Main Battle Tanks
Pale Rider
Active member
it will take up some room but the mass majority of it will be placed in the bustle position and directly behind the maingun, and as you already know that this area of the gun is not where a loader wants to be anyways, unless he wants his bell rung.
Supostat
Active member
Well they are designed to survive various stresses and impacts.
I afraid human loader can be taken out more easily than autoloader. Since human loader at first need to remain standing, even when tank is driving over hard terrain and swinging. What happens, if human loader fell and twist his ankle? Or broke his arm? Moreover, human loader must be able not only to keep his equilibrium, but also to handle projectiles from stockpile to cannon bolt. And if trained loader will succeed both to keep equilibrium and carry projectiles, turning for 180° for each projectile, than substitution of human loaders in case of high casualties will be a problem. Another problem is that human loader must be quite a `big guy`, since not every man can easily move 120mm projectiles fast and accurate enough.
Another benefit of autoloader is less space needed for it. Less space to protect means less volume of interior room and less projections of silhouette, as well es more effective use of armor. Which eventually allows to make vehicle smaller, lower and lighter, while armored not less than vehicles with human loader.
Damien435
Active member
I can't answer for other army's, but our Army has regular PT to ensure soldiers get/stay in proper physical condition. The four best tanks in the world (according to a survey done on MilForums by your's truly) all use manual loaders and the only two auto-loaders of the top-six were crushed in the opening rounds of the competition.
Supostat
Active member
Well all those `tank tops` are only theoretical meditation, since only credible criteria of quality of combat ability of tank is its performance in battlefield. What is important - in battlefield against other tanks of the same generation.
Doppleganger
Active member
I think the US/UK offensive operations in 2003 spelled the end of massed armoured and armoured infantry divisions swarming 'blitzkrieg-style' into the enemy. The main issue, as I'm sure you know, is the stupendous amounts of fuel a modern tank brigade, never mind a full division or even an corps, takes for any kind of sustained operations. The US and British armoured advance into Iraq in 2003 was stalled not because of enemy action but simply because they ran out of fuel. So in future we might see armoured brigades with very high tooth to tail ratios that can perform operations that required full divisions in the past. We won't see an operation like Desert Storm again though because even the richest nation in the world, i.e. the US, can no longer afford them.
It seems to me that modern technology is far superior to the human eye for observation and detection purposes but as I'm not a tank commander and you are, I'm sure what you say has to be considered very seriously.
My feeling is that because armies are downsizing the number of tanks they have, autoloaders are less of a priority than they were before. The Soviets liked them because they had massive tank fleets but the future is small and I think one of the main arguments for them, namely to free up trained men, is disappearing to an extent.
Well, i dont think that the price of the oil should be the problem. Tank engines, like most(all of the as i know) diesel engines can run on verious oils, including bio-diesel and other such stuff. As to the logistics, i would thing getting the diesel to the tanks should be getting easier over the years, am i wrong?
Perhaps if i was trained by a diffrent military, i would think diffrently. but the way i command my tank just seems impractical with cameras. You have to look at least in 2 directions(gun and hull), and actually in 4(gun, hull, crew compartment, other tanks in the unit).
as far as detection, that kind of equipment dose not replace the human eye but is added to it(as in systems that locate ATGMs and thermal imaging devices)
That is a good point.
Doppleganger
Active member
To be fair, the main problem for the US is that the Abrams has a gas turbine engine which is hideously expensive to run. Starting up the engine alone supposedly takes 11 gallons of fuel - I don't know if anyone can confirm whether that's true or not. Even diesel tank engines though are still quite thirsty although nothing like as bad as a gas turbine.
Also, because armies need to react far quicker than before, air portability is becoming a big priority now which means smaller, lighter tanks with a greater operating range, i.e. better fuel consumption. Probably not as big an issue for the IDF as other armies though.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Most countries in the world use diesel engined tanks so fuel price is not such an issue.
84RFK
Active member
Probably by a "fail safe" complicated and vulnerable system liable to break down when least expected...old Murphy never sleeps you know..
As for the fuel supply, the logistics will always be a problem, and long supply lines has been the weak spot in warfare since the beginning of mankind.
