Russia finally fully unveils their newest generation of mechanized armoured vehicles
172 replies, posted
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47659015]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.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming there is some reason they went with that design, but I'll be damned if I know what.
[QUOTE=Doom14;47658996]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]
If you look off to the left of the guy-who-isnt-the-driver (no idea since the whole crew is now in the hull), you can see what appear to be a big seam and rivets in the armor, so Im willing to bet that its a big, thin shell that surrounds the ACTUAL turret armor and acts as some kind of N-ERA.
[editline]4th May 2015[/editline]
And since its an unmanned turret with a big ol' autoloader, Im willing to bet that there isn't even any ammo stored in the turret.
It's from War Thunder of all things, but here's an extremely basic graphic to explain why, to the less armored-fetish savvy, that slopes are extremely important in armored warfare - and why this relatively flat turret design is confusing for a modern tank.
[t]http://warthunder.com/upload/image/Dev Blog/techbol/image01.png[/t]
100mm of material at a flat angle (90) is 100mm.
100mm of material at a 45 degree angle is 141.42mm effective.
100mm of material at some kind of extreme 15 degree angle becomes 386.37mm effective.
Using highly angled and rounded designs massively increases the protective capabilities of a vehicle without additional weight or armor.
(Usually at the cost of spacial logistics. It's easier to fit everything in a cube than a sphere.)
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47659030]And since its an unmanned turret with a big ol' autoloader, I'm willing to bet that there isn't even any ammo stored in the turret.[/QUOTE]
Makes a lot more sense when you put it like that.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47658913]I don't know if this design is retarded or if could be effective. Care to share a bit?[/QUOTE]
most modern tanks have less angles than their WWII counterparts, since APFSDS tends to shatter upon impact with hard surfaces and adding angle to armour actually negates that possibility. that's why the abrams has a relatively flat lower glacis
[QUOTE=lintz;47659073]that's why the abrams has a relatively flat lower glacis[/QUOTE]
I thought the Abrams' lower glacis was also absurdly thick to make up for that, though - when you take into account the composite materials? Like well over half a meter?
interesting how tank development still goes on in a world of asymmetrical warfare, terrorism, and air support
it's like a reminder that we still have the capability to fight wars like the good ol' days lol
[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]
I think it was all artist speculation on hearing the possibility of additional 30mm autocannon and 7.62 gatling guns.[/QUOTE]
Sweden was seriously considering this before. But then we ordered the Leopard 2 and the Strv 2000 project got canned.
After several years of study this was the finalized design. The picture shows a mockup.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/b5h3j3K.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=GunFox;47658892]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]
Keep in mind the scale of the thing. It's a relatively small and low tank on the whole in comparison to likes of Abrams and such, so they don't have to try that hard to flatten in.
Also, the turret is completely unmanned.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47659114]Sweden was seriously considering this before. But then we ordered the Leopard 2 and the Strv 2000 project got canned.
After several years of study this was the finalized design. The picture shows a mockup.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/b5h3j3K.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
That is an outright massive cannon, what was its bore?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47659030]If you look off to the left of the guy-who-isnt-the-driver (no idea since the whole crew is now in the hull), you can see what appear to be a big seam and rivets in the armor, so Im willing to bet that its a big, thin shell that surrounds the ACTUAL turret armor and acts as some kind of N-ERA.
[editline]4th May 2015[/editline]
And since its an unmanned turret with a big ol' autoloader, Im willing to bet that there isn't even any ammo stored in the turret.[/QUOTE]
The Housing is to hide that underneath it is still essentially a T-90 with some shit strapped onto it.
I always expected the next generation of tank to looks like something from C&C Generals. Still, they made pretty modern design and functional tank.
[IMG]http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/12/11658/China_Emperor_Tank_Render.jpg[/IMG]
Generally ERA + composite armour and the newer active defense systems means angles are less relevant these days with ATGM's being the main tank killers, but that is still a damn high silhouette.
[QUOTE=ZenZill;47659153]I always expected the next generation of tank to looks like something from C&C Generals. Still, they made pretty modern design and functional tank.
[IMG]http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/12/11658/China_Emperor_Tank_Render.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
If any country nowadays built something like a Overlord, Apocalypse, or Mammoth tank they would become the laughing stock of the military world because anything that big would just be huge targets for planes and helicopters. The development of the MBT and ATGM is why heavy tanks were phased out after World War II plus it's been proven that it's just flat out better to have a good combination of speed, firepower, and protection rather than an overwhelming advantage in one or two of them which is why medium tanks evolved into the modern MBT while heavy tanks died off in the 60s and 70s while light tanks were replaced by other vehicles in most countries(usually armored cars)
My favorite modern tank has to go to Japan of all places.
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Type10MBT.jpg[/img_thumb]
Hard to say if this will ever see combat, Turkey was going to buy some but Japan pulled out when Turkey wanted to arm some rebel group.
40 years of tank design:
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Japanese_Type10_and_Type74_Tanks.JPG/1920px-Japanese_Type10_and_Type74_Tanks.JPG[/img_thumb]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKpwr9WYAA1Bpo.jpg:large[/t]
What do the slavrunes say, I must know more about this one I like it.
also I hope these get into Armored Warfare at some point because that would just be fun, World War III will be fought ONLINE
[QUOTE=goon165;47659233][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKpwr9WYAA1Bpo.jpg:large[/t]
What do the slavrunes say, I must know more about this one I like it.
also I hope these get into Armored Warfare at some point because that would just be fun, World War III will be fought ONLINE[/QUOTE]
If the translation is right on Wikipedia, it's a BMP.
