/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27703265

[106 / 52 / ?]

151KiB, 800x531, Tank-2.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

T-90-SM

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:38:45 No.27703265 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703287 >>27703319 >>27703515 >>27703594 >>27705255 >>27707130

i want to know what does /k/ think about the T-90-SM, specially about the ERA or Explosive Reactive Armour

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:41:03 No.27703287 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709009

>>27703265
I'm like 85% sure that it will throw its turret to the other side of the road when hit, just like any other russian/soviet tank.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:42:11 No.27703303 Report Delete

Quoted By:

It looks cool

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-90 different varients.jpg, 271KiB, 1280x980

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:43:38 No.27703319 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708376

>>27703265
Well it's significantly better then other T-90 varients.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1920px-T-90SM_-_RAE2013-04[1].jpg, 315KiB, 1920x1280

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:05:11 No.27703515 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703528 >>27703529

>>27703265
You mean the T-90MS? It's a neat modernization of the T-90/T-72 but I doubt it will be adopted in significant numbers for the time being. Russia seems to be investing in the T-72B3 for their cheap solution and the T-14 Armata as their long term tank.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:07:15 No.27703528 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703561

>>27703515
Nah m8, the T-90MS is the export model. Using the tech from there they're upgrading their T-90A to T-90AM standard. The T-14 will probably not see large scale production until the first model has whatever teething issues figured out

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dukaz_T-72B3_na_Ukrajine.jpg, 112KiB, 700x794

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:07:14 No.27703529 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705157 >>27708054

>>27703515
>T-72B3
"T-72B3 was a misstake"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:11:27 No.27703561 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703577 >>27704988 >>27709053

>>27703528
> The T-14 will probably not see large scale production ever

FTFY. Next decade Russia will roll out another prototype and run off a couple hundred copies to look advanced and keep their engineers out of the poorhouse, and they'll keep on using repainted T72s for all actual use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:13:07 No.27703577 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703561
No they'll produce them, just like they did the T-90, it'll just take 10+ years for a production model that doesn't catch fire to come into production.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-90MS uralvagonzavod-gotov-skor (...).jpg, 191KiB, 600x387

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:14:17 No.27703594 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703985

>>27703265
It looks cooler than the Armata.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO t90ms_tagil_l4.jpg, 335KiB, 1024x701

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:44:32 No.27703985 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704004 >>27704021 >>27707130

>>27703594
This, it looks modern yet Russian. Reminds me of the Russian tank in BFBC2.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO t90ms_tagil_l7.jpg, 50KiB, 640x464

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:45:35 No.27704004 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703985
Which I admit is funny though because its a totally different thing than the black eagle that the fictional tank was based off of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:47:02 No.27704021 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704428

>>27703985
The Russian tank in BC2 was a T-90 bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:15:01 No.27704428 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704021
He means the MEC faction.

Probably from BC1.

Anon is not a clever boy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:58:02 No.27704988 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703561
Russia would be better off focusing on building T-15s and upgrading their T-90A to T-90MS than building T-14.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO BzqGCdZIcAAwb8C[1].jpg, 65KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:09:22 No.27705157 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705201 >>27708054

>>27703529
I mean its a nice relatively cheap incremental upgrade, but it's still a T-72.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-72B obr1989.jpg, 346KiB, 1280x851

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:12:31 No.27705201 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705157
There is no real serious protection upgrade.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:16:51 No.27705255 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703265
The T-90-SM's ERA is cool.

You know what's cooler? Dual Shaped Charges

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-90MS_02_large.jpg, 402KiB, 2000x1150

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:48:48 No.27707130 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707522 >>27707613 >>27707631

>>27703985
>This, it looks modern yet Russian.

It is derived from T-72, ofc it looks classic Russian.

>>27703265
It has all the main features of Armata. Remote turret, autoloader, crew separation, satellite guidance, etc. The only thing lacking is the APS.

