Russia finally fully unveils their newest generation of mechanized armoured vehicles
172 replies, posted
Bit of babble to serve as an article, from [URL="http://sputniknews.com/military/20150504/1021701169.html"]SPUTNIKNEWS.COM[/URL]
Armata, Kurganets & Co: Sneak Peak at Russia's Brand New Military Equipment
[quote]Never before seen types of military equipment, including new Armata tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, will be showcased during the Moscow Victory Day Parade on May 9.
The Russian Defense Ministry posted on its website photos of its latest, most advanced models of military equipment that will be displayed in the Moscow Victory Day Parade on May 9.
On the website one can see high-resolution photographs of the new Armata Main Battle Tank, the Armata infantry fighting vehicle on the new-platform, Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled howitzer, and the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle, also based on the Armata platform.[/quote]
And now for the images themselves, straight from the [URL="http://xn--80ahclcogc6ci4h.xn--90anlfbebar6i.xn--p1ai/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=21804@cmsPhotoGallery"]web[/URL] of what's basically Russia's Ministry of Defence.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/B2i8t8A.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/90bsRpg.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/EWW8e6O.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/Zp6qNzV.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/dXu4Twr.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/UEwGs0Q.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/EIxWcNW.jpg[/t]
I love these new designs, I just hope that I never have to face them in battle tho...
Are they going to showcase them in Ukraine too?
The TOW missile truck looks like a recipe for a fucking disaster
Holy shit these look metal.
Kinda cool that they have a little more modern look to them.
[QUOTE=Samg381;47658685]The TOW missile truck looks like a recipe for a fucking disaster[/QUOTE]
Notice the "lids" on top of the missile launcher stalks. I am not sure but I would guess they pop in when not engaging.
I wonder if they will be able to afford building more than several of them before they go back to older designs.
[img]http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/photos/JS2_unknonw.jpg[/img]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/UEwGs0Q.jpg[/thumb]
70 years tech difference looks crazy
[QUOTE=McTbone;47658698]I wonder if they will be able to afford building more than several of them before they go back to older designs.[/QUOTE]
Since that was what happened with T-95 and some other designs, afaik affordability was a hugely important criterion during the development.
I know that the MOD has already placed a hefty order on at the very least the Kirovets-25 things - these middle IFV/AFV things.
So that robot on a quad bike didn't make the cut?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47658723]Since that was what happened with T-95 and some other designs, afaik affordability was a hugely important criterion during the development.
I know that the MOD has already placed a hefty order on at the very least the Kirovets-25 things - these middle IFV/AFV things.[/QUOTE]
It makes sense that they'd replace the IFVs first; everything bar the BMP-3 is very garbage at being combat effective. Question is if they'd be able to keep up with government demand. And if the government will have the money for it; Even older stuff like the T-80 project costed them an arm and a leg for a tank design that never really saw proper successful field action and which never got as mass produced as the T-72.
[QUOTE=butt2089;47658801]So that robot on a quad bike didn't make the cut?[/QUOTE]
Nah, he got inducted into Spetsnaz
[img]http://sh.uploads.ru/hBRvU.jpg[/img]
"sup?"
[editline]4th May 2015[/editline]
[img]http://sg.uploads.ru/wiCZX.jpg[/img]
I liked the design better when it had (supposedly) those ridiculous guns on the side.
[t]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PsAePLKmBfY/maxresdefault.jpg[/t]
I think it was all artist speculation on hearing the possibility of additional 30mm autocannon and 7.62 gatling guns.
[QUOTE=Doom14;47658852]I liked the design better when it had (supposedly) those ridiculous guns on the side.
[t]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PsAePLKmBfY/maxresdefault.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Planetside 2: IRL edition.
[QUOTE=Doom14;47658852]I liked the design better when it had (supposedly) those ridiculous guns on the side.
