So basically he didn't get a very good grade in his Bachelors or Masters and therefore needed to supplement it with a postgraduate qualification.Introduction page on phd report, in few words.
Jon Snow lasted longer than she did.
Rheinmetall KF51 Main Battle Tank (NEW)
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Carousel autoloader is actually not as much of an issue as usually presupposed, but a) will Armata go with only ammo in the carousel out there and b) why the hell are rounds stacked vertically?
Yeah, the carousel is safe, it's the loose ammo in the turret that causes problems. Also, for those who can use a brain, regardless of whether you are in a Western tank or a Soviet tank, penetration would kill the crew anyway. So I never understood this argument about ammo. It's like people have no brains. They saw Iraqi dead tanks with their tops blown off and they think somehow Abrams crews would survive the same in their tanks even if the turret is still attached to the tank. The only way to protect the crew is to prevent penetration.
The Russians have 2 autoloader designs in use. The design you are referring to is the one on the T-72/90 whereas the T-14 has a design similar to the T-64/80.
The main advantage of the T-64's design is you can carry more rounds in that arrangement. It also loads faster.
Last edited:
Actually, that is not necessarily true. Penetration will usually kill some of the crew, but IIRC in World War 2, some tanks had about 80% crew survivability post-penetration. It is only ammunition cookoff that results in "everybody's dead, Dave".
Thanks.
That was when armour was thin and the spalling effect was limited. Now, it's just death and destruction inside the tank.
APFSDS wasn't invented during WW2, and its older cousin, the APDS, was only used in limited quantities by the end of the war. HEAT was the most common round used.
The same with ATGMs, like Javelin, it has to kill the crew first before it can get to the carousel. The end result was the same regardless of the tank.
In any tank design, the driver has the greatest chance of survival, and this is what makes an unmanned turret special. APFSDS is rendered ineffective against a single steel plate, so there is no spalling effect. Other types of rounds like HEAT and ATGMs are more easily defeated by APS. And in case the turret is damaged, it's very easy to repair and put back into service. Even damaged electronics can be replaced. And the hull where the crew is located is difficult to hit already, while being located in one of the safest places in the tank. All of the crucial parts of the tank are protected by the hull armour. Plus the hull can be layered with more armour if necessary.
Tons of problems with what you're saying.
1. The APS is on the damn turret.
2. Once the turret is out of commission, the tank is going to be destroyed anyway.
3. The optics for driving are also on the turret, unless you want to stick your head out.
4. The cannon with a round in the chamber is also in the turret.
1. The APS is on the damn turret.
2. Once the turret is out of commission, the tank is going to be destroyed anyway.
3. The optics for driving are also on the turret, unless you want to stick your head out.
4. The cannon with a round in the chamber is also in the turret.
2. They can evacuate and get picked off by HMG, or HESH or Canister rounds.
3. Which won't last long.
4. The magazine is directly below that round though.
2. That is something that is true for any tank at all, but hull capsule would allow for the hatch on the underside.
3. And if you stick head out, it will last even shorter. It obviously isn't that big of an issue, seeing how tanks are still used.
4. Only on Russian designs with carousel - we should ask randomradio what kind of design he was talking about, exactly. Bustle autoloader - which I believe is what KF51 uses - is more survivable than even Abrams-style bustle with manual loading.
2. I don't worry about killing the crew once they alight. There's a reason they were in the tank in the first place, they needed it. Once the tank is a mission kill the job is done. And it only means some guy in a tractor will collect a tank for the other team later.
3. The periscope is nearly always in the turret. And the only for aim the gun always is.
4. I've seen the layout on the T-14 the ammo is still stored on a carousel but it's below the turret instead of in it. But if the round in the gun goes off, that doesn't matter. The rounds are also stacked vertically behind the crew, so a good hit from the side in the hull and it's bye-bye crew and tank. And due to the stacking, you can achieve that from either side at almost any height on the hull. And given the weight, the armour won't be that good either.
Since the turret lacks armour it's easily repairable and replaceable.
In a long war, war of attrition, protecting the crew is more important since tanks can be repaired or rebuilt. So, if you have experienced crew, but a new tank versus the enemy with new tank and crew, the experienced crew will always win.
If the turret is out of commission, the crew can still tow/drive the tank away. A tank stalls only if mobility is affected, or of course the crew capsule is penetrated.
You can see how small the turret really is. The electronics have plenty of protection because they are all separated from one another. And electronics is very easy to build very quickly. You can even keep a stock of prebuilt turrets so any damaged ones can be quickly mounted on the hull and sent back into action. All the bulk you see on the turret is just sheet metal, possibly meant to reduce RCS, and storage boxes and mounts for ERA and other electronics.
You can also see that there's ERA only on top, to protect the tank from top attack ATGMs. The rest of the turret needs no protection.
