Future of Military Tanks & Procurement

[Zachowon]

No, ADS (be hard-kill systems, ECM-based 'soft-kill' systems, or both if the country in question really goes into "tanks are disposable, the crew aren't" philosophy of tank design and are willing to shovel the dosh necessary) is basically requiring ATGMs to be salvo-fired like mad to breach. I wouldn't be surprised that laser-based ADS systems will show up far sooner than expected given that FELs are a thing and are only slowly being developed because of budget cuts.

In the near future, it is likely that Trophy 2.0 and the like are going to simply proliferate, likely becoming AMS style systems:

(before you go 'BT AMS SUCKS!', the latest revision of AMS style systems are actually useful, Streak missiles become normal missiles, you only use one ammo per rack of missiles, single-shot missiles have a 50/50 chance of being destroyed, although it can only fire at one rack at a time within its turret mounting, oh and AMS only produces 1 heat while LAMS produces only 7 or 5 depending on the model)

This is a design that an artist that I regularly correspond with made, a 2cm 'screw you' FEL system designed to take out pretty much any missile or anti-tank projectile that isn't armored with anti-laser armor or isn't made out of iridium-osmium alloy.​

Ah, my reading comprehension was off then.

Your good you good. I worded it bad

 

[Aaron Fox]

Your good you good. I worded it bad

It happens to the best of us.

 

[Zachowon]

It happens to the best of us.

I understand.

I am glad rhat here I am not considered an idiot for criticizing the rounded turret of the russian. tanks

 

[Aaron Fox]

I understand.

I am glad rhat here I am not considered an idiot for criticizing the rounded turret of the russian. tanks

Rounded turrets have always been considered unpredictable overall. Hence why everyone went with harsh angles.

 

[Zachowon]

Rounded turrets have always been considered unpredictable overall. Hence why everyone went with harsh angles.

"B-b-but RUSSIA STRONK!" is all I am ever told, and how it is superior to the Abrams turret.
I know they are unpredictable and have less room and less storage and less safety system room, not that they dont have it, but have less space for it.

 

[Aaron Fox]

"B-b-but RUSSIA STRONK!" is all I am ever told, and how it is superior to the Abrams turret.
I know they are unpredictable and have less room and less storage and less safety system room, not that they dont have it, but have less space for it.

You only really see that in the pro-Russian forums, most others go 'rounded turrets are unpredictable, and thus useless'.

 

[Zachowon]

You only really see that in the pro-Russian forums, most others go 'rounded turrets are unpredictable, and thus useless'.

*looks at sister site* yeah...pro russian...
Then again they have a whole thread for Russian military.

But yeah I often always hear Russia or Germany is best over the Abrams and usually fight a dogpile

 

[Aaron Fox]

But yeah I often always hear Russia or Germany is best over the Abrams and usually fight a dogpile

In my experience, outside of Leo and Friends or the Sparky Brigade, Russia usually gets its ass kicked. Out of the NATO tanks, the Leo2 is one of the very few tanks that can give the Abrams a run for its money.

 

[Zachowon]

In my experience, outside of Leo and Friends or the Sparky Brigade, Russia usually gets its ass kicked. Out of the NATO tanks, the Leo2 is one of the very few tanks that can give the Abrams a run for its money.

I am in the thread with all of them so yeahhhh.
I know Russia usually is on the receiving end of getting destroyed.
All NATO tanks, well most are pretty good, with Leo and Abrams being the top 2.
Some people say the British also gives the Abrams a run but eh

 

[LordSunhawk]

I wonder if the real reason Russia stopped procuring T-14's is that they learned the same lesson the US learned way back with MBT-70 and relearned with the Striker Armored Gun System...

Specifically, the unmanned turret, while very clever, is also next to useless if the tank is moving unless they include a rotating seat/station for the gunner. Because otherwise your gunner is going to be too busy fighting off vertigo to do his job. Stationary? Works great, but while on the move the motion of the tank itself and the mismatch of it with the visual field would commonly result in vertigo as the brain simply can't integrate the inputs.

MBT-70 had the opposite problem, in that the driver was in a 'capsule' that rotated to keep him facing forward while the turret moved around him, but due to his position he kept on being shifted about within the tank and thus suffered from vertigo as well.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I wonder if the real reason Russia stopped procuring T-14's is that they learned the same lesson the US learned way back with MBT-70 and relearned with the Striker Armored Gun System...

Specifically, the unmanned turret, while very clever, is also next to useless if the tank is moving unless they include a rotating seat/station for the gunner. Because otherwise your gunner is going to be too busy fighting off vertigo to do his job. Stationary? Works great, but while on the move the motion of the tank itself and the mismatch of it with the visual field would commonly result in vertigo as the brain simply can't integrate the inputs.

MBT-70 had the opposite problem, in that the driver was in a 'capsule' that rotated to keep him facing forward while the turret moved around him, but due to his position he kept on being shifted about within the tank and thus suffered from vertigo as well.

