Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There's an update to the article, indicating severe damage to the ships and possibly the drydock:Russian Submarine, Landing Ship Struck In Attack On Sevastopol
Russia says cruise missiles and drone boats were used in the overnight attack that left the Black Sea Fleet port in occupied Crimea ablaze.www.thedrive.com
Bummer. So they are essentially a modern analog of the ORIGINAL Pzkpfw V, then: Neubaufahrzeug - WikipediaYeah, the serious defect is called engine and is known since 2015 give or take. Of course they can redeploy the ones they have, no working engine is required if you use them as static artillery pillboxes.
I re-post what I posted in another thread regarding the T-14
--------
On the future of T-14 Armata
Wanted to write this since the start of the war, but never found the time to do so. In the end it has become quite a long text despite being a short version (initially the history of V-2 was much more detailed).
TLDR: It has no future.
View attachment 737439
When the T-14 Armata tank was unveiled at the 9 May Victory Day parade, in 2015, it embarrassingly broke down in front of thousands of spectators. Eight years later it can be stated the T-14 is over. To understand why T-14 has been a failure and there is no way to save it, we need a bit of history on soviet tank engines.
The V-2 engine is a diesel V12 designed by the Soviet Union in the 1930s, and is most famous for powering, yes you guessed it, the T-34s fielded during WWII. However, work on this engine continued on, being used in the T-54/55, T-62, T-72 and T-90. You read that right, many of Russia's current main battle tanks use a modified version of the T-34's engine.
View attachment 737440
The development of the V-2 started in 1931 as a potential new engine for future Soviet tanks and aircraft. It was originally developed in the Kharkiv Locomotive Factory (in today's Ukraine). The V-2 was an impressively modern design for the 1930s, with double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. It displaced a huge 38.8 liters (2,367.7 cu in) and, in its initial variants, had an output of 500 hp. Despite being around 70 years old, the V-2, albeit in modernized form, found itself powering Russia's third generation MBT, the T-90. Latest T-90 variants T-90AM and T-90MS feature the upgraded 1,130 hp V-92S2F a direct descendant of the original V-2. This piece of engineering is now around 90 years old. There are few pieces of technology, let alone engines, that have remained in service for as long as the V-2.
A notable exception to the V-2 saga is the T-64, which carried a 5TDF engine. Some claim it's a failed attempt to copy the German wartime bomber engine Junkers Jumo 205. It certainly was inspired by it. Like the Jumo its a 2-stroke diesel engine with opposed pistons sharing a single cylinder per pair. The engine although small, compact and powerful was not very reliable, plus the T-64 was expensive to manufacture. The engine its produced in Ukraine, that is why Russia is returning to service older stored tanks like T-54/55 and T-62 but not the T-64 while Ukraine is fielding a few hundred T-64. The other exception is the T-80 that was powered by the SG-1000 gas turbine. A special case is the T-80UD variant, a diesel version with 1,000 hp 6TD (an evolution of the 5TDF engine) that was produced in Ukraine.
The T-14 Armata also started with a new engine, the X-shaped A-85-3. Again, there are claims that it's a (failed) Russian copy of the German X-shaped Simmering SLA 16 tank engine being developed at the end of WWII. The Sla 16 engine never entered production because of the German surrender in May 1945. The majority of Sla 16 parts, tooling, and equipment were captured by the Soviet Union. The A-85-3 however was not designed for a tank but rather as a unit for compressor oil and gas pumping stations. It proved a flop and failed to make any sales. Uralvagonzavod decided to use the engine as the basis of a novel tank: The T-14 Armata. The tank was designed around the engine and not the other way around. The A-85-3 was smaller and more powerful than the V-92S2F fitted to the modern T-90s.
View attachment 737441
On November 2014, Russian Defense Ministry television announced that the new tank will surpass all world analogues. These vehicles will replace the three main tanks of the Russian army at once: T-72, T-80 and T-90. The Russian Army initially planned to acquire 2,300 T-14s between 2015 and 2020. By 2018, production issues and fiscal shortfalls delayed this to 2025. Still in 2023 Russia only has a handful of test tanks.
On the top of the list of the production issues stands its engine. The A-85-3 did not sell because it was complex, manifested too many problems, and was difficult to maintain. It was assumed the problems would be corrected over time. They have not been and the A-85-3 remains a problem engine. A quick solution might have been to abandon the A-85-3 and refit T-14 Armata with the proven V-92S2F. It will be a bit underpowered, but at least will work, unfortunately the latter is too big and does not fit in the T-14. Second issue is all the sophisticated electronic equipment. Unfortunately for T-14, advanced microelectronics are no longer available due to sanctions.
The final reason why T-14 Armata will not become a production tank is because there is no assembly line. All models to date have been assembled by hand. The plant and workshops were built but are empty. Contracts were signed, but Western machine tools and other technology were never supplied due to sanctions.
Russia's announcement of the deployment of the T-14 Armata in Ukraine can only be interpreted as an act of propaganda. That tank is far from having a decisive role in this war. More recently it's been reported that T-14 has completed combat trials and has been withdrawn from the frontline. Yet, no footage of T-14 in combat has emerged.
Screw you, Elon.Ouch, that must have hurt ....
NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@noelreports@mstdn.social)
Attached: 1 image Not only the large Russian landing ship 'Minsk', but also the Rostov na Donu (B-237) improved Kilo-class attack submarine was completely destroyed during the recent attack on Sevastopol. A giant success for the Ukrainian Air Force.mstdn.social
Clearly the equation has changed since last year.Screw you, Elon.
According to military consultants of the French press, this could be strikes from Storm Shadow / SCALP cruise missiles.There's an update to the article, indicating severe damage to the ships and possibly the drydock:
Update, 11:00 am PST: The latest satellite imagery from Sevastopol indicates that both the Kilo class submarine and the Ropucha class landing ship sustained severe damage during the attack last night. Not only do the boats themselves appear to be burned-out, but the viability of the entire dry dock complex in which they were located now appears questionable.
I prefer thinking of it as Divine Retribution, myself.According to military consultants of the French press, this could be strikes from Storm Shadow / SCALP cruise missiles.
Speaking of copies of German kit. I was visiting the local Ural motorcycle (a copy of a BMW bike) dealership and they said their bikes are now made in Kazakhstan instead of Russia in order to avoid sanctions. As for tank engines, why not stick the trusty T-72 and T-90 engine into the T-14?A notable exception to the V-2 saga is the T-64, which carried a 5TDF engine. Some claim it's a failed attempt to copy the German wartime bomber engine Junkers Jumo 205. It certainly was inspired by it.
The T-14 Armata also started with a new engine, the X-shaped A-85-3. Again, there are claims that it's a (failed) Russian copy of the German X-shaped Simmering SLA 16 tank engine being developed at the end of WWII. The Sla 16 engine never entered production because of the German surrender in May 1945.
Chrysler's XI-2220 and Allison's X-4520 didn't get very far, either.When I read X-engine that reminded me of the complicated failed german aircraft engine designs of WW2. Those multibank, x-shaped or multiple row monster engines that wasted so much manpower, money and time.
Ego boo for helping is one thing but in the end...Clearly the equation has changed since last year.
Interesting also if the russians comunications are uncoded or if they are coded but the code has been brokenOld news but an interesting new spin:
Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022
The pilot fired two missiles - the first missed rather than malfunctioned, as was claimed at the time.www.bbc.com
What would have been the British, US and NATO response had the Russians shot down that RAF recon aircraft in Sept 2022? Maybe the Challengers, Leopards, Storm Shadows, Vipers, etc. would have rolled in sooner? But what active response would we expect from NATO? And what of Turkey, would they continue to play the middle?Old news but an interesting new spin:
Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022
The pilot fired two missiles - the first missed rather than malfunctioned, as was claimed at the time.www.bbc.com
But what active response would we expect from NATO?