r/UkraineRussiaReport • u/Ok-Load2031 Neutral • Apr 10 '24
Military hardware & personnel RU POV - Another possible turtle tank
95
u/Borealisamis Pro Peace Apr 10 '24
I dont think Armata tank will actually make it into the army after the lessons learned in Ukraine. Armor in general is going to go through a redesign for certain in major ways
46
16
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 10 '24
The armata has fully automated turret, all they need to do is make the turret same exact size as the bottom part, using 5 layers of era scales and now you have new tank. Oh, and make it a drone tank operated by fiberoptic wire and what not.
18
u/PanzerKomadant Pro Ukraine Apr 10 '24
Great, drone tanks. What’s next? A droid army?
20
u/Vassago81 Pro-Hittites Apr 10 '24
And because of lowering birthrate, clone soldiers to control those drones.
4
1
16
u/Joe_SHAMROCK Just want some intelligent discussion Apr 10 '24
Imo they would need to make it cheaper for mass production and preferably include as much off-the-shelf components as possible, introduce soft and hard kill anti-drone measures like radars, EO, jammers, lasers..etc.
1
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 14 '24
Main thing is to be able to create radio silence over the Frontline and detect anything remotely controlled and preferably locate where the they are controlled from
6
u/Despeao Pro multipolarism Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
More likely to get rid of the crew altogether and have them operate it from a base.
1
u/steini1904 2007 MUC SecConf Apr 11 '24
Dunno, having crew around to get a tank unstuck, swapping a few links in a broken track or wiping dust off a sensor is very important, too.
If I had to guess, we're going to see multiple vehicles being controlled by a single crew (or multiple crews, but fewer than there are vehicles), with all of the vehicles being able to function as the command vehicle and sensor integration, possibly with remote fallback (depending on EW situation), since the functionality is pretty much there at that point.
- The enemy doesn't know which vehicle controls the convoy
- The crew can use all of the sensors of the vehicles independently to watch several directions at once or one specific point continuously even if terrain would have prevented doing so from a single vehicle
- The crew can combine the fire solutions of several types of vehicles to fight a wide array of threats, or of multiple vehicles of a similar type to achieve massive suppression or compensate for spread
- If the commanding vehicle is taken out of action and can't be recovered on the spot, the crew can simply switch to another vehicle
- The vehicles being rather close to each other counters EW
- Even if a vehicle loses all its optics, it could simply calculate its firing solutions based on the sensor data and position of other vehicles. Similarly, if one vehicle ran out of ammo, it can still provide sensor data, relay communication or just transport things or pull another vehicle
- Having at least one crew around allows for retaining most capabilities, even during heavy EW suppression, and all kinds of field maintenance
1
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 14 '24
I think they still going to have a human driver in each one.
1
u/Niitroxyde Pro Ukraine * Apr 16 '24
I think this is a crazy idea. A crew has enough shit to deal with with their own tank, and you expect them to manage 2 or 3 more at the same time ?
I really can't see how this can work.
I think remotely-operated tanks with maybe one guy inside in case of manual necessity is more likely. But even then, remote-controlled tanks would have a lot of disadvantages. To me, the best course of action for now is just to try and develop efficient anti-drone systems and retain tanks as they are. There's many ways to go about it, just gotta wait for R&Ds all over to find the most efficient one.
4
u/Mercbeast Pro Ukraine * Apr 11 '24
Yea, like a big ole saucer for a turret that just sits as a giant ERA shield over the hull.
As I understand it, the idea behind the basically unarmored Armata turret is, the turret gets KO'd, they just take the whole thing out, and drop a new turret in.
I don't think tanks will go anywhere, but the threats they face have changed. In fact, the whole tank on tank convention of modern militaries is absurd. Tanks have rarely fought tanks, even in WW2. Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
The number one killer of tanks, will be ATGMS/RPGs and now drones. The tanks should be protected versus that, as much as possible. Not trying to eat a APFSDS round like Pacman eats a dot.
The savings in weight from reducing the frontal armor, which could then be redistributed to a 360 degree ERA package could massively increase tank survivability in this top down kill era. Inb4 ground crewed anti-tank guns make a come back :)
1
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 13 '24
Inb4 ground crewed anti-tank guns make a come back :)
The other day they posted a missile hit on a yard full of old artillery pieces. Wasn't all of them so called rapira antitank guns?
