|
MrChips posted:Two thoughts; first, how many of those laser turret thingys are going to get fouled in stuff/broken off under low things? Second, there's three of those tanks in the picture...what percentage of the total production run do you think we're looking at? I'm going to say 25% I think you overestimate how often tanks drive through buildings in real life(i.e. never, if possible) vs the movies.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
MrChips posted:Second, there's three of those tanks in the picture...what percentage of the total production run do you think we're looking at? I'm going to say 25% Same as always, they'll boast how X is the best loving X in the world, claim the west can't stand against X, make less then 75 of X, immediately fall back on Soviet Union era equivalent of X, sell most of X to India, and then finally bitch about how India doesn't know what it's talking because they got export version of X when they have less then favorable things to say about X. You know, per the norm. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I think you overestimate how often tanks drive through buildings in real life(i.e. never, if possible) vs the movies. Of course it's never. On the other hand how many times do you think a tank might encounter a scene like this:  Seeing as that Russian tank is something like 13-15 feet tall, I would imagine that hitting something overhead in an urban enviromnent is a constant worry.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:The sensor pod mounted on the turret roof is pretty much universal these days on MBTs. I'm guessing the panels on the turret are sensors for the APS, probably AESA radar. There are also a pair of obvious cameras on the edges. The thing looks wrong but i think that's mainly because we are used to tanks with manned turrets, if the hull is comparable to a T-72 that thing is tiny as hell. SUPPOSEDLY its actually pretty much a Western MBT in terms of dimensions. Its a weird loving tank for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:SUPPOSEDLY its actually pretty much a Western MBT in terms of dimensions. Its a weird loving tank for sure. I took the image into a random paint program and took a look at dem pixels, the cannon bore is between 24 and 25 pixels (Only thing i had a known size for). The tank from turret roof to treads, discounding R2D2, is about 440 pixels tall. That gives me a height of about 2200/2300mm, or 2.2/2.3 meters if the thing packs a 125mm. Given that a Leo 2 is 2.65m to the turret roof and a T-72 is 2.2m that's definitely not Western MBT size, even discounting the narrow turret profile.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
I know I've mentioned ITT that 30mm turret they want to add to the Stryker (its more of a big RWS), the 2nd Cav in Germany have been given approval on a plan to modify 81 of their Strykers to carry a 30mm. http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/germany-based-stryker-brigade-gets-provisional-ok-for-more-firepower-1.344102 AFAIK it doesn't protrude into the cabin at all and should be compatible with the current RWS internals (I think both are Rhinemetall?), so here's hoping it doesn't turn into a dumpster fire.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I took the image into a random paint program and took a look at dem pixels, the cannon bore is between 24 and 25 pixels (Only thing i had a known size for). The tank from turret roof to treads, discounding R2D2, is about 440 pixels tall. That gives me a height of about 2200/2300mm, or 2.2/2.3 meters if the thing packs a 125mm. Given that a Leo 2 is 2.65m to the turret roof and a T-72 is 2.2m that's definitely not Western MBT size, even discounting the narrow turret profile. The Abrams is about 2.45/8.5 feet tall? So that would mean this is about 1 to 1.5 feet shorter? I think the interesting thing is how narrow the turret is since its just armor and machines. Compared to the t-90 it either weights less for the same amount of armor or if its the same weight it probably got significant more. Surprised they didn't up gun it even more.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
The turret may be a bit narrower but it is much taller. Remember that much of the visible turret width on the T-90 and current gen T-72s is just a frame for angled ERA plates. In this case they seem to be switching conformal plates like the Ukrainians and Poles have been.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The turret may be a bit narrower but it is much taller. Remember that much of the visible turret width on the T-90 and current gen T-72s is just a frame for angled ERA plates. I wouldnt be shocked if that thing gets additional ERA slapped on since it doesnt seem like the base has ERA built in.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Same as always, they'll boast how X is the best loving X in the world, claim the west can't stand against X, make less then 75 of X, immediately fall back on Soviet Union era equivalent of X, sell most of X to India, and then finally bitch about how India doesn't know what it's talking because they got export version of X when they have less then favorable things to say about X. You know, per the norm. On the other hand, the Russians actually nutted up and made a robotic turret c'mon General Dynamics, where's out skynet abrams
