Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Dazzler]

type-85/ 96 turret geometry

 

[Damian]

Dni Przemysłu 2013: Ważne decyzje MON ws. przyszłości armii i sektora zbrojeniowego | Defence24 | Wojsko Polskie | Bezpieczeństwo | Przemysł zbrojeniowy | Wojska lądowe | Marynarka Wojenna | Siły Powietrzne | Wojska Specjalne | Geopolityka |

Official confirmation, we are purchasing approx 128 Leopard 2A5's from Germany, this will bring our Leopard 2 fleet to approx 250 tanks.

We are also plan to open unified engines family production center in WZM factory. This family of unified engines will be used in variety of platforms, from trucks to tanks etc.

 

[Austin]

via mp.net

svinets-1 and 2 for old T-series tanks, has a length - 680-690mm(piercing will be around 600-650mm)

grifel-1 and 2 new found certainly not for T-series tanks has a length about 900mm

all pictures from Otvaga2004.

 

[bhramos]

[video=youtube_share;Z0GnspaRQFA]http://youtu.be/Z0GnspaRQFA[/video]

 

[Damian]

32 minutes of boring video, made by another moron...

 

[asianobserve]

Gullible Russians.

 

[Damian]

It is all about understanding reality. You see the guys says that he stands against myths about soviet tanks (or russian tanks if you wish), and ok, but in the same time, this guys actually make more myths.

For example I made absolute facepalm when they tested a 120mm automatic gun-mortar against 155mm self propelled gun-howitzer and said that their design fires quicker... of course it fires quicker for christ sake, it weight less, turret and armament can be more quickly zeroed on target and you can fire more rounds than a heavier vehicle of different class.

This perfectly shows how stupid are people making such comparisions and trying to force on us some truth only for the sake of propaganda, because it is a propaganda, we should not affraid to say it openly.

Or the over and over repeated myth of the air forces domination and thousands of tanks destroyed by them in Iraq. While in fact majority of Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles were destroyed by coalition ground forces.

Or showing something completely irrelevant, like a T-72B's front armor withstanding a hit from weak SPG-9.

But the fact is a fact, soviet tanks were not designed with survivability after armor perfortation in mind, these were one use vehicles, designed with requirements builded around a doctrine where survivability of soldiers was not important or even nonexisting.

And one more important thing. I know Russians and some Ukrainians, and I strongly advise you to understand that there are many different people. I have a luck that I know reasonable people from these two countries, I spent incredibly enjoyable time discussing with them, and sharing our knowledge and toughts about AFV's and military weapon systems.

And the people I know, are absolutely well aware of strong and weak points of tank designs from their countries, as well about existing propaganda os success, that have a deep genesis in the old soviet times, when propaganda was brainwashing own citizens to the ridiculous point where you could not think in a different way than to say over and over again how superior is military of "your country" over rest of the world.

Any sort of constructive criticism was not allowed.

 

[asianobserve]

But the fact is a fact, soviet tanks were not designed with survivability after armor perfortation in mind, these were one use vehicles, designed with requirements builded around a doctrine where survivability of soldiers was not important or even nonexisting.

Perhaps with its shrinking demographics Russia will now start thinking about the safety of their soldiers...

 

[Damian]

Perhaps with its shrinking demographics Russia will now start thinking about the safety of their soldiers...

But they are thinking, for example project of heavy unified platform "Armata" which MBT variant will have crew isolated from ammunition, that greatly will improve their survivability.

In fact even in Soviet Union, there were designers like Aleksander Morozov thinking this way, how to improve survivability of tank crews, with his Object 450 for example.

So yeah, they were thinking about it, but the estabilishment and obsession about ridiculous requirements of weight and size reduction to the point of absurd efficently blocked such developments.

 

[asianobserve]

But they are thinking, for example project of heavy unified platform "Armata" which MBT variant will have crew isolated from ammunition, that greatly will improve their survivability.

In fact even in Soviet Union, there were designers like Aleksander Morozov thinking this way, how to improve survivability of tank crews, with his Object 450 for example.