No, it is the size of Russia's economy (in the same ballpark as Italy) that is why the T-14 procurement stopped above all else. Composites, ADS, electronics (the most expensive and vital parts), all that stuff they put into it costs a pretty penny and since the Russians inherited the Soviet stockpile, they need just enough to keep tank design and construction 'up to date' at this time. Then there is the likelihood that this is just a first batch and not all of them. Remember the US still produces M1s in batches.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

No, it is the size of Russia's economy (in the same ballpark as Italy) that is why the T-14 procurement stopped above all else. Composites, ADS, electronics (the most expensive and vital parts), all that stuff they put into it costs a pretty penny and since the Russians inherited the Soviet stockpile, they need just enough to keep tank design and construction 'up to date' at this time. Then there is the likelihood that this is just a first batch and not all of them. Remember the US still produces M1s in batches.

Actually we haven't made a new Abrams hull or turret since the late 90s we have so many of the things lying around that the Factory can take the older 120mm armed Abrams and upgrade them to latest variant and reset them to a zero mile condition and replacing the tanks in active service and it goes so on and so forth thus keeping the M1 fleet in good condition and in decent overall modernization

 

[Aaron Fox]

Actually we haven't made a new Abrams hull or turret since the late 90s we have so many of the things lying around that the Factory can take the older 120mm armed Abrams and upgrade them to latest variant and reset them to a zero mile condition and replacing the tanks in active service and it goes so on and so forth thus keeping the M1 fleet in good condition and in decent overall modernization

The same basic principle applies in that case. We are still building/rebuilding tanks and thus we don't get into the situation that the Kriegsmarine got into when rebuilding its capital ship force (i.e. don't know what the fuck they were doing).

 

[Zachowon]

I wonder if the real reason Russia stopped procuring T-14's is that they learned the same lesson the US learned way back with MBT-70 and relearned with the Striker Armored Gun System...

Specifically, the unmanned turret, while very clever, is also next to useless if the tank is moving unless they include a rotating seat/station for the gunner. Because otherwise your gunner is going to be too busy fighting off vertigo to do his job. Stationary? Works great, but while on the move the motion of the tank itself and the mismatch of it with the visual field would commonly result in vertigo as the brain simply can't integrate the inputs.

MBT-70 had the opposite problem, in that the driver was in a 'capsule' that rotated to keep him facing forward while the turret moved around him, but due to his position he kept on being shifted about within the tank and thus suffered from vertigo as well.

No, it is the size of Russia's economy (in the same ballpark as Italy) that is why the T-14 procurement stopped above all else. Composites, ADS, electronics (the most expensive and vital parts), all that stuff they put into it costs a pretty penny and since the Russians inherited the Soviet stockpile, they need just enough to keep tank design and construction 'up to date' at this time. Then there is the likelihood that this is just a first batch and not all of them. Remember the US still produces M1s in batches.

I'm pretty sure it is in Batches from what I was gathering on our sister sites. They are going to test it in Syria to see how it compares to the Turkish tanks iirc.

 

[PsihoKekec]

It's a bit of everything. For starters they still need to iron out the kinks in design. Secondly there are many competing demands within limited budget, so there is not enough money to replace T-72/80/90 right now. Thirdly their military-industrial complex gets a vote as well (sounds familiar?) so part of the money from T-14 program had to be spent on upgrade programs for T-72/80/90, even if army wanted to get rid of T-80.

 

[Tiamat]

I am curious about how the ammo is stored in the T-14, as compared to other Soviet/Russian tanks.

The designers of the Abrams and other comparative vehicles had the right idea with blow-out panels for the ammo storage bins to (usually) prevent a catastrophic ammo cook-off on the tank. The Soviet's tanks like the T-72 did/do seem to have a nasty habit of living up to the "Jack in the box" moniker with their turrets blowing off if they get a penetrating hit in the turret ring where the ammo is stowed, though that's part of the issue with the autoloader setup the Soviet's went with.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I am curious about how the ammo is stored in the T-14, as compared to other Soviet/Russian tanks.

The designers of the Abrams and other comparative vehicles had the right idea with blow-out panels for the ammo storage bins to (usually) prevent a catastrophic ammo cook-off on the tank. The Soviet's tanks like the T-72 did/do seem to have a nasty habit of living up to the "Jack in the box" moniker with their turrets blowing off if they get a penetrating hit in the turret ring where the ammo is stowed, though that's part of the issue with the autoloader setup the Soviet's went with.

From what I can understand -as in what has been published- it is located in the turret to allow for blowout panels and safer storage, thanks to the fact that the turret is unmanned.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Oh there is a Future Tank Thread and it looks like it was a snipped derail originally so I better post it here then the main Armored Vehicle thread.

A video by The Chieftain on 'Designing the Tank of the Future' and considerations thereof.



Beyond the actual technical details and discussion in the video, I will say I appreciate The Chieftain was apparently in a podcast or interview with US Army Officers and one of them brought up David Drake's Hammers Slammers literature as an example of the future of tanks and armored vehicles. Very nice.

 

[Zachowon]

The chieftain is considered to be the leading source of armored vehicles due to the amount if resources he has access too