Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man. (Read 198931 times)

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #660 on:** 12 November 2018, 15:07:44 »

But that's the average population, right?

I'd imagine that there's a maximum height requirement for being a tanker in Russia and their population is large enough that they can recruit a sufficient number of people of the right height.

worktroll · « **Reply #661 on:** 12 November 2018, 15:11:50 »

That was the Soviet way.

Uni graduate? Strategic Rocket Forces
Short? Armour
...
...
Still here ? Infantry.

See Suvorov's "Inside the Red Army". Great read; just remember it's how the author believes things.

Kidd · « **Reply #662 on:** 12 November 2018, 16:44:50 »

Quote from: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 13:07:23

The most you're gonna save is a ton or two of actual steel, and while that may make you lighter and smaller it's not by far the most expensive parts of the tank.

It IS true, relatively, that a smaller tank is going to be harder to hit at the same distance as a larger tank. With modern guns and FCS, that margin of difficulty is mostly a joke

A combat-loaded T-72 is about 45 metric tons, an M1 Abrams is about 60 tons, significant difference when it comes to mobility considerations.

And, well, the small silhouette idea was something started when FCS and gun stabilisers weren't as accurate as all that, and the Soviets put some stock into it.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #663 on:** 12 November 2018, 17:18:44 »

Fair point, though that also should point out the Abrams is a good 3 feet and change longer in the hull and I think wider as well. I'm thinking of 'taking the turret and making it larger' only really involving that amount of extra steel since the composite front end, gun, autoloader, and the hull of the Russian tank would all stay the same. IIRC there's also a lot more armor on the Abrams hull as well compared to the T-72, but I can't name that offhand.

And as far as the T-80 goes, granted, I'll concede the price difference between it and the Abrams is pretty significant, but I don't think it comes down to a case of 'buying 100 2 million dollar tanks or 40 5 million dollar tanks' as far as resource availability. I could be wrong!

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #664 on:** 12 November 2018, 18:19:15 »

Quote from: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 17:18:44

Fair point, though that also should point out the Abrams is a good 3 feet and change longer in the hull and I think wider as well. I'm thinking of 'taking the turret and making it larger' only really involving that amount of extra steel since the composite front end, gun, autoloader, and the hull of the Russian tank would all stay the same. IIRC there's also a lot more armor on the Abrams hull as well compared to the T-72, but I can't name that offhand.

And as far as the T-80 goes, granted, I'll concede the price difference between it and the Abrams is pretty significant, but I don't think it comes down to a case of 'buying 100 2 million dollar tanks or 40 5 million dollar tanks' as far as resource availability. I could be wrong!

Turret size is really limited, as I understand it, by the turret ring size; while you can increase the bustle to counter balance a larger or longer gun a lot of the hard limits on a tank are set by the turret ring diameter. I don't know if you can increase things on the T-XX series designs much.

Kidd · « **Reply #665 on:** 12 November 2018, 18:39:18 »

Space for the 4th crewman and general creature comforts add up. Also yes, despite having smaller dimensions and hence requiring less volume of armour to achieve similar protection, the baseline T-64/72 has really horrible armour on any location not "front turret" - sides are about 3 times thinner than Western tanks

And even then they have to resort to slathering on the ERA blocks

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #666 on:** 12 November 2018, 22:09:23 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 November 2018, 01:26:57

I'm really surprised Russia stuck with that design paradigm for so long.

they already have the factories, infrastructure ,and trained workers to make them. it is easier and cheaper to do an incremental update to an existing design than to create something massively different. especially when the updates largely involve internal systems like targeting system, radios, etc, and not the hull, turret, and gun.
the T-14 Armata was their "all new build" effort to break out of the T-72 standard, and look how well that worked out for them?

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #667 on:** 12 November 2018, 22:18:03 »

Canceled mass production in August, they'll run two battalions of 40 of them with 1st Guards Tank Regiment in the Moscow garrison. Everything else is going to be upgraded T-80s and 90s, and keep about 6,000 T-72s of various mark from the smelters as reserve tanks.

It was an interesting idea, two points for effort if not the best execution. (Having your prestige machine break down at its unveiling parade didn't look so good) I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.

truetanker · « **Reply #668 on:** 12 November 2018, 22:27:44 »

Quote from: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 22:18:03

I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.

What do you think this is, a QuadVee stuck in track mode?

I jest...

Virtual World all over again...