[t]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PsAePLKmBfY/maxresdefault.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Probably got scratched as kinda pointless in sake of making the way actually affordable.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47658587]And now for the images themselves, straight from the [URL="http://xn--80ahclcogc6ci4h.xn--90anlfbebar6i.xn--p1ai/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=21804@cmsPhotoGallery"]web[/URL] of what's basically Russia's Ministry of Defence.[/QUOTE]
What is up with that URL?
I feel that paint scheme with the St. George's Ribbon is going to pull attention, and not because of the implications of it's symbolism from WWII.
The turret on the new tank is surprisingly high profile with minimal slant.
I assumed that the cannons from the artistic rendition would disappear, but that the crazy sloped turret would remain.
[QUOTE=Paraprose;47658883]What is up with that URL?[/QUOTE]
Website is blocked from linking on FP
[QUOTE=GunFox;47658892]The turret on the new tank is surprisingly high profile with minimal slant. [/QUOTE]
I don't know if this design is retarded or if could be effective. Care to share a bit?
That truck looks incredibly susceptible to IED's, with that flat belly and all.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47658913]I don't know if this design is retarded or if could be effective. Care to share a bit?[/QUOTE]
those are generally bad things as far as tank designs go
At first glace though, that doesnt look like the actual hard armor, it almost looks like a thinner casing that conceals a thicker/more sloped area of armor underneath
[QUOTE=Deng;47658681]Are they going to showcase them in Ukraine too?[/QUOTE]
Try it before you buy it!
Hope these make it to the next battlefield game
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47658913]I don't know if this design is retarded or if could be effective. Care to share a bit?[/QUOTE]
Unless you are a scout vehicle, being high profile is generally not considered to be desirable. The taller you are, the easier to you are to spot, and the larger target you present.
The massive slant on the turret in the artistic rendition of the tank is there because extreme slant angles supplement your armor. If a round hits a vertical wall, it has little choice but to punch straight through it, but with sufficient slant angle, you can present the round with an alternative and redirect the round away from the tank. A round that would have penetrated, suddenly only glances off the armor. You go from a potential kill shot, to basically no damage. The turret in particular is considered an important component because it generally contains at least a portion of your magazine (generally a bad time if a round hits your ammunition storage.) and, since it houses all the dangerous bits of the tank with the least ability to be armored, it is a prime target in general if you can't attack from the top or the rear. (both areas with limited armor and ability to resist attack.)
Angles are massively important in tank combat.
It may be that they have an excellent active kill system. Such systems would detect incoming rounds and missiles and destroy them with a projectile of its own. It would be odd to rely on such a system so heavily though.
-snip-
The Kurganets-25 just looks like a BMP-3 with a new turret.
[QUOTE=code_gs;47658908]Website is blocked from linking on FP[/QUOTE]
Nope, the link works just fine.
It is actually due to non-english character implementation in the domain name.
Here is one of their images, dunno if they like hotlinking or not, but same fucked up looking url
[img_thumb]http://xn--80ahclcogc6ci4h.xn--90anlfbebar6i.xn--p1ai/images/upload/2015/Корнет-Д1.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
[QUOTE=GunFox;47658965]Unless you are a scout vehicle, being high profile is generally not considered to be desirable.[/QUOTE]
It does seem extremely unusual for a nation that has been relying on these basic designs for many years:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Tank_T-54_in_Verkhnyaya_Pyshma.jpg[/t][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/T-80B_in_front_of_the_T-34_museum,_Moscow_Oblast.jpg[/t]
Going to something so tall and flat:
[t]http://sh.uploads.ru/hBRvU.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47658954]those are generally bad things as far as tank designs go
At first glace though, that doesnt look like the actual hard armor, it almost looks like a thinner casing that conceals a thicker/more sloped area of armor underneath[/QUOTE]
See that's what I was trying to get at, it looks retarded but I had that wondering of if there was a thicker shell underneath it.
It looks like a bad idea but the only real way to know if something works is well, to use it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.