DRDO and PSU's

[username unkown]

Then you should have clarified it better, na?? The way you framed that sentence made it seem like you were claiming the T-14s to be inferior to contemporary western style MBTs in terms of crew protection. You should have mentioned that you meant it lacked in other segments, which I can definitely agree with.





Yeah, I see that now, although the two-piece ammo is less of a problem in the T-14 as in this new autoloader, they have the whole height of the hull to play with unlike the autoloaders in the older T-series MBTs.


Correct.



Again, correct, but that tiny window is still a weak spot and a hazard as compared to a thick solid bulkhead, even if less so than a blast door found on the Leopards and Abrams.

By point of failure, I didn't mean the bustle auto loader!! I meant the blast door mechanism itself!! The doors (or shutters in case of the autoloaders) are exponentially more likely to fail (especially when the racks are full or near full) than a solid thick heavy plate of metal welded into the structure itself!!

Watch this -

True but it won't be that much different for something like an Abrams or a Leopard either, even if all the safety protocols work perfectly. Well, the turret may not become a space ship but there won't be much left there to salvage regardless.



Highly unlikely!! If the bustle racks does brew up, then you can kiss your tank good bye, forget the machine guns on the top, the fire, in all likelihood will sip into the crew compartment as well (shocking, I know)!! The best you may hope for then is for the crew to escape unharmed.

Remember, those safety features such as the blast doors and blowout panels are put in there to save the crew, not the vehicle itself as people have come so erroneously to believe!! The scores of burnt out Leopards and Abrams bear testimony to this fact.

Well, under some rare circumstances, you might be able to salvage it but the whole turret would need either replacing or extensive repair works.

Here, take a looksee -

As you may notice, the propellant charges burn hot enough to melt right through the bustle and then the engine deck to finally set the engine itself on fire, which then would inevitably sip into the crew compartment unless the turret is turned sideways.


Sorry, I got those two mixed up, my bad. KF-51 would be a great choice indeed.


Price is not the only issue here - the K2 itself is rather poorly designed with a bunch of structural weak spots strewn all around the vehicles.
At any rate, I would pick the T-90MS turret any day over that abomination they have on the K2. Well, may be I'd change the ERA arrangement to something like this instead
-

from side -

View: https://youtu.be/ltTDuzawvQs?si=wVGODcsJ1-WyggtM


View: https://youtu.be/i_cpg5SSBIY?si=lIyBILuombDNqidj


Bustle type ammo on abbrams is better than Soviet ones even in chally , k2 and Leo there is ammo storage in hull
Even lecrec too

 

[Blood+]

View: https://youtu.be/ltTDuzawvQs?si=wVGODcsJ1-WyggtM


View: https://youtu.be/i_cpg5SSBIY?si=lIyBILuombDNqidj


Bustle type ammo on abbrams is better than Soviet ones even in chally , k2 and Leo there is ammo storage in hull
Even lecrec too

Well, of course it's better but it's designed to protect the crew and not the tank itself and that's where most people make the mistake!! The blowout panel-blast door combo is an amazing addition, no doubt, but it's not the magical forcefield that many have come to expect it to be.

 

[username unkown]

Well, of course it's better but it's designed to protect the crew and not the tank itself and that's where most people make the mistake!! The blowout panel-blast door combo is an amazing addition, no doubt, but it's not the magical forcefield that many seem to have come to expect.

What my point is bustle type auto loder in some cases saves the tank in most cases off course tank can be still destroyed it depends on lot of things t 14 armata is also very good concept
In my opinion with crew protection pod and bustle type loader is best approach

And now to a why do Russian don't do bustle type loader or storage well Russian or Soviet to avoid using simple bustle type


loaderhttps://t.me/the_Right_People/36888

 

[ArjunMK1A]

Still would have been more reliable than depending on GE completely? Meanwhile we could have tried to fully indigenize Kaveri both hot and cold sections. This IMO could have completely avoided the current deplorable delays in delivery of Mk1A....

I'm very sure IAF having got the taste of the fuel efficiency and reliability of GE were not convinced of GTRE doing the same with Kaveri

Well Well Well GOI is not serious and we lost Parrikar sir to cancer. If he was in DM position we can see certain push in this area.

We lost Sushma Swaraj, Parrikar, Arun Jaitley in last 10 years. Few big guns.

 

[Blood+]

What my point is bustle type auto loder in some cases saves the tank in most cases off course tank can be still destroyed it depends on lot of things t 14 armata is also very good concept
In my opinion with crew protection pod and bustle type loader is best approach

Yeah, I don't see how this is any different to what I said.

