Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts


   Correctly. Driver's wheel also can change positions. "Cheburashka" [gunner input device/joystick] have variable functionality (control of gunner sight/panoramic sight), like monitors. E.i. if tank commander wants to take control of the gun, it is done with a single click and he will have 100% same controls as gunner have, and vice versa."


   "Problem is not in the lack of buttons, but their number and location. Tank is not a plane and less buttons are needed, but even in tanks, engineers manage to design and locate the consoles so that you need to have octopus agility to quickly find anything and press it. 

   Look at the T-80 - on commander station - horizontal turret traverse mechanism. WHAT FOR ?! It hinders ... but the demands were - melee guidance ... :)  And for the sake of what? And even in Oplot it remained in place. "Super modern tank"... some even compare it with T-14.  :D


   In the T-14 the number and location of controls is optimized and it is located in the so-called "motor field" - easily accessible without changing position. And information providing means are located in the frontal arc. The field of view of human eye, though it is large, but in the periphery, "the resolution" is extremely low. You can notice the presence of the object, its movement. Understanding what it is writen or shown there - impossible. So it is necessary to bring it in the center of the view field. Hence the dependence of the size of the monitor on the distance from the eye. To change the viewing angle changing optical zoom is enough. And for observation of the surroundings, moving head or cheburashka [joystick] does not matter.


   Although .. again - despite the "easy" controls, it requires changes in the algorithms of the crew work. Of course nobody forbids from geting out with binoculars.  :) "

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

For future use

T-72B3, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-14, T-15 top view.  

Posted Images

"    but in general - a lot is still to come :D  A lot of free pace in the compartment. Wall is still empty, almost. TC have only communication unit to his right. You can cram a lot of things. In 15 years crew will "flow into" to their places likenow in T-series, Monitos will be even on the ceiling  :D


     ...and more about the habitability - air supply grille is clearly visible in upper the front and air "extractor" in the rear."


   About how to press buttons and touchscreen when moving: 

   "Body needed to be fixed so that the controls would not became a body weight support. Otherwise, you will not "control" much. A typical example - rally cars, planes and so on... If the Pilot will hold the steering wheel, he will not steer well.  :)  

   Earlier in AFVs, people rested with their "backs" in the seat and foreheads on sights or observation devices.  A stable position with free hands. But it have a lot of restrictions... TC - holding on to the handle of the observation device - had problems with pressing something. He had to distract himself from observing, lose contact with the area.... 

   In the T-14 position is close to the race cars drivers position. You can rest with legs and back. On top of that, you can tied yourself to the chair in so-called controlled stoop pose, when the back is bent slightly at the waist, shoulder and head are vertical (vestibular system works best). 

   E.i. crew member is fixed, hands-free, OBSERVATION! is not limited. If attached to the chair, then legs become free, to work with pedals, for example."

Link to post
Share on other sites

About side armor layout of the Armata HUTP:




   *claims that T-14 side armor is same as previous T-xx had*

   "See layers - it is plywood. A well knowledged people explained long time ago [ukrainian tank experts and tank 'experts']. Shot - pyrotechnics by Mosfilm, and therefore there is no rocking. There is no proper rocking after shot in the movies. And the rocking of the hull - tank was pulled by another tank with a rope (as in the "Beware of the Car" movie) ....  :D

    See damper/suspenion flange surface? This is where actual side plate is, and it is thicker than on old Ts. Side armor was thickened outwards with layered barrier. And now is not the thickness that determines the resistance of armor. " 




    "....and "reasonable protection of side projections" or so-called "thick side" we had in 187, Molot and other "Perspective" tanks from the [soviet] times. The truth is it didn't covered entire side, and only the front part.

    By the way - this speaks in favor of the rear-engined layout of the tank, it is not necessary to stretch a thick side armor protection to the entire length of the machine."




   "In T-14 crew is well covered by the frontal armor and from the side view crew compartment have small projection, easily covered by armor and does not get into the zone of highest probability of hitting [from the side as well]."




   "even in urban areas of Grozny prepared, knowing where to shoot chechens, it was necessary to organize 5..7 penetrations, to knock out the T-80 from action. A irrecoverable losses - a couple of vehicles on the unit. Including landmines.

   And in the Great Ukraine, in the open fields, loss of AFVs has already exceeded 260. And irrecoverable losses..."
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL ^ I noticed that too  :D


Too bad Zvezda videos are always low-quality, it's better than nothing I guess. One thing I enjoyed was the subtle censoring, like of some components in the plant. 


A lot of in-depth information was skipped over as well. Best to keep it secret, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already shown more than what the NATO showed about their tanks in 30 years.

Well, kind of true...but we didn't hear a thing about the composite, specifics about Afganit etc. We just "saw" a few things, without actually gaining knowledge on them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is really starting to drive me nuts... Some T-14's have roof armor that have three layers of steel, and two layers of something else, maybe ceramics. Other T-14's (like the one in the Zvezda video) have a single layer of "something else" sandwiched with steel...and some have what appear to be one thick layer of just steel.

Why would there be so many different variants of roof armor? Outside of being produced at a different time, I am clueless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not talking about the MERA/modules, rather the"base" armor itself. 


Compare these two images; 



Jsp9cywU5Kg.jpg(Both of which have been posted here already, as I'm sure you'll remember.)


And then skip to 40:15 (18:27 shows the same thing) on the Armata video (I suck at screenshots, especially on a mac);




That to me seems like 3 different variations of roof armor, and they also look to have different thicknesses. 


Hatches also look a bit thicker, to my eye. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not talking about the MERA/modules, rather the"base" armor itself. 


Compare these two images; 



Jsp9cywU5Kg.jpg(Both of which have been posted here already, as I'm sure you'll remember.)


And then skip to 40:15 (18:27 shows the same thing) on the Armata video (I suck at screenshots, especially on a mac);




That to me seems like 3 different variations of roof armor, and they also look to have different thicknesses. 


Hatches also look a bit thicker, to my eye. 

Look at them again.


~60-80 mm armor-grade steel base and MERA modules on top of it - this is a composition of the roof armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshots from video.


Gunner sight is open, one APS launcher is not loaded.



Hatches are very thick.




Armata engine with robotic gearbox (8 speeds both forward and reverse).






T-14 in production, rollers assembly in process.




Hull side armor shape is visible. 


That journalist is annoying. Place for autoloader and turret ring. Note that turret ring at sides shows thick hull side armor.






So romantic!



Frontal hull camera is open.




Ilya Demchenko, Deputy Chief Designer. Young guy. 


Not long time ago we had problem with young people in military organisations/companies.


Plenty of space for driver to look around from his hatch. Gun and mantlet are pretty high, giving enough space for driver head and even more.


Also, roof and other upper parts are covered in some sort of non-slippery paint.





T-15-class land battleship. And journalist.



APU help to launch engine on that battleship.



WOW. A telephone to speak with crew! 100% new Russian invention.



Seems to me T-14 also have this HIGH-TECH device.



T-14 and T-15 at test drive.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
      PART 1
      Object 292
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • By seppo
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 

      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS

      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

  • Create New...