It has been awhile since I have looked inside of a LEO 2 series and wonder if possible for crew protection if you could place a side rolling protective access point for the hull ammunition and place a better barrier between the driver and ammunition, plus you could match this up with blow out panels placed on the side of the hull, I wouldn`t place them at the bottom due to belly armor upgrades. ROK K2 is designed with similar system.
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
I thought because they wanted to go the T 95 way, which was radical.
Isn't it technically useless to put blow-out panels on T90s anyway? I mean, considering the fact that more than half of the ammo is stored in the carousel while the rest are in a different storage area. The T90's turret is too small I think to be able to fit them on anyway.
Sadly enough, the Auto-loader can only store 28 rounds in the carousel.......
That maybe good enough for short engagements, but if you're going for more than 2 days Ops.......
Most of the fatalities of the T-series are actually not from the penetration of the carousel, rather the ammunition which are not in a separate compartment (i.e in the turret), or so they say in Wiki.
That maybe good enough for short engagements, but if you're going for more than 2 days Ops.......
Most of the fatalities of the T-series are actually not from the penetration of the carousel, rather the ammunition which are not in a separate compartment (i.e in the turret), or so they say in Wiki.
2 days operations?
During these 2 days the unit should have some time to bomb up again.
Nobody is going to operate 2 days non-stop without needing to bomb up (several times)
Nevertheless reducing the ammo load carried to 28 rounds is still a bit low.
During these 2 days the unit should have some time to bomb up again.
Nobody is going to operate 2 days non-stop without needing to bomb up (several times)
Nevertheless reducing the ammo load carried to 28 rounds is still a bit low.
Not really. The BE was still traditional in its design. It had a manned turret, while the T 95 was going for a full automatic turret. It actually gives some advantage in being able to reduce the turret size, hence weight, and the cross section area targetable by enemies. I'm not sure about the auto loader though, but I suspect the T 95 may have a better auto loader system than the 1 that the BE had.
These are some pictures that have been floating the net, may be artist concept or designer concept, but it shows the idea the new tank is heading for.
So perhaps the russians thought why go for evolution, rather than revolution?
You can bust off 45 rounds in a armored skirmish that lasts less than a hour thus the reason for a good logistical support system. I have on a few occassions have had to upload 3 times in a single day.
As can be seen the US vision for the next tank or FCS follow the same design revolution. Lower appearance, lesser crew, and fully automatic turret. Although now, it looks very likely the FCS will be scrapped, the US will probably go the way of the FMBT, like in the doc.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/4fcs97.pdf
BE was a very good tank, but it bring nothing new to the field. It is perhaps 30 years late to the Russian side. The BE should have been the last premier tank for the Soviet Union in the 80's to go head to head with the Abrams.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/4fcs97.pdf
BE was a very good tank, but it bring nothing new to the field. It is perhaps 30 years late to the Russian side. The BE should have been the last premier tank for the Soviet Union in the 80's to go head to head with the Abrams.
I concur. Despite BE bringing in the traditional Soviet/Russian designs such as low silhouette, low weight and an auto-loader, it definitely brings new toys with it as well.
The crew are in the hull instead of a separate fighting compartment. The driver uses VR to move the tank. The turret is remote controlled. The auto-loader is bustle mounted and is not the same one as the older carousel one. Let's not forget the projected 135mm gun too.
The BE was probably on the drawing board in the 80s. And who says T80BVs couldn't match an Abrams back then?
But, I think by the time it went into the mid-80s, the U series came was in front-line service. Those beauties were more of a match.
I think you misread my post. I said it should have been the Soviet premier tank of the 80's, not that it was ready in the 80's.
I think the Soviet engineering of the 80's is well capable of making the BE. It brought nothing much new in terms of tank warfare today. Bustle mounted auto loader, crew-ammo separation, 7 wheel hull?, all these could have been built in the 80's. As far as ERA, the Kaktus Era could have appeared as the K5 ERA of the same shape and design found on the BE, and a tank of 125 mm gun with that bustle auto loader shouldn't have been much of a problem.
The T 95 is much different. fully automatic gun, uses of sensors and battlefield networking to manage the tank, lighter weight for the capability it brings. I believe it will be lighter than the BE due to the smaller turret size and probability of crew being reduced to 2.
A crew of 2? Good god man. Are you possibly suggesting two men for maintenance? What if the other guy was a high ranking Officer?
2 people for crew is too little. 3 should be the minimum.
Lol, how stereotypical. (No offense)Secret. If I tell you, I'd have to kill you with Polonium.
nfloorl:I thought the usual method would be a firing squad?
Yes, they are speculation, but a speculation with some sort of base. The BE is a much larger tank from normal T90's, having 7 wheels,heavily armoured, and its turret is of normal large design which would fit in the people am I right? The approach with T 95 would be towards a more automatic gun, where the crew may not be in the turret, and the new type auto loader will be in place, so there may be reduction in turret size. The BE used a bustle mounted auto loader behind the turret. I strongly believe the new type T 95's auto loader will be in the turret. And I also saw some speculative drawings where the crew is placed in the hull, hence the need for better sensors/optics to designate targets. ANd for sure there must be networking capability, or else it would be atank of 80's tech.
So yes, there is my speculation.
Feanor, be careful with what you eat from now on. Its a friendly advice.
Guesses will always be guesses even if based on speculative facts.Yes, they are speculation, but a speculation with some sort of base. The BE is a much larger tank from normal T90's, having 7 wheels,heavily armoured, and its turret is of normal large design which would fit in the people am I right? The approach with T 95 would be towards a more automatic gun, where the crew may not be in the turret, and the new type auto loader will be in place, so there may be reduction in turret size. The BE used a bustle mounted auto loader behind the turret. I strongly believe the new type T 95's auto loader will be in the turret. And I also saw some speculative drawings where the crew is placed in the hull, hence the need for better sensors/optics to designate targets. ANd for sure there must be networking capability, or else it would be atank of 80's tech.
So yes, there is my speculation.
Feanor, be careful with what you eat from now on. Its a friendly advice.
We will truly know about the T-95 one day when it appears out of nowhere during a Victory Day Parade (maybe). The AK-74S appeared in this fashion and scared the shit out of most CIA analysts during that time.
- Status