General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops like a cork.T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war winning ,crew saving tanks again.

Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog "chasin" his own tail methodology.Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset this.So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new army built for and served by Russians?While a 1985 soviet army could smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.Build the army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but has so well long deserved.

The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo
detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops
like a cork.

I would suggest any explosion powerful enough to lift the several tons of metal that is the turret would kill 100% of those inside the tank.

.If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
winning ,crew saving tanks again.

Hahahahahahaha... might interest you to know that neither the Centurion nor the Leopard 2 have ammo separated from crew positions and when penetrated in combat they will both blow their turrets too... the Centurion had a petrol engine!

The problems of the T-72s exploding violently when penetrated was the ammo that wasn't in the autoloader, it was the extra ammo carried by the T-72 in the crew compartment that was manually loaded into the autoloader in combat. The T-90 has been in combat in the 1999 invasion of Dagestan by Chechen rebels and I look forward to your posts showing a single destroyed T-90 with its turret on the ground next to it.

The Russian tankers had learned from previous conflicts in the Caucasus that if you don't carry the extra ammo in the crew compartment then any penetration will not lead to an internal explosion.

That is the reasoning behind the T-90 upgrade that adds an external turret bustle autoloader to add a further 20-30 rounds, which in addition to the armoured underfloor autoloaders 22 rounds means the tank will have 42-52 ready to use rounds.

T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel
unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.

Hahahahahaha... the real troops knew to leave the carousel unloaded? The underfloor armoured carousel that protected the main gun ammunition from the effects of any penetration of the front, side, or rear armour...
Where would they put the ammo that wasn't going into the autoloader? Would it be safer sitting it on their laps?

The crews knew the armoured carousel autoloader was the safest place to put the ammo and they didn't carry the extra loose ammo normally stored in the crew compartment.

Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.

Duh. The thing that makes any tank a death trap... highlighted by the turret being blown off from an internal explosion of ammo and fuel... is an internal explosion of ammo and fuel. Shifting all the available ammo to the armoured carousel autoloader will certainly leave the vehicle short of ammo, but has the effect of making it NOT a death trap because the penetration needs to hit ammo to make the tank go boom.

Also the T-90S is simply an export version of the Russian Armys T-90A.

Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or
more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour
them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.

Excellent solution... make tank bigger target. The problem all that extra space means extra armour to protect... empty space. Why?

If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
winning ,crew saving tanks again.

WTF would Britain or Germany know about war winning tanks?

Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt
would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog
"chasin" his own tail methodology

The T-72 was in service in the early 1970s and in comparison with tanks in service in other countries at that time is sacrifices nothing. Your suggestion of British or German tanks... lets compare the statistics of the T-72 compared to their contemporary British and German tanks shall we?

The German contemporary to the T-72 was the Leopard 1... clearly what did you call it? A dog that chases its tail? A tank that sacrifices Armour for speed? But surely the Germans wouldn't make that sort of mistake would they?

The British contemporary to the T-72 was the Chieftain tank... a tank known for its powerful main gun and heavy armour. Except that the T-72 had a more powerful gun and heavier armour and had a much more reliable engine... the Chieftains main weakness was its engine...

Funny that really. You claim the T-72 is under armoured, yet it was better armoured than a Chieftain, which at the time was considered well armoured. The 70mm frontal armour of the Leopard 1 makes it guilty of all the things you claim for the T-72 but you think the Russians would be better off with a German or British tank.

Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it
faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset
this.

Modern sights and modern turret speeds don't help overweight western tanks travel over bridges do they?

Most medium transport aircraft can carry a 45 ton tank. Only the half billion dollar C-17 or a heavy strategic transport can carry an Abrams.

So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript
asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new
army built for and served by Russians?

If you mean big fat westerners can't fit in Russian tanks... you are probably right but I don't see why this is important.

