| Tango01 | 17 Apr 2017 10:20 p.m. PST |
"Russia's deadliest tank, the third-generation T-14 main battle tank (MBT), an armored vehicle based on the "Armata" universal chassis system, might be getting even more deadly in the near future. According to unconfirmed media reports, Russian defense contractor Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), the world's largest tank maker, will not only upgrade later versions of the mysterious T-14 with a new 2A83 152 millimeter gun but also develop a nuclear tank shell for tactical use on the battlefield. It is unclear whether a 152 millimeter sub-kiloton low-yield round is already under development. The use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is not part of official Russian military doctrine. However, Russia has made important strides in low-fission, high-fusion, sub kiloton tactical nuclear technology in recent years…"
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
 Murphy  | 18 Apr 2017 3:46 a.m. PST |
"The use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is not part of official Russian military doctrine." How odd a statement that is, since it was pretty much part of Soviet military doctrine for over 30 years….. |
| Jcfrog | 18 Apr 2017 4:00 a.m. PST |
Soviet and current Russian, are way different. French army had to re invent simulations and doctrines for it, just in case.
What can be the use of a nuclear round for a tank btw?
Maybe the derivative vehicle intended as a SP artillery piece. |
| mad monkey 1 | 18 Apr 2017 5:54 a.m. PST |
Uranium depleted round like the M1's? |
Tgerritsen  | 18 Apr 2017 7:01 a.m. PST |
This begs the question- who is going to be the one to fire it? I can't see a lot of volunteers unless they are fanatics. |
| Begemot | 18 Apr 2017 9:49 a.m. PST |
"Unconfirmed media reports". "Its unclear…" Why should "unconfirmed" and "unclear" be given any consideration or credence? |
| Jcfrog | 18 Apr 2017 10:14 a.m. PST |
Just blanket off half or more of media reports then;) |
| Paint it Pink | 18 Apr 2017 10:22 a.m. PST |
Perhaps it's the only way they can be sure of killing the latest variant of the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2 with one shot? ;-) |
| Tango01 | 18 Apr 2017 10:22 a.m. PST |
What if a tank with such weapon is targeted by their enemy in the battlefield…?
Amicalement
Armand
|
| dsfrank | 18 Apr 2017 12:10 p.m. PST |
I think the Russians need to be sure it can make it through a parade without being towed away – before worrying about a nuclear tank shell |
| Tgunner | 18 Apr 2017 1:39 p.m. PST |
Why should "unconfirmed" and "unclear" be given any consideration or credence? I seem to remember similar qualifiers being said about the Mitsubishi Type Zero fighter and its performance in China. Nearly everyone in the West scoffed about it. Yeah, that went really well for the skeptics… Perhaps it's the only way they can be sure of killing the latest variant of the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2 with one shot? ;-) Well did you know that Chobham armor is really BPC armor??? link |
| Lion in the Stars | 19 Apr 2017 3:35 a.m. PST |
Artillery nukes are horrible wastes of fissionables. Due to the diameter of the gun bore, you can't use optimum geometry for efficient fission. So you need about twice as much plutonium in a 155mm (or in this case, 125mm) shell as you would in an aircraft-dropped bomb. Though to be honest, I could see more use for a NATO round than for the Russians. Not like NATO forces will be close enough together to hit more than 1-2 tanks with even a 20kt nuke. |
| Jcfrog | 19 Apr 2017 8:01 a.m. PST |
RT made fun of this article stating some one there invented for the Russian the suicide round for tanks. |
| Tango01 | 19 Apr 2017 10:42 a.m. PST |
|
checks out some 10/15mm railroad tracks for wargaming.