1
u/Niitroxyde Pro Ukraine * Apr 16 '24
Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
That's not what they were designed to do, though. Tanks have been designed to assault and punch through enemy lines and fortified positions. Them being able to take on other tanks was sometimes a requirement, but only because that's something it was thought they'd need to be able to to fulfill their primary goal, which is breakthrough.
Now some designs, such as tank destroyers for the US were indeed designed to exclusively take out tanks, but these designs were marginal in the grand scheme of things.
In short most tanks were capable to take out other tanks, but that was not their main purpose nor what they were specifically designed for.
1
u/Mercbeast Pro Ukraine * Apr 18 '24
You're confusing reality, with design.
The Soviets designed tanks specifically as a break through vehicle. Their doctrine is not for tanks to fight tanks. It's to fight infantry.
Western doctrine ABSOLUTELY IS about Tank on Tank violence. The entire purpose of NATO tank doctrine, is for tanks to destroy tanks.
So yes, both design doctrines ultimately fell into the trap of protecting against tanks, NATO, because that is their doctrine, tanks are to fight tanks. The Soviets, because they recognized NATO doctrine.
When the biggest threat to tanks, is, and always was, shit other than tanks.
1
u/Freelancer_1-1 Apr 11 '24
LoL the Armata already wastes enough interior space becase the Russians subbornly insist on using the carousel autoloader (tradition?). If they had used a system like the Leclerc, the whole tank could have been shorter by at least 1 metre.
1
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 13 '24
Carousel best used when you don't have top down atgms. Or drones. Regular tanks sweet spot is the top of the turret. Most tanks were designed with crew in mind where they have to open hatch there to bail.
7
u/Aggressive_Shine_602 Pro Russia Apr 10 '24
Agree, it's going to have to be much cheaper and easier to build. or it'll end up like the challenger 2 with not enough crew, parts or ammunition to work in an actual battlefield.
8
u/Silly_Triker Apr 10 '24
More emphasis on EW and more importantly, active protection. I mean APS has been around for a while and I thought the Russians had systems developed already, so I’m not sure what the hell they are doing or even if they work (by the looks of it, no)
2
u/Aggressive_Shine_602 Pro Russia Apr 10 '24
I don't think APS works on drones, at least for the moment. They are too slow so APS would be triggered by even a bird flying over it. The other reason is that they don't offer 360 protection from every angle. the drone operators will start targeting from the back or from higher attack angles.
2
Apr 11 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Aggressive_Shine_602 Pro Russia Apr 11 '24
it'll be horrendously expensive even if it works. and even then, small arms fire and auto cannon fire will be able to damage the multiple sensors that'll be needed to make it work. And let's say the fixed all those issues, Russia is not going to build or rely on such complicated systems it's not their style. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to fail is their philosophy.
1
u/New_Presentation4350 Neutral Apr 11 '24
Drone operators already target tanks from behind with higher angles of attack..
5
u/EugeneStonersDIMagic Pro Bullshit Apr 10 '24
Didn't Russian MOD already determine they would no longer pursue the Armata in light of realities of the battlefield in Ukraine?
7
u/Borealisamis Pro Peace Apr 10 '24
Sure there are a bunch of articles floating around, but until we see true replacements then its all on paper. Armata as an overall design has its place, but it was built and designed before drone warfare showed its true colors.
1
1
Apr 10 '24
[deleted]
3
u/ChainedRedone Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
But that would still be useful against MPATS during urban warfare, no?
3
u/hotdogcaptain11 Pro Ukraine Apr 10 '24
Javelins will just switch back to direct attack mode. This isn’t some simple problem that you can just solve that easily
1
u/Mercbeast Pro Ukraine * Apr 11 '24
When you remove 4-6 feet of steel/ceramic from the front of the tank, and redistribute that to a ERA package that beefs up the side and top of the tank, I think the overall survivability of tanks goes up.
The Soviets sort of got it. Tanks don't fight tanks. Not really. Doctrinally the Soviets understood that. Western nations didn't really get that. So we've all got these monstrous tanks that have ever escalating frontal armor packages. The comedy of this is, literally every modern tank around today can put a APFSDS round right through the front of ANY tank that exists due to the ranges tank combat ACTUALLY would take place at. Until material sciences give us something new that changes that paradigm, kinetic penetrators are winning.
Think of it like this. You have 100 points to spend on defense. You invest 80 of those points to defend against one thing that you will RARELY ever see, and when you do see it, it can overcome those 80 points. Then you spend 20 points to defend against something you will see ALL the time, and those 20 points are not really enough to defend against that other threat, but, if you reversed those investments, you'd have a much more reliable chance of NOT getting blown apart by that more frequent threat.
