What makes a 4th generation MBT?

a degree in marketing

>>31350907
A game changing new technology like modern composite armor in 3rd gen tanks that second gen lacked.

>>31351087
>game changing
marketing degree detected

>>31351649
Here is your (you).

>>31350907
>What makes a 4th generation MBT?

A factory.

cardboard cut and glued together into scary shapes over a T shitty two

>>31350907
>implying the T-14 is 4th generation
>implying it isn't just a T-90 with a cardboard box cutout glued around it and pained grey

Nice try, vatnik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65TVchNMb0M

>>31352990
wrong thread.

>>31350907
That's a good question actually.

If I had to wager, you'd need something really revolutionary to herald a true generational leap.

Maybe something like an ETC or EM gun, extensive networked warfare similar to the F-35 idea with mass sensor fusion on multiple platforms?

Simply saying 'better armor' or 'improved APS' seems like a cop out

>>31350907
Man, the T-14 looks sci-fi.

File: beit.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>31351765

File: 28.jpg (767KB, 1526x932px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1526x932px

alien technology

Armata is just a 3.5 generation tank.

A true 4th gen MBT won't have a gun anymore, will have integrated spotting drones, will need 2 or less crew(with the option of being unmanned), will have built in C-RAM lasers, 40-50mm multi-purpose autocannon, and powerful kinetic energy missiles safely stored in a VLS

File: image%3A1773.jpg (45KB, 740x463px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 740x463px

>>31353245
I've been trying to figure out what did Leopard's turret remind me of. Thanks for pointing that out.

>>31350907

Are those prototypes or is it in production now?

>>31353351

There are at least 20 pre-production models doing further tests. CEO of Rostec says it is has begun the serial production and a contract for the first 100 batch. The first unit to be equipped with them will be the units that performed in Crimea.

>>31350907
APS.

File: 1398829044_m1ttb-1.jpg (150KB, 900x722px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x722px

>>31350907
>What makes a 4th generation MBT?
Armoured capsule, autoloader, remote controlled turret.

>>31353993
Needs to be more of a game change than just that small fry shit

Automated Tanks. Surrender, Homo Sapiens. You are no longer the king of nature. You have been dethroned.

>>31353970
First used on 2nd gen tanks, and 3rd gen in large numbers.

File: New American Tank (1967).webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>31354005
Evolution is better than revolution, I thought, after MBT-70 failure, it's a well knows fact.

>>31354077
Nothing wrong with revolution
Just has to be done right, and not starting programs a decade or two before key technologies are ready

>>31354077
None of those will effect the outcome of a battle.

Not a game changer.

File: ss (2015-05-06 at 02.23.01).jpg (203KB, 761x593px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 761x593px

>>31354108
>key technologies are ready
Evolution is the only way to make them ready.

>>31354077
The MBT-70 failed because Germany kept insisting on design changes that caused expensive delay after expensive delay.

>>31354227
German design was better. They had more working parts than US version.

>>31354276
The only significant difference between the two was an AVDS engine and an MTU engine.

>>31354436
German autoloader worked, American didn't. Because HURR-DURR WE WANT 152 ATGMs (that can't penetrate shit).

>>31354061
(((Used))) you wanted to say. First actually deployed on the battlefield and successfully used in combat was Merkava IV and it makes it first 4th gen tank.

>>31354476
Except the American autoloader worked, and Shillelagh missiles were equal to TOW's.

File: image.jpg (224KB, 1015x1527px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1015x1527px

>>31351087

>>31354549
You mean Drozd in Afghanistan.

>>31354144
"Evolution" of T-64 ended USSR with 3 MBTs and 2 medium tanks produced (! not even used) simultaneously.

>>31350907

Active defenses.

We don't know if the ones on T-14 work.

>>31354592
>(((Drozd))) in Afgansiatn
Fixed for vatnik.

>>31354623
Merkava ((((((((((((((((((((tank))))))))))))))))

File: American Army In Germany (1966) - Сегмент1(00_03_01.640-00_03_35.160).webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>31354571
This is not true. 6rpm is not what I call "working autoloader".
>>31354602
And Revolution ended US with M60A3 against T-80.

>>31354005
Remote controlled turret is a immense improvement, desu. It dramatically changes armor distribution, bringing down weight while massively improving crew survivability. If you add radar, 360 degree threat detection, APS and an option to upgrade to 152mm gun calling it small fry shit is kinda stupid.

Unmanned turret, high degree of automation, network centric warfare, new types of armament, AESA and APS, radical shift in body composition, armored capsule, potential for remotely controlled operability.

Precursor to fully unmanned MBT.

>>31354649
>And Revolution ended US with M60A3 against T-80.

A ~5 year window, caused by conflicting design requirements of two countries. And the only time the USSR had a distinct technological advantage.

>>31354683
Only thing that matters is APS. No realistic amount of armor would save you from top attacking ATGM or attacks from side. APS makes actual REVOLUTION.

>>31354649
6rpm is what T-90's fire at when pulling from adjacent cells.

>>31354781
If we start developing a tank that deters a single threat we will end up with a thick composite armor umbrella, not a tank.

>>31354683
And yet the T-14 is larger than Western MBT's.

>>31354803
And perhaps tanks need a composite unbrella

File: American Army In Germany (1966) - Сегмент2(00_03_36.840-00_03_58.320).webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>31354779
>only time the USSR had a distinct technological advantage.
They had it since T-64. M60 could not stand against it. Even without that - BMP-1 could handle with M60s. With gun AND with AT-3 Sagger missiles. If your main tank on field can be easily destroyed by cheapest (and outdated) IFV, you had a big fucking problem.

