Home
Latest images
Register
Log inNew autoloader will allow longer penetrators. 
+63
d_taddei2
Atmosphere
lyle6
LMFS
Hole
Swede55
Book.
Bankoletti
TK-421
galicije83
Isos
SALDIRAY
OminousSpudd
max steel
George1
Stealthflanker
Walther von Oldenburg
Godric
KoTeMoRe
kvs
VladimirSahin
victor1985
NationalRus
Morpheus Eberhardt
im42
higurashihougi
Vann7
Mike E
nemrod
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
flamming_python
bantugbro
etaepsilonk
As Sa'iqa
KomissarBojanchev
Rpg type 7v
AlfaT8
a89
Regular
collegeboy16
ali.a.r
Sujoy
psg
Zivo
Mindstorm
TR1
runaway
medo
Acrab
KRATOS1133
Cyberspec
nightcrawler
GarryB
Pugnax
Viktor
IronsightSniper
Austin
milky_candy_sugar
sepheronx
Admin
solo.13mmfmj
Stalingradcommando
67 posters
General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
The limiting factor in the 125mm autoloader isn't the weight, it's the length. Because the rounds sit horizontally in the magazine and are loaded horizontally into the breech, they can be no longer than the distance between the breech and the back side of the turret ring, or more accurately, the rammer.then armata wont have any better armour penetration, then current russian tanks right?
Leclerc uses single piece ammo in 120mm ,so how much heavier is 125mm ammo compared to it?
Since the Armata MBT has no crew in the turret and will have a new autoloader, there are a fewer factors limiting the size of the rounds.
Realistically, when the Armata MBT enters service, the gun will be capable of defeating all current an near future armored threats on the battlefield, including NATO's heavy AFV's.
And they will sing from the rooftops about the glorious, futuristic autoloader and the 3 man crew.When west upgrades to 140mm they will have to use autoloader. When they do, they can reduce weight by 8 tons by having 3 man crew like they did with Leclerc. And for sure both new 140 and 152 will have two piece ammo.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur
dont forget gun-launched missiles, ERA, APS...Zivo wrote:And they will sing from the rooftops about the glorious, futuristic autoloader and the 3 man crew.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.dont forget gun-launched missiles, ERA, APS..
In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.
When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.
Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur
and another one: BMPT, hell if they manage to start a new war a BMPT like vehicle would be welcomed like the 2nd coming of Xst.GarryB wrote:
He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.
In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.
When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.
Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.
though imo they prolly would attempt to leapfrog into drones before implementing the same solutions as the russkies
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
I haven't seen too many people call the BMPT a bad concept. People have said from day one after seeing the Terminator that some western tanks should be converted to serve the BMPT roll.collegeboy16 wrote:and another one: BMPT, hell if they manage to start a new war a BMPT like vehicle would be welcomed like the 2nd coming of Xst.GarryB wrote:
He means the west will praise these features when they use them themselves.
In other words the M1 Abrams does not have an autoloader therefore autoloaders rip your arms off and are slow and stupid.
When the next US tank enters service with an autoloader autoloaders will suddenly be the thing and a tank without an autoloader will be old technology.
Russian smoothbore tank guns were inaccurate till the west introduced the west german 120mm smoothbore is an example of this.
though imo they prolly would attempt to leapfrog into drones before implementing the same solutions as the russkies
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
There was a version of the Bradley that had no troops but carried about 50% more of all its ammo types that was to be used as a fire support vehicle.
Obviously it would struggle against enemy ATGMs and in built up areas because it does not have tank level armour but the idea is the same.
Certainly the trouble the Russians have gone to to remove ammo from near the troop compartment in case of a penetration of the armour it doesn't really make sense to have a vehicle like a BMP-3M IFV with lots of HE rounds.
The HE firepower of heavier calibre guns seems to have been appreciated by the Russian army... the BMP-2 didn't completely replace the BMP-1 because the 73mm gun and the 30mm gun were found to be useful for different targets... they complimented each other.
