Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I cannot stress how logistically retarded this is.

 

Maybe I'm just used to the Israeli system of upgrading one battalion because the logistical framework only allows battalion-level equipment changes. Maybe Russia's logistical framework is so comprehensive that it allows full support over long ranges to platoon level troops.

 

But if that is not the case, and they don't have special logistical units to support experimental units, then that's fucked. 

And from what I've read the state trials should have ended or should end soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

/.../

   However, according to insider information, the changes just affect the appearance of tanks. They will be installed new protection on sides. Since the protection of sides did not stand the test, the Research Institute of Steel developed new ERA blocks, which will be about one and a half times thicker than those used previously. Some parts of chassis will be almost completely modified: rollers and tracks. A new self-digger blade will be installed. And some other little things.

About Armata from GurKhan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LoooSeR is that early bit of data on the 12 tanks entering service, is the only available data on the matter atm? Because it sounds a lot like they're just sending serial variants to experimental units and not regular troops. And afaik experimental units, along with their logistical backing, are totally organic. 

Share this post


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

@LoooSeR is that early bit of data on the 12 tanks entering service, is the only available data on the matter atm? Because it sounds a lot like they're just sending serial variants to experimental units and not regular troops. And afaik experimental units, along with their logistical backing, are totally organic. 

   This is only info at this moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its very close to the that patent on obj 195 autoloader that you posted on this thread almost 4 years ago.

Seems plausible, and it would also mean (if this is effectively the design) that the amount of ready to fire shells doesnt change between 125mm and 152mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Its very close to the that patent on obj 195 autoloader that you posted on this thread almost 4 years ago.

Seems plausible, and it would also mean (if this is effectively the design) that the amount of ready to fire shells doesnt change between 125mm and 152mm.

I doubt it. automatic loader on the T-95 was developed specifically for the maximum number of shells 152mm. It was one of his main problems - a small amount of shells.
According to those working on the “object 477”: at the project level, a reserve gun of 125mm was approved. Most likely here is the same. And now it is installed on the T-14 with auto loader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Serge said:

It doesn’t explain why the ejection door is on the left. 

The spent cartridge ejector might be a different apparatus altogether, after all i find it hard to believe that an unmanned turret wouldnt have systems to deal with misfires and the like. There has to be more to it than just a way to load the gun. On the other hand, ejecting cases sideways has its benefits, for example you can use the entire turret roof surfice for sights and gadgets, and ERA instead of having to dedicate surfice for a case ejector hatch. Another advantage of the lateral hatch being located so near the breech is that it contributes with dealing with fumes.

Share this post


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

So, put the ejection hatch on the roof and it will be easier to up-armored the turret. 

A tank needs always more armor on day or another. 

   Placing it on roof will compromise roof armor then, on top of creating a problems with extracting ejected casings, obscuring work of soft kill APS and effecting atmosphere conditions sensors work/results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just took another look at the Obj 195 autoloader patent and realized that we already got a look at the spent stub turret ejection system:

 bIgPADy.jpg

The apparatus seems to "hinge" against the ejection hatch, and most likely folds out of the way against the turret wall when its not needed. Now the only missing piece for figuring out the general function of the autolader would be the main gun cartridge ejection, and in the description of 2A82 patent, its mentioned that its breech opening and ejection characteristics are "special", although i cant understand the real meaning (you can only get so much from google translator), if somebody could properly translate the post i would appreciate it. (https://zen.yandex.ru/media/gurkhan/2a82-super-pushka-dlia-armaty-5c31c4349175d500aabd6073)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Hey, great news everybody.

Quote

/.../

   “The problem was solved only in machines on the Armata platform,” he specified.

 

   According to him [director of quality and information technologies of the Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau Ilya Baranov], this model of the tank initially meant that the crew could perform long combat missions, in connection with which the Armata was equipped with a toilet.

   The only reason stopping us from invading Poland is solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   The Russian newest infantry fighting vehicle Kurganets-25 recently passed field trials in the Syrian Arab Republic. This is reported by various sources from the number of fighters of the Syrian army and local pro-government activists.
   The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and representatives of Kurganmashzavod have not commented on this information in any way; nevertheless, the very fact of such tests has long been a surprise to no one, as hundreds of different models of modernized and prospective equipment and weapons have already passed through the sands of Syria.

/.../

   Earlier it was reported that the first batch of infantry fighting vehicles on the basis of the promising tracked platform "Kurganets-25" will be transferred to the troops for testing their operation in 2019.

   At the moment, it is already a mature platform that needs to be checked in, to work out operational issues and, if necessary, to refine with the results obtained. It was calculated that in 2021 vehicle would be completely ready for delivery to the troops.

From ANNA news, not sure how accurate info is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, at this point, I've become convinced what the russians should have done is just taken the Object 187 hull and mated it with the Black Eagle turret or something. The Armata has been a comedy of errors, almost like a symbol of the government that spawned it really

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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • 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!
×
×
  • Create New...