[quote]While a 1985 soviet army could
smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer
boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.[quote]

Actually they probably couldn't. The T-90 of today even in tiny numbers is better than the T-80 of 1985, and of course air defence has greatly improved since then. Also the numbers of Mig-29s and Su-27s would be less in 1985 than now, not to mention the difference in performance of MANPADS and ATGMs and of course artillery has moved forward too.
A modern digital R-27 AAM would be far more potent a weapon than any 1980s Russian or Western AAM.

The reality is that the old Soviet Army was certainly much bigger than the Russian Army is now, but the old system of three standards of readiness meant that only first line troops would actually be manned units with equipment, second line units would have most of its equipment but have a skeleton manning level and third line units would need a month to get manning and equipment levels to the point where they were functional forces.
The modern Russian Army structure greatly reduces force sizes but it is the third and second line troop units that are disbanded and the first line ready troops have actually been enlarged so when they are fully equipped with all new gear they will actually be better able to operate and act than Soviet forces. They will be more like NATO units of 1985 except their gear will be 21st Century.

Build the
army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but
has so well long deserved.

By buying Centurions and Leopard 2s?

Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you consider China,guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two
.

Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation ,so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and muslims oops we were wrong, politburo

Hanging hats on an old design, T-95 old ,new american tank will be out to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.

Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.

There is nothing wrong with the T-72 design as such, the real problem is the combustible propellent stubs the 125mm gun uses.
The solution is separating those propellent stubs from the crew compartment.
The solution is not found in a Leopard 2 because 120mm NATO rounds use one piece ammo with metal shell casings.
The solution is not found in post WWII British tanks that were in several ways not even superior to the contemporary T-54/-55 series.

Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.

Making tanks smaller so they are less likely to be hit is squandering crews?
At the time the T-72 entered service Soviet infantry were transported in BTRs and BMPs, while western troops were in M113s and trucks... or they walked. Who cares about whose people?

Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding
out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you
consider China

Right, and the Challanger and Leopard II are post cold war 21st C designs?
Please tell me what NATO country has a true 21st C tank... because most actually date from the early 1980s or before.

guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two

Why would China go west? Its economy is going well... invading a nuclear armed neighbour is not good for any ones economy.
Suggesting that Russia needs Cold War Soviet levels of military power is just silly and would lead to Russia squandering a huge opportunity.
They have managed to shed all the hanger-ons that just bludged and did little.
It has resources and land and enough of a population to get by... BTW western countries have a problem with an aging population too.

Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation

What reputation?
You have claimed Russian tanks are deathtraps and suggested they swallow their pride and copy British or German tanks.
I have replied that they got the lesson that combustible ammo stubs are dangerous in tanks, they cancelled T-80 production and development because the way the ammo is stored even though it is better armoured than early model T-72s it is more vulnerable to exploding when penetrated because the design of the underfloor carousel offers no protection to the propellent stubs.
The T-72 and T-90 design autoloader however does protect the propellent stubs from flames and sparks inside the tank from penetrations and makes the vehicles much safer in combat zones.
They don't need you to tell them to buy foreign... the problem has been identified and the solution is the topic of this thread... the T-90AM and the T-95.
The T-90AM will likely go into production, while the T-95 was deemed too expensive.

so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were
and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and
muslims oops we were wrong, politburo

Don't really understand what you are saying here.

Hanging hats on an old design,

With the threat of ammo inside the vehicle removed the T-90 is actually a very good tank. How old the design is is really unimportant. Look at the B-52. The job of the tank hasn't really changed in the last 50 years or so, so a brand new tank just for the sake of it is a waste of time and money.

T-95 old ,new american tank will be out
to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no
russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with
moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.

American tank will only engage third world country, Taliban IED blow up super merican tank. Tac air useless against IED, but very expensive for taxpayer in form of F-35. US force ends up killing more of the people it goes in to save than it goes in to kill.

Result poor country gets bombed and made poorer. Merican taxpayer spends lots more money but is no safer. People with dark skin die because the white man needs his oil supplies. And of course new industry created in the US around artificial limb development and production.

