Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

What's the plan with the T-15 and T-16 vehicles then?

As i understood, same as with T-14 - low-numbers production in future for a few units around Moscow for PR effect, training footage on TV and parades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shame, but those strategic programs have to be eating funding at a prodigious rate; Poseidon and Avangard in particular are going to be extremely expensive. If I remember right, Rubezh and Barguzin had already been frozen to free up funds for Avangard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 months ago

Quote

They will be very likely to used by courtiers units like Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya divisions and other units of Western military district will get T-72B3 UBKh and similar.

And apperently this is very likely to be now true after Borisov's stupid speech. UBKh is T-72B3 mod 2016/"M".

 

   So let's look at this situation - we have no new produced tanks delivered to RA since 2010-2011 (T-90A production was stopped for T-72B[udget Cuts]3) and there will be no newly produced tanks in any meaningful numbers for 5-10+ more years. Which leave our non-courtiers soldiers with existing fleet of Soviet tanks, which are at least 30+ old. Add here a fact that Soviets human-hating godless commies did worked on new generation of MBTs in late 1980s to seriusly/radically change tank designs, you can see that those tanks were becoming outdated in even 1980s. Similar situation is with IFVs and APCs, with BMP-3 being produced in too small numbers and majority of our fleet is BMP-2s and BTR-80As.

 

   On top of that political and military situation, and recent history shows that our forces are going to be involved in number of local conflicts (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc) where our nuclear-powered "Putin Fury" cruise missiles and nuclear powered ekranoplans with nuclear powered teapots will make 0 difference. Majority of our potential enemies/opponents have Soviet weaponry, from RPGs down to S-300s, Smerch/Uragan MRLS and so on. Not only potential, but enemies that we already fought have them and actively use them.

   In Soviet times, during A-stan war BMPs for example already received armor upgrades (BMP-2D), even against not that well equipped dushmans and mujaheeds. Object 477 had serious side armor package and separated crew compartment, Object 299 had crew protection capsule and so on. Basically, armor and survivability of older vehicles in changing type of conflicts that Soviet army found itself, were already found to be "lacking".

 

   Our MoD decision to this problem of aging and outdated park of tanks, IFVs and APCs of army that is going (and already does) fight with relatively not badly armed forces is this:

  • take T-72B, glue French thermal imager and FCS from 2000s, repair all parts that responsible for moving tank from point A to point B and call it "B3", done
  • take BMP-2, add new radio, done
  • take BMP-1, put BTR-80A turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done
  • Take BTR-80 and put a turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done
  • Create a TV channel (let's call it "Zvezda") and use all central TV channels, internet sites and so on to tell general public that our tanks are most tankiest ever made, APCs are unpenetretable and T-72 can beat Abrams and Leopards 2 left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.

   Somebody think that this will be enough, but there are a lot of problems here that were not solved. We are stuck with 30+, 40+ and in case of Basurmanin program - a fucking 50+ old vehicles. Simply speaking our soldiers are going to next conflict on top of IFVs that were taken out from Army during Soviet times because they were deemed outdated! 

 

   Why this situation is so stupid? 

   During 2000s we already had plenty to work with. BTR-90 for APCs could be at least something (chassis could support more weight, better armor, more place for turret and weapons, etc), tanks could be upgraded under Burlak program, or Black Eagle could have been developed futher. A lot of resources were put into BTR-90s, Burlak programm with real vehicles made for them. And nothing came from them because funding was stopped on premise of creation of better vehicles in the future. BMP-3 armor upgrades, APS, Relikt, T-72B2 Rogatka, Object 187, etc, a lot of stuff that was mass production ready or nearly ready was not put on conveyor at least in small numbers for active units participating in wars. A lot of wasted time and money. At least with those vehicles we could had something for Army created and produced in this century that at least partially solves problems that Soviet human-hating commies wanted to solve.

 

   How many years ago was Object 195 tested? Why they couldn't put those in limited service/test phase? Again, claims of better tank in the future, while army is still sitting on T-72Bs with K-5 and shells under crew bare asses.

 

   Years and years of development for some perfect weapon system that lead to nothing in the end while this whole time T-72Bs did not even got Relikt ERA as a cheap-ass upgrade. And only in 2016 an upgrade from 2000s was put into limited use on uparmored T-72B3s. But problems are not stopped here.