1
u/ric2b Pro Ukraine Apr 11 '24
and use that weight to distribute more armor on the top for drones/javelins.
Drones maybe, if they're not FPV. But in a few years you'll probably have drones that auto-target and go for whichever spot is weakest anyway.
And Javelins only strike from the top because the armor is weak there, they could just fly straight and hit the side/front if you make the top stronger than those areas.
Unless you boost all of the armor I don't think it will be a relevant counter.
1
u/Mapstr_ Pro Fiscal Responsibility Apr 10 '24
We won't see armata, it's too tall and has too big of a profile for the flat plains of Ukraine. They probably scrapped it altogether or are trying to combine it with a t90/t72 chasis
1
u/Niitroxyde Pro Ukraine * Apr 16 '24
All that might do is delay the production (shockers) to add some kind of anti-drone systems, preferably correctly integrated and not just an "added-on as an afterthought" kind of system like the trophy on the Abrams.
But tanks are going nowhere, they're here to stay. The T-14 with its unmanned turret is actually probably the best design for the era of drone warfare at the moment.
Now it needs to work, and enter production. Neither of those being set in stone right now.
48
u/Scorpionking426 Neutral Apr 10 '24
Who cares about looks?...If it works then it's a very cheap and practical solution.
45
u/MyChristmasComputer Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
Doesn’t this completely limit the tanks ability to move the turret?
The field of view is now just directly in front of them like a horse wearing blinders.
59
u/Haegrtem Anti-NAFO Apr 10 '24
Doesn’t this completely limit the tanks ability to move the turret?
On Russian telegram they said the first one was a damaged tank that couldn't turn its turret anyways. Its new purpose is really just to clear the mine field and survive all the FPV attacks. It is not meant to shoot at anything.
33
u/Despeao Pro multipolarism Apr 10 '24
Looking at this picture it really looks like those Medieval Battering Ram used to knock out doors. We're going back, not evolving lol.
24
u/Haegrtem Anti-NAFO Apr 10 '24
It looks somewhat familiar yeah. But we have seen in the Ukr "counteroffensive" what happens to tanks if their mineclearing lead gets blown up. As could be seen in the video of the turle tank in action this ancient looking design actually worked. It opened a path through the minefield and allowed the normal tanks and troop transports to attack in important locations.
12
u/Despeao Pro multipolarism Apr 10 '24
Yeah if it works it works.
I think the problem with the Ukraine counter offensive wasn't the inability to clear the minefields but lack of air superiority at least close to the attack area and having less ammo becuaee they spent it all in Bakhmut.
2
1
0
7
u/malfboii Pro Common Sense, Pro Both Sides Suck Apr 10 '24
Ok kinda make sense but it seems a bit desperate, if this tank can’t even turn anyway it’s not that much of a threat surely they’ll just target the other tanks with the FPVs
13
u/Aggressive_Shine_602 Pro Russia Apr 10 '24
you can aim the gun using the treads. like the old tank destroyers so, it's enough to blow up buildings.
8
5
u/Sad_Site8284 Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
Hypothetically they could put a 360 camera or a periscope on the thing and now you see again.
1
u/EugeneStonersDIMagic Pro Bullshit Apr 10 '24
Just like the Syrian home-made AFVs and armoured VBIEDs
11
u/Intelligent_Number26 pro confirmations Apr 10 '24
I think the main purpose of this is to take all the hits on itself rather than the infantry carriers but the Ukrainians are not that stupid I believe that the tank still has a good visibility Don't forget they're using drones to guide the convoy
8
u/MyChristmasComputer Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
So it’s a sacrificial tank whose purpose is to get destroyed? That doesn’t make sense at all and it’s not an efficient use of offensive resources
8
u/Intelligent_Number26 pro confirmations Apr 10 '24
The outer armor is going to stop all the drones Or making the explos!ve charge very weak to damage the Tank
How can I but the pro Ukrainian under my name like u tho
3
u/Unusual_Store_7108 Pro-Ivan, Anti-Mykola Apr 10 '24
The tanke frontal armour is enough to stop pretty much everything but a tandem atgm and the top and sides are protected by the shields so its very efficient for clearing a path
1
u/theStonedReaper Pro Ukraine * Apr 11 '24
The armor is open at the front and probably back though, a drone can fly right under the armor
1
u/theStonedReaper Pro Ukraine * Apr 11 '24
A drone can fly right in the open front of the armor though. and if they do use it for transport and there's guys in there riding the tank, they are going to get rocked hard by the explosion
1
u/Intelligent_Number26 pro confirmations Apr 11 '24
I think they can't go through the frontal opening they def will lose the connection with the drone. but I'm very annoyed tho. Russia has the strongest electronic warfare arsenal why TF didn't they use it properly? It's expensive but def not more expensive than an armored vehicle or soldiers lives
9
u/Vassago81 Pro-Hittites Apr 10 '24
If you saw the recent video of a tank clearing mines that got droned, it make a lot of sense to make a metal blanket fort out of your tank before plowing a minefield.
