Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    A 152 mm gun was apparently considered but ultimately discarded, likely due to the ammunition concerns you listed. Then again, a 152 mm cannon would theoretically make it compatible with ammunition for Russian field artillery...
    Every time I hear someone mentioning this, my mind goes back to the M60A2 and it's massive turret...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
      Every time I hear someone mentioning this, my mind goes back to the M60A2 and it's massive turret...
      Makes me wonder how an Abrams replacement armed with a 155 mm would fare. The ability for every tank in service to elevate it's cannon and deliver guided indirect fire via something like Excalibur seems like it would be huge for organic fire support. I'd imagine it would allow a whole line of tanks to concentrate it's firepower on whatever small portion of the line got hit due to the ability to engage without line of sight to the targets.

      A 155 mm cannon also brings with it the possibility of leveraging the Navy's research into subcaliber hypersonic rounds into KE penetrators that are moving so fast that they can reliably defeat active protection systems.

      Comment


      • Somebody better evaluate the effect of driving off-road like M-1s are intended while toting a 155mm barrel. It'll beat the shit out of a recoil system capable of handling a 155mm barrel. You'll need a recoil system if you want your on-board data/target acq. systems to operate. Ammo supply? How much? Separate-loading or cased? Never seen a cased 155mm round before but there's always a first time. Rate of fire?

        The idea is stupid.
        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

        Comment


        • Originally posted by S2 View Post
          Somebody better evaluate the effect of driving off-road like M-1s are intended while toting a 155mm barrel. It'll beat the shit out of a recoil system capable of handling a 155mm barrel. You'll need a recoil system if you want your on-board data/target acq. systems to operate. Ammo supply? How much? Separate-loading or cased? Never seen a cased 155mm round before but there's always a first time. Rate of fire?

          The idea is stupid.
          I'm certianly no expert, but don't M109s and PzH 2000s go tooling around off-road on a fairly regular basis? I can't imagine MBTs needing a barrel that large and heavy even if the diameter is the same. Still, I can see where stabilizing and firing something that large on the move would be a challenge.

          The increasingly widespread adoption of APS and it's quickly improving effectiveness against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds makes me think a caliber increase is going to be the only way to stay ahead of the curve if we still intend our for tanks to engage enemy armor however.

          Additionally, APS adoption will likely have some significant ramifications on future armoring schemes which could help alleviate some of the ammunition storage and loading concerns. If APS is effective and reliable, you'd only need enough passive armor to deflect small caliber weapons and whatever remains after an APS engagement whether that be ATGM fragments or a shattered or unbalanced KE rod. This should allow for much lighter vehicles and ones that aren't as constrained by more conventional "tank shapes".

          I'm not saying it isn't a stupid idea, but I'm spit-balling here and trying to figure out WHY it's stupid given the considerable technical progress that's been made since the 1970s when the M1 was designed.
          Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 16 Oct 17,, 16:39.

          Comment


          • So how well does APS work on sabots or other types of 'dumb'/'solid' AT rounds?
            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
              I'm certianly no expert, but don't M109s and PzH 2000s go tooling around off-road on a fairly regular basis? I can't imagine MBTs needing a barrel that large and heavy even if the diameter is the same. Still, I can see where stabilizing and firing something that large on the move would be a challenge.

              The increasingly widespread adoption of APS and it's quickly improving effectiveness against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds makes me think a caliber increase is going to be the only way to stay ahead of the curve if we still intend our for tanks to engage enemy armor however.

              Additionally, APS adoption will likely have some significant ramifications on future armoring schemes which could help alleviate some of the ammunition storage and loading concerns. If APS is effective and reliable, you'd only need enough passive armor to deflect small caliber weapons and whatever remains after an APS engagement whether that be ATGM fragments or a shattered or unbalanced KE rod. This should allow for much lighter vehicles and ones that aren't as constrained by more conventional "tank shapes".

              I'm not saying it isn't a stupid idea, but I'm spit-balling here and trying to figure out WHY it's stupid given the considerable technical progress that's been made since the 1970s when the M1 was designed.
              The paladin and the pzh2k have no where near m1 levels of armor protection.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                To be fair, most of those are paper/propaganda projects. There are some videos on some projects on Youtube that are nothing short of hilarious. But this one was actually build and displayed. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia built enough for one division, at least.
                Oh no question that one or two or maybe even a handful were or will be produced.
                But until they go into serial production, it's just a d**k-waving exercise.

