Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Okay A lot to cover here but each needs some covering

First the Rivets. Rivets and Bolts are not widely used in Tank building as a rule. why? because Bolts break and Rivets pop under extreme impacts. In World war 2 Italian tanks were known to be riveted it was said that on impact they would come apart This is why Some argue that the Turrets are mockups.

Click to expand...

The rivets there are not part of the armor but just rivet this sheet of metal to surround the turret core which again is just this gun with just enough armor to protect from 30 maybe 40mm Autocannon fire, not much more there. Weights less than 10 tons, while the T-90A turret already weights 14 tons just little bit less than basic M1 Abrams turret with its 15.5 tons.

The turret isn't finished and certainly they did not want to show the ugly lot of angle looking turret core to be showing to the public so they made a casing for it that looks nice to some...not me.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

A couple points here 1st the Turret of T14 is supposed to be unmanned, To operate a unmanned turret you need a Auto loader. Russian Tanks have used Auto loaders for decades. the optics and targeting systems again been there for decades remote weapons that can be operated by remote again been there for decades All of this is there fore existing technologies already at it's base found in Tanks like the T90. but with one critical change, The Crew is in the hull. with the crew the most important part of the tank in the hull the turret does not need as much protection. in fact all it needs is a Shell to keep sand debris out, and there is a very good reason to keep the turret light as possible. Weight. by keeping the Turret thin and bare bones the Tank's weight and performance can be optimized. And what we see in Armada is a tank turret that seems paper thin focusing it's protection and using Active defense system.
...
The critical change is the placement of the crew. by moving the Crew to the Hull the Turret no longer needs the protection it once held. but because the T90 and older Russian Tanks were already largely automated the tanks turret does not need all that much change. infact alot of it is just updating and deleting some unneeded parts. I mean a unmanned turret does not need a Air conditioner, The Hull does. moving a snorkel to the hull for the crew and engine. as well as all the interfaces and controls.
Basically all the Turret it is Sensors, weapons, auto loader, ADS, turret motors, maybe a fire suppression system and some hatches for maintenance...

Click to expand...

I can not aggree with you on this point. The problem that tanks face has been very well documented in Israeli wars where over 60% of tank hits have hit the Turret and 30% the upper hull rest was lower hull and tracks.


Meaning if you have a turret that can't withstand a basic RPG but the most of the time of hits you will recieve will end up destroying your Firepower capability, you will end up being useless on the battlefield. Yes it has APS system, but APS will never be 100% effective and it just a LAYER of the several layers defense russians always use for their tanks. The tank right now weights around 50 t with almost no weight of the turret while the tank has an engine with 1500 hp which is with 50t weight freakish 30 hp/t that is massive compared with 21.3 hp/t of T-90's or most other tanks that have less than 25hp/t, meaning there is enough space upwards in weight you can mount on it. The turret is expected to become similiar to the testbeds that were made before T-90MS or Burlak turret, with clamshell look for the front arc and Side ERA tiles.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Russians and the Us are two very different models of military power and two different mind sets of military battle. The US has been operating against different models of insurgency and battles then those of the Russians. The US also has a different key strategic objectives and limitation. The US is on the America's it's closest neighbors are at best allies at worst in no condition to militarily threaten the US. The Us however is a Global Economic and Political and military Super power therefore it operates Expeditionary.
It deploys it's power from the sea and Air.
Russia's primary interests are it's neighbors, it has Nato who it considers a Threat and China both have powerful military forces. Russia has small ports but vast landscape much uninhabited. The Russian Fleet lacks the aviation assets of the USN and Although they have a good air force it's more defensive then the offensive power of the US.
Russian Insurgency war was on Russian boarders using military equipment of Russian Origin, being used by people trained by Russia. Vastly different.
It's logical that The Turret designed for T14 was going to barrow from existing designs as I pointed to earlier this is a evolution of there tank designs.

Click to expand...

Like one german said, Russia is undefeatable, but the US is not attackable due its geographic position.

Black Shark said:

The rivets there are not part of the armor but just rivet this sheet of metal to surround the turret core which again is just this gun with just enough armor to protect from 30 maybe 40mm Autocannon fire, not much more there. Weights less than 10 tons, while the T-90A turret already weights 14 tons just little bit less than basic M1 Abrams turret with its 15.5 tons.

The turret isn't finished and certainly they did not want to show the ugly lot of angle looking turret core to be showing to the public so they made a casing for it that looks nice to some...not me.




I can not aggree with you on this point. The problem that tanks face has been very well documented in Israeli wars where over 60% of tank hits have hit the Turret and 30% the upper hull rest was lower hull and tracks.

