Instead stupid decision to build 20 t-14, all t series tanks should be modified with this turret

Lol for wat you can destroy abrams with a peace of cardboard

Attached: Screenshot_20181022-013046_YouTube.jpg (719x817, 214K)

fpbp

Attached: 1493675200762.jpg (1016x568, 293K)

because tank turrets can turn in a few seconds to face a target in any direction.

If you want to get REALLY technical, they really all are derivitives of the BT-series tanks which themselves began with the Christie tanks. Soviet and Russian tank design is directly descended from US tank design.

They did. In practice, it was overkill and even the Whippet operated with only one machine gun which quickly withdrew and shifted positions, because it was less cumbersome than trying to fit three men into a metal box next to four of those things.

Attached: Whippet.png (650x368, 515K)

what do all those launchers shoot? human shit?

Ahem.

Attached: comparison_abrams_t90_leopard_UPDATE.png2.png (545x346, 118K)

?

Attached: abrams_turret_armor_cavities.jpg (1051x716, 153K)

Attached: 1480584830_4[1].jpg (692x527, 66K)

Like how all guns came from China.

"?"-what? He asked about star fort outline of tank turrets and T-90 is so far the closest a turret got to having no dead zones exposed from the front and sides, the latter only begin to get exposed from angles larger than 30 degrees.

I don't think there's really anything inherently wrong with the soviet autoloader layout, it just needs to have a ring of composite armor around the ammo rack. Most of the problems stem from being obsessed with keeping weight at 38 tons and having little regard for crew safety when the tanks were being designed.

>T-90 is so far the closest a turret got to having no dead zones exposed from the front and sides, the latter only begin to get exposed from angles larger than 30 degrees.
T-90 turret frontal armor is pretty terrible around the mantlet. I'm unsure why they left that area unprotected on every recent soviet tank. The T-90MS is the only exception, they finally added some armor around that area.

>it just needs to have a ring of composite armor around the ammo rack
That's still a lot of armor to add on. Assuming you want to bring the ammo protection up to the standard of the T-72A's turret, you're adding ~210mm of armor to either side of the turret ring, which is not an insignificant increase in width for the Russians; you'd be taking a 3.59 meter wide vehicle and bringing it up to 4.1 meters before adding on anything like side skirts or era.
All that being said, at this point it's pretty much agreed upon that keeping all your ammo open to the fighting compartment is a really bad idea, let alone having your crew sitting on top of it. Both the Russians and the Chinese are moving away from it, and I can't really think of any particularly "modern" tanks that rely entirely upon hull-stowage for their ammo.

>Most of the problems stem from being obsessed with keeping weight at 38 tons
Sorry, what?
T-64A (Object 434), 1967: 38 tonnes.
T-72 (Object 172M), 1973: 41 tonnes.
T-80 (Object 219 sp 2), 1976: 42 tonnes.
T-80B (Object 219R), 1978: 42.5 tonnes.
T-72A (Object 176), 1979: 41.5 tonnes.
T-72B (Object 184), 1985: 42 tonnes.
T-80U (Object 219AS), 1985: 46 tonnes.
T-72B obr.1989g, 1988-90: 46 tonnes.
T-90 (Object 188), 1992: 46 tonnes.
T-90A (Object 188A1), 2004: 46.5 tonnes.
T-90AM (Object 188AM), 2011: 48 tonnes.
T-14 (Object 148), 2014: 49 tonnes.
>and having little regard for crew safety when the tanks were being designed
Shitty meme. The tanks were designed to rush head-on against NATO aggressors in Europe in an all-out WWIII, not to take hits from sandnigger mercenaries sitting on rooftops with RPGs.

Attached: t-80b (1).jpg (2047x1323, 618K)

Indeed, though I think some other SEA nations developed cannons independantly of the Chinese as well.

Something about that turret design is unsettling to me.

What would be a better term? Morozov-series? Tagil tanks? There's a postwar lineage needs a name like Patton tanks.

