IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Russia and the project of future tank (5th Generation)
Col._Sandfurz
post 18 Mar 2013, 15:04
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 6 November 2012
Member No.: 9428



QUOTE (MARS @ 17 Mar 2013, 19:27) *
The US/West German MBT-70/KPz-70) would have been vaguely similar in spirit, however, it placed all crew members, including the driver, in the turret cupola whilst the chassis itself was built to be very flat. Would have been a very interesting space age design for its era, but the project was marred by overflowng costs and disagreements among the design teams, so it got cancelled. The US and West Germany used the remains as a starting point for their own designs which eventually resulted in the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

I know the MBT-70/KPz-70, cool ideas they had with all people in the turret and a 20mm AA gun etc.
But I ment something that looked like this:
The US Expenditionary Tank was a prototype to replace the M551 Sheridan.
But somewhere else I read about the future plans of the US, what they expected to need in the 90 and around 2000 if the Cold War had gone longer.
The plan was to develope a tank with an unmanned turret like the current plans of the Armata

I also do not like todays trend of going lighter and lighter.. The FCS of the US Army was such a project..
Hard Kill systems are very capable, but as Mcbob said: I wouldn't just bet all my money on active protection systems
But as we can now see: The GCV is planned to become heavier, ~50t, so I hope this trend has ended now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 19 Mar 2013, 20:48
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 18 Mar 2013, 12:29) *
About Armata I read that it could be a heavy IFV, may receive equipment Anti-Air and can even be converted to a piece of artillery.


About Armata, in addition to MBT it will (supposed to) have Tank Support Fighting Vehicles (BMPTs), IMR (obstacle clearing armored vehicle), heavy IFVs, BREM (armored recovery vehicle)

Kurganets/Bumerang will have plenty of different vehicles on their base. Light tanks, self-propelled howitzers, command vehicles, EW vehicles, a separate IFV for VDV troops.

This photo shows models that were shown to Rogozin during one of his visits on UVZ in summer, when Armata's outer look "accidentally" made it way into press.
http://sdelanounas.ru/i/a/w/aWMucGljcy5saX...2luYWwuanBn.jpg

Overall, currently there're 30 possible vehicles on Armata/Kurganets/Bumerang platforms. It doesn't mean GABTU will order all of those, ofcourse.

Also, it goes like this
Armata - universal heavy tracked platform.
Kurganets-25 - universal medium tracked platform.
Bumerang - universal medium wheeled platform.


As for AA vehicles on these platforms, it will be possible to create those and, possibly, they're included in the number of total amount of variations, that I gave above - but I didn't hear anything specific, yet. I.e., didn't hear about any specific AA systems being developed on Kurganets or Bumerang platforms.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 19 Mar 2013, 21:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 27 Feb 2015, 12:22
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



May 9...

Looking forward to this date to see for the first time T-14 Armata rolling through Red Square; the tanks industry will never be the same...

Russian military T-14 Armata RIVAL to US Military M1 Abrams Tank


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karpet
post 28 Feb 2015, 20:54
Post #54


Comrade Bear
Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 February 2013
Member No.: 9722
Projects: Deep Impact



I would say both the T-14 and T-90 are quite big threats to the Abrams, not just the T-14 as that title says, for starters it has a lower profile (less space to put more armor on = deadly), Shtora, and I believe it can launch AGTMs from the barrel.

But, hey, always happy to see new stuff in the field of the Russian military.


--------------------
Your feeling of helplessness is your best friend, savage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 5 Mar 2015, 9:40
Post #55


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



There's advantages on either side.

This is purely tank vs. tank, ATGMs don't count into it, the gun-fired ones don't either, since they'd have to hit side or rear at the range they're coming from to do any damage, the abrams has to not use any countermeasures, et cetra. It all falls down to two groups of tanks rolling around shooting the other group with sabots. As such, things that aren't related to that aren't mentioned

Manpower wise, the T-90 is 75% cheaper per man, but the way it's ammo is stowed.........*Shudder* . The M1 is much safer and even if taken down, rarely goes in a mess unless excessive force is involved. Firepower, if multiple rounds are involved, isn't even a contest. You average loader can load much faster than an autoloader at the calibers involved, and individual round wise, it's roughly even, fire control once again, goes to the M1. Defensively, the M1 has a slight lead in turret frontal armor, and everything else is fair game for a sabot to smash, the T90 is around 20% Smaller front-on, crew safety goes to the M-1 given the T-90s distinctly russian autoloader. Logistics wise, Fuel economy goes to the T-90 for the world's most obvious reason, Fuel adaptability (Not sure if right term) goes to the M1 since the damn thing can chug kerosene, ergonomics go to the M1 just as all ergonomics in russian military equipment, the T-90 is an abject failure, and on average a M1's crew is better trained and has more experience, which honestly, is the biggest advantage.

