First High-Res Look at the T-14 "Armata" MBT - [1280x960]


AFAIK this is source that is original https://vk.com/tankspub At least bmpd and claim that is twower according to your source =) Cool; many thanks! Why is everyone nuts that are going this tank? Nobody ...



This image with the title of "First High-Res Look at the T-14 "Armata" MBT - [1280x960]" is one of a large collection of pictures from the category Tank . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com

Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.

Some random comments on reddit about First High-Res Look at the T-14 "Armata" MBT - [1280x960]

  • AFAIK this is original source: https://vk.com/tankspub At least bmpd and twower claim so according to your source =)
  • Cool; thanks!
  • Why is everyone going nuts about this tank? Nobody seems to give the latest Japanese tank that came out this much attention
  • The Type-10 is pretty badass. But the reason for all the buzz around the T-14 is that it's going to become the first tank in active service to feature an unmanned turret. Plus, the crew is enclosed in an armored capsule "sealed-off" from the rest of the tank. (Also, the huge emphasis on crew protection marks a gigantic shift in design doctrine for both the Russian military and defense industry, so there's also that.)
  • I think they did away with that autoloader carousel around the turret so they won't get ammoracked so much anymore.
  • I heard about that, too. However, the turret bustle seems pretty small to carry a significant number of rounds when looking at all of the pictures that have come out so far. Unless someone with more knowledge about it can comment, I guess I'll have to wait until after May 9 for the details.
  • Yeah - I thought one of the earlier images seemed to point at a bustle autoloader, but with this image (and the other ones on the source page) in mind that's starting to seem a bit unlikely. Which, bluntly, is quite silly. 😛
  • I agree: I honestly don't see the reason behind going through the trouble of adding all of those survivability features...only to store all the ammo inside the hull... If that's the case, I honestly hope that the armored crew compartment is all it's cracked up to be.
  • Well, I mean, you can install blow-out panels under a carousel autoloader too, and you can minimise the possibility of a catastrophic hit to the compartment by, say, isolating the individual carousel cartridges in some way or another to prevent chained detonations. So from a safety perspective (though I'd argue bottom-of-vehicle panels compromises its underbelly protection somewhat), you can adequately isolate the ammunition from the crew, even with a carousel autoloader. For the most part, when T-series tanks went up in flames or had their turrets blown off in, say, Chechnya, it had a lot more to do with the spare ammunition crewmen were keeping outside the autoloader and pretty much all over the tank. 😛 But for the most part, anything you do with a carousel autoloader can be done with a bustle autoloader with less trouble and downsides. The Russians already have handy patents in place for fairly innovative removable and reloadable en-bloc autoloaders, the Americans proved with FASTDRAW that you can install safety-proofed bustle autoloaders with ammunition capacity superior to that of a carousel (which is fundamentally limited by the vehicle's turret ring), and if you stick all your ammunition in the back instead of inside the tank, your tank ends up having more growth potential in performance terms - for example, you don't end up having to constrain your APFSDS penetrator lengths on one family of tanks (T-72) because the turret ring diameter (limited) and the ammunition layout (two-piece) didn't allow for much expansion. 😛 I'd wager the Russian reasoning revolves around a number of things - their experience with carousel autoloaders and the fact that you can't put much ammunition behind a turret with a small frontal profile safely (hence the M1 TTB using a carousel autoloader - and Jordan's Falcon turret being a bit of a poor design). But even then, there're some rather innovative designs ranging from the 70s all the way up to the current day that could get around the latter problem in particular - the Russians just aren't being particularly adventurous on that front, it seems.
  • Well, that was pretty much a TIL if I've ever had one; haha. But, thinking about it now, it makes sense for the Russians to go with a system that they have experience with. Especially considering that the T-14 is supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the T-95 (which was supposedly cancelled due to its pricey-ness and technological complexity).
  • In all fairness, they've probably learned their lessons from the T-72 and accounted for the upper necessary limits of a 125mm penetrator's length in this day and age - the great advantage of that weapons system, after all, is that they've had enough time to develop over 11 different APFSDS variants over 3-4 different tanks and two different autoloader configurations before the Armata. It's quite a mature gun system in that regard. They probably won't have that same problem again, Even then, though - it's easier to separate a bustle autoloader from the crew, less inconvenient to set it up with blow-out panels, and much, much easier to reload if configured correctly (i.e. with a direct reloading port at the back of the turret). Looks like a lack of imagination to me. Concerning the T-95, you're sort of right, but sort of wrong. It's worth bearing in mind that the period between the T-95 and the T-14 isn't just marked by changes in tank development - throughout that period, the Russian military's moved much more decisively towards the professionalisation of its force (they're tired of relying on the VDV for its force projection in the near abroad), they have a much clearer picture of what their future Army will look like, they've come to an understanding with their defence industry that substandard products won't be purchased, even if that's at the expense of key defence concerns, they have a more clear and present threat in the form of a Europe and America angling to confront them over their plans for what they consider their backyard, and they have a lot more money in the defence budget to splash on procurement. All that's contributed to the Russians going from low-rate BMP-3 procurement and essentially T-72 upgrades to suddenly buying out several armies' worth of brand new Armata and Kurganets vehicles and derivatives, amongst other things.
  • Read more comments


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *