>The 2A82 tank gun with auto-fastened and partially chrome-plated barrel uses all existing 125-mm ammunition and new promising ammunition. In particular, BPS "Vacuum-1" (tungsten), "Vacuum-2" (uranium) with a length of 900mm, OFS "Telnik" with explosions on the trajectory and the 3UBK21 rocket "Sprinter". For this purpose, the chamber part of the bore is made with an additional, forward-shifted tapering section for pinching the leading belt of the charging projectile. The development took into account the possibility of placing in the combat compartments of serial tanks.
Because Vacuum-2 uses uranium its deeper. Svinets-2(Uranium) has 100mm more penetration than Svinets-1(tungsten) therefore Vacuum-2 can go 1100mm deep.
>DU penetrates more than tungsten only at proper velocities modulated by penetrator weight, tungesten performs better at beyond 1700m/s which the 2A82-1M reportedly far surpasses
William Lee
General tank question. Is there some sort of safety mechanism that keeps the driver’s head from being clocked by the main gun?
Nolan Taylor
>daily shitting on the F-35 >sucks a mile of russian dick on a daily basis Whatever you say vatnik. You might as well link RT or sputnik if you're gonna post blatant kreml propaganda outlets.
Dylan Perez
Not only is it an American publication, it's run by Kikes to peddle their pro-Israel, neo-Cohen agenda, so that's almost as American as Apple Pie and Blacked.
You can't call me a Vatnik against those hard facts Muttnik.
>You can't call me a Vatnik Stupid vatnik, you call a spade a spade and you call a vatnik a vatnik. In either case, NI peddles russian propaganda and US bashing as poor clickbait, to draw in dull witted retards like you and your ilk.
So, the Russians basically told the public what to do to reproduce their top of the line tank guns?
Bentley Price
Who the fuck is mounting rail guns on tanks? Even then a rail gun would be a terrible tank gun as you need a huge power supply and time to recharge it after each shot so penetration would mean jack shit when you have multiple targets.
The tanker's sense of self-preservation. If you think the proximity of the gun to the hatch on the T-14 is bad wait till you see the one for the Leopard 2A7.
See that little cutout on the armor? That's for the driver to stick his head out while driving with the turret locked forwards. Also means he can't get out if the turret is in anywhere but the forward position.
>That's for the driver to stick his head out while driving with the turret locked forwards why would he stick his head out??? He got periscopes and a front camera
Hudson Carter
Its easier and more comfortable that way. Course you only do it on marches.
From the article they haven't built any guns apart from the 24 the parade tanks have.
Evan Gutierrez
>Its easier and more comfortable that way. Course you only do it on marches. isn't it normal to turn the turret to 6 o clock??
Samuel King
Driving on roads facing backwards sounds like a pain for the guys in the turret. If you're storing the tank tank on the bed of a train for transport it makes sense to turn the turret to face the back.
William Wood
oh cool you guys finally managed to meet M829A4
Landon Long
Its bait that triggers retards like you
Daniel Ward
T-14 is an impressive piece of equipment, only retards get emotionally involved and start ''hating'' fucking inanimate objects because they're made by people they don't like. It's a leap forward in tank design. It's also interesting to note how Russians totally abandoned Soviet idea, and went overboard with focus on crew survival.
It's improbable T-14 will replace other models currently in service, but they will probably produce it in significant quantity.
Connor Williams
>no T-14s were finished in 2018 and only 24 cannons could be/were made so far.
Contract is for 132 t-14s and t-15s 100 of those being t-14s. 400 t-90s being upgraded to t-14 standards like APS armour and cannon
Evan Morgan
>estimates
Yeah, naw.
Dominic Flores
>It's improbable T-14 will replace other models currently in service, but they will probably produce it in significant quantity. The plan is to have not just one, but actually 3 (4) MBTs. Actually, no, they are going back to the whole Heavy, Medium (Kurganets, Boomerang), and Light armor (Typhoon) scheme against the variety of threats on their periphery. Not only that, they are planning on standardizing every vehicle in a brigade or division fleet around just one type. So say, against a possible peer adversary you'd have a 1st Guards tank army, complete with heavy tank divisions and brigades based on the Armata chassis. Its going to be ridiculously expensive, and would take decades at least.
Motovilikha has enough capacity to produce hundreds of tank guns for a year. T-72B3M orders require ~150 guns alone, plus current contracts from India, Algeria, etc.
Dylan Myers
So the Rheinmetall 130mm gun should easily penetrate the moon wihtout any dropoff by comparison?
Leo Jones
>ridiculously expensive
Yes, it is. It's also going to cause a logistical nightmare. Instead of having hybrid units that can completely or at least partially deploy, you'll have entire units that can't be used or would be too expensive to deploy for low or high intensity conflicts.
A doctrine like this can work for air units, but I don't think it would be viable for ground units.
Evan Jones
>Yes, it is. It's also going to cause a logistical nightmare. Instead of having hybrid units that can completely or at least partially deploy, you'll have entire units that can't be used or would be too expensive to deploy for low or high intensity conflicts. Its meant to simplify the logistical tail instead of the opposite. Less chances to f*ck up if you only have to provide for supplies, spares and equipment for one type of chassis for a formation instead of the current system where you have to have stuff for a tank, an IFV, APCs, the trucks, the artillery etc. etc.