But lets be honest, if we go to war, none of this crap will be anything. It'll just be a 1-day shooting spree, followed by Nuke falls everyone dies, and even otherwise, the war will be won by the air. I don't see much point in these tanks as long as they stomp your average third-world nation good, it's all fine.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 5 Mar 2015, 12:07
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 5 Mar 2015, 5:40) *
But lets be honest, if we go to war, none of this crap will be anything. It'll just be a 1-day shooting spree, followed by Nuke falls everyone dies, and even otherwise, the war will be won by the air. I don't see much point in these tanks as long as they stomp your average third-world nation good, it's all fine.

This is very relative.

Keep in mind that modern war involving tanks will not be as in WWII where immense columns of tanks advancing gaining ground, instead a small number of tanks advancing with the support of heavy artillery and aircraft, so it is not a ideal target for use of nuclear weapons; in general the use of nuclear weapons is not as simple as it appears.


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 5 Mar 2015, 12:21
Post #57


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Not that.

Any serious military confrontation between two major powers is more or less impossible due to nuclear deterrence. You could possibly fight, but if you had actually started making serious gains, the other side might just find it more appealing to pull the plug.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 5 Mar 2015, 12:39
Post #58



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 5 Mar 2015, 8:21) *
Not that.

Any serious military confrontation between two major powers is more or less impossible due to nuclear deterrence. You could possibly fight, but if you had actually started making serious gains, the other side might just find it more appealing to pull the plug.

It is also relative, sometimes it is better to lose a war than to be devastated by a nuclear disaster.

Most contemporary wars between powers are decided outside the home, and when at home by located conflicts in different spectrums as economics, diplomacy, politics etc.


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 5 Mar 2015, 22:38
Post #59


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Point.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karpet
post 6 Mar 2015, 22:17
Post #60


Comrade Bear
Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 February 2013
Member No.: 9722
Projects: Deep Impact



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 5 Mar 2015, 3:40) *
There's advantages on either side.

This is purely tank vs. tank, ATGMs don't count into it, the gun-fired ones don't either, since they'd have to hit side or rear at the range they're coming from to do any damage, the abrams has to not use any countermeasures, et cetra. It all falls down to two groups of tanks rolling around shooting the other group with sabots. As such, things that aren't related to that aren't mentioned

Manpower wise, the T-90 is 75% cheaper per man, but the way it's ammo is stowed.........*Shudder* . The M1 is much safer and even if taken down, rarely goes in a mess unless excessive force is involved. Firepower, if multiple rounds are involved, isn't even a contest. You average loader can load much faster than an autoloader at the calibers involved, and individual round wise, it's roughly even, fire control once again, goes to the M1. Defensively, the M1 has a slight lead in turret frontal armor, and everything else is fair game for a sabot to smash, the T90 is around 20% Smaller front-on, crew safety goes to the M-1 given the T-90s distinctly russian autoloader. Logistics wise, Fuel economy goes to the T-90 for the world's most obvious reason, Fuel adaptability (Not sure if right term) goes to the M1 since the damn thing can chug kerosene, ergonomics go to the M1 just as all ergonomics in russian military equipment, the T-90 is an abject failure, and on average a M1's crew is better trained and has more experience, which honestly, is the biggest advantage.

But lets be honest, if we go to war, none of this crap will be anything. It'll just be a 1-day shooting spree, followed by Nuke falls everyone dies, and even otherwise, the war will be won by the air. I don't see much point in these tanks as long as they stomp your average third-world nation good, it's all fine.


A plain tank-on-tank 1v1 is a ridiculously improbable idea for an engagement. Therefore, AGTMs do count. I have never seen a war where countries have sent out their unmodified tanks one by one to fight their enemies.

Only early Soviet era auto loaders were really dangerous. They've evolved a lot since.

If we want to bring up training, I'd like to bring up Chechnya, and the Georgian war where Russia actually fought people in armored vehicle to vehicle combat.

But why do you assume nukes will come into play immediately? Our world may be insane, but not that insane. Do you really think a leader would unleash their entire nuclear arsenal once they lose, and doom the rest of the world to a fiery extinction?

