Russian army finally have a tank installed with a Panorama with a thermal imager in its own service after 20 years...
Youtube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtwC0Hk8jAY
If you want to download the clip for this historic moment...
It seems no new indexThis is T-72B4 I suppose?
As Kontakt-5 and Relict are in-build ERAs, I don't think it's just that simple. Previous modernization project (in which Relict was planned to be installed) was rejected due to high cost.I mean how hard would it have been for a dude with a blowtorch to remove the Kontakt-5 cassettes
It can be non-serial tanks so don't be that optimistic yetRussian army finally have a tank installed with a Panorama with a thermal imager in its own service after 20 years...
xeno wrote:This is T-72B4 I suppose?
Russian army finally have a tank installed with a Panorama with a thermal imager in its own service after 20 years...
Youtube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtwC0Hk8jAY
If you want to download the clip for this historic moment...
xeno wrote:No, T-90A hasn't panoramic sight with thermal imager since Russia can produce its own good TI until recently.
I believe those export versions of T-90 are installed with French products...
T72B3 do have upgraded autoloades as claimed (I suppose, upgraded for new AT shells with a longer penetrator)collegeboy16 wrote:any word if they got new autoloaders?
It all was the low intensity conflicts where tanks didn't fight another tanks.
Never heard of what. Typhoon is just a MRAP. I suppose it will be used by police and internal troops mostly, may be for supply convoys in the Army or a light brigade transportation, but still I never saw a Typoon-based IFV project.
It will be self-propelled AT guns, nobody would use it like tanks as the medium planforms are lightly armoured.
They supposed to be a successors of tank brigades.
This will be successors of motorised infantry brigades, most numerous and tactically-flexible.
And Tigr/Wolk based.
still its a pity that they didnt change the ERA. I mean how hard would it have been for a dude with a blowtorch to remove the Kontakt-5 cassettes, and another one with a welder to mount brackets with Relikt. You dont even need to have Relikt active elements- just the container.
Pardon my ignorance: what's this panorama sight? Is it not installed on the T-90A? Is it for commander use? Does it improve hunter-killer capability? Thanks and sorry for the incompetence.
It's a NATO piece of crap (the USSR never used it in reality, because needed it never). It is possible to make a vehicle with low velocity high-calibre gun, high protection and mobility - and it will be still a tank with just a different gun. Something like KV-2125mm guns firing sticks of nuclear waste
It's an indirect-fire piece of artillery with low protection, it isn't supposed to be used for direct fire often (only in case of a self-defence).A 120mm rifles gun mortar like NONA or VENA makes rather more sense and is likely cheaper.
I've heard about 3 universal platforms and even know people working on one of them (electrical part of it). Typhoon is one of MRAP concepts, no more. There are different MRAPs from many companies now, not one of them is officially chosen by now, as i know.You have heard of Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon?
Most of them, not all. Do you think a commanders jeep would be made on Armata platform too?In an Armata brigade all the vehicles will be armata based so the logistics train need only carry parts and spares for armata vehicles.
There will be no such a thing as kurganets MBT. It's too light for an MBT. here will be somekind of a self-propelled direct-fire gun. You can call it a light tank, but still it's not an MBT.A Kurganets brigade will have all Kurganets 25 ton class tracked vehicles, so MBT
Here's Typhoon. Boomerang is a completely different platform made by different company. It's looks like Stryker. I've seen it's prorotype irl, and I can't speak about it as it's secret now. Typhoon is not.Typhoon will be a 4x4 and 6x6 wheeled vehicle that might or might not be a shortened Boomerang design... hense sometimes Typhoon is called Boomerang-10 with the medium vehicles called Boomerang-25.
That's not a problem. Brigade's logistics would still be easier than now. Much more easier. Trust me, I'm a reserve officer with "military vehicles maintenance and usage" speciality. I know how much it takes to keep a unit's vehicles fit for service taking into the account there are more support vehucles than combat ones, most of them are on a special purpose platforms. No logistic issue is worth tankmen getting killed due to low protection of their vehicles without any benefit, except of "better logictics". Would you risk your life because of some guy in MoD thinks you don't need a MBT, but rather badly protected vehicle, because he don't want to spend money on more complex tech-support?If you start putting upgraded T-72s in these units then you have to add spares and support for different vehicles...
