Jump to content

What's next for top tier ground vehicles?


To put it simple. Gaijin will introduce any vehicle they can find at least a single "reliable" source to model. That includes even the modern tanks like M1A2SepV3, T-14, and 2A6/2A7 being the ultimate end game, It's only a matter of when because that's how they make profit. Other than that there are still other modern tanks to flesh out the different nations like

Modernized T-80 and T-72's from Ukraine, Poland, and Russia
Type 10
most modern Challenger 2 package, maybe with its rumored 130mm gun?
The Polish PL-01???
The Leclerc series
The Korean K series probably
Iran tanks like the Karrar?
The Chinese Type series like the Type 99A.
Italy is screwed
Sweden is screwed.


 

Edited by FallenZulu
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

Apparently, the Soviets made a bunch of similar prototypes. Reagan era arms race at its finest.

Yeah, crazy high military budgets certainly precipitated the collapse of the union.

10 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

To think of it, the Chinese ZTZ-99 is in someway a spiritual successor to this concept, stretching a Soviet tank hull (inspired by T-72 they collected) and fitted with a bigger engine along with Western-style turret.

Shame that the ZTZ99 still has a carousel autoloader and inherited the same drivers viewport weakspot. Still, later variants of the '99 are definitely a strong contender for the best eastern tank.

 

The Object 187 would also be a great addition. For starters, it's one of the last tanks developed by the soviet union, and the redesigned hull removes the main weakspot of soviet tanks. It's also pretty well documented.

 I

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

Yeah, crazy high military budgets certainly precipitated the collapse of the union.

Shame that the ZTZ99 still has a carousel autoloader and inherited the same drivers viewport weakspot. Still, later variants of the '99 are definitely a strong contender for the best eastern tank.

Yes, the Type 99 has come a long way from the "Project 9910" to ZTZ-99A, but the gunner system is relatively unchanged. I think the 125mm 2-pieces loader usually demands carousel. The Ukraine T84-120 for example has a bustle ammo rack after switching to a NATO 120mm.

 

PLA tanks are still designed more for conventional mechanized battle than counter-insurgency like the Western tanks in Middle East. Protection coverage isn't as extensive.

 

23 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

The Object 187 would also be a great addition. For starters, it's one of the last tanks developed by the soviet union, and the redesigned hull removes the main weakspot of soviet tanks. It's also pretty well documented.

I think it is partially overlapping with the T-72B3, both based on T-72B. It will share the same mobility though.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ariesv said:

A T-80BVM could also be neat:

Base hull armor and mobility of a T-80U plus relikt and newer rounds.

Main downside IRL is the fact the turret is from a T-80B; however in Warthunder the Relikt would likely boost turret armor to something close to 650mm.

Actually the hull and the turret is that of a base T-80B. There are obviously more welded plates on the hull and kontakt-5 attached. An upgraded engine/transmission. Basically everything new in terms of armor is kontakt-5/relikt plates. New gun, possibly improved autoloader. Many things were done to improve on that tank, some of which I cannot remember, but the main gist was that they used an old T80B and improved upon it, which is why it was sort of a controversy (due to the fact that T80B has poor armor and T80U models were much better contenders for such an upgrade package).

 

It would perform similarly to the T80U in terms of speed and the rest would be similar to the T72B3, thermal, gun, etc. It would obviously have less armor than both of those tanks, but in todays meta, armor doesn't matter as the 2a6 can go through anything anyway.

 

It wouldn't be much of an upgrade over anything we have in-game either, but it would give us a third option for a relatively nimble MBT, something to replace the T90A, atleast for me.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MCmaddawg said:

Actually the hull and the turret is that of a base T-80B.

The "T-80B" we have in game is really a T-80BV.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

I would say the Object 195/T95 is a little too obscure to be modeled, info is also limited as it is newer. We know more about the earlier Object 477/490 (152mm/125mm), so maybe they would be easier to make in game.

 

The "Black Hawk" AKA T-80UM2 on parade was really more of a hoax. I believe those involved have admitted that it was not a functional tank and was only made to run around the test track.

They did make all kinds of plans for it, but 90-00s Russia was too poor to fund any of those. Some of the concepts have been incorporated into the Aramata.