This post has been edited by Karpet: 6 Mar 2015, 22:19


--------------------
Your feeling of helplessness is your best friend, savage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 7 Mar 2015, 21:03
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Karpet @ 6 Mar 2015, 22:17) *
But why do you assume nukes will come into play immediately? Our world may be insane, but not that insane. Do you really think a leader would unleash their entire nuclear arsenal once they lose, and doom the rest of the world to a fiery extinction?


I don't think that, in such a catastrophic event, they would come into play immediately, but it would eventually escalate out of control. If one side gains the upper hand, the side that yields ground would eventually consider the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to avert defeat, if the alternative is to lose the war or to lose face by yielding to the opposing side. From then on, the situation becomes messy and ambiguous. First, they would be used as battlefield weapons, but soon, they would also be used to strike strategic targets like airfields or infrastructure. At that point, the other side is forced to think whether these are still tactical strikes, or if it is only the beginning of a larger, more strategic engagement. The idea of a total, pre-emptive strike, a decapitation strike would eventually materialise on both sides until someone makes a mistake, misinterprets a signal, an order, or simply loses their nerves at the thought of being the one that was in charge while NATO/America/Russia/China/whoever was idly waiting, squandering the opportunity, when 'the enemy' was already making the decisive move to wipe it off the map forever. Nobody wants to be the guy who sealed the doom of his country through non-action and if a certain degree of fear, hate, fanaticism or dehumanisation comes into play, the idea of unleashing everything, if only to be 'safe' in knowing you did all you could, might become quite tempting, as insane as it sounds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 7 Mar 2015, 23:50
Post #62


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



QUOTE (Karpet @ 6 Mar 2015, 13:17) *
A plain tank-on-tank 1v1 is a ridiculously improbable idea for an engagement. Therefore, AGTMs do count. I have never seen a war where countries have sent out their unmodified tanks one by one to fight their enemies.

Only early Soviet era auto loaders were really dangerous. They've evolved a lot since.

If we want to bring up training, I'd like to bring up Chechnya, and the Georgian war where Russia actually fought people in armored vehicle to vehicle combat.

But why do you assume nukes will come into play immediately? Our world may be insane, but not that insane. Do you really think a leader would unleash their entire nuclear arsenal once they lose, and doom the rest of the world to a fiery extinction?

If we add ATGMs, we'd have to mention Helicopters, MANPADS, Ground Attack Planes, Air superiority, Artillery, Etc etc. You get the idea. Simply stacking the two tanks up against eachother works.

They're still carousel designs, which is a death sentence at best whenever there's a cookoff, and the way ammo is stored leads to a higher chance of a cookoff, nasty stuff that.

How much time does a conscript have to train compared to a career soldier? That's the key difference between Russia and other military powers (Heck, even China has a volunteer army, even with conscription laws they never use).

MARS already answered the nuke problem.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karpet
post 8 Mar 2015, 19:52
Post #63


Comrade Bear
Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 February 2013
Member No.: 9722
Projects: Deep Impact



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 7 Mar 2015, 18:50) *
If we add ATGMs, we'd have to mention Helicopters, MANPADS, Ground Attack Planes, Air superiority, Artillery, Etc etc. You get the idea. Simply stacking the two tanks up against eachother works.

They're still carousel designs, which is a death sentence at best whenever there's a cookoff, and the way ammo is stored leads to a higher chance of a cookoff, nasty stuff that.

How much time does a conscript have to train compared to a career soldier? That's the key difference between Russia and other military powers (Heck, even China has a volunteer army, even with conscription laws they never use).

MARS already answered the nuke problem.

War doesn't work by "stacking" stuff against each other. You might as well add all that in, because it's much, much more likely to happen than one tank vs the other.

That's why Russian tanks use ERA, wondrous armor, that stuff is.

Roughly one year for a conscript to be trained, but there will still be lots of professionals. It's not like because conscription happens, there are suddenly no more professionals who are willing to serve more time.

Plus, there are reserves. Reserves? WE'VE GOT THEM. Over 2 million, actually. And since there's conscription, it's likely that a lot of those who have been conscripted have good knowledge of how to use firearms effectively.


