Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Из чего сделаны военные танки и почему" video.

It depends on the country The US uses DU liners and other materials. Others use composites
1
Reactive Armor saves weight but not the tank Once that area is hit, its now a vulnerability
1
@TheNegaduck Before precision guided munitions and ballistic fire-control computers, it was total dependent on the skill of the gunner With precision guided munitions and ballistic fire-control computers, its very easy to target specific locations more than once
1
@TheNegaduck Ballistic fire-control computers are getting faster and more processing power so they can generate solutions much faster and with greater precision regardless of explosions and smoke, at unpredictable maneuvering enemy or weather Also remember there are greater coordination between crews which allows them to better coordinate their attacks Honestly NATO isnt that worried about Russia tanks Specifically the US isnt When Germany become one, NATO got a look at the T-72 an its ERA The T-80 has been US hands several times When Ukaine had its falling out with Russia they give the US the latest T-80 with all the latest russian gear This has allowed the US to test its armor against Russia 125mm rounds as well test its 120mm rounds against Russia armor The T-90 uses all the same equipment so its effectiveness even with newer rounds and armor is still very limited The T-14 is the best they have but they made so exotic that they can barely afford it Before NATO compromised Russia armor it was a problem now not so much The US isnt worried as latest DU round is fully capable of defeating the T-14 armor For countries that are not using DU but tungsten, its major problem The US places premium on DU because of naturally self sharpening and pyrophoric after effects Tungsten can achieve penetration but lacks the after effects
1
@TheNegaduck The development of the T-14 says otherwise. The T-14 uses a completely new technology.With the T-90 where Kontakt-5, Shtora and other tech was carried over The T-14 carried nothing over from the previous tanks Kontakt-5 is 3rd generation as same Relikt The difference is that Relikt is high end 3rd gen whereas Kontak-5 is upgraded As for ammunition, the Svinets series on down was definitely in US hands but the Vacuum-series on was not .The Refleks and all of the HEAT rounds again compromised The T-90 uses Relikt but the US developed the M829A3 to counter Relikt and the M829A4 to counter the Malachit on the T-14 Other dont use DU ammunition so they have to rely on double tapping or just precision rounds for mobility kill
1
@TheNegaduck Russia like the US is not going up on DU just because of whining from human rights group
1
@TheNegaduck The Konakt-5 is 3rd gen., Sources go both ways. I The M829A2 not A3 was the direct response to the Konakt-5. The M829A3 was designed with Relikt , specifically, it was designed with future threats in mind The US with testing of Konakt-5 came to realized that the trick to defeating Russia ERA was by increasing the mass of the penetrator By making it thicker and heavier, the penetrator would easily break through the ERA The M829 weight and length has been consistently increasing. More efficient propellant allows heavier penetrators to be used The T-90M is heavily upgraded model but Russia doesnt have enough to make a difference The 2A82 cannon is completely new technology however its limited to use on the T-14 only so again its not problem If Russia could retrofit the 2A82 to existing, then it would be problem but the 2A82 problem was it was designed for a unmmaned turrent so it lacks a fume extractor The M829A4 can defeat the Malachit, if the US Army wasnt confident about M829A4, they would either invest in the Rheinmetall Rh-130 L/51 or started developed of a new M829 Neither has happened. As stated before, the The US isnt worried as latest DU round is fully capable of defeating the T-14 armor For countries that are not using DU but tungsten, its major problem hence their rapid push to get Rheinmetall Rh-130 L/51 fielded on their tanks
1
@TheNegaduck No they need an autoloader for 130mm rounds. There is no getting around that, Rounds are simply too heavy. Human loaders would tire quickly Now EU countries since they are not going to use DU are pushing for the 130mm to be the new NATO standard which is ??? The US is looking at ETC for M1A3 which is still very much under RD where the 130mm is nearly ready so it iffy with the US They are no estimates yet on the 130mm range yet but if it exceeds the T-14 by a wide enough margin, Russia may revisit its plans for 152mm cannon I will say that size of 130mm should making precision guided rounds much easier to make and HEAT rounds far more destructive than the 120mm That alone may spark a response from Russia as they dont want to be outgunned
1
@TheNegaduck @TheNegaduck Both France and Japan have tanks with auto loader so tech is available but the problem will be ammo storage I dont' see it carrying the same 40 round load out That would be false. If 130mm exceeds the 2A82, then it will be problem as it means that EU tanks can hit them at much longer ranges with sabo rounds
1
@TheNegaduck The actual irony is that weapons like the GBU-53 and SPEAR-3 which can be carried in large numbers by aircraft and launched from 40 plus miles means handful of aircraft can wreck a convoy of armor in short order ATGM teams instead of trying to kill armor, they now go after the Panstr-1,Tor and Tunguska units that are protecting convoys from air attacks One F-15E can carry up 28 GBU-53s.. 4 aircraft is 112 GBU-53s With F-22 providing CAP against Russia fighters and forward observers calling the shots They can easily target and destroy T-14s, T-90s, 80s and 72s IFV and AFV even with Malachit ERA and ATGM can't trade blows with tanks The market for dealing with armor has produced a lot weapons that call the question of tanks usefulness into question The Russia have the Gaz Tigr with 8 Kornet similar the US JTLV heavy guns carrier with 30mm cannon and Javelin The Israeli Tomcar with 8 Spike NLOS can bypass APS all together by performing 90 drop on target So armor usefulness is in question
1
@TheNegaduck The Kornet like all missile outrange tank guns. The Spike NLOS tops the scale with 16 mile range Yes up close, armor would easily smoke them but thats all the reason to not get up close The fact is that the Gaz Tigr, JTLV HC and TOMCAR are substantially lighter and can be deployed by air in numbers substantially easier to replace if destroyed. Tanks take far longer to repair or replace substantially cheaper to buy proliferation of anti-tank weapons with counter APS and longer range is definite sign armor days are numbered unless something changes
1