The result was that the BMP-3 had a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm cannon.
I suspect the Armata BMP-4 will have a high velocity gun able to defeat enemy IFVs like a 45mm or 57mm gun, and that the BTRT or APC/troop transport might just have HMG or light cannon armament (23 x 115mm or 30 x 165mm) to allow more troops to be carried.
This will mean a fire support vehicle will become useful to replace the 100mm/30mm firepower of the BMP-3M which means the BMPT might be a general fire support vehicle in addition to a tank support vehicle.
Keeping in mind that the original purpose of the BMPT was to be a BMP-3M that could go where tanks go because it had the same armour and mobility but could hit targets that the narrow elevation range of the 125mm gun could not hit.
With the armata concept with all vehicles with tank level armour this idea becomes redundant as an APC or IFV can be used as it has tank level armour and can engage targets MBTs can't reach.
Therefore the BMPT becomes more about firepower and ammo capacity and could be used to support a range of vehicles including APCs/IFVs, and MBTs... as well as convoy escort etc.
Obviously it would struggle against enemy ATGMs and in built up areas because it does not have tank level armour but the idea is the same.
Certainly the trouble the Russians have gone to to remove ammo from near the troop compartment in case of a penetration of the armour it doesn't really make sense to have a vehicle like a BMP-3M IFV with lots of HE rounds.
The HE firepower of heavier calibre guns seems to have been appreciated by the Russian army... the BMP-2 didn't completely replace the BMP-1 because the 73mm gun and the 30mm gun were found to be useful for different targets... they complimented each other.
The result was that the BMP-3 had a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm cannon.
I suspect the Armata BMP-4 will have a high velocity gun able to defeat enemy IFVs like a 45mm or 57mm gun, and that the BTRT or APC/troop transport might just have HMG or light cannon armament (23 x 115mm or 30 x 165mm) to allow more troops to be carried.
This will mean a fire support vehicle will become useful to replace the 100mm/30mm firepower of the BMP-3M which means the BMPT might be a general fire support vehicle in addition to a tank support vehicle.
Keeping in mind that the original purpose of the BMPT was to be a BMP-3M that could go where tanks go because it had the same armour and mobility but could hit targets that the narrow elevation range of the 125mm gun could not hit.
With the armata concept with all vehicles with tank level armour this idea becomes redundant as an APC or IFV can be used as it has tank level armour and can engage targets MBTs can't reach.
Therefore the BMPT becomes more about firepower and ammo capacity and could be used to support a range of vehicles including APCs/IFVs, and MBTs... as well as convoy escort etc.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
I'm not even sure that even counts. The shillelagh was used on the Sheridan, basically, it was a missile tank. It couldn't be used in any of the conventional tanks from the era. Soviet gun launched ATGMs were designed to be used in practically all of the tanks made after WWII. The theory of using ATGM on conventional tanks as a supplementary round was significantly more important than its earlier use on "missile tanks".shillelagh tank launched guided missile was created in vietnam years and sheridan tanks
The soviets also had their share of these crappy purpose-built missile tanks.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
As Zivo points out it was rubbish... it was tested on the Sheridan and the M60A3 from memory and was worse than useless.
The 152mm calibre was determined by the missile and its electronics so without the missile the standard ammo was low velocity and rather ineffectual for use against enemy armour... and was an extra type of ammo they needed to supply to units.
On paper the missile was excellent, in practise it was aweful and despite being in several conflicts there is no single example of a kill with the missile.
The missiles were quietly withdrawn and the whole mess turned the west against tank gun fired missiles.
The soviet approach was similar and totally different... they had the IT-1 and IT-2 missile tanks with AT-3 Sagger missiles which was rather more effective but a BRDM-2 was cheaper and could do a better job. In the US army it was decided an M113 with TOW missiles could also do a better job than a missile tank so it was also the preferred solution at the time.