>at least partially deploy What happens if something vital like a tank missed a supply drop? You can't roll in without tanks at least.
Benjamin Mitchell
Same characteristics of m829a3 but better guidance which was made to beat 3rd gen kontact-5.
I dont even think a lighter l55 120mm cannon on a m1a3 would provide as much force as the t-14 tank. By the time rheinmetall makes the 130mm cannon vatniks will add in a 152mm cannon.
Ethan Parker
I would expect the main problem would be the availability of units and men. They would have to rely on the same units over and over considering most conflicts these days are very similar.
>What happens if something vital like a tank missed a supply drop?
Probably would cause a problem for countries that don't have the logistical capabilities of the US (i.e. every other country).
But as an example of how things can go wrong, take the Humvee. It's primarily used for low intensity use in a standard toe to toe fight. The US took significant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan because they had to rely on the lightly armored vehicles in an asymmetrical setting.
So Russia wouldn't even be able to deploy whole units that aren't designed to deal with a conflict like that.
That's why I like the hybrid combat units that I would think would provide more flexibility to fight most conflicts and can also be supported by heavier units.
Just my two cents, of course. I am by no means an expert.
Aaron Hall
>It's also interesting to note how Russians totally abandoned Soviet idea How so? It's an object 477 with a new coat of paint. >but they will probably produce it in significant quantity Yes, for countries like India, Algeria, and China.
Wyatt Watson
ok ivan
Thomas Torres
>I would expect the main problem would be the availability of units and men. They would have to rely on the same units over and over considering most conflicts these days are very similar. Nobody has couple millions of men active in relative peacetime.
>Probably would cause a problem for countries that don't have the logistical capabilities of the US (i.e. every other country). The premise of lavish logistics wouldn't hold if the enemy has the means to strike deep within your backfield, just saying. Much prudent to plan with that in mind.
>But as an example of how things can go wrong, take the Humvee. It's primarily used for low intensity use in a standard toe to toe fight. The US took significant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan because they had to rely on the lightly armored vehicles in an asymmetrical setting. The concept of vehicle families does away with the problem of lighter, less protected vehicles getting picked off altogether.
>So Russia wouldn't even be able to deploy whole units that aren't designed to deal with a conflict like that. Russia is, alongside Armata formations, planning to deploy much lighter SBCTski formations based on the Stryker, and Typhoon brigades based on the Typhoon MRAP (they don't have an infantry formation as much as motorized rifles). In fact, as they are now, they would have much trouble transporting a single motorized rifle brigade because guess what, the MBTs tie the mobility of the entire formation down.
>That's why I like the hybrid combat units that I would think would provide more flexibility to fight most conflicts and can also be supported by heavier units. The US has actually done away with the hybrid formations; in fact the SBCT is the closest example of the vehicle family concept that I'm talking about that exists today. The Russians are merely extending the concept to its full outcome.
Mason Reyes
>How so? It's an object 477 with a new coat of paint. Both 477 concepts have horrendous crew survivability with fuel and ammo co-mingled with the crew in the tank's internal space.
Your answers indicate to me that you're talking about a large scale conflict against, at the very least, a near peer enemy. In that case you're going to use every vehicle type at your disposal and the Russian doctrine absolutely makes sense.
I was speaking in terms of pretty much every conflict from the past 15 to 20 years which would only be an insurgency type of conflict with MAYBE some regular units mixed in. I just can't imagine wanting to use a combat group of only heavy tanks in that type of scenario.
Connor Gonzalez
Vacuum-1 performance claims by the Russians are bogus. The muzzle energy would be at 140mm gun levels (over 20MJ) with Vacuum-1. There's a good chance that they "accidentally" released the figures for the 152mm 2A83 rather than the 2A82.
Luke Collins
>I was speaking in terms of pretty much every conflict from the past 15 to 20 years which would only be an insurgency type of conflict with MAYBE some regular units mixed in. I just can't imagine wanting to use a combat group of only heavy tanks in that type of scenario. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear, but to recap: Each formation of brigade or division has at least frontline combat vehicles composed of one type of chassis. Its not just Armata the tank, its Armata the IFV, the engineering vehicle, the artillery, SAM, logistics transport etc. For the less intense level of conflicts they are creating formations that are much lighter, not just Armatas. Basically: ABCT: Armata tank brigade SBCT: Bumerang or Kurganets motor rifle brigade IBCT: Typhoon brigade
Anthony Moore
>Vacuum-1 performance claims by the Russians are bogus. The muzzle energy would be at 140mm gun levels (over 20MJ) with Vacuum-1. There's a good chance that they "accidentally" released the figures for the 152mm 2A83 rather than the 2A82. Or it could be that Grifel-1 sucks donkey balls. Its a 90s round after all and not much longer than the Vacuum rounds as both are stored upright in the vertical AL situated in the hull.