Expect to see a huge deal to modernize +800 Indian T-90S to T-90SM in the near future. Russia wouldn't spend so much money developing it when Armata T-14 is coming soon, unless they had some confirmed export partners.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:18:33 No.27707522 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707631 >>27707849

>>27707130
For the last fucking time it doesn't have a remote turret.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:26:28 No.27707613 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707849 >>27709145

>>27707130
Why do you think the t-14 program is already down the toilet? India doesnt want it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:28:15 No.27707631 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707849

>>27707522
>>27707130
Also no crew seperation. If you want to shitpost otherwise provide ONE source that says the T-90MS/AM upgrades j clude crew seperation and a remote turret.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1445834341936.gif, 2MiB, 257x193

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:45:14 No.27707849 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707938 >>27707959 >>27708207 >>27710660

>>27707522
>>27707631
You are idiots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pfGP-dGjjnY#t=303

A remote turret is featured in their own goddamn propaganda video, same with the crew separation, visually it even appears to be the same one on the T-14. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

>>27707613
T-14 is similar to the T-90MS in terms of features, as mentioned before. Armata platform is only good once you consider that it is going to replace a whole family of vehicles (+10), but the T-14 tank Armata is not going to be that much better than what the T-90MS can do. Other platforms will benefit tremendously though, such as the IFV T-15 variant, that replaces the older BMPs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:52:30 No.27707938 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27707959

>>27707849
>the video clearly demonstrates standard Russia crew configuration.
Oh wow look at that you're retarded. The only thing remote controlled on that thing is the commander's MG.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2015-10-26-23-53-28.png, 2MiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:54:25 No.27707959 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708128

>>27707938
>>27707849
-_-

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO VASYA_The_T-72B3-1.webm, 3MiB, 854x480

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:01:02 No.27708054 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708067 >>27708378 >>27709399

>>27703529
>>27705157
one or two tank blow up is nothing
no tank is undeadable

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:01:50 No.27708067 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708129

>>27708054
T-72B2 is superior.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:07:10 No.27708128 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708184

>>27707959
>-_-

You don't belong here.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO vid4.jpg, 132KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:07:11 No.27708129 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708261

>>27708067
yes, but it is also more expensive
T-72B3 Is just a T-72B 1989 with 2000 electronic and T-90 mobility
and they are both money saving solution for T-14, and can be export to third world country
T-72B3 is easier to export

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1442260465883.jpg, 148KiB, 500x730

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:11:47 No.27708184 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708352

>>27708128
>proves you wrong
>huurrr durrr you didn't use a native meme face instead you used an old emoji

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:12:13 No.27708191 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708233 >>27709178

There is footage of Syrian export 72s taking BGM-72C to the face and surviving. Should tell you everything you need to know about tank performance.
Also, tactics beat armor every time. SA lost multiple modern upgraded M1s in Yemen to USSR-era ATGMs.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO OPPkF43Q9X4.jpg, 281KiB, 1414x870

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:13:36 No.27708207 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27707849
>Remote control machine gun is the same as a Remote control turret
you are dumb

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 05prez3.jpg, 44KiB, 580x405

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:15:36 No.27708233 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708191
Saudi are retard
they even let the enemy get close to their APC, 100m or so

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Object 187-0.jpg, 43KiB, 687x509

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:17:30 No.27708261 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708301

>>27708129
>If only they were not poor.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 991.jpg, 232KiB, 1280x960

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:21:41 No.27708301 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708314 >>27708347

>>27708261
IDN the turret was carry on to the T-90A and Ukraine T-84
and its hull deck is quite retard, vulnerable to top attack cluster bomb

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 94.jpg, 292KiB, 1280x960

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:23:10 No.27708314 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708347 >>27710514

>>27708301
the glacis plate design is just weird

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-72BM frontal armor LOS thickness.jpg, 389KiB, 1024x1103

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:25:46 No.27708347 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708360 >>27708517