 

From a "more iconic" approach, I think T-90MS and T-80BVM would be better suited as both have been accepted into Russian service. The T-80BVM is an extensive upgrade of T-80B, while the T-90MS is overall upgrade to T-90 with 1130hp engine and new turret.

While the one often shown on the track is just a demonstrator, count the wheels. If it has 6 roadwheels, it is the demonstrator. If it has 7, it is the functional vehicle. It was supposed to be equipped with a 152m, but instead remined with the 125mm.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

I'm somewhat unfamiliar with Object 477 and 490, I've seen it in a few threads on other forums but it's pictured with two different hulls and I'm not sure which is which. One hull seems to still have the drivers viewport weakspot, which makes it's armor a lot less impressive, whereas the other seems to have a layout closer to what we've seen from 195 and the T-14.

 

Though you're definitely right about these tanks being classified, so who knows if Gaijin could model them realistically. Object 292 with the 152mm might be the only one we get since it's apparently on display at Kubinka

Again, you're definitely right that service tanks are more likely to make it into the game, I just have a soft spot for those crazy prototypes. The Black Eagle being fake is the official stance held by the government, but I do find it kind of hard to believe, considering UVZ took the time to buy the rights to the project, and we've seen it moved multiple times in the years since it's cancellation. If it was just a mockup, I don't see why UVZ would keep towing it around and maintaining it, they would just let it rot.

1808247129_640BlackEagle.thumb.jpg.dc478

I'm no MBT expert though so maybe some other people in the thread can clarify. I guess, if it is a mockup, they did a good job fooling me:lol2:

 

Here is the completed version. Note the number of roadwheels.

The 640 was anything but fake; what it WAS, however, was a distraction. But I will not speak about such things here. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Here is the completed version. Note the number of roadwheels.

The 640 was anything but fake; what it WAS, however, was a distraction. But I will not speak about such things here. 

So the turret have working mechanism and working optics?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

So the turret have working mechanism and working optics?

Supposedly. But basically, the 6 wheeled version is quite literally just a t80 with a mockup turret slapped on to demonstrate what a 640 would be like. Differences can also be found in their turret layouts.

There is a perception that there were 2 prototypes, that the turret could not even move, etc etc. But you will not find lots of correct information using google. It still shows up when you search "T80UM2" and "T95."

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [email protected] said:

Supposedly. But basically, the 6 wheeled version is quite literally just a t80 with a mockup turret slapped on to demonstrate what a 640 would be like. Differences can also be found in their turret layouts.

There is a perception that there were 2 prototypes, that the turret could not even move, etc etc. But you will not find lots of correct information using google. It still shows up when you search "T80UM2" and "T95."

So basically there is too little info to make use of it......

  • Sad 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

So basically there is too little info to make use of it......

We have most of the requirements necessary to model it competently. It would be no more difficult than doing it for the ztz99.

Lots of the features on this tank are also not even exclusive to it. It's kind of like the HSTV-L; a lot of features a company wants to push, on one product. The T55M6 has more or les the same turret setup, there is information out there for Kaktus, and we know the gun it uses. It's not that daunting of a task compare to something like, say, the obj 195.

Edited by [email protected]
Additional information.
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [email protected] said:

We have most of the requirements necessary to model it competently. It would be no more difficult than doing it for the ztz99.

The information for ZTZ-99 is actually very sufficient.

Chinese forums and state media posted a lot of documents and exterior/interior photos of them.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaggyYolokrau1 said:

and dose any one have info on the 140mm Swiss leo?

 

It used a L/47 140mm gun compared to the L/55 140mm gun used on the German 140mm testbed. It was still a monster though, firing 1 meter long  APFSDS at 1800 m/s with up to 1000mm of penetration. 

 

Spoiler

19601560_1543106365748103_16522523578927

 

I believe it had some sort of autoloader, but not much is known.

 

There is also the Leopard 2 140mm developed by Germany, with an entirely new turret that had a strange autoloader in the turret bustle. It looks absolutely disgusting but packed a 1000mm penetration punch from its RH-140 L/55 gun. I've seen that the turret armor is equal to 2A5 at least over the crew.

