BTR
-
Posts
745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTR
-
-
Logistics is probably the main reason on continuing with the new 2A82M1 cannon, They can fire the older rounds still. Once NATO heavy armor gets more stronger then the upgrade to 152mm will come to reality.
There is also the matter of re-balancing the armor equation. If someone puts a larger gun on an MBT, everyone will follow suit nullifying last 30 years of armor developments.
-
You misunderstood his point.
Alright, I'm fairly sure I got it at face value, but perhaps that is the language comprehension barrier people talk about. Now, I'm not sure where you have made a connection that I was ever claiming these 152mm systems being en-masse deployed in 2-3 years. I think the new platforms are to be operation by 2020, but I have no idea to what degree they've been budgeted.
We never successfully developed counter TDA capabilities (as far as I am aware), but we have successfully developed 152mm carrying MBT's. I'm not sure where you are going with the analogy.
I'm going to go back to researching how to detain your motorcycle gangsters without giving you knuckleheads casus belli because that's the real threat
Have fun!
-
-
I am aware of what 140 and 152mm shells look like, and if I recall correctly, compartmental problems have been addressed, at least for Russian systems. A big bonus to that are two part munitions which conserve space. Still, the one and major problem, as you have been pointing out is the comparative lack of carried munitions. Which is why 30mm canons have not left the picture when speaking about 152mm FSV. A pure 152mm MBT that Obj. 195 was, allegedly carried a full load of 40 rounds though.
152mm guns have not stayed the same over the course of the past 30 years, what makes you say that in the first place?
-Right, we have reached all sorts of limits on old chassis, which is why this thread is all about new ones. If the platform is designed from the bottom up with larger calibers in mind, I don't see any aforementioned limitations come in play.
-
As we've reached all sorts of limits (volume, pressure tolerance, length, breach size, etc) higher calibers are the only way forwards that current levels of reliable technology allow. There has not been an incentive over the last 20 years to increase calibers in the west, and no political or economic will in the east which is why the discussion moved into the realm of theoretical. However, over the last year or so I've seen enough official western information that very much revives the idea of 140mm guns, especially from Germany, which leads me to believe they are not sure if 120mm guns can reliably achieve a mission kill over prospected Russian heavy equipment.
There is also a question of export marketing, and it is a lot easier to sell something that can vaporize everything in its path then a long discussion about supply and efficiency.
-
A 152 MM MBT makes fairly little sense in the wider spectrum of things. There will need to be a complete ammunition family invented for it, a new autoloader, and it'll carry like 15-20 rounds tops. If you put in some sort of, like Tiger tank battalion in which it was only briefly committed as needed I guess that'd make marginally more sense, but I remain unconvinced the development side and production of same will balance out economically. Also just the sheer size of a 152 MM tank gun rather boggles the mind, the 140 MMs of the 80's and early 90's were pretty challenging to say the least, while the unmanned turret seems to offer some relief, it's still a lot of weight, space, and ammo. Virtually everyone else on the planet is looking to longer 120 MM, or more advanced rounds simply because the bigger gun option hits diminishing returns pretty quick
152mm technology is mature enough at this point. In fact it was mature enough for planned state trials with over 50 vehicles commissioned in 1992 with obj. 477A (unfortunately never received a T-XX GABTU designation). By 1992, the 152mm system had been in development for 8 years. 152mm guns are actually not that much more massive if you look at obj. 292, a T-80U chassis mounting a LP-83 gun which later trickled down to 2A83 variant being tested on the T-14.
-
Everyone's pretty much expecting a "Heavy" FSV based of T-14 chassis which really is just 152mm MBT. T-15 is perhaps an investigation into total platform compatibility. Also, in light of T-15 planned "Assault engineer" heavy formations, a T-15 152mm FSV incorporated very low down the food chain starts to make more sense.
-
So, are we talking self propelled gun artillery piece, or direct fire support?
Direct fire support. Although with 152mm caliber, the line between direct and indirect is blurred. Especially in light of precision artillery rounds being inter-compatible between multiple systems now.
-
According to Ministry of Industry and Trade press release three days ago, both T-14 and T-15 are being trialed with 152mm guns in FSV configuration.
-
In case you haven't yet watched the vid, it's 5% Armata, 95% Discovery channel (the worst type) but in Russian :D.
-
Except that it isn't agreed because it was physically impossible to shoot the liner at 10000m at 800+km/h from the left sphere from rebel occupied territory. Naturally you will blame physics bending on Putin as well, to which I say that the American faith in all-mighty Putin found on this forum far surpasses our domestic one.