>>31350907
A factory of some sort I'd assume

>>31354803
Good thing APS works on more than a single threat.

>>31354830
>They had it since T-64. M60 could not stand against it.

Why lie?

>>31354803
Thick composite armor umbrella will not even stop single threat.

>>31354144
>soviets build a tank to go to war with
>americans build a tank to impress shareholders with

>>31354822
It is larger because of the hull height, which is needed for 152 upgrade.

>>31354843
Mkay, so we need a couple of wheels, a gun and APS, right? No need for that mass of metal, correct?

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 08.18.13).png (82KB, 641x1389px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 641x1389px

>>31354859
>Why lie?
When did DU shells for M60 came to service?

>>31354889
>which is needed for 152 upgrade.
What 152 upgrade? T-95 with 152mm gun is even bigger.

>>31350907
>What makes a 4th generation MBT?
it should be remote controlled drone without crew small fast and hard hitting with low profile.
t14 is just the opposite of that.

>>31354934
No one knows what T-95 hull height is.

>>31354926
When did the T-64 get armor that needed "DU shells"?

>>31354974
In 1976.

>>31354954
>>31354934
T-95 is a fake name like Gavin.

>>31354996
Object 195, ok.

>>31354990
Thanks for undercutting your own argument.

>>31355070
Thats not my argument, i just posted the date when T-64B went in service. I dunno, however, if T-64A needed DU rounds to be penetrated.

>>31355093
That is also after the T-80 entered service, which puts it in the ~5 year window before the Leopard 2 and Abrams entered service

>>31355093
T-64 hull was penetrated with tungsten "Hetz" round during soviet trials though it was countered by additional steel plate later.

>>31354974
When it was build in factory. Composite armor, bitches.

>>31355232
It was T-72 trials.

>>31353322
>3.5
It's either 3 or 4, not that hard
Or you meant
>3.14

>>31350907

>What makes a 4th generation MBT?

A factory.

>>31355284
?

If using 4.5th generation is acceptable among aircraft, then there is no real problem with using 3.5th gen to refer to the T-14

It's certainly not actually a fourth gen tank, its just a third gen tank upgraded with modern tech. Hence, three point five.

>>31355232
Ive just read the article about it and it looks like pure bullshit.

>>31355304
>It's certainly not actually a fourth gen tank, its just a third gen tank upgraded with modern tech
What was the third gen tank called before it recieved upgrades and became T-14?

>>31355304

What's the definition of 4th generation tank and who gets to decide the features of such generation?

>>31355304

lol no. 3.5 would be an upgraded tank designed in the 90s.

>>31355339
> who gets to decide
Americans, obviously

>>31355339
There is no 4th gen until something distinctly outclasses its predecessor like the F-22 did.

>>31355318
Not sure what relevance that is.
Is the T-14 even superior to an Abrams? How can it be 4th gen if its advantages are slim to none?

>>31355420
>Is the T-14 even superior to an Abrams?
I dunno, since i do not have any reliable information on T-14.
>How can it be 4th gen if its advantages are slim to none?
Apparently you do have such information and, i suppose, will provide us all with your analysis.

>>31355453
We have video of it, and official stats, and we know that its significantly lighter than the Abrams.

>>31355395

T-14's predecessor would be the T-90/T-80 then. I say it is already superior since the Russians are willing to replace them instead of upgrading them.

>>31355487
Does that mean an Abrams is 4th gen?

>>31355499

Is the Abrams superior to the T-90 or just follows a different doctrine. Would the Abrams have worked for the Soviet Army doctrine?

>>31355468
Yeah, ive seen them to, but i have no idea how, by using that information, you came to a conclusion that T-14's advantages are slim to none. I, personally, think that new armor, new ERA and APS is a huge advantage.

>>31355534
The abrams has new armor, new ERA and will have new APS too

Does that make it 4th gen?

File: 14307621826810.jpg (25KB, 446x446px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 446x446px

>>31355420
>Is the T-14 even superior to an Abrams?
>most powerful serial produced 125mm cannon in the world with long AP shells.
>fully network-centric
>remote control ready
>APS and ERA
>real roof armor enforced with ERA.
>modular design for mass production
Dunno, man, dunno

>>31355532
It follows a different design doctrine and is superior in the same roles.

>>31350907
Being too expensive to use in any important role.

>>31355570
Abrams and T-14 spot each other at the same time, 5 km distance
Theres no cover
who wins the 1v1

You are not going to see the decisive mismatch in capability & lethality that dictates a new generation of vehicles.

>>31355543
Call me when it has all of these. Plus radar, 360 degree IR/UV threat detection, unmanned turret, completely enclosed crew compartment, and, most importantly, modernisation potential.

>>31355570
You listed things that make it on par with modern Western tanks.

>>31355616
>who wins the 1v1
T-14, because of ATGMs capability.

>>31355543

Is the Abrams modular? How many vehicles can you get using the same chasis?

>>31355652
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Breacher_Vehicle
Could do anything you wanted.

>>31355664
An intellectually dishonest answer.

>>31355619
>Plus radar, 360 degree IR/UV threat detection,

Trophy APS, which doesn't need a UV sensor because its radar gets confused by ground clutter.

