Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

skylancer-3441

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by skylancer-3441

  1. Still, dissatisfaction was there, and all the way back it 1964 (prototype was built 2 years later) Chelyabinsk proposed (second version of) object 775 without such weakspot. Although they achieved that partly because driver was not in hull. first and second version of 775: But in 1975 they came up with Object 785 which reportedly lacked that weakspot too, and this time driver was in hull (in a reclining position - someting that apparently was tested all the way back in 1962-1964 on modified t-54s and pt-76; something that was proposed on first version of 775; and something that finally could make its way into Russian Army with Armata only now, decades later... along with steering wheel. Which is another thing (lack of thing) they were not satisfied with for decades, all the way since T-54s and T-10s in 1950s, which is why Object 770 has it's motorcycle-type steering wheel: ) And then over the last 45 years there were at least 7 more projects without that UFP weakspot, with T-14 been like 8th one.
  2. Well, not exactly zero, obviously, considering that t90m still has upper frontal plate, position of driver, and engine/transmission quite similar to t72, or t64 (and all that thanks to Kharkov attempt to fulfill request of fitting than-next-generation tank into 36 metric tons). I guess it's still smth like 96 man-hours to remove or change engine, isn't it?
  3. Another article on Bradley from this book, about IDR's journalists' experience with Bradley, - and it's even worse this time, with an entire page 88 been not available at all. GoogleBooks' text version of any given page ends with some words from following page, so I was able to get those words about turret, which are there in text-only version of this article behind spoiler, - but nothing more. It's either locked or I just was not able to figure out a specific phrase which would be available on that page only and nowhere else.
  4. skylancer-3441

    Israeli AFVs

    "relatively" It's much narrower, compared to what could be expected given Namer's width when measured by tracks - partly because of those antimine seats and because of whatever is located behind them on this pic: in the end soldiers seat in wery tight knee-to-knee configuration, although on those two pics its partly because of backpacks they wearing. different seats + not wearing backpacks inside = much more spacious, look at this Bradley photo: or T-15 Armata, to that matter:
  5. skylancer-3441

    Israeli AFVs

    aroud 3:42-3:43 when they replace 3d model of that vehicle to 3d model of Boxer - one can somewhat compare those two. To me it looks like that thing was about 20 feet long and 6 feet 3 - 6 feet 7 high by hull's roof excluding turret, and (as seen on 3:36) rather wide, - overall, hull allmost as big (mere feet-and-a-half shorter) as that of the Bradley. It looks smaller in earlier part of the video, when it materializes around 2 soldiers - but than it shoul have gun barrel length of like 5 or 6 feet.
  6. ermm... I kinda already posted that pic - even earlier than at otvaga forum - on previous page of this tread.
  7. btw, it's on par with soviet late 80s BMPT (Obj.781 Sb.8). Overall, 299-based HIFV looks just like BMPT-as-it-should-be (in case one thinks of it as of BMP-T, aka IFV-H, still retaining distmountable infantry) I guess it looks better in tablechart - when one proposes IFV with 8 so-called "active dismounts" instead of just 4. With just 4 - it would be on par with some pity old version of Mowag Tornado from early 60s ...although Porsche's Durchburch-Spz proposal still had one more of those guys:
  8. ...and let's not forget what appears to be 4 portholes, 2 on each side - I guess that's what those 2 rectangular holes at the back are intend to portray. Also visible on that image which appeared earlier:
  9. barrel lenght of main gun at this new pic is some 2 feet 2 inches, or about 66cm, shorter than on that older pic. Also hull turned out to be somewhat higher. Though not by mach, as this comparison with BMP-2, aligned by bottom, clearly shows: height on the inside is about 4 feet (120 cm). Shoulder width of 22,5 inches (57 cm) per person - about as mach as US designers provided for dismounts in Bradley - fine if one does not wear much gear or body armor or winter clothing. But with any of that - anyone higher than 5'11 would not fit properly. Considering that apparently they planned to produce it in like early-mid 00s, and that by this time average russian male conscript (in real life Russia) was about 5'10 - that makes it uncomfortable for half of the manpower of would-be-Soviet-Army-of-00s. And all that - not even including forearms. BTW, when measured excluding tracks width - lower part of hull of this thing is also narrower than same part of BMP-2's hull, even when measured on the outside, let alone on the inside. Although to be fair BMP-2 spends allmost an entire feet of width on fuel tank and storage space, which are located between seats of dismounts. comparison with tank:
  10. skylancer-3441

    Israeli AFVs

    that video with 3d models and crew in mockup of future vehicle's interior kinda reminds me of FCS adverts from mid-00s, The main difference is - monitors got bigger.
  11. And here is an article from International Defence Review on Bradley - which was reprinted in 1982 in Volume 13 "Tracked armoured vehicles" (of The International Defence Review Special Series) - a compilation of articles which appeared in IDR in late 70s. This time I wasn't so lucky, so an entire page 62 was obtained only in plain text without any formatting, which is a mess. So I've decided to exclude it from text version of article. it repeats this page https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112075689338;view=1up;seq=12 anyway
  12. skylancer-3441

    General AFV Thread

    article from Armed Forces Journal International, issue of May 16, 1970 (via GoogleBooks, which unfortunatelly shows this magazine in snippet view mode only. So, it's possible to recover text over the course of several hours, all of it - in case one is lucky enough, but puctires are all gone)
  13. skylancer-3441

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    With this phrasing - you are setting a bar too low, compared to what they (soviet army and especially soviet defense industry) had advertised as achievable, and were paid big bucks (well, roubles and other goods) to provide.
  14. skylancer-3441

