on Soviet tank designs and both pretty much for export only... though the chances of mass production of the Russian vehicle is significantly higher than for the Ukrainian vehicle.

    to export the T-84 they first have to build a factory to make them in.  russia
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:01 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:"And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world."

    Regular, you forgot British Smile  Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
    Chieftan had serious mobility issues, and armor wise was hopelessly antiquated when Soviet composite armored vehicles came out.

    Pugnax
    Pugnax

    Posts : 85
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 56
    Location : Canada

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty T-99

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:08 pm

    The Chieftains super thick armour and excellent gun more than offset the low mobility and speed issues in that it perfectly suited the defensive doctrines of the BAOR of the day.With some of the best trained crews in armoured warfare history Chieftain was never at a disadvantage except for transit issues(bridge crossings,rail transport). I believe it was a defensive vehicle ,very much akin to the Israeli Merkava series,not suited to high speed mobile battle but certainly capable of stopping one.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:24 pm

    The Chieftan's super thick armor was ancient compared to contemporary Soviet composite arrays. The Brits needed to put on some crude applique arrays to make the tank at all viable.

    Also T-62 (wich MUCH superior mobility) had no problem dueling with Chieftan...and it did not even composite armor. They got both knock each other, but its obvious which was a better mainstay.

    Like you said it was made with defensive battles in mind, and it can't be faulted too hard for being awful at mobility.
    Pugnax
    Pugnax

    Posts : 85
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 56
    Location : Canada

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty t-99

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:30 pm

    I have always believed in T-62.especially the upgraded m version with horseshoe armour,skirts and laser rangefinder...was there an atgm for the U5TS?
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:37 pm

    T-62M had a 115mm upscaled Bastion I think.

    Sponsored content

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:20 am