Wait a minute are you seriously saying that the IS-7 was needed to combat the M26 pershing? What on eath are you smoking the T-34-85 would have absolutely no trouble in killing the M26.
Well first of all if you look back to where this quote came from it quoted:
Even after the war was over the Soviet Union just had to one up the Maus with the IS-7
An IS-7 does not one up a Maus... except in the sense that 6 prototype IS-7s were built... only two of the German tanks were built...
You are also missing the point... if the US kept the Pershing it suggested they would use them the way they were intended... as a breakthrough tank, it did not matter if T-34/85s could penetrate the M26 or not... that would just determine how successful the M26 would be.
The T-10 had to be able to absorb enemy tank gun fire from about 1.5-2km range and be able to destroy NATO tanks from that range... that is what a breakthrough tank does...
In the late 40s the west bearly had anything with which to combat the IS-3 there was nothing that they had which would require an IS-7 to defeat it.
A breakthrough tank has to be able to engage enemy armour successfully at long range and its armour needs to be able to keep it safe from enemy fire from that range... hence the T-10 design... the existence or otherwise of the M-26 Pershing and the Conquerer for that matter is just evidence that the US and UK had not given up on vehicles in the same role too.
Plus, lets face it... the west have very little idea of what the Soviets did or did not have... in the 40s, the 50s or the 60s.
That cost will still pop up in the future. Either deal with it now (put 152mm guns into service) or deal with it later. Either way, you're dealing with the cost.
Right now the 125mm ammo is in mass production and the guns for it are widely deployed.
The cost of rolling out a brand new standard calibre used by every tank would be enormous and largely unjustified at the moment.
In 5 or 10 years however as I said they could take Armata tanks in service with 125mm standardised turrets and swap them with upgraded turrets mounting the 152mm gun. The 125mm gun turrets could be transferred to new Kurganets vehicles if needed, but it would be an easy way to get the calibre into service rapidly... they might not even replace all armata tank division tanks at once... they might change all the armata tank turrets in the european districts, and leave the ones in the other areas with 125mm guns.
Then why not manufacture 152mm Armatas along with 125mm Armatas, now or in the near future?
They have said they don't see the need for the 152mm guns at the moment and consider the 125mm guns to be sufficient.
If it's easy enough then to replace 125mm guns with 152mm guns, it'll be even easier if some are made with 152mm guns right now off the bat.
Putting any 152mm tank gun Armatas in service now means developing a dual chain of ammo for tank guns in two distinct calibres... in which it has already been decided that one calibre is not needed yet.
You won't have to change their weapons. You'll get your 125mm Armatas with ammo interoperability, as well as get through the effort of fielding the 152mm gun without having to deal with the problem later.
You would have to put the 152mm tank gun ammo into mass production to supply the vehicles fitted with the gun. Mass producing a calibre of ammo the defence department has determined is not needed yet is a waste of time and resources.
The same can be said in future when the the first 152mm guns arrive. Either deal with the problem now or in 15 years. Dealing with it now is better, in my opinion.
Having two different calibres or having a newer heavier calibre is going to add costs and complication.... so leave it until it is needed...
If the bustle getting hit was such an issue, modern Russian tanks wouldn't have them. But they do. Bustles can be used safely.
It is not my decision or opinion... the Russian Army rejected the Black Eagle design and the Burlak design because of the vulnerability to enemy fire of the main gun ammo.
the only reason there are rounds in the turret bustle of the T-90AM/MS is because the 22 rounds in the underfloor bustle is deemed to be not enough of an ammo load, so there are 6 rounds in an armoured box between the rear turret and the engine inside the hull and a further 12 rounds in the turret bustle totally separate from the crew compartment... so a total of 40 rounds but only 28 anywhere near ready to fire.
Remove the crew from the turret and you could simply stack another autoloader on top of the existing one for 44 ready to fire rounds.
You could have side pressure release doors with the propellent on top where if the top two layers are hit the top two layers can be propellant stubs that can vent out roof mounted pressure release doors. the bottom two layers of the autoloader could hold the projectiles in the place most unlikely to get hit.
It's one worth keeping your eye on though. Tank rounds need to be strong enough to reliably penetrate your foes. Otherwise you'll suffer unnecessary losses.
But that has nothing to do with your enemies gun, and everything to do with the enemies armour and protection systems...
That just means a worse L/D ratio which means more energy is lost in flight. They have a worse range and penetration at a distance as a consequence.
I have never seen an advert for tank ammo that suggests more than 2.5km is practical for APFSDS rounds and over those distances accuracy is more of an issue than lost velocity.
APFSDS rounds can afford to have higher L/D ratios than flechettes. Their behind-armour effect is significant, unless they're shooting from the side.
Now that all depends on the target... if the target is soft then APFSDS rounds might just punch straight through and do very little actual damage.
You don't have to put all your ammo in the bustle.
None of their current in service tanks have a bustle.... Only the T-90AM/MS and it is not currently in service AFAIK and that is not connected to the crew compartment... so the extra ammo could just as easily be in a trailer behind the vehicle or a big box on the rear engine deck.
Just pack 22 rounds in the bustle with the autoloader, and have cage armor at the sides to protect from HEAT/HE warheads.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Black Eagle turret bustle has merit.... I think the Burlak design was very clever... I think with modifications it could be very very effective and useful... maximising good features and minimising bad.