TT

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #669 on:** 12 November 2018, 22:38:04 »

Quote from: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 22:18:03

Canceled mass production in August, they'll run two battalions of 40 of them with 1st Guards Tank Regiment in the Moscow garrison. Everything else is going to be upgraded T-80s and 90s, and keep about 6,000 T-72s of various mark from the smelters as reserve tanks.

It was an interesting idea, two points for effort if not the best execution. (Having your prestige machine break down at its unveiling parade didn't look so good) I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.

Old info. Another order palced for ~138 according to army recognition. https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2018_news_russia_online_show_daily/russian_army_has_ordered_132_t-14_tanks_t-15_armata_infantry_fighting_vehicles.html

PsihoKekec · « **Reply #670 on:** 13 November 2018, 01:29:23 »

Basically they want a low level production to keep the know-how, and then they can ramp up the production numbers when all the kinks are ironed out and they can roll out A variant.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #671 on:** 13 November 2018, 01:37:10 »

Another order, or just expanding the 100 purchase to 132? (My info was dated August 1 2018) If they were going to fit a third battalions, the numbers roughly crunch with spares, though how many tank BNs would Chertkovsky Regiment have in total as the armor attachment to 2nd Guards Motor-Rifle Division?

Kidd · « **Reply #672 on:** 13 November 2018, 02:20:03 »

It's a mix buy of IFVs and tanks.

marauder648 · « **Reply #673 on:** 13 November 2018, 04:27:00 »

Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!

Obviously fake but still kinda cool :D

Elmoth · « **Reply #674 on:** 13 November 2018, 04:32:59 »

Land ship?

I am Belch II · « **Reply #675 on:** 13 November 2018, 04:49:39 »

I dont know what that landship is, but I want a miniature of it.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #676 on:** 13 November 2018, 05:29:07 »

Oh hey a stealth Traction City.

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #677 on:** 13 November 2018, 08:15:10 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 13 November 2018, 04:27:00

Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!

Obviously fake but still kinda cool :D

Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak

Luciora · « **Reply #678 on:** 13 November 2018, 09:48:10 »

Not tan enough

Quote from: HobbesHurlbut on 13 November 2018, 08:15:10

Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak

Matti · « **Reply #679 on:** 13 November 2018, 12:25:43 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 13 November 2018, 04:27:00

Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!

If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?

grimlock1 · « **Reply #680 on:** 13 November 2018, 12:30:21 »

Quote from: Matti on 13 November 2018, 12:25:43

If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?

Depends on if its a battleship with treads or a cruiser on tracks.

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #681 on:** 13 November 2018, 13:09:14 »

Quote from: Luciora on 13 November 2018, 09:48:10

Not tan enough

PFFFT you never seen some of them in players' preferred colors and symbols.

Fat Guy · « **Reply #682 on:** 17 November 2018, 15:18:05 »

The Turkish Marine Assault Vehicle (MAV). I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?

Charlie 6 · « **Reply #683 on:** 17 November 2018, 16:16:46 »

Looks similar to the AAV Survivability Upgrade that was recently cancelled.

Elmoth · « **Reply #684 on:** 17 November 2018, 16:21:03 »

Quote from: Matti on 13 November 2018, 12:25:43

If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?

Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.

kato · « **Reply #685 on:** 17 November 2018, 16:27:21 »

Quote from: Fat Guy on 17 November 2018, 15:18:05

I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?

It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...

Matti · « **Reply #686 on:** 17 November 2018, 17:31:13 »

Quote from: Elmoth on 17 November 2018, 16:21:03

Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.

Not a mobile structure?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #687 on:** 17 November 2018, 20:08:59 »

Quote from: Matti on 17 November 2018, 17:31:13

Not a mobile structure?

Given how much bigger it is than the tank in the picture, it has to be a mobile structure.

Sharpnel · « **Reply #688 on:** 17 November 2018, 20:47:42 »

Quote from: Fat Guy on 17 November 2018, 15:18:05

The Turkish Marine Assault Vehicle (MAV). I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?

It looks more like it would be the latter

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #689 on:** 17 November 2018, 22:08:41 »

Quote from: kato on 17 November 2018, 16:27:21

It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...

not exactly vismod if they are actually rebuilding the hull to make it properly amphibious. but that does look like a M113's motive system under there.
https://www.janes.com/article/84642/fnss-to-show-marine-assault-vehicle-in-2019