>unmanned turret

Ironically makes the T-14 bigger than the Abrams.

>completely enclosed crew compartment

Name an MBT without an enclosed crew compartment.

>and, most importantly modernisation potential

Both the Abrams and Leopard 2 were designed with ease of modernization in mind.

>>31355664

Show me an artillery, heavy apc, anti-tank, version of the vehicle.

>>31353322
Spot the retard

>>31355616
Abrams because the T-14 cannot frontally kill an Abrams but the Abrams can knock out the T-14's turret.

>>31355616
Abrams can't engage targets at this distance. It does not carry ATGMs

Abrams can't intercept incoming munition. It does not have APS

Abrams can't keep up with T-14 firerate. It does not have autoloader.

Abrams can't sustain sabots impact. It does not have ERA

Abrams can't avoid enemy shells. It has weight and maneuverability of a pregnany cow.

In all likelihood, Abrams won't even be able to detect T-14 before it's too late. It does not have AESA

The only MBT with any chance to survive 1v1 engagement against T-14 is K-2.

File: e24037cda6c6f6c2a879686d948b26f9[1].jpg (134KB, 655x710px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 655x710px

>>31355623
>modern Western tanks.
There is only one "modern" Western tank, it's called Leclerk. All others were designed in late 70th. Merkava is not Western.
>>31355693
>Ironically makes the T-14 bigger than the Abrams.
No it's not. Especially in frontal projection. And T-14 has stealth measures.

>>31355693
>Trophy APS, which doesn't need a UV sensor because its radar gets confused by ground clutter.
You need a UV sensor to detect threats at longer ranges, dumbass, and to have an ability to turn the fucking radar off. You do not need those capabilities to fight sandniggers, though, thats why Merkava does not have that capability. Abrams does not have any of those, by the way.
>Ironically makes the T-14 bigger than the Abrams.
And better armored. Weight distribution and volume, can you into it?
>Name an MBT without an enclosed crew compartment.
Pretty much all of them, except Armata.
>Both the Abrams and Leopard 2 were designed with ease of modernization in mind.
Yet none of them can reach T-14 without actually stopping being Abrams and Leopard.

>>31355737
>It does not have AESA
T-14 does not AESA for target search too, they cut it off. Only radar on board is for APS.

File: fcs-sys.gif (95KB, 720x408px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x408px

Wasn't Future Combat System the US's attempt at a 4th generation universal platform? Was it scrapped, or got replaced by a new program?

>>31355767
fcs was a disaster, all those vehicles were supposed to be under 20 tons
Lucky thing it got canceled.

>>31355752

>T-14 does not AESA for target search too, they cut it off.
Maybe in your meth-induced deliria

>>31355708
>artillery Abrams

This was a thing, it lost out to the Crusader.

>>31355739
This image is a false scaling.

>>31355801
Dude, you can go to echo of Moscow website, open arsenal program and listen to UVZ officials by yourself. They refused from targeting AESA radar because of high price.

>>31355859
I guess you can bring actual size data.

>>31355737
>Abrams can't engage targets at this distance. It does not carry ATGMs

5km is within range that Western FCS can calculate.

>>31355886
700mm and 25 inch road wheels, have fun.

>>31355887
It has to be in range to hit and penetrate, you know. It is not a big deal for ATGM, but for KE - not so much.

>>31355746
>You need a UV sensor to detect threats at longer ranges, dumbass,

That is not why the T-14 had UV sensors added.

>>31355908
So, you do not have the data. I did not expect much, desu.

>>31355913
The T-14's turret is well within an M829A3/A4's penetration capability at 5km.

>>31355945
Are you sure it will hit? Are you sure it will hit something important?

>>31355927
There are pictures of the T-14's road wheels that say 700mm right on them. And the manufacturer of the Abrams roadwheels has a website.

>>31355985
Still no data? Why do you even post if you dont have it?

>>31355978
Dispersion at that distance is about the size of a tank at that distance, so yes it will likely hit somewhere on the first shot.

And a hit anywhere on the turret will mission kill it.

>>31354830

That's because NATO doctrine at the time was completely different form the Soviets.

Soviet tanks were supposed to be destroyed from the air.

>>31356040
So it has to hit the tank, and then it has to hit the turret, and after that it has to hit something important, correct? Kinda lame, considering ATGM is almost guaranteed to hit.

File: 1467440410007.jpg (3MB, 4200x6000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4200x6000px

Still too early to tell, especially when the only feature everyone can agree on is APS.

>>31355908
I got you senpai

>>31356097
You do realize that "700mm" comes from the same source that made "false scaling" above?

>>31356097

At that size and below 50 ton Armata is a cardboard compared to western tanks.

>>31356004
You got BTFO in a thread a while ago and figured it has been long enough that you can try again?

http://www.tgl-sp.com/m1-road-wheel
http://m.vz.ru/society/2013/9/26/652197.html

>>31356112
uh no, just means the armor distribution & layout is different

>>31356110
Except it was confirmed by pictures of the T-14's roadwheels.

>>31355863
Lay off that meth. No one from UVZ had ever made such claims.

>>31356078
>considering ATGM is almost guaranteed to hit.

Not at 5km, nor with APS, nor will it penetrate the frontal armor.

File: 14520824557061.png (267KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 600x450px

>>31356112
>At that size and below 50 ton Armata is a cardboard compared to western tanks.
Nope, they don't need to carry couple of tonnes in turret.