>What would be a better term?
A better term would be not being a lazy ignorant faggot and referring to th actual tank you are talking about. Even saying "Abrams" makes little sense, as the protection of M1 was somewhere on the level of T-72A, while M1A1HA could match T-80U.

pic for good measure. Wars make the best tank designs

Attached: T-44-122_and_Panther.jpg (600x213, 22K)

this proposed turret had a new autoloader deisng with only shells in the ring and charges in the rear compartment

Attached: 15400397882970.png (987x722, 222K)

This is a shit design across the board. The frontal armor is explicitly a shot trap. In other words it is sloped in such way that it will channel any incoming ordinance directly into the space where the turret meets the hull. What's the purpose of having an extended rear section if it looks like you are going to keep the autoloader beneath the turret? Separation of projectile and charge? Why have the autoloader beneath the turret at all if you're going to have all that extra space in the rear? Speaking of, doesn't the rear extension cover where the "exhaust" vents are on most T-## tanks? Are all of those black tubes smoke grenade projectors? Why?

This entire design is just all kinds of WTF. Which sci-fi universe or alt history fan fic did you rip this from?

Attached: Flipped Panther.jpg (4480x3466, 917K)

>1961+57
>Shot trap
Lol, get a load of this retard.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-10-22 U-5TS - Wikipedia.png (277x65, 2K)

>What's the purpose of having an extended rear section if it looks like you are going to keep the autoloader beneath the turret?
The purpose is storing charges.
>Why have the autoloader beneath the turret at all
Because it's the only place where it fits and because this module was specifically designed with upgrading the existing park of T-72, T-80 and T-90 in mind.
>if you're going to have all that extra space in the rear?
What extra space in the rear, moron? Tell us more about how you imagine putting an autoloader into that tiny box.
>doesn't the rear extension cover where the "exhaust" vents are on most T-## tanks?
No, it does not.
>Are all of those black tubes smoke grenade projectors?
Yes.
>Why?
Why what?
>This entire design is just all kinds of WTF.
Your "commentary" on it is.
>Which sci-fi universe or alt history fan fic did you rip this from?
Moron.

Attached: t-72b burlak prototype.jpg (1280x960, 124K)

This is a real design? Oh, wait, just looked it up. Its a one off Russian experimental design that didn't go anywhere. What do you know, learned something know. However there are apparently some damn good reasons this slab of stupidity never saw the light of day. Tell me Amerikaner, why do you think the Burlak turret is some how superior to all other existing T-## turrets? What makes it so special that it would be worth while to dust off the rust, mass produce, and retrofit onto all T-## tanks?

Attached: Syrian Panzer IV 1956.jpg (650x352, 61K)

>what do all those launchers shoot? human shit?
Slav shit.

First that turret is retarded. Second, the pillar of the "Armata" series of vehicles is the non-turret part.

>However there are apparently some damn good reasons
Yeah, reasons being they decided that it's better to develop a new tank and perform moderate upgrades to the existing tanks instead of this excessive and expensive one.
>this slab of stupidity
You are yet to provide legitimate critique to it.

Attached: t-72b burlak prototype (2).jpg (1280x960, 725K)

Basically this. The tanks was literal WW3 machines, not police vans. Casualties was seen as acceptable given the low cost and production time. Its all really based on what saved them in WW2

>The tanks were designed to rush head-on against NATO aggressors in Europe in an all-out WWIII

Attached: 1531305613971.jpg (604x451, 74K)

>Casualties was seen as acceptable given the low cost and production time.
You just rephrased the same shitty meme he posted. If that was true they'd have been stuck with T-55. Instead they were introducing revolutionary design features like composite armour, GLATGM, autoloader, gas turbine, NERA and ERA en masse while the west was stuck with their functional equivalents of T-62.

Attached: europe from moscow.jpg (900x959, 254K)

What, are you gonna argue this, lol?

Attached: 1366454118248.jpg (429x409, 48K)

Yeah, in the late 60's/70's the USSR was ahead techwise, but there was still limits on unit cost, size and production time that just didnt exist in the west.

