Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AC GiantDad said:

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

   Great idea, but you are late by 20 years with it, heh.

   Also, Armata wasn't "spawned" by government and I don't see a "comedy of errors" in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AC GiantDad said:

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

There is nothing wrong with the Armata on the grand scale. Its APS might not be the best type of layout, but overall it's a solid design. The biggest issue with it is the program management, which is piss poor at this point, because the army is focused on investing substantially more funds into upgrading tanks that should become obsolete soon. And the deeper the upgrade, the more it costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AC GiantDad said:

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

There was a better option. Start mass producing Objekt-195. It was ready. It had the 152mm gun, 30mm coax, and better protection. Back then they said it is too expensive...  But in my opinion, its total BS. Actually, it was indeed expensive, but developing a new tank (that is inferior) from zero cost far, far more. Add the fact that the 125mm gun is now inadequate, and the T-14 is incapable to receive the 152mm gun without a massive redesign... Compared to all of this, the 195 is cheap... Unfortunately, the 195 is a missed chance, all we can hope for is that we will see it some day in a museum.

In my opinion, the Kurganets is also a waste of money. It has zero advantages compared to the cheaper BMP-3 Dragun. Only the Koalitsiya and the Bumerang make sense amongst these development programmes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

There was a better option. Start mass producing Objekt-195. It was ready. It had the 152mm gun, 30mm coax, and better protection. Back then they said it is too expensive...  But in my opinion, its total BS. Actually, it was indeed expensive, but developing a new tank (that is inferior) from zero cost far, far more. Add the fact that the 125mm gun is now inadequate, and the T-14 is incapable to receive the 152mm gun without a massive redesign... Compared to all of this, the 195 is cheap... Unfortunately, the 195 is a missed chance, all we can hope for is that we will see it some day in a museum.

In my opinion, the Kurganets is also a waste of money. It has zero advantages compared to the cheaper BMP-3 Dragun. Only the Koalitsiya and the Bumerang make sense amongst these development programmes.

The T-14 is a combination of many designs, including, perhaps primarily, the Object-195. 

The 125mm is not inadequate, but the 152mm is hardly practical. 

Without doubt, the main challenge today for an MBT's suit of armament, is dealing with an APS. The 152mm actually performs worse than the 125mm against APS, and substantially reduces the Armata's capability in both static and mobile defense, as well as ambush scenarios.

If you believe the T-14 needs a massive redesign to fit the 152mm gun, then the BMP-3 Dragun needs an even more massive redesign to become an adequate IFV from the baseline BMP-3.

 

The Kurganets-25 was built from the ground up to be a proper medium weight amphibious IFV, ditching the ancient Soviet meat-grinder philosophy, and onto a more modern approach of conservation. 

Those who claim the Kurganets is somehow problematic because it's too big compared with the BMP-3, i.e it's problematic because soldiers can actually sit upright and NOT break their backs, or sit in awkward, semi-kama sutra positions, are unnamed, but are likely the very same type of lobbyists that got the Soviet Union to buy 3 different MBTs in parallel. Probably just a bunch of UVZ salesmen. 

 

Share this post


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

If you believe the T-14 needs a massive redesign to fit the 152mm gun,

Thats not what I believe, it is a fact. UVZ confirmed it. Look for it on Gurkhan's blog.

Edit: meanwhile I found it:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html

 

Also the 125mm gun is indeed inadequate:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/03/blog-post_32.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Thats not what I believe, it is a fact. UVZ confirmed it. Look for it on Gurkhan's blog.

Edit: meanwhile I found it:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html

 

Also the 125mm gun is indeed inadequate:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/03/blog-post_32.html

 

Read past the title then. UVZ's statement, which GurKhan, says that they are ready to test the 152mm gun, if the Russian MoD requests so, and if the funding is provided. They don't talk about any technical difficulties, and this comes in contrast to what many people said about the 152mm being either in production or being tested somewhere.

 

In the 2nd article he cites the armor improvement in the Abrams. That's hardly relevant when talking about the capability of the 125mm gun as a whole. Ammunition improvements are made, and other possible venues of improvement are increased chamber volume, longer shells with either larger penetrators or more propellant, for example.

Perhaps improvements in ammunition will reach a dead end soon, and minor improvements to the gun as well. But in that case, going to 152mm straight away is very extreme. Rheinmetall claims an increase in 50% energy output with just a 10mm diameter increase, with the main improvement done being in the round's length.

 

It's important to remember that due to physical limitations, and the greater ease of creating destructive ammo than capable armor, no armor array is made to outright defeat the latest and greatest ammo at point blank. It's made to limit as much as possible the engagement envelope of the enemy, and to reduce the range at which the enemy can engage you. But that one, you understand well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

There was a better option. Start mass producing Objekt-195.