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The turret may be a bit narrower but it is much taller. Remember that much of the visible turret width on the T-90 and current gen T-72s is just a frame for angled ERA plates. Also, I dont think the turret is as big as we all think. On that specific picture, the perspective seem to make it larger. Look at the first picture on this link, the turret actually seems small compared to the M1 or Leo. Seems smaller than even the Leclrec? And they built at least 7 of them per the picture further down! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-hardware.html
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:c'mon General Dynamics, where's out skynet abrams it got canceled Hot take: this is the 21st century equivalent of building a bigass battleship in the 1930s.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
We can't allow a robotank gap
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:I wouldnt be shocked if that thing gets additional ERA slapped on since it doesnt seem like the base has ERA built in. It's hard to know for sure since that is a radically different turret from everything we've seen thus far. Someone else might know more, but if I had to guess: judging what looks like the presence of pre-installed roof tiles, the turret face is either solid armor or without the panelling, but the pure shaping seems like adding panels to that will be moderately difficult. I'd say they may have gone the route of full composites, maybe even DU insets, to allow the tank a bit more staying power that ERA doesn't really have. If you look at the gun as well, it seems to have more capability for depression the the T-64/72/80. Also consider that without a crew back there, there is a TON more available internal volume. There's a few possibilities here that we just can't tell from 1 parade photo. As for not upgunning, the T-95 was supposed to mount a 152mm along with a 30mm coax, but I assume they found the 125mm 2A82 was a significant enough improvement to not need to completely change calibers (or that the 152 was an awkward piece of poo poo).This is similar to the 120mm L/44 vs L/55 from what little I've read about the the 2A82. One of the biggest difference makers will be if the autoloader has the capacity to handle longer ammo then the T-80 and 90s, since I've read they were running into problems with length, and that's one of the biggest components of penetrating power in APFSDS rounds. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:00 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:Also, I dont think the turret is as big as we all think. On that specific picture, the perspective seem to make it larger. Look at the first picture on this link, the turret actually seems small compared to the M1 or Leo. Seems smaller than even the Leclrec? It's actually much larger than it looks from the front. The turret is a bit thinner than the T-72 but also a bit longer. It looks like the ERA may already be on the tank, but it's hard to tell. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:c'mon General Dynamics, where's out skynet abrams   
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
That's just the experimental auto-loader variation design by the people who made the Dragon Fire mortar system, I highly doubt we'll see anything from that project incorporated into the actual M1A3.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
That thing is like nearly 30 years old by now. It was built for CATTB trials IIRC and that was in like 1987.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
  Looks like things in Yemen are heating up. Wonder where they dragged those two from.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
Christ, both of those are WW2 vintage.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Straight outta 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
The T-34 doesn't surprise me too much. The Su-100 (!?) though... Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Is a T-34 vulnerable against RPG-7s?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is a T-34 vulnerable against RPG-7s? Oh without a doubt. Some quick wiki'ing gives the heaviest armor on a T-34-85 as 90mm, while an RPG-7 is listed as blowing through 250-750mm of RHA, depending on the warhead. Arrath fucked around with this message at 21:53 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is a T-34 vulnerable against RPG-7s? It'll hit the front armor, penetrate, and then still be capable of going through 180mm of steel. With the shittiest AT rounds that an RPG-7 can fire.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
So in other words a T-34 is a deathtrap going up against anything heavier than carbines/machine guns? Although I'm guessing anything above 7.62 might be problematic as well... I was wondering how useful WW2 era armored stuff would be in a third-world conflict, but given that RPG-7s aren't exactly rare it seems the best they could do is intimidate civilians.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is a T-34 vulnerable against RPG-7s? The T-34 was vulnerable to World War II-era anti-tank weapons. The RPG-7 was made after that. A gunner with an RPG-7 would see any World War II tanks up to and including the Tiger and treat it as a free kill.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