Should add the only "new" US tank had its funding cut and the next US tank will be the M1A3.

Anyone that can something similar from different countries...

Nakidka kits for Russian tanks and vehicles and cloaks for infantry reduce IR signature and radar and optical signatures all at once.

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

My question is that with that big screen attached to the side of Israeli vehicles... how do they see to drive?

Would be perfect against Javelin. Useless against everything else.

But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

My question is that with that big screen attached to the side of Israeli vehicles... how do they see to drive?

If you see the second video the top mounter IR masking camera can deliver full 360 degree black/white visual coverage to inside crew

But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

Nakidka is passive and is effective against radar and FLIR to reduce the picture. This Israeli system is active, so it need additional energy to work. If energy generator in vehicle is not strong enough, there could be a problem in working of other systems.Also how is this system effective against image intensifiers and radars?

But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

Nakidka reduces IR and radar signature, whereas this system seems to only operate against IR and it is likely much more expensive.

The main question is will it work against all IR frequency options (short, medium, and long wave IR sensors)... and of course the obvious problem will it also work against LLLTV or digital TV... especially when the target is moving?

If you see the second video the top mounter IR masking camera can deliver full 360 degree black/white visual coverage to inside crew

Except that the camouflage are limited to being displayed on fixed displays... what if one fails in combat?

Some info and pics on a new Russian tank engine (translated from Gur Khans blog)

The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

Cyberspec wrote:The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

Looks like its on the catalog , some specs on the new engine

http://chtz-uraltrac.ru/catalog/items/206.php

How does it compared on fuel consumption and other parameters compared to western counterparts ?

Austin wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

Looks like its on the catalog , some specs on the new engine

http://chtz-uraltrac.ru/catalog/items/206.php

How does it compared on fuel consumption and other parameters compared to western counterparts ?

Looks like it's comparable to the latest German diesel engines...

http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel-engines-for-wheeled-and-tracked-armored-vehicles/engines-for-heavy-vehicles/

Looks like it's comparable to the latest German diesel engines...

Which is rather impressive considering less than 2 years ago everything the Russians made was crap and they are 30 years behind NATO etc etc.

Very interesting looking at the above pictures showing the turret bustle from different angles.

The left side of the turret bustle is all ERA blocks protecting the side of the turret bustle, yet the right sight appears to have a large rectangular tool bin with three latches on it.

Would love to see better pictures of the turret bustle from above... those roof access hatches look interesting.

Thanks for those pics BTW Kratos1133...

Just to get the record straight

The US and Russian equivalent of tank versus tank of their respective generation were

T-72 was made to match US M60
T-80 was made to match US M1A1
T-90/90AM was made to match M1A2/A2 Tusk

Well technically no...

At the time the T-72 was being mass produced as a numbers tank the US numbers tank would probably have been the M48.

The Soviet equivalent to the M60 would have been the T-64.

Documentary on T-80

If smooth bore gun of T-80 tank can fire HE-Frag round against bunkers, fortification etc why do they specially need rifled bore to fire HESH round ?

Well the main reason why India went for rifled bore of Arjun was it could fire HESH round.

1 ) Does the missile firing ability of T-80/90 allows you to fire a missile at a target and the gunner goes about hunting for other target and fires a KE round , while the missile goes about doing it job or does the target against which the missile is fired needs to be lased and pointed at till it hits it which for a max range is 14 sec ?

2 ) What was West response to missile capability that existed since T-80 , I do not find western tank with missile capability why has west neglected this advancement ?

Austin,
can you tell what are the major difference between the Leopard 2A4 & 2A5 & 2A6?
TIA

Acrab wrote:Austin,
can you tell what are the major difference between the Leopard 2A4 & 2A5 & 2A6?
TIA

Acrab , this is a good site that would answer your question on Leopard
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Why is T-80 considered as non domestic tank? As I know they were also produced in Omsk, which is in Russia.