Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

Miragedriver said:

Title says Russia’s Concept for T-14 Tank. Personally it looks like a Mekava tank
[video=youtube;OKlKZ1idRcQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKlKZ1idRcQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...

It's a bit of fan art worked using ideas form some real tanks for example the guns on the side of the turret are modified from the Slovakian Moderna version of the T72M1

Who ever did it though modified the Commanders side gun into a YAK-B 12.7mm Gatling gun well keeping the loaders side a Chain gun. in there version it's presumably a larger caliber than the Moderna which packs dual 20mm Oerlikon Contraves KAA-001 cannon. the hull looks to be based on the T90 which makes sense as most Russian tanks are improvements on it's direct predecessors. the Square box around the barrel that runs from the Manlet half way to the muzzle I think was taken from the Pl01 concept tank from Poland. well the Rounded turret face seems to be from the black eagle concept tank. Overall shape is definitely inspired by the Merkava 3/4 note that there are two hatches on the hull behind the glacis plate and under the turret. this is supposed to be where the crew resides. as the turret is supposed to be unmanned. but it's a little bit of a odd choice by the designer, I say that as there is really no reason to do that, At least no reason if you are the Russians Plenty if you're not.
As Blackshark and Bar Brother like to point to Russian Tanks use a Different method of ammo storage then the west. this method is based around the autoloader being under the turret and storing it's rounds in a Carousel under the floor of the Turret fighting compartment this has been a standard feature of Russian production tanks since T64. the only break was the Black eagle prototype

Which used the Abrams method of ammo storage. but it competed against a tank that seems to have more in common with Armada the T95

Now if your not using the turret for crew or ammo why have a large turret?

I mean it's extra weight and target. And if it's not doing any thing why make such dead space? The T95 used a 152mm gun so it needed that extra space but Armada is supposed to keep the 125mm gun.
All a Auto turret for a tank needs is a loader and ammo storage, A coax MG, optics to target and aim and a few smoke grenade launchers. the crew are in the hull. Case in point the Abrams TTB

see how small it is compare that to a manned Abrams turret

Yes Yes I can here you
"But TE you siad the Polish PL01 concept also uses a Unmanned Turret and that turret looks pretty much like a regular turret to me."

PL01 envisions storing 16 rounds of ammo in the autoloader much like the French Leclerc the autoloader is in the turret another 39 rounds would be stored in the hull. this means it has to have a larger turret if they wanted to they could even make the turret larger and store more rounds in it.
If your still using the Carousel you can shrink the turret a lot. How much? Lets look at another Concept art for the T14
This one comes form Army Recognition

Independent military expert Alexey Hlopotov thoroughly studied everything that was written about Armata. Basing on his research 3D-designers Artem Trigubchak and Mikhail Rozanov tried to present possible appearance of the new Russian tank.

Click to expand...

The Turret on this is obviously heavily influenced by the Jordanian Falcon Turret seen here on a Challenger 1 hull.

The King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau Falcon Turret, developed between the KADDB and the Mechanology Design Bureau and IST Dynamics of South Africa It carried 16 rounds in it's autoloader could be fitted to Challanger1, Chieftain, Patton and Centurion tanks was armed with a RUAG L50 smoothbore gun and a 7.62mm Coax.

Click to expand...

Now advantages of such a small turret are, its a much smaller target and far lighter then a full turret like that on the video. it's got all the sensors of the full MBT and Coax and weapon stations it could conceivably even mount APS systems and ERA tiles. the Crew is in the hull, with the hull's armor to protect them. The disadvantages some like to point to the fact that the commander would loose some situational awareness as they would be reliant on Optics instead of there own eyes and ears of course having the commander in the open seems pretty stupid to me. If the tank takes Fire I am far happier as a taxpayer laying down my money for new optics on a tank rather then a funeral for it's crew.
still only time will tell it either of the concept artworks are anything near what will roll across Red Square.

K-2, South Korea, 206 in order 40 in service, gun 120 mm/55 cal replace M-48.

I love that Korean Tank. Would love to see it's tech in the Abrams A3. There are few tanks that can say they are as high tech as the K2.

comparison of the operation of Autoloaders including
T72 Russia,
Leclare France
Type 90 Japan
T90 Russia/T99 PRC
K2 South Korea.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Now if your not using the turret for crew or ammo why have a large turret?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I mean it's extra weight and target. And if it's not doing any thing why make such dead space? The T95 used a 152mm gun so it needed that extra space but Armada is supposed to keep the 125mm gun.
All a Auto turret for a tank needs is a loader and ammo storage, A coax MG, optics to target and aim and a few smoke grenade launchers. the crew are in the hull. Case in point the Abrams TTB

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

see how small it is compare that to a manned Abrams turret



Now advantages of such a small turret are, its a much smaller target and far lighter then a full turret like that on the video. it's got all the sensors of the full MBT and Coax and weapon stations it could conceivably even mount APS systems and ERA tiles. the Crew is in the hull, with the hull's armor to protect them. The disadvantages some like to point to the fact that the commander would loose some situational awareness as they would be reliant on Optics instead of there own eyes and ears of course having the commander in the open seems pretty stupid to me. If the tank takes Fire I am far happier as a taxpayer laying down my money for new optics on a tank rather then a funeral for it's crew.
still only time will tell it either of the concept artworks are anything near what will roll across Red Square.

