Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Atmosphere wrote:
So the T-14 may be more or less free from the Su-57's "media mud".
By the way, as per request of the ministry of defense , the T-14 can infact be optionally manned (gunner) if the Turret is damaged.
GarryB and flamming_python like this post
Numbers from Germany that could very well be inflated, if not outright hoax
So the T-14 may be more or less free from the Su-57's "media mud".
By the way, as per request of the ministry of defense , the T-14 can infact be optionally manned (gunner) if the Turret is damaged.
LMFS likes this post
flamming_python and magnumcromagnon like this post
lancelot likes this post
The T-14's manual shooting mode could very well be just the gunner eyeballing gun from atop the turret while pulling a lanyard to the solenoid trigger, Napoleonic artillery style.
It won't!Atmosphere wrote:I didnt Say an entire manned section inside the tank.
But the ability to shoot it manually if needed.
How will that happen is up to UVZ.
Doing that would turn the human operator in to tomato paste, and make the T-14 turret in to an overpriced food processor. 
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 24 Screen16](https://servimg.com/r/4615113927/screen16.png)
magnumcromagnon wrote:It won't!Atmosphere wrote:I didnt Say an entire manned section inside the tank.
But the ability to shoot it manually if needed.
How will that happen is up to UVZ.
GarryB wrote:
This is supposed to be the T-14 turret with all the extra stuff removed... and their does seem to be a rather large roof hatch, which I used to think was for routine maintenance or repair if something got jammed or stopped working.
The side chute there to eject empty case stubs is right next to where the hatch is, so that area includes an autoloader to feed rounds into the gun and an ejector to throw the empty stub metal cases out sideways... would they have room for a seat and manual controls?
I mean if it was part of the design then it should be possible, but I would think massively redundant automatic systems would be better.
What do you mean it throws away the aim? The gun is slaved to the sight; the gunner operator's view of the target is never interrupted, unless you count the blink of an eye when the camera is shuttered off to prevent the muzzle flash from burning out the visual and thermal matrices of the sight as well as your retinas. Movement of the gun is not at all reflected in the reticle. What actually adjusts the reticle is the ballistic computer compensating after taking in telemetry from the laser range finding as well as the spatial corrections from the tracking gates. Just look at any videos of late cold war tanks shooting and you'd see my point.limb wrote:The main problems with autoloaded guns are 1) Gun must be at a specific elevation to be reloaded, which throws away aim and 2)No ability to remove already loaded round. What if the tank is carrying an HE shell but encounters enemy tanks which it can ambush? it has to shoot the HE shell in order to load an APFSDS, which would spoil the ambush.
The main problems with autoloaded guns are 1) Gun must be at a specific elevation to be reloaded, which throws away aim and 2)No ability to remove already loaded round. What if the tank is carrying an HE shell but encounters enemy tanks which it can ambush? it has to shoot the HE shell in order to load an APFSDS, which would spoil the ambush.
That's a good point. For one part rounds its possible if one has very strong fingers to pull the round by the protruding flange lip of the case stub. With two part rounds however, you would only be getting the propellant charges out, but not the projectile which would be stuck firmly in the chamber. The fit is so snug, it won't slide out by elevating the gun and letting gravity do the work. So not only is it impractical its impossible to replace an already loaded round in a two part ammunition system while in battle.GarryB wrote:
The 125mm gun the Russians use is a two piece round... it would not matter what sort of auto or manual feed system they used, you can't remove rounds manually except for in base sticking the big rod they use to clean the barrel down the barrel to push the projectile out.
Historically the tank that comes out on top in duels is the tank that spots and shoots his opponent first. Forget about tank sims, if you get hit by a large calibre projectile of whatever type or a missile its going to ring everyone's heads like a bell. You're not shooting back unless you already have your gun trained at the enemy, but you would be trying to back into cover while popping smoke. The tank is also not going to escape unscathed either: unarmored and exposed external equipment might get smashed, the gun, laying drives, and the optics might get damaged, or the tracks might be cut etc. In general, its far more advantageous to shoot first with whatever than to delay while you change to a more appropriate ammo type.GarryB wrote:
If you can't reload rounds why would you drive around with ammo in the gun?
If the tank is part of an ambush it would select the suitable ammo just before opening fire... if the tank is driving along it would leave its main gun empty because normal operation in a tank is not for the commander to say... hey gunner put any old shit shell in the gun you like... knock yourself out and then I will pick a target we can use it against when we find some bad guys...
Normally the commander would be spotting for threats and targets... having a shell loaded means the next shell could already be selected so firing the gun and reloading the next round can actually be rather fast because the autoloader does not need to rotate to the next available round before loading it...
