Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[313230]

Maybe then read something about Crusader program idiot. XM2001 had advanced automatic loading system, isolated crew compartment, advanced armor, more advanced Hydrogas suspension system instead of torsion bars, more advanced and compact powerpack (powerpack itself was intended as a common poerpwack for XM2001 and M1 tanks series) + advanced electronics.

Oh and the main gun itself, the XM297E2 is L56 not L52 like all currently used and considered as modern SPH's had. So there is also advantage in barrel.

Also gun liquid cooling system gives advantages.

lol, I knew it had some advantages, but those are not worth the cost. At 5 times of a very advanced systems like pzh 2000, it needed to be the game changer which actually it was not. Damn, 25 million USD is the cost of an aircraft.

And we are damn lucky You are not some ----in decision maker. Idiots are everywhere, You are great example of such, instead of reading good sources, You are only spreading You silly opinions.

lol, I just called you fanboi and you called me idiot, no problem but it didn't make your opinion stronger. Also the FCS was worth the cancellation, too.

Don't call people idiots, you also made many mistakes in the past. Not every one is perfect, just grow up and discuss like a gentle man.

Regards

 

[313230]

Wheeled chassis limitedly. Yes, artilery is more mobile, but less all-terrains. In Soviet Union wanted to build on a license the Czechoslovak "Dana". But drive them on tests, from this idea was to renounce.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/42684-modern-artillery-tactical-missiles.html

Thanks,
I read the myth that tracked systems have advanced tactical mobility over wheeled systems but I haven't known much about reason. Many off road vehicles use wheels without problem, so what is the true reason of the advantage of being tracked? Lower ground pressure, climbing ability or what?

 

[Damian]

lol, I knew it had some advantages, but those are not worth the cost. At 5 times of a very advanced systems like pzh 2000, it needed to be the game changer which actually it was not. Damn, 25 million USD is the cost of an aircraft.

And did You considered that costs are calculated per the R&D program costs + the number of planned initial purchases? Of course You didn't, the cost would go down after initial purchases, simple as that.

lol, I just called you fanboi and you called me idiot, no problem but it didn't make your opinion stronger. Also the FCS was worth the cancellation, too.

Don't call people idiots, you also made many mistakes in the past. Not every one is perfect, just grow up and discuss like a gentle man.

You attacked me, in a very stupid way also, I retaliated. Especially that I'am not a fanboy, unless of course by Your definition faboyism is preffering the superior system.

As for being gentle men, I discuss in a gentle way only with people worth it, You proved to not being worth it.

Thanks,
I read the myth that tracked systems have advanced tactical mobility over wheeled systems but I haven't known much about reason. Many off road vehicles use wheels without problem, so what is the true reason of the advantage of being tracked? Lower ground pressure, climbing ability or what?

Do not compare a jeep that weight's approx 2 or 3 metric tons, with something weighting 10 metric tons or more. I seen a lightly armored wheeled vehicles that had problems in difficult terrain (mud etc.) when a 60+ metric tons main battle tank hadn't any problems to move. Same applies to SPH's or any other tracked vehicles.

In difficult terrain tracks are superior to wheels, wheels are good only on roads. Obviously there is a place for both, tracked SPH's gos to heavy units, and wheeled goes to light units, simple as that. But replacing everything with wheels is completely stupid idea.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One good reason can be is its a cost of a Prototype version, PHZ2000 is no prototype but a production model..

The more you produce the lesser it cost to the user..

lol, I knew it had some advantages, but those are not worth the cost. At 5 times of a very advanced systems like pzh 2000, it needed to be the game changer which actually it was not. Damn, 25 million USD is the cost of an aircraft.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

And Avoid personal attacks, It will be not entertain..

 

[methos]

One good reason can be is its a cost of a Prototype version, PHZ2000 is no prototype but a production model..

The more you produce the lesser it cost to the user..

I don't think the costs were that of the prototype, but rather projected costs. Such values were also used with the XM1 and Leopard 2AV by the U.S..