 

Spoiler

No photo description available. Leopard 2-140 - Passed for Consideration - War Thunder - Official Forum

 

And finally, the 140mm Abrams variants, starting with the pretty well known CATTB with the XM291 140mm gun. This vehicle also had extensive armor upgrades on the turret as well as a 1450hp diesel. The XM291 fired the XM964 APFSDS with around 980mm of penetration at 2km. There is also the M1 Thumper with a different turret to house the autoloader necessary and I believe the protection is slightly improved with a standard Abrams hull. Finally, there is also a short turret original M1 that was the first Abrams to mount the XM291 gun. 

 

Spoiler

CATTB : TankPorn 19756756_1546815662043840_87321830967274 Artem Beliakov on Twitter: "and test bed w/XM291 gun - also from Soldat und  Technik 1992-01… "

 

Spoiler

Damian Ratka on Twitter: "Some more of the CATTB stuff.… "

 

M1 Thumper, Pz87 140mm, and German Leopard 2 140mm are all roughly equal, however the CATTB is a step ahead. The turret armor is insane, with estimates of 1200mm+ from the front and even 500mm+ on the sides, as well as turret roof armor. It also had a soft-kill APS, hence the numerous smoke dischargers. 

 

However, the original M1 with the 140mm could actually make a really fun derp tank at like 10.7. No armor, but good mobility and bonkers firepower. The other tanks all have a decent level of armor thanks to improvements made, so they would likely be above our current tanks as they have decent armor while making every other tanks armor pointless. 

Edited by Jackvony
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

M1 Thumper, Pz87 140mm, and German Leopard 2 140mm are all roughly equal, however the CATTB is a step ahead. The turret armor is insane, with estimates of 1200mm+ from the front and even 500mm+ on the sides, as well as turret roof armor. It also had a soft-kill APS, hence the numerous smoke dischargers.

Well there's also the New challenger with a much more modern 130mm but absolutely beans all is known about it's performance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

I think it is partially overlapping with the T-72B3, both based on T-72B. It will share the same mobility though.

Not exactly, the Obj. 187 absolutely has better hull armor, almost double the LOS thickness over the T-72B, and it has better turret armor, the same as that of the T-90A. It is a bit slower though, being that it is 50 tonnes, but IMO it makes up for that by firing DU rounds that should reach ~600mm of pen in game.

Here you can gauge the thickness by looking at the  drivers viewport in relation to the front of the tank:

Spoiler

If added, the Obj. 187 would definitely be the best soviet tank in game.

11 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

The "T-80B" we have in game is really a T-80BV.

It's the other way around. What we have in game is a T-80B, with a modification called "T-80BV" that gives you Kontact-1, but in real life the T-80BV was a totally seperate tank with hull armor closer to the T-80U. The thermal sights on it are a whole other story, basically the T-80B in game makes no sense at all and should probably have it's thermals removed and hull converted to a T-80BV.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MCmaddawg said:

Actually the hull and the turret is that of a base T-80B

The hull is the same as on a T-80U since they are upgraded T-80BV tanks. The turret is the main thing causing controversy, though for the purposes of Warthunder it would be good enough.

Assuming Gaijin goes with the traditional assumption that relikt (actual relikt, not the stuff on the side of the T-72B3) is twice as good as k5, then the turret of a T-80BVM in warthunder would give ~430+240=670mm of protection.

The hull would give ~500+240=740mm of protection.

Edited by Ariesv
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jackvony said:

 

It used a L/47 140mm gun compared to the L/55 140mm gun used on the German 140mm testbed. It was still a monster though, firing 1 meter long  APFSDS at 1800 m/s with up to 1000mm of penetration. 

 

Hide contents

19601560_1543106365748103_16522523578927

 

I believe it had some sort of autoloader, but not much is known.

 

There is also the Leopard 2 140mm developed by Germany, with an entirely new turret that had a strange autoloader in the turret bustle. It looks absolutely disgusting but packed a 1000mm penetration punch from its RH-140 L/55 gun. I've seen that the turret armor is equal to 2A5 at least over the crew.

 

Reveal hidden contents

 

And finally, the 140mm Abrams variants, starting with the pretty well known CATTB with the XM291 140mm gun. This vehicle also had extensive armor upgrades on the turret as well as a 1450hp diesel. The XM291 fired the XM964 APFSDS with around 980mm of penetration at 2km. There is also the M1 Thumper with a different turret to house the autoloader necessary and I believe the protection is slightly improved with a standard Abrams hull. Finally, there is also a short turret original M1 that was the first Abrams to mount the XM291 gun. 