Damn... good read ^^
I will finish reading the whole posts before giving an opinion.
but I have some questions...
I'm the kind of person who have faith in the US weapons technology. and I think that if the US start to abandon battle tanks... there must be a reason behind it.
here is how I see things. I think that the offensive technologies advance much faster than the defense technologies... so they invest more on offensive technologies than in defensive technology...
and with the fast development of intelligent artillery rounds and infantry carried anti-tank weapons, it would be a waste of time to invest on tanks.
arent the Russians making another error?
I think they should rather invest on better helicopters...
I will finish reading the whole posts before giving an opinion.
but I have some questions...
I'm the kind of person who have faith in the US weapons technology. and I think that if the US start to abandon battle tanks... there must be a reason behind it.
here is how I see things. I think that the offensive technologies advance much faster than the defense technologies... so they invest more on offensive technologies than in defensive technology...
and with the fast development of intelligent artillery rounds and infantry carried anti-tank weapons, it would be a waste of time to invest on tanks.
arent the Russians making another error?
I think they should rather invest on better helicopters...
justin1552
Hurr Durr
True, but say you need a hard target hit, and artillery and air support isn't available. There are some things that just need a good tank round to get through.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
I heard that the T-95 is due to be deployed with the Russian army in 2009, and that they also have new support vehicles that will augment this tank. I would love to see a T-95 operated by qualified Russian crews not Iraqi or Syrian in real life action against a M1A2, Leopard 2A6 and the Merkeva 4. The Americans, Germans and Israelis maybe need to supply these tanks to the Georgians so the Russians can have a chance to use their T-95s against them.
Friday, January 04, 2008
T-95 Main Battle Tanks & Tank Support Vehicles to Augment Russian Armor Units
In 2009 the Russian Army is scheduled to receive a new main battle tank, claimed to be superior to existing designs. The new tank will introduce a new hull, power plant and drive train. It will also have improved firepower, comprising of new armament, target acquisition, fire control and surveillance systems.
The Russian Army is also planning to field the long awaited Tank Support Vehicle, scheduled to enter production at Uralvagonzavod next year. The first armor units are expecting the new BMPTs by 2010.
The tank is under development at Ural based Uralvagonzavod plant. Apart from the Russian Army, Saudi Arabia was reported to be interested in the new tank, according to a Sept, 2007 French News Agency report. However, since actual testing in Saudi Arabia were conducted with T-90s, it is assumed that the saudis are evaluating the T-90 rather than the radically new T-95.
According to Jane's, the T-95 (currently known as "Object 775") will have a weight of about 50 tons, with length and width similar to the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs. Jane's believs this model will be equipped with a smoothbore 135 or 152mm cannon. The three crewmembers are seated in a hull mounted capsule seperated from the ammunition by an armored bulkhead.
Another main battle tank under development in Russia, the "object 640" (also known as 'Black Eagle'), is also under development at the Omsk-based Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building. Unveiled at an arms exposition in Omsk, Siberia, in 1999 Black eagle has not been seen since. This Black eagle also features a new chassis and turret but uses a manned turret with an automatic loader.
According to Makarov the new tank is expected to complete the current test series in 2008 and enter production in 2009. Makarov claimed the new tank will be competitive and superior to current main battle tanks. He admitted that while the local industry can deliver highly sophisticated weapon systems, there is still a shortage of high quality military components for such systems that resulted from years of neglect of military industrial infrastructure since the collapse of the Soviet military industry enterprises.
The unmanned turret design is already incorporated in another vehicle designed at Uralvagonzavod, known as 'Tank Support Vehicle' or BMPT. By 2010 the first Russian armor units are scheduled to be equipped with this vehicle, dubbed 'Terminator' - Russia's Ground Forces Commander, Colonel General Alexei Maslov, told news media that the first tank company will be equipped with BMPT by 2010.
The 'Terminator' will enter production in 2008. Uralvagonzavod developed the vehicle based on combat lessons learned during the war in Chechnya, but its implementation has been subject to delays. According to Novosti news agency, Uralvagonzavod Director General Nikolai Malykh, confirmed that his company received the first orders for the new vehicle, the first two BMPTs will be produced in 2008.
