• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Russian military hardware.

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
norseamd said:
You might want to read more about that tank. There are 3 separate compartments. The crew, gun, and engine compartments are all separate from each other. And autoloaders are actually just as good as humans, with some even better.
Click to expand...

I know about the compartments, but I'm specifically talking about the autoloader being a point of issue. Traditionally, they've been slow and prone to malfunction and sometimes at the cost of ammo storage and ammo type availability for all the mechanical systems necessary to make them work. IIRC The French AMX Leclerc for example also has to lower the gun to it's neutral level boresight position for each round to be loaded, taking valuable time.

Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.

I think my solution to the problem would be something like the AMX, except in a smaller scale, or a revolver-cylinder type system that is more manageable to travel in elevation with the gun itself. Each round, it's type, and magazine position would be logged into the tank so you could have for example 4 general APHE, 4 Sabot Rounds, and 2 HE or whatever combo is best.

It's because of these issues, I wouldn't mind phasing out large tank guns for large autocannons that can better accommodate separate magazines of ammo types, and do 90% of the jobs MBTs do. For head-on tank combat, they can still carry AT missiles.
 
Last edited:
Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.
Click to expand...

seriously, anyone who has played WoT knows this.
 
pauldun170 said:
Probably the only tank you would probably want to be in is a Merkava with the Trophy system.

At least for now...
Then you just have to worry about other tanks.
Click to expand...

I like your feeling of Western Supremacism, as if Russians dont have active protection systems.
 
Blitzvogel said:
I know about the compartments, but I'm specifically talking about the autoloader being a point of issue. Traditionally, they've been slow and prone to malfunction and sometimes at the cost of ammo storage and ammo type availability for all the mechanical systems necessary to make them work. IIRC The French AMX Leclerc for example also has to lower the gun to it's neutral level boresight position for each round to be loaded, taking valuable time.

Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.

I think my solution to the problem would be something like the AMX, except in a smaller scale, or a revolver-cylinder type system that is more manageable to travel in elevation with the gun itself. Each round, it's type, and magazine position would be logged into the tank so you could have for example 4 general APHE, 4 Sabot Rounds, and 2 HE or whatever combo is best.

It's because of these issues, I wouldn't mind phasing out large tank guns for large autocannons that can better accommodate separate magazines of ammo types, and do 90% of the jobs MBTs do. For head-on tank combat, they can still carry AT missiles.
Click to expand...

I was just reading about a tank being able to reload an elevated tank gun, not sure which one it was, was possibly the Armata, or it could have been the Type 10 or K2 Black Panther. Autoloaders are notably more advanced in the 21st century than when they first came out. Also you can put a co-axial autocannon on a tank, the AMX-30 had one, although not sure how big of one you can put next to a 120 mm tank gun.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
Because some assholes think that using remote-controlled hardware to kill your enemies is "bad" somehow.
Click to expand...

It is more complex than that. Unmanned systems are nowhere near being able to operate autonomous for anything but very limited spectrum missions, and operating unmanned systems from any major distance means a lot of latency.
 
Not sure what WoT has to do with anything really, everything in it is antiquated to begin with.

It really does not apply to the thread much.
 
norseamd said:
I like your feeling of Western Supremacism, as if Russians dont have active protection systems.
Click to expand...

Never said they didn't have them.

You want to pull some "Western vs Eastern" comment them go ahead.
When it comes to the state of the Russian defense industry, I'm Western Supremacist all the way.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
Because some assholes think that using remote-controlled hardware to kill your enemies is "bad" somehow.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
Not sure what WoT has to do with anything really, everything in it is antiquated to begin with.

It really does not apply to the thread much.
Click to expand...

didn't you see the graphics in the OP? all that stuff's been in service since 1945.


kage69 said:
To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.
Click to expand...

serious ordinance like "no parades of tanks after 6:30 pm"
 
kage69 said:
To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the moral objections, like we should have "skin in the game" and put soldiers' lives at risk because if the terrorists can't shoot back and hit meatsack, it's not "fair."

Yes, this is a thing people actually believe.

I fail to see the ethical difference between a Drone remote-controlled from North Dakota and an F16 with a pilot inside, dropping the same missile on the same wedding party, but that's my fault because Drones are scary and I am clearly a closeted chickenhawk warmonger or something.
 
Last edited:
norseamd said:
1399008912-SU253-o.jpg
Click to expand...

new-pictures-of-the-f-35-with-its-weapons-bay-doors-wide-open.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top