In the USSR a lot of the parts non-related to the gun or armor was very simple and crude. Not bad by any means, but still designed with a different mindset. In the west even non-critical componenents was becomming more and more overengeneered.

>NATO Aggressors
>revolutionary design features like composite armour, GLATGM, autoloader, gas turbine, NERA and ERA en masse
GLATGM and gas turbines are revolutionary? Really?

>there was still limits on unit cost, size and production time that just didnt exist in the west
There was not, which is why they could afford developing not one, not two, but three fucking MBTs at the same time. Decision itself is questionable at best, but it shows how unlimited was the funding for tank R&D.
>Not bad by any means, but still designed with a different mindset
The path they went with sights has shown itself to be wrong in the late 80s, but other than that and especially before mid to late 80s their tanks were fucking space magic. It's debatable tho whether they couldn't have keep up had their economical system not collapsed in the late 80s. Seeing projects like Object 187, I find it totally believable that in the 90s USSR could easily catch up on sights.

Attached: t-80bv gsfg.jpg (1440x1032, 843K)

>what do all those launchers shoot? human shit?
That would certainly make sense if they want to increase export sales

Attached: poo.jpg (1280x720, 206K)

>NATO Aggressors
What about them?
>GLATGM and gas turbines are revolutionary?
They were, especially their introduction en masse. Kobra missile was introduced in 1974 and before T-80 in 1976, the only tank in service with gas turbine that I know of was Swedish Strv 103 which was produced in very small series.

Attached: t-80 exhibition.jpg (2250x1500, 1.76M)

The T-80 was not the first tank that could fire GLATGM.

Because Russian tanks are somehow impervious to the same tactic.
Slav magic

>>T. Vatnik somehow believes a T-90 stuffed with cardboard will not burn

I never said it was. T-64B with Kobra missile was however the first mass produced tank in service that could fire GLATGM through an ordinary tank gun. Yes, there were Sheridan and Starship, but these are functionally more of equivalents to stiff like Object 775.

Attached: object 775.jpg (1084x429, 95K)

>You are yet to provide legitimate critique to it.
He did. The shot trap shape of it.

See . This is not WWII, grandpa, shot traps are simply not a thing at these velocities with APFSDS ammunition. Especially, with how this "shot trap" is formed not by solid armour of the turret, but by ERA desighed to deintegrate rounds.

shot traps are a retard-catcher meme m8t. they id tards whose knowledge of armor stopped in the late 1950s.

Yes there were you dumb vatnik, there was a huge R&D budget, and part of that R&D budget was focused on how all this new tech could be integrated in an as small, light and cheap tank as possible that could be massproduced in retarded numbers case of war. Thats the whole reson the T-55 and T-72 was produced for so long, the T-64s and T-80s never really reached a state where absurd massproduction could happen.

>Agressors
>Implying

>rush head-on against NATO aggressors
One just got to love the deluded double-think present in vatniks.

>What about them?
It's made up shit trying to justify the Soviet plan to invade the west
>They were, especially their introduction en masse. Kobra missile was introduced in 1974
GLATGMs aren't important. They were issued in small numbers to units to engage ATGM carriers at long range where inferior Soviet FCS couldn't hit a target.
>and before T-80 in 1976, the only tank in service with gas turbine that I know of was Swedish Strv 103 which was produced in very small series.
Turbines are so "revolutionary" that's they've been on exactly one tank since.

No, they were not. USSR funding for tank R&D was virtually unlimited which is shown through them developing AND mass producing three MBTs at the same time. This is a fucking fact of history, moron, it's what Soviet MIC is rightfully criticised for, you dumb fuck.
>Thats the whole reson the T-55 and T-72 was produced for so long
Ah, there we fucking go again, typical mistake of a profane. T-72 was more expensive. It was easier to produce and could be produced at larger numbers in the event of war. Money was never a concern that pushed T-72 production, the expected wartime output was.
>T-64s and T-80s never really reached a state where absurd massproduction could happen
Maybe in some different reality.

