Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

skylancer-3441

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by skylancer-3441

  1. /accidentally visited 4th page of this tread instead of 49th, without paying enough attention to dates. But it seems like that picture was not posted back than/
  2. btw, there were AFV paper designs with tank-level armor in front of an engine - SAIFV chassis, which apparently had allmost exactly the same UFP and LFP as XM1 (well, it's hull was higher, so UFP was longer than that of the XM1... and I'm not sure about UPF angle - may be it's like 0.5-1 degree greater, than that of XM1's UFP, or may be not): and also Hunnicutt's book on Abrams shows another vehicle - vol.2 p.280: obviously both of them have somewhat-T-shaped LFP armor, because of some space required on both sides for transfer drives or whatever its called - required because apparently transmission is located some 2-2,5 feet further back than sprocket wheels.
  3. One could simply redefine allowed trafficability levels, while doing nothing about ground pressure, just making statements that it's worth the increase in survivability. I mean - back in late 70s XM2 had ground pressure of about 0.5kgf/cm2, and now with Bradley M2A3 w/ BUSK its like what, more than 0.8? It was accompanied with change of Go/No-Go terrain in German Wet scenario from 98/2 percent to 92/8 percent, and they were ready for much worse - while looking for AMPV, US Army was ready to accept 85/15 percent.
  4. and article about that autocannon https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/land/new-next-gen-army-50mm-cannon-destroys-targets-in-live-fire-demo-xE5QTUE9JEGKncWEDJVAeA/
  5. when removing "?width=1000&height=667" from those links, one can see and save 25-36Mpix 13-18Mb images, and btw there are two more photos - https://www.idf.il/media/50172/ek1_2198.jpg and https://www.idf.il/media/50174/ek1_2261.jpg
  6. rather similar to those renders but apparently with narrower engine and probably crew of 3... kinda like that Bradley-based testbed design:
  7. That would be desirable, yes, but it seems like replacing hull altogether by entirely different one would've been much less realistic option than redesigning frontal part (of T90 hull) only, or even both redesigning frontal part and then cutting hull in half (well, two-thirds, in front of engine compartment) and adding a roadwheel-long section along with roadwheels, in order to make it longer. On the matter of Burlak turret...Judging by what is known about all those turrets Omsk designed and advertised in 90s/00s - one have to choose between thick turret roof with turret-bustle autoloader only (patents on 640), and thin (regular) turret roof and retaining carousel-type autoloader, thus having two autoloaders with ~40-44 rounds (Burlak). It's pitty one can't have both without getting several tonnes heavier.
  8. Apart from those two? (from Technika i Vooruzhenie 2008-07 p.54) AFAIK nothing else was published so far
  9. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/global-force-symposium/2019/03/27/next-gen-combat-vehicle-competition-to-open-up-soon/ another article on that http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/27/army-to-release-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicle-rfp with additional statements: another article on that - with some look back on FCS and GCV https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/ngcv-hard-choices-in-bradley-replacement-rfp-out-friday/ and how NGCV-OMFV became less ambitious that what was initially planned, and with some info on unmanned things:
  10. from this tweet https://twitter.com/LeonardoDRSnews/status/1110919589356023809 from this tweet https://twitter.com/renatawzdx/status/1110932463839338496 from this tweet https://twitter.com/LeonardoDRSnews/status/1110874164087451649
  11. from this tweet https://twitter.com/MBeinart22/status/1110659914064642049 from this tweet https://twitter.com/SydneyFreedberg/status/1110679955548065798 from this tweet https://twitter.com/VonBraunCenter/status/1111039911782744064
  12. from this tweet https://twitter.com/adamkhandiamond/status/1110574059643904001 and from posts in Instagram: from this tweet https://twitter.com/ElbitSystemsUS/status/1110936196002336768
  13. That and Obj.199 aka nowday-BMPT both remind me of BMP-3 and earlier BMP-3 prototype - object 688, although it had one 30mm autocannon instead of two SHOPPED image of Obj.199 (BMPT with crew of 5) - alike vehicle created using Obj. 781 sb.7-1 and Obj.688 as "spare parts" SHOPPED image of Obj. 781 sb.8 - alike vehicle created using Obj.199 BMPT, BMP-3 w/Arena-E APS, and Obj.781 sb.8 itself as "spare parts" SHOPPED image of Obj. 781 sb.8 - alike vehicle created using Obj.199 BMPT, latest version of Obj.199 BMPT, BMP-3 w/Dragun unmanned turret and Achzarit HAPC as "spare parts"
  14. that photo and 3 more - allmost identical and made within several seconds - from twitter in its maximum size of 3 Mpix : and another photo of the same event made by another photograph - from some news site - in 16 Mpix and 2 hi-rez photos of workers in M1's hull
  15. removing "/1200x" from image links on that site - like that: https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima-1.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima-2.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-3.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-4.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-5.JPG allows to download them in their original size - around 20-30 Mpix and 5-9 Mb each in this particular case.