>>27708301
>>27708314
How is that a problem? Every tank is vulnerable to top attack munition also you forget that it removes the frontal armor weakness that the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 have.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1371935452795.gif, 48KiB, 2034x1491

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:26:20 No.27708352 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708184
>only one person could respond to me
>using emoticon's at all

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-72B armor weakness.jpg, 48KiB, 594x358

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:27:11 No.27708360 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708635 >>27709685

>>27708347

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1444128522488.jpg, 16KiB, 480x360

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:28:33 No.27708376 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708428

>>27703319
Dat Tetris camo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:28:58 No.27708378 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708407 >>27708422

>>27708054
I hope you're not among the faggots who make the "ABRAMS BTFO" threads.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:32:16 No.27708407 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708422 >>27708435

>>27708378
I hope you're not among the faggots who make the "T72 BTFO" threads

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1419861075304.jpg, 251KiB, 600x886

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:33:54 No.27708422 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708378
>>27708407
Stop it now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:34:42 No.27708428 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708376
Lost my keks, I'll let you know if I find them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:35:43 No.27708435 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708407
I am not.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO red.jpg, 376KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:46:15 No.27708517 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708635

>>27708347
>increase slope angle
>remove the frontal armor weakness
>implying T-64 T-72 have a frontal armor weakness
the 187 only make the hull roomier, and a better turret, thus the red par in pic related is wider. more vulnerable to top attack

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Soviet tank tree1.gif, 101KiB, 2900x668

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 02:02:06 No.27708635 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709200 >>27709243

>>27708517
Eh yes the T-64 and T-72 have a frontal weakness.>>27708360

By increasing the slope you will deflect incoming rounds into the turret armor. Im sorry but it has better turret and hull. Also it has better hull for ceramic since the front got better design for ceramic inserts.

http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=310.55&v=-4.13&f=155.00&l=commander&m=view_fisheye&lang=en

You need place for the driver.

Every single tank is vulnerable to top attack munitons since that's the most weakest armored area. The T-14 which got a similar hull design is vulnerable to top attack munitons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 02:55:46 No.27709009 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709027

>>27703287
>I'm like 85% sure that it will throw its turret to the other side of the road when hit, just like any other russian/soviet tank.
thankfully you are 100% deluded. the whole point of the turret bustle ammo storage is just that- prevent the loose rounds from turning the tank into viking funeral pyre in case of penetration. now the only practical way you could blow it the fck up is either IEDs or top attack munitions as the carousel AL is all the way at the bottom of the tank and really hard to hit via tank gunfire.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-90MS.jpg, 241KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 02:58:29 No.27709027 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709009
A good thing for COIN.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:01:31 No.27709053 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709063 >>27709141

>>27703561
>FTFY. Next decade Russia will roll out another prototype and run off a couple hundred copies to look advanced and keep their engineers out of the poorhouse, and they'll keep on using repainted T72s for all actual use.
wow, we got a psychic here. mind telling me lottery numbers for tomorrow?

anyway, upgraded T-72s still have future- there have been talk of turning them into drone tanks controlled from 3-5km away in armored vans/ifvs. imagine T-72 wolfpacks led by manned T-14 alphas- HOLY FCK OMGWTFBBQ

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1425161466225.png, 387KiB, 600x632

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:03:14 No.27709063 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709053
Really now anon.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1445585443492.gif, 2MiB, 303x277

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:12:06 No.27709141 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709210

>>27709053
>mfw I could see the Russian MoD backing such an idea and forcing it on their ground forces no matter the opposition to it purely for appearances and propoganda.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:12:26 No.27709145 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27707613
the fck does India fit in here? they are not funding any bolt of T-14 . and they cant even design a decent last gen tank for the life of them so clearly they have no basis to dismiss T-14.
anyway, since we're on this tangent hopefully saner minds prevail in their mod and they just drop that retarded tank of theirs. maybe they could pick up on where rumod left and negotiate for a T-95 indianised. that damn tank is like premium version of T-14 that we see today albeit tech is older. but, update it to modern standards and retrofit some advanced features implemented in T-14 and they get themselves the world's absolutest, bestest tank- call it Arjun super too so the whole deal doesnt feel as bad as it being shoved down their throats.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:16:50 No.27709178 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708191
>There is footage of Syrian export 72s taking BGM-72C to the face and surviving.
Not all of Syria's T-72s are -72M or -72M1 varieties, they have some legit T-72AVs

