Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

Of course trunnion position and breech length are important, but you talked specifically about the height of the whole turret as a unit relative to the placement of the gun. You said it's a negating factor and I corrected you by saying it's a contributing factor. 

 

I think we are misunderstanding each other.  My original post was poorly worded.  So, my intention was to point out that the trunion is very low and the turret roof is high in the context of hull down.  Yes, assuming the glacis is out of the way, more depression for any given gun behind trunion length and trunion height will push the roof up.  But the combination of all the geometry is what limits real world tactical use.  If the crew finds a perfect forward slope (one that matches max depression), they will have a lot of turret sticking up above the barrel compared to, say, a Leo or Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DIADES said:

LOL, so can a Sheridan :)

 

Difference is that Soviet/Russian GL-ATGMs are used in combat (Syria, Bastions for example).

 

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/glossary/glossaryh.htm

 

apparently i need an image to explain hull down and why one does not want a lot of turret above the trunion.  Yeah, I know its only a Sherman and a simplified image.  If somebody can provide accurate T14 (please image a triumphant brass chorus) line image and trunion position, I will happily construct appropriate comparative diagram with Leo (Long Live The King)

1) T-14 turret is much more narrower compared to "western" MBTs that tend to have better gun depressions compared to "eastern" tanks. This means that frontal projection that is visible for enemy could be about same or smaller than on those "western" MBTs in hull down position.

 

2) T-14 turret could be designed with 152 mm cannon in mind. At least size of that thing are not that far from Object 195's cathedral.

 

3) It is unmanned, so hits in frontal parts are not going to take out crew

 

4) for my eye, distance between gun tube and turret roof doesn't look much bigger than on some other tanks in service.

 

WYh4sY0.jpg

 

Spoiler

1360860246_challenger2.jpg

 

Type_99A_A2_ZTZ-99A_main_battle_tank_China_Chinese_army_defense_industry_005.jpg

 

Share this post


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

1) T-14 turret is much more narrower compared to "western" MBTs that tend to have better gun depressions compared to "eastern" tanks. This means that frontal projection that is visible for enemy could be about same or smaller than on those "western" MBTs in hull down position.

 

Aren't the turrets just wide, because of the side armor on the turrets.From the front they may seem wide but the extremities of a turret is just the side armor, no internals at all.

 

So in situation where an Abrams will be hit in the turret side extremities, the crew would not be harmed at all in the case of an T-14 it will be a miss.

 

The visibility of the turret in hull down position is the same really.

 

The winning points for the T-14 is the fact that in cases where a turret is hit it will only have to deal with the damaged hardware of the tank not causalities and hardware.

 

Plus, turret down position with a commanders sight like on a T-14, where just the sight and the machine gun is seen and also no blind zones at all is considered to be characteristics of the chosen one.

 

Not forgetting also the delicious weight savings for not having to deal with armor on a turret for the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello comrades. 

First post here. 

I just wanted to drop by this.

 

sGKrgdn.jpg

 

As you can see physically there is no issue regarding depression. 

Because the more centrally placed turret and L52 gun, it could have been, BUT, because of that "high roof" AND L52 (again) angled on a slope the results are the same. 

Ironically, the "real estate" exposed by both sides is the same. With the current M1A2SepV3 (M1A2C) the "real estate" is even a tad bigger for the M1...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think main problem with T-14 turret is protection against autocannons. I highly doubt its sides can resist 30x173 APFSDS. So for example even a Stryker Dragoon would be a serious threat (mission kill only, but thats enough). No such issue with normal manned turrets.

Share this post


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

I think main problem with T-14 turret is protection against autocannons. I highly doubt its sides can resist 30x173 APFSDS. So for example even a Stryker Dragoon would be a serious threat (mission kill only, but thats enough). No such issue with normal manned turrets.

Most if not all current MBT are vulnerable against 30mm  to the sides of their hull.

However, T-14 hull at least in the area of the crew compartment is likely to resist that. On the other hand, the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm which is about what 30-40mm can pen at close range. And i dont think that an IFV, which are normally very voluminous vehicles, can get close enough without being spotted and fired upon with the tanks main gun. Nevertheless a burst of 30mm fire can and most likely will take out a lot of the turret exposed sensors and sights, which would happen to any MBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

That relies on the wager that a lighter vehicle would manage to come close enough to fire its gun within effective range. 

