Search the Community

Welcome to Mighty Zuk's place of mental rest and peace of mind. This is my realm. I've decided it would be best to ditch the old Merkava thread for 2 reasons: 1)It does not feature any bunched up information in its main post, and valuable information is scattered across different posts on different pages. 2)Many AFVs that are not related to the Merkava, or related but are not it, appear in that thread with improper representation. There are other AFVs than the Merkava, and it would be better to refer to them in a general way. As time will go by, I will arrange this thread into a sort of information center. I will take up a few first comment spaces to make sure proper amount of information can be stacked up on the front page and for easier access for everyone. [Reserved for future posts - Merkava]

Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is. New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5? Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner) IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor. The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret. Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine: Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT. What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun... The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker. The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher. Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system. Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside. There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).

I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:

The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel. —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements. Submissions will be accepted in USC only. Supplementary Out of Canon Information: I. Technology available: a. Armor: The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). Density- 0.28 lb/in^3. ii. Aluminum 5083 More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness. Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches. Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE. Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit. Non-structural passive materials: iii. HHA Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch. Density- 0.28 lb/in^3 iv. Fuel Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE. Density-0.03 lb/in^3. v. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. vi. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: vii. ERA A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). viii. NERA A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1. b. Firepower i. Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960. ii. No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D. iv. Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) 4. Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP) 5. Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP) ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled). iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place). iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right. d. Electronics i. LRFs- unavailable ii. Thermals-unavailable iii. I^2- Gen 2 maximum vi. Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits vii. Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio) viii. While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities. Armor calculation appendix. SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT Range calculator

12 March fresh new video here just so many of good footage,praise the IRINN.IR so,Karrar MBT aka T-90MS mod 2017 Iranian limited Edition 2.0 Has finally have a bit long TV report,and what is this? when i see this ‘barrel protective case’ thing，the only thing in my mind is "NO,T-72I4! It's him! He is Back!" but after watch the video i pretty sure it's nothing but reference ~ first noticed difference is the ERA kit Karrar 'ERA kit is smaller, have 6 plate on each slide front compare to T-90MS 's 4 larger size Relikt ERA the thickness of the ERA are pretty close so i guess it's just the smaller new Relikt variant RCWS/Commander panoramic sight Station huge muzzle brake but it seems just a 7.62mm RCWS，but looks cool also the sight itself looks a cheaper product compare to T-90MS Digital map,commanding system and Vehicle information Display this is pretty good, Karrar may have the best digital equipment in all Iranian tanks，not even Zulfiqar-3 normal vision channal of the commander sight for the gunner，i noticed something interesting now this is something new, the Karrar have a whole new gunner sight,so obviously the new gunner sighting system is not simply rip-off from russian but the really interesting thing is, it keeps the 1K13,which compare to T-90MS removed 1A45 completely and replaced by Sosna-U and a back up sight why is this? @Lightning think, that Iran hasn't prepare or able to create their own laser guide coding equipment，if they want to use 9K120 ATGM system,they need keep the 1K13 for laser coding which i found is a high possibility that could be true karrar‘s gunner displayer compare to T-90MS let's expect more information of this tank in the future

Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 : The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.

Hi there! I'm a new user, and found this forum by way of a video on the so-called "reformers". The video also included a screencap of a thread in this forum about some guy called "Black Tails Defense" or something, in which the strangest tank was shown- something with a 145 millimeter... howitzer? The... sheer tomfoolery of putting a long-barrel world war one era howitzer with eighty rounds of ammunition in a forty-ton vehicle somehow designed to also float... I personally enjoy entertaining the concept of designing fictional tanks for fictional universes. However, I'm critically aware of how limited my knowledge on this subject is. Honestly, I was more really concerned with the external appearance of the tank to look as "realistic" as possible- no shot traps, no funny "turrets" like on whatever that Scorpion-thingy from HALO was, as well as worrying about details like how to make sure the tank doesn't break down mid-combat and the placement of critical systems like Optics, but I'd also like to know what kind of systems should you use (e.g. Turbine or Diesel, Horstmann or Torsion bar, etc etc) There's a little thing that I'm doing where I draw up tanks et cetera within the confines of Mid-Late 80s-90s - early 2000s doctrine, and I'd like to ask you, what makes a real tank tick for tanks of this era? How should you go about designing a tank? I'm aware of the fact that one should always design inside-up (critical components such as engine, gun, et cetera up), but what are some of the caveats and nuances inevitably intertwined into it? How should one go about the design process for designing a tank? What's a rough list of features you want to have, and others that you can sacrifice for any given role of a tank? I'm aware that this is like asking, "what should I put on a plane", but let's assume that it's for a tank stuck in, say, the Mid-late nineties, around the Gulf War - Kosovo period. Also, in addition to this, some common questions that I'd also like settled are; - Diesel, Turbine, or Petrol? Where/When/How should these engines be implemented? - Rifle or Smoothbore? This debate goes on forever and I'd like some sort of concrete answer. As far as I know, the only forces that use rifled guns use them either out of necessity or reliance on a certain specific type of round. - Why in god's name would you ever put a 145 millimeter howitzer on a tank? - Caliber: Is there an upper limit? Is it really worth going above 120mm/maybe 130mm at a stretch when combat won't even happen above the ranges that these guns are effective due to the distances that you can see with optics? At range, Artillery and Missiles have traditionally been more efficient. - Whither the Autoloader, or Nay? I've seen the Chieftain's video on it, but I personally would like your opinions on it. - Barrel loaded ATGMs- are they really all that they're cracked up to be? Why/why not? I'd like to strickly restrict this to Main Battle Tanks, as I'd rather ask about Infantry Fighting Vehicles later, in another thread. In short, how the 1990s Tank? Sincerely yours, Aussie_Mantis

@Toxn @Dominus Dolorem @Lord_James @A. T. Mahan @delete013 @Sten @Xoon @Curly_ @N-L-M @Sturgeon detailed below is the expected format of the final submission. The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST. Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY FINAL SUBMISSION: Vehicle Designation and name [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here] Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat (armor) Length, combat (transport) Width, combat (transport) Height, combat (transport) Ground Pressure, zero penetration Estimated Speed Estimated range Crew, number (roles) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features. 3. Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features. 4. Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features. 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon- a. Type b. Caliber c. ammunition types and performance (short) d. Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features. e. FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. f. Neat features. 3. Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise. 4. Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery. 2. Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. 2. Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability. Additonal Features: Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories. Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long. Example for filling in Appendix 1 Example for filling in Appendix 2 Example for filling in Appendix 3 GOOD LUCK!

I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank. I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested. The items include: Magazine Articles 1970 article from ARMOR 1970 article from IDR - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s 1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions 1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran Government reports WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain

Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results. Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do: Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection.