Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Maybe that T-90M about what you say is T-90MS, export version, which still use 2A46А5 gun 

Nope, I do mean domestic version. UVZ actually demonstrated two T-90M prototypes - one with 2A82 and one with 2A46-M5. AFAIK so far the actual delivery is with 2A46 and even Armata is mostly to be delivered with 2A46. There are fundamental production problems with 2A82: higher tube pressure for 2A82 requires steel grades that are no longer produced en mass in Russia. Relevant Soviet steel works were scrapped due to cost optimization. May be that'll be corrected but it will take quite a time.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....😎

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as

Posted Images

4 hours ago, IMHO said:

Nope, I do mean domestic version. UVZ actually demonstrated two T-90M prototypes - one with 2A82 and one with 2A46-M5. AFAIK so far the actual delivery is with 2A46 and even Armata is mostly to be delivered with 2A46. There are fundamental production problems with 2A82: higher tube pressure for 2A82 requires steel grades that are no longer produced en mass in Russia. Relevant Soviet steel works were scrapped due to cost optimization. May be that'll be corrected but it will take quite a time.

Where did you read this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5503951.jpg

2A82 is whole one meter longer than 2A46 so it's impossible to miss. Do you have a picture of T-90M with a longer barrel?

PS That's not T-90M but it illustrates the point.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

https://echo.msk.ru/programs/arsenal/1621962-echo/ The interview of then CEO of UVZ where he said the number of Armata-based vehicles in the State Defense Procurement Program is 2300 by the year 2020. Do you see them around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2020 at 5:12 AM, IMHO said:

5503951.jpg

2A82 is whole one meter longer than 2A46 so it's impossible to miss. Do you have a picture of T-90M with a longer barrel?

PS That's not T-90M but it illustrates the point.

It would if there was a visible length difference. On my screen both barrels are 5cm long. And I wonder why. Or are you claiming that the parade T-14s used 2A46?

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2020 at 5:35 AM, IMHO said:

I'd rather not post it on an English-language forum - it's too detailed. Please understand it's not arrogance or disrespect.

A link here would suffice. It would not overload the readers with non english discussion and could provide evidence to back your claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ikalugin said:

Not directly relevant to the discussion. I have provided a source that refutes your statement.

I have provided you with a source that proves that when people responsible for the tank development in Russia make statements those statements should not be taken for their face value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IMHO said:

I have provided you with a source that proves that when people responsible for the tank development in Russia make statements those statements should not be taken for their face value.

So you are nitpicking a specific claim related to delays in production and say not the others, that were realised, to discredit such statements in general, particularly by other people working in other institutions and in other subject matter areas (tank specifics)?

And, again, please cite your sources ie steel production and the older gun selection.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

A link here would suffice. It would not overload the readers with non english discussion and could provide evidence to back your claims.

Sorry, I don't want to spend time answering questions of FSB investigators. If you post it here yourself - I'll discuss it happily. But I won't do it myself. Again it's not arrogance - just simple precautions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IMHO said:

Sorry, I don't want to spend time answering questions of FSB investigators. If you post it here yourself - I'll discuss it happily. But I won't do it myself. Again it's not arrogance - just simple precautions.

So you are going to make questionable claims and provide no supporting evidence, I see.

Disregarded then as insubstabtial. In the future, please, do explicitely state when your are posting conjectures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

Disregarded then as insubstabtial. In the future, please, do explicitely state when your are posting conjectures.

Can you post here some photos of T-90M with a 2A82 gun? :) Again one meter of excess length of the tube is unmistakable. And if you cannot find these and T-90M on all parade pictures in all official propaganda brandishes only the old 2A46 may be there's a very compelling reason why it is so?

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Can you post here some photos of T-90M with a 2A82 gun? :) Again one meter of excess length of the tube is unmistakable. And if you cannot find these and T-90M on all parade pictures in all official propaganda brandishes an 2A46 may be there's a very compelling reason why it is so?