Meaning if you have a turret that can't withstand a basic RPG but the most of the time of hits you will recieve will end up destroying your Firepower capability, you will end up being useless on the battlefield. Yes it has APS system, but APS will never be 100% effective and it just a LAYER of the several layers defense russians always use for their tanks. The tank right now weights around 50 t with almost no weight of the turret while the tank has an engine with 1500 hp which is with 50t weight freakish 30 hp/t that is massive compared with 21.3 hp/t of T-90's or most other tanks that have less than 25hp/t, meaning there is enough space upwards in weight you can mount on it. The turret is expected to become similiar to the testbeds that were made before T-90MS or Burlak turret, with clamshell look for the front arc and Side ERA tiles.

Like one german said, Russia is undefeatable, but the US is not attackable due its geographic position.

Click to expand...

I don't think TE is saying that the entire turret is made of cardboard and unimportant. If I'm thinking what the t14 designers were trying to accomplish here, is that the 'sheet metal' exterior skin covers a smaller 'real' turret inside.

However because this tank doesn't need life support equipment/creature comforts within the turret itself, the designers were then able shave off a lot of weight by not armoring up the entire turret compared to what you would usually see in a typical size 'manned' turret.

Just based on the paper specs, I would imagine the t14 has excellent speed, acceleration maneuverability etc compared to the current mbts of the world while maintaining similar firepower and sophisticated sensors. The turret is basically a multilayered configuration and I'm guessing you can probably even attach ceramics or era blocks on the outer softer skin to make it even more potent.

Like I said earlier just strictly based on what I see on paper, the Russians may be on to something here.

Anyway based on my to totally layman non professional opinion I hope that made sense lol.

Kwa I couldn't have put it better. Parts of the outer shell are obviously not very thick compared to a conventional manned turret and we see that in the photos well others likely would be more structured for impacts. Also Shark considered slat armor. You point to the RPG threats which uses a form of HEAT warheads in Iraq and Israel and as far back as the Germans in the second world war tanks and armored vehicles used a simple way to defeat that threat consisting of welding or bolting on sheet metal. The RPG would impact on the sheet of extra metal and detonated the space between the sheet and the actual hull would prevent the Heat effects from neutralizing the tank.
We see on the Armada cage slat armor as well which shows the Russians are concerned about such things. This armor type is designed specifically for RPGs to catch them or alow they to prematurely detonate before hitting the hull.
As to the rivets I pointed to it as some might think that a sign of a Quick fix. I am not saying that it is however. The outer shell we are seeing is a layer of defensive materials this may include a ablative concept parts of the turret designed to break down on impact to neutralize the energy of enemy fire. As you said 60% of enemy fire goes at the turret of a tank and this turret shows a design that is meant to use a combination of armor and expendable elements to prolong the operational life of the turret under heavy fire well considering the fact that the crew is the the most critical part to protect.
Previous Unmanned tank turrets have been small boxes like that of the Abrams TTB but the US Army rejected that design they didn't reject it out of hand they went as far as to actually build a test bed for it. It was rejected first because the US army concluded after studying ammo cook offs in combat that it wanted to compartmentalize its armor in the bustle of the turret via a blow out system well the Abrams TTB would only allow a small amount of ammo to be stored there and would use a soviet style ammo store under the turret. Second it limited the view of the tank crew as observers something that today's technologies render mute. Third that the unarmored turret was easily defeated when engaged. And finally that any defeat of the crew compartment was likely to kill everyone inside.
Now in T14 we see a tank that has a similar mind set of wants a unmanned turret and encapsulated crew compartment the classic Russian ammo carousel autoloader. But the Russians have taken and addressed the issues that the US Army found fault with in the TTB.
Ps.
I still don't buy the Auto guns on the side of the turret however. They are a waste of space weight and ammo. They would also be limited in where they could be aimed. And how they could be used. Unless the Russians role a T14 with those out, I consider those hyperbole. That said the tanks that rolled down Red Square were obviously not final product or completely outfitted.

This thin metal casing around the core turret is there only to cover the core turret for the public views of V-Day Parade it is not ment to be armor nor it will stay that way. I also did not say anything about slat armor for the turret. The turret is small just one person can fit there along with gun mantled, optics and autoloader with few electronic systems. It can very easily get up armored to same level as any other MBT and still weight much less than any other turret. The weight for turrets comes because manned turrets are bigger and therefore need much more material to armor them to the same deggre which an unmanned turret could do with less than half the material but with the same protection level.

You can buy or not but the tank model with side armament of 2A42 Shipunov 30mm or GSh-23-6 gatling is the BMPT version not the TANK version. The cannon that is shown of the BMPT is not a 125 or 152mm but a 57mm autocannon which is not ready set but will be ready in next 3-5 years. The 45mm is already at its completion and could be installed soon. The expected weight of finished T-14 is around 54t maybe will come to 56t. So there is enough space in armor/weight above and it will still have 27.8 hp/t ratio with 54t.

