• Russia finally fully unveils their newest generation of mechanized armoured vehicles
    172 replies, posted
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47660273]the point was, ya kinda already do. [t]http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Mall-of-America_1_0.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Oh shit. I mean it's the reverse of the colors but yeah, ha.
i love how the tank has almost the same gun as the artillery piece, its very long
[QUOTE=Sableye;47660300]i love how the tank has almost the same gun as the artillery piece, its very long[/QUOTE] Ain't that the purpose of a tank? To be a mobile & armored small artillery?
Not at all, the guns are totally different. The T-14 uses a 125mm 2A82 smoothbore gun, while the Koalitsiya self propelled arty has a bigger 152mm howitzer. The scaling is quite off in those concept art pieces.
That turret on the tank is so damn big, its just asking to get take off by an ATGM I do like the new IFV's though, look like modernized bmp's
[QUOTE=Van-man;47660363]Ain't that the purpose of a tank? To be a mobile & armored small artillery?[/QUOTE] Originally tanks were only designed to get through heavy fire. The oldest designs didn't even have heavy armaments. A lot of them in WWI just have machineguns that were similar/the same to/as a machinegun that you would operate while defending a trench from infantry. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/British_Mark_V-star_Tank.jpg[/img] There's a lot that people have discovered that you can do with a armored juggernaut capable of managing heavy hardware.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;47660425]Originally tanks were designed to get through heavy fire. The oldest designs didn't even have heavy armaments. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/British_Mark_V-star_Tank.jpg[/img] There's a lot that people have discovered that you can do with a armored juggernaut capable of managing heavy hardware.[/QUOTE] The first tanks were literally armored tractors with slits in the armor for a gunner to poke his rifle out of. I was referring to the modern tank.
With artillery, you get indirect fire over tens of kilometers. A main battle tank usually provides direct fire up to about four kilometers.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;47660224]Those tanks look pretty futuristic. Wonder how they would stand against an A-10[/QUOTE] They wouldn't mind at all really.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;47660224]Those tanks look pretty futuristic. Wonder how they would stand against an A-10[/QUOTE] A-10's cannon can't even pen most parts of a T-62
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47660556]They wouldn't mind at all really.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't think they'd like their external components like cameras damaged by the blast-waves. But beyond damaging the surface of the armor and taking out unarmorable components, not much damage will be done.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47658719][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] Looks even crazier when you compare the M4 Sherman to the M1A2 Abrams. [editline]4th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;47660596]A-10's cannon can't even pen most parts of a T-62[/QUOTE] There's a lot more to the A-10 than the GAU-8.
[QUOTE=goon165;47660101]Which is an enlarged T-54 Which was a slightly changed around T-44 Which was modernized T-34 Which was a modernized BT-7 Which was a design stolen from America. You Now know the history of Russian Tank design from 1930-Present[/QUOTE] No actually Christie (illegally)sold them his designs as the U.S Army refused to take them because they had different ideas on what a tank was supposed to do.
I like this design actually. The turret shape reminds me of a Sherman.
All the stuff falls off it to reveal a T90, and then all the stuff falls of that to reveal a T72. I was looking forward to it having loads of fancy active defences and an autocannon, but I suppose there's no point designing weird and wonderful stuff if the military can't actually afford to buy it. It basically seems to be a compact, modern, even more computerised tank. Kind of like a blend of western and Eastern tank design, but cheap enough to actually buy in huge quantities?
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;47660913]I was looking forward to it having loads of fancy active defences and an autocannon, but I suppose It basically seems to be a compact, modern, even more computerised tank. Kind of like a blend of western and Eastern tank design, but cheap enough to actually buy in huge quantities?[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/4n5GRl0.jpg[/t][t]http://andrey84.users.photofile.ru/photo/andrey84/115910418/143174975.jpg[/t] Sure is "compact". T-14 is about as big, if not bigger than an Abrams. It is supposed to have some fancy "Afghanistan" active protection system that can supposedly defeat top attack weapons like the US's Javelin and the Abram's APFSDS rounds. No one has seen it working so who knows if those claims hold up or if it's just big talk
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47659114] After several years of study this was the finalized design. The picture shows a mockup. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/b5h3j3K.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] mockup before that one: [img]http://i.imgur.com/y8WajUN.png[/img]
[QUOTE=TestECull;47660654] There's a lot more to the A-10 than the GAU-8.[/QUOTE] anything with two wings can drop mavericks
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47661559][t]http://i.imgur.com/4n5GRl0.jpg[/t][t]http://andrey84.users.photofile.ru/photo/andrey84/115910418/143174975.jpg[/t] Sure is "compact". T-14 is about as big, if not bigger than an Abrams. It is supposed to have some fancy "Afghanistan" active protection system that can supposedly defeat top attack weapons like the US's Javelin and the Abram's APFSDS rounds. No one has seen it working so who knows if those claims hold up or if it's just big talk[/QUOTE] If it does turn out to be the case, I imagine a system can be engineered which allows the missile to track a dummy projectile or to discharge an independent projectile which sets off the system before the missile comes in range.
