PDA

View Full Version : Future Russian MBT



Garibaldi
04-28-2004, 09:21 PM
Nizhny Tagil New Main Battle Tank

A new MBT was developed by V. Potkin's design team in Nizhny Tagil, at the Uralvagonzavod Plant where all the latest Russian tanks except the T-80 were manufactured.

This vehicle is intended to become the new Russian MBT and was planned to enter service in 1994, but due to lack of financing it is still on the testing grounds (according to some reports it has cleared the testing phase around March 1999). As a result, the Russian Army is stuck with the obsolete designs of T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 line for much longer than it wishes.

The MBT doesn't yet have any lofty name and hides behind some obscure "ob'ekt" designation. In March 2000 the Defense Minister Igor Sergeev, while visiting Nizhny Tagil, said that Russia now "has a new T-95 tank" referring to the MBT being discussed here. It is unclear if this means that the vehicle is finally fielded (as only a fielded vehicle may get T-95 designation), or he just used the term that is sufficiently known in the West to avoid getting into details.

I could find very little about this vehicle, because it is all classified data. Here is the precious little I could gather, thanks mostly to Col. Viktor Mourakhovsky.
Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull.
A unique drivetrain suspension system is being tested on this tank that to a certain extent extinguishes the hull vibrations and stabilizes its position.
The tank still remains in Class 50 (i.e. it weighs 50 tons) and it shall have an even smaller silhouette than the modern Russian MBTs.
The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher. The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved. I could not, unfortunately, learn how the caliber increase is going to influence ammunition allowance and rate of fire.
This gun shall be located in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it. This is likely to increase survivability and lower the silhouette even further.
The fire control system will be multi-channel (optical + thermal + IR + laser + radar).
The carousel autoloader goes away.
According to plans the crew will consist of a 3 man combat structure and one mechanic (not unlike the air force crew structure), who will be responsible for vehicle maintenance and will reside in a battalion service and repair company.

extracted from http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html[/url]

UkrainianAmerican
04-28-2004, 09:22 PM
Hehe, chechens are gonna get ROCKED! :lol:

seruriermarshal
04-28-2004, 09:24 PM
I think war need FCS .

:roll:

ikurinturbiini
04-29-2004, 02:05 AM
Hehe, chechens are gonna get ROCKED! :lol:

Yeah. They must be shaking.

stuntman
04-29-2004, 02:40 AM
hey Garibaldi u mean this?
http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14008/GCS0038.jpg
Nothing this http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14008/GCS0039.jpg

OR this
http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14008/GCS0041.jpg
Can't Handle! LOL jK But I heard that it will be the mother of all tanks!

American Patriot
04-29-2004, 03:12 AM
What's with the big-ass cannons? Is that the new trend or something?

oldsoak
04-29-2004, 05:31 AM
Dunno - 120-130mm seem to be capable of cracking most nuts out there. THe only thing I can think of is maybe the use of smart munitions fired from the barrel - something you can use to attack something that is not LOS, ie a tank hiding behind a building or something like that.

Lysander
04-29-2004, 10:15 AM
What's with the big-ass cannons? Is that the new trend or something?

I read somewhere that the Chinese were also toying around with a 152mm gun in one of their tanks.

Operation Ivy
04-29-2004, 05:06 PM
i anit scared :D

RomanS
04-29-2004, 05:07 PM
Hehe, chechens are gonna get ROCKED! :lol:

Yeah. They must be shaking.

go fukc yourself biach

Longbranch
04-29-2004, 05:10 PM
Why not build a 30 tonne tank, with a 30mm gatling gun instead of a 120mm+ cannon? It would only require a three man crew (driver, gunner, commander), be far more flexible in operations, cheaper to build and easier to transport into battle zones.

mack pl
04-29-2004, 05:13 PM
Why not build a 30 tonne tank, with a 30mm gatling gun instead of a 120mm+ cannon? It would only require a three man crew (driver, gunner, commander), be far more flexible in operations, cheaper to build and easier to transport into battle zones.You mean something like BMP2 ;)

Longbranch
04-29-2004, 05:52 PM
You mean something like BMP2
Something like that, but take the Avenger cannon from an A-10 and put that into a larger turret and slightly larger vehicle than the BMP2.