david_a posted:So in other words a T-34 is a deathtrap going up against anything heavier than carbines/machine guns? Although I'm guessing anything above 7.62 might be problematic as well... An M2 would need SLAP ammunition (.50BMG SLAP is rated at 34mm penetration at 500m, more, closer up,) and be shooting at the sides, top, or rear, from close range, to have any chance at real damage to a T-34-85, and even then, it'd be a coin toss for penetration. With .50BMG ball, you might break optics, damage the commander's gun, trash the crew's exterior-stored equipment, etc, but mostly you'd just piss them off. The Chinese have started making some saboted 14.5x114mm ammo that has approximately similar performance to US .50BMG SLAP, but who knows how common it is. Not a lot of KPVs probably laying around to fire it, either. Plus, if you don't HAVE any RPGs (no, they're not rare, but every guy with an AK generally isn't carrying an RPG as well,) even a broke-assed T-34 can ruin your entire day.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
david_a posted:So in other words a T-34 is a deathtrap going up against anything heavier than carbines/machine guns? Although I'm guessing anything above 7.62 might be problematic as well... They're basically self propelled artillery with machineguns. Anything even remotely modern made to kill vehicles will gently caress any WW2 tank right up, but in the meantime you can still sling HE and MG the gently caress out of things so your buddies in boots can be slightly less ineffective.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
I found a blog with what looks like a good roundup of the remaining T-34s in the world. Looks like Africa is the true "winner." And yeah, there probably aren't that many RPGs floating around some of those places.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Christ, both of those are WW2 vintage. There is a T-34-85 and an IS-3 in the Ukraine right now that served as monuments for 70 years until someone discovered that peasant conscripts don't do a good job disabling equipment, so they were quite functional, despite decades of abuse from the elements. The IS-3 was used in combat as a remotely operated machinegun platform, the T-34 has not seen combat yet, and probably never will now that there is a ceasefire. The T-35 in Kubinka started up just fine without repairs (although there was a lot of grumbling from historians) and drove off to restoration by itself as well. If you had a warehouse of WW2 tanks that were sealed up properly for storage, you could very easily bust them out right now for fighting an enemy that only has small arms and heavy MGs. Even using them for indirect fire is much better than whatever improvised catapults you see coming out of Syria.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
RPGs have come into Africa in bulk for decades now, it's just that not much good is done with them, and that a lot of those rounds are now old old old. Remember that in the Sudan civil war they were popping off older model theater ballistic missiles just for the hell of it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Even using them for indirect fire is much better than whatever improvised catapults you see coming out of Syria. What about these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmitj55W5y0
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:23
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:What about these? What is propelling that? Hydraulic press?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Even an old rear end T-34 is still a credible threat on a modern battlefield, it may be old but it's still a tank, and you still need a proper antitank weapon to dispose of it. If you're not fighting other tanks with it really the main issue compared to a modern one is going to be optics and situational awareness, and MAYBE being able to take an old ATGM to the front arc. If the crew can communicate and coordinate with infantry it can play infantry fire support nearly as well as anything else. You have to remember than even old RPG-7 warheads can be a threat to basically any tank prior to composte armor/ERA even from the front (IE anything before M1A1/Leo2A4/T-72B) and a side hit would be able to take out anything but the latest and greatest. The main defense versus RPGs isn't armor, it's distance, you're pretty much safe after 400m or so and that's in the hands of a trained operator. Any tank is in mortal danger in cities without very closely coordinated infantry support, that's not exclusive to T-34s or to the T-72s you see getting blown up constantly. It's just that the people who run those tend not to have the training and support they need to be effective.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
That Works posted:What is propelling that? Hydraulic press? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:What about these? I love the last round, didn't do as much damage, much more subued takbir "It's alright...I guess. Allahu ackbar, yeah."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
That Works posted:What is propelling that? Hydraulic press? Since it has a muzzle flash, gonna guess it's a gunpowder charge. There's a lot of small variations, like this one that loads the entire bomb into the tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVy22fOj-0
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
More pics. T-14 Tank      T-15 IFV 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:An M2 would need SLAP ammunition (.50BMG SLAP is rated at 34mm penetration at 500m, more, closer up,) and be shooting at the sides, top, or rear, from close range, to have any chance at real damage to a T-34-85, and even then, it'd be a coin toss for penetration. With .50BMG ball, you might break optics, damage the commander's gun, trash the crew's exterior-stored equipment, etc, but mostly you'd just piss them off. A 14.5mm round has almost twice the propellant charge and energy of a .50, and yet it has only similar performance?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 02:49
|
|