[QUOTE=Jund;47661596]anything with two wings can drop mavericks[/QUOTE] You generally dont send an aircraft up to destroy one type of thing at a time, A-10 can carry a ton of different weapons for different situations, far more than anything else the US has which is exactly what it was designed for. Thats like saying "oh anything can have a cannon strapped to it" yeah but not everything can use it well or support its use well thats why people design tanks around the use of that type of weapon.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;47661643]If it does turn out to be the case, I imagine a system can be engineered which allows the missile to track a dummy projectile or to discharge an independent projectile which sets off the system before the missile comes in range.[/QUOTE] There is such a system and it is also made by the Russians. The RPG-30 [t]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/26/rpg302_2.jpg[/t][t]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/11/26/rpg30_2.jpg[/t] Designed specifically to defeat systems like the Trophy APS used by Israel. And then now the Israelis are developing a new defense system (or update to the Trophy? Not sure on the details) called "trench coat" that uses a 360 degree radar and can defeat simultaneous threats by launching 17 projectiles at them like a shotgun. System was made because they were worried that Hezbollah might have gotten their hands on some RPG-30s.
[QUOTE=archival;47661698]You generally dont send an aircraft up to destroy one type of thing at a time, A-10 can carry a ton of different weapons for different situations, far more than anything else the US has which is exactly what it was designed for. Thats like saying "oh anything can have a cannon strapped to it" yeah but not everything can use it well or support its use well thats why people design tanks around the use of that type of weapon.[/QUOTE] the original post asked how it would fare against an a-10, which would drop a maverick on it like any other plane i don't know what you're trying to argue
[QUOTE=Van-man;47660363]Ain't that the purpose of a tank? To be a mobile & armored small artillery?[/QUOTE] Ya but when the tank enters a tunnel the gun is exiting
All I can think about is the TOW rotating to face the aerial and then boom.
[QUOTE=Jund;47661787]the original post asked how it would fare against an a-10, which would drop a maverick on it like any other plane i don't know what you're trying to argue[/QUOTE] The original question was about its cannon not missiles, that only came into the discussion when you mentioned it after the point of "A-10's dont just use cannon" came up. Mavericks are not the only anti tank weapon carrier by an A-10.
[QUOTE=op][t]http://i.imgur.com/90bsRpg.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] This one looks so good. I wish I could have that as a day-to-day car.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47661559][t]http://i.imgur.com/4n5GRl0.jpg[/t][t]http://andrey84.users.photofile.ru/photo/andrey84/115910418/143174975.jpg[/t] Sure is "compact". T-14 is about as big, if not bigger than an Abrams. It is supposed to have some fancy "Afghanistan" active protection system that can supposedly defeat top attack weapons like the US's Javelin and the Abram's APFSDS rounds. No one has seen it working so who knows if those claims hold up or if it's just big talk[/QUOTE] Uhh it's quite a bit smaller?
[QUOTE=archival;47661965]The original question was about its cannon not missiles, that only came into the discussion when you mentioned it after the point of "A-10's dont just use cannon" came up. Mavericks are not the only anti tank weapon carrier by an A-10.[/QUOTE] and what? JDAMs? JSOWs? WCMDs? Paveways? all of them can be carried by F-16s the original question was about an armata facing an a-10, so i have no idea why you're trying to teach me how great the a-10 is in general combat when no one brought it up at all i don't know what you're trying to sell but i'm not interested
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47662204]Uhh it's quite a bit smaller?[/QUOTE] Look at the size of the crewmen on the left compared to the right. The Armata is much bigger and longer than the one on the right. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RdHXZ0U.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47662446]Look at the size of the crewmen on the left compared to the right. The Armata is much bigger and longer than the one on the right. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RdHXZ0U.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Yeah, it's bigger than T-90, which is a T-72 refit that's 20 tons lighter than Abrams. [editline]5th May 2015[/editline] And don't forget the actual operational turret is probably like half the volume of what you can see as it's uncrewed housing for the autoloader. Even then Abrams is much huger.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.