I'd say take the shot anyways. Most Abrams crews are trained to fight with the commander up top his hatch - a HE-frag shell detonating point blank at the armor might not penetrate it, but might kill the commander and definitely injure everyone inside with the blast.GarryB wrote:
If the tank is engaging an ATGM team it has spotted 7km away and is lining up a HE Frag shell to ruin their day and an Abrams appears... the tank commander would probably cancel firing the HE round and reverse behind cover... the round could be fired in the barrel and a new round loaded and then move from behind cover to a new firing position and try to locate the Abrams again... call out both targets for other vehicles in the unit to engage too... someone else might get both targets.
In line and behind the breech. The access hatch is for maintenance or possibly reloading the ammo, though there appears to be a circular hatch behind the turret that is much more convenient to load rounds into, as you don't have to go up and down the turret. It could also serve as the pressure release mechanism if ever the propellant charges deflagrate due to battle damage.GarryB wrote:I would point out that the big roof mounted access hatch is in line with the gun, so if there is an autoloader in there I would not think there was much room for a seat and manual controls let alone room to manually load the gun, elevate and traverse it and fire it...
You have to question what sort of emergency or problem they could possibly have where they might need to manually operate the gun... I would think most of the time if the gun is not working and backup systems are not helping then your focus would be to get the tank and the gun to somewhere where it can be fixed and working properly.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 24 6d9YVER](https://i.imgur.com/6d9YVER.jpg)
lyle6 wrote:
The APFSDS projectiles are longer. The chamber throat has to be redesigned to accommodate the two projectile lengths.
mnztr wrote:
Will they be using the microwave charge ignition on the 125mm? Seems to make sense since it gives more power via homogenous charge detonation.
GarryB and LMFS like this post
And thats a shame because the T-90Ms bustle couldve housed an autoloader like the Leclercs or type 10's(with the extra ammo stored in a heavily armored box where the carousel originally was, and the crew can load the autloader with it) which can achieve an RoF of 12-15rpm compared to the pathetic 7-9rpm of the T-90 carousel autoloader. Carousel autoloaders should be relegated to the garbage bin of history, because they inherently have a much lower APFSDS penetrator length limit than a bustle autlloader as well as an inherently lower RoF because the shell has to travel a longer distance to the breach.lyle6 wrote:The Russian MoD also demanded that the T-90M carry 40 rounds. You know what UVZ did? They attached a bustle rack for the extraneous rounds. The crew can't access this ammo from inside the turret at all so for all intents and purposes it is irrelevant when in direct combat.
Nonsense. The Leclerc only manages 10-12 rpm and that's with unitary cartridges with a strengthened propellant case to handle the faster ramming action.limb wrote:
And thats a shame because the T-90Ms bustle couldve housed an autoloader like the Leclercs or type 10's(with the extra ammo stored in a heavily armored box where the carousel originally was, and the crew can load the autloader with it) which can achieve an RoF of 12-15rpm compared to the pathetic 7-9rpm of the T-90 carousel autoloader. Carousel autoloaders should be relegated to the garbage bin of history, because they inherently have a much lower APFSDS penetrator length limit than a bustle autlloader as well as an inherently lower RoF because the shell has to travel a longer distance to the breach.
Even if the T-14 can achieve 12rpm, thats pushing carousel autoloader design to the limit, while a horizontal bustle autoloader could most likely achieve 20-30rpm.
The fit is so snug, it won't slide out by elevating the gun and letting gravity do the work. So not only is it impractical its impossible to replace an already loaded round in a two part ammunition system while in battle.
The point is the tank that fires first dictates the pace of the engagement. The opponent can only react and its so much harder to make the right decisions while under fire, where any tactical mistake would be heavily penalized almost instantly.GarryB wrote:
I know the larger calibre naval guns have a degreasing propellent charge that is fired to clear the barrel and warm it up a bit for the standard rounds to be fired...
Certainly the tank that gets the first shot off has an advantage, but with APS and ERA able to deal with APFSDS then is it a huge advantage.... or should I say will it be decisive every time?
And rate of fire is not really a huge concern most of the time... after firing most tanks will move to a new position anyway, or will be monitoring the fall of shot to see if a follow up shot is needed.
The hatch to the side is the ejection port for the propellant stub.GarryB wrote:
Not sure what you mean by side hatch but I would think that top hatch is used for reloading and general maintenance...
I would expect loading would take place with the vehicle commander sitting in his seat in the hull selecting the round type on his console, while the driver gets the round out of its box and hands it up to the gunner standing on the hull of the tank with the roof hatch open placing the projectile and then the propellent stub into the autoloader to feed into the autoloader cell for the round with the commander identifying what type of round is going into each cell,
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6