Sure for a separate vehicle type based off the same hull but not the same turret. Mounting those auto cannons on the side of the turret fixes there horizontal arch travel to the turret meaning they can only fire at targets where the turret is already pointing. The function of secondary arms on a MBT is defense against infantry. To defend the tank against infantry you need something to fill the gaps in defense that role is the commanders weapons station which can traverse separately from the main gun.
For a BMPT based upon the same hull sure mount the extra auto cannons but it will not use a MBT turret.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Sure for a separate vehicle type based off the same hull but not the same turret. Mounting those auto cannons on the side of the turret fixes there horizontal arch travel to the turret meaning they can only fire at targets where the turret is already pointing. The function of secondary arms on a MBT is defense against infantry. To defend the tank against infantry you need something to fill the gaps in defense that role is the commanders weapons station which can traverse separately from the main gun.
For a BMPT based upon the same hull sure mount the extra auto cannons but it will not use a MBT turret.

Click to expand...

Of course it will be different turret. The current turret has an autoloader connected with carousel magazine for ammunition, if they install a 57x348mm cannon they will need to rearrange the carousel magazine to fit the ammunition of 3 types of ammunition with a bustle box for 30x165 or 23x115mm depending if 2A42 or GSh-23-6 and a 40/57mm Grenade Launcher and all that ammunition will need to have link or belt fed in boxes. That means the turret becomes lower and smaller while a bit wider than it is right now to fight all the guns with different elevation mechanism for each gun. So the 23/30mm can be elevaded up to engage big floor buildings against infantry or helicopters while the 40/57mm Grenade Launcher need big elevation for "artillery" trajectory against infantry behind cover or just to have enough range due the relative low pressure of Grenade Launchers.

Fourth submarine project "Varshavyanka" was launched in St. Petersburg

Actually proper construction rates.



The series so far, time from being laid down to launch:
B-261 - 39 months
B-237 - 31 months
B-262 - 24 months
B-265 - 14 months


Back to bottling my Grenache

T-14 Turret minus the shell?



Back to bottling my Grenache

Russian Marines Kick Off Live Fire Drills in Crimea

The marines will practice loading and unloading equipment from large landing ships, as well as firing artillery and learning to drive military hardware.


MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Up to 500 Russian marines from the are holding live fire exercises at a military paratrooper field in Crimea, the Defense Ministry’s Southern Military District’s press service said Wednesday.

“A large landing ship, the Novocherkassk, has been deployed to the Opuk [military field] with command staff, armored self-propelled vehicles, and marines who will participate in field assembly of missile troops and artillery in the Southern Military District,” the press service said in a release.

The marines will practice loading and unloading equipment from large landing ships, as well as firing artillery and learning to drive military hardware.

will then deploy from Sevastopol to the region of to complete practical tasks.

Earlier this month, NATO conducted training exercises with Romanian, Turkish and Bulgarian Navies in the Black Sea, while a tactical group of warships staged drills targeting decoy "enemy" bombers and ships.


Last week, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told RIA Novosti that Russia planned to deploy 10 strategic bombers and a large motorized infantry unit to Crimea as part of a large-scale snap inspection of combat readiness.

US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki said last week that Russia's military exercises in Crimea would "undermine securing a peaceful diplomatic resolution" to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

In March 2014 Crimea rejoined Russia following a referendum but the West did not recognize the results, claiming the vote violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Read more:


Back to bottling my Grenache

Russian Navy to Continue Anti-Piracy Mission off Coast of Somalia

Currently, Russia's anti-piracy mission is performed by the squadron of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

warships led by submarine chaser

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Russian warships have been carrying out the mission to ensure the safety of navigation in the Horn of Africa and Gulf of Aden since 2008.

MOSCOW, January 2 (Sputnik) — Warships and support vessels of Russian Navy will continue to perform tasks to prevent pirate attacks on civilian ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, Navy commander-in-chief Adm. Viktor Chirkov said Friday.

Currently, Russia's anti-piracy mission is performed by the squadron of Northern Fleet warships led by submarine chaser Severomorsk, which is expected to guide four convoys of various classes vessels through potentially hazardous areas.

"It is expected that 4-5 campaigns of [Russia's] Northern and Pacific fleets warships will be organized during the year in areas of increased pirate activity off the . To support the activities of these squadrons, additional vessels (tankers, rescue vessels) of all [Russian] fleets will be involved," Chirkov said.

The scheme of Russian warships actions in the Gulf of Aden will remain unchanged and will include the organization of the escort of civil ships convoys. The training for the inspection and anti-terror groups will be implemented at the permanent bases of the fleets, as well as at the of the Navy in St. Petersburg.

The struggle against in the Gulf of Aden is conducted as part of the 2008 EU Naval mission Atalanta and the NATO operation Ocean Shield launched in 2009. The latter, in addition to the primary task of combating piracy, is also expected to help countries in the region to launch their own measures against the threat.

Russian warships have been carrying out the mission to ensure the safety of navigation in the Horn of Africa and Gulf of Aden since 2008.


Back to bottling my Grenache