And now to a why do Russian don't do bustle type loader or storage well Russian or Soviet to avoid using simple bustle type
View attachment 15418

loaderhttps://t.me/the_Right_People/36888

This above diagram explains why Soviet engineers were so fixated on round shaped turrets - because it presented a much smaller target to the enemy even when traversed to the side.
This was a lesson learned from WW2 as analysis of knocked out tanks showed that the turret was the one most likely to get hit.

Apart from that, a longer turret with an isolated ammunition compartment at the rear would also be much heavier, not just because it is larger but because it has a greater surface area that needs to be covered with more armor, as can be seen in the following diagram -

T-90A turret - 17 tons
M1A2 Abrams turret - 30 tons

Just a little trivia for those who might be interested in the topic.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Professionally I highly appreciate the deep technical discussion I've with you. Personally I hecking hate you Man for making me read these long ahh posts and then type one too.

Anyways, back to yapping

Yeah, I see that now, although the two-piece ammo is less of a problem in the T-14 as in this new autoloader, they have the whole height of the hull to play with unlike the autoloaders in the older T-series MBTs.

Definitely it'll be bigger than the cramped rounds in MZ/AZ auto-loader given now you've the whole length from turret basket to the top to play with...but, there's a catch.

The rounds are stored perpendicular to the breech so before shoving it in you must rotate the round to a neer horizontal position all while lifting it up. If the round is made too long then it'll either hit the turret roof or the beech block while it's getting rotated. And to make things worse they decided to store the rounds in the inner circle rather than the other, by reducing this radius the potential maximum length of the round too got reduced.

So ultimately a very small increment with absolutely no growth potential to bigger 130mm or 140mm rounds as on contemporaries.

But in case of the current and upcoming bustle type auto-loader you simply need just two very simple motions...a conveyor belt moves in XY plane and then the round is simply yeeted in the Z-axis. Technically you can even chamber an ICBM if you want. Technically though

Again, correct, but that tiny window is still a weak spot and a hazard as compared to a thick solid bulkhead, even if less so than a blast door found on the Leopards and Abrams.
By point of failure, I didn't mean the bustle auto loader!! I meant the blast door mechanism itself!! The doors (or shutters in case of the autoloaders) are exponentially more likely to fail (especially when the racks are full or near full) than a solid thick heavy plate of metal welded into the structure itself!!

The thing with most of the currently active tanks like M1A1 is that it was designed to use a human auto-loader so they've a big hole in the turret. Now auto-loaders got added later so that compromised portion is still there as it is. But with something like a K-2 bustle (just the bustle, overall it too suffers with the vulnerability of hull ammunition) that was designed from ground up to use an auto-loader this opening is much smaller.

In this pic itself you can clearly see the place where the sliding blast door should have been that got completely compromised. Now compare that opening (I'd guess 2 shells wide by 3 shells tall) to that on a K-2...

...a single (that side hole is an optional thing for back-up ammo loading in case the auto-loader fails) hole, just enough to pass a single round. Also you don't need the shutter (or door) to be strong enough to contain the pressure, you just need to have it hold its shape until the pressure finds the path of least resistance by blowing off the blow-out panels. It's easier to make a smaller piece of metal stronger compared to a larger if thickness is kept the same; the more area the more flex.

Well, under some rare circumstances, you might be able to salvage it but the whole turret would need either replacing or extensive repair works.

Okay...first thing first. My argument of "even after bustle auto-loader gets blown off you'd still have machine guns left" has nothing to do with the tank being salvageable. As soon as the propellants would burn the extreme temperatures would permanently change the heat treatment of the surrounding surfaces, melt away all the sensitive electronic and so on. If there's a blowout then there's a pretty high chance that the turret is a write off; maybe you can salvage parts of it like the gun or T&E mechanism or front armour module...but not the complete turret.

My emphasis on machine gun is that you'll have atleast something heavy to cover while the crew is dismounting the vehicle. As soon as a tank is disabled it's biggest "predator" becomes infantry looking to kill the crew.

A crew is way more valuable than any equipment even if it's a B2 Spirit in question as it takes years to get just one competent crew.

Price is not the only issue here - the K2 itself is rather poorly designed with a bunch of structural weak spots strewn all around the vehicles.

If import and that of a MBT based on Western design philosophy is the only option then it's the most bang for buck despite all its flaws.

 

[Miss Firing]

Was bored, just logged into X

 

[Ayan Barat]

Was bored, just logged into X

This is what the average "Indian Defence" looks like; one's a news channel with 123k followers and other's claimed to be a serving soldier.

Now to understand the beauty of this tweet you'll need to google three things
1. How many ATGMs are there on a LCH
2. How many LCH are there in a flight
3. And lastly, how many vehicles are there in a Chinese combined arms brigade

Ab itna to kar hi sakte ho...