They also wanted to add ATGMs to tanks but limited themselves to current tank calibre guns which reduced the paper performance of the missiles, but resulted in much more practical weapon systems that could be rapidly deployed to existing vehicles with minor changes to sights... even standard autoloaders were compatible.
The difference is that Sheridan and M60A3 and IT-1 and IT-2 were supposed to be missile tanks, whereas the successful vehicles were the BMP-3, and T-72s and T-80s and T-90s that added missiles as another type of ammo the commander could choose to use in combat.
The 152mm calibre was determined by the missile and its electronics so without the missile the standard ammo was low velocity and rather ineffectual for use against enemy armour... and was an extra type of ammo they needed to supply to units.
On paper the missile was excellent, in practise it was aweful and despite being in several conflicts there is no single example of a kill with the missile.
The missiles were quietly withdrawn and the whole mess turned the west against tank gun fired missiles.
The soviet approach was similar and totally different... they had the IT-1 and IT-2 missile tanks with AT-3 Sagger missiles which was rather more effective but a BRDM-2 was cheaper and could do a better job. In the US army it was decided an M113 with TOW missiles could also do a better job than a missile tank so it was also the preferred solution at the time.
They also wanted to add ATGMs to tanks but limited themselves to current tank calibre guns which reduced the paper performance of the missiles, but resulted in much more practical weapon systems that could be rapidly deployed to existing vehicles with minor changes to sights... even standard autoloaders were compatible.
The difference is that Sheridan and M60A3 and IT-1 and IT-2 were supposed to be missile tanks, whereas the successful vehicles were the BMP-3, and T-72s and T-80s and T-90s that added missiles as another type of ammo the commander could choose to use in combat.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
M60A2 was the space tank, looked amazing but left service pretty fast.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Ahh, yes.
The 152mm gun had pathetic ballistics because it was a low velocity weapon. As a direct fire support weapon it packed an awesome HE punch, but the low velocity of the ammo made it next to useless in the anti armour role and the M60A2 was a MBT.
The 152mm gun had pathetic ballistics because it was a low velocity weapon. As a direct fire support weapon it packed an awesome HE punch, but the low velocity of the ammo made it next to useless in the anti armour role and the M60A2 was a MBT.
KomissarBojanchev- Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 27
Location : Varna, Bulgaria
- Post n°162
Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:
KomissarBojanchev Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:40 am
TR1 wrote:M60A2 was the space tank, looked amazing but left service pretty fast.
As Sa'iqa- Posts : 398
Points : 332
Join date : 2013-06-01
Age : 30
Location : Western Poland
Sparky 
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-01
yep!As Sa'iqa wrote:Sparky
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering.
I'm hoping someday this changes. These 60+ ton German uber tanks tanks are expensive.
Just make the tanks smaller and use the money you saved to buy systems like APS, DIRCM, IR camo, etc.
I'm hoping someday this changes. These 60+ ton German uber tanks tanks are expensive.
Just make the tanks smaller and use the money you saved to buy systems like APS, DIRCM, IR camo, etc.
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
Well You can't say M60 was mediocre tank. Or tanks before it. In their days they were only second to Soviet tanks.Zivo wrote:Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering.
And there is not much left out of German engineering in Abrams these days.
It's already changing. Abrams tanks aren't that expensive, and USA has tons of them already. I'm sure that T-90MS isn't cheapest tank in the world too. Both of these tanks reaching limits of upgrading.I'm hoping someday this changes. These 60+ ton German uber tanks tanks are expensive.
New M1A3 could be lighter by few tons or more. Lighter armor, hydro-pneumatic suspension, fiber optic cables will help with that. Gas turbine will be likely replaced by diesel engine too.
But still I wouldn't say they are uber tanks and in tank engagement with equal tank nothing could really guarantee it's safety. But state that they are useless garbage is understatement. Russia wouldn't be making improvements in their arsenal how to defeat western armor.
