ult wrote:
That should be the IFV variant. looking at the position of drive sprocket..hmm Front mounted engine.
ult wrote:
Werewolf wrote:That almost looked like automatic mortar 2B1 and not a cannon.
Stealthflanker wrote:ult wrote:
That should be the IFV variant. looking at the position of drive sprocket..hmm Front mounted engine.
George1 wrote:can u please post the photo at 800x600 scale?
Plus the steeply sloped frontal hull resembles this speculative configuration of Armata:
Werewolf wrote:Will russia be so open and naive to show its new APS on Armata or Kurganetz or will they remove any APS system along with Radar to keep it secret as long as necessary?
Cyberspec wrote:Werewolf wrote:Will russia be so open and naive to show its new APS on Armata or Kurganetz or will they remove any APS system along with Radar to keep it secret as long as necessary?
Might be already mounted
What are your guesses...
Might be already mounted
TR1 wrote:http://s018.radikal.ru/i502/1503/e8/9ffb4aeadb2b.jpg
The predecessor.
Werewolf wrote:
I do believe that this is an entirely different turret and not the MBT turret at all. We know that the chassis are unified, but all people jumped immidiatley to the conclusion that this is T-14 MBT due the 7 road wheels. To me it does not represent the concept. The turret seems rather small for autloader with after turret bustle feeding system. The concept on T-64/80 and T-72/90 was two seperated ammunitions which are made of paper like material that are highly flammable, due this kind of ammunition the entire internal volume had to be reduced, meaning no fuel inside the vehicle, no pipes inside that could catch fire and end fatal for tank and crew. This turret seems tall, but rather shorter than expected and i don't think it houses a horizontal autoloader but a vertical one from the hull of it with seperated ammunition and propellant, from the looks of it, the chassis is larger than T-72/90 which means the fuel is back inside of the chassis which means non seperated ammunition, which probably means hard case ammunition will be used.
That is the reason i doubt that this is T-14 turret.
collegeboy16 wrote:Werewolf wrote:
I do believe that this is an entirely different turret and not the MBT turret at all. We know that the chassis are unified, but all people jumped immidiatley to the conclusion that this is T-14 MBT due the 7 road wheels. To me it does not represent the concept. The turret seems rather small for autloader with after turret bustle feeding system. The concept on T-64/80 and T-72/90 was two seperated ammunitions which are made of paper like material that are highly flammable, due this kind of ammunition the entire internal volume had to be reduced, meaning no fuel inside the vehicle, no pipes inside that could catch fire and end fatal for tank and crew. This turret seems tall, but rather shorter than expected and i don't think it houses a horizontal autoloader but a vertical one from the hull of it with seperated ammunition and propellant, from the looks of it, the chassis is larger than T-72/90 which means the fuel is back inside of the chassis which means non seperated ammunition, which probably means hard case ammunition will be used.
That is the reason i doubt that this is T-14 turret.
use of hard cased (and i assume unitary as well) ammo is pathetic step backwards. the current trend is liquid propellant/ ETC guns and i believe next iteration of the 2a82-1m is going to be just that. a brass case would be unnecessary and would even impede performance. besides, there is plenty of room for 32 shells and their propellant especially to have their own fully covered cassette in the AL compartment.
i think its opposite- the MBT at least looks to me to be a bit front heavy, what with the the big support devices on the the two front rollers. most MBTs are front heavy anyway- the massive turret and now frontal hull armor would always outweigh the engine at the back. and afaik Merkava 4 which defo takes the cake for front heaviness performs well when going uphill- the extra weight seems to add more traction at the front, making the climb easier.victor1985 wrote:I saw most of tanks have their weight concentrated to middle or back. Especially to armata i saw is concentrate to back. How that affect the adherence to road? Most important when reaching a hill. Or close to vertical pieces of road.
well its definitely on the christmas list for next gen tanks- esp. now this mother just exploded in the net.Werewolf wrote:
What trend? There is not a single gun on tanks that uses liquid propellants.
|
|