PS : That defence news page has this on his bio "Not on...DFI"

 

[Suryavanshi]

Was bored, just logged into X

View attachment 15436
View attachment 15437

 

[Blood+]

Professionally I highly appreciate the deep technical discussion I've with you. Personally I hecking hate you Man for making me read these long ahh posts and then type one too.

Gee... thanks!!

Anyways, back to yapping

Definitely it'll be bigger than the cramped rounds in MZ/AZ auto-loader given now you've the whole length from turret basket to the top to play with...but, there's a catch.

The rounds are stored perpendicular to the breech so before shoving it in you must rotate the round to a neer horizontal position all while lifting it up. If the round is made too long then it'll either hit the turret roof or the beech block while it's getting rotated. And to make things worse they decided to store the rounds in the inner circle rather than the other, by reducing this radius the potential maximum length of the round too got reduced.

So ultimately a very small increment with absolutely no growth potential to bigger 130mm or 140mm rounds as on contemporaries.

They kinda had to. I mean the propellant section has larger diameter than the warhead, so there really isn't a way to do it in reverse without reducing the number of shells and thus wasting a lot of space in the hull.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this autoloader design either.

It was the the Americans who'd got it right with their Meggitt mechanical autoloader in the M1 TTB. It didn't put nearly as much handicap on the ammo length, could hold more ammo (44 as opposed to 31 of the Armata) while simultaneously being more compact. Plus, it came with blowout panels AND individual armored bins for the rounds - this thing was basically perfection in its totality. That's the beauty of using single piece ammunition right there.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erbny3wSlcA
I'd say the Russians missed a golden opportunity to finally move away from their bs 2-piece ammo by failing to copy the Murican system.

And if we indeed end up going the unmanned turret route for the upcoming FRCV, then I'd want the autoloader to be based on the American system rather than the Russian one. Heck, they may as well bring in Meggitt for consultation.

BUT!! Having said all that, the length penalty in the Armata's system is not nearly as pronounced as some make it out to be if we go by a recently filed Russian patent about a new APFSDS penetrator, likely designed with Armata in mind.

Here, take a look -

Here, link to the whole thing in case anyone maybe interested: https://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2805664

As you can deduce from the above diagram, the penetrator has nearly identical dimensions to the latest block of M829 APFSDS round (rod length of ~790 mm).

So, while still not as potent as the projected 130mm rounds and above, it's still a LOT better than what is possible with the older T-series MBTs and is most certainly, NOT

a very small increment

with absolutely no growth potential to bigger 130mm or 140mm rounds as on contemporaries.

Well, you CAN fit a larger caliber gun in the Armata, just that it will require more extensive modifications. And it's not as if they haven't done so already!! I mean we have the Obj. 292 as an example, now don't we??

If a T-80 chassis could hold a 152mm gun, then an Armata can surely do the same!!

But in case of the current and upcoming bustle type auto-loader you simply need just two very simple motions...a conveyor belt moves in XY plane and then the round is simply yeeted in the Z-axis. Technically you can even chamber an ICBM if you want. Technically though

True, true... but you need to consider WHY the Russians went with a carousel type autoloader in the first place. The answer?? To keep the turret as small and light weight as possible, much like what the Americans had intended with their M1 TTB.
And given the maximum weight of our FRCV being hard capped at ~57 ton, I don't think DRDO will be left with any choice other than a carousel configuration (without compromising on the protection that is).

The thing with most of the currently active tanks like M1A1 is that it was designed to use a human auto-loader so they've a big hole in the turret. Now auto-loaders got added later so that compromised portion is still there as it is. But with something like a K-2 bustle (just the bustle, overall it too suffers with the vulnerability of hull ammunition) that was designed from ground up to use an auto-loader this opening is much smaller.

In this pic itself you can clearly see the place where the sliding blast door should have been that got completely compromised. Now compare that opening (I'd guess 2 shells wide by 3 shells tall) to that on a K-2...
View attachment 15423
...a single (that side hole is an optional thing for back-up ammo loading in case the auto-loader fails) hole, just enough to pass a single round. Also you don't need the shutter (or door) to be strong enough to contain the pressure, you just need to have it hold its shape until the pressure finds the path of least resistance by blowing off the blow-out panels. It's easier to make a smaller piece of metal stronger compared to a larger if thickness is kept the same; the more area the more flex.

Good, we are on the same page then.