Cooper Harris
You honestly believe that the Russians managed to bypass current propellant limitations and equal the muzzle energy of 140mm guns with a 125mm simply by increasing muzzle velocity a little bit?
Matthew Wright
This desu. If Rheinmetall doesn't make it the Russian won't do it too. They don't even use full tungsten rods for APFSDS for example.
Nathan Flores
>You honestly believe that the Russians managed to bypass current propellant limitations and equal the muzzle energy of 140mm guns with a 125mm simply by increasing muzzle velocity a little bit? What do you mean? muzzle energy is directly related to muzzle velocity and muzzle velocity is subject to the quantity of propellant.
Perhaps you're thinking how they manage a muzzle energy similar to that of 140 mm with a 125 mm gun? Is that it? Well, to answer that, it doesn't. Check the article, it explicitly states the 2A82 can only achieve a muzzle energy of 15 MJ, three quarters of the 140 mm XM291 gun. The penetration however, is roughly similar and that's simply because the projectiles used have very similar dimensions. The only advantage of the larger guns is much higher muzzle velocity but higher impact velocity only increases penetration slightly.
Don't really care about the debate, but this graph claims constant impact energy. So it seems that it's rather about a trade off between projectile weight and speed as opposed to just the impact of speed. Or at least unless I'm missing something.
Also concerning the larger caliber, you can fire a projectile with more weight too, or both a more capable projectile with more energy.
Hudson Clark
What's so unbelievable here, Russians have always had better guns. >If Rheinmetall doesn't make it the Russian won't do it too How so, lol?
Chase Peterson
Need to keep that turret throwing competition going on!
Matthew Davis
Because le German steel is le best Jow Forums meme.
Parker Moore
hit a nerve, did he?
Ryder Torres
the T-14 wont see the light of mass production. why? no buyers. no customers=canned. such is the case with many military projects.
Eli Taylor
>No tank can go deeper than a T-14 M1A2 Sepv3 w/ M829A4 APFSDS
actually
Nolan Ramirez
What kind of numbers can that pull compared to vacuum?
Ayden Fisher
Impressovky
Jackson Russell
>No tank can go deeper than a T-14. This tank went deeper into your mother.
Henry Mitchell
Stats on A4?
Justin Lopez
Blowout panels control propellant fires, not high explosives detonating. You cant do anything about the latter but evacuate.
David Davis
>Don't really care about the debate, but this graph claims constant impact energy. So it seems that it's rather about a trade off between projectile weight and speed as opposed to just the impact of speed. Or at least unless I'm missing something. Correct. In fact since the graph maintains a constant L:D ratio the penetrator in fact gets a lot shorter as the velocity increases. However that's assuming both systems push roughly the same fraction of their muzzle energy into the projectiles which I'll talk about below.
>Also concerning the larger caliber, you can fire a projectile with more weight too, or both a more capable projectile with more energy. Actually, much of the muzzle energy for late 80s APFSDS were wasted. They still use Aluminium sabots which were a lot heavy than what even the Russians use nowadays (they use some composite material, not sure if Carbon composite), and had fat projectiles (22:1 for the XM962) instead of the long and slim projectiles that are current APFSDS.
source? on the t15, t14 break down also >they are going to shove armatas gun which completely drove the fuck huge design of the t-14 into a t90 somehow man what are the new height requirements going to be 3ft 9?
Jackson Ross
>source? on the t15, t14 break down I think it was for a tank brigade: 3 tank battalions plus one motor rifle battalion Each tank battalion has 31 tanks (1 for battalion HQ), so thats 93 plus motor rifle battalion with 31 T-15 brigade HQ has a T-14 and a T-15 anti-tank platoon with 6 T-15s? =132
>man what are the new height requirements going to be 3ft 9? The original 2A82, not the 2A82-1M used by the T-14 doesn't look like its that much bigger than the older 2A46M guns. The problem is where to store the much larger rounds developed for it. Those ain't fitting under the carousel limited to 740 mm long projectiles and if you aren't using the longer projectiles why bother?
Hunter Robinson
WTF does the blowout panel meme have to do with a carousel?
William Peterson
>You cant do anything about the latter but evacuate.
What are insensitive munitions for $500 Alex?
Grayson Edwards
Russia is still using aluminium sabots.
Jeremiah Perez
It took them already 25 years to field a proper version of the Svinets APFSDS.
>WTF does the blowout panel meme have to do with a carousel? You don't think the carousel was designed with blowouts in mind? With no humans in the turret you can even directly vent through the access hatch.
>What are insensitive munitions for $500 Alex? You don't always get to load IM only. There's millions of tons of old stocks of ammo from the Cold War and it would take decades to replace everything with IM.
>Russia is still using aluminium sabots. ? Isn't svinets composite? I'm going off memory here, from fofanov, I think.
Camden James
Production =/= R&D. Designers can still learn from projects that have not entered production. In fact most projects that did enter production are a culmination of several projects that didn't quite make it.
Gabriel Morgan
Any videos of it firing it's gun and hitting a target?
Carson Richardson
>There's millions of tons of old stocks of ammo from the Cold War