 

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Most if not all current MBT are vulnerable against 30mm  to the sides of their hull.

However, T-14 hull at least in the area of the crew compartment is likely to resist that. On the other hand, the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm which is about what 30-40mm can pen at close range. And i dont think that an IFV, which are normally very voluminous vehicles, can get close enough without being spotted and fired upon with the tanks main gun. Nevertheless a burst of 30mm fire can and most likely will take out a lot of the turret exposed sensors and sights, which would happen to any MBT.

 

This "it shouldn't happen in the first place" mindset is counter-productive.

Over the past century of tank development, a lot of progress was made solely on the realization of "oh shit, it happened".

 

The British built a sub-par tank because they probably didn't think Russia would field anything advanced enough until the Challenger 2 is replaced.

The Israelis failed to invest in an APS because they didn't think guerilla AT units could hit their tanks' flanks with such (relative) impunity. 

The Indians have never finished the Arjun project because their entire acquisition process is just FUBAR, or at least was, for a very long time.

 

None has exact knowledge of the side armor of the T-14. I'm willing to bet that it's adequate against autocannons. 

 

When it comes to the hull, basically every tank today is resistant enough against 30mm autocannons. Every family of tanks (i.e Merkava variants, Abrams variants, Leclerc variants etc etc) has a ready-to-install armor kit that would make it basically immune to fatalities from autocannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm

I have serious doubts about that. The Objekt-477 had only 50mm armor on the turret sides where the gun was mounted. (according to paralay's drawings). Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS. The gunner's sight is also in a vulnerable position, far more exposed than on the Abrams, or even T-72.

Share this post


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

 

 

This "it shouldn't happen in the first place" mindset is counter-productive.

Over the past century of tank development, a lot of progress was made solely on the realization of "oh shit, it happened".

 

The British built a sub-par tank because they probably didn't think Russia would field anything advanced enough until the Challenger 2 is replaced.

The Israelis failed to invest in an APS because they didn't think guerilla AT units could hit their tanks' flanks with such (relative) impunity. 

The Indians have never finished the Arjun project because their entire acquisition process is just FUBAR, or at least was, for a very long time.

 

None has exact knowledge of the side armor of the T-14. I'm willing to bet that it's adequate against autocannons. 

 

When it comes to the hull, basically every tank today is resistant enough against 30mm autocannons. Every family of tanks (i.e Merkava variants, Abrams variants, Leclerc variants etc etc) has a ready-to-install armor kit that would make it basically immune to fatalities from autocannons.

 

 

I beg the pardon of you all here but you seem to forget a couple of things about "tank development", the vehicle at hand and how generally military institutions tend to operate.

 

a. We are talking about a specific situation which in recent history has happened very few times. That is IFV auto-canons penetrating the sides of an MBT turret.

 -These cases have been proven in ODS and Ukraine recently.

 -The said cases had happened due to both tactical errors, material inferiority of the MBT's and generally a very poor state of the MBT unit who got attacked.

 -The case of ODS (73 Easting) while much talked about, was a situation that happened because the Iraqis were overrun by the US tactical group. The fact that the Iraqis in static dug-ins were in one case taken out by 25mm (some say from the rear of the Turret at point blank range) is basically an outlier and is no basis for concern (The T-72's were being smacked by US heavy armor and FCS capability). 

 -In the case of the 2nd Separate TB of Ukraine that was ambushed by LNR (cough Russians cough) BMP's and lost 3 T64BV to penetrating shots, is also something that is an outlier. And relies on a bad tactical decision from the CO's. As such the fact that both sides came that close, is an outlier. As BMP's would rarely venture that close. Before you bring up Thunder Runs of 2003 fame, the level of luck and speed and organization versus the lack of all those in Ukraine, should be pressed forward.

 

b. We are talking about a vehicle which by nature is going to be engaged in a unit. A unit that will cover angles, operate with other supporting vehicles. If your cohesion and inter-operation as a unit breaks down at that point, then again, there's no level or armor that would help you. 

 

c. The "it shouldn't happen" is exactly why you have a doctrine which lays out objectives, TTP's and thresholds to evaluate those. Both in capability and efficiency.

If your military unit can't establish its goals (which are mainly military translations of political calculus), pursue them within the threshold of violence and losses then a review is in order. But those doctrinal lines cannot simply be to make everything "unkillable". Because cost for starters. Furthermore, a case of "making" things "unkillable" in first glance will always have an escalation. This escalation is only possible if the conflict at hand isn't terminated. In the case of Israel, that conflict is unsolvable. But in the case of Russia or the US, the conflicts recently have all been solved (on their "hot" phase) rather quickly. 

 

d. The vehicle we are talking about is satisfactory when taking into account how a military unit should operate.  Furthermore its layout makes it easier to both up-armor if need be, but also protect as it is. 

Share this post


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

Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS.

 

I would agree with that but only if it refers to turret's 'citadel' armor thickness.

Between the citadel and possibly thin outer layer covering APS parts from MG and AMR rounds there's a lot of free space which 30mm APFSDS has to 'travel'.

Share this post


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

I have serious doubts about that. The Objekt-477 had only 50mm armor on the turret sides where the gun was mounted. (according to paralay's drawings). Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS. The gunner's sight is also in a vulnerable position, far more exposed than on the Abrams, or even T-72.

See the section between the gunners sight and the guns mantlet? I think thats the physical thickness of the turret sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 11:48 PM, XhaxhiEnver said:

Hello comrades. 

First post here. 

I just wanted to drop by this.

 

sGKrgdn.jpg

 

As you can see physically there is no issue regarding depression. 

Because the more centrally placed turret and L52 gun, it could have been, BUT, because of that "high roof" AND L52 (again) angled on a slope the results are the same. 

Ironically, the "real estate" exposed by both sides is the same. With the current M1A2SepV3 (M1A2C) the "real estate" is even a tad bigger for the M1...

 

 

 

The T-14 has good depression but your graphic is misleading by making those tanks the same size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not the same size. They are close, not similar. There is a .9m difference in hull length. A .12 to .25 in hull height. 

 

What the graphic is showing is that once placed on the same firing line. The gun geometry is relatively similar. 

 

Yes the T-14 is comparable in size to the M1A1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things. First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m.

 

Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall) means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m ; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head.

 

Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track « thread » while in your picture there are two. While the front two have 2 threads while in your picture almost three.

 

Reporting the distance we find  on these images the Abrams results 2,3m high at roof and Armata at 2,7m high.

While again according to your own images the hull length for the Abrams is 8,3m (converted)...While according to all sources it doesn’t get past 8.

 

 

I could discuss this further but as a person I don’t like being taken for a ride.

 

You should be more « careful » when you try such things. Not every one is gullible.

Share this post


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

Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things.

 

For starters, I did not make the graphic just as you did not make the graphic you posted that it refutes.

 

Quote

First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m.

 

Do you think that ~1.88 meters is too low? Because depending on the source it is even lower than that.

 

Quote

Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall)

 

My own math puts it at a little under 50cm tall so I will take your word for it.

 

Quote

means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head.

 

Photos like this?

 

pjB5NzG.jpg

 

If you want to argue that the turret roof is only .3 meter above the gun then go ahead.

 

Quote

Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track « thread » while in your picture there are two. While the front two have 2 threads while in your picture almost three.

 

The creator of the image does appear to be off by ~2 track pads.

 

Quote

Reporting the distance we find  on these images the Abrams results 2,3m high at roof and Armata at 2,7m high.

While again according to your own images the hull length for the Abrams is 8,3m (converted)...While according to all sources it doesn’t get past 8.


Is the 8.3m your math from the image? Because it isn't what I get.

 

Quote

I could discuss this further but as a person I don’t like being taken for a ride.

You should be more « careful » when you try such things. Not every one is gullible.


All you seem to have done is suggest that the T-14 is actually taller than reported.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 9:41 AM, alanch90 said:

See the section between the gunners sight and the guns mantlet? I think thats the physical thickness of the turret sides.

Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements  direct attached to the gun.  

 

Probably not much good directly perpendicular,  but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kal said:

Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements  direct attached to the gun.  

 

Probably not much good directly perpendicular,  but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.