Okay...first thing first. My argument of "even after bustle auto-loader gets blown off you'd still have machine guns left" has nothing to do with the tank being salvageable. As soon as the propellants would burn the extreme temperatures would permanently change the heat treatment of the surrounding surfaces, melt away all the sensitive electronic and so on. If there's a blowout then there's a pretty high chance that the turret is a write off; maybe you can salvage parts of it like the gun or T&E mechanism or front armour module...but not the complete turret.

My emphasis on machine gun is that you'll have atleast something heavy to cover while the crew is dismounting the vehicle. As soon as a tank is disabled it's biggest "predator" becomes infantry looking to kill the crew.

Man, you need to put more work on your wording, seriously. But yeah, this makes a lot more sense now.

A crew is way more valuable than any equipment even if it's a B2 Spirit in question as it takes years to get just one competent crew.

Absolutely.

Cont below...

 

[Blood+]

If import and that of a MBT based on Western design philosophy is the only option then it's the most bang for buck despite all its flaws.

Not in the slightest. Just go for the Abrams turret (THE ABSOLUTE BEST one in the world bar none) with a Meggit autoloader.
This one, I mean -


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D71OAAP6jg

The K2's turret on the other hand, is plain atrocious, to the point where I feel like washing my eyes with bleach every time I look at that damn thing!! And no, I'm not being overdramatic here.


View attachment 15476
The frontal turret cavity has thickness on average of ~700mm (850 max) as can be seen in the above photograph, which is quite a bit less than that of T-90S by the way.

And the sides, my GAWD the sides!!
View attachment 15477

This isn't even enough to stop 25mm APDS rounds!! And it just doesn't stop here either.​

The impact of the K2's armor design results in a significantly reduced protection even at 20° impact angle. Below is a comparison between Abrams turret and that of the K2 -

Oh and the bad news doesn't even stop here, oh no!! Not even close!!
As per ROKA's internal assessments, the front of the K2 is not proof against North Korean Bulsae-5 ATGMs, which are licensed copies of Kornet E.
Here -

[단독] 北 신형 대전차 미사일 ‘불새5’ 우리軍 전차 다 뚫는다

단독 北 신형 대전차 미사일 불새5 우리軍 전차 다 뚫는다

www.chosun.com

And here are the Poles coming to the same conclusion -

View: https://twitter.com/thisismattski/status/1603364365205372928

Now, after all this, would you still say it'd be a good idea for our future MBT to be based on the K2??

 

[Ayan Barat]

Man, you need to put more work on your wording, seriously. But yeah, this makes a lot more sense now.

Not everyone can comprehend my Skibidi Toilet Sigma Ohio Gyatt Kai Cenat Fantum Taxed Level 10 Rizz

Now let me read all these long ahh post that you've typed you absolute Maniac. Then I may think about replying

 

[marliii]

Was bored, just logged into X

View attachment 15436
View attachment 15437

But the language sirrr!!!!

 

[Blood+]

Not everyone can comprehend my Skibidi Toilet Sigma Ohio Gyatt Kai Cenat Fantum Taxed Level 10 Rizz

Now let me read all these long ahh post that you've typed you absolute Maniac. Then I may think about replying

Huh... what can I say?? I get overly emotional when talking about tanks.

Anyway, I see I've made a few errors in the part 2 of my post, so making a revision here -

If import and that of a MBT based on Western design philosophy is the only option then it's the most bang for buck despite all its flaws.

Not in the slightest. Just go with the Abrams turret (THE ABSOLUTE BEST one in the world bar none) with a Meggit autoloader.
This one, I mean -

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erbny3wSlcA&t=26s

The K2's turret on the other hand, is plain atrocious, to the point where I feel like washing my eyes with bleach every time I look at that damn thing!! And no, I'm not being overdramatic here.



The frontal turret cavity has thickness on average of ~700mm (850 max) as can be seen in the above photograph, which is quite a bit less than that of T-90S by the way.

And the sides, my GAWD the sides!!

This isn't even enough to stop 25mm APDS rounds!! And it just doesn't stop here either.​

The impact of the K2's armor design results in a significantly reduced protection even at 20° impact angle. Below is a comparison between Abrams turret and that of the K2 -​

Oh and the bad news doesn't even stop here, oh no!! Not even close!!
As per ROKA's internal assessments, the front of the K2 is not proof against North Korean Bulsae-5 ATGMs, which are licensed copies of Kornet E.
Here -

[단독] 北 신형 대전차 미사일 ‘불새5’ 우리軍 전차 다 뚫는다

단독 北 신형 대전차 미사일 불새5 우리軍 전차 다 뚫는다

www.chosun.com

And here is the Poles coming to a similar conclusion -

View: https://twitter.com/thisismattski/status/1603364365205372928

Now, after all this, would you still say it'd be a good idea for our future MBT to be based on the K2??