Give US Armata will give you MONEY!!!

[Dazzler]

?






Proof for this statement? As for the T-14 it has nothing in common with the T-72 or T-90.

Yes it has, they are URALVAGONZAVOD products

 

[ptldM3]

Yes it has, they are URALVAGONZAVOD products

Yes it has what? You are claiming the T-14 is related to the T-72 just because it is made by the same manufacturer?

 

[Dazzler]

Yes it has what? You are claiming the T-14 is related to the T-72 just because it is made by the same manufacturer?

Nope, I am talking about the general mentality of Ural bureau bosses as they rarely think out of the box. Intact, the only time they did so when the t-95 was conceived which was a radical departure from the traditional Russian MBT philosophy but had its share of problems such as immature technology at the time etc.

 

[ptldM3]

Nope, I am talking about the general mentality of Ural bureau bosses as they rarely think out of the box. Intact, the only time they did so when the t-95 was conceived which was a radical departure from the traditional Russian MBT philosophy but had its share of problems such as immature technology at the time etc.

you mean creating an unmanned turret with the crew separated in a armored capsule in the most protected part of the tank (glacis) is not a radical departure? The concept is not only a radical departure from Russian tanks but from all other tanks around the world. Besides that the general size, track layout (7 wheels) and protection level (look at the hatch thickness now compare it to any other tank) is radically different from any T-72 or T-90.

 

[Dazzler]

Regarding ground pressure, its basic physics that a moving object has less psi whereas a stationary object has more exertion on the ground.
Ground pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you mean creating an unmanned turret with the crew separated in a armored capsule in the most protected part of the tank (glacis) is not a radical departure? The concept is not only a radical departure from Russian tanks but from all other tanks around the world. Besides that the general size, track layout (7 wheels) and protection level (look at the hatch thickness now compare it to any other tank) is radically different from any T-72 or T-90.


View attachment 218184
View attachment 218185

I know the crew is separated from ammo and autoloader mate everyone does. The good thing is, Ural finally caught up to morozov's idea of crew in a hull

 

[Sage]

I've no problem with what he said, if our weapon is not up to international standard then it deserved to get critisized and served as wake up call for our Scientists to do more effort to improve it.

All Indians on the forum have a lesson to learn from your comment

 

[ptldM3]

Regarding ground pressure, its basic physics that a moving object has less psi whereas a stationary object has more exertion on the ground.
Ground pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That says nothing about a moving object having less ground pressure. The entire argument was you claiming that heavier tanks have horrible mobility in sandy terrain. That is not true, a lighter tank that has higher ground pressure will have more problems with bogging down and general mobility then a heavier tank that has less ground pressure. When two tanks are stationary the lighter tank with higher ground pressure will 'sink' in sandy terrain more then a heavier tank with less ground pressure. Basic science.

I know the crew is separated from ammo and autoloader mate everyone does. The good thing is, Ural finally caught up to morozov's idea of crew in a hull

So then why are you claiming that that Uralvagonzavod can't think outside the box and that they still grasp on to old ideas? Clearly when Uralvagonzavod creates a clean slate design that is radically different from its predecessors then it can not be grasping to old ideas.

 

[Dazzler]

That says nothing about a moving object having less ground pressure. The entire argument was you claiming that heavier tanks have horrible mobility in sandy terrain. That is not true, a lighter tank that has higher ground pressure will have more problems with bogging down and general mobility then a heavier tank that has less ground pressure. When two tanks are stationary the lighter tank with higher ground pressure will 'sink' in sandy terrain more then a heavier tank with less ground pressure. Basic science.







So then why are you claiming that that Uralvagonzavod can't think outside the box and that they still grasp on to old ideas? Clearly when Uralvagonzavod creates a clean slate design that is radically different from its predecessors then it can not be grasping to old ideas.

Hmm, severe comprehension problem. I clearly mentioned thar and rajhistan, not all deserts. Every desert has its own dynamics mate, read geography. In thar, the armour jocks had a joke for mbts that no tank could pass thar before it fails (get the humor?)