If you can't destroy the hull, the tank will simply come back with the same crew. That's very bad news for the enemy.
It doesn't matter which tank it is, if an ATGM hits the turret from the top and penetrates, the crew is dead regardless of where the ammo is.
The problem with T-XX tank isn't the ammo in the carousel, it's the loose ammo placed in the turret that results in a cook-off. The carousel ammo is the safest part of the tank. The T-14 eliminates that risk completely by both increasing the number of shells held in the carousel as well as removing the crew, so there's no need to carry loose shells in the turret.
Attacking from the side is very difficult unless the tank crew is poorly trained. A well-trained crew does not need side armour in a tank battle, only 60deg from the forward sector is enough. It's 'cause tank battles happen in formation, like football, hockey, basketball etc. The side armour is only necessary for urban combat, and that comes with add-on armour.
It's not easily replaceable if the round in the gun blows up.Since the turret lacks armour it's easily repairable and replaceable.
In a long war, war of attrition, protecting the crew is more important since tanks can be repaired or rebuilt. So, if you have experienced crew, but a new tank versus the enemy with new tank and crew, the experienced crew will always win.
If the turret is out of commission, the crew can still tow/drive the tank away. A tank stalls only if mobility is affected, or of course the crew capsule is penetrated.
View attachment 26273
You can see how small the turret really is. The electronics have plenty of protection because they are all separated from one another. And electronics is very easy to build very quickly. You can even keep a stock of prebuilt turrets so any damaged ones can be quickly mounted on the hull and sent back into action. All the bulk you see on the turret is just sheet metal, possibly meant to reduce RCS, and storage boxes and mounts for ERA and other electronics.
You can also see that there's ERA only on top, to protect the tank from top attack ATGMs. The rest of the turret needs no protection.
View attachment 26274
If you can't destroy the hull, the tank will simply come back with the same crew. That's very bad news for the enemy.
Only if the crew can escape the battlefield AND you hold the territory, which is unlikely.
Not going to tow it, if they're under fire are they?
You can destroy the hull though, it only ranks as a medium tank by NATO standards. After the turret goes, the hull is dead meat, along with the crew.
Doesn't need to be from the top, the side of a T-14 will be easily penetrated, and once it is, the resulting carnage can't miss the carousel. Even a partial penetration can cause bits of the inside to flake of and cause an explosion.
Yeah, and there'll be a loose round in the chamber on the T-14 99% of the time.
Infantry will always attack from the side, 90% of the time. DM-12s are usually set up to do that too. Side armour is necessary any place there are trees or bushes too. A hit from the front will kill the crew in the T-14 anyway.
You are clutching on straws.
Crew can escape easily too, the distances are generally far enough. Tank crews also prioritise killing other tanks, they don't go around killing crews when there's other sh!t to kill, like other tanks.
The towing thing is common, even farm tractors can do it. You have already witnessed that in a high intensity war.
There's no such thing as a "medium" tank, that category ended with WW2. There's only MBT or Main Battle Tank. The Armata hull has better design and protection than all existing tanks. And it's also very difficult to target the hull, in many cases you can't even see the hull. It's just 1.5 meters off the ground. During the Gulf War, 90% of Abrams hits on Iraqi tanks were on the turret, and 80% were in the 60 deg arc.
Why will there be a loose round in the chamber? It pretty much never happens.
Lol. Didn't know infantry could outrun tanks.
2. Tanks can be repaired, especially if you have avoided massive explosion internal to the tank. This is the reason why I believe KF51s design to be somewhat superior to that of Armata - though on flip side, ammunition in the hull is less likely to be hit in the first place-
3. True. Which is why unmanned turret is a good idea - if gun or opticas are disabled, that's a mission kill regardless of who is or is not in the turret.
4. In Armata, crew is supposed to be protected in the armored capsule. If the ammo is hit, it is turret launching championship again - but in Armata, assuming design works as advertised, crew would actually survive.
2. You think the enemy will leave a disabled tank around to be repaired? They will either steal your hi-tech tank or destroy it. There is no advantage to leaving abandoned tanks on the battlefield.
3. But Challenger 2/Leopard 2/M1A2 turrets are 10x harder to disable though, compared to the milk bottle tops they place on Russian tanks.
4. Look at the diagram again. I don't know what you see, but I see ~40 rounds stacked vertically in a confined space directly behind the heads of the crew. If they go off, the crew dies, even if the capsule wall between them is made of Adamantium.
What separates the crew and ammo in a Western tank is a thin sheet of metal that you can slide with your bare hands. What separates the crew and ammo in the Armata is a wall of steel that you can't move.
Brains, people, brains.
40 rounds going off in a confined space will remove any wall. And what separates the rounds from outside threats in Western tanks is an even larger wall of high tech armour. How many Russian tanks have been destroyed relative to Western ones historically?