Attached: 1518882744006.jpg (960x784, 220K)

Implying what?
In the event of NATO aggression the only chance the WarPac had apart from strategic nuclear exchange was wiping NATO off the face of Europe and negotiate with the US on therms of the stalemate where the SU can't invade the US and the US can't land in Europe.
>Operation Unthinkable
>Plan Totality
>Operation Dropshot
>NATO aggression os made up shit
Lol, yeah, whatever.
>GLATGMs aren't important
Tell that to your MIC, retarded redneck.
>Turbines are so "revolutionary" that's they've been on exactly one tank since.
Revolutionary enough for the US to adopt it.

Attached: zLch0.gif (490x245, 121K)

>No, they were not. USSR funding for tank R&D was virtually unlimited which is shown through them developing AND mass producing three MBTs at the same time. This is a fucking fact of history, moron, it's what Soviet MIC is rightfully criticised for, you dumb fuck.
Funding was yes, as I clearly stated, and these funds went into trying to make good tanks. Good tanks are easy to produce and can be produced in large numbers.

>Ah, there we fucking go again, typical mistake of a profane. T-72 was more expensive. It was easier to produce and could be produced at larger numbers in the event of war. Money was never a concern that pushed T-72 production, the expected wartime output was.
Exactly my fucking point user, read again please. The T-64 and T-80s could never be produced in the numbers the USSR wanted in case of war, and this was seen as an issue. An issue that simply never existed in the west.

Jesus you are a dumb fuck.

>Lol, yeah, whatever.
Correct. Responding to the Soviet takeover and oppression of Europe should they plan on continuing west isn't aggression.
>Tell that to your MIC, retarded redneck.
Well somebody's cranky ;)
We don't use them because they aren't relevant to us- nobody outside of the eastern block does.
>Revolutionary enough for the US to adopt it.
The Turbine for the M1 was chosen before NATO knew about the T-80 even existing. Notice how on later marks of the T-80 it was done away with entirely and hasn't been back since, east or west.

NATO was never the agressors user. NATO was formed with the sole puropse of stopping Soviet agression after all the new democratic eastern euro nations turned out to be nothing more them dictatorship puppets of the USSR.

The original point I was arguing is "there was still limits on unit cost, size and production time that just didnt exist in the west". Now you agree that funding was unlimited. What are we arguing about?

Cost as in production cost in manual labor and raw material, not R&D funding. Physical size and production time limits also existed (hence beeing able to cross bridges and be massproduced in war)

>Responding to the Soviet takeover and oppression of Europe should they plan on continuing west
Countering the west's actual plans on attacking the SU. Lol.
>We don't use them because they aren't relevant to us
Do you realise the significance of introducing a missile with 600 fucking mm RHA penetration and 4 fucking km range to an ordinary tank gun in the 19 fucking 74?
>The Turbine for the M1 was chosen before NATO knew about the T-80 even existing
Questionable, but whatever, and? I didn't say they adopted it because of T-80. It was adopted nevertheless. And apart from Swedes admittedly doing it first although in very small series, Soviet Union did put it in mass production. Like it or not, it was revolutionary.
>NATO was never the agressors user
Do you hear yourself, user? Like fucking bin the Cold War, you realise Russia-US relations are shit because NATO bombed the shit out of Yugoslavia disregarding of all the rules and civilian lives? Tell me more of your NATO propaganda shittalk, moron.

>Cost as in production cost in manual labor and raw material
Like I said, T-64 was cheaper.T-72 could be mass produced disregarding the costs. That's the point,it's what was making T-72 a choice to consider.

Attached: soviet tank production values.jpg (1774x714, 418K)

>Like fucking bin the Cold War, you realise Russia-US relations are shit because NATO bombed the shit out of Yugoslavia disregarding of all the rules and civilian lives?

And how does that make NATO an agressor against the USSR in the cold war since thats what this whole thread is about?

Also, Russia currently bombs the shit out of both Ukraine and Syria, but that doesnt mean the US has reson to belive they will nuke them tomorrow.

