Mike E

For a lot of different reasons;

- Super advanced FCS system and sighting systems.

- Extremily compact and light weight. This makes it easy to transport, work on etc.

- It is built for a specific ourpose; to work Japanese ridge lines and defense urban areas.

- Modular armor, easily upgraded and adaptable.

- Very mobile.

I don't think this makes it a great tank by default...but it represents a lot of "the tank of the future".

It won't have crazy amounts of armor but I'd put it above the Type-96.

How will tanks look with an unmanned turret? *cough* like T-14 *cough*

In all seriousness, I think the Type-10 represents a lot of future design elements outside of the manned turret.

People really havent heard of spaced armor in the states now have they

Where'd you manage to dig this up? 

- Using external cameras is no worse than relying on a pair of eyes, especially in regards to keeping the crew safe and out-of-fire. It also allows the tank to have good surround vision in a NBC environment. 

- What's the point in removing a few oz's of metal? Not like those rounds are actually penetrating the vehicle... No vehicle would be able to hit the T-14 repeatedly with auto-cannon fire without the T-14 responding with much more. Especially at distance, assuming the "25 mm APFSDS" can even hit the vehicle (never-mind the turret)...

- 125 mm cannon that's more powerful than any used yet, while firing rounds as potent as the 140 mm did in testing. 

The turret might as well be plated in tinfoil because there is no point in using armor. 

People...are idiots. 

Nice picture there LoooSeR. It shows the side armor of the gunners' sight, which in reality is not all that bad...and the turret ring, which is very "deep" into the hull of the vehicle. 

What's the panel forward of the engine compartment for? It looks to be raised up quite a bit. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also a large gap between the side of the turret ring & the "blocks" mounted above the tracks. From what I have heard, both the T-90AM and T-14 have introduced a pressure-ducting system that reduces the build up of pressure that a propellant cook-off creates. There may be vents mounted there or something... 

Thanks... Finding numbers on the newer rounds seems to be almost impossible.

LoooSeR, do you have any information or pictures on what APFSDS rounds most current units are using? I know Russia has huge stocks of Mango and such, but certainly newer rounds like the 3BM42M or 46 are in some form of service... Problem is just finding pictures of them in tank, etc.

Four at once is beyond unlikely...and such incidents (multiple-engine failure) have been occurring more commonly. A guy I know suggested that the fuel as used on "that trip" may be to blame, as it can explain everything. 

^ this

Get some kind of cloning software that forgoes partitions, I have one I'll recommend to you in a while. Everything is done automatically, you just select the drive to copy, and the drive onto which that data goes.

Not really, they look pretty different to me,

 

Like T-44 to T-54 different

 

But ive spent alot of time around them i suppose

 

As for the T-90s, its more than less likely T-72s with very new Russian ERA, then again, i wouldnt be suprised if they were being issued out here and there 

 

It dosent surprise me that anything smaller than a Konkurs-M isn't that effective vs ERA, and that the RPG-29 is

 

These are Soviet made weapons, used against Soviet ERA, which were most likely tested against one another and vice versa 

There have been people claiming that Ukrainian T-64's (after being captured by NAF) are Russian T-72 variants, and even T-90's... 

Any T-72 with K-5 could appear to be a T-90 from the distance, but as of now there is no evidence of T-90's being in NAF's hands. Possibly a couple stored-models have made it across the border but even that is unlikely. 

It's called the M-46 Catapult, forgot to mention that earlier.

It is a Russian 130 mm gun mounted on top on an extended Vickers chassis (by one roadwheel). IIRC it is Indian.

WTF are they doing,. gold plating the firing chamber or something?

Nope, just keeping the MIC happy with more money. Same thing with the F-35. 

Even worse than the M3...  "Scout" vehicles are just an excuse for building an overweight IFV that doesn't have a clear purpose. 

Ah ok, thanks anyway.

Finally! I've been waiting for this day, for many, many years.

Could you translate the posters? If not I know a few other Russian speakers, but thanks for sharing this.

(It's 3 AM my time, and I'm hysterical with joy right now cause of this...just...amazing)

I bet Russian Spetnaz will run home when they see that thing. Heck, it will probably do better than the Bulats! 

Just out of my memory, I don't think the B3M is lighter, at least not significantly so...it adds more equipment, and isn't stripped down.

Both the engine and tracks were a problem for China last year, and as such both of them should have been corrected.

I forget...but I believe it to have been a quote.

They also supposedly gave it a 1300 hp engine, or at least 1200 hp IIRC. Going to be a tight race this year. 

>recongnizes the superioty of 125mm

>has Mikhail Kalashnikov avatar 

 

Your gonna fit in here mike 

Ha... 

Those are claimed numbers. That is my point - how they work in real life is unknown. Did they managed to make ammunition good enough to meet given specs? IDK.

True, and we won't be seeing exact performance numbers for a long time. Vacuum's figures were supposedly actually tested and confirmed, but my knowledge of this is shaky. AFAIK Russia has a APFSDS family in development that is based on the Vacuum series, but actually superior to it (Vacuum's were first developed in the mid-90's IIRC).

 - China's 125 is actually a necked-up, modified version of the German 120 mm. Clearly they value the extra 5 mm. 

But claimed figures have pegged it to be ~20% more powerful than 2A46M variants and the L/55 120 mm. Vacuum information suggests it will penetrate at least 900 mm of RHA at two kilometers, through 2A82-1M.

It would be impressive if the gun wasn't 140 mm. The other European 140's could fire longer projectiles, faster, with more penetration. 2A82-1M also matches its ability (if not surpassing...) while being much smaller in length and caliber.

Yes they are...

M829A3 penetrates nowhere near 850 mm at 2 kilometers, in reality it's closer to 760.

DM-63 also penetrates under the given number... IIRC it can penetrate 800 mm at point-blank, so that would be well under 750 by the time it reaches two kilometers.

Both went nowhere with development most likely being cancelled. Bagira was to be an extremely long (55 caliber) 140 mm that could achieve over 900 mm of penetration firing a 7 kilo round at just over 1800 m/s. In all honestly that isn't very impressive considering the round only weighs 7 kg. Vityaz is more...in the air so to speak. Little to no information on it, except for that it could fire a 5 kg rod at around 2000 m/s. My guess would be that it is similar in theorey to the 2A82-1M; uses a long barrel, higher pressure chamber, and more powerful propellant to up penetration.

The important part here is that no current or planned vehicle uses them (they aren't even marketed...) and as such, both have been cancelled IMO.

For now Ukraine continues to use the KBA-3, which is just their indigenous 2A46M.

I don't get this at all...let wheeled APC's be wheeled APC's, and tracked APC's be tracked APC's. One should not replace the other, rather compliment it. Same goes for IFV's. 

Is Russia really the only country that understands this? Kurg-IFV & Kurg-APC, Bumer-IFV & Bumer-APC, heck...even a heavy-IFV. 

- Also, replacing APC's with IFV's... I didn't know this until now, but the Boxer is actually *cheaper* than our Stryker.