The BMPT uses the T-72 tank chassis. It is equipped with enhanced armor and improved armament for the engagement of airborne and surface targets, including light and medium armored vehicles. Its main armament consists of two 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannons, a coaxially-mounted 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun, and four launchers with laser-guided Attack-T anti-tank missiles. According to the Vzglyad business newspaper quoted by Novosti, "Several foreign countries have already expressed an interest in buying the Russian-made BMPTs".
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q=t-95&um=1&hl=en&sa=N
Friday, January 04, 2008
T-95 Main Battle Tanks & Tank Support Vehicles to Augment Russian Armor Units
In 2009 the Russian Army is scheduled to receive a new main battle tank, claimed to be superior to existing designs. The new tank will introduce a new hull, power plant and drive train. It will also have improved firepower, comprising of new armament, target acquisition, fire control and surveillance systems.
The Russian Army is also planning to field the long awaited Tank Support Vehicle, scheduled to enter production at Uralvagonzavod next year. The first armor units are expecting the new BMPTs by 2010.
The tank is under development at Ural based Uralvagonzavod plant. Apart from the Russian Army, Saudi Arabia was reported to be interested in the new tank, according to a Sept, 2007 French News Agency report. However, since actual testing in Saudi Arabia were conducted with T-90s, it is assumed that the saudis are evaluating the T-90 rather than the radically new T-95.
According to Jane's, the T-95 (currently known as "Object 775") will have a weight of about 50 tons, with length and width similar to the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs. Jane's believs this model will be equipped with a smoothbore 135 or 152mm cannon. The three crewmembers are seated in a hull mounted capsule seperated from the ammunition by an armored bulkhead.
Another main battle tank under development in Russia, the "object 640" (also known as 'Black Eagle'), is also under development at the Omsk-based Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building. Unveiled at an arms exposition in Omsk, Siberia, in 1999 Black eagle has not been seen since. This Black eagle also features a new chassis and turret but uses a manned turret with an automatic loader.
According to Makarov the new tank is expected to complete the current test series in 2008 and enter production in 2009. Makarov claimed the new tank will be competitive and superior to current main battle tanks. He admitted that while the local industry can deliver highly sophisticated weapon systems, there is still a shortage of high quality military components for such systems that resulted from years of neglect of military industrial infrastructure since the collapse of the Soviet military industry enterprises.
The unmanned turret design is already incorporated in another vehicle designed at Uralvagonzavod, known as 'Tank Support Vehicle' or BMPT. By 2010 the first Russian armor units are scheduled to be equipped with this vehicle, dubbed 'Terminator' - Russia's Ground Forces Commander, Colonel General Alexei Maslov, told news media that the first tank company will be equipped with BMPT by 2010.
The 'Terminator' will enter production in 2008. Uralvagonzavod developed the vehicle based on combat lessons learned during the war in Chechnya, but its implementation has been subject to delays. According to Novosti news agency, Uralvagonzavod Director General Nikolai Malykh, confirmed that his company received the first orders for the new vehicle, the first two BMPTs will be produced in 2008.
The BMPT uses the T-72 tank chassis. It is equipped with enhanced armor and improved armament for the engagement of airborne and surface targets, including light and medium armored vehicles. Its main armament consists of two 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannons, a coaxially-mounted 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun, and four launchers with laser-guided Attack-T anti-tank missiles. According to the Vzglyad business newspaper quoted by Novosti, "Several foreign countries have already expressed an interest in buying the Russian-made BMPTs".
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q=t-95&um=1&hl=en&sa=N
Come on SHERMAN, be nice toward the Russians ^^ they arent that bad. They know their stuff when it comes to weapons... They made the AK-47 afterall...
It's just that they have a different doctrine. In the West we want elite professional troops with advanced weapons. We aim at superiority in everything... Superior training + superior firepower + Air superiority etc etc...
The result is that we will never dare to fight another country who have the same doctrine (the losses would cause a catastrophe in our economy/communication etc...)
We look like the bad guys when we attack poor countries with inferior forces. Etc...
This is why I somehow respect the Soviet Doctrines because I see it like a popular battle... the population fighting for itself.