>>31356125
Where is Armata size data, moron? And no, i did not participate in a thread where i argued about Armata size, sorry.
>>31356153
5km is an easy distance for an ATGM, man, and a hit pretty much anywhere has a quite substantial chance to be a mission kill.

>>31356153
And what APS is mounted on Abramses today?

>>31356139
Cool, so his other pictures must be also correct, right?

>>31353162
It was a joke, you asperger retard

>>31356181
>5km is an easy distance for an ATGM

What missiles are you referring to in this case?

Which ones have a 5km range?

>>31356181
>Where is Armata size data, moron

Try reading the links.

>>31356194
Photographs? Yes.

>>31355746

You could fit all the T-14's guts into the Abrams and Leopard to make them function identically, but unmanned turrets are not in the western tank current doctrine - they were tested before and found unsatisfactory.

>>31356192
Trophy will be mounted on Abramses before the T-14 enters service.

>>31356228
Refleks, Refleks-M, Arkan. I suppose the ones made for Armata will be better.

>>31356240
>Try reading the links.
Ffs, will you bring the fucking Armata size or not?
>>31356244
Yeah, but, as i said, they will basically stop being Abrams and Leopard, there is no point to modernize old tank if only part commonality will be basic armor tub and, maybe, suspension.

>>31356250
Call me when it happens.

>>31356178
>Nope, they don't need to carry couple of tonnes in turret.

Correct, instead it has an extremely tall hull and a turret with paper armor for an MBT.

File: abrams gets served.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>31356228
>Which ones have a 5km range?
All of them.
With new turret and new autoloader, they can use new ATGMs. Anyway, 5km is almost maximum distance of engagement because of horizon.

>>31356277
>Ffs, will you bring the fucking Armata size or not?

I did, read the links.

>>31356292
No you did not, bring the fucking size. I want width, height of the hull, total height and lenght without the gun. I do not want to count pixels and do other shit. And you could make fucking screenshots and and bring them here a fucking hour ago without wasting my time.
>>31356280
Abrams turret weights between 16 and 20 tonees. I guess T-14's is a bit lighter.

>>31356285
Oh hey, the curious video of an ATGM whose HEAT warhead somehow made a hard right turn inside of the frontal armor cavity and set off the bustle ammunition storage.

>>31356322
>I do not want to count pixels and do other shit.

Someone already did that for you >>31356097

Have fun )))))

>>31356333
>implying monkeys closed blast shield before abandon tank.

>>31356354
Thats the same guy who made false scaling. I do not believe him.

>>31350907
A bigger gun, supposedly the T-14 will get a 150 mm gun

>>31356322
>Abrams turret weights between 16 and 20 tonees. I guess T-14's is a bit lighter.

And it has to armor a hull that comes halfway up an Abrams turret.

>>31356375
Implying it does actually go halfway up an Abrams turret.

>>31356364
No it isn't, it was made in response to the false scaling and used specific measurements (the road wheels).

>>31356389
It does, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

>>31356393
No it is, it is paralay/topwar bullshit guesstimates, they are both wrong. Simply because no one knows if the original picture guesstimated on paralay is right or wrong.

>>31356375
The T-14 doesn't need turret armor, actually, if you see the pictures taken, you will realize the turret is just covered with just a plate, penetration of a manned room is a great mess due the dispersion through the inner empty space, but is not that the APFSDS will do a lot penetrating the gun case, electronics must resist the impact and shaking though

>>31356411
>it is paralay/topwar bullshit

The corrected picture was made by a anon in a previous T-14 thread.

The T-14 is gigantic, do we need to start posting pictures of the T-14 next to T-72/T-90's and Western tanks next to T-72/T-90's?

>>31356439
>The T-14 doesn't need turret armor

Mission kill
i
s
s
i
o
n

k
i
l
l

>>31356440
Sure, anon is totally more reliable source than paralay/topwar.

>>31356451
Ok, so it will need some armor for the gun, yes, but that is all, is not that the APFSDS will get the optronics at the first shot

>>31356474
You need to wait for a couple of years to see what's under turret cover.

>>31356482
I believe there is mostly the autoloader and electronics, the rounds are inside the hull, no enough space in the turret.

So what DOES make a 4th generation tank?

Will it still have a big gun? How much will it weigh?

File: LZ29i24.jpg (450KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 3000x1996px

>>31355730
>Abrams because the T-14 cannot frontally kill an Abrams but the Abrams can knock out the T-14's turret.
Careful there. The turret looks huge but most of it on either side of the mantlet is empty space, the gunner's sight on the left hand side and the APS sensors and interceptors. The only way you can knock out the turret is if you hit the mantlet itself, a tall order in a moving target or tankers wouldn't be told to aim center mass for moving targets.
>>31355737
>Abrams can't keep up with T-14 firerate. It does not have autoloader.
Actually it can. Just stop and watch the nigger loader pump rounds 4-5 seconds per round.

>Abrams can't sustain sabots impact. It does not have ERA
Depends. Pre-T-14 ammo for the 125 mm can only really penetrate weakspots. But if what the fanbois are saying is true, that the 125 mm gun has a new round with a projectile length of 1100-1200 mm and 900 mm long penetrator and longer propellant charge, then the Abrams in its current form is well and truly fucked. If what they are saying is true, that is. I'm currently expecting a shitstorm of epic proportions in runet and military oriented sites and boards if they reveal a pic of said round.