From type59 to type-90IIA, all tanks initially failed their trials. The M1 was a sheer fiasco really.

Regarding the UrAl, yes they eventually reached where Morozov was 50 years ago as he had given the proposal of Crew in a Hull concept.the revolutionary t-74 was meant to be the first CIH operational MBT in the world but ALAS!

And that was well over 50 years ago so your Ural is just over 50 years late. For originality, Ural was a lapdog to mkrozov design bureau always, improving over t-34 , 44 and 54 was what they did before jumping in with customizing 55s with 115mm gun and call it the t-62, only to be the trashed for morozov 64, again.

The point for this history lesson is that Ural always lacked innovation and ingenuity that morozov enjoyed.

Just for your info, in case you don't know, the first prototype of t-72 was a modified t-64

 

[ptldM3]

Hmm, severe comprehension problem. I clearly mentioned thar and rajhistan, not all deserts. Every desert has its own dynamics mate, read geography. In thar, the armour jocks had a joke for mbts that no tank could pass thar before it fails (get the humor?)

Trolling problem? Very typical of you to start insulting other people when things don't go your way. If you were Indian and you made the same inflammatory comments towards towards anything Pakistani you would get an early vacation from the mods. My argument is based on facts, yours is based on baseless claims, first you claimed that Uralvagonzavod is grasping on to their old way, not able to "think outside the box" (trolling) then you go out and make a claim that defies known science. (being ignorant) Yes every terrain is different, that still does not change the fact that a heavier battle tank with less ground pressure will 'sink' into the ground less as compared to a lighter battle tank with higher ground pressure even stationary.

Science does not make special exceptions for lighter tanks, no matter the terrain. If they have higher ground pressure per square inch then they will be prone to 'sinking' into sand/mud more so then a heavier tank with less ground pressure. It's basic distribution of weight, how to you think snow shoes work? Less ground pressure.

From type59 to type-90IIA, all tanks initially failed their trials. The M1 was a sheer fiasco really.

Again science does not make special exceptions for lighter tanks. A tank can fail or succeed for many reasons, such as transmission, power-to-weight ration, overheating, power curve, chassis height, and even the track design, there is a reason why the T-14's front track angle is around 50 degrees, anything past that and the glacis would dig into the ground on steep inclines.

Regarding the UrAl, yes they eventually reached where Morozov was 50 years ago as he had given the proposal of Crew in a Hull concept.the revolutionary t-74 was meant to be the first CIH operational MBT in the world but ALAS!

And that was well over 50 years ago so your Ural is just over 50 years late. For originality, Ural was a lapdog to mkrozov design bureau always, improving over t-34 , 44 and 54 was what they did before jumping in with customizing 55s with 115mm gun and call it the t-62, only to be the trashed for morozov 64, again.

Yea 50 years late, another weak insult might as well claim that the Leo or Abrams or every tank for that matter is 100 years late based on early French tanks and no one can "innovate" anything because of the French 100 years prior or we can even go far back to Leonard da vinci's concepts. There was a concept long ago that involved an unmanned turret, so what? What are you trying to prove, are you trying to justify your original claim that Uralvagonzavod can not innovate thus the T-14 is just old technology?


By your logic Northrop is also over 40 years late on the B-2 and can not innovate:





In regards to the paper tank dubbed the T-74, do you even have schematics of the turret and chassis layout? Do you have schematics of the T-14 layout? Of course you don't, that is why your argument holds no weight and is frankly childish.

The point for this history lesson is that Ural always lacked innovation and ingenuity that morozov enjoyed.

Just for your info, in case you don't know, the first prototype of t-72 was a modified t-64

There is nothing like the T-14 today, i'm not sure how much more innovative Uralvagonzavod needs to be, should they strap a jet engine to the tank? What else can they do to be more" innovative"? @cabatli_53 congratulations you proved why the thanks button is abused. You just thanked someone for insulting, defining basic science, and trolling.