While most modern armies look like armies of mercenaries... Who love battle because it's their job. And that they would hate to see peace.
And this balance of power is important. When you use superior equipement to compensate against superior numbers. I can understand that.
but when you have superior force + superior numbers... you become arrogant.
I think that the Russian army is quite balanced. they have numbers...
It's just that they have a different doctrine. In the West we want elite professional troops with advanced weapons. We aim at superiority in everything... Superior training + superior firepower + Air superiority etc etc...
The result is that we will never dare to fight another country who have the same doctrine (the losses would cause a catastrophe in our economy/communication etc...)
We look like the bad guys when we attack poor countries with inferior forces. Etc...
This is why I somehow respect the Soviet Doctrines because I see it like a popular battle... the population fighting for itself.
While most modern armies look like armies of mercenaries... Who love battle because it's their job. And that they would hate to see peace.
And this balance of power is important. When you use superior equipement to compensate against superior numbers. I can understand that.
but when you have superior force + superior numbers... you become arrogant.
I think that the Russian army is quite balanced. they have numbers...
sorry for taking apart post, but i liek it too much:
Now-lets talk tansks and see when the Russians lost the edge
Sherman Vs T-34: no doubt russians have the lead
M47 Vs T-54: Still got it
M48 Vs. T-55: Its a tie
M60 Vs. T-62/T-72: Oh oh- they lost it.
M1A1 Vs T-62/T-80: Are you joking?
M1A2 Vs T-90: Nope, stil lhavent got it back.
They make fast, lightly armored, uncomfrtable tanks with bad fire control.
Yes, in 1946(!) and every single rifle they made up t o7 years ago was based on it. Dont get me wrong I love the AK-47(I have one and i prefer it to most rifles). But still, 62 years ago...
Now-lets talk tansks and see when the Russians lost the edge
Sherman Vs T-34: no doubt russians have the lead
M47 Vs T-54: Still got it
M48 Vs. T-55: Its a tie
M60 Vs. T-62/T-72: Oh oh- they lost it.
M1A1 Vs T-62/T-80: Are you joking?
M1A2 Vs T-90: Nope, stil lhavent got it back.
They make fast, lightly armored, uncomfrtable tanks with bad fire control.
Yes, they have a foolish doctrine, and it only works in Russia in the 1950s. You need a massive army and endless room to retreat if your screwed. oh, and a deadly winter. The problem is they sold that garbage to people like Syria and Egypt, and that screwed those people over seriously. In 1973 Egyptian tank commanders charged with their hatches closed, passed the israeli tanks with out noticing, and got shot in the rear side.
We look bad when we attack the Taliban, Saddam Hussain and others of their kind. Screw that, I think we look beautifull.
I take personel offence to that and i suggest you apologize. I havent met a single person who was at war and wanted to do it again. Yes its their proffession, but they love their country and they fight for their comrads. Trust me its not a good way to make money.
Unfortunatly the russians and their clients cant afford superior noumbers.
who dose? soldeirs are only arrogant untill the first guy gets hit.
No they dont. look at it really long and hard. half the equippment is in disrepair. troops are drunk or deserting, they bearaly have fuel to train.
Well well, dont take offense.
I'm talking about image. but I will explain myself... just give me some time.
I fully agree with you, I heard about how the T-72 was unconfortable and how the Russians tanks were ineffective... but for me, they are just tools... in the hand of the Syrians/Egyptians they were ineffective.
But I'm still sure that even a T-72 could do the job when it comes to fire bullets and shells on people.
If Israel had T-72s like their enemies, do you think that they would have lost the war?
I remember a friend who was making an interesting comparison... that in the past, there was different kinds of troops... like slaves, nobles, freemen etc...
and that the arab armies and such were like armies of slaves... with poor morale, poor value in the eyes of their commanders etc...
I dont fully agree with him, but it was an interesting way to see things...
I'm sure that even if they had modern Merkavas at that time, they would still loose the war. They will have a better kill/death ratio... that's it.
I dont believe in "evil people"... I dont think that the Taliban or Saddam Hussein are "evil creatures"... we are all human beings.
the Talibans are poorly educated people living in the middle of a desert. they have a warrior culture... that's it. poor souls hiding in mountains... I would kill myself if I had to live like them tomorrow. of course they dont fear death.