 

 

Well, there are explosive elements directly in the roof, and underneath those there is some composite armor. In my opinion, the same thickness and composition than the armor in the crew compartment roof, meaning much more than M1, Leo 2, whatever, but less than Merkava 4.

Also my opinion is that the side turret armor is pure steel, and if its that thickness that i sugested should be about or more than 200mm which from the POV of the frontal arc, should be able to resist most if not all APFSDS shots fired from 30-40mm autocannons (about 50mm and above i dont know) at normal combat ranges. Another advantage of a pure steel composition is that it would serve both as ballistc protection and structural support functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

For starters, I did not make the graphic just as you did not make the graphic you posted that it refutes.

 

 

Do you think that ~1.88 meters is too low? Because depending on the source it is even lower than that.

 

 

My own math puts it at a little under 50cm tall so I will take your word for it.

 

 

Photos like this?

 

pjB5NzG.jpg

 

If you want to argue that the turret roof is only .3 meter above the gun then go ahead.

 

 

The creator of the image does appear to be off by ~2 track pads.

 


Is the 8.3m your math from the image? Because it isn't what I get.

 


All you seem to have done is suggest that the T-14 is actually taller than reported.

 

 

 

 

The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 

1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. 

 

In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue print is off by more than "2 track pads". Following up we also have little problem. The front section (imaginary line over the lights) sits at 1.62m height. With the sketch again we have a minimum of 1.8m at the "beak". That's not possible. 

 

That photo while not aiming at 0deg, clearly shows that the "beak" isn't a 1.8 and the gun is going to come slightly over the serviceman's head. Unless that man is 2m tall, I can't really understand how that "sketch" corresponds to reality. Nevermind the swap for a M1 early run. 

 

If the gun is aimed at 2.1m then the roof isn't at .3m, but half a meter above. Which gives ample room to aim lower (even with a bigger breech).

 

With the recalculus, at best I find out a 7.76m hull from your image; about .2 m shorter than most sources. 

 

The T-14 is about 3.3 with the TCIV. It is about 8.7m long in hull. And it is about 2.6m tall. This gives it both better depression than previous Soviet/Russian designs while having a typical central location on the hull contrarily to the M1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   The company "Mikran" has developed a cassette of remote launched individual system of operational tactical intelligence "Eye"/Glaz, designed for installation on combat vehicles, in particular, on the Russian tank T-14 "Armata", reported TASS at MILEX 2019.
   It is noted that the development extends the capabilities of the system "by combining rocket launchers into one cassette with the ability to automatically start in the direction chosen by the operator."
   The cassette is a unit with seven individual containers-rocket launchers of the Glaz complex, which also includes a receiving device mounted inside of the tank, and a rotatable launcher mechanism.
   In January, TASS reported on the development of the Eye system in the interests of the Defense Ministry, which is a mini-device launched from a hand-held rocket launcher with a parachute that rises to a height of 300 meters, then throws a device with a high-resolution camera, the image of which is transmitted to the fighter’s tablet . The system has been tested in Syria.

oXKijIC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 

1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. 

 

In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue print is off by more than "2 track pads". Following up we also have little problem. The front section (imaginary line over the lights) sits at 1.62m height. With the sketch again we have a minimum of 1.8m at the "beak". That's not possible. 

 

That photo while not aiming at 0deg, clearly shows that the "beak" isn't a 1.8 and the gun is going to come slightly over the serviceman's head. Unless that man is 2m tall, I can't really understand how that "sketch" corresponds to reality. Nevermind the swap for a M1 early run. 

 

If the gun is aimed at 2.1m then the roof isn't at .3m, but half a meter above. Which gives ample room to aim lower (even with a bigger breech).

 

With the recalculus, at best I find out a 7.76m hull from your image; about .2 m shorter than most sources. 

 

The T-14 is about 3.3 with the TCIV. It is about 8.7m long in hull. And it is about 2.6m tall. This gives it both better depression than previous Soviet/Russian designs while having a typical central location on the hull contrarily to the M1.

 

-the gun height of an Abrams did not change between the 105mm gun and the 120mm gun

 

-a 2.1 meter gun height for the T-14 appears to be more accurate than the 2.3 meter height you previously said

 

-I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the T-14's gun depression when I agree with you that it has good gun depression.

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...