The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[Collimatrix]

@Andrei_bt, thank you for posting that translation.  It is a good article.  I have a few questions:

 

-Were there any designation differences between T-64s with the aluminum-filled turret vs the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel?  Or were they all just called T-64A?

 

-When did the T-64 get a straight hull glacis plate without the "cheekbones?"

-Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

[Xlucine]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

Why did they downgrade the Chieftain's turret armor?

 

To save weight, around 450lbs. About half the stuff in the national archives on chieftain is hand-wringing about how they can make it lighter

[SH_MM]

3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

 

Afaik the fibreglass material used on the glacis requires a lot of slope to work efficiently, which makes it bad for turrets.

 

3 hours ago, Xlucine said:

To save weight, around 450lbs. About half the stuff in the national archives on chieftain is hand-wringing about how they can make it lighter

 

Interesting. Still seems a bit odd, that the UK originally was planning with a frontal arc of 60°, while other NATO tank designs were focused on a much smaller arc.

[Andrei_bt]

4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

@Andrei_bt, thank you for posting that translation.  It is a good article.  I have a few questions:

 

-Were there any designation differences between T-64s with the aluminum-filled turret vs the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel?  Or were they all just called T-64A?

 

-When did the T-64 get a straight hull glacis plate without the "cheekbones?"

-Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

 

There were no T-64 with the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel in mass productin.

Only T-64A were with the aluminum ceramic vs the high hardness steel.

Designation were only drawings numbers.

 

Problems with cheeks Cheekbones were stresed by minister of defence industry in 1965. Drawings dated that year show tanks with a straight hull glacis plate.

 

It did not provide reqired iffecency, also look at the shape of turret - it is rounded, hard to place rectangel plates there.

 

[FORMATOSE]

On 15/04/2017 at 1:16 AM, Andrei_bt said:

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm 

 

The penetration values (3BM9 & 3BM15 125 mm APFSDS) found in your comparative table are considerably higher than the ones given on Fofanov's website.

[Andrei_bt]

14 minutes ago, Sovngard said:

 

The penetration values (3BM9 & 3BM15 125 mm APFSDS) found in your comparative table are considerably higher than the ones given on Fofanov's website.

 

They are from solid sourse (VNIITM) book on tank design by Isakov, now declasified.

[Andrei_bt]

Soviets study of M48A3

 

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1979_3_patton.htm

[FORMATOSE]

2 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

They are from solid sourse (VNIITM) book on tank design by Isakov, now declasified.

 

Well, could you share the penetration values of armor-piercing ammunitions for D-10T and U-5TS tank guns ? So that I could compare with my own data.

[Xoon]

Might be a bit off-topic but:
Why did the US engineers chose such a huge copula?

If they wanted protection for the operator of the machine gun, why not use a remote operated one?
And if they wanted a high vantage  point with good vision, why not use periscopes? 

 

 

And, what is the protection requirement for a copula? Minimum against HMGs?

 

[Ramlaen]

The arguments I have seen revolve around fighting in an NBC environment.

[Collimatrix]

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

[Andrei_bt]

3 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

Well, could you share the penetration values of armor-piercing ammunitions for D-10T and U-5TS tank guns ? So that I could compare with my own data.

 

I will do soon.

[Xoon]

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The arguments I have seen revolve around fighting in an NBC environment.

 

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

So the reason for adding the heavy and bulky copula was so that the commander could service and reload the MG under armor and with NBC protection. 
 

Not really worth it in my opinion.

 

 

Thanks for the info though!

[Collimatrix]

I believe that was the rationale.  I'd have to check Hunnicutt to be sure.

[roguetechie]

13 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

 

Argghhh what sucks really really bad is that M73 M219 & M85 machine gun development saga actually justified the killing of US Army Ordnance pretty thoroughly since the abortions that those 3 guns turned out to be was entirely the result of the original designer of the root gun refusing a job offer at one of the Arsenal's after selling the working and thoroughly debugged design to Army ordnance, he took an offer to work at colt instead,  and in a fit of irrational stupidity said arsenal hired TRW to "evaluate" (read evaluate as fix the fucker until it's irretrievably broken) the design they just purchased. The guy that was in charge of the redesign supposedly needed to fix all the "flaws" TRW "found" was pretty much known as a consummate douche canoe already and never once owned up to taking a production ready gun and turning it into irredeemable shit either!