 

Reveal hidden contents

CATTB : TankPorn 19756756_1546815662043840_87321830967274 Artem Beliakov on Twitter: "and test bed w/XM291 gun - also from Soldat und  Technik 1992-01… "

 

Reveal hidden contents

Damian Ratka on Twitter: "Some more of the CATTB stuff.… "

 

M1 Thumper, Pz87 140mm, and German Leopard 2 140mm are all roughly equal, however the CATTB is a step ahead. The turret armor is insane, with estimates of 1200mm+ from the front and even 500mm+ on the sides, as well as turret roof armor. It also had a soft-kill APS, hence the numerous smoke dischargers. 

 

However, the original M1 with the 140mm could actually make a really fun derp tank at like 10.7. No armor, but good mobility and bonkers firepower. The other tanks all have a decent level of armor thanks to improvements made, so they would likely be above our current tanks as they have decent armor while making every other tanks armor pointless. 

Holy **** the schematics for the leo 140 that isn't just a side veiw! Do you have more? All I can find is..well, that one side veiw that gets posted everywhere.

As for the CATTB; it's not an estimate. It's just...straight up 50 whole inches of RHA on the turret face, 40 inches on the side, I think 4 on the roof. I can go get the document in a bit.

Edited by [email protected]
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

Well there's also the New challenger with a much more modern 130mm but absolutely beans all is known about it's performance.

I thought that was merely a prototype or mock up. Last time I checked not even the British army knows what they are going to do with their Challengers.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FallenZulu said:

I thought that was merely a prototype or mock up. Last time I checked not even the British army knows what they are going to do with their Challengers.

Well yea, it's a prototype, but basically everything in that suggestion is too. The 130mm is...too new, though. Unlike everything else, we have...nothing. No information.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Well yea, it's a prototype, but basically everything in that suggestion is too. The 130mm is...too new, though. Unlike everything else, we have...nothing. No information.

No information about its exact performance NOW, but that Challenger or the newest tanks won't be added until much later. So who can say what information will pop up. Also it's not like the Dev's are renowned for their accuracy.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

No information about its exact performance NOW, but that Challenger or the newest tanks won't be added until much later. So who can say what information will pop up. Also it's not like the Dev's are renowned for their accuracy.

More accurate than most, to be fair. And almost always open to correction.

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Black Eagle was a real design, there are plenty of drawings of its internal scheme and even the Kaktus ERA that came with it. Kaktus is simply a Kontakt 5 sidegrade which allowed 2 layers to overlap each other to make the unusual look of the turret the Black Eagle makes. Internally, the Black Eagle has the driver and turret crew separated physically by a wall along with the ability for longer sabot. The tank also comes with obviously a bustle autoloader. It simply served no purpose as it maintained similar weaknesses and no true innovation. The T-14 Armata choice back in the early 2000s cancelled many tanks like the Obj 195 (195 competed against the T-14 for the bid.), Black Eagle, Burlak, and so forth.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Korvetten said:

The Black Eagle was a real design, there are plenty of drawings of its internal scheme and even the Kaktus ERA that came with it. Kaktus is simply a Kontakt 5 sidegrade which allowed 2 layers to overlap each other to make the unusual look of the turret the Black Eagle makes. Internally, the Black Eagle has the driver and turret crew separated physically by a wall along with the ability for longer sabot. The tank also comes with obviously a bustle autoloader. It simply served no purpose as it maintained similar weaknesses and no true innovation. The T-14 Armata choice back in the early 2000s cancelled many tanks like the Obj 195 (195 competed against the T-14 for the bid.), Black Eagle, Burlak, and so forth.

I thought 195 was the same company's product, but the 148 was more...cost effective, so they went with that option. Smaller gun, no coaxial, but largely similar design and construction, etcetera.

But yes, we got the pattent drawings of 640 which UVZ bought after it went up for sale. Burlak was an offshoot of the 'universal turret' concept Omsk was trying to push before it wen bankrupt, bustle-mounted autoloader and all. We even got to see an omsk upgraded t55M6.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...