If it is unmistakable can you please show the difference in visible gun lengths on the photo that you have provided?

If no, then how would you otherwise identify the two apart?

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

If it is unmistakable can you please show the difference in gun lengths on the photo that you have provided?

That's exactly the point. T-90 on the picture is not a T-90M - it's an older one that has 2A46 as it should by the design. And there's no difference in tube length because Armatas are rolled out with 2A46 as well. Because we have troubles producing 2A82 in quantity. Now you say we should believe some propaganda article in the Russian Army newspaper. Though magically they yet to show a single photo-shoot of an T-90M with 2A82. And they go to great lengths and produce Armatas with the old 2A46 though it should only come with 2A82 by design. Do not you think there should be a strong reason why they do it?

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IMHO said:

That's exactly the point. T-90 on the picture is not a T-90M - it's an older one that has 2A46 as it should by the design. And there's no difference in tube length because Armatas are rolled out with 2A46 as well. Because we have troubles producing 2A82 in quantity. Now you say we should believe some propaganda article in the Russian Army newspaper. Though magically they yet to show a single photo-shoot of an T-90M with 2A82. And they go to great lengths and produce Armatas with the old 2A46 though it should only come with 2A82 by design. Do not you think there should be a strong reason why they do it?

Ahh, so you do claim that T-14 used/uses 2A46. Forgive me, I thought better of you, I thought it was too outlandish a statement for you to make.

Because T14 did/do use 2A82, now consider the implications of that on your T90M argument.

 

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites

But to help you out - which source do you use for the 2A82 length? 🤔

I mean if you are basing your entire argument about T-14 using a 2A46 on the basis of the 2A82 being one meter longer, surely you would have a handy citable source?
Арм10

This is for example the good old leak by Gurkhan which shows a significantly smaller difference.

Maybe you have a good, reputable source that refutes this information, which you would surelly produce and which would support your 1m length difference claim?

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites

04%20%2846%29.jpg

https://dfnc.ru/orugie/152-mm-pushka-dlya-t-14-aktualnost-i-perspektivy/

etc. Everywhere I look it's stated as 7000mm. Only the reposts of your table state it at 6150mm.

But it seems I have the idea why it's so - and you are probably way "more right" than me :) My current impression from going through the "weird" GRAU article numbers there was an "old" 2A82 that was designed for rearming T-90 and there is the "new" Armata gun - 2A82-1M. Initial 2A82 is at 52 calibers and Armata's -1M is at 56 calibers. So they put an "old" 2A82 into Armata instead of the one designed for it - 2A82-1M and thus got more or less the same length as in 2A46. And why they did it is stated in the document I don't want to post here. They have troubles with processing longer gun tubes - some particular piece of machinery is missing. They have what's left from the Soviet Union and it's limited to 52 calibers.

Again - it may explain the trick and thanks for the information. My only question is if they can swap so easily the Armata gun for a less performing model then how much of the original 2A82 is left in the current 2A82 :) I don't think one year was enough to solve the problem of producing steel of high tensile strength they at least needed for Armata's gun. I don't know if they meant "shorter" 2A82 or "longer" 2A82-1M - they use interchangeably 2A82 and "Armata gun" but state this problem of length.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just comparing the wrong elements. What we can see on the photos of T90A and T14, for example the one that you have provided, are the tubes (труба), not the barrels (ствол) as in both cases the chamber (that is a part of the barrel but not the tube) is (fully?) obscured (if anything it is even more obscured on the T14 due to all the covers), you can recognise the chamber from the conical element on the barrel, the change between the diameters. As such the difference in the lengths of barrels that does indeed exist is not visible to us to the extend you seem to expect (1m) but rather to the extend that the difference in tube length is.

Same goes to lengths as measured in calibres - the longer chamber (not visible on both tanks) takes a signifciant chunk of it.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...