 

The designer of the gun was Russell S. Robinson, and in the decade or so British ordnance or whatever messed with it but never managed to buy the very good gun that stayed a very good gun over something like a decade of playing with the gun ... You'd think they would have noticed all these serious flaws and safety issues TRW "found"!

 

 Robinson was understandably irritated by this turn of events, but GE was flat fucking pissed off since they wound up running the arsenal and having the now thoroughly fucked formerly working gun dropped in their laps after Army Ordnance got killed for one too many such incidents where bureaucrats who acted more like bitchy teenage girls actively sabotaged a design because their feelings were more important than defending the free world from dirty commies.

 

And the tool bag project manager, you guessed it! 

 

He told anyone and everyone who would listen that the gun worked great after his team fixed the fatally flawed design and GE chose not to keep him on when they wound up in charge of the arsenal, therefore GE must have changed something!

 

Yes folks, he is the original SHIT LORD in whose image all other lesser shit lords since him have failed to measure up to his standards of consummate and uncompromising cradle to the grave shit lording!

 

Dude has to be like 90 now, but I swear to God.... He's the one old man I'd beat like a red headed step child if I ever met him face to face!

 

Really really hate that guy...

 

For those wondering, I'm pretty sure that the gun in question was the Robinson model 33 but I can't find the damn PDF of both fighting firearms articles for some reason.

 

P.S: Australia, England, and JSSAP you guys suck too for, you know, not adopting any of the guns he developed for you guys...

 

Especially England and Australia

 

Here's why:

 

Australia aka the original sin...

So the Australian government put out this completely insane set of requirements for a new machine gun. It was a very long list but here's the really fun one's (from memory here and I'm not certain if the fire rate piece got tacked on later to their already "totally reasonable and easy to meet" list of initial requirements)

1. Must be in .50 caliber BMG

2. Must fit in aircraft wing and other gun stations which currently have .303 Browning anm2 guns installed.

3. Must not exceed the peak trunnion force generated by the .303 anm2 guns installed.

4. Must match the fire rate of .50 BMG aircraft machine guns (were the .50 BMG versions anm2 also or anm3?)

 

Completely sane and reasonable list... Which is why Robinson's design was the only one submitted & or the only one that even came close to meeting the requirements. And yes, over a remarkably short development period he met all 4 of the requirements above. (anyone who tells you his design was rejected because of low fire rate just assumed that GD was at least as competent & or with the 50 years of technological advancements couldn't possibly fail so miserably to even reach the bar Robinson set so long ago with XM307/XM312... They underestimated GD grievously) He actually achieved comparable fire rates to the browning aircraft specific .50's and apparently wound up with pretty comparable receiver life which statistically speaking was perfectly acceptable because the planes tended to be destroyed before the guns wore out.

 

Australia and if I recall right did the only logical thing when someone managed to actually meet the requirements... They didn't put the gun in production.

 

Onto England now!

 

We cannot let ourselves be outdone by a prison continent:

 

Robinson is now in England, the war is still ongoing. Robinson develops about the simplest possible ring mount that you can for a simplified ring mount competition (I believe this is pre D day, and people realize that a majority of, if not every truck they send over to supply the march towards Berlin needs a ring mount and some sort of machine gun.) Robinson designs a universal ring mount that will fit any machine gun a trucker can "liberate". Being an overachiever he designs a full auto only .50 BMG gun that feeds from top fed 20 round detachable box magazines.

 

Seeing their requirements met and exceeded even, England does the only sensible thing and doesn't buy the gun or the ring mount.

 

Then there's the model 11 machine pistol which Robinson figures out how to make a single hand friendly machine pistol which any idiot can kill the shit out of you with where even the magazine auto ejects once empty, and the Stock is essentially a piece of steel tube that screws into the bottom rear of the pistol grip. Seeing that someone somehow actually succeeded, whichever Commonwealth nation decides that the requirements were too easy and decides that it should function and have an accuracy in semiautomatic like a hi power... Robinson was from all evidence on his way to figuring it out, but something happened and no one produced this either. (It was the only sensible thing to do)

 

JSSAP epilogue: the model 11 nee 14 is now the model 16 idk wtf happened here but I'd sure love to find out. If anybody has anything about this of any sort please let me know.