 

   After collapse of Soviet union we got a pretty good opportunity to solve another problem from late Soviet times - a whole 3 "Main" battle tanks in service that had almost no shared parts but very similar perfomance. Kharkovite traitors now were outsiders, T-80 developers and producers went into bankrupt trash bin and only UVZ left. We could finaly get a standart MBT, without zoological garden of different designs, parts, training, etc. But apperently this is not a case. We now have zoological garden of T-72s, with T-80UE/UA/BVM on top of that and T-90/A/M getting into mix. Same with IFVs - BMP-3 now have to share their role with BMP-2/M and BMP-1 Basurmanin. Well, at least BTR-80A is not in danger in any way as BTR-90 is a dead project. Add here all those MRAPS (Ural-VV, Typhoon-U, Typhoon-K, and so on) for special type of "fuck you, standardization".

 

   So good luck to our soldiers with T-72, in 2020, 2030 and maybe 2040 and thanks to Soviet un-orthodox evil empire for providing our MoD with at least something to fight and die in, because with this level of excellent planning and holistic vision of Armed forces our MoD would had to use Toyotas to close gaps and cover a hole in their pants and underpants. But i fear that someday T-72s will no longer be avaliable for B3 "modernization" and Soviet stocks would be 100% used... maybe T-34 needs some sort of modernization? Like T-34B3? It probably will be better than all Western tanks and can beat M1A3 Abrams and Leopards 3s left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian Army wants to improve 100% of its armored fleet. In the same period, they are introducing :

- a new family of heavy AFV family (T14, T15 and T16) with non mature technology ;

- they want the Kurganets AFV family ;

- they want the Bumerang AFV family ;

- they want the BMD4 AFV family ;

- and they are purchasing a large amount of MRAP. 

It’s impossible to fulfill all those challenges in the meantime. 

 

Italian Army tried to do the same (Ariete, Centauro, Dardo, Puma) during the 80’s. It was a deep failure.

Look at the British Army. They are facing the same problem. 

 

So, the Russian Army must make it clear about its priorities. I think they have to :

continu to purchase there MRAP fleet ;

- make a dedicated effort on Bumerang or Kurganets program for the next 5 years. (I would chose the Bumerang).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serge said:

Russian Army wants to improve 100% of its armored fleet. In the same period, they are introducing :

- a new family of heavy AFV family (T14, T15 and T16) with non mature technology ;

- they want the Kurganets AFV family ;

- they want the Bumerang AFV family ;

- they want the BMD4 AFV family ;

- and they are purchasing a large amount of MRAP. 

It’s impossible to fulfill all those challenges in the meantime. 

 

Italian Army tried to do the same (Ariete, Centauro, Dardo, Puma) during the 80’s. It was a deep failure.

Look at the British Army. They are facing the same problem. 

 

So, the Russian Army must make it clear about its priorities. I think they have to :

continu to purchase there MRAP fleet ;

- make a dedicated effort on Bumerang or Kurganets program for the next 5 years. (I would chose the Bumerang).

Boomerang is a fucking terrible choice, it is worse of all those projects, it is outdated even before design work was completed and the least usefull. 

 

   Almost all tech that Armata use was already tested. Engine - on Object 195. Unmanned turret - Object 195. Unified chassis - Object 299. Object 490A, 477, and so on on top of that.

   Tank and heavy IFV should have highest priority as they are frontline vehicles that will meat enemy fire, Kurganets being second on the list. Boomerang can go and fuck itself, a proper BTR-80A upgrade can carry the job for some time until all other vehicles would be put into production. VDV also can go and fuck themselfs, they are nearly useless. MRAPs can be purchased in smaller numbers. Poseidon sub also can go and fuck itself, it is the least usefull stategic nuclear weapon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov believes that now there is no need to equip the Armed Forces of Russia with a large number of such equipment as Armata or Bumerang, since the latest versions of the T-72 tanks are highly efficient.

 

   "Why "flood" with "Armats" or "Boomerangs" all the Armed Forces? We have a tank T-72 is in great demand in the market, it takes everything. Compared with the "Abrams", "Leclercs" and "Leopards" in terms of price, efficiency and quality, it significantly exceeds them, " Borisov told reporters.

 

   Borisov added that the T-14 tanks on the Armata platform and the Bumerang BTR are very expensive models compared to the existing ones, they could have been purchased if the current Russian armored vehicles were wastly inferior to the likely enemy.

 

   "Armata" and "Boomerang" are quite expensive models in relation to existing ones. These models are the prospect of armored vehicles," Borisov said.

 

   "If the existing equipment, in particular, the upgraded T-72, BMP-4 or BTR-82 tanks were inferior in terms of their capabilities to the likely enemy, we would now be forcing and buying new models," the Deputy Prime Minister said.

 

   He added that Russia manages, having a budget of 10 times less than NATO countries, to accomplish the tasks "at the expense of such effective solutions, when we look at the modernization potential of old models."