  16. Well, exactly that explanation which i gave earlier - was given on why in late 80s Israelys choose to make Achzarits using T-55 hull, instead of going straight to Merkava-based vehicle. It took some time do develop all those different chassis during that 5-decade period, too. It's like every single time they start a contest on some clean-sheet designs, or even if they go with one single design - it turns out there are several opinions on every part of it. And the fact that one of them was able to win and got implemented into design - does not guarantee at all that by the time this project moves closer to production noone would strike back claiming this allmost-ready-design obsolete, and trying to win again. Just look at weight of US Army IFV developments of last 40 years. Around 1977 with TBAT-II Bradley was 21.4 metric tonnes, and it sucesfully dodged a 50-60 metric tonnes SAIFV proposal during Creizer study. And then it dodged another SAIFV proposal in another study. So it goes into production and weights around 22.5 metric tonnes. By late 80s US Army has it first next-generation-IFV program, part of larger ASM program, and even though they looked at all sorts of designs, including those close to 28 metric tonnes, what they - apparently - choose - was a continuation of that SAIFV idea, based on tank chassis, with weight of some 60+ metric tonnes. Which dies in early 90s, and by mid-90s another concept emerges, which was also studied in mid-80s. It becomes second program on next-generation-IFV after Bradley, by early 2000s - or FCS as we know it, much lighter vehicle which had to fit in AMT and C-130 - so, around 18 metric tonnes. Well, sort of. By late 2000s it was clear that it would not fit into C-130 at all, with options on increasing weight limit up to 24.5, or 27, or 30 metric tonnes on the table. Then they have another program, GCV, with famous figure of 84 short tons (76 metric) including future upgrades, and later with design-after-trades of like 45-51 metric tones in configurations stripped for transportability on aircraft. And now there is an NGCV-OMFV with nothhing so far going beyond 50 metric tonnes, and requirement of 2 on C-17.
  17. Back in early 2000s there was a proposal from Omsk design bureau to do that with T-55. They suggested to replace turret, and also suspension, roadwheels, tracks (using those 3 components from T-80U, I guess), and proposed to bolt on an addiional armour module at front - so big that it required additional roadwheel per side. I don't know about engine though. Apparently it went no further than drawing board, but still, that option existed. UPD: speaking about that turret - they were really struggling for money back than, searching for every customer they could get I don't think it all that simple. It seems to me that in order to make a new tank one needs much more advanced factory than to upgrade one. And also one should not forget about politics and budgets and all that stuff. IIRC for example back in 1700s-1800s in British Royal Navy there was a situation when it was much easier to get money on ship's overhaul, than to get money from Parliament on making a new ship - so they systematically did just that, replaced so much during overhaul that sometimes one might say - with only little exaggeration - that all that's left from original ship was furniture from officer's mess and figurehead. There is also another thing with all-new tank - one have to develop it all the way to serial production in the first place, which is not guaranteed. I mean - just look at US Army and its NGCV-OMFV for example, which is 4th Bradley replacement effort in last 35 years. Or Soviet/Russian army with its T-64, and its next proper clean-sheet design somewhat close to however limited serial production been T-14, some 5 decades later. Taking into account several tank design bureaus, it seems to me there are like a company or may be even two - worth of mockups which vere supposed to be next-generation replacements of T-64/72/80.
  18. Am I correct in my understanding that it's a hull of wheeled 6x6 vehicle, similar to those developed around EBRC program, like for example GIAT DPE demonstrator?