>And how does that make NATO an agressor against the USSR
You relise Russia mobilised into WWI for Serbs, right?
>in the cold war
I quoted the plans.

>Russia currently bombs the shit out of both Ukraine
Lol what? Dude. Like turn off CNN.
>and Syria
You man terrorist mercenaries that Syria asked to help with.

Attached: judge dreddov in syria.png (457x489, 242K)

>Do you realise the significance of introducing a missile with 600 fucking mm RHA penetration and 4 fucking km range to an ordinary tank gun in the 19 fucking 74?
They didn't. The Early models of the Kobra couldn't handle anywhere near that. Provide a source for your claim.
>Questionable, but whatever, and?
Not questionable.
>Like it or not, it was revolutionary
Revolutionary would mean something that changed the way tanks were designed- smoothbore cannons, digital FCS, full stabilization. Not really a different powerplant that only one MBT has stuck with, and is more of a drawback for most militaries.

>T-72 could be mass produced disregarding the costs
Yes user, yes it could. And why is that?

Also, you are comparing the early model T-64A to the later T-72A. Once the T-72A was in production, the T-64 production had been switched to T-64Bs, and there was no going back to T-64As so compare those two instead.

B I T C H L A S A G N A
I
T
C
H

L
A
S
A
G
N
A

>This fucking thread
It's likely none of you faggots watched these:
youtube.com/watch?v=7uc-wTlD-_U
The literal US army thinks you're a fag and your shits all retarded

>dude, we are totally not in ukraine, I swear, all the ammunition for those shellings that come on a dayly basis are totally homemade by some drunk rebels with no tools.

>You man terrorist mercenaries that Syria asked to help with.
Yepp, exactly those.

Are you so fucking intellectually dishonest to no secede the point that Russia's not "Illegally occupying" anything in Syria and that literal regional government has requested their aid?

Not to mention that the united states is quite literally withholding territory from said government because it sees it as illegitimate, ala the exact same shit what you're getting all mister cranky pants about russia doing in ukraine? Jow Forums is such a fucking abyssmal board for anything but finding out details on guns/tanks

Attached: 1482830774562.jpg (600x417, 53K)

>The missile has a muzzle velocity of 125 m/s, this increases to 800 m/s at its peak, but averages out at 350 to 400 meters a second. The flight time to 4000 meters is 9 to 10 seconds. The missile has a single 4.5 kg HEAT warhead, which can penetrate 600 mm of RHA.
>9M112M – upgraded modification tested in 1977 and adopted in 1978 as part of the 9K112-1 missile system in the T-80B, armour penetration increased by 20%. Production started in 1979.
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
>Not questionable.
So when did the US learn about turbine engine development on T-64?
>Revolutionary would mean something that changed the way tanks were designed
Turbine is the way to go in the US since what, 1978?
>Yes user, yes it could. And why is that?
Because it was easier to produce en masse disregarding higher costs.
>you are comparing the early model T-64A to the later T-72A
Yes, the other thing was that T-64 reached its limits with T-64B. Which is also why they switched to a more costly but easier to produce tank. Disregarding the fucking costs.

>dude, we are totally not in ukraine
Ukrainian general literally said "we are yet to encounter Russian Army units". Turn off CNN you dumb fuck.

Well you are starting to get my point here. What the US does in Ukraine is what Russia does in Syria and vise versa. They are both bad guys these days, and the US is only one of 29 nations in NATO.

But that has zero to do with what happened during the cold war, and during the early Cold war the USSR was the agressor. If anything this should be painfully obvious these days considering all of the EE nations the USSR occupoed joined NATO as soon as they possibly could.

>Some kholol are a reliable source compared to all those literal tons of evidence, not only from actual Russian military personel.

kek. Keep dreaming user, do you think the US isnt in Syria either, or Israel in Palestine?
Everyone does whatever the fuck they want and then naturally claims they dindu nuffin, its part of the game.

I'm not who you are arguing against.
Another person, just to get that out

Argument of aggression is complex. By all means the USSR was powerful, and it's main head of attack even mentioned by US army officials at that time was an overwhelming force, and NATO was definitely worried about that.