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1440473232133.jpg, 113KiB, 1008x578

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:17:50 No.27709185 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:19:22 No.27709200 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709323

>>27708635
>Eh yes the T-64 and T-72 have a frontal weakness
as i said the 187 turret was carry on to the T-90A
and T-64 T-74 glacis are more slope than the 187

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:20:49 No.27709210 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709292

>>27709141
>>mfw I could see the Russian MoD backing such an idea and forcing it on their ground forces no matter the opposition to it purely for appearances and propoganda.
no need to be sarcastic- tankers themselves want drone tanks. i think every tanker who has working self preservation instinct would insist on capability of fighting from far way- best armor is being miles away from enemy fire in the first place. then if he cant enjoy that he has next best thing anyway- a tank that wouldnt grill him in case of penetration.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO GbKVl.jpg, 312KiB, 1536x1024

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:25:36 No.27709243 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709323 >>27710073

>>27708635
>Every single tank is vulnerable to top attack munitons since that's the most weakest armored area
sure, but not as vulnerable as the 187
like the T-90A for example, it doesn't the weakness in the hull, the TC and gunner hatch are armored, shit tons of rubber and ERA on the roof of the turret
and the T-14 have a upward smoke dispenser to defend itself against smart top attack ammunition

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:31:45 No.27709292 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709351

>>27709210
The problem is it leaves your entire armor force vulnerable.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO object 187-4.jpg, 201KiB, 800x627

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:36:13 No.27709323 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709577 >>27709592 >>27709606

>>27709200
How can the T-64 and "T-74", (a fucking prototype that never got anywhere, hope you mean the T-72) have more slope then the Object 187? It got 60 degres while object 187 have more.

>>27709243
Sure but, Object 187 could easily be upgraded with extra top armor just like the T-90A and have upward smoke dispenser just like the T-14.

And the T-90 have the same hull weakness as other older russian tanks since it has the same hull design
>Area infront of the drivers vision port is thinner since the driver needs room

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:42:11 No.27709351 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709357 >>27709360 >>27709526

>>27709292
>The problem is it leaves your entire armor force vulnerable.
in what way? the crew members would be safer than ever being removed from tanks with deficient armor protection and shoved into those that dont or be far, far away from danger apart from airpower(but thats what the IADs net is for). maybe you are referring to vulnerable from hacking- huh! good luck, russian EW is highly regarded so good luck with the airwaves and they could always just use wires or encrypted laser beams to control them drone tanks.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1436962638323.jpg, 102KiB, 500x667

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:43:26 No.27709357 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709442

>>27709351
>russian EW is highly regarded so good luck with the airwaves and they could always just use wires or encrypted laser beams to control them drone tanks.
Are you being serious right now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:44:21 No.27709360 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709442

>>27709351
You don't have to "hack" shit, probably wouldn't anyway because everything is encrypted. However it does leave vulnerablility to EW in the form of jamming. Also what if they lose their comms/relay/whatever shit to shrapnel or small arms fire? The tank is totally out of the fight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:50:51 No.27709399 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709425

>>27708054

>That vent

Why do russian tanks always have little bits that open up

I can kind of understand when its shell ejection but thats not ejecting anything

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-72 autoloader.jpg, 194KiB, 669x600

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:53:39 No.27709425 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710625

>>27709399
It trows out the propellent stub case

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:57:19 No.27709442 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709454 >>27709458 >>27710141

