Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

BMS burden?

More simply : every battle day life. 

You can work efficiently during a short period of time with a tinny crew, but you work better over long period with a 4 men crew.


In France, we are lucky because of our specific troop organization. But, it’s simply crazy to think it’s possible to work with a 2 men crew tank, whatever the technology considered. I can’t imagine a 8 or 6 men troop (cost effective BTW).

If doctrine makers are only considering borders patrol duty, it’s ok. But, this is not the real life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

For future use

Hey guys, look, a photo of Armata in Syria was posted!    Totally real!

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Serge said:

More simply : every battle day life. 

You can work efficiently during a short period of time with a tinny crew, but you work better over long period with a 4 men crew.


In France, we are lucky because of our specific troop organization. But, it’s simply crazy to think it’s possible to work with a 2 men crew tank, whatever the technology considered. I can’t imagine a 8 or 6 men troop (cost effective BTW).

If doctrine makers are only considering borders patrol duty, it’s ok. But, this is not the real life. 

Tanks with crews of 2 will still be manned by 3 men. So it's going to be just as effective as any existing 3-man tank. It's just that the gunner is relegated to another duty and no longer controls the tank's core systems, rather he operates support elements.


The reduced manpower is thus moved to specialized maintenance works, which makes the overall maintenance of the tank easier, and the serviceability rates higher.


Having a 4th crewman may be helpful when the tank is hit or when you have a lot of maintenance work. But new automotive technologies have been reducing the workload tremendously over the years and will continue to do so.

And let's not kid ourselves. When the tank's hit and a crewman is dead, the tank stops in its tracks and becomes easy bait for quite a while. There's even statistics about it. All tanks that were penetrated in the crew compartment in the Yom Kippur War, were considered mobility kills and were inoperable for a relatively considerable amount of time on the battlefield.


IFVs have already made the move. They went for robotized loaders. At some point, and I think they will be first to make the move en masse, will be to relegate the gunner to drone operation.

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

A vehicle is a 2 or 3 men crew vehicle, not a 2 and 3 men crew one.


Israel loves plasma leadership. 


Remember the Carmel tech promo video (with really, really shitty quality) from a while ago?




Well as you can see there are 3 men inside the vehicle. But only 2 are actually operating the vehicle and the other is a force commander or a drone operator depending on whether it's a standard vehicle or command version. This is what I meant.


In 2016 we got these news:

US Army To Demo Robotic Wingman Vehicles in 2017.

Recently, in March 2018, we got follow-up news on the same project:

First Next Gen Combat Vehicle (NGCV) and Robotic Wingman Prototypes To Emerge in 2020.


Their train of thought was replacing the loader with an automatic loading system, but not removing the loader - They re-tasked him, let him operate drones. So for all intents and purposes, when you're looking at the operation of the vehicle itself, they basically tested an Abrams driving, acquiring, and shooting with only 3 men. That 4th man was operating drones, and these have direct influence on the acquisition of targets, engagement, and possibly even protection if we'll start looking into mobile, semi-autonomous APS stations.

Apparently it worked and they liked the idea, and are proceeding with a full project on the agenda.


When it comes to maintenance, again, you have the same capabilities. When it comes to survivability, it's then all a matter of whether you teach the drone operator to also operate crewmen's systems, and a UI design. 


Don't be close minded, guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the publicized annual report of OJSC "Kurgan Machine Building Plant" for 2017 it is reported that the enterprise concluded state contracts for
the supply in 2019-2021 of pilot/test vehicles on the "Kurganets-25" platform.


OJSC "Kurganmashzavod" concluded state contracts for the supply of AFVs in 2019-2021. In the end, these works should be completed in 2021 by adopting (into service) the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of combat vehicles (such as BMP and BTR on unified light armored tracked platforms (6 and 7 rollers)) for the subsequent creation and production on their basis of a family of lightly armored vehicles for various purposes. "


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time after T-14 was revealed, i looked at T-14 layout vs Object 299-based MBT layout and i think T-14 have less optimal placement of crew during movement. 



   Object 299 MBT variant placed crew in the middle of the chassis, where oscillations of the hull is minimal in a tracked vehicle during movement on rough terrain. T-14 crew is located in most forward position possible, where crew will feel higher accelerations from bumps. I don't know how this will affect working conditions of crew in combat (i think it will be not noticeable as they will not drive at high speeds), but during long distances off-road driving that may result in higher/faster fatigue and amplification of spacial disorientation because of lacking direct view on enviroment outside of the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

After some talks on Discord, i decided to post some of it here.


   I don't understand why Kurganets being developed. There is a BMP-3 version (Dragoon) that have basically same features as Kurganets chassis have like engine in the front and bigger troops compartment.








   With Boomerang-BM unmanned turret that don't penetrate into the hull, it could be almost as spacious as Kurganets. Armor could be made as add on modules (as on Kurganets) and so what we left is that there is nothing what Kurganets offer over BMP-3M Dragoon, or at least nothing that is visible for me.






If there was an unmanned version of BMP-3-like turret with 100 mm gun + 30 mm coaxial...








Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can *almost* say goodbye to Armata. MoD decided to cancel mass production of it. Will translate Borisov's words later, after work. People who thought that Armata will be produced in very small numbers were right. Even I thought that at least Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya would got some amount of T-14s before 2020, but chances of that are even smaller now.

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

So the batch of 100 operational test vehicles was only planned and not yet complete?

delivery of those 100 is planned to be completed in 2020, there are chances for a more tanks to be purchased, but in small numbers. As Borisov said - no mass production, but no cancellation of project either .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found the source:



Mr. Borisov says the T-72 is plenty at the moment, that its cost, effectiveness, and quality substantially overcome those of the Abrams, Leclerc, and Leopard. Thus it makes no sense to mass-produce the T-14 and it will save them money. 

Basically it's the exact reasoning as behind the decision to cancel mass-production of the SU-57, although I would argue the SU-57 was also technologically immature, as it required a lot of work on its new engine before the project could continue. 


Makes me wonder if their Kinzhal, nuclear powered cruise missile project, and nuclear powered USV/torpedo hybrid, as well as Sarmat, are really still being worked on or are also overhyped and significantly behind schedule or just underfunded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

those are projects that eat money and apparently they need more. They are priority in state program, I suspect that others are victims of reconsideration of where they want to spend more in situation of stagnant economy. Although for some reason they want to make ekranoplans now. 

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

those are projects that eat money and apparently they need more. They are priority in state program, I suspect that others are victims of reconsideration of where they want to spend more in situation of stagnant economy. Although for some reason they want to make ekranoplans now. 

Thanks for the update. Interesting.


re Ekranoplans Drool. I love them!

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.

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...