It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia will have next generation Armata T-14 tank in 2015 and will lead to fully robotic tank

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
An unmanned turret that has just took a 120mm through its ammunition storage is just as useless as a manned one.
edit on 5711642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The Russians have some real interesting ideas for drone vehicles.




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
For weapons the size of main tank guns a person loading has been faster than even modern autoloaders. Of course the Russians say their 'new' autoloader goes 20/min where as a human tank shell loader can do 15/min, for a short time cause he gets tired or the ammo runs out.

This is why the US hasn't really bothered much with autoloaders in tanks. They have used them on Navy ships where the shells are massive and heavy, where autoloaders are very much faster.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

eh i think flame throwers are a grey area ,they were allegedly used by Russians in Chechnya but i think the crux of their use being legal is that they arent employed near civilian population centers. IE tanks vs tanks on open plane or dessert or russian tiaga ok and legal but using them in urban warfare is illegal per Geneva conventions

more on topic,isnt the abhrams and leopard tanks used by germany and usa allready feature an auto loader ? not sure on the remotely controlled part for nato tanks but thought most of this tech was like 90sish era stuff that has been around since first gulf war(may be completely wrong tanks have never been my thing)

oddly enough the artists representation looks identicle to a tank from the colonial marines tech manual for the aliens franchise like IDENTICAL to the same paint scheme and tank lay out. so i thought that was pretty odd as that book came out in the late 80s early 90s.www.amazon.com...

www.cityoffilms.com...(better image) its just missing the top anti infantry gun and the killer klown paint scheme guess there are only so many variations of a tank though i just found it odd



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I have always felt that Russia's preference for auto-loaders stems from Stalin's infamous words.

All others things equal, that gives them the ability to field 4 tanks for every 3 their enemies can field.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: cavtrooper7

eh i think flame throwers are a grey area ,they were allegedly used by Russians in Chechnya but i think the crux of their use being legal is that they arent employed near civilian population centers. IE tanks vs tanks on open plane or dessert or russian tiaga ok and legal but using them in urban warfare is illegal per Geneva conventions

more on topic,isnt the abhrams and leopard tanks used by germany and usa allready feature an auto loader ? not sure on the remotely controlled part for nato tanks but thought most of this tech was like 90sish era stuff that has been around since first gulf war(may be completely wrong tanks have never been my thing)

oddly enough the artists representation looks identicle to a tank from the colonial marines tech manual for the aliens franchise like IDENTICAL to the same paint scheme and tank lay out. so i thought that was pretty odd as that book came out in the late 80s early 90s.www.amazon.com...

www.cityoffilms.com...(better image) its just missing the top anti infantry gun and the killer klown paint scheme guess there are only so many variations of a tank though i just found it odd
nope they both have a loader as part of the crew. And the majority of tanks with a manual loader tend to be more effective.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

YEAH let them do it ONCE and see what the world says THEN.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky
Actually ... It's not really about fire rate. Historically autoloaders have taken up as much or more Internal volume as a man. So we were willing to accept a reduction in fire rate by keeping the loader because they both took up similar volume, but by keeping the loader we have one more guy to do maintenance and track repair etc, one more guy to take turns on watch giving our crews more rest in the same time period, and finally one more pair of eyeballs and finger on a trigger in urban or other close terrain. However this is no longer the case as there are some very compact auutoloaders. Also the fastest rising cost right now is personnel. Now add to this the fact that we've now reached the weight ceiling so we can't just make our tanks heavier with the increasing number of man portable and cheap ways to kill tanks and several other key issues and you see that the days of human loaders are numbered. Plus probably going to need to add a data integration and electronic warfare specialist to tank crews soon.
. As far as the whole Russia aiming for fully robotic tanks thing, all I'm going to say is the Russians are well known for their use of disinformation. They may want other nations or even just the general population of other nations to believe it, but they are not dumb enough to actually waste money doing it. Actually what I'm seeing indicates that the Russians are instead focusing on integrating technology similar to that found in attack helicopters allowing crew reductions. Tanks are actually a very poor candidate to make fully robotic. Especially when you realize that the Russians actually do combined arms fighting in close proximity with infantry. They are working on automated combat systems though however more around crusher UGV size.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
This might actually turn out for the better, like an incentive to spend more on robots. Both countries would have robots and whoever loses it's army first loses the war with no or minimal life lost. Meanwhile robot tech gets better and can be used in other areas. The only obstacle in this scenario is the loss of employment.
edit on 1-2-2015 by johnnyjoe1979 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: johnnyjoe1979

Until country B loses and doesn't want to lose and lobs a nuke.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join