   This is not better option. 95 was almost an assault gun like ISU, not well suited for general purpose as other MBTs, on top of having some problems. Better option would have been finishing Burlak turret, mounting it on existing tanks and starting limited production of what i call "T-90B" - new/improved T-90 hull with Burlak turret with all cool toys mounted, for local conflicts. 

 

   This option would be:

  1. Easier, as ability of our country to mass produce completely new tank with completely new engine was (and probably is) questinable;
  2. Cheaper (lower cost per tank for obvious reasons), decreased logistical problems of having several different tanks with almost no parts commonality;
  3. Would allow for new generation of engineers to gain production-related experience, industry to have contracts without waiting for new gen of tanks and so on;
  4. Easier transfer to new vehicles for army. 
4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 but developing a new tank (that is inferior) from zero cost far, far more.

Object 148 was not developed from zero, a lot of it is based on 195, 187 and some other projects.

 

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 Add the fact that the 125mm gun is now inadequate, and the T-14 is incapable to receive the 152mm gun without a massive redesign... 

   2A46 - yes, 2A82 - probably not inadequate weapon.

   T-14 AFAIK don't need massive redesign, just fighting compartment (turret/autoloader), which is a point of modular design of the chassis. Chassis can support 65 tons, engineers have some room to play around. Hell, 152 mm gun was put into T-80 chassis (292), i guess it will not be harder than that.

 

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

In my opinion, the Kurganets is also a waste of money. It has zero advantages compared to the cheaper BMP-3 Dragun. Only the Koalitsiya and the Bumerang make sense amongst these development programmes.

   Kurganets-25 based IFV indeed don't look like a big step away from BMP-3 overal, but cumulative effect of all changes means that they are developing a new vehicle (difference between Kurganets and BMP-3 is way bigger than between BMP-1 and BMP-2, and about on par with BMP-2 -> BMP-3). I would like to see 57 mm AC module on it instead of 30 mm AC or some sort of unmanned version of BMP-3s weapon system, though.

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The 152mm actually performs worse than the 125mm against APS

   Ummm... what? 

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

and substantially reduces the Armata's capability in both static and mobile defense, as well as ambush scenarios.

   I would think that higher penetration AP and way bigger HE would significantly increase at least assault capabilities of a tank. 

Share this post


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

 

   Ummm... what? 

 

Against APS, at least those that are capable of defeating APFSDS, increasing the mass or size of the rod does not add any significant improvement to the capability to overcome the interceptor's force. It's just going to be a far too negligible addition. 

However, any increase in diameter does necessitate a reduction in ammunition load, unless there is extra volume to spare. A reduced ammo load would be a significant enough reduction in capability, depending on how many shells have to be removed, because APS would require an attacker to use multiple shells per target prior to the first penetration.

 

35 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   I would think that higher penetration AP and way bigger HE would significantly increase at least assault capabilities of a tank. 

Assault? Perhaps. But in defensive tactics, a tank would hop between prepared positions, or improvised hull-down positions. The larger the turret, the more vulnerable the tank gets.

That's basically one of the T-14's trump cards, and why its turret is basically un-armored. Its actual turret (not gadgets sticking on the outside) is so narrow that it's basically like a mantlet, and mantlets are fairly hard to properly armor.

Object 195's turret is about as little armored as the T-14's turret, but it went from being the smallest turret (T-14), to by a large margin the biggest one (Obj 195).

Share this post


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

 

Against APS, at least those that are capable of defeating APFSDS, increasing the mass or size of the rod does not add any significant improvement to the capability to overcome the interceptor's force

   Well, it is still an increase it, not decrease.

 

28 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

However, any increase in diameter does necessitate a reduction in ammunition load, unless there is extra volume to spare.

In case of Soviet tanks, they need to have more than 22 rounds in autoloader, and they will get an increase of ammunition loadout.

 

 

Share this post


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

Better option would have been finishing Burlak turret, mounting it on existing tanks and starting limited production of what i call "T-90B" - new/improved T-90 hull with Burlak turret with all cool toys mounted, for local conflicts. 

Well, I agree about Burlak turret, that was also a big missed opportunity. 

Also, I have an even better idea, Objekt-187 hull with Burlak turret... Base T-90 hull would need a serious redesign to fix its 2 main problems, the driver's weakspot, and the half day engine change. 187 already fixed both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Base T-90 hull would need a serious redesign to fix its 2 main problems, the driver's weakspot, and the half day engine change. 187 already fixed both.

That would be desirable, yes, but it seems like replacing hull altogether by entirely different one would've been much less realistic option
than redesigning frontal part (of T90 hull) only, or even both redesigning frontal part and then cutting hull in half (well, two-thirds, in front of engine compartment) and adding a roadwheel-long section along with roadwheels, in order to make it longer.

