Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

The number of sensors and threat counter-measure systems on some of those vehicles is staggering.

A view from the top:


subir fotos gratis

ORIGINAL: SKeeM

I gotta say they are all very impressive, I just hope President Obama and the rest of the Democratic party are watching.

More like, you hope anyone at all is paying attention. The failure to adequately support ongoing, effective, and sustainable systems development for the US military is a bipartisan thing. Not to mention the failure to adequately support the people who actually operate the equipment. Both parties have proven to be far more concerned about satisfying big defense contractors and donors than they are about actual force composition or suitability.

Politics aside, these systems are certainly impressive looking. I'm particularly interested, though, in how the two-man, remote-operated turret system works in combat. That seems to be fairly unexplored territory, though a logical development of the trends in Russian tank design extrapolated over the years.

The UK paper 'Daily Mail' has published some pictures of the T-14 on parade. From those I don't see any tank commanders standing in the turret, and that top view also makes me wonder if the T-14 turret is un-manned?

That would make the T-14 reliant on remote video sensors but would also mean that the crew were isolated from the turret and ammo, should the latter ever cook-off after a hit (not that T-72s have ever done that?)

Daily Mail link from TMP thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dware.html

More piccies from TMP thread:
http://lenta.ru/photo/2015/05/05/parad/#2

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

The UK paper 'Daily Mail' has published some pictures of the T-14 on parade. From those I don't see any tank commanders standing in the turret, and that top view also makes me wonder if the T-14 turret is un-manned?

That would make the T-14 reliant on remote video sensors but would also mean that the crew were isolated from the turret and ammo, should the latter ever cook-off after a hit (not that T-72s have ever done that?)

The BBC was reporting a while back, and CNN later, that the turret is unmanned and that the two man crew commands from an armored "capsule" of some sort.

Thanks, hadn't caught that.

There seems to be a big viewer next to the remote MG turret and that sensor looks like the Commanders panoramic sight on a Chally2 or M1A2.

looks good, but as everyone already knows, no good having a new tank if there's no money in the pot to train the crews in using them properly and keeping them working in the field either, 2000 of these won't tip the balance same as the T-90 didn't either, numbers will, not models or types, it's the crews and training which will win in the end, but having a good tank in the start does help...

ORIGINAL: zakblood

looks good, but as everyone already knows, no good having a new tank if there's no money in the pot to train the crews in using them properly and keeping them working in the field either, 2000 of these won't tip the balance same as the T-90 didn't either, numbers will, not models or types, it's the crews and training which will win in the end, but having a good tank in the start does help...

Why the presumption that the Russians won't have money for the training? As for now, despite the sanctions, Russia is steadily increasing it's defense budget. The Russian army has already improved a lot since the wars in Chechenya and Georgia. It's the western militaries that starve for money. Look what's happening with Bundeswehr, once a pillar of NATO. The sanctions may cause some hardships for the Russian population, but there will be enough money for the military, I'm pretty sure. It's a completely different mindset that the one in the west.

As to the new Russian vehicles, sure it's still a long time till they become fully operational. But what will be the situation in about 10-15 years? Do you think that the West will still poses an advantage in the armored vehicles? The best we can expect during the next decade, is the M1A3 and very few Leopards 2A7...

It's not neccessarily the upgrades of the vehicles or their armour - that tends occur slowly.

It's the evolution in ammunition. Will a Fin round in 2, 3 or 4 years be able to take out the intended target?

By the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=DeJzuo2TsfM

No way to move that thing...

Heh, looks like it might be stuck in gear or something.....

And this is how most likely the real turret looks like:


subir foto

Seems sort of similar to this, in concept. But bigger I guess.

Actually we already saw it designed as Object 195/T-95.


imagenes gratis

In the future they may equip it with a 152mm cannon.

Don't under estimate the Russians, history has repeatable shown that's a fatal mistake

Looking at it, the big thing being the turret, its much smaller that anything else around meaning a smaller hull down target, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a rapid change process to remove and replace the turret so if crew survivability has greatly improved that's a huge tactical advantage.

Very few people know for certain what sort of armour the rest of the hull is equipped with, given that ever major defence contactor has been hacked over the years its reasonable that its equipped with some of the latest western grown tech.

As to production well the Kremlin has shown its often will value defence spending over the needs of the people, unlike western countries where for the most part defence spending has rapidly declined as nearly every 'think tank' has analysed that the next threat will be another asymmetrical war against low tech/equipped forces (boy how stupid do they feel now!)

The tank will be around for years, the next big jump in killing power will be using rail guns mounted on tanks, the USN have trailed them and tech will get small enough to mount one on a tank in next 10 years I reckon

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the turret is, indeed, unmanned ... the three crew sit in the hull.

This repeats the major shortcomings of all previous eras of Soviet post war tanks from the T-62 onwards and actually makes them worse.

* The introduction of an automatic loader enabled them to cut crew from 4 to 3 ... but the complexity of the autoloader and other more advanced systems, not to mention the basic unreliability of the mechanics, has meant that there is now one less crew member to share ongoing preventative maintenance (or to help with manpower and muscle intensive tasks such as replacing tracks/track links). So serviceability has gone down, compared to western tanks.

* The autoloader on previous tanks and the cramped turret meant that it had a bad tendency to try and load the loader's arm ... which was obviously a 'bad thing.'

* How much space can there be in an unmanned turret with an autoloader ... in the T-62/64/72/80 etc the loader could at least clear jams or even load manually if the loader broke down or jammed. Will this be possible at all in an unmanned turret?

Sounds like it simply continues to propogate previous shortcomings ...

YMMV

Phil

Another article on them:

https://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalance ... ation-58ed

Good Hunting.

MR

Battlefield evacuation...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/ ... =worldNews

The video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJzuo2TsfM

Good Hunting.

MR

The Soviet project of new tank from 1991 (object 292):