Click to expand...

Maybe they are trying to protect the side from shape charges or rpgs fired from infantry? Sure if the turret is destroyed it won't matter as much if the crew is in the hull but better if it could survive a hit? Also the profile would not be that much bigger from the side? And also a bigger target from the front may not matter if the shot go through the empty spaced sections (?) In fact it may make the enemy less likely to aim for the centre critical spots since the overall target looks bigger?

Once again i state this is a Fan CGI not a actual release from the builder.Using that video for your evaluation of the Armada is

( Originally created for XXX:State of the Union this Hollywood tank was reused as the character Brawl in Transformers 2007
The Video CG is thinly based on a model what was shown but how accurate that model is is up for question.

Armoring from the side would be a fine answer. but
1) Ceramic armor and composite armor generally isn't sloped it's slab sided. steel armor is sloped.
2) compare to other russian tanks the slope and curvature is extreme and presumably that function is intended for other russian tanks with manned turrets.
3) if they were worried about infantry then the MG turrets are a poor design.The MG mounts on the side of the Turret and only be fired in the direction the tank's turret is facing. a Conventional manual Copula mounting or remote weapon system like that seen on the latest T90 can traverse independently from the turret like having a second turret this allows the commanders Mg (Which long ago lost any realistic antiaircraft use) to be used against infantry attacking form the sides and rear independent of the coax.
the length of the turret is still left unaddressed. Russian Tank turrets profile wise are smaller then western units because of there ammo stores being in the hull.

Where a Abrams Leopard2 Challenger Turret would over hang the entire rear of the tank a Russian or Chinese Turret is far shorter giving a smaller side profile to attack. This CGI's Turret is more like a western in terms of length but again why? If the ammo is under the turret then the space behind the MG mounts then is strange and superfluous not needed for ammo storage like in the Falcon turret why is it there? And if it's not needed then it's just a larger target for your side attack. and even the grenade launchers don't need that much space.
as to trying to fool the enemy with sides. I don't see it I mean the sides would just give the enemy a larger face to point there guns at where the Hlopotov/Falcon style has a very very small target to try and hit. I mean it's a third the size of the conventional turret or the CG's Turret, the only functions that that wide unmanned turret would fill in the event of being used with a Russian Ammo system would be
1) mounting of sensors and or Weapons. like a millimeter wave radar.
2) if the Russians mounted a APS Hardkill system
in either case the flanks would be much smaller.
The objective of a Tank is to try and build a maneuvering fire support platform that is harder to kill then the enemies. Armor is certainly part of that equation. but armor for the sake of armor is redundant. Work smarter not harder. a larger profile means a easier time sighting in. and as a rule when sighting in you try to use the center of mass when aiming. If I am going to shoot a human target at a distance am i going to aim for his arm or his chest? answer.his chest. it's more vital it's the bigger target and more vital. If I am a tank and i am looking to kill another tank Am I going to aim off center at slope or at the critical systems? Answer I am going to try and kill it. I am going to aim for the most important parts I can get at and that means the center.


.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It's a bit of fan art worked using ideas form some real tanks for example the guns on the side of the turret are modified from the Slovakian Moderna version of the T72M1

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who ever did it though modified the Commanders side gun into a YAK-B 12.7mm Gatling gun well keeping the loaders side a Chain gun. in there version it's presumably a larger caliber than the Moderna which packs dual 20mm Oerlikon Contraves KAA-001 cannon. the hull looks to be based on the T90 which makes sense as most Russian tanks are improvements on it's direct predecessors. the Square box around the barrel that runs from the Manlet half way to the muzzle I think was taken from the Pl01 concept tank from Poland. well the Rounded turret face seems to be from the black eagle concept tank. Overall shape is definitely inspired by the Merkava 3/4 note that there are two hatches on the hull behind the glacis plate and under the turret. this is supposed to be where the crew resides. as the turret is supposed to be unmanned. but it's a little bit of a odd choice by the designer, I say that as there is really no reason to do that, At least no reason if you are the Russians Plenty if you're not..........................................

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed to take note of the Armata family models that was displayed some time back. That artwork is based on the model of the tank showcased to the Defence Minister back then.

The 3-man crew is accommodated in the front hull. Driver in the center and commander to the right and gunner to the left as earlier. Driver's hatch for his entry/exit cannot be seen...so not much clarity on that. Maybe he share his entry/exit through gunner or commander's hatch.

some more renderings...

I was referring to the shape of the Turret. not the Crew hatches. The turret makes no sense. The hull is logical.two hatches one for the driver one for the commander and possibly a third, ( given the turret is unmanned and the fixed positions of the guns it might be possible to go to a 2 man crew

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I was referring to the shape of the Turret. not the Crew hatches. The turret makes no sense. The hull is logical.two hatches one for the driver one for the commander and possibly a third, ( given the turret is unmanned and the fixed positions of the guns it might be possible to go to a 2 man crew

Click to expand...

The turret shape makes sense only when we take a closer look at the basic maintenance & support assets that is carried by the T-series usually and more importantly the latest iteration in the form of T-90MS.

The turret shape, mainly the rear ward extension could be just be a basket attached to the turret like we see on T-90MS. It could be housing a/c unit, tool boxes, fording equipments etc..and probably even additional ammo.