The purpose of those hydropneumatic suspensions may be just to improve mobility. To adjust chassis elevation, I think all running wheels should be adjustable, like those Korean and Japanese tanks.
zhangmdev wrote:The purpose of those hydropneumatic suspensions may be just to improve mobility. To adjust chassis elevation, I think all running wheels should be adjustable, like those Korean and Japanese tanks.
Also its "footprint" is relatively short. And it has only 4 road wheels on each side. Changing hull elevation is relatively easy.
The new track system being tested on Bradley has identical suspension arms on all road wheels, and they are self-contained, no centralized hydralic oil reservoir used on S-Tank.
Also its "footprint" is relatively short. And it has only 4 road wheels on each side. Changing hull elevation is relatively easy.
It doesn't matter it is old it just shows why you don't need all adjustable wheels. Similar principle is used on T-14 so I don't see reason why you can't use adjustable wheels for smaller gun elevation.
If you replace hydropneumatic cylinders of the 2nd and 3rd road wheel of S-Tank with traditional torsion bars, will it still work? I don't know. If you are building the 21st century super tank, why not just go full hydropneumatic suspension and call it a day? Until T-14 definitely demonstrates its ability to change hull elevation/ground clearance, I am skeptical.
zhangmdev wrote:If you replace hydropneumatic cylinders of the 2nd and 3rd road wheel of S-Tank with traditional torsion bars, will it still work? I don't know. If you are building the 21st century super tank, why not just go full hydropneumatic suspension and call it a day? Until T-14 definitely demonstrates its ability to change hull elevation/ground clearance, I am skeptical.
weasel1962 wrote:CL, I agree. I also note Knowan's comment on lack of depression. The lack of depression is a function of a smaller silouette to reduce target size. It doesn't mean it can't do hull down.
I think it probably reflects the Russian view on defence that a tank would need more prepared positions, than just relying a natural crest for a hull down. That probably why many later Russki tanks have a dozer blade which I won't be surprised to see eventually on operational T-14s. The lack of the depression being I suspect offset by thicker front armor, whether turret or hull.
To increase gun depression, the tank needs to be taller = bigger target if not in hull down. Again its a question of trade offs rather than any real inferiority on the part of design which is more the point I'm making.
Speaking of the T-14, the T-14 and is too much for the Russian economy and the Russian military budget much like the Su-57.
They're only going to produce a couple hundred T-14s.
Every design has its compromises, no disagreement there. However with the introduction of highly integrated computerized target and acquisition sights, this has made the low profile design all but obsolete IMO. This is why I think the T-14 departed away from the low profile silhouette seen on the T-72, 80, and 90. During the Gulf War US Abrams devastated Iraqi T-72s with superior accuracy at long range and in terms of first round hits. To my knowledge the longest range tank to tank kill was scored by a British Challenger 1, almost 3mi if I remember correctly.
Design is often a reflection of tactical doctrine. Ever see training videos of western tanks on the firing range? During certain areas the tanks will fire over the crest of a mound or elevatation and then go into reverse. From my understanding this is sort of like a pop up and shoot. After firing the tank can safely hide behind the crest as the tank reloads for the next round. An old retired tanker acquaintance of mine said the Cold War tank design emphasized a more defense mindset.
Also here is an interesting explanation of the differences in reloading methods of the Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2.
underscan wrote:I know that Iraq had purchased some T-72M parts from Poland but did Iraq have any factories to produce Rha steel?
Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS. In fact even our T-72 clone (M-84, Kuwait use them) which had very advanced FCS for that time (western like compared to soviet FCS): http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m84/m84-suv.htm
wouldn't be much better against M1 because of weak round.
@charlielima223
They had to be pretty bold plan to get something like 2500 Armata in this decade and replace everything with them. That would cost a lot (10 billions just for tanks but much more for logistics and retraining). Also T-14 isn't for urban combat. T-90MS with APS is better and even older tanks if they don't carry ammo around turret and less rounds in autoloader (empty space could be filled with some kind of fire supresion solution).
underscan wrote:I know that Iraq had purchased some T-72M parts from Poland but did Iraq have any factories to produce Rha steel?
Iraq didn't have factories to produce T-72 parts at all AFAIK; the whole 'Iraqi produced T-72' thing started from the idea to assemble some T-72s locally from Polish knock-down kits, and it's unknown if any of those were even assembled.
milosh wrote:Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS.
Yep, 3BM-15 had little chance against the frontal armor of a M1; it would probably struggle even against a M60 at combat ranges.
3BM-15 had a small (about 70mm long) tungsten slug though. It was the older 3BM-9 that was steel only.
milosh wrote:T-90M upgrade look quite interesting they used T-14 tech (gun and fcs):
T-90M didn't get the T-14's gun in the end, it has the 2A46M-4 instead.
milosh wrote:Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS. In fact even our T-72 clone (M-84, Kuwait use them) which had very advanced FCS for that time (western like compared to soviet FCS):
Iraqi T-72s were totally inferior to M1s. Far inferior sights, FCS, armour and ammo. T-72 had decent mobility and was smaller but it really had very little chance. If Iraqi T-72s had to face Russian T-80Us with 3BM-32 rounds, the end result would've been pretty much the same. Of course Iraqi forces had to also face the wrath of overwhelming air power and superior ATGMs. I think Desert Storm tells us very little when it comes to comparison of vehicles between East and West.
Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:
I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...
boogieman wrote:Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:
I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...
I'm really not sure but maybe the 30 seconds figure means time-from-turning-on-to-firing. The AIM9X is more expensive/fancier, bigger and aimed at a hotter target against a sparser background than the Javelin.
15 Mar 2020, 16:20