                Just like the Sukhoi Su-57 (PAK FA). Lovely to look at during airshows but ultimately meaningless to their ORBAT

                The Chinese seem to be serious about putting the Chengdu J-20 into production but there's still only a handful built and they've still got problems. So, same thing.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                  I'm certianly no expert, but don't M109s and PzH 2000s go tooling around off-road on a fairly regular basis? I can't imagine MBTs needing a barrel that large and heavy even if the diameter is the same. Still, I can see where stabilizing and firing something that large on the move would be a challenge.
                  Those 109s and 2000s have robust travel locks keeping the tube in place. You can cause a lot of damage to the elevating and traversing mech of a 109 riding without the tube in travel lock. Seen it, not pretty

                  Tanks need to shoot on the move

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                    Somebody better evaluate the effect of driving off-road like M-1s are intended while toting a 155mm barrel. It'll beat the shit out of a recoil system capable of handling a 155mm barrel. You'll need a recoil system if you want your on-board data/target acq. systems to operate. Ammo supply? How much? Separate-loading or cased? Never seen a cased 155mm round before but there's always a first time. Rate of fire?

                    The idea is stupid.
                    Imagine a #1 man/loader hand ramming a fixed 155 projo . The right arm needed for that would be huge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                      Just like the Sukhoi Su-57 (PAK FA). Lovely to look at during airshows but ultimately meaningless to their ORBAT

                      The Chinese seem to be serious about putting the Chengdu J-20 into production but there's still only a handful built and they've still got problems. So, same thing.
                      Yeah, well, so did the F-22 and F-35, which took years to develop. The problem with the russians is that they create so much propaganda around their gear that any issue (which always exist) gets turned into a war of words. At least the chinese seemed to have learned not to advertise too much...

                      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      Imagine a #1 man/loader hand ramming a fixed 155 projo . The right arm needed for that would be huge
                      On a similar note, how was it done on the M60A2, since the 152 had only 1 loader? I know the breech had some kind of screw mechanism that seemed to come out of a XIXth century naval gun, but that's it...
                      Last edited by jlvfr; 17 Oct 17,, 09:17.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                        So how well does APS work on sabots or other types of 'dumb'/'solid' AT rounds?
                        The Germans, Israelis, Russians, Czechs, and Americans all have Active Protection Systems demonstrated to be effective at intercepting APFSDS rounds with claims of anywhere from 30%-90% reductions in penetration after interception depending on the system.

                        Good reading on the topic here: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogsp...-overview.html


                        The paladin and the pzh2k have no where near m1 levels of armor protection.
                        Part of the argument I'm making is that with the maturing of APS systems and ERA, passive armor protection isn't as critical as it once was. Significant reductions in weight and big changes in armoring schemes appear to be possible while maintaining similar levels of protection to what the M1 currently provides.

                        This should open up a lot of flexibility to either create either lighter more maneuverable and air-transportable tanks, or use the additional weight capacity and volume to increase the level of armament.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          Those 109s and 2000s have robust travel locks keeping the tube in place. You can cause a lot of damage to the elevating and traversing mech of a 109 riding without the tube in travel lock. Seen it, not pretty

                          Tanks need to shoot on the move
                          Like jlvfr, I was looking at the M60-A2 as a reference point. 152 mm cannon with a relatively stubby barrel that would avoid having a ton of mass hanging out where it's unsupported. I figure a 155 mm wouldn't be too much of a stretch from there.

                          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          Imagine a #1 man/loader hand ramming a fixed 155 projo . The right arm needed for that would be huge
                          The French, Russians, Koreans, and several smaller Euros seems satisfied with using auto-loaders. That seems like the solution that makes the most sense if projectile weights increase much. There are trade-offs of course, but it might be cheaper than the spinach required to grow that many huge right arms!

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	M60A2_16_zpsoewpf19u.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	139.3 KB
ID:	1471699

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                            The paladin and the pzh2k have no where near m1 levels of armor protection.
                            Or off road ability.

                            SP artillery can move off road but no where near as fast as M1s & M2s.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                              Like jlvfr, I was looking at the M60-A2 as a reference point. 152 mm cannon with a relatively stubby barrel that would avoid having a ton of mass hanging out where it's unsupported. I figure a 155 mm wouldn't be too much of a stretch from there.



                              The French, Russians, Koreans, and several smaller Euros seems satisfied with using auto-loaders. That seems like the solution that makes the most sense if projectile weights increase much. There are trade-offs of course, but it might be cheaper than the spinach required to grow that many huge right arms!

                              [ATTACH]44732[/ATTACH]

                              DAMMIT STEVE!!!!

                              Warn me before you post pictures of the Starship!!!

                              I still have maintenance nightmares 36 years later!!!!

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	yWa3eF5.png
Views:	1
Size:	634.1 KB
ID:	1471700Click image for larger version

Name:	pCIUww9.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	213.2 KB
ID:	1471701

                              Here are some specs on the M657 152mm HE round. It fired at a much lower chamber pressure as well as only being 2 feet long.

                              No where near the pressures of the M68 105mm gun let alone the 120mm.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                DAMMIT STEVE!!!!

                                Warn me before you post pictures of the Starship!!!

                                I still have maintenance nightmares 36 years later!!!!
                                Hahaha!

                                That bad eh? Was it mostly related to the MGM-51 or the tank itself?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X