Technology is here. APS, IR camo, everything was tested. Their implementation wouldn't be hard and they are already proven systems. Most likely they will come in A3. AN/VLQ-8A is already being used as optical jammer. USA is not leading in those so don't expect miracles.Just make the tanks smaller and use the money you saved to buy systems like APS, DIRCM, IR camo, etc.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
German main gun, and British Armour.... and now Belgian FN MAG coaxial MG...Unfortunately, US tanks with the exception of the M1 have been mediocre. The M1 itself also leans heavily on German engineering.
It was very tall and didn't have the best armour... and it had a British gun.Well You can't say M60 was mediocre tank.
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
The gun is made in US and they already have new domestic 120 mm to choose from. Newer German designs are on market, but I'm sure they don't have such strong lobbyist as american manufacturers. Armor is not the same as British armor anymore. It went different paths years ago. Not sure if it is more advanced than current British armor, could be weaker but lighter. Machine gun doesn't matter as much as transmission, suspension, electronics all the guts are American. Some countries who try and succeed making tanks have all the guts from different manufacturers.German main gun, and British Armour.... and now Belgian FN MAG coaxial MG...
And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world.It was very tall and didn't have the best armour... and it had a British gun.
etaepsilonk- Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19
"And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world."
Regular, you forgot British
Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
Regular, you forgot British
Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
British tanks have generally either be under gunned or have a rubbish engine or both. the Centurion and Chieftan was good tanks, and the 105mm is a very good gun, but currently the British tanks are Iranian.Regular, you forgot British Smile Centurions were pretty much on par with every contemporary Patton version, and Chieftan for some time was considered to actually be the best Western tank.
And the plan to upgrade their firepower is to go with a German tank gun.
Saying the Soviets and Russians were ahead of the west in tank design is not to say western tanks are crap, but the T-90AM would be directly comparable to any western tank yet 15-20 tons lighter, and cheaper.
The T-84, like the T-90MS is based on Soviet tank designs and both pretty much for export only... though the chances of mass production of the Russian vehicle is significantly higher than for the Ukrainian vehicle.
to export the T-84 they first have to build a factory to make them in.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Chieftan had serious mobility issues, and armor wise was hopelessly antiquated when Soviet composite armored vehicles came out.etaepsilonk wrote:"And only tanks better were.. Soviet tanks. Russians were almost generation ahead of the rest world."
Regular, you forgot British
Pugnax- Posts : 85
Points : 72
Join date : 2011-03-15
Age : 60
Location : Canada
The Chieftains super thick armour and excellent gun more than offset the low mobility and speed issues in that it perfectly suited the defensive doctrines of the BAOR of the day.With some of the best trained crews in armoured warfare history Chieftain was never at a disadvantage except for transit issues(bridge crossings,rail transport). I believe it was a defensive vehicle ,very much akin to the Israeli Merkava series,not suited to high speed mobile battle but certainly capable of stopping one.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
The Chieftan's super thick armor was ancient compared to contemporary Soviet composite arrays. The Brits needed to put on some crude applique arrays to make the tank at all viable.
Also T-62 (wich MUCH superior mobility) had no problem dueling with Chieftan...and it did not even composite armor. They got both knock each other, but its obvious which was a better mainstay.
Like you said it was made with defensive battles in mind, and it can't be faulted too hard for being awful at mobility.
Also T-62 (wich MUCH superior mobility) had no problem dueling with Chieftan...and it did not even composite armor. They got both knock each other, but its obvious which was a better mainstay.
Like you said it was made with defensive battles in mind, and it can't be faulted too hard for being awful at mobility.
Pugnax- Posts : 85
Points : 72
Join date : 2011-03-15
Age : 60
Location : Canada
I have always believed in T-62.especially the upgraded m version with horseshoe armour,skirts and laser rangefinder...was there an atgm for the U5TS?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
T-62M had a 115mm upscaled Bastion I think.