A BMP-4 is not a translation mistake. Does this idiot understand what he is saying at all?

 

Wasn't Object 195 canceled for same reason as being too expensive (against what, T-72B3?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murakhovskiy:

Quote

   "The question is that tanks are not a priority in the state. The accent is made, if we are talking about non-nuclear forces, on the aerospace forces and the purchase of strategic non-nuclear deterrence," Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, member of the expert council of the board of the Russian Military Industrial Commission, told the newspaper VZGLYAD .

 

   "Therefore, as I see from the state program of armaments, the tasks of mass procurement of armored vehicles and complete re-equipment for a new generation of main tanks, infantry fighting vehicles are absent. Apparently, we believe that we are not facing any serious military conflict with those countries that possess modern armored vehicles and anti-tank weapons, " the expert suggested.

 

   "To what extent this forecast will justify itself ... History shows that such forecasts are usually not justified. Then the country has to take urgent measures to correct the state of affairs in certain types of weapons, " Murakhovsky stressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Boomerang is a fucking terrible choice, it is worse of all those projects, it is outdated even before design work was completed and the least usefull. 

Is the Boomerang so bad ?

Is its mobility so bad ? Its mine protection so bad ? What about its firepower ? Is it confortable ?

 

Do you have sources wich are considering Boomerang is worst than a BTR-82 ?

 

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Almost all tech that Armata use was already tested. Engine - on Object 195. Unmanned turret - Object 195. Unified chassis - Object 299. Object 490A, 477, and so on on top of that.

   Tank and heavy IFV should have highest priority as they are frontline vehicles that will meat enemy fire, Kurganets being second on the list. Boomerang can go and fuck itself, a proper BTR-80A upgrade can carry the job for some time until all other vehicles would be put into production.

No because there is something you’re not taking into account :

when facing your enemy, the quality per vehicle is less important if you have the number.

Russia’s got the number. 

 

So, have a good enough thermal sight per tank is a much more efficient goal than have a few heavy MBT, IFV they can’t maintain. 

 

Considering the Russian situation, a massive deployment of Boomerang AFV can dramatically improve the Russian Army capability. 

When facing hard decisions, you have to look for leveraging. If suppressing a T14 can provide 2 T72B2 and 3 Boomerangs, it’s my choice. 

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

 MRAPs can be purchased in smaller numbers.

Protecting the force along MSRs is a priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Serge said:

Is the Boomerang so bad ?

Is its mobility so bad ? Its mine protection so bad ? What about its firepower ? Is it confortable ?

   Boomerang is outdated and worse of all projects (Kurganets and Armata) in terms of combat capabilities and "prospectivnes".

   Boomerang can get to some sort of acceptable level of protection because of add-on armor plates, some of which were previously tested for... BTR-80A/82A. Boomerang protection isn't much better than upgraded BTR-80A, unlike compared to Eitan, for example, which have protection of sides vs RPGs. Boomer should have had protection from RPGs, if it was a true "future" vehicle.

   Firepower is same as on BMP-2 with Berezhok. Only electronics are somewhat better, but taking into account that turret is an unmanned module that can be mounted on many other vehicles, i wouldn't count it as Boomerang's advantages over others. 

   

22 minutes ago, Serge said:

No because there is something you’re not taking into account :

when facing your enemy, the quality per vehicle is less important if you have the number.

Russia’s got the number. 

   It is great that we have "numbers", but in Syria for example we can't get those numbers for long period of time as it is too costly. And when pieces of crew members are flying with a turret into nearby building, i would consider a higher quality of frontline vehicles. Also, you apperently worried for protection levels of Boomerang, but for tanks and frontline IFVs it is "Russia got the number"? Maybe we will stop looking at frontline soldiers as numbers to waste here and there? Apparently we will deliver them in "well" protected and comfy Boomerang barns to frontlines where we will give them outdated badly armored T-72?

 

22 minutes ago, Serge said:

So, have a good enough thermal sight per tank is a much more efficient goal than have a few heavy MBT, IFV they can’t maintain. 

 What? Few heavy MBTs and IFVs with thermal imagers NOW would have been better for real world use of vehicles instead of yet another "WW3" scenario. WW3 will not come anytime soon, we have time to design another T-72 for it.

 

22 minutes ago, Serge said:

Considering the Russian situation, a massive deployment of Boomerang AFV can dramatically improve the Russian Army capability. 

   We will drive very comfortable to the frontline and then we will get a huge amount of casualties by Ukranians riding T-64s and firing old ass Konkurs ATGMs because we put our money into comfy barns with bad protection instead of frontline fighting AFVs.