    Israeli AFVs

    short summary of information about this project (in russian) https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/27287.html has among its sources link to that book https://www.himush.co.il/himush.co.il/originals/ספר יחיעם.pdf
  15. skylancer-3441

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    from IAV 2019 - what appears to be the same model as one which was shown back in September, but this time it's yellow-ish desert-ish instead of tri-colour camo ) (from this tweet https://twitter.com/gduknews/status/1087673769571831808) (from this tweet https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1087726889618288640) and from this article https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html
  16. skylancer-3441

    General AFV Thread

    This was quite a while ago too, back in 2012-2014
  17. skylancer-3441

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    well, you've already guessed that, but still - pictures might be helpfull: and that one for Koalitsiya:
  18. more about this vehicle https://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/103284/CZE-Tatra-815-SOT-vozidlo-specialnich-sil
  19. skylancer-3441

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Track dimensions (width) could help, but IMO that it is not entirely reliable method, at least when it comes to Soviet/Russian designers pushing their vision and their proposals. Because ever since late 40s to any criticism about ground pressure they have a trick up their sleeve - removable track extensions. But it didn't go well enough apparently But that idea was not about to die so easily. In early 60s they made another version to test with T-54 again https://i.imgur.com/T1BrFY2.jpg, then in mid-60s they made some of those for T-64 https://i.imgur.com/nl0x1PO.jpg And then in the 80s BMD-3 was tested with some widened track - which looks like if it's has those things installed, and one of the official descriptions of BMP-3 also mentions widened track as a mean to reduce its ground pressure from ~0.6 to 0.42 kg/cm2 (which could allow to claim in some tablechart or smth, that it's /again/ superior to Bradley, which in it's basic form IIRC had a ground pressure of 0.52 kg/cm2) - could've been some of those too. ... UPD: apparently Red Army was trying to do that for the first time even earlier, in late 1930s http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/04/where-infantry-cant-pass.html /Fading institutional memory and poorly-maintained databases and archives, i guess... So they were in business of inventing a wheel over and over and over again/
  20. skylancer-3441

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Only some of those prototypes, and apparently it was modified. IIRC they even used longer torsion bars, and as a result their placement (and that of roadwheels) was no longer "coaxial" (which is what T-64/64A/etc has https://i.imgur.com/No1TfOQ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/orKZYZy.jpg, unlike T-72/T-80) Besides, they also tested T-80-derived chassis, and apparently in the end deciced to use that instead of T-64's one, even though T-80's chassis was some 2.1 metric tons heavier. Last i looked at what was claimed so far on weight of Molot, it was 57 tons, and later (post-soviet) Kharkov development was described as 60+. considering that they all have 7 roadwheels, simply adding 16.7% more mass to what is largest known GVW of T-64 or T-80 would lead possible weight limit beyond 50 tons. And than there is another thing. In early 2000s Omsk Design Bureau claimed some non-secret patents on some of their work related to Object 640, where they proposed not only that tank itsel, but an entire family of vehicles on that 7-roadwheel T-80U-derived chassis. http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/221/2210720.html Looking at Leclerc and M1A2 Abrams as goals they wanted to surpass, they derived a weight of 4550 kg per roadwheel as a limit, which would allow them to have 63.7 metric tons as maximum weight. ... According to what Gurkhan (Alexey Khlopotov) once published on Burlak turret in his Blogspot - in late 2000s even though apparently there was some actual weight limit during development of what is now known as T-90M/MS, alternative proposal had included not only what they were actually asked to design (a new turret) but also suggestion to make tank's hull some 3 feet longer to include 7th roadweel (and a fuel tank inside). Which, as they claimed, would increase weight to some 52.5 metric tons. (and Gurkhan mentions that it was probably more than that, more like 55)
  21. skylancer-3441

    Future of AFVs

    Allmost 2 years ago Gurkhan (Aleksey Khlopotov) said on otvaga that 299-based HIFV was supposed to have 76mm autocannon, with two-section ammunition and some flexible hose feed system, and rate of fire of 60 rds/min. there is also an article from Vestnik Bronetankovoy Techniki 1986-03 http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1986_03_avtomat_76.htm on some 76mm cannon feed system prototype, which kinda fits that description, even though they only mention light armored vehicles. ... BTW, If that picture of the same vehicle is to be trusted: visible barrel lenght of depicted cannon is about 3.8 meters, and also it's rather thin. ... of course, an artist which made both of those two pictures, could've followed his imagination and could've depicted something else entirely. ... It is also known (from article in Technika i Vooruzhenie 2012-05 on BMD-3, which is also available on otvaga website) that in mid-80s as armament for BMP-3 they were considering some 76mm cannon, which is described elsewhere as medium-velocity, and some 45mm autocannon ...
  22. skylancer-3441

    Future of AFVs

    Soviets actually had considered for some time an idea of putting 57mm autocannon on HIFV in late 80s, when they were developing one, under designation of BMPT - even though in the end (back in 1989-90) they decided against it. There are 3 rather well-photographed prototypes which survived - all without 57mm, - objects 781 sb.7-1, 781 sb. 7-2, 781 sb.8 - which sometimes were called objects 781 and 782, but two years ago there was a post on otvaga forum, which claimed that there was 4th one - 781 sb.9 - which had that 57mm autocannon, and that according to some rumors it was lost in fire during transportation. Another text which claimed that they had considered 57mm autocannon in late 80s BMPT development, but does not mention that any prototype with such armament was built, - was published in August issue of 2018 in russian Technika i Vooruzhenie magazine.
×