Don't know what are you talking about. What is APS?With Afghanistan APS able to stop APFSDS rounds
I've shown you what a Typhoon is. It's lightly armored MRAP truck basically.Tigr and Volk are modified SUVs. Typhoon will be an armoured vehicle with rather less windows an more weapons/armour.
"Net centricity" is US generals feature which means "look what kind of a cool staff we spent goverment money for, now we can dominate poor countries even more hi-techy". And motorised infantry division/brigade is a tactically flexible combined arms formation able for defensive and offensive operations due to its firepower, great tactical and not-so-bad strategic mobility. That's why this kind of unit is a staple stone of the Russian Army (and Soviet Army previously). The methods of command are not so important for it's tactical usage (only for the unit's effectiveness).their net centricity should make them very capable on the modern battlefield.
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Cyberspace is really efficient when it comes to propagating misinformation and disinformation...
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Cyberspace is really efficient when it comes to propagating misinformation and disinformation.
The horrible things that I have heard about stealth, AESA, and panoramic sights could only have ever been propagated via the cyberspace.
For a long time netizens of Key Publishing Forum, militaryphotos.ret, and ... were under the impression that each T/R element in an AESA was a separate radar, and they imagined that it was through that "characteristic" that AESAs attained their magical power to change lead into gold.
Now to the panoramic sights.
The sighting arrangement for tank commanders usually follows one of two usual alternatives:
1- One of the options is called a panoramic sight. Under this arrangement, the commander is "fixed" with respect to the turret, but the sight-head rotates. Examples of tanks that utilized panoramic sights were some models of T-34 and KV-1 of "WWII" fame.
Most professionals consider this an inferior option, but it is easier to integrate a panoramic sight in a design. It eats less of the design-resources pie, and with unmanned turrets, this may be a forced option anyway. Of course, with the unmanned turrets the outcome is not as bad, because the commander is in the hull.
2- Another option includes a cupola. Under this arrangement, the commander rotates with the cupola and the sight—independently of the turret. An example of a tank with a cupola is T-72 (sans suffixe), and its cupola has unlimited traverse.
Most professionals consider this the superior option, as it gives the commander better situational awareness, but it is harder to integrate a cupola in a design. It eats more of the design-resources pie.
For a long time netizens of Key Publishing Forum, militaryphotos.ret, and ... were under the impression that each T/R element in an AESA was a separate radar, and they imagined that it was through that "characteristic" that AESAs attained their magical power to change lead into gold.
It's a NATO piece of crap (the USSR never used it in reality, because needed it never). It is possible to make a vehicle with low velocity high-calibre gun, high protection and mobility
It's an indirect-fire piece of artillery with low protection, it isn't supposed to be used for direct fire often (only in case of a self-defence).
I've heard about 3 universal platforms and even know people working on one of them (electrical part of it). Typhoon is one of MRAP concepts, no more. There are different MRAPs from many companies now, not one of them is officially chosen by now, as i know.
Most of them, not all. Do you think a commanders jeep would be made on Armata platform too?
There will be no such a thing as kurganets MBT. It's too light for an MBT. here will be somekind of a self-propelled direct-fire gun. You can call it a light tank, but still it's not an MBT.
Here's Typhoon.
Boomerang is a completely different platform made by different company. It's looks like Stryker. I've seen it's prorotype irl, and I can't speak about it as it's secret now. Typhoon is not.
That's not a problem. Brigade's logistics would still be easier than now. Much more easier. Trust me, I'm a reserve officer with "military vehicles maintenance and usage" speciality. I know how much it takes to keep a unit's vehicles fit for service taking into the account there are more support vehucles than combat ones, most of them are on a special purpose platforms.
No logistic issue is worth tankmen getting killed due to low protection of their vehicles without any benefit, except of "better logictics". Would you risk your life because of some guy in MoD thinks you don't need a MBT, but rather badly protected vehicle, because he don't want to spend money on more complex tech-support?