It's supposedly called the T-15.
besides their heritage, is there any specific reason russian/chinese tanks have much smaller turrets than "'western"' tanks?
or rather, why are western tank turrets so large? i thought it might be the good old "soviet crew comfort" but does that still apply?
[QUOTE=Jund;47659254]besides their heritage, is there any specific reason russian/chinese tanks have much smaller turrets than "'western"' tanks?
or rather, why are western tank turrets so large? i thought it might be the good old "soviet crew comfort" but does that still apply?[/QUOTE]
It's to keep a lower profile so they're easier to hide.
[QUOTE=Jund;47659254]besides their heritage, is there any specific reason russian/chinese tanks have much smaller turrets than "'western"' tanks?
or rather, why are western tank turrets so large? i thought it might be the good old "soviet crew comfort" but does that still apply?[/QUOTE]
In the case of the T-14 (and T-15), the turret is unmanned. So it's only as big as it needs to be at any rate
[QUOTE=Jund;47659254]besides their heritage, is there any specific reason russian/chinese tanks have much smaller turrets than "'western"' tanks?
or rather, why are western tank turrets so large? i thought it might be the good old "soviet crew comfort" but does that still apply?[/QUOTE]
russian tanks have had carousel autoloaders for the majority of their tanks since the early cold wars, starting with the very first t-72 i think. this means that all the mechanisms can be placed lower and the general dimensions of the turret decreased, as well as the fact that they don't need a loader crew member, which means only the gunner/commander need to be near the turret.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;47659258]It's to keep a lower profile so they're easier to hide.[/QUOTE]
well yeah but that's still sacrificing crew comfort, ammo/internal space, and safety from ammo cook offs which have been plaguing soviet/russian designs since ww2
[editline]4th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gishank;47659274]In the case of the T-14 (and T-15), the turret is unmanned. So it's only as big as it needs to be at any rate[/QUOTE]
oh i didn't know this
guess we'll start seeing more two crew mbts these days
[editline]4th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=lintz;47659284]russian tanks have had carousel autoloaders for the majority of their tanks since the early cold wars, starting with the very first t-72 i think. this means that all the mechanisms can be placed lower and the general dimensions of the turret decreased, as well as the fact that they don't need a loader crew member, which means only the gunner/commander need to be near the turret.[/QUOTE]
the type 10 has an autoloader and it still has a pretty massive turret
[QUOTE=lintz;47659284]russian tanks have had carousel autoloaders for the majority of their tanks since the early cold wars, starting with the very first t-72 i think. this means that all the mechanisms can be placed lower and the general dimensions of the turret decreased, as well as the fact that they don't need a loader crew member, which means only the gunner/commander need to be near the turret.[/QUOTE]
since T64A, so mid-late 60s.
armata's internal turret structure is likely to be far slimmer, since ERA has been incorporated into the design itself and is likely to be the cause for the oddly bulky turret, since it's most likely a lot slimmer inside.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FDeOL9k.png[/img]
[QUOTE=goon165;47659233][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKpwr9WYAA1Bpo.jpg:large[/t]
What do the slavrunes say, I must know more about this one I like it.
[/QUOTE]
something like
[QUOTE]"Armata" APC
Intended to conduct maneuver warfare against any kind of enemy as a part of a tank or a mechanized indantry unit, serving as a main multipurpose combat vehicle in conditions of use of nuclear weapons or other types of WMDs[/QUOTE]
if the turret is unmanned then i'm surprised it's not even smaller
i was thinking unmanned turrets on tanks would start looking more like the mobile gun system, but i guess we really can't tell until we take off the add on armor
[QUOTE=Jund;47659301]well yeah but that's still sacrificing crew comfort, ammo/internal space, and safety from ammo cook offs which have been plaguing soviet/russian designs since ww2
guess we'll start seeing more two crew mbts these days[/QUOTE]
well, now the crew isn't in a same space with the ammo, so it's marginally safer. jack in the box is still somewhat likely to happen, probably.
still a 3-man design, driver gunner commander. no need to change armoured tactics.
[QUOTE=Fippe;47659342]well, now the crew isn't in a same space with the ammo, so it's marginally safer. jack in the box is still somewhat likely to happen, probably.
still a 3-man design, driver gunner commander. no need to change armoured tactics.[/QUOTE]
nah, apparently it's 2 crew
[QUOTE=Jund;47659363]nah, apparently it's 2 crew[/QUOTE]
huh, really confusing then, since there's a prism in the middle between the two guys here. it seems like an obsolete addition if there's no third crewman.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47658838][img]http://sg.uploads.ru/wiCZX.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Fippe;47659417]huh, really confusing then, since there's a prism in the middle between the two guys here. it seems like an obsolete addition if there's no third crewman.[/QUOTE]
maybe that's just the unbuttoned positions and center position, the most obvious for a driver to have is the driver's actual seat and the commander is somewhere in the hull staring at a bunch of Monitors.
Man fuck you OP title made me expect Gundams
To add on to the whole sloped armour thing, modern shells and armour are a whole lot different than past armour. As it's been said, slope matters a heck of a lot less with modern materials. Sloped tanks tend to be not quite as good as more vertical walled tanks for interior space to weight. It was one of the main reasons behind the Tiger I having ~10 degree slope, because designers thought it to offer the best balance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.