starsiege

nope i saw a 30 mins prgram on discovery channel about this new "future tank" the us is developing. but i saw it around 2000

the tank was supposed to be very light and very fast, and the insdies of itw as supposed to have 360 degree coverage of lcd monitors showing the outside world...it looks somewhat like this tank on that pic but somewhat not like it either..they even had an animation of it being dropped from c130s.

TopHatter

Here we go

Attached Images

	untitled1.bmp (233.3 KB, 309 views)
	untitled2.bmp (332.7 KB, 308 views)
	untitled3.bmp (210.0 KB, 298 views)

zraver

mechanically complex and with horrible situational awareness and a lack of any air guard capability. Those things aside, head to head this thing will be a beast tank vs tank with that big 130mm+ 50 cal + maingun.

I think the red capped ports are an active defensive system (red being an agressive color), using them as missile ports make no sense with a 135-152mm (I've heard both) gun.

The ballistic shaping and what appears to be ERA or NERA(NxRA) blocks makes me think the Russians still cannot produce qulaity composite armors.

The remote 14.5mm is creating a blindspot to the commanders independant site and apears to lack travese of it's own. Better to stack the cammoander ssite ontop of the gunner site in a mast for improved hull down ambush capabilties like the American ITV's.

And finally it apears to be to wide for Russian rail transport which makes me seriosuly question the validity of the whole thing.

Not putting to much empashis on it but the barrel apears to lack an aligning device and fume extractor. Only reason I am bringig it up at all is the drawing does show the tanks winsensor and LWR's so it might be accurate.

Crew egress with any type of turet failure damage is impossible so I am guessing there is a Merkava style tunnel.

The turret has toi be open form underneath for basic maintence which make sme think it still has the exposed ammuntion issue of Russian tanks.

RustyBattleship

For ZRAVR: I agree. The more I look at it the more it looks like somebody's CGI design of a tank based loosely upon the funky looking T-92 I posted above (and TopHatter was kind enough to put the photos up).

As a former tank gunner myself, the lack of a Bore Evacuator (Fume Extractor) is a serious ommission. Even with a BE on the end of our 76mm guns on M-41's we got a lot of smoke back inside and had to keep the vent fan on top of the turret going all the time so our eyes wouldn't water too much. Putting a BE at mid-length of a barrel turned out to be much more efficient.

And to have a Mirkava type access in the rear is not possible on that supposed T-95 because the engine is in the rear blocking the crew in.

But you will notice in the experimental T-92 of the early 50's, it did have rear access and the engine in front. So the Mirkava is not the first one to come up with that idea.

zraver

Well if this is an offical drawing and ahs enginering behind it ther ehas to be an escape system somewhere. Mount the engine high enough and you can run a crawlway under the engine, tranny and final drives. Russian tankers are tiny anyway.

wow you were a Bulldogger? American or NATO? Norway still had upgraded M-41's in service when I was in.

gunnut

Is the fume extractor still necessary if the gun is autoloaded and the entire compartment seperated from the crew?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

zraver

Yes, more than ever. Modern rounds use combustable casing. If a peace of smolderoing propellant is still in the breach when you try and load the next round BOOM!

I also doubt the turret is closed off. It has to be open or at least acessable.

SRB

It is turret without crew fully automated.
Change of ammo would be tricky but this is one possible solution for autoloader:

Crew will be inside special armor shell which will wieght as normal turret of Russian tank.
It sound me as exelent armor layout.
Tankers get info over sensors today and this tank will have them.They say it will have 4 crew members one is repair man he also could use sensors to spot something it always good to have one more pair of hands but more important one more pair of eyes.
http://"http://http://armor.vif2.ru/.../n_tagil.html"

__________________

USSR EXPERIMENTAL SPITFIRE

zraver

SRB, the design is intersting, and I dpn't doubt it is well protected. I just wonder how much faith to put in an armor package that still requires ballsitic shaping. Also is that ERA or NxRA?

SRB have you ever had the hair stand up on the back of your neck beucase some one was watching you? With out beign able to look around there are sutle clues you could miss that could kill you.

A mound of freshly turned earth -might be a minefeild
A flock of birds taking flight- a helicpoter might be behind those trees
a streak across the sky directly overhead- A-10 doing an orientation pass
A quick flash of light- an missile launch
some rustling grass- an anti-tank team getting ready for a flankshot

reason like this is why so many TC's ride so high in their tansk small arms fire be dammed. If your blind, your dead

Anon

You know the M24 Chafee was a highly effective light tank during WWII, and you could kill that with a 57mm AT gun on a frontal shot from a good range.

Some of you folks have a very unrealistic view of modern warfare.

Almost nothing on the battlefield will survive a hit by a 135mm Soviet APFSDS round, yet....they (M1114, M2, M113, LAV-25, Stryker, etc, etc, etc) are all still highly effective vehicles for their own specific roles.

Anon

Obviously this is a concept foriegn to the many armchair experts on this(and all other) forums.

An unmanned turret will, as i said, be terribly detrimental to situational awareness, and that is a fatal flaw.

Why do you guys think fighters have a bubble canopy?(or at least, the really good ones....and my isnt that a coincidence?)

As for an escape system, it probably has the same hatch on the floor of the hull that the Patton's had. The 'shittin' hatch, lol.

Anon

You, my friend, have the fine privilege of talking to Mr. Battleship USA.

Dick Landgraff is as American as they come. A legend ifin' ya ask me.

gunnut

I don't doubt the effectiveness of light tanks. It's the Pentagon or someone high up there who doesn't like anything less than a fully armored MBT. If it were up to me, I would have ordered M-8 or Stingray long ago. Their strategic mobility alone is worth it.

Wasn't there a band of politicians who were determined to kill the M-2 Bradley by protraying it as weak against modern antitank weapons?

gunnut

How about the S tank from Sweden? Are those poor designs from the point of less height? Do TCs on those things ride with their head out the hatch? I don't ever recall seeing any photos of such.

How about tank destroyers? Do their commanders stick their head out the hatch as well? Why don't we see more of those now?

zraver

Tank destroyers and this includes the S tank are ambush fighters. They are not used for movement to contact when situational awreness is critical.

In WW2 when TD's did get use din the attack they stood up during movement.

Also the old Soveit ASU-57 and AS-85 would pop thier TC's out on parade (they were so small when the TC stood he was exposed form the wait up) and one thinks they would stand up when moving in hostile territory.

Don't mistake me, you don't fight exposed, you move exposed until combat starts. An extra second or two can mean life or death and the Mk1 Eyeball is still the best sensor out there at close ranges and peripherials