>>31355945
>The T-14's turret is well within an M829A3/A4's penetration capability at 5km.
It would take the A3/A4 round 3.5s to arrive at the calculated impact point, and in those 3.5 s the tank would only need to change a teensy bit of its velocity and its an assured miss. A tiny bit of change in velocity, like a sudden acceleration or decceleration from encountering bumps on the round, changing course, etc. etc.
Plus the mantlet (you are only ever going to knock out the turret by knocking out the gun itself) is a very small target with APS interceptors - you are going to have a hard time hitting it.

>>31355708
>>31355834
There was also an anti-air version with a Goalkeeper that lost out to the Linebacker.

File: 1422672142263.jpg (78KB, 600x477px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x477px

>>31355708

behold, Abrams AA.

True supermaneuverability
Stealth
Beyond visual range combat capable

>>31350907
A merkel stamp of approval

>>31358123

What is the second vehicle in this image?

The first appears to be the T14?

>>31359318
Object 195, often erroneously referred to as the T-95.

>>31351245
whad'ya mean? what is next?

File: 1472561413941.jpg (364KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1600x1200px

>>31359627

Thanks, I thought it was some sort of prototype.

I appreciate the quick answer, /k/omrade. Please accept this orange Leo 2 as thanks.

>>31359664
>>31355395

>>31355632
Yeah, but Russians have always had this on Americans
Americans tried developing barrel fired ATGMs, failed, then claimed it was a bad idea in the first place.

>>31359856
>then claimed it was a bad idea in the first place.

Exactly.

And this has been disproven by all that combat experience with gun-launched ATGM's like um

uh

well, I'm sure it'll come to me. But you're right, 100%.

>it's another "can't talk about vehicles without it becoming a nationalist dick waving contest" episode

>>31359875
If the Russians are doing it and the Israelis are doing it, good money it's a good idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT
>Germany
>Deploying it on their Leopard 2s

>>31359856
>Americans developing barrel fired ATGMs, then cancelled the MBT-70, and focused on kinetic penetrators.

Fixed that for you.

>>31359938
Read the info on it
they wanted to deploy it on the M60, too

>>31359929
That article needs updating, neither Chile nor Germany have equipped their tanks to fire LAHAT.

>>31359958
The M60A2 was a hamfisted stopgap solution until the MBT-70 was ready, and they were converted to M60A3's after the MBT-70 was cancelled.

>>31359875
Pretty sure they used a couple T-80U very succesfully in hit and run attacks using the GLATGMs in Chechnya. They pop in, fire a missile or two and then get out of dodge before the Chechens even knew what hit them. Plus Bradleys are on record for achieving more armor kills than even Abrams in Desert Storm precisely because they were well and able to fire at more than 3km and kill their targets with impunity, something that a GLATGM equipped tank should be able to. Heck, if the Cold War went hot this thing would precisely would have lead to the many deaths of Bradleys since the tanks could actually shrug off ATGM hits from the frontal profile while to a Bradley it might as well be a kill.

>>31359929

The gun-launched version of LAHAT is not a thing anymore. All LAHAT development has been moved to firing it from helicopters and UAV's. It was never even issued to and certainly never actually used by any tanks.

>>31360012
>Plus Bradleys

Nobody doubts that ATGM's work, dumbass. I was talking about gun-launched ATGM's specifically.

>Pretty sure they used a couple T-80U very succesfully in hit and run attacks using the GLATGMs in Chechnya.

Well then link me something to read, because I've never heard of this before and I'd be interested in learning more about it.

>>31353322
>Tank VLS
Fucking hell this needs to stop

File: 1434920017958.png (402KB, 1024x717px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1024x717px

>>31359081
It was gonna meld the ADATS system with Twin Bushmasters, too bad ADATS shit the bed.

>>31350907

Arjun MBT

>>31359744
No like what technology will bring them to that point

File: 1405045592527.jpg (23KB, 606x408px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 606x408px

also here is some kind of SAM Abrams or something.

File: 1405045531719.jpg (94KB, 787x650px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 787x650px

>>31360194

i mean, modifying a tank to do not-tank things is limited to what you do to the turret/turret mechanism/turret space, unless you build the hull spacious enough to move shit around inside.

>>31360219
>unless you build the hull spacious enough

No, it really has more to do with the size of the turret ring than anything else.

Yes, a large turret ring requires a large hull. But the actual "carrying capacity" of a tank is determined by the turret ring size, since that's the space you're fitting everything into.

>>31356058
>Soviet tanks were supposed to be destroyed from the air.
Which was total fucking bullshit going by how "well" that doctrine performed in Iraq.

Airforce has did its normal job(cut communication routes etc. etc.) but the "destruction" part didn't happen. They bragged about how the Army and Marines will just step over wrecks and then land forces had to wipe 90% of Iraqi forces.

>>31360050
>Nobody doubts that ATGM's work, dumbass. I was talking about gun-launched ATGM's specifically.
The GLATGM as a concept is fine. More than fine in fact since it handily increases the range of effective fire from 2 - 2.5 km to double that, all the while having near perfect accuracy since its guided. What we know from tank combat is that he who sees and shoots first wins 70% of the time- what happens when you also factor in the element of range to attenuate your enemy's response (searching effectiveness, and projectiles lose energy across distance)? The only quibble to be had with GLATGMs is that current ones in usage never really got upgraded in response to the ever increasing armor of modern tanks. Most still correspond to threat armor levels of 20 years ago, which is not surprising given that the mechanism for HEAT is very dependent on the calibre of the warhead, and gun calibres haven't gone up in the meantime or in the foresseable future. However, the introduction of novel top attack rounds like the Sokol-1 (basically an excalibur in 125 mm and relies on passive homing) and MRM-CE means you don't even need to up your calibre anymore for GLATGMs to matter once more. Pretty sure

>Well then link me something to read, because I've never heard of this before and I'd be interested in learning more about it.
I was going off from memory on that one, so forgive me if I can't dig up the link.