  19. These decisions are all related to the optimizations for peace-keeping missions. The crew must survive patrols in the Puma even when being ambushed (ambushes being not a topic back in the Cold War) - this meant that crew survivability after penetration had to be maximized, as medical support is limited when being deployed in overseas. Question of crew survivability after penetration and how to improve it was there at least ever since late 60s, or early 70s, based - among other things - on experience of Yom Kippur war of 1973 as it was percieved, because it was expected that WW3 would resemble something like that in intensity of fire and losses. One could also look at M1 Abrams with its ammunition compartment and blow-off panels, - and some people did that IRL in late 80s during Bradley's survivability upgrade (A2) development. Infamous Col. Burton was involved in that, and also he - and Hunnicat , as well as some US Senate hearings and some reports - they do mention "Advanced Survivability Test Bed", a Bradley with compartmentalized ammunition and most of its fuel on the outside, and Burton said that there was s question of whether it was possible to put TOW in some compartment away from the crew too. Another thing about Bradley, and another one reason for ASTB mentioned by Burton was that in US Army' own studies on what to expect on the battlefield agains Soviets, infantry carriers like Bradleys and M113 were expected to suffer from enemy fire of all sorts - including tank 115/125mm KE rounds, including tank CE rounds, and also all ATGMs - completelly different from an idea that tank is №1 target for another tank and in battle IFV should not worry about being targeted by enemy tanks untill enemy tanks have destroyed all friendly tanks. So one of the reasonable questions about ERA armor for A2 Bradley (providing protection against RPGs only, IIRC) was - that it is not nearly enough against all other treats expected on battlefield of war that could be called "pece-keeping" only in very special sense. Thus one needs measures to increase crew survivability after penetration. /added another screenshot about ASTB - from Hearings of 1987/
  20. IIRC last time they thought about tires of that size or probably it was something closer to 1260mm, - it was late 50s, when first modern Tatra 8x8 was born of paper as STD-138. And later they dropped them, as their vehicles ended up been much heavier than STD-138. Dana has 15.00-R21 tires, which are 1335mm in diameter, not 1220 btw, there is on the internet a Dana chassis drawing - this one:
  21. Very interesting vehicle with impressive UFP LOS armor thickness even at preliminary project stage OBM vol.3 p.342 says it was able to withstand some 122mm KE round, and provided protection against 600mm CE. The thing is - there is a difference between drawings of preliminary project (p.227), and another drawing (p.341), with later having more sloped armor at around 74 degrees which leads to even more impressive LOS thickness of 90,7 cm, however I wish there was some better source for that than my measurements using those drawings scaled by their T-64 type roadwheels and 5TDF engine. ... This thing also had sight cover doors, unlike some other russian vehicles of not-so-distant-past: ... It also had some sort of periscopic device for commander (which, obviously, was located in hull and had rather limited observation via perisopes in his hatch) here, protruding on the starboard side of the vehicle: inside: Upd: btw, btvt.info's web version of OBM vol.3 article on 287 has same image in somewhat different quality. Upscaled: And another thing i should've remembered earlier. Btvt.info's article on soviet ERA development history, among other things, talks about ERA which was tested in 1968 with 3 vehicles in mind - obj. 434 (T-64A), obj 775 and obj. 287. For some reason i've always forgot about 287. Anyway, that article has this drawing of 287 ERA UFP (as anyone can see, in very bad quality): and it says that shape of composite armor UFP+LFP is also shown, and that it was taken from drawing of obj.287-50-assembly2. And that this ERA-hull configuration was tested against Falanga ATGM (IIRC 500mm CE) and was also able to protect against up to 800 mm CE treats. (Which leads to a question of whether composite armor version was tested, and able to withstand, against same treats or not) Anyway, it shows that angle in question is 75 degrees, and that alone would lead an UFP of 90+130+30mm to having a LOS thickness of about 96 cm. ... Another interesting feature of 287 is that people in 1940s-1960s were not satisfied at all with the way all that slat armor and other means designed to increase standoff distance from shaped charge weapons also increase vehicle's dimensions and could be torn away by obstacles. So both in US and USSR there were some developments on how to fold those things when there are no imminent danger. Gill armor on T-72 is rather well-known, and described there https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html in length (in part "GILL ARMOUR") but there were other things which were proposed, tested, and apparently rejected - and 287 got two of those. There were some thin presumably metal sheets which look similar to some of the prototypes which were tested in early 60s and later apparently lead to "gill armor" and even earlier 287 had some netted armor - made using steel wire - which by the way was also proposed for preliminary project of Obj. 432 in 1961
×
×
  • Create New...