 

The moral to this story: If you want to design machine guns that are really truly good, especially if they're lightweight...

 

Be born Russian

Edited April 17, 2017 by roguetechie
Jerry springer's final thought: Warsaw Pact edition

[LoooSeR]

Indonesian Marines BMP-3s

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

..and PT-76

[Andrei_bt]

In the beginning of 60-s cast turrets with composite armor were introduced for T-64, T-64A (later for T-72A and T-80B) which had a significant protection against shaped-charge projectiles and APDS rounds. Such protection provided Soviet tanks with protection superiority over western designed tanks of that time like M60A and “Chieftain”. But in same period of time in the 1-st half of 70-s it became evident, that future development of tank cast turrets has no long term perspectives comparing to welded design. An experimental turret was tested with results published in 1977 special literature.



Development of welded turrets for post-WW2 tanks in USSR, Russia and Ukraine

[Militarysta]

You have been writing:

" An effective cellular type “special armor” installed in turret cavities. (...) Due to “special armor” functioning peculiarities there is an intermediate plate dividing “special armor” cavity into two pats. Into each of them plates with cells filled with polymer resin are installed"

So more or less Oplot-M turret armour is no diffrent then Ob.219AS? Polymer cels in cast BTK-1? Some information sugest completly difrent "special armour" in Oplot ;-) Rather simillar to the on of the T-80UD version whit SiC in steel sheets oraz cermaics in steel sheets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how about hull? Factory welding shown obviously Duplet module and...space and STEF and backplate -nothing more to be honest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Molota_477]

17 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

In the beginning of 60-s cast turrets with composite armor were introduced for T-64, T-64A (later for T-72A and T-80B) which had a significant protection against shaped-charge projectiles and APDS rounds. Such protection provided Soviet tanks with protection superiority over western designed tanks of that time like M60A and “Chieftain”. But in same period of time in the 1-st half of 70-s it became evident, that future development of tank cast turrets has no long term perspectives comparing to welded design. An experimental turret was tested with results published in 1977 special literature.
Development of welded turrets for post-WW2 tanks in USSR, Russia and Ukraine

Very good article , Can I translate this article into Chinese and share to Chinese Forum? 

[Andrei_bt]

Hi! Yes of course but don't forget to give a link on my new site )))) You make great pictures )

[Andrei_bt]

5 hours ago, Militarysta said:

You have been writing:

" An effective cellular type “special armor” installed in turret cavities. (...) Due to “special armor” functioning peculiarities there is an intermediate plate dividing “special armor” cavity into two pats. Into each of them plates with cells filled with polymer resin are installed"

So more or less Oplot-M turret armour is no diffrent then Ob.219AS? Polymer cels in cast BTK-1? Some information sugest completly difrent "special armour" in Oplot ;-) Rather simillar to the on of the T-80UD version whit SiC in steel sheets oraz cermaics in steel sheets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how about hull? Factory welding shown obviously Duplet module and...space and STEF and backplate -nothing more to be honest.

 

 

 

Well, BTK-1 is rolled armor for hull and turrets inserts in 80s, it's not cast.

   cells can be both cast and rolled (drilled-in). Hull is another question, it has 1 non metallic plate instead of 2 in t-80ud-84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Molota_477]

13 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

Hi! Yes of course but don't forget to give a link on my new site )))) You make great pictures )

OK! Many thanks！

[MrMartin]

Inside of T-15 (HIFV)

 

[MrMartin]

Armata T-14 tank with and without side skirts on Moscow Victory Day parade rehearsal by Vitaly V. Kuzmin

 

[Collimatrix]

Re-reading @Andrei_bt's article on the early T-64's protection, it actually sounds like the one thing that chieftain's would have been good at was taking out T-64s.  Their APDS would have been poor to marginal against the turret, but would have reliably penetrated the hull.  I'm not sure any other NATO weapon system around at the time of the T-64's introduction would have reliably killed it from the front.  Even the early BGM-71s didn't quite have enough penetration.