 

[Akim]

Thanks,
I read the myth that tracked systems have advanced tactical mobility over wheeled systems but I haven't known much about reason. Many off road vehicles use wheels without problem, so what is the true reason of the advantage of being tracked? Lower ground pressure, climbing ability or what?

Not only pressure on soil and passableness. The wheeled artillery has the limitations. Such undercarriage less steadily to the recoil at a shot the very large loading goes on an axis, therefore at preparation it is necessary will lift the axes of the rear axle on the special supports. Such systems are not able to shoot from short stops. Counterblow of enemy is inflicted in 3 minutes, and the wheeled technique is not capable to leave during this time from battlefield.
The battery MLRS (110-122) for one volley has fire power a 4-4,5 ton. Battery of wheeled SPH (152-155) only 300-400 kg at the identical loading on an axis. Therefore wheeled SPH's can be used only for firing from large distances where substantially anymore the flight time of enemy aviation and less probability of detection out a volley.

 

[Akim]

I did not know where in what division to place information, about Austrian IFV ASCOD.
But nevertheless decided here. The point is that this battle-platform the same as Polish tank "Anders" or Ukrainian BMPT- 64. On her base it is possible to create an easy tank and SPH and different complexes air DEFENCE and also destroyer tank. But initially she was created for the Austrian army, as IFV. Actually it after Swedish Strf 90М, is the second in the world heavy universal battle-platform. On her undercarriage it is even possible to set the Russian/Ukrainian modules with an armament.
She possesses enough quite good protection and has the opportunity for the increase of armour by means of ceramic protective straps and ERA.
There is a zone of weakness, where a door is for a crew.

 

[methos]

The point is that this battle-platform the same as Polish tank "Anders" or Ukrainian BMPT- 64. On her base it is possible to create an easy tank and SPH and different complexes air DEFENCE and also destroyer tank. But initially she was created for the Austrian army, as IFV. Actually it after Swedish Strf 90М, is the second in the world heavy universal battle-platform.

The question is how you define "heavy universal battle-plattform". The previous generations of IFVs already included some "universal plattforms" like the Saurer, HS 30 and arguably also the Marder. Most modern chassis' can be reconfigurated for other tasks than just being mere IFVs, with the BMP series being the only exception.

The Ulan and the Pizarro would have been great IFVs if they appeared in the 1990s, but for the 2000s they are only average. The best version will unluckily be the ASCOD SV, if the Brittons continue to procure it.

She possesses enough quite good protection and has the opportunity for the increase of armour by means of ceramic protective straps and ERA.

Honestly, I don't like the protection. It is not "quite good", but rather bad for the 2000s, when it was procured. Basic protection is not really better than that of a BMP and with applique armour (like the one used on Austrian Ulan) it probably is not better protected than the M2A3 or Marder 1A3.

 

[Akim]

The question is how you define "heavy universal battle-plattform". The previous generations of IFVs already included some "universal plattforms" like the Saurer, HS 30 and arguably also the Marder. Most modern chassis' can be reconfigurated for other tasks than just being mere IFVs, with the BMP series being the only exception.

The Ulan and the Pizarro would have been great IFVs if they appeared in the 1990s, but for the 2000s they are only average. The best version will unluckily be the ASCOD SV, if the Brittons continue to procure it.



Honestly, I don't like the protection. It is not "quite good", but rather bad for the 2000s, when it was procured. Basic protection is not really better than that of a BMP and with applique armour (like the one used on Austrian Ulan) it probably is not better protected than the M2A3 or Marder 1A3.

Austrian IFV "Ulan" can withstand the forehead hit 30x165 mm from the soviet gun 2A42. Of course this is not highest-protection, but still good. A heavy battle- platforms. include infantry fighting vehicles with armor against rounds (25-30 mm and above).

 

[Akim]

Anybody know the information about modernization of the Italian tank C1 "Ariete" ?

