Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

By contributing, you mean they will make suggestons that will be ignored and any stats they give will be castrated for the undeadble M1a2 crowd, and castrated twice for the Britbong lobby 


and it will still be called OP

Ummm, I take your point on the M1A2 lobby, but what is the 'Britbong' crowd?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screenshots from video.


Gunner sight is open, one APS launcher is not loaded.



Hatches are very thick.




Armata engine with robotic gearbox (8 speeds both forward and reverse).






T-14 in production, rollers assembly in process.




Hull side armor shape is visible. 


That journalist is annoying. Place for autoloader and turret ring. Note that turret ring at sides shows thick hull side armor.






So romantic!



Frontal hull camera is open.




Ilya Demchenko, Deputy Chief Designer. Young guy. 


Not long time ago we had problem with young people in military organisations/companies.


Plenty of space for driver to look around from his hatch. Gun and mantlet are pretty high, giving enough space for driver head and even more.


Also, roof and other upper parts are covered in some sort of non-slippery paint.





T-15-class land battleship. And journalist.



APU help to launch engine on that battleship.



WOW. A telephone to speak with crew! 100% new Russian invention.



Seems to me T-14 also have this HIGH-TECH device.



T-14 and T-15 at test drive.


Sorry to break this - and I realise you may have been being ironic, but Centurion had an "infantry-tank telephone in the 1950s.


What goes around, comes around - and it was a great idea when it was working.  Centurion's big problem was digital ideas on valve technology.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, I take your point on the M1A2 lobby, but what is the 'Britbong' crowd?




Bill, if Tied says something that doesn't particularly make sense, don't sweat it.  None of us do.  Indeed, it is when Tied says something that is unusually sensible that I feel the cold prickles of fear.

Do we have any better pictures of the engine?  I'm very curious if it's an X config.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, if Tied says something that doesn't particularly make sense, don't sweat it.  None of us do.  Indeed, it is when Tied says something that is unusually sensible that I feel the cold prickles of fear.

Do we have any better pictures of the engine?  I'm very curious if it's an X config.

IIRC this thread should have several screenshots with Armata and Kurganets engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and several larger than the one above, but I could not make out the cylinder configuration with certainty.


An X-configured, water-cooled diesel is in my opinion very clever.

We know that Russian tanks save a lot of space in the hull by turning the engine sideways:




But we also know that Armata is rather heavy compared to previous Russian tanks, so it needs a more powerful engine to maintain decent mobility.

After a certain point you can only make a piston engine more powerful by adding more cylinders.  But if you add more cylinders to a "V" engine, you make it longer.  You can't make the engine longer and have it still fit sideways because all modern tanks are about as wide as they possibly can be.  If you check the pictures from the Victory Day parade of the T-14 and T-90 passing the same point, you can see that they are approximately the same width.  Tank hulls cannot be made any wider than they are already because tanks need to fit on trains, and they are already at the limit of the width of cargo that a train can carry.


So, how do you keep a transversely-mounted engine in a tank with decent power?  Well, you could go to a type of engine that has better power output for its size.  This is what Kharkov and Leningrad did with the two-stroke opposed diesel and a turbine respectively.  But these have problems; the two-stroke engines were hard to make and didn't work well and the turbine is fuel-hungry and expensive.  Worse, they were both made in Ukraine so import to Russia is not possible for the foreseeable future.


An X-configured diesel basically solves all these problems.  It's like two "V" engines put together and sharing a common crankshaft.  You get more cylinders, but the engine does not get so long it can't fit sideways in the tank anymore, and you don't have to resort to exotic tank engines that may or may not work.


LoooSeR was there for this conversation before, this is for the benefit of others who were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible layout of Armata-based assault gun (Object 299/Object195-isnpired, on T-15 chassis) pic by Paralay




APFSDS ammo for an Assault gun? 


Assault guns aren't really the law of the land they used to be either

Link to comment
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.

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
      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:
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS

      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
      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...