On the face of it a turret bustle, as designed for the Burlak was intended to be like a rifle magazine... ie positioned by crane fully loaded... therefore I would have two different magazine types... one with 22 HE and HEAT rounds that is loaded and the mechanism then loads each round via autoloader into the underfloor magazine... once it is emptied remove it and replace it with the standard 31 round mag with long rod APFSDS rounds and also missiles ... with perhaps a few HEAT and HE rounds in the centre of the rack.
Now you are loaded... in combat if the bustle gets hit and catches fire then turn the turret sideways and eject it so it does not burn and destroy your engine compartment.
The two auto loaders give you 53 rounds ready to fire, which is excellent fire power... the rear bustle allows straight ramming with projectiles as long as you want.
Their new hypersonic missiles with scramjet propulsion is interesting for tank ammo... imagine an APFSDS round with a scramjet motor that is fired at 1,400m/s but accelerates to as fast as you want... mach 10?... 3.2km/s?
The bustle ammo is more vulnerable but can be ejected to minimise the risk and even if it is destroyed you still have the other autoloader, which you would use last where possible.
Most important is that with no human loader the turret bustle wall can be very thick with a very small door that rapidly opens and closes when needed and keeps the ammo and the crew apart.
The loading for T-72 and later tanks is very slow because each round and each propellant stub need to be handled individually... this system should make it faster and safer... perhaps even have a manual backup system where projectiles and propellent stubs can be pushed through a hole in the rear of the turret bustle to manually load rounds into both auto loaders... like artillery vehicles do.
So the crew survived. Bustle explosions are safer than you think. Usually the crew survive these explosions.
No, that is not what I said.
A normal penetration that does not directly hit a HE round or propellant rounds will generally start a fire... the crew normally bail out as soon as they can... if they are able. Explosions normally take place a few minutes after the onboard fires reach the ammo or the fuel reaches flashpoint temperatures.
Many of the images seen of T-72s et al with their turrets missing ended up that way after the fire reached their ammo or fuel.
If the penetrator hit ammo directly then you see what happens in the video of the Leopard hit by a Konkurs... it does not matter when the ammo is... if you look at the size of the explosion and its violence... the Leopard has no blow out panels in its hull... and when HE ammo explodes inside a tank the tank will shatter into lots of little pieces... those same shockwaves will reduce a human form to mulch... there wont be a turret here and a hull there...
My point was that the bustle didn't cause most of the explosions.
You are not listening... this sort of explosion is nothing to do with hull or turret or turret bustle... a direct hit on a HE round sitting on a stack of other HE and HEAT rounds does this... whether in a hull or a bustle...
Saves you from storing all your ammo in the hull (large target) or the bustle (if you're afraid of bustle explosions).
A penetration of the turret will kill any crew man it passes through, but the two crew do not fill up the turret, if penetrated from the front at worst one crewman could be killed directly by an APFSDS round. Except if that round hits a HE or HEAT round and sets that round off... inside a turret or a turret bustle filled with other rounds also containing HE... if they go off the whole crew is dead... whether the ammo is in the crew compartment in the turret or the turret bustle.
To get the same result with underfloor autoloaders you need to hit the tank very low... which does not actually happen that often.
Still shows that bustles are relatively safe if used well.
What is your hard on for turret bustles?
Unless the enemy are idiots... if you store ammo in turret bustles they will target bustles.
Turret bustles are easy to penetrate if that is what you are aiming for.
Meaning your ammo is easy to target.
Took them decades to realise that though.
No it didn't.
You are not one of these western aholes who think the Russian military does not care about its soldiers... why the fuck do you think the T-34 was the last Soviet tank to store ammo in the turret bustle?
Why do you think they made their tanks so small, yet usually reasonably well armoured and with a good gun?
Only now are they focused on safety (and I commend them and the Armata for it). One thing Western tanks do better than older Russian tanks is safety (though the Armata beats them all).
Of course... big heavy slow western tanks are safer... but are they?
Against peasants they seem to be, yet against Konkurs... a missile from the 1970s, they don't seem to be that safe...
I was talking about as a whole. The Leclerc and Strv 103 (no longer in service by the way) are outliers, unfortunately. And outliers prove the rule. All other European armies have manually loaded MBTs, and autoloaders are only slowly catching on in support vehicles. Though Artillery is having a better time of it.
If they go to a bigger calibre they will either need to go to two piece ammo or an autoloader.
As you mention autorammers are common with artillery... the Soviets had flick rammers in WWII... but then the Soviets often have led the field in the Army... they were more mechanised than the Germans in WWII, most German artillery in WWII was horse drawn, while the Soviets had a lot of artillery tractors in use.
Of course they didn't have as many troop transport vehicles during WWII but then it was the Soviets that got their forces fully mechanised first... BTR-60s and BMP-1s when the west had M113s and trucks, or FV432s and trucks or just walking.
Well, the Centurion was a good tank. His weak spot was his gasoline engine.
The first British tank engine that wasn't total rubbish... but still... the road range of the early Centurion was less than 100km wasn't it?
Still... no worse than the M47.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
should have reported the owner to the authorities instead of posting this shit on the internet.
kvs
and Putin told him ,we are in 2018.. 2 years without any checks by the 