They are Muslims, they cut heads for alcohol usage today and sell cocaine the next day... Am I the only one to think that they are a joke?
Saddam Hussein was a dictator. What's so special about him? I'm sure that any minister or official of the Baath party could have done the same things as him. I dont care about him.
Anyway...
what I meant is that when you see these videos where you see Apache helicopters shooting people in the desert, by night... while they dont even know that there is some deadly machine looking at them and engaging them... You feel sorry for them. They dont have a chance. I know that it's not a sport, and that there is no such thing as a fair advantage in war... but come on...
So this is why these wars are unpopular. Am I the only one not believing that Irak was EVER a threat to the US?
Holding an AK-47 doesnt make you a revolutionnary... like holding an AK doesnt make you a terrorist.
Driving a cheap tank doesnt make you the popular warrior or the mercenary...
And I'm talking about "look" here. And you should agree with me. Let me give you exemples in this same forum:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/marines-itching-use-warrior-training-t67726.html
but not today. today, war is a bussiness. and I'm sad to see that.
This huge preparation level can be the source of somekind of arrogance that could provoke a war.
When you have a superior army and the finance to start a war Etc... People think that war is easy.
you go someplace, drop bombs, send armor to seize terroritory and you come back the same night to spend some quality time with your wife...
but reality is different. I still remember Bush on an aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished banner"...
And I think that you are Israeli. You have a different view when it comes to war. When you think about war, it's a some hundred miles away from your home and not in the other part of the globe. I can understand that.
All these video games about war and such...
But I just wanted to say that they have my sympathy. I dont believe in their choices, but I think that the intent was good.
and I dont think that we went really offtopic.
I just wanted to say that superior hardware can have a bad influence when it comes to finances/politics/image etc...
I dont trust this "perfect machine" doctrine...
I'm talking about image. but I will explain myself... just give me some time.
I fully agree with you, I heard about how the T-72 was unconfortable and how the Russians tanks were ineffective... but for me, they are just tools... in the hand of the Syrians/Egyptians they were ineffective.
But I'm still sure that even a T-72 could do the job when it comes to fire bullets and shells on people.
If Israel had T-72s like their enemies, do you think that they would have lost the war?
I remember a friend who was making an interesting comparison... that in the past, there was different kinds of troops... like slaves, nobles, freemen etc...
and that the arab armies and such were like armies of slaves... with poor morale, poor value in the eyes of their commanders etc...
I dont fully agree with him, but it was an interesting way to see things...
should we say "with bad optical sights" or sold to countries with a poor level of education and poor training?
I'm sure that even if they had modern Merkavas at that time, they would still loose the war. They will have a better kill/death ratio... that's it.
Easy sir. that's not what I meant.
I dont believe in "evil people"... I dont think that the Taliban or Saddam Hussein are "evil creatures"... we are all human beings.
the Talibans are poorly educated people living in the middle of a desert. they have a warrior culture... that's it. poor souls hiding in mountains... I would kill myself if I had to live like them tomorrow. of course they dont fear death.
They are Muslims, they cut heads for alcohol usage today and sell cocaine the next day... Am I the only one to think that they are a joke?
Saddam Hussein was a dictator. What's so special about him? I'm sure that any minister or official of the Baath party could have done the same things as him. I dont care about him.
Anyway...
what I meant is that when you see these videos where you see Apache helicopters shooting people in the desert, by night... while they dont even know that there is some deadly machine looking at them and engaging them... You feel sorry for them. They dont have a chance. I know that it's not a sport, and that there is no such thing as a fair advantage in war... but come on...
So this is why these wars are unpopular. Am I the only one not believing that Irak was EVER a threat to the US?
I'm sorry if you felt offended. I mean no disrespect. but I just never said that. I'm talking about potential image. When you are the strongest sherif in town, you have to be ready to be called an imperialist tyrant.
Holding an AK-47 doesnt make you a revolutionnary... like holding an AK doesnt make you a terrorist.
Driving a cheap tank doesnt make you the popular warrior or the mercenary...
