Discussion in 'Military Multimedia' started by Kunal Biswas, Dec 30, 2011.
Some good details with excellent editing....
Separate thread for this? Cant it go with the T-90 thread..
kunal ji can we buy this tank like atleast 500 of 'em i am in love with this tank .. i like the remote weapon station. your head won't be a sniper trophy anymore
T-90MS is good but have a deign flaw than Indian T-90S..
What we need to do is to update our T-90S to T-90M as possible as it can be..
At 2:50, in the back you can partially see, Nizhny Tagil 2011!
Great video! Thanks for posting!
I call this the "Flying Tank" for it likes to leap into the air. This tank is still very much in the doctrine of the T-34, simpler, lighter, easier to maintain and used more effectively in swarming attacks. This is not the best but it will get the objective done.
Indian T90 already have remote weapon station unlike arjun Mk1
Good video and guys he was driving the TANK like he was driving a FERRARI.......
Yup, T-64 series, T-80B and T-80UD series, T-90 series (besides T-90MS) and T-84 series (besides BM Oplot) have tank commander cupola with machine gun that can be controlled from inside of vehicle with hatch closed.
Similiar cupola design was used for example in M1 tanks up to M1A1 versions. It was later replaced in M1A2 with simple flex mount and currently this flex mount is replaced by RWS.
All MBT's can "jump", even the heavier ones.
So there is really nothing special in this "acrobatic" manouver, it is also useless in real combat and is pure PR stuff.
T-34 was really flawed design, there were better cheap, simple, still well made medium tanks, like M4, also very liked by Soviet tankers. T-90 and in general view all post T-34 Soviet tanks were beter quality ones, at some time period Soviet tanks were also most advanced in the world.
RCWS is positioned in such a way that if it is jammed it cannot be manually operated, Russians should have thought about this.
It is not a big problem, there is still coax machine gun, besides this, show me even a single tank with RWS mounted such way that it can be used manually in case of malfunction.
It was definetly not designed to be easy operable from open hatch manually... and there are even less comfortable RWS placed at such places on turret that it is completely not possible to even reload them without completely getting out from vehicle.
What I am more interested about, why 7,62mm gun for RWS than 12,7mm?
7.62mm is chosen coz purpose of 12.7mm is not that necessary as it does the same work as a 7.62 does, Indeed 12.7 have longer ranges and better penetration, though human sight can only engage targets 500-600meter most, 7.62 is good enough for that so does its penetration in soft-skin vehicles, Also the ammo capacity of a 7.62mm is more than 12.7..
The 12.7 is also call tanks AAMG, But as newer rounds are develop which are more accurate and lethal against flying objects, obsolete the idea of using 12.7 in AA role..
12,7mm is effective in anti sniper and anti material roles, this is why M2 is still used on US tanks, hah to get it even better, not only TC have M2 in hist CWS or RWS but also it is sometimes mounted on gun mantled and connected to tank FCS as second coax machine gun.
So on M1 You can have such configuration (from what I seen).
3x M240 7,62 machine guns (1 coax, 1 loaders and 1 for TC in CWS, flex mount or RWS).
1x 40mm Mk19 Mod3 for TC (flex mount or RWS but I also seen concepts for mounting such in CWS), 2x M240's (1 coax and 1 loaders).
1x M2HB for TC (CWS, flext mount or RWS) and 2x M240's.
2x M2HB for TC and as second coax and 2x M240's.
Or any combination of these, even standard ammunition quantity in M1 for it's machine guns is impressive. 11,400-12,000 7,62x51mm ammo, and at least 1,000 12,7x99mm ammo.
BTW why so much ammunition for machine guns? It's simple, read about for example conflicts in Iraq, the decision made in Cold War to provide tank with enough ammo so crew can just spray it to hords of enemy infantry was good decision, that is usefull also these days in assymetric conflicts where there is more infantry than enemy AFV's to encounter.
Yes, I have seen that, I dont know how abt Anti-sniper suppression fire when sniper is free to fire..
Its not possible to deduce the situation on ground, In US lead conflicts, US enjoy a well supported logistic chain, Unlike in other parts of the world like in Asia its not the case, The more ammo you have better it is, As i said 50cal and 7.62nato more or less doing the same job on the ground, So better have that weaponry which carry more rounds..
From what angle? T-34 was a ground breaking tank with sloped armour. Comparing that tank with all the other tanks during WW2, I must disagree with you. Yes, you can say the German Tanks were more technologically advanced, but the point is better technology does not necessarily make a tank a winner. Tank is a war machine, and what matters most is success in battle, and T-34 proved that.
A simile: No matter how much you argue that BMWs have one of the best engineering, you cannot deny the fact that Japanese cars rule the roost, and that is a winner! [talking of US market]
Myth, learn about history of tanks, earlier there were also tanks with sloped armor, for example the ones made in France.
So nothing groundbreaking in T-34.
You can disagree because Your knowledge base on myths and propaganda.
German tanks back then were mostly primitive, flawed designs that have the only advantage over other ones in armor thickness and caliber of main gun. Do You ever read any book about this subject, and I mean good book.
Do You know what were costs of these "success"? How many Soviet tankers died in these coffins? How many of these "briliant" designs were lost?
Read two books, they are in english.
Robert Michulec T-34 Mythical Weapon and memoirs of Soviet tank crew member that served on Lend Lease tanks and on T-34, Dmitry Loza Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks, The World War II Memoirs Of Hero Of The Soviet Union Dmitry Loza.
One interesting point when You read R. Michulec book, is where he points out that myth of T-34 is fault of Heinz Guderian who confused it with KV-1 heavy tank, it is visibl in his reports and memoirs, when he describes KV-1 and names it T-34.
I also recommend to find Aberdeen Proving Grounds tests on T-34, there is directly written how primitive and failed design it was, Americans even said to Soviets that for example engine air filters design was sabotage.
Also read about how T-34's were ahndled by crews in reality, engines have short service life due to facts that drivers mostly drived only one gear... 2nd, because gear box was so flawed that it was difficult to change gears.
Everything that is said about T-34 in popular media is one, pure and huge myth.
FULL REVIEW OF THE T-90S
Separate names with a comma.