--------------------
Your feeling of helplessness is your best friend, savage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 9 Mar 2015, 7:04
Post #64



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



I have to agree with Karpet on this one too. We live in an age where a conventional war between state militaries would be defined by combined arms and manoeuvre tactics. It won't be one tank of X duking it out with one tank of Y, not even groups of these, no, it would be a combined effort that also involves some combination of mechanized infantry, artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, electronic warfare, what-have-you. And on an even broader strategic level, it also involves the very capability of the conflict parties to wage war, in which way, and for how long; the economies, societies and infrastructures that uphold their war machine. You can try to compare individual pieces of hardware and try to conclude which one might be superior - but it's a conclusion that is hardly even relevant under real life circumstances.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 9 Mar 2015, 13:34
Post #65



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 7 Mar 2015, 18:50) *
That's the key difference between Russia and other military powers (Heck, even China has a volunteer army, even with conscription laws they never use).


Russia is also phasing out conscription in favor of a volunteer army as well.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 4 May 2015, 19:39
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



There, it's finally unveiled. Here's the website:

http://мульт...cmsPhotoGallery
The description on T-14 photo, from the MoD.
"Meant to conduct mobile combat operations as a main multipurpose combat vehicle within tank or mechanized infantry battlegroups against any adversary in the environment where nuclear weapons or other WMDs are being used".

And a few more photos from the various folks over internets.
(mainly these 2 threads http://www.russiadefence.net/t4020p90-offi...scussion-thread http://glav.su/forum/5-military/157/offset/29820/ )

https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32091/R9vW_1c5ArA.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/3208a/4SBAoXN-MEk.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32083/l0bfO8s4ZJI.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32075/O-Z_9hF7kU0.jpg
https://cs7052.vk.me/c540103/v540103860/3f3...lCIy2FlBins.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c623219/v623219474/2ebd5/zPsTSrSO1Tk.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307511.jpg
http://sh.uploads.ru/hBRvU.jpg
http://sg.uploads.ru/wiCZX.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307516.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307515.jpg

Some photos of T-15 Heavy IFV:
http://sh.uploads.ru/NaxT1.jpg
http://sh.uploads.ru/oyshC.jpg

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 4 May 2015, 20:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 4 May 2015, 20:32
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



It seems incredibly armored, while it is not as large or heavy; must be at the same technological level of the Leopard 2, but with the advantage of being a universal plaform and be a new tank, ie, an open design for numerous improvements and possible adaptations; but by the time of the project is being developed must be close to perfect. Finally, a truly MBT worthy of a country like Russia.


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 4 May 2015, 20:47
Post #68



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Those tanks look sexy as hell. Kinda remind me of the Afterburn mod for Zero Hour, especially the paintjob.

I also believe this is the first Russian tank to not use a circular turret design.

This post has been edited by Svea Rike: 4 May 2015, 20:48


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 4 May 2015, 20:53
Post #69



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



See the video at the link below of an Armata in tests (note the extra armor on the sides), it seems highly maneuverable.

Secret IndoRussian Tank T-14 ARMATA


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stukaju87d3
post 5 May 2015, 5:49
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 6 February 2014
Member No.: 10284



The Polish one will be sexier FFS QQ Darn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 5 May 2015, 6:51
Post #71



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



2 more photos, view from above.

T-14
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/16193/89551...6341496_X5L.jpg

T-15.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6747/895511...7221083_X5L.jpg


There's alot of arguing going on about the turret on T-14. Some say it's likely to be changed in future because current ones look like poorly assembled in close-ups, some say it uses very unconventional armor scheme due to it's unmanned nature - i.e. that shell you see is not it's actual armor, because only gun and autoloader need to be well protected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The_Hunter
post 5 May 2015, 9:53
Post #72



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 5732
Joined: 31 May 2009
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 1
Projects: SWR Productions
Bitch slapping SAGE since 2003



I can't say i like the way the tank looks all that much.

The other vehicles however look pretty interesting from a visual aspect.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 5 May 2015, 11:17
Post #73



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (The_Hunter @ 5 May 2015, 5:53) *
I can't say i like the way the tank looks all that much.

The other vehicles however look pretty interesting from a visual aspect.

Yes, it is quite westernized, although the chassis and the tower still have a singular charm; but are the details and accessories that still remind me that it is a Russian Inside™ tank.


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

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TimeBurner
post 5 May 2015, 12:07
Post #74


Motherland's Finest
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1043
Joined: 10 May 2014
Member No.: 10454
"We have watched, we have waited, now... we act!"



The chasis is very sleek to me.But, the turret is so off!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 5 May 2015, 12:23
Post #75



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Even though I said it was sexy are we really criticizing how a tank looks? You know these things are designed to kill, right? The turret is probably designed that way because it provides some unknown advantage over their usual rounded design.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29 March 2024 - 15:13