Jump to content


Photo

Russian Afvs


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#41 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 13 February 2017 - 1158 AM

Yes same running gear and also the UTD-29 engine.

 

Thank you Geronimo and Stuart.


  • 0

#42 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 16 February 2017 - 1853 PM

Not an Armored Fighting Vehicle exactly, but instead an Armored Firefighting Vehicle based on the Russian 2S23 Nona-SVK.  And if ever a armored vehicle was well-suited to a red paint job, this one would be it:

 

 

C4zUh7XWMAAdBqp.jpg

 

A sideways view of this Red Russian ^_^ :

 

C4zUkLiWQAA45_W.jpg

 

The smoke grenade launchers and MG mount are presumably if the vehicle was being deployed to make use of its water-cannon for anti-riot duty.  If the crowd turned violent and had armed people in it, having smoke or tear gas grenades ready to launch could be very useful and an MG might have value as a last-resort.


Edited by Dark_Falcon, 16 February 2017 - 1856 PM.

  • 0

#43 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1230 PM

T-14 is dead, for now. As well as the wheeled Bumerang APC/IFV, and the Kurganets.
Seems like the 3 families of new AFVs unveiled in 2015 in the parade are now all dead and awaiting budget.

Russia's Armed Forces are not striving for a mass buy (mass production) of T-14 tanks because of their cost, preferring to improve the capabilities of their existing combat vehicles instead of modernizing the forces, said Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov.

"Why should we flood our entire force with Armata platforms? Our T-72 is used with great interest on the market, everyone's buying it. Compared with the Abrams, Leclerc, and Leopard, it's substantially better in terms of cost, effectiveness, and quality. Same goes with the Bumerang." - Explained Borisov.

"We don't have a need in a mass buy. These models are expensive enough compared with our existing fleet."

"Instead, fewer resources are spent on the modernization of old combat vehicles, allowing us to save money."

"We can also, with a budget 10 times lower than NATO members', with such effective decisions, when we're looking at the modernization potential of old combat vehicles, solve our given objectives", - said Borisov.

Source:

https://ria.ru/arms/...1525561724.html


  • 0

#44 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1251 PM

That sounds a lot like making a virtue out of a necessity.


  • 0

#45 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1310 PM

If the article is correct, sounds like a repeat of the AN-94 Abakan assault rifle all over again.  


  • 0

#46 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1420 PM

It's not DEAD(just like "dead" was T-50 by western articles), it's just not going to fill all army tank slots in any near future. Butlk will still be T-72 with some T-90 and few units with T-14. Plus ocassional T-80.


  • 0

#47 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1441 PM

It's not DEAD(just like "dead" was T-50 by western articles), it's just not going to fill all army tank slots in any near future. Butlk will still be T-72 with some T-90 and few units with T-14. Plus ocassional T-80.

When I say "dead" I mean like the SU-57: In very low rate production.

It's so far only slated to enter service with the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division "Tamanskaya" in Moscow. They have one tank regiment only, so it's 100 vehicles and a few more to do parades. Same will go with the Bumerang, Kurganets, and every family's derivatives. The only one of them that the RF said was not light years ahead of every other piece of technology is the Kurganets, so it's probably the slowest of the bunch.


  • 0

#48 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 30 July 2018 - 1704 PM

Not dead, but in a medically induced coma. 🙂
  • 0

#49 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 July 2018 - 0229 AM

Not dead, but in a medically induced coma.

Not even that. Just not rushing big scale producement. Same for T-50m which was claimed "CANCELLED".


  • 0

#50 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 August 2018 - 1403 PM

1330228_800.jpg


  • 0

#51 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,220 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 August 2018 - 2224 PM

Not dead, but in a medically induced coma.

Not even that. Just not rushing big scale producement. Same for T-50m which was claimed "CANCELLED".


Perhaps...I'm thinking the T-14 family was never intended for large-scale production. It has always needed a big-money purchase from outside Russia to keep it alive...at least beyond the token numbers we've seen so far. And, historically, it's much easier to make big export sales when the items being sold are in use in one's own army.
  • 0

#52 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2018 - 0343 AM

 

Perhaps...I'm thinking the T-14 family was never intended for large-scale production. It has always needed a big-money purchase from outside Russia to keep it alive...at least beyond the token numbers we've seen so far. And, historically, it's much easier to make big export sales when the items being sold are in use in one's own army.

 

Eh... No. This is not T-90A case. T-14 was always first and foremost tank for domestic use. As for fulfilling whole army - it was always not really seriously looked at just due to size of tank force. And tbh me personally see not too many sence in having more than a few hundreds of them. This will be by fa enough for any low and mid level conflict, and in large scale conflict tanks don't really matter.


  • 0

#53 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 18 August 2018 - 0633 AM

 

 

Perhaps...I'm thinking the T-14 family was never intended for large-scale production. It has always needed a big-money purchase from outside Russia to keep it alive...at least beyond the token numbers we've seen so far. And, historically, it's much easier to make big export sales when the items being sold are in use in one's own army.

 

Eh... No. This is not T-90A case. T-14 was always first and foremost tank for domestic use. As for fulfilling whole army - it was always not really seriously looked at just due to size of tank force. And tbh me personally see not too many sence in having more than a few hundreds of them. This will be by fa enough for any low and mid level conflict, and in large scale conflict tanks don't really matter.

 

 

Yeah, they won't use many, but it makes no sense in NOT buying them in sufficient quantities to replace the entire tank force.

The T-tanks of the T-72, T-90, and T-80 are past their 40's. That's about the life expectancy of a tank. 

If they don't start mass production now, they'll still be driving around tanks that are 60 or 70 years old. At that point they'll be beyond obsolete, only worthy of proxy battles in the middle east and even that with huge casualty rates for the unfortunate users.

Putting all sorts of gadgets on them also won't help when it's the basic structure that is problematic.


  • 0

#54 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 18 August 2018 - 0953 AM

T-14 vs.T-90 size comparison (apologies if this photo has been posted before):

 

Dktp-3PVAAEBdhw.jpg


  • 0

#55 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,220 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2018 - 2246 PM

Perhaps...I'm thinking the T-14 family was never intended for large-scale production. It has always needed a big-money purchase from outside Russia to keep it alive...at least beyond the token numbers we've seen so far. And, historically, it's much easier to make big export sales when the items being sold are in use in one's own army.

Eh... No. This is not T-90A case. T-14 was always first and foremost tank for domestic use. As for fulfilling whole army - it was always not really seriously looked at just due to size of tank force. And tbh me personally see not too many sence in having more than a few hundreds of them. This will be by fa enough for any low and mid level conflict, and in large scale conflict tanks don't really matter.


Maybe...let's see what happens if India or some other country puts in a large order. IMO, that's what it will take to get the production lines moving for both domestic and export production. I'm also convinced that the Russian focus continues to be on getting a 152mm tank gun into service...time will tell.
  • 0

#56 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,277 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 19 August 2018 - 0035 AM

T-14 is being fielded in enough numbers for extended doctrine development. The Armata is deliberately undergunned to reduce logistical burden in peace time training. 

Who are they going to engage in peer combat operations? The Turks? UVZ and ChTZ will receive the investment needed to permit higher volume production but there is no pressing need to buy several hundred more for prestige purposes. I suspect the easiest thing to do is build some Armata training vehicles based on T-72 etc. with the crew layout and a simulated weapon module for training. 


  • 0

#57 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 20 August 2018 - 0823 AM

Would that be possible given the huge disparity in size and internal volume?
  • 0

#58 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,277 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 20 August 2018 - 1012 AM

Training vehicles. You don't need a gun turret, just something to put optics on and a Hoffmann.


  • 0

#59 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 20 August 2018 - 1729 PM

Training vehicles. You don't need a gun turret, just something to put optics on and a Hoffmann.

 

I'm not even sure you could do the crew layout in the space available in an earlier T-series tank. By comparison, the crew module of the T-14 must be pretty spacious.


  • 0

#60 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,277 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 20 August 2018 - 1951 PM

Chris....I have stood on both.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users