However, that is not to say they're effectively aggressive. Plenty of moments in history could had been defined very differently if that were the case. There wouldn't had been such easy abandonment of soviet states despite the USSR's abiltiy to project power otherwise.

I need to see this mounted on tripedal/quadrapedal spider tanks

>Hohol official in field is not a reliable source, a fucking CNN propaganda is
And then they ask why no one takes westerners seriously, lol.

>Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Notice how I asked you for a source? Where is it? Remember, we're talking about the original model from 1976.
>So when did the US learn about turbine engine development on T-64?
Considering how limited their knowledge would've been at the time, you tell me.
>Turbine is the way to go in the US since what, 1978?
Yes, one tank uses it and it hasn't been on any proposed or built MBTs since.

Please user, point out where in this thread I refered to the CNN as a reliable source. Go ahead.

>Because it was easier to produce en masse disregarding higher costs.
You are repeating yourself user, please provide some details to why the T-64A was cheaper to produce then the T-72A

You are stuck in the mentality of cost = only cash money. Cash meant absolutly nothing at all in a soviet factory switched over to wartime production.

>NATO bombed the shit out of Yugoslavia disregarding of all the rules and civilian lives
NATO bombed the shit out of Yougoslavia because the Serbs were actively committing genocide against their neighbours. Why is it always "aggression" to intervene when slavs are doing some nasty shit? Fucking vatnik.

>the USSR's abiltiy to project power
As evidenced by their success in Chechnya? Lmao

>american education

I was literally born in the USSR, pridurak :^)

Obviously after its fall, since only shitty americanised education of the 90s post-Soviet states can produce an imbecile that thinks Soviet Military is the same as corrupted cesspit that was Russia under the dictate of the alcoholic "democrat".

Attached: 250px-Evstafiev-pavel-grachev-1994w.jpg (250x293, 27K)

This. A better example would be the stunning sucess of the Soviet Armed forces in Afhganistan.

At least it wasnt as embarrasing as vietnam

Why yes it would. The wars are very much mirrored in the sense that in both cases USSR and Russia quickly gained control over every single major route, city and strategic point of respective regions, but failed to perform adequately against the guerilla warfare, since in the case of the Afghan they were trained for WWIII and not this and in the case of first Chechnya they didn't have resources, time aor overall ability to make any conclusions from Afghan experience in the shadow of the complete ideological, economical and moral collapse of the 90s. But the wars are also not to scale. Soviets executed Afghan perfectly, while Chechnya was utterly plagued by HQ and politicians' corruption. Nevertheless undersupplied and completely betrayed Russian soldiers managed to take control of the entire Checnhya in months, kicked terrorists out pf Grozniy and only lost to guerilla warfare ongoing for another 2 years after their admittedly Pyrrhic success.
Case in point, Yeltsin got borderline impeachment in 1998 among all things for the genocide of Russian nation and beginning the Chechen war.
But I'm sure I'll get nothing but shitty dumb memes I response.

>in the USSR
>after its fall
pick one

The rot and decay was already there in the 80s. While the army was at an all time low in 1994/1995, it would not have been able to sustain any sort of force projection against determined opposition in the WP states or seceding republics. The economic collapse of the 90s wasn't caused by the collapse of the USSR, the USSR collapsed because the economy was collapsing.

>Russia quickly gained control over every single major route, city and strategic point
Clearly you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

>In the event of NATO aggression
And what kind of contingency did the SU have for the event of unicorns flying over kreml and shitting rainbows over everyone, turning them gay?
NATO had no offensive capability to speak of, nor was the NATO equipment very well suited for offensive pushes into WarPac territories.
The SU was perfectly aware of this. The russians on the other hand, geared their army for fast attacks aimed at enslaving the free countries of Europe, their doctrines and gear favoring forward mobility and shock attacks, to the detriment of a defensive war should they ever have to fight one.

The "NATO aggressors" spiel was just a propaganda lie to justify a potential invasion of Europe.