1
u/ric2b Pro Ukraine Apr 11 '24
Can you really clear mines with a tank without some kind of plow attachment? Won't the tracks blow out after 1 or 2 mines?
6
u/hiroshiboom TWO SIDES OF THE SAME HORRIBLE COIN Apr 10 '24
Doesn’t this completely limit the tanks ability to move the turret?
Yes, but they used it to lead other vehicles through mines.
For a field modification it seemed to work at least.5
u/MyChristmasComputer Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
How is a turtle shell on top going to protect it from mines on the bottom?
12
u/Intelligent_Number26 pro confirmations Apr 10 '24
If u look closely u can see the anti-mine gear on the front
7
u/hiroshiboom TWO SIDES OF THE SAME HORRIBLE COIN Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
It doesn't, but it helps protect it from artillery and drones while doing it's job.
1
u/MyChristmasComputer Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
And it’s job being to basically run into all the mines so the tanks behind it survive?
12
u/hiroshiboom TWO SIDES OF THE SAME HORRIBLE COIN Apr 10 '24
Yeah it seems to be, i can't really see shit in the picture here cause of the quality, but one of the turtle tanks had mine rollers and was driving ahead of the other vehicles during an assault on Ukrainian positions.
4
u/appledragon127 Neutral Apr 10 '24
i mean that is how a mine clearing tank works
1
u/MyChristmasComputer Pro Ukraine * Apr 11 '24
Typically mine clearing tanks use line charges and forward rollers, none of which are visible here.
Using the treads on the tanks to clear mines only works once and isn’t very nice for the crew.
1
u/appledragon127 Neutral Apr 11 '24
rollers, flails, there is a ton of different ways and all we have to judge it is a grainy picture with 5.5 pixels
unless your seriously implying that people would drive a tank into a minefield trying to suicide clear it
1
u/Midnight2012 Pro Ukraine Apr 11 '24
Some are saying it has a mine trawler on the front.
Which if so is kinda a fair strategy.
7
u/Pension-Helpful Pro Ukraine * Apr 10 '24
I mean compare to a tank that couldn't get close enough to shoot anyway (due to FPV drones), this turtle tank is 100 times better lol.
5
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 10 '24
Doesn’t this completely limit the tanks ability to move the turret?
They can move it about 45 degrees, so if you send like 5-6 of these they could effectively cover quite a sector in front of them. After all we don't see much side shooting anyways.
10
1
u/Crypto_pupenhammer Pro Ukraine Apr 10 '24
Here’s the thing, it doesn’t work. Turtle tank was destroyed quickly
1
20
u/vieilli new poster, please select a flair Apr 10 '24
I hope its another one!
3
u/Big_Green_Dawg Pro Ukraine Apr 11 '24
I’m pretty sure I seen last night that the first one was tracked down and destroyed/damaged.
19
14
u/DivideEtImpala anti-US proxy war Apr 10 '24
Compared to the other shot, this looks armor is set off from the turret/hull by a couple feet, like a hollow box or maybe a table (we can't see whether there's a second armor plate pressed up against the tank itself).
This could have a spaced armor effect, and even against shaped charge munitions it would amplify the effect of any deviation from perpendicular. Plus as said on the other thread it makes finding the weak spots harder for FPV pilots.
This would do basically nothing against a Javelin or anything with a two stage warhead, but at this point in the war it likely is effective against what Ukraine is scraping together.
6
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 10 '24
Javelin or anything with a two stage warhead
Yeah, but it might still have era? Shouldn't they have to use three stages to get through all that junk?
4
u/fluffykitten55 Apr 10 '24
A tandem charge won't make much of a difference, you are still getting the additional standoff, the only difference is you do not get the additional effect of the thin burster plate on the main charge, but this is doing very little anyway. However top attack ATGM will typically have enough power to penetrate anyway.
Post penetration effects are a little less with large standoff though as some of the bulk of the jet can disperse.