File: Achzarit8.jpg (125KB, 600x444px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x444px

>>31360247

>carrying capacity is determined by turret ring size

didn't the israelis shuffle things around in the T-55 when they oyvey'd them into APCs?

>>31360322

I have no idea why you wrote this response.

I know what an ATGM is. If you can't provide the information I want, then don't reply.

>>31360333

The Achzarit does not have a turret, so it doesn't really matter what the turret ring size is. I was speaking of turreted vehicles like the one Anon was posting about.

>>31360322
The biggest handicap of GL-ATGM is their diameter is limited.

>>31360370
I think the point is that they used to have a turret before they were heavily modified.

>>31353993
>What is the T-14?

>>31360364
no biggie. I'm not here trying to so to speak, lead the horse to water and make him drink. I'm speaking for the benefit of the gen. pop. here.

>>31360394

I think you're confused about the point that I was making.

>>31360404

I just don't want you to make claims you can't back up and then attempt to distract me by repeating stuff I already know.

It's kind of a hassle to be treated like that. Cut it out.

>>31360406
I think you are missing the point of a T-55 turned into a heavy APC in context of your turret ring constraint.

>>31360374
>The biggest handicap of GL-ATGM is their diameter is limited.
Which only really matters against modern tanks, the kind with armor newer or upgraded within 20 years. 99% of the battlefield are not those.

>>31360426

It doesn't matter what the size of the turret ring is if it doesn't have a turret.

>>31360439
>It doesn't matter what the size of the turret ring is if it doesn't have a turret anymore.

Fixed that for you.

>>31360468

Yeah.

That's pretty much what I was trying to communicate to you.

You see, the Anon I was talking to was posting about *turreted* vehicles, and the relationship between the turret space and the hull size. We weren't discussing vehicles without turrets.

I think the confusion has been cleared up now. Yes?

>>31354683
>Remote controlled turret is a immense improvement, desu. It dramatically changes armor distribution, bringing down weight while massively improving crew survivability
You mean it's far easier to achieve a firepower kill, because the turret, the most exposed part of a tank and, thus, the one most likely to be hit, is far less armored now? Plus, malfunctions of the main gun can't be cleared by the crew anymore.

>>31360789
>You mean it's far easier to achieve a firepower kill
The mantlet isn't any bigger than any other manned turret tank's.

>>31360899
A direct frontal hit to the mantlet isn't the only way to mission kill a T-14's turret, and the T-14's mantlet doesn't appear to be particularly thick.

>>31360923
The only way to mission kill the turret is to disable the gun and its stabilization mechanisms itself, which are all contained in a gun box or within the projection of the mantlet from the front, both of which are small targets compard to the whole of the turret. The turret ring is the level of the upper glacis plate so you can't hit and jam it either. Plus the interceptors are always pointed at where the turret is looking at.

>>31354889
>>31354803
Just put a CIWS on top of the turret.

File: 7291481yW3x.jpg (91KB, 1600x533px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1600x533px

>>31350907

What makes a 3rd generation MBT?

>>31351087

This

File: IMG_7218.jpg (75KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x683px

>>31354926

The M774 APFSDS was fielded in 1980/1981.

>>31360396
Same thing as Block III, Strv-2000 and bunch of Soviet "objects". T-14 is a 90th concept of next-gen tank. This machines supposed to be field 15-20 years ago.

>>31360973
>The only way to mission kill the turret is to disable the gun and its stabilization mechanisms itselft

Which would be achieved by a penetration of the actual turret from just about every direction

>>31361243

Composite armour and computerized stabilized fire control systems, which allow firing on the move as well as very high first hit probability on targets up to 2000m.

>>31361376
>Which would be achieved by a penetration of the actual turret from just about every direction
As if the tank would let you have a clear shot by then. To achieve a hit that precise on a moving target you need autotracker, and quite a bit of rangefinding pulses for tracing updates, which means you trip the LWR and the turret faces your way while the obscurant mortars open up, blocking your view. If you somehow managed to fire off a shot in time before the smokescreen fills up, the APS is there to catch your projectile with an interceptor or two or more. It doesn't have to destroy the projectile itself,but deflect it, and minor angles of deflection signifcantly reduces the penetration performance of KE projectiles, something like 50% in 4-5 deg. of deflection for projectile speeds of 1500m/s, the effect reduces the faster you go since the diameter of the penetration channel hole increases. At those levels of performance reduction the armor, thin but angled a lot stands a good chance of withstanding the projectile. And that's the thing with the T-14's protection- it consists of several distinct layers that then smoothly transitions to the next mode as you break one layer. Each may not have the same chance as a simple block of armor in stopping projectiles dead, but the layers take their toll as your offensive mean bypasses or tries to bypass them. Its the smart and efficient way to handle protection, in fact it has broken the tradition of adding more armor to handle stronger threats. Its the new paradigm characteristic of what makes a new generation of MBTs distinct from their predecessors.
>>31361299
>This machines supposed to be field 15-20 years ago.
And they wouldn't have work. The level of automation needed to make the unmanned turret work requires the electronics that were in infancy then.