-
I like how people parallel a drastically different Korean liner incident with MH17, but keep ignoring black sea incident of 2001 which happened during peacetime training. Entirely probable for Ukrainians to mess their BUK test fires during a conflict.
-
Think the broken laser warning receiver makes more sense. I don't know the specs on Russian rounds, but if you're shooting M829 type rounds it doesn't deviate in any meaningful way from the crosshairs out to about 1200 meters (think it's 800 meters or so for HEAT, not sure about MPAT, let alone AMP), and there's even an FCS control that basically rigs the whole mess to operate without a laser input.
Back when CMBS came out there was some idle discussion about having tank crews not employ laser range finders at close range. I think it'd be fair, but best linked to crew quality (a veteran crew being more likely to be confident enough in their gunnery to engage without the laser, while a green one would do what a lot of new tanks do, and burn out the laser from overuse before switching to manual).I can't say it could have been broken, the QB was in its opening 2-3 moves, but perhaps there is something I'm missing. For T-72 and derivatives there are several ways not to constantly ping the target with laser, and if you zero the sight in advance it should be good to up around 1000-ish m. Incidentally that is what they did in the fist tank biathlon - they didn't use the laser adjustments and targets were hit out to 1200m with practice rounds. Right now I'd almost take a 1974 vintage T-72 with optical rangefinder for close encounters than a more modern vehicle.
I think linking more advanced and cunning gunnery to veterancy is the only way this can be done believably.
-
Yesterday, in one of my QB's, I noticed that my veteran crews were "eyeballing" enemy vehicles at 500-800m without lazing them. I like this behavior, it makes real sense looking at how Russian sights are structured, but I've not seen this on any other tank other than T-72B3. Can somebody confirm this?
-
A lot of original accounts, both Russian and Ukrainian without alteration can be found here:
http://twower.livejournal.com/?skip=20&tag=Украина
A couple of first hand accounts with questions from Russian volunteers here, both good or bad:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQCYG6lKBuTarUZhGcIw8RzkPGcPAAIef
The rest are forums (gspo, vif, vk). There isn't really a proper collection in print yet, and most of the analytical accounts are too bias (west or east leaning) for the moment.
-
I've read a large volume of first hand accounts from both sides of the story (props of Russian language), including a unique account of the same engagement from both opponents. It seems that at large, the voluntary and full-time forces had the same problems.
-
The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.
Read more: http://sofrep.com/47483/the-russian-paper-tiger-a-foreign-volunteer-in-the-ukrainian-armys-view-of-russian-troops/#ixzz40V5U7VFJRight :D. Good conclusion, west strong.
-
Yeah, I have to admit those BMP-3's are shopped in
-
Particular questions of terminal ballistics pg. 560 (published by Bauman Moscow State Technical University on behalf of NII Stali, 2006).
First entry is textolite in combined arrays with steel.
Where coefficients to RHAe are:
- КгКС = Density coefficient vs HEAT
- КмКС = Mass coefficient vs HEAT
- КгБПС = Density coefficient vs APFSDS
- КмБПС = Mass coefficient vs APFSDS
- ρ = Density g/cm3
PS HerrTom, looks like your perpetrator density are a bit off. It is deforming way to quickly. Here is an example of 3BM11 munition from 122mm 3VBM4 round impacting 300mm of RHA at 1246m/s.
-
-
Might want to twist that armor 68° though so it looks a little like this
: 
Also M829A3 should shed around 100/90mm after coming in contact with the ERA explosive (brown) according to what we now know. It would be really interesting to see what happens in your simulation then.
-
They're the earlier model. SEP v2 has an entirely different configuration at the commander's station, CITV screen and controls inclusive.
I'm reading that these are 1995-ish vintage, close enough?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXIs9Hh4Nw
Are these optics SEP v2 level or is it impossible to judge that based on the commander's screens?
-
I'm not sure if I follow, but I don't make distinctions between different steel compositions. For example, T-80UD glacis includes a HHS plate in between ceramics of a much more durable composition than outer and inner shell, different glacis have varied strength steel (for instance early/late T-64's) and so on. That is not what the chart aimed to depict. I chose to separate the outer add-on steel plate for better visual reference.
-
Correct is 5 mm rubber+3 mm of hard steel+19 mm air gap+3 mm of hard steel+5 mm rubber - in real this is NERA layer, which have protection capabilities on 40 % more, than homogeneous steel armor of equivalent thickness.
Which is exactly as I have it :).
:
Armor topic
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by BTR
More Snackbar videos, this time with T-90A vs a TOW (unsure which variant). Shtora in a non-jammer mode as far as I can see, and hatches open before impact. I suppose that is why the gunner gets shocked and flees the vehicle, otherwise no other damage visible.