Don't know what are you talking about. What is APS?
I've shown you what a Typhoon is. It's lightly armored MRAP truck basically.
"Net centricity" is US generals feature which means "look what kind of a cool staff we spent goverment money for, now we can dominate poor countries even more hi-techy".
You mean self-propelled guns? They were some kind of turretless tanks with a larger guns. Most of they were actually better in tank-hunting, than soviet tanks (until IS-2 and T-34-85). After the war they blended into a MBT concept mostly for a standardization.during WWII there were plenty of infantry support vehicles used by the Soviet Union that might have appeared in the west to be artillery but in fact were actually used as direct fire support vehicles
Air superiorty is a key. C4IR just make it easier to archive. And actually... I don't think there were great difference in numbers in Iraq, as there were near 500K NATO serviceman in the Iraq campaign, AFAIK. And Iraq forces were badly trained and motivated, not to mention their poor equipment (thanks to sanctions). NATO ground forces met near to no resistance to speak of, generally, with few exceptions. Do you know US Army managed to take Baghdad with just two BTGs? They just entered the city, made a few shots... there were no actual test of sophisticated C4IR. Nothing more that germans could archive in 1940's without satellites, ect.and their C4IR is the main reason for this success of a smaller force over a much larger one
You're right, too much offtopics. I've posted replies on some of the issues to those threadsWe have had a lot of discussion about the future of Russian armour in these threads
You mean self-propelled guns? They were some kind of turretless tanks with a larger guns.
Most of they were actually better in tank-hunting, than soviet tanks (until IS-2 and T-34-85)
After the war they blended into a MBT concept mostly for a standardization.
Air superiorty is a key. C4IR just make it easier to archive.
And actually... I don't think there were great difference in numbers in Iraq, as there were near 500K NATO serviceman in the Iraq campaign, AFAIK. And Iraq forces were badly trained and motivated, not to mention their poor equipment (thanks to sanctions). NATO ground forces met near to no resistance to speak of, generally, with few exceptions.
Do you know US Army managed to take Baghdad with just two BTGs? They just entered the city, made a few shots... there were no actual test of sophisticated C4IR.
Nothing more that germans could archive in 1940's without satellites, ect.
It has an a recoilless gun based on SPG recoilless gun design, which was used as a company/battalion level AT gun. It isn't an infantry support weapon on the first place, as future war was planned as a total nuclear war with the large tank clashes, not an assymethrical conflictThey did, but clearly with the entry of service of the BMP-1 they found larger calibre direct fire weapons were useful
it's just what Wehrmacht did 60 years earlier without net-centricity, and satellites, and radars, and economic sanctions. And against much more advanced opponents. Even Russia won a local war with Georgia in 2008 not having good communications and all sort of that things. It could do it better with that the Army have now, but still. This is how wars are won and lost.they avoided enemy troop concentrations and penetrated defences without what would traditionally be the required three to one numbers advantage.
It's a late-WWII and post-war soviet/russian doctrine. Rapid consentration of mobile forces followed by agressive combined-arms assault. Net-centricity is just a cool word which means good command and control over forces. Nothing new with it, actually.Mobile units, mobile artillery. mobile air power will make future Russian ground units rather more powerful than they ever were.
It has an a recoilless gun based on SPG recoilless gun design, which was used as a company/battalion level AT gun. It isn't an infantry support weapon on the first place, as future war was planned as a total nuclear war with the large tank clashes, not an assymethrical conflict
it's just what Wehrmacht did 60 years earlier without net-centricity, and satellites, and radars, and economic sanctions. And against much more advanced opponents.
Even Russia won a local war with Georgia in 2008 not having good communications and all sort of that things. It could do it better with that the Army have now, but still. This is how wars are won and lost.
Yes, there were no real-time video streaming missile cameras directly on Youtube, no cool led displays in HQ's, no push-to-talk radios on every rookie, but it worked not even bad for an 80s
TR1 wrote:http://vk.com/video133258345_168629951?hash=f7d7246a58fcd194
T-72B3 firing. Ain't no archaic hand loader in here!