Fox2
04-29-2004, 10:31 PM
You mean something like BMP2
Something like that, but take the Avenger cannon from an A-10 and put that into a larger turret and slightly larger vehicle than the BMP2.

The range would be a significant amount less than a traditional cannon. It would get waxed long before it could even get into range. Might make an interesting AAA platform, though. ;)

Merik
04-29-2004, 10:51 PM
The smooth bore 105mm is as capable as the 120mm, except in range.

TacoDelRio
04-30-2004, 12:48 AM
That T95 program has been going on since about 1994, right?

Supposed to be a 135mm, with new ATGM's and junk. Sounds cool. That glacis plate and the armour around the turret looks like it's there to solve turret-separation problems when American projectiles accidentally collide with it. ;)

Some M109A6 Paladins (with 155mm's) were used in direct-fire roles in Iraq, and had devastating effects!

DB

ikurinturbiini
04-30-2004, 02:17 AM
Hehe, chechens are gonna get ROCKED! :lol:

Yeah. They must be shaking.

go fukc yourself biach

I don't know what your problem is but I bet it's hard to ****ounce. :roll:

GazB
04-30-2004, 05:40 AM
Hahahahaha... why would a 30mm gatling gun be of any use in a land vehicle?

The GAU-8 can only penetrate 69mm of armour at 1,000m range. The onyl reason it can take out tanks is because it hits the tops of them where the armour is weak. Used as a frontal weapon it would be useless except to smash optics or tracks.

Longbranch
04-30-2004, 11:07 AM
Used as a frontal weapon it would be useless except to smash optics or tracks.
Rendering a tank immobile and blind, not a bad start. Stop armour with the 30mm and let infantry mop up with TOWs et al.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/3351/allweps/skink1.jpg

Canada modified a Sherman in WWII with four 20mm cannons as an anit-aircraft platform. By the time it came into service in late 1944, the Luftwaffe was pretty well absent from the battlefield, so they ended up using it as ground support vehicle. Called the "Skink" it was useful in a great many ways, especially in an urban context where Germans were hiding in buildings and other defensive positions.

Mount the Avengers on a WAPC chassis and three vehicles could be built for every one tank… greater mobility, greater flexibility in battle… just thinking out loud here, that's all.

M_S
04-30-2004, 04:39 PM
SpermskiiOmon has a bad temper.

American Patriot
04-30-2004, 04:41 PM
Hahahahaha... why would a 30mm gatling gun be of any use in a land vehicle?

The GAU-8 can only penetrate 69mm of armour at 1,000m range. The onyl reason it can take out tanks is because it hits the tops of them where the armour is weak. Used as a frontal weapon it would be useless except to smash optics or tracks.

um.. because it fires 1,800 RPM maybe? :cantbeli:

Falco
04-30-2004, 05:20 PM
Hahahahaha... why would a 30mm gatling gun be of any use in a land vehicle?

The GAU-8 can only penetrate 69mm of armour at 1,000m range. The onyl reason it can take out tanks is because it hits the tops of them where the armour is weak. Used as a frontal weapon it would be useless except to smash optics or tracks.

Are those stats valid when the canon is immobile or mounted on an A10 flying at it's normal attack speed?

GazB
05-01-2004, 08:10 AM
um.. because it fires 1,800 RPM maybe?

Hahahaha first of all the GAU-8 fires at closer to 4,200rpm, but rate of fire means nothing. The GSh-23-6 fires at over 9,000rpm and only has six barrels... I guess that should be able to destroy anything.

The reality is that unless you press the muzzle of the weapon against the target no two rounds are going to hit in the same place. If one round won't penetrate the target then none of them will.


Are those stats valid when the canon is immobile or mounted on an A10 flying at it's normal attack speed?

The A-10s attack speed is only a 3-5 hundred kilometers an hour... not really enough to make much difference but a ground based version would lose that difference anyway.

A fixed gun would be much lighter and could be made quite rigid and therefore more accurate. No doubt light vehicles like that European APC that has a 40mm Bofors gun would be rather more capable and more ammo efficient but still not capable of taking on tanks from the front.

The minimum calibre would probably be a 76mm gun with long rod penetrators... and even then only against older vehicles which would have more powerful guns.

A Tank is for hunting tanks and supporting troops. An APC is for shifting troops, not destroying tanks. Tank destroyers need weapons that outrange the tanks main weapon... this usually means long range ATGMs.