>>27709357
yeah, totes. just ask the hohols
>>27709360
um, you do know there is still arty and attack choppers plus jets to provide anti-rad support? anything that broadcasts the fck huge power to needed to jam the airwaves shut is going to be on a truck or tank chassis- meaning they are only ever going to be few and far in between and juicy targets for assets ive just mentioned. not to mention only peer foes like US can bring such jammers to the fight- not poorhouse hohols or any other fsu georgia wannabes and god forbid sandniggers. and unfortunately in such conflict none of this conventional shit matters only tridents and bulavas do the talking.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1425801989082.jpg, 568KiB, 910x823

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:59:16 No.27709454 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709442
>yeah, totes. just ask the hohols
What?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:59:54 No.27709458 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709442
i must add it has to be ground based jamming since only those have the endurance to deny your drone assets for usable amount of time. a growler cant really just stay on station for hours without either running out of fuel or getting a missile in its tailpipe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:13:10 No.27709526 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709351
>hacking

The threat isn't from hacking, it's jamming. Jamming the particular wavelength the tank is controlled on would render it entirely inoperable.

Even with redundant systems of control, it's just introducing another way to defeat the vehicle.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1391866677921.jpg, 164KiB, 1220x521

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:25:08 No.27709577 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709323
you get it wrong
187 was 150 degres
T-72 was more than 135 degres
the 187 only have a better turret

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1391866677921.jpg, 164KiB, 1220x521

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:27:38 No.27709592 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709651 >>27710600

>>27709323
you get it wrong
187 was 120 degres
T-72 was more than 150 degres
the 187 only have a better turret
{sorrry for double post}

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5.jpg, 172KiB, 768x1024

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:30:40 No.27709606 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709651

>>27709323
>Area infront of the drivers vision port is thinner since the driver needs room
sure but then the hull deck where the driver sit is thin, you can up armor that part but it could get in the way of the turret

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Object 187-3.jpg, 165KiB, 1200x900

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:44:29 No.27709651 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709670 >>27710367 >>27710600

>>27709592
You can clearly see that object 187 has a superior hull design.

>>27709606
But how relevent is this even? You can never armor up the top of a tank to stop top attack munitions in a good way unless you dont care about weight. Even if you armor up the drivers area you got the whole engien compartment that cant be armord up and the armor on the turret is too thin to be really effective.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2865369380_84fbdaa24e_o.jpg, 288KiB, 1600x1200

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:51:16 No.27709670 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709685 >>27709690 >>27710600

>>27709651
>superior hull design
yes
>superior glacis
no

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:57:09 No.27709685 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709740

>>27709670
>no
How many times do I have to say this.>>27708360 And a T-72B you posted.

60 degress is not enoug to deflect anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 04:58:22 No.27709690 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709740 >>27710600

>>27709670
>superior glacis
But it is superior, since it solves the driver-window-hole-in-glacis problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 05:02:32 No.27709707 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709717

T-72 upper glacis is actually sloped at 68 degrees

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO USSR_T-72_Hull glacis.jpg, 135KiB, 2262x332

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 05:06:42 No.27709717 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709707
Actually yes, it's more then 60 degress, otherwise these numbers would be wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T-72B chechen 1, TC.jpg, 83KiB, 800x535

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 05:13:24 No.27709740 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710011

>>27709685

>60 degress is not enoug to deflect anything.
it is not 60 degress
>>27709690

and try to find a pic of a penetrated T-72 driver visor
i got a pic of a TC hatch though
create a problem by sloves one is not the way thing go

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO iraqi_wrecks_05_of_16[1].jpg, 883KiB, 2848x2144

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 06:38:14 No.27710011 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710020

>>27709740
Here you go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 06:42:39 No.27710020 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710037

>>27710011
the same thing could happen to a 187 though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 06:49:39 No.27710037 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710128

>>27710020
Not really. On 187 drivers optics stick out the top, so even if you hit those - you simply destroy the optics without actually penetrating the armor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:09:15 No.27710073 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710106 >>27710139