So yeah, they were thinking about it, but the estabilishment and obsession about ridiculous requirements of weight and size reduction to the point of absurd efficently blocked such developments.

Still the biggest stumbling block for Russian tank designs will be on cost. The Russians simply cannot induct sufficient number of tanks if they will cost as much as their Western counterparts to develop, buy and maintain. There's a limit to how much exotic materials the Russians can put into their production tanks.

 

[Damian]

Still the biggest stumbling block for Russian tank designs will be on cost. The Russians simply cannot induct sufficient number of tanks if they will cost as much as their Western counterparts to develop, buy and maintain. There's a limit to how much exotic materials the Russians can put into their production tanks.

There is a lot of truth in this. New MBT based on platform "Armata" will be probably even more expensive than most modern NATO 3rd generation MBT's. Of course I talk about costs of procurement, costs of use should be cheaper as it will be based on modular unified platform that will share common components with other vehicles based on this platform.

I talked a week ago with some military journalists about how much "Armata" MBT's Russia will be able to purchase after induction in to service of this type of vehicle. They said that not much due to costs, this type of equipment will be absolute minority in Russian Army, and it will be even more likely that more tanks of such type will serve in foreing armed forces of some rich country, of course if Russians will decide to export this tank.

But situation will be similiar to the situation of T-90 series where more tanks serve in foreing armed forces than in Russia, but situation with "Armata" will be most likely on a much bigger scale.

 

[asianobserve]

"If" Russia is able to develop Armata then I'm sure it will not be inducted in enough numbers to replace current frontline Soviet legacy thanks. You're right in that foreigners will buy it more than Russia.

 

[Damian]

"If" Russia is able to develop Armata then I'm sure it will not be inducted in enough numbers to replace current frontline Soviet legacy thanks. You're right in that foreigners will buy it more than Russia.

Of course, today the only country, despite obvious economic problems, capable to induct new vehicles like tanks in great numbers is probably only USA, even China is inducting new modern MBT's in ver low numbers.

 

[Damian]

South Korean K1 tanks during refurbishment process and probable modernization.

 

[collegeboy16]

Still the biggest stumbling block for Russian tank designs will be on cost. The Russians simply cannot induct sufficient number of tanks if they will cost as much as their Western counterparts to develop, buy and maintain. There's a limit to how much exotic materials the Russians can put into their production tanks.

As numbers tank yes, they can't afford about 6k of these nasty mothers. Kurganets and boomerang t-99 mbts would do so quiet nicely. Hell T-72's can do that job just fine for the next decades. Having about 2k of armata t-99 mbt would be ok. Also, the armata mbt would be cheaper to develop since most of the heavy lifting for the design was done already(t-95) and the chassis design dev. pays for more than just a tank. it will also be cheaper to buy since the chassis would be produced in huge numbers and the cost offset by economies of scale. Maintenance would be cheaper since this is just thepoint of armata family- commonality which ensures that maintenance req. are shared by many.
Also what western counterparts? ifyou are referring to 3rd gen mbts then ofc. armataswould tend to be more expensive. Beingnext-gen naturally raises cost. No one would question why PAK FA costs more than a Rafale or F-15. regarding 4th gen counterparts which are just mostly in early design stagesbtw being part of a family would greatly help in cost issues, something standalone tanks can't have in their benefit.

 

[collegeboy16]

Of course, today the only country, despite obvious economic problems, capable to induct new vehicles like tanks in great numbers is probably only USA,

with borrowed chinese money ofc.

 

[Bhadra]

Of course, today the only country, despite obvious economic problems, capable to induct new vehicles like tanks in great numbers is probably only USA, even China is inducting new modern MBT's in ver low numbers.

USA has disbanded their Armoured divisions and airborne armoured units and you are saying they will induct new tanks ??

Their future is with strykers and not tanks.

 

[Damian]

USA has disbanded their Armoured divisions and airborne armoured units and you are saying they will induct new tanks ??

Their future is with strykers and not tanks.

Before you start to write nonsense, check the structure of US Army, that have armored divisions.