>>31353322
>A true 4th gen MBT won't have a gun anymore, will have integrated spotting drones, will need 2 or less crew(with the option of being unmanned), will have built in C-RAM lasers, 40-50mm multi-purpose autocannon, and powerful kinetic energy missiles safely stored in a VLS
That's not an MBT. That's an inferior tank destroyer. People forget that the main target of tanks are not other tanks, but rather enemy positions, and that means HE-frag or the inferior Western counterpart HEAT-MP rounds which your VLS "tank" doesn't have. Autocannon rounds don't have nearly the enough oompfh to handle prepared positions, and so end up just suppressing people in cover most of the time where a tank calibre HE round would just straight up demolish the position and everyone inside it.

>>31361778
Well the tank has a VLS, if the optimal loadout is to include a few HE-frag missiles, then that would easily be doable.

>Autocannon rounds don't have nearly the enough oompfh to handle prepared positions
It's not like HE shells from tanks have much oompf either, they aren't 500 lb bombs.

> and so end up just suppressing people in cover
Thats solved by programmable airbursting rounds.

>>31361778
Don't respond to glider.

>>31356112
>50 ton
Who says that a Armata is 50 tons? Official papers kek? T-14 track footprint area is larger than Abrams tank. T-14 could weight more than 62 tons with the same ground pressure...

>>31361778
>People forget that the main target of tanks are not other tanks,
People forget that this meme is false and primary target of tanks are another tanks.

>>31362794
Lower ground pressure is always a good thing

>>31363168
More armor is always a good thing.

>>31362600
>It's not like HE shells from tanks have much oompf either, they aren't 500 lb bombs.
Yes they do. They can punch through brick walls or steel reinforced concrete and blow up inside just fine. Autocannon rounds OTOH just end up splatting on the outer surface of the walls, unless you use AP or APFSDS ammo, but those have terrible killing potential in contrast to a HE-frag round,

>Thats solved by programmable airbursting rounds.
If the position lacks top cover. Meanwhile, a 125 shell would just plow through and blow up inside.
>>31362820
>People forget that this meme is false and primary target of tanks are another tanks.
>Reality is now a meme

File: panzer-8-pzkpfw-viii-maus.jpg (56KB, 800x473px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x473px

>>31364353
>More armor is always a good thing.

Not if it impedes mobility.

File: CkloJ4XWkAE8Yn--696x392.jpg (79KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 696x392px

Is the new Leclerc 4th gen

>>31364541
autocannons can eat away at brick or concrete fortifications. Eventually penetrating where one shot wouldn't.

>If the position lacks top cover.
Or if you had loaded programmable munitions that is capable of bunker busting.
A hypersonic missile punching through a bunker is probably going to kill or knock out everyone in it anyways.

>>31364694
All of your VLS missile based solutions do nothing but cost significantly more money than the alternatives.

>muh bunker busting

Most fortifications are literally just holes in the ground, as dirt/sand/etc is great at stopping bullets, explosions, etc.

It's also quite difficult to shoot at a hole unless you are above it in elevation.

All this whinging about shooting tank rounds through concrete is silly when what you're going to encounter 99% of the time is a trenchline or foxhole.

>>31364711
Guns are limited to line of sight, are inaccurate at long range, and have physical limits in velocity

Between composites, ERA and APS, its likely that armor has the advantage over over guns currently & in the near term.

>>31364694
>autocannons can eat away at brick or concrete fortifications. Eventually penetrating where one shot wouldn't.
With the precision of autocannon fire and the minimal chipping(like seriously holes the size of a fist develop out of a 25mm bushmaster) I doubt it wouldn't take less than 10 seconds worth of full auto fire to even remove enough material out of the way in your standard concrete or brick wall and hit stuff inside from 1000m.

>A hypersonic missile punching through a bunker is probably going to kill or knock out everyone in it anyways.
Like the other dude said, most fortifications are earthenworks with topcover mainly from the wood from ammo containers and pallets repurposed and covered with a foot of dirt on top. You ok with expending tens of thousands of dollars worth of missile in leveling merely potential positions?

>>31350907

A miserable pile of secrets.

>>31364849
>Guns are limited to line of sight, are inaccurate at long range, and have physical limits in velocity

Missiles are limited to line of sight unless you want to spend even more money than you already would by using missiles.

>Between composites, ERA and APS, its likely that armor has the advantage over over guns currently & in the near term.

And these things are even more effective on HEAT warheads than kinetic penetrators.

File: AS-90_self-propelled_artillery.jpg (427KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 4288x2848px

>>31364849
>Guns are limited to line of sight, are inaccurate at long range, and have physical limits in velocity

Where do people like you even come from?

>>31365040
>Between composites, ERA and APS
Why not use all of it in one machine ?

>>31365071

That's what that sentence is implying.

>>31364562
>Abrams tank has insufficient moblity

>>31364933
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wewaCdSW4yc

>>31365040
>And these things are even more effective on HEAT warheads than kinetic penetrators.
Which is why there is such a thing as kinetic energy missiles

>>31365808
Which have to be huge to have a comparable destructive force.

>>31351765
Jokes on you gaynik. It's OD green.