>>27709243
You are aware that ERA, like passive armor is greatly affected by slope, correct? That's why it's never been particularly viable to put ERA on roofs and why skirt mounted ERA bricks tend to be thicker in construction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:21:35 No.27710106 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710073
>skirt mounted ERA bricks tend to be thicker in construction.
No, they're not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:30:41 No.27710128 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710133

>>27710037
it still hit the turret ring though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:32:54 No.27710133 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710128
Yup. And then it depends on whether you can penetrate that. Still beter than getting hit in the underturrent compartament guaranteed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:34:43 No.27710139 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710073
>You are aware that ERA, like passive armor is greatly affected by slope, correct?
yes
>That's why it's never been particularly viable to put ERA on roofs
that why those on the roof were slightly modified
and most top attack warhead use with cluster ammunition are weak

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 07:35:16 No.27710141 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27709442
>yeah, totes. just ask the hohols

Russian EW is effective against Ukrainians using pre 1990 Soviet stuff. Thanks for the info man.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Fixing_soviet_tanks.png, 14KiB, 854x668

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 08:55:20 No.27710367 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710426

>>27709651
so they basically did this?
Why didn't they think of it sooner?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1425126329944.jpg, 265KiB, 1024x682

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:12:15 No.27710426 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710367
its most likely a similar design to that of the leo2 hull front while remaining composite

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Leopard2A4_Finland_03.jpg, 142KiB, 800x533

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:33:17 No.27710514 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708314
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:36:03 No.27710530 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>all this discussion about an unadopted prototype
>relevant

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2345.png, 8KiB, 552x862

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:49:09 No.27710591 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710779

Mad skills to illustrate different glacis layouts. Yellow is composite armor. Claciss should not only take into account protection but downward visibility for driver. Top layout supposedly have upper plate at angles high than 80 degrees, above ricochet limits of the rounds. Middle is good for protection but driver can't see shit. Bottom is T-64/72. Good vision but special armor has cut to accommodate drive'sr head and body creating weakened zone.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO glacis comparison.png, 64KiB, 859x576

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:51:05 No.27710600 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710710 >>27710751 >>27710779

>>27709592
>>27709651
>>27709670
>>27709690

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:57:17 No.27710625 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710630 >>27710700

>>27709425

Not the same guy, but how do they get rid of case stubs when fully sealed up for NBC protection?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:58:12 No.27710630 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710635 >>27710700

>>27710625

Do you even overpressure ?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_IN (...).jpg, 138KiB, 1280x679

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:59:07 No.27710633 Report Delete

Quoted By:

This would wreck it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 09:59:23 No.27710635 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710671

>>27710630

Well I guess, but i didn't think that they overpressured it enough to keep the spooky gases and chemicals out if they opened the hatch like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:05:32 No.27710660 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27707849
>but the T-14 tank Armata is not going to be that much better than what the T-90MS can do
Main part of the tank is gun. Armata's gun is much above T-90MS gun.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:07:36 No.27710671 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710635
It's a couple seconds under overpressure. Little sniff of the sarin will not kill you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:13:35 No.27710700 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27710768 >>27712237

>>27710625
>>27710630
the gunner can choose to keep the case inside or eject it out
not all Soviet tank do this
only T-72 seri and the T-14

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 14165837176470.jpg, 273KiB, 800x597

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:15:11 No.27710710 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710600
god, that is some thick glacis

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:21:44 No.27710751 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710600
so it is a super thick T-72 glacis
but they chopped some to top part off for driver visibility?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:23:56 No.27710768 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710700

>not all soviet tank
>only T-72 and the T-14
>T-14
>soviet

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1389176546047.jpg, 117KiB, 998x691

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 10:25:32 No.27710779 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710591
>>27710600

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 14:25:45 No.27712237 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27710700
What do you mean "the gunner can choose"?

The gunner can't really choose, if he decides to load a new round than the stub gets ejected and if he doesn't push reload button than the stub stays in the holder until the next load.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches

T-90-SM