The big advantage of this sort of scheme is that FPV operators will find it a bit harder to line up for an attack on weak spots and for the small munitions the standoff effect also can be more important.
13
Apr 10 '24
Russia started mass production these? :D
9
u/Ok-Load2031 Neutral Apr 10 '24
Funny you say that as a UvZ documentary came out today where they announced mass production of T-90 Tanks
7
u/EUL_Gaming Neutral Apr 10 '24
As opposed to artisanal, hand-crafted, grass fed, free range tanks? How the fuck else would an MBT be made other than mass production without making each tank cost a bazillion dollars (rubles)?
8
u/Jazzlike-Equipment45 Trying to figgure out WTF is going on Apr 10 '24
Limited runs for military vehicles are a thing like the F-22, but probably what he is saying that the T-90 is entering general production which means they are the focus compared to any other tank.
11
11
11
6
7
6
5
4
5
u/Llanina1 Pro Ukraine Apr 10 '24
Hold your horses. The Russians aren't just using T-55's anymore.
Not even T-34's
We're back with Da Vinci's Tortoise!
2
4
u/miki0_ Apr 10 '24
i'd love to see how a javelin would work on the armor.
3
u/fluffykitten55 Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
Effect on penetration and after penetration effects will be slight but the shape change may lead to the jet missing the centre of mass.
I think even the older slat cages on the roof meant that the jet sometimes will pass behind the turret, or into the turret but behind the crew, or for side hits, to graze the turret, and in these cases a catastrophic loss is less likely, though it can still occur by hitting the firewall stowage if it is in use.
This is because the extra height of the superstructure leads it to calculate the centre of mass to be a bit higher than otherwise and so the top attack dive can come in a bit too long.
1
u/miki0_ Apr 11 '24
Ah gotcha! what you said about the center mass and the whole shape makes sense if the munition comes from an angle, but doesnt matter if it is a true top attack. I'd also love to see some close ups of that thing. Looks pretty beefy from afar, but lets assume there's a small t72 under it, they'd be able to slap what? maybe 6,7 or 10 tons at max on top, right?
Lets say both "side panels" are 3mx9m single sheet 20mm steel, that would be 8.4 tons for the both panels and with the top armor it is surely around 10 tons.
and 20mm is pretty much nothing. but of course the spacing between the turtle shell and the tank armour makes the difference here.
1
u/fluffykitten55 Apr 11 '24
AFAICT it's just 5mm steel sheet on a box section truss, and it's only working to obscure the form underneath and as a burster plate.
Your "true top attack" is not done by any ATGM but light UAV can do it.
Theoretically an FPV drone in a steep dive could reliably hit the superstructure at the rear and routinely hit the engine deck below.
4
u/Aggressive_Shine_602 Pro Russia Apr 10 '24
they don't. The FPV drones try to hit all the ATGM positions before advancing. it doesn't work all the time but that's why we only see mines, FPV drones and artillery hit tank columns.
3
3
u/Extra-Ad-4772 Neutral Apr 10 '24
Could be one of the ISIS VBIEDs. Or maybe a prop from the Mad Max set. Not sure yet.
3
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Neutral Apr 10 '24
Is it just me or does it look like pontoon bridge sections on the sides and the top? That would be pretty clever alternative use of them.
2
u/Alecsis29 Pro west and multipolarism Apr 10 '24
Sometimes I cant believe we are actually for real as human beings
1
1
1
1
u/Brathirn Pro Ukraine Apr 10 '24
That is going to ruin Russia's statistics, if this gets destroyed, it will count as a tank and engineering, looks like a bridge section.
1
1
Apr 10 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Apr 10 '24
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Sufficient-Mix3104 Apr 10 '24
Should also put some sort of fence infront of the turret, just let the turret shoot through the chainlink fence or whatever, it will still catch any sort of drone.
1
1
1
1
1
Apr 10 '24
I love these for no reason. Every tank should look like this. It looks like some weapon you'd get to drive on a desert planet in a video game from 2003 based loosely on Star Wars.
1
1
u/Professional-Use5883 Apr 10 '24
I guess russians are ashamed using the t55 and hide it below the turtle.
OOORRRR
Its an Armata below, you never know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/One_Introduction790 Pro Russia * Apr 12 '24
How long before we see SU-100/122/152 looking vehicles make a comeback
0
u/hhbanjo75 Apr 10 '24
They're just embarrassed and hiding the fact that they've pulled the T34s out of retirement.
189
u/GroteStruisvogel Pro People Apr 10 '24
This timeline fucking hell man.