US Army have 1st Armored Division, 1st Armored Cavalry Division, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions, all these divisions have Armored Brigade Combat Teams as their core units, and are practically Armor-Mechanized Divisions despite their names which are nothing more thant traditional names left to them to honor their history.

These divisions have 15 ABCT's (formerly known as HBCT's), in the same time, there are only approx 8 SBCT's in US Army.

So where do you see the future of the Stryker? Not to mention that US Army do not see Stryker as survivable enough, and it will be replaced in future by tracked GCV IFV and AMPV which will also replace most of M2 IFV's and M113's.

BTW I could never expect that you think that people around you are so stupid that they will not check the structure of US Army and will not see your lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army

Accept finally that you and your idiotic ideas were defeated by reality. And accept that US Army do not want to base it's armed forces core, the Brigade Combat Teams on Strykers.

Stryker was allways seen as interim vehicle, and allways be interim vehicle intended to be replaced in front units as quickly as possible. US Army also never was very fond about wheeled combat vehicles, US Army preffer tracks over wheeles, they also preffer good armor protection and firepower instead of lightweight coffins for soldiers.

This is why their officers says openly, US Army will use heavier and better protected vehicles in future, both tracked and wheeled.

with borrowed chinese money ofc.

USA does not need to borrow money from China, as US economy is still stronger than Chinese.

 

[collegeboy16]

USA has disbanded their Armoured divisions and airborne armoured units and you are saying they will induct new tanks ??

Their future is with strykers and not tanks.

Ehrm.. no in fact they are going for heavy apc and ifv for their future. They realised strykers don't really standa chance against a credible opponent and even against insurgs which strykers are steamroll they are having abit of trouble.

 

[Damian]

The Future of U.S. Armored Combat Vehicles
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Featured Post

Written by: Scott R. Gourley on May 3, 2012
Categories: Land Forces, Programs & Tech
Tags: Armored Fighting Vehicles, Military News, US Army
Comments: No Comments

Share this Story

More »

Bradley Fighting Vehicles belonging to the 1st Battalion, 185th Armor (Combined Arms Battalion), California Army National Guard, roll through the desert sands while conducting maneuver training in the Mojave Desert during drill weekend Nov. 5, 2011, at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. The Army is still upgrading the National Guard's fleet of Bradleys. U.S. Army photo by Nevada Smith

FY 14 also marks the end of production for the M88A2 HERCULES heavy recovery vehicle.

"We have both M88A2s and A1s resident in our motor pools simultaneously," Sheehy explained. "The A2 is a more robust vehicle and it can haul one tank – one A2 to one tank. If you don't have an A2 you've got to use two A1s. We are working with the Army leadership to go to a pure fleet M88A2. Why? Well, if you go back to my lead chart, it spoke to where we are with space, weight, and power. And we are not getting any lighter. The Heavy Brigade Combat [Team] fleet is getting heavier. And when we replace the Bradley infantry vehicles with GCV, it will be a markedly heavier vehicle. When we replace 113s with AMPV, it will be heavier. And tanks and Bradleys continue to get heavier as we add things on board. So it only makes logical sense that while we are in production with the [M88]A2 that we continue that production so we don't have that break and get it 'pure fleeted.' We are working toward that. But the ground truth today is that production line ends."

Very interesting interview ---------> The Future of U.S. Armored Combat Vehicles | Defense Media Network

As far as we can understand from this interview with high rank US Army officer, not only vehicles are heavier, all vehicles. But also the ECP modernization is not only there to improve allready used vehicles, but are also probably intended as test beds for design solutions that can be eventually integrated in to next generation of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personell/multipurpose carriers or self propelled howitzers.

Ehrm.. no in fact they are going for heavy apc and ifv for their future. They realised strykers don't really standa chance against a credible opponent and even against insurgs which strykers are steamroll they are having abit of trouble.

In fact SBCT's many times needed help from ABCT's or at least they needed HQ to attache to them independent Armor-Mechanized battalions with M1 tanks and M2 infantry fighting vehicles as support.