 

[Apollyon]

Object 195 "T-95"
Developer: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) at Nizny Tagil
Weight: 50 tons
Height: 1800 mm
Crew: 3
Engine: 1500 hp Diesel/2000 hp gas turbine
Maximum Road Speed: 100 km/h
Maximum Off-road Speed: 50 km/h
Ground Pressure: 0.9 kg/m2
Main Gun: 152 mm
Ammunition: 36 rounds
Auxiliary Armament: 7.62 mm
Self-Protection Systems: Shtora-1, Drodz-2/Arena
Armour: Relikt
Stage: Trials
Development of the Object 195 next generation MBT began in 1988-1989 by a team led by V. Potkin. It represents the "high-end" component, with Object 640 being the "middle-end" component of future Soviet tanks. It was originally planned to be ready in 1994. However, the collapse of the USSR considerably slowed down development, and prototype tests began only in 1997. Several prototypes have been constructed, and the tank is now planned for production in 2007.
The three-man crew is seated in an armoured capsule inside the hull of the tank. This arrangement with an unmanned turret improves crew safety and allows reducing the height of the vehicle. A fourth crew member is located in the battalion support company. The crew can enter the tank from the back. The tank features an automatic self-diagnosis system. Outside view is provided by three sets of periscopes in front hull and three optical sensors on top of the turret. The fire-control system includes optical, imaging infrared and radar channels and a laser rangefinder. An IFF system is also included. Ammo is carried in the turret bustle and loaded by a new type of autoloader. The completely new rear mounted X-shaped Diesel engine delivers 1500 hp to a new transmission system. An unique drive train suspension system helps improve ride smoothness and the noise levels are lower than on previous Russian tanks. Measures for signature reduction (LO) have been incorporated into the design of the tank.
The Relikt defense suite is five times more effective than Kaktus. It detonates on command before the round hits based on information from radar. It can be installed on T-72B and T-90 tanks and is being tested in the Leningrad Military District.

Soviet Armour Projects of the 1980s

andrei_bt - Великий и ужастный титановый "Абрамс-капут" (да, это т.н. т-95)

 

[Apollyon]

andrei_bt - Еще одно фото нового танка

 

[Damian]

Anybody know the information about modernization of the Italian tank C1 "Ariete" ?

As far as I know modernization was or is still only planned, and with economic crysis very unlikely.

 

[Akim]

As far as I know modernization was or is still only planned, and with economic crysis very unlikely.

The tank has quite good front protection, but very weak protection of lateral projection of the turret and the housing. She even worse than in Leopard 2A4, although it began producing on 10 years later.

 

[Damian]

As far as I remember, C1 Ariete armor protection was designed against mainly T-62 armament, not that of the modern tanks, and as far as I know, there were no upgrades for it, there was upgrade within planned modernization if I remember correctly.

 

[Akim]

C1 Ariete armor protection was designed against mainly T-62 armament

Against whom is created this tank - probably against the People's Army of Albania?

 

[Damian]

C1 Ariete was designed against threats that were most probabale to emerge in the region, this means forces armed with less advanced weaponary than soviet/russian forces.

Besides this there was another problem with C1, it was designed with a very poor budget for R&D phase.

IMHO Italy would end up in much better position of they would just purchase or build on licence some other NATO design (most prefarable was Leopard 2).

 

[Akim]

C1 Ariete was designed against threats that were most probabale to emerge in the region, this means forces armed with less advanced weaponary than soviet/russian forces.

Italy has had two socialist neighbors (Albania and Yugoslavia). And if the first country to have the old T-55 (62), the Belgrade was one of the best tanks of the 72nd series (M-84). Yes, and when they started to produce C1, was no socialist countries in Europe. And he on general characteristics probably inferior tank to the same period Pt-91.

 

[Damian]

I do not know the details. C1 is very poorly described, I think there is no good literature about it. Also the program start and vehicle induction might be after the cold war ended but the requirements and technology could had been developed during the cold war.