Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

Re: Russian military news thread

Black Shark said:

Because T-90 is already very well protected unlike T-84 which have an exposed autoloader, where the T-72 and T-90's have armored and capsuled autoloaders making them even more protected than ammunition storage of Leopard 2, Challanger 2, Leclerc,Ariete or any other tank which store next to the driver several rounds of ammunition between 8-20 rounds. Why designing something unnecessary when it is already decided which path will be followed?

Click to expand...

T-72 and T-90 do not have "capsuled autoloader" and all the ammo is stored with the crew. The current autoloader in Russian tanks is the reason why so many T-72's have lost their turrets... in Yatagan the autoloader is outside the fighting compartment and even has blow out panels so if it get's hit the crew has much higher change of survival.

Here is your "capsuled autloader" in action. Please learn the basics of the T-72/90 design before commenting.
[video=youtube;mTzobtVjqPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTzobtVjqPs[/video]

Re: Russian military news thread

Broccoli said:

T-72 and T-90 do not have "capsuled autoloader" and all the ammo is stored with the crew. The current autoloader in Russian tanks is the reason why so many T-72's have lost their turrets... in Yatagan the autoloader is outside the fighting compartment and even has blow out panels so if it get's hit the crew has much higher change of survival.

Here is your "capsuled autloader" in action. Please learn the basics of the T-72/90 design before commenting.
[video=youtube;mTzobtVjqPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTzobtVjqPs[/video]

Click to expand...

It is you that should learn how tanks work and what happens to a T-72 will even in more likelyness happen to Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Lerclerc etc pp, they do not have any armored plates around the ammo storage which is exactly next to the tank driver. One single hit right to such storage and the turret flies, on T-72 the autoloader is not just protected by main armor but also by armor plates which keep fragmentations, spalls and other hot stuff away from it when the armor is penetrated, meaning only a direct hit into the autoloader through the armored plates can cause that unlike on T-64/80/84s. It is always facepalming when people try to portray it like a blown up turret is caused by autoloader which is complete bullshit, it is not exclusive since 99% of all tanks have ammunition stored in the crew compartment, first learn where it is stored on all tanks and than come back and comment something about exclusive nonsense.

Re: Russian military news thread

Broccoli said:

T-72 and T-90 do not have "capsuled autoloader" and all the ammo is stored with the crew. The current autoloader in Russian tanks is the reason why so many T-72's have lost their turrets... in Yatagan the autoloader is outside the fighting compartment and even has blow out panels so if it get's hit the crew has much higher change of survival.

Click to expand...

The carousel system on Russian tanks make it the safest by design compared to any other tank. The problem comes when ammo is stored in the upper hull along with the crew. So, they plan to increase the ammo numbers in the carousel instead.

As for the top blowing off, it can happen to any tank.

This is a pic of the Abrams with the top missing.


The separation happened due to IED rather than internal ammo explosion, but just shows that if an OPFOR tank can penetrate and hit the ammo, the same can happen to the Abrams too.

Re: Russian military news thread

No bar it can't. Abrams uses a compartmentalized ammunition system. The only ammo in the crew compartment is being loaded into the breach otherwise the ammo magazine is only open to the crew compartments when the doors are open and the loader is grabbing a round and a set of guillotine doors separate the the two compartments the doors are only open for about a second when the loader places weight on the leaver the enemy would have to strike at that exact time. Otherwise the Blow off panels would prevent the spread the explosive force. If a Opfor tank hit the ammo which is in a magazine located in the back of the turret. The crew compartment and the turret ring would remain intact.
For what ever reason you choose to claim, the fact is in combat the T72 failed and failed spectacularly against western tanks and ATGMs including turret separation.
. T90 was meant to correct this with APS and improvements in armor for the intermediate period until the next great Russian tank design which was to be T14 armada which would have featured a totally unmanned turret. Isolating the crew from the Ammo and upping the protection, this hull would also be the basis for heavy IFVs, howitzers and other platforms and have a weight of 55 tons.

313230 said:

1800mps is not the physical limit, 140mm gun achieved 2000mps before and propellant can achieve +2km, the problem is efficiency and OTOH, the best velocity for DU is 1500-1600 while W penetrator works best at 1700-2000, adding velocity from that point is not efficient, because remember, energy requirement raises with squared velocity. The muzzle velocity should increase a little to compensate the drag.

There are some techs that can raise gas velocity, by using lighter gas. The use of hydrogen can raise velocity to 5km/s, light gas gun can reach +10km/s in lab

Current techs can provide 360 against HEAT at very low weight, passive armor as low as 50kg/sqrm, 30cm in thickness can protect agasint 500mm shaped charge, and that tech is for sell from big company. Tech that is not for sell can be better. At this point, it is very easy to design light weight vehicle against shaped charge. So the only tech for reliable penetration of future armored vehicle is large caliber KE penetrator, this requires big gun or big missile. And even there are techs that can defeat KE penetrator at very low weight. If you combine all the state of the art techs, e.g. APS, the tank is quite indestructible.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, you talk for the 140 tested for eventualy armed Leclerc and Leo 2 ?

The 140mm was also tested on the Abrams. And the Russians have been rumored to have looked into there own monster gun in the 152mm smooth bore high velocity cannon on the T95 concept tank. The MBT70 had a similar caliber cannon. In all three cases though nothing more than a prototype.

Number for Leo 2 A5/Str 122 A6/A7 :

There are modernized variant of A4 no new tanks for germany and NL except A7+ mainly better armored turet with a front forward V-shaped and its roof in more better electronic, defensive system...

Germany : 350 A4 upgraded in A5 and after 160 A5 upgraded in A6 in more 65 A4 upgraded in A6 and 20 A7+ ordered.
NL : 180 A4 upgraded in A5 and after upgraded in A6
Spain : 219 A6E
Greece : 170
Chile : 132 A4 in A4CHL no upgrade armor but 120/55 c.
Sweden : 160 Str 122 about equivalent A5 but a little different.

Chili have 172 Leo 2A4 modernised with a 120mm/55 cal, electronic, roof and turret armor reinforced,

Click to expand...

Finaly i am no sure i see on wiki spanish :

actualizados a una versión denominada Leopard 2A4CHL (en la que, entre otros, se añadió la actualización de la planta MTU para su uso a grandes alturas, junto a nuevos equipos de comunicación) y adaptado para el desierto

Click to expand...

If somebody knows more ? and would be 132

Tank used by Scandinavian countries have a turret electric drive instead of the hydraulic system that it does not freeze in cold weather.

[video=youtube;Bxoent7lXfI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxoent7lXfI[/video]

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I agree, but there is still one question I have. Tank Guns are not just used for Armor Piercing rounds. they are also used for guided missiles, Anti Personnel canister rounds and high explosive shells which still have to be proven on a railgun. there are also going to be conventional guns for some time and possibly alternative gun technologies. Coil guns are said to be being looked at for Mortar systems by DARPA. a ram accelerator round might equalize a conventional to rail gun battle. so could a combustion light-gas gun or a scram cannon or electrothermal-chemical technologies which could be more of a hybrid.

Click to expand...

As weapons evolve tactics evolves with it.
I don't know about guided missiles but anti personnel canisters and /or high explosive shells can be handed on to other mobile artillery mechanism as tanks sheds their most heavy armor to obtain better mobility. I believe rain guns are also considering a shot gun type shells.

FORBIN said:

Tank used by Scandinavian countries have a turret electric drive instead of the hydraulic system that it does not freeze in cold weather.

Click to expand...

Electric drive has the added advantage of not exploding when hit.