 

22 minutes ago, Serge said:

Protecting the force along MSRs is a priority. 

Great, don't put money into several those crazy idiotic projects like re-started Ekranoplans program and we will have few more MRAPs. Not building Gorshkov for 12 years would also help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not worried about Bumerang protection but when a poor country like Russia must makes a choice, the answer is by no means T14 Armata. 

How many T72B3 were deployed in Syria ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Serge said:

I’m not worried about Bumerang protection but when a poor country like Russia must makes a choice, the answer is by no means T14 Armata. 

How many T72B3 were deployed in Syria ?

Russia is not "poor". Answer is anything other than 40 year old tanks. Black Eagle, Object 187 with Burlak/Proriv turrets, anything other than T-64 or similar. 

How many Russian armored divisions were deployed to Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't understand the need in 3 families when they can settle for two rather easily.

 

This variation forces army leadership to come up with unique operational concepts for each vehicle and may confuse the commanders on the ground. Perhaps even themselves.

 

Having 3 levels of reaction speeds is already confusing as it is. The BMP and BTR mix was good. 

Perhaps the Kurganets should have been made as a project to replace the BMDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly disappointing. The Armata program had a lot going for it: 

 

— reduced logistical burdens from standardized parts. 

— quick modularity and upgradability. 

— enhanced crew safety. 

 

Oh well :( Maybe some other country can produce (in actual numbers) an MBT with remote turret/crew capsule... or maybe someone can fire those guys whom cancelled the program and reinstate the Armata and Kurganets, soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I personally don't understand the need in 3 families when they can settle for two rather easily.

 

This variation forces army leadership to come up with unique operational concepts for each vehicle and may confuse the commanders on the ground. Perhaps even themselves.

 

Having 3 levels of reaction speeds is already confusing as it is. The BMP and BTR mix was good. 

Perhaps the Kurganets should have been made as a project to replace the BMDs.

Umm.. what? 

All 3 chassis are needed for certain roles that needed to be occupied with at least something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 1:37 PM, LoooSeR said:

 Poseidon sub also can go and fuck itself, it is the least usefull stategic nuclear weapon.  

 

Yeah, I'm not really sure why they are convinced it's so important - it is a purely second strike weapon, and has far less flexibility than missile systems. It's also *got* to be fantastically expensive. That's got to be the single most expensive weapon in the Russian development book...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 10:40 PM, LoooSeR said:

T-72...Compared with the "Abrams", "Leclercs" and "Leopards" in terms of price, efficiency and quality, it significantly exceeds them, "

:rolleyes:

Is this some sort of advanced sarcasm by Borisov?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

Compared with the "Abrams", "Leclercs" and "Leopards"

 

Borisov believes in strange VNIITM reports - 

 

http://btvt.info/1inservice/rarn_sravnenie2006.htm

 

As far as my translation seems to get, they are only comparing the probabilities of dealing with what seem to be original M1A1s and 2A5s. Am I wrong, or is that report really comparing the (then) current tank fleet to 25-30 year old configs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Everything we [could take] from T-72 and T-90, we already took, [they are] exhausted, there is no possibility for further modernization, we need a qualitative leap .This is why a  task of creating this platform (and we will definitely create it by the 15th year, we even announced it in our on the website) is a qualitative leap forward for the development of this direction, " deputy defense minister said in the program "Military Council" of the radio station Ekho Moskvy on June 29, 2013.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 4:23 PM, LoooSeR said:

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 months ago

And apperently this is very likely to be now true after Borisov's stupid speech. UBKh is T-72B3 mod 2016/"M".

 

   So let's look at this situation - we have no new produced tanks delivered to RA since 2010-2011 (T-90A production was stopped for T-72B[udget Cuts]3) and there will be no newly produced tanks in any meaningful numbers for 5-10+ more years. Which leave our non-courtiers soldiers with existing fleet of Soviet tanks, which are at least 30+ old. Add here a fact that Soviets human-hating godless commies did worked on new generation of MBTs in late 1980s to seriusly/radically change tank designs, you can see that those tanks were becoming outdated in even 1980s. Similar situation is with IFVs and APCs, with BMP-3 being produced in too small numbers and majority of our fleet is BMP-2s and BTR-80As.

 

   On top of that political and military situation, and recent history shows that our forces are going to be involved in number of local conflicts (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc) where our nuclear-powered "Putin Fury" cruise missiles and nuclear powered ekranoplans with nuclear powered teapots will make 0 difference. Majority of our potential enemies/opponents have Soviet weaponry, from RPGs down to S-300s, Smerch/Uragan MRLS and so on. Not only potential, but enemies that we already fought have them and actively use them.