>>31365862
Not really
the energy density of gunpowder is terrible

>>31366233
Name a modern munition that uses "gunpowder".

>>31354476
The 152 was more than for missiles, it offered extreme growth potential. It's KE round was short and made of steel yet was comparable in penetration to the DM23 and M833 that came out much later. The larger caliber also permitted a larger HEAT round as well as potential for the MBT70 to be an effective obstacle breacher for the time.

File: Concrete Battleship.jpg (37KB, 700x455px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x455px

>>31364694
>>31364933
>>31365302

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator can penetrate 200 feet of reinforced 5,000PSI strength concrete, This drops to just 27 feet with 10,000PSI strength concrete.
How many nonnuclear shells and bombs do you think it would take to penetrate a fortification built with 100,000PSI strength concrete, When the 30,000lbs MOP loses almost 85% of it's effectiveness on just 10,000PSI concrete?

In the future when drone fortifications take over the battlefield, The only strategies that can crack it decisively will be mass nuclear armed stealth bombers and mass siege artillery.

>>31355708
>anti-tank
That's just the regular Abrams, though.

>>31350907
>What makes a 4th generation MBT?

-APS system to defeat ATGMs

Because modern ATGMs like Spike can annihilate any modern 4th generation tank in one hit, Abrams included. They have farther range of engagement, are man-portable, and cost a fraction of the price of a Modern Tank. A Tank is first and foremost front-line armor.

-Advanced Electronics, Radar, and Remote Controls

Needed for APS, FCS, Friend or Foe recognition, etc. Self explanatory.

-Sensor Fusion

Network with other mech units and Tanks and obtain information from multiple sources including satellite, drones, helicopters, etc.

-Hybrid transmission

Necessary for high mobility and better overall performance characteristics.

-Electric Guns (Railguns)

Will offer a potential revolutionary jump in firepower, accuracy, range, cost-effectiveness, etc. Already in advanced development with the US Navy. If all goes well then Ships -> Artillery -> Tanks over the next few decades.


This is pretty much what the US Army wants from their next-generation Abrams successor. They will not replace the type, only upgrade it, until they can minimally achieve the above, because otherwise it would not be worth the effort.

>>31355708
>Show me an artillery, heavy apc, anti-tank, version of the vehicle.

There are only 3 versions of the Armata that exist today. The T-14 MBT, the T-15 IFV and the T-16 ARV. The only modularity between the 3 is a sharing of specific parts like the engine.

>>31366987
>The only modularity between the 3 is a sharing of specific parts like the engine

It is almost certainly more than that. They used the same base and just made minor modifications to produce the three vehicles.

>>31367041
>It is almost certainly more than that.

Name them.

>>31367064
The composite armor is shared.

>>31367078
I imagine the T-14 and T-15 use the same composition of armor, although the arrangement is different.

>>31353787

>The first unit to be equipped with them will be the units that performed in Crimea.

So which detachments of naval infantry will be equipped with T-14s please?

>>31355499
No, it's a heavily updated 3rd Gen like T-90 is too the T-72.

New Abrams are Gen 3+++, M1A3 is going to be Gen 3.5++.

T-14 is 4th Gen because of its ability to be fully automated and puts the crew in a well protected "control pod/room/compartment".

The M1CATT with some more improvements, better computers, and better engine would = a 4th Gen MBT.

>>31364690
No, that's like an upgraded Abrams, you're looking at Gen 3.5(with some +'s, maybe).

>>31367064
Besides the drive train and hull?

The electronics will be shared, you just change the software for the adaptation.

>>31367104
>>31367078
The APS (if they desire to mount them) will also be shared.
All in all, I like the idea. Hopefully the Russians got it right.

>>31367804
>T-14 is 4th Gen because of its ability to be fully automated

A capability claimed on the interwebs but never demonstrated.

>and puts the crew in a well protected "control pod/room/compartment".

Not a feature that decide the outcome of a battle, therefore not a feature that make the T-14 "4th gen".

>>31350907

To determine what a "4th Gen" MBT looks like, we should look both at how 3rd gen MBTs compare to 2nd gen, and how 4th gen combat aircraft compare to their 3rd gen counterparts. Note that this is stemming from my limited base of knowledge on both areas, so feel free to contradict me or add something that I may have missed.

3rd Generations MBTs were defined, in general, by the presence of advanced composite armor of some kind (as opposed to the standard RH of 2nd gen) and the use of APFSDSs as their primary tank-killing armament.

4th Generation fighter aircraft are defined by the presence of stealth-y features and supercruise. While one could also mention the implementation of increasingly-advanced computers and radar, these changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary and can be found in Gen 3.5 aircraft.

What does this mean for defining 4th Generation MBTs? We're likely looking for the next step in vehicle protection, a new type of weaponry, and possibly a vastly superior propulsion system. The T-14s use of APS does fulfill one of these requirements, but I do not believe that this is sufficient by itself. The T-14's ability to use GLATGMs is not a new innovation, nor is its unmanned turret.

Thus, I do not believe we have yet to emerge from the 3rd Generation of MBTs.There just haven't been any notable changes in tank technology to warrant the beginning of a new generation. APS is the only revolutionary technology, but I'm not sure if it has matured to the point where armor crewmen are willing to stake their lives on its success.

>>31367996
So if you consider that modular, why would an Assault Breacher Vehicle or Joint Assault Bridge be intellectually dishonest as this anon claimed? >>31355689