 

On the matter of Burlak turret...Judging by what is known about all those turrets Omsk designed and advertised in 90s/00s - one have to choose between thick turret roof with turret-bustle autoloader only (patents on 640), and thin (regular) turret roof and retaining carousel-type autoloader, thus having two autoloaders with ~40-44 rounds (Burlak). It's pitty one can't have both without getting several tonnes heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

 

That would be desirable, yes, but it seems like replacing hull altogether by entirely different one would've been much less realistic option
than redesigning frontal part (of T90 hull) only, or even both redesigning frontal part and then cutting hull in half (well, two-thirds, in front of engine compartment) and adding a roadwheel-long section along with roadwheels, in order to make it longer.

 

On the matter of Burlak turret...Judging by what is known about all those turrets Omsk designed and advertised in 90s/00s - one have to choose between thick turret roof with turret-bustle autoloader only (patents on 640), and thin (regular) turret roof and retaining carousel-type autoloader, thus having two autoloaders with ~40-44 rounds (Burlak). It's pitty one can't have both without getting several tonnes heavier.

Well, with T-14's weight they probably could figure out something workable :D

Share this post


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

T-14 side armor was indeed changed, the modules are very similar to 2S24

 

cyuhuMKh.jpg

 

 

   It wasn't, side armor blocks over 3rd-6th rollers just lack metal sheet cover on top of them.

t-14-3.jpg

 

t-14-8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality of the T-14 Armata is that it's the result of the long-standing Soviet/Russian desire to have a 152mm-armed tank. While it's unlikely that the entire fleet of T-14s (if there ever is a fleet), will be 152mm-armed versions, a number of 152mm-armed tanks deployed as tank destroyers is very possible. So, we might have two variants of the Armata; one 125mm-armed MBT and a "heavy" 152mm-armed tank destroyer. I remember reading somewhere that the Russians feel that a 152mm main gun should be able to physically defeat the target tanks structure...not necessarily penetrating the armor, but defeating the tank by brute force.        

 

Here are a couple of quotes... 

 

http://izvestia.ru/news/586485 (Translation)

 

“Russian tank-based armored “Armata” demonstrated at the parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in the future will get a new gun caliber 152 mm (2A83). We have to do with the outfit of the tank, which burns meter steel, will put on the “Armata” said, “Izvestia” in charge of the military-industrial complex Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

 

In the parade were demonstrated tanks with a gun caliber 125 mm. Such tanks are first made available to the Ministry of Defense. But in subsequent batches will be a more powerful weapon.”

 

http://www.irk.kp.ru/daily/26381.4/3259466/ (Translation)

 

“The gun already exists. It was developed in the framework of development work on the tank "Object 195", many know him as the T-95. Now I can even tell you the brand of the gun - 2A83. It has been successfully tested, including new types of ammunition.” 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

The reality of the T-14 Armata is that it's the result of the long-standing Soviet/Russian desire to have a 152mm-armed tank. While it's unlikely that the entire fleet of T-14s (if there ever is a fleet), will be 152mm-armed versions, a number of 152mm-armed tanks deployed as tank destroyers is very possible. So, we might have two variants of the Armata; one 125mm-armed MBT and a "heavy" 152mm-armed tank destroyer. I remember reading somewhere that the Russians feel that a 152mm main gun should be able to physically defeat the target tanks structure...not necessarily penetrating the armor, but defeating the tank by brute force.        

 

Here are a couple of quotes... 

 

http://izvestia.ru/news/586485 (Translation)

 

“Russian tank-based armored “Armata” demonstrated at the parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in the future will get a new gun caliber 152 mm (2A83). We have to do with the outfit of the tank, which burns meter steel, will put on the “Armata” said, “Izvestia” in charge of the military-industrial complex Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

 

In the parade were demonstrated tanks with a gun caliber 125 mm. Such tanks are first made available to the Ministry of Defense. But in subsequent batches will be a more powerful weapon.”

 

http://www.irk.kp.ru/daily/26381.4/3259466/ (Translation)

 

“The gun already exists. It was developed in the framework of development work on the tank "Object 195", many know him as the T-95. Now I can even tell you the brand of the gun - 2A83. It has been successfully tested, including new types of ammunition.” 

   

 

Quote speaks about HEAT round, myth about HEAT jet is "burning"/ melting through armor, not exactly destroying tank by shear power of Mother Russia. Especially this is a qoute of Rogozin, kek.

 

I kind of doubt 152 being deployed in any numbers at first. Shells are one of reasons to not go there, at least at start. Later on it is possible, but it will take several years at least after normal version will be put into any sort of production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bit of info regarding the T-14 Armata from 2016... 

 

The producer is “considering” a tank variant armed with a 152mm cannon referred to as a “Heavy Assault Armored Vehicle” dubbed “The Tank Killer” by Russian media. According to the producer’s Deputy Director:

 

“The 152mm caliber is pretty effective and doesn't require special ammo to deal with armor. A 152mm shell's kinetic energy is high enough to just blow a turret away. So this is a promising direction and we are considering it.”

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...