Wardog_1

Tanks, the future of warfare?

Ever since their introduction on the WWI battlefield in the battle of the Somme in 1916, tanks have always struck fear into the hearts of those on the business end of their massive main guns, but recently they have become more powerful than the designers of those first nightmare inducing metal monsters could have ever dreamed, their firepower surpassing that of even a modern destroyer with the introduction of mobile launchers for the DF-21 anti-ship missiles. They now can even challenge the long standing theory that air-supremacy is key. This form of thinking has culminated in the form of the T-99 Armata Universal Combat Platform, with anti missile defense systems, anti-aircraft capability, and the ability to perform all jobs on the battlefield, be it logistical or direct combat. It has rendered the need for aircraft such as the A-10 obsolete, and it's main gun, an auto loading 152mm smooth bore cannon, outclasses the direct fire capability of even an Aleigha Burke class destroyer. It's unmanned turret's frontal armor is so severely sloped that it could, in theory, deflect even the depleted uranium/tungsten carbide penetrator of the M1A2's 120mm sabot round, while rattling off three rapid shots in the time it takes the Abrams to reload, giving it supremacy on the ground. Where can warfare advance beyond this point short of becoming absurdly deadly? What can stop a large force of these new AMBTs short of a thermonuclear detonation?
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that this tank seems WAY too good to be true. Its probably a hyped up piece of junk. 

  • Upvote 34
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, id like to see the tank that can Fire at 18 rounds per minute, intercept ATGMs, shoot down A-10s, AND destroy warships, all at the same time, all the while being reliable, and internally structurally sound.

 

Somehow I doubt this tank is as good as you say.

Edited by Lolsoar
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how many Mavericks or JDAMs or Cruise missiles itll take. Im convinced that pretty much all tanks are death traps nowadays.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it up, it does exist and makes all other tanks look like hyped up pieces of junk

is it build beside a fancy prototype? Is it Battle Proven?

 

oh and i did a quick research on it....... you better do your homework, the Tank while impressive cant do anything of those if it not equiped with the correct system and even than it cant carry all at once. The armor still  can be pend by modern mbts

 

etc etc

 

its just an upgraded T-90.... they did the same shit with the MI24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike most people here, I believe tanks still have a place in modern combat.

 

 

Ok, id like to see the tank that can Fire at 18 rounds per minute, intercept ATGMs, shoot down A-10s, AND destroy warships, all at the same time, all the while being reliable, and internally structurally sound.

 

Somehow I doubt this tank is as good as you say.

 

I think he is bullshitting with the 18 rpm, autoloaders are actually slower then humans, and ability to destroy Warships (to be fair, any tank can do that if they are close enough, modern warships have no armor) But intercepting ATGMs is a known thing (Trophy) and ability to shoot low flying and slow aircraft is also possible with ATGMs or if it has an autocannon.

 

Tell me how many Mavericks or JDAMs or Cruise missiles itll take. Im convinced that pretty much all tanks are death traps nowadays.

 

 

The aircraft first needs to get past the S-400s and Pantsir-S1s first.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks nowadays are meant for breakthroughs and fire support, you'd have to get some helicopters and infantry alongside it to make it somewhat not a death trap to your standard peasant Taliban with a launcher that costs 1/300th your death machine.

Edited by KirrimK
  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks are useless nowadays.

:lol2: :facepalm:

 

What replaces a tank genius? quick answer: a tank. What is a tank? a mobile and heavily armored gun platform, how do you make that? you make a tank, and tanks will be there in 100 years.

 

 

I have a feeling that this tank seems WAY too good to be true. Its probably a hyped up piece of junk. 

:facepalm: I have the feeling you don't know jack about what you're talking about, like 99.99% of kids on this forum  anyway.
 

 

 

is it build beside a fancy prototype? Is it Battle Proven?

 

oh and i did a quick research on it....... you better do your homework, the Tank while impressive cant do anything of those if it not equiped with the correct system and even than it cant carry all at once. The armor still  can be pend by modern mbts

 

etc etc

 

its just an upgraded T-90.... they did the same **** with the MI24

:facepalm: :beee: :facepalm:

 

Geez................. Why? Why I have to educate people everyday :(

 

20 are already built, more will be in 2015-2016 for heavy and operational testings in active units, enter full serial production and service in 2017.

 

So, you know how the armour is made? you work at UVZ ? you're a tank designer? Wow, please, let us all know your knowledge! The armor can always be penetrated on any tank, the thing is to reduce the probability by innovating in armour design and volume management, and to reduce the penetration effects to the tank crew and modules by applying new design choices and technologies.

 

The abrams in your book is a better tank? it's really pathetic.

 

An UPGRADED T-90??? HAHAHAHA good joke!!!! Please just stay out of things you can't even grasp. And stop making a fool of yourself. T-14 has 0% commonality with T-90A, and T-90A is already a formidable tank.

 

Here is your "upgraded T-90", 55 tons, automated turret, crew capsule, radically new armor scheme and electronic suite, autoloader, reactive armour, gun 15% superior to 120 L55, etc... Totally new chassis, engine, transmission, no need to say more. 50+ years of work to arrive here.

 

hBRvU.jpg

IMG_722762146.jpg

14307511.jpg

0_9c46f_b6341496_X5L.jpg

owhwoCy.jpg

  • Upvote 8
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks nowadays are meant for breakthroughs and fire support, you'd have to get some helicopters and infantry alongside it to make it somewhat not a death trap to your standard peasant Taliban with a launcher that costs 1/300th your death machine.

Well since 1916 you need infantry support for your tanks. The same was true in 1944 where you Tiger could get destroyed by a squad of conscripts with a PTRD and a few bundled grenades that cost nothing.

Tanks are here to stay for 2000 years more in one form or another.

That tank is just the evolution of Heavy Cavalry and Heavy Infantry. You always need a unit capable of smashing the enemies flanks with a powerful attack. And you always need a unit capable of storming the enemies front line and surviving.

You can look at ATGM's as Crossbows with Armor Piecing Bolts. Expensive but less than a knight. Easy to use. And effective. But it still didn't stop Heavy Cavalry from existing.

And RPG's and Recoilesses as polearms. They could take out a cavalryman with ease if he got to close. Yet the cavalry didn't go away.

And you can look at Helicopters as light cavalry. Much more mobile than the Heavy Cavalry and can take them out if they are not careful.

For as much as warfare changes. It stays the same. Edited by Linx6
  • Upvote 14
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-14 still looks, little weird. But I suspect that many of the features said about that tank is overrated*. Also, 2 man crew? History should have told why it's bad idea to have fewer then 4 crew man. 

 

 

But on the topic: lets ask an question. Why my small country, Finland, maintains tank force of over 120 tanks?

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-14 still looks, little weird. But I suspect that many of the features said about that tank is overrated*. Also, 2 man crew? History should have told why it's bad idea to have fewer then 4 crew man.


But on the topic: lets ask an question. Why my small country, Finland, maintains tank force of over 120 tanks?


We have a similar size army(Romania) and we keep 1000 of them. And we are trying to modernize them too.

And the reason is: If you don't have an army unless you have tanks. You just need them for a fully functional force.
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that I want to say is that it does look pretty (aesthetically), all the other aspects of the design are unknown to me and therefore I will not judge it. I do wonder about that logo on the side, is that special for the victory day parade or what is it?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, 2 man crew? History should have told why it's bad idea to have fewer then 4 crew man. 

 

It's 3 man. In the parade rehearsals and during the parade itself, only the commander and driver are present. This was equally the case when the T-90 was released. 2 men in the parades, 3 men in actual combat.

 

Still, I won't comment on the Armata because I don't see any documents stating what guns it is supposed to resist as well as the performance of the gun. I assume the latter to even be similar to the old 125mm smoothbore, just in case.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 3 man. In the parade rehearsals and during the parade itself, only the commander and driver are present. This was equally the case when the T-90 was released. 2 men in the parades, 3 men in actual combat.

 

Still, I won't comment on the Armata because I don't see any documents stating what guns it is supposed to resist as well as the performance of the gun. I assume the latter to even be similar to the old 125mm smoothbore, just in case.

 

Well they said it's fully automated turret. So there is no gunner or loader.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the russian tradition, the pictures (distance between tank side minus track and crew position) the main armor seems still to be of the reaction type.

Non maned turret with (hopefully for the crews) new autoloader and (first for russian tanks) no ammo storage in the hull (just my thinking from the big, ammo storage like overhang at the turret back...) seems good for crew survival after getting hit, but is in no way new or impressive. And from loocking at it, the turret seems a lot like in SF movies, with all the external thin metal sheets....

For the quality of the gun, the internal thermal imaging and communication systems (and the external systems for anti missile and so on) nothing is really known (the same with all other systems world wide...with the exeption if they were in combat and got reported) so nobody here can judge them.

 

But usually the russians are not exactly top notch in these categorys today so i would not expect the worlds best from them (but they could be a big step forward for russian forces like with all radio in ww2)

 

It is a lot like in the air department, usually the russians are at the same if you look just at the cell and engine (usually just a higher fuel consumption) and weapons but in the avioniks and electronics they are a step behind using sometimes new systems to compensate (like thrust vectoring) but this is usually not  or unique enough (and can get used by others too, leaving the other systems still at the disadvantage.

 

 

For the tank, as an easy example: it is said to be around 55 t , so that means the russian ones also getting heavier and heavier (for older t-72 and t-90 this was said to an advantage that they were so light, in reality they just did not have a lot of systems...), but what about the engine power? A "simple" mechanical system one could think, but the americans and russians did use turbines earlier on, because they were not able to build a more conventional engine/transmission system that was small and powerfull enough.

Nowadays most western tanks use the same PowerPack, but i do not think the russians get it too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the main gun is an new one (unless it's an fake) and there have been saying it being either 123mm or 130mm gun.

 

I don't know it being the most powerful tank (it's Leopard 2 by the way) but sure it's interesting.

Edited by Sodanjumala
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-14 still looks, little weird. But I suspect that many of the features said about that tank is overrated*. Also, 2 man crew? History should have told why it's bad idea to have fewer then 4 crew man. 

 

 

But on the topic: lets ask an question. Why my small country, Finland, maintains tank force of over 120 tanks?

 

overrated because it's russian? Yeah, sure. It would be a US or german tank, all fanboys would be wet pants down, but who cares about your opinion based on a picture?

 

3 men crew, as it always was, it's the perfect combination, 2 is not enough, russians speak of even reducing to 2 later, i hope it's not true. A fully focused man for each task is important, no matter how automated the system is.

 

Fewer than 4 is bad? go tell it to 50 years of successful russian tank designs, and to pretty much all newer tanks fielded worldwide by other nations who also switched to autoloader and 3 men crew.

 

Finland loves its army, and maintain a strong force (it's pathetic nowadays compared to the 1980s though). The strategy of finland is to be certain it would be too costly for russia to try and invade (again), but, it's a stalemate and just a formality, finland as many friendly and economic ties with russia and russia has 0 interest in harming finland.

 

 

 

All that I want to say is that it does look pretty (aesthetically), all the other aspects of the design are unknown to me and therefore I will not judge it. I do wonder about that logo on the side, is that special for the victory day parade or what is it?

 

the st georges ribbon and the star is a new iteration of the classic red star emblem, russia is still not decided what to do with the red star symbol since 1992... it changes often in colors and forms. Yes it's for the parade only

 

 

 

Nothing a concealable AT mine in the right location can't disable. :)

 

And russia is the master in this area. 4 faceted shaped charge, classic shallow shaped charge, massive and multipurpose EFP mines with remote controls or classic trip wires /magnetic detonators, and several high explosive massive mines. Specialised vehicles and throwers (from artillery rockets or airborne besides trucks and armored vehicles) can deliver massive amount of these mines in few minutes, beside the conventional squads of engineers hand-placing them.

 

 

It's 3 man. In the parade rehearsals and during the parade itself, only the commander and driver are present. This was equally the case when the T-90 was released. 2 men in the parades, 3 men in actual combat.

 

Still, I won't comment on the Armata because I don't see any documents stating what guns it is supposed to resist as well as the performance of the gun. I assume the latter to even be similar to the old 125mm smoothbore, just in case.

 

Then you're mad. The 2A82-M1 is undoubtly much more powerful than any previous 125mm gun, it uses a full new technology and larger chamber for a new pattern of semi combustible propellant case. It's said to be 15-20% superior to the recognized king, the 120 L55. 2A46-M5 is the best and latest iteration of the 2A46, it equips T-90A, T-72B3 and some T-80U. this gun is already approching L55 120 performance, and outclass the L44 by a good margin, it's comparable to the french L52.

 

basic idea:

1427478148-2a82.jpg

 

 

Well they said it's fully automated turret. So there is no gunner or loader.

 

No gunner? of course there is one. The loader is a very sophisticated 32 + 32 rounds / charges automated system. A vast improvement over already existing 22 and 28 rounds systems on T-90 and T-80.

 

 

 

Well the main gun is an new one (unless it's an fake) and there have been saying it being either 123mm or 130mm gun.

 

I don't know it being the most powerful tank (it's Leopard 2 by the way) but sure it's interesting.

 

fake? are you ********************** ? 123mm? 130? It's 125mm. 2A82 originates in the 1970s, it's now the 2A82-M1 variant on the tank, with a much improved pressure and all parameters compared to existing 2A46-M5 (already the most advanced and powerful variant of any 125mm smoothbore tank gun, as fitted on T-90A and some modernised T-72 and T-80). The chamber is larger accomodating a longer propelant charge, while still capable of using the classic 125mm ammo pattern. The gun is said to be 15-20% superior to the reihnmettal 120 L55 in power (pressure).

 

Don't believe it? then don't, who cares, that's just the official statements. The 2A82 was in competition in the 1970s with the M65 rifled 130mm gun, which is to date the most powerful rifled gun ever devised for a tank (M103 gun or german 128mm are not close to be in the same league). As a matter of fact the M65 fired mainly a 32kg APCBC-HE shell at 1050m/s, the same round fired by the IS-7 at about 900m/s in its lesser gun. APDS, HEAT were also planed.

 

Leopard2? Too much bias and propaganda maybe? Leopard 2A6 is not more powerful in any aspect than the T-14, and it's far heavier with the same engine power. Leopard-2A6 however is indeed probably the most powerfully armed and has a remarquable frontal turret armour, among all the "NATO" western design tanks, and it surely outclass the M1 abrams or challenger 2. Leopard 2 hull is very weak however. Leclerc has remarquable gun as well, and fantastic mobility, but its armour is far behind the german, US and british tank. Korea K2 is like the leclerc probably a bit better in every aspect and thus close to leopard 2A6.

 

152mm guns are available for T-14 and were tested at least on 2 tanks, the 292 and the 195. 125mm is much preferred for ammo capacity/commonality, and the size and cost. 152mm can be improved and fitted in a few years if needed (it's not needed)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 7
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bigbobthewhiteWT:

 

1. Weapons industry in Russia is like in the rest of the world: More politics then actual action (and money). Seriously, most tanks in the world are originated 20-30 years ago and actually it's nice to see new desings.

2. There is little info regarding the T14 so any expectation of it's usage is like actually try to win lottery by math.

3. I actually consider USA < Russia in military equipment.

4. It's many times said that the T14 taking part in parade are pre-production series so it wouldn't be surprising to see that those guns are "fake" (AKA Dummy if you prefer that). They maybe actual guns, but more likely for testing.

5. Also, don't mock the Finnish military. We have more guns then whole Europe combined.

  • Upvote 6
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're mad. The 2A82-M1 is undoubtly much more powerful than any previous 125mm gun, it uses a full new technology and larger chamber for a new pattern of semi combustible propellant case. It's said to be 15-20% superior to the recognized king, the 120 L55. 2A46-M5 is the best and latest iteration of the 2A46, it equips T-90A, T-72B3 and some T-80U. this gun is already approching L55 120 performance, and outclass the L44 by a good margin, it's comparable to the french L52.

 

basic idea:

1427478148-2a82.jpg

 

I'm not mad, I'm just a natural skeptic with everything. I honestly cannot draw conclusions from the 2A82 until I can see some actual penetration figures or at least muzzle velocity for a same weight projectile fired from both guns. Seeing the barrel size increase is not enough since the propellant charge must be different (and it is otherwise there wouldn't be such an important increase in performance). But I'm very sure the Russian military would take a while to release those figures, so I don't hold my breath.

 

On another note, I thought that the difference between the T-90's gun and say the T-64's gun was related to the ammunition more than the gun itself.

Edited by Nope
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not mad, I'm just a natural skeptic with everything. I honestly cannot draw conclusions from the 2A82 until I can see some actual penetration figures or at least muzzle velocity for a same weight projectile fired from both guns. Seeing the barrel size increase is not enough since the propellant charge must be different (and it is otherwise there wouldn't be such an important increase in performance). But I'm very sure the Russian military would take a while to release those figures, so I don't hold my breath.

 

On another note, I thought that the difference between the T-90's gun and say the T-64's gun was related to the ammunition more than the gun itself.

 

 

no, a lot of guns... The 2A26, 2A46, 2A46-M series, 2A46-M5 being the latest. modern ammo for this gun can't be fired by earlier types. but old ammo can be through the modern one. 2A66 and 2A82 are yet other guns of 125mm, and the 2A82-M1 is the modernised version that we see today. Quality and pressure level of old 2A46 can't possibly be compared with 2A46M5, that's how much they are different. But in all reality an old 2A46M from a rusty ukrainian T-64BV1 will be just as effective inside 2000m than a T-90A 2A46M5, if firing HE and HEAT.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.