And I'm talking about "look" here. And you should agree with me. Let me give you exemples in this same forum:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/marines-itching-use-warrior-training-t67726.html
It's not the best exemple... but you see what I mean. War isnt a game. it's not funny. we dont go to war to prove that we are a man or to impress a girl. we dont go to war to prove anything... we go to war to defend ourselves. when we have no other way around...
but not today. today, war is a bussiness. and I'm sad to see that.
This huge preparation level can be the source of somekind of arrogance that could provoke a war.
When you have a superior army and the finance to start a war Etc... People think that war is easy.
you go someplace, drop bombs, send armor to seize terroritory and you come back the same night to spend some quality time with your wife...
but reality is different. I still remember Bush on an aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished banner"...
For who? If I was selling tanks/aircrafts/bombs... believe me, war is a perfect way to make money.
And I think that you are Israeli. You have a different view when it comes to war. When you think about war, it's a some hundred miles away from your home and not in the other part of the globe. I can understand that.
the Russians actually cant afford a luxuous army... and their clients cant afford quality nor number.
I can imagine that. I'm just a little mad these days... I saw videos on the Internet. I'm pissed off when I see people going to war listening to rock music while they shoot people. And these videos of people getting killed with metal music. like if killing people was fun.
All these video games about war and such...
their economic model failed, their socialist model failed etc etc... I'm not surprised if there is repercussions on their military forces...
But I just wanted to say that they have my sympathy. I dont believe in their choices, but I think that the intent was good.
and I dont think that we went really offtopic.
I just wanted to say that superior hardware can have a bad influence when it comes to finances/politics/image etc...
I dont trust this "perfect machine" doctrine...
Very intresting reply.
This is stricktly off-toppic, but it dosent matter what you believe. the point is these people hate your values, and want to kill you. You can either ignore them and watch them **** over you, or kill them.
Iraq was never a threat to the USA. It was alawys a thrat to all its neighbores and to israel. Some of thos countries are allies to USA. I think the 1991 war was a very good thing for the middle east. catch me in 15 years and ask me about the second one.
Oh, and when I see(and ive seen alot) terrorists trying to sneak around unaware of the fact that thermal imaging exist and about to become fully aware and fully dead, i dont feel sorry, i feel happy my side hasa bigger stick.
Soldiers do get exited for combat, and do want to proove them selves. its not because they like killing and dieing its because they take pride in being the best and there is only one way to know if you are. training is b******t, **** hitting the fan is the only real test.
Yes well, someone has to keep the people supplied with weapons. i agree its good buissnes, but what can you do?
Young soldiers have to give themselves a feeling their going to kick ass. If you make yourself believe your a hard as a nail than you go in to **** in good spirit. I agree its stupid but keeping your self pumped is a hard thing.
NOW PLEASE, BACK TO TANKS.
The problem wasent their tanks. The T-62s were equal to the M48s. They were superior to the Centurion. The problem was the russians told them to charge with hatches closed, so they did. like idiots, which they are not, they are very brave man. But the russian doctrine allowed for zero improviztions.
This is stricktly off-toppic, but it dosent matter what you believe. the point is these people hate your values, and want to kill you. You can either ignore them and watch them **** over you, or kill them.
Iraq was never a threat to the USA. It was alawys a thrat to all its neighbores and to israel. Some of thos countries are allies to USA. I think the 1991 war was a very good thing for the middle east. catch me in 15 years and ask me about the second one.
Oh, and when I see(and ive seen alot) terrorists trying to sneak around unaware of the fact that thermal imaging exist and about to become fully aware and fully dead, i dont feel sorry, i feel happy my side hasa bigger stick.
Soldiers do get exited for combat, and do want to proove them selves. its not because they like killing and dieing its because they take pride in being the best and there is only one way to know if you are. training is b******t, **** hitting the fan is the only real test.
Yes well, someone has to keep the people supplied with weapons. i agree its good buissnes, but what can you do?
Young soldiers have to give themselves a feeling their going to kick ass. If you make yourself believe your a hard as a nail than you go in to **** in good spirit. I agree its stupid but keeping your self pumped is a hard thing.
NOW PLEASE, BACK TO TANKS.