   In Soviet times, during A-stan war BMPs for example already received armor upgrades (BMP-2D), even against not that well equipped dushmans and mujaheeds. Object 477 had serious side armor package and separated crew compartment, Object 299 had crew protection capsule and so on. Basically, armor and survivability of older vehicles in changing type of conflicts that Soviet army found itself, were already found to be "lacking".

 

   Our MoD decision to this problem of aging and outdated park of tanks, IFVs and APCs of army that is going (and already does) fight with relatively not badly armed forces is this:

  • take T-72B, glue French thermal imager and FCS from 2000s, repair all parts that responsible for moving tank from point A to point B and call it "B3", done
  • take BMP-2, add new radio, done
  • take BMP-1, put BTR-80A turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done
  • Take BTR-80 and put a turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done
  • Create a TV channel (let's call it "Zvezda") and use all central TV channels, internet sites and so on to tell general public that our tanks are most tankiest ever made, APCs are unpenetretable and T-72 can beat Abrams and Leopards 2 left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.

   Somebody think that this will be enough, but there are a lot of problems here that were not solved. We are stuck with 30+, 40+ and in case of Basurmanin program - a fucking 50+ old vehicles. Simply speaking our soldiers are going to next conflict on top of IFVs that were taken out from Army during Soviet times because they were deemed outdated! 

 

   Why this situation is so stupid? 

   During 2000s we already had plenty to work with. BTR-90 for APCs could be at least something (chassis could support more weight, better armor, more place for turret and weapons, etc), tanks could be upgraded under Burlak program, or Black Eagle could have been developed futher. A lot of resources were put into BTR-90s, Burlak programm with real vehicles made for them. And nothing came from them because funding was stopped on premise of creation of better vehicles in the future. BMP-3 armor upgrades, APS, Relikt, T-72B2 Rogatka, Object 187, etc, a lot of stuff that was mass production ready or nearly ready was not put on conveyor at least in small numbers for active units participating in wars. A lot of wasted time and money. At least with those vehicles we could had something for Army created and produced in this century that at least partially solves problems that Soviet human-hating commies wanted to solve.

 

   How many years ago was Object 195 tested? Why they couldn't put those in limited service/test phase? Again, claims of better tank in the future, while army is still sitting on T-72Bs with K-5 and shells under crew bare asses.

 

   Years and years of development for some perfect weapon system that lead to nothing in the end while this whole time T-72Bs did not even got Relikt ERA as a cheap-ass upgrade. And only in 2016 an upgrade from 2000s was put into limited use on uparmored T-72B3s. But problems are not stopped here.

 

   After collapse of Soviet union we got a pretty good opportunity to solve another problem from late Soviet times - a whole 3 "Main" battle tanks in service that had almost no shared parts but very similar perfomance. Kharkovite traitors now were outsiders, T-80 developers and producers went into bankrupt trash bin and only UVZ left. We could finaly get a standart MBT, without zoological garden of different designs, parts, training, etc. But apperently this is not a case. We now have zoological garden of T-72s, with T-80UE/UA/BVM on top of that and T-90/A/M getting into mix. Same with IFVs - BMP-3 now have to share their role with BMP-2/M and BMP-1 Basurmanin. Well, at least BTR-80A is not in danger in any way as BTR-90 is a dead project. Add here all those MRAPS (Ural-VV, Typhoon-U, Typhoon-K, and so on) for special type of "fuck you, standardization".

 

   So good luck to our soldiers with T-72, in 2020, 2030 and maybe 2040 and thanks to Soviet un-orthodox evil empire for providing our MoD with at least something to fight and die in, because with this level of excellent planning and holistic vision of Armed forces our MoD would had to use Toyotas to close gaps and cover a hole in their pants and underpants. But i fear that someday T-72s will no longer be avaliable for B3 "modernization" and Soviet stocks would be 100% used... maybe T-34 needs some sort of modernization? Like T-34B3? It probably will be better than all Western tanks and can beat M1A3 Abrams and Leopards 3s left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.  

 

 

It's really funny watching the rolling clusterfuccane of Russian arms procurement, meanwhile the US military is freaking out trying to outdo one-off Russian prototypes because they are terrified of losing their dominance to a country with a military expenditure equivalent to France's, and are being egged on by a greedy defense industry.

 

And the cherry on top is that any Russian with a stake in this wishes they had our problems.

Share this post


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.

Guest
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
      Hello,
      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:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      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
      Yes
       
      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...