Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

heretic88 last won the day on July 7

heretic88 had the most liked content!

About heretic88

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A video about the event, from TV news. (beware: hungarian gibberish) A little bit of additional info: we also bought 5 ARVs and + 3 bridgelayers
  2. Well, its just rumors, but I heard that its the case here in hungary too... Sadly no specific details are coming from official sources
  3. ...and more pictures on otvaga2004.ru http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/07/blog-post_4.html There was a demonstration with the A7+ variant we ordered.
  4. Yes indeed. But it turned out from the yugo tests that armor is relatively soft, and has lower protection. Thats why I mentioned that BR-412D can defeat ~180mm LOS armor up to 1500m. Yes, yugo test was about an M-47, but -correct me if Im wrong- such relatively soft steel was used up to the second half of 1970s.
  5. So army is receiving the BMP-1AM. Yes, agree, this is horrible. But lets play with the idea a little bit. OK, army needs those old, obsolte BMP-1s modernized, what to do? My idea: 1, keep the original turret! 2, develop better ammo, main point is greatly improved accuracy. Also a better HE-FRAG round. 3, add a new sighting system, with thermal imager and a LRF. 4, add stabilization to the turret, and a simple FCS. 5, replace Konkurs ATGM with Kornet, one tube on either side of turret 6, - option, if still fits into budget - add an elevated platform to the turret, and mount an independent commander's sighting system In my opinion, this would be far superior to the current abomination.
  6. Depends. Hull is fully immune even at point blank. (same for M-48) But base M-60 turret isnt. LOS thickness is a constant ~180mm, that can be defeated by BR-412D up to 1500m. M-60A1, well, thats a wholly different beast, you need a 125mm (or late '70s 115mm ammo) for that. Maybe Im wrong, but I remember I read that T-72s began appearing in greater numbers near the end of cold war even in first echelon units.
  7. Of course not... Since they wanted their inferior (Objekt-167) design to be adopted, and it did not happen... They were jealous of Harkov, thats why they used the politics card... Result is T-72 Yet there are absolutely no proof of that. Nobody at UVZ wanted a "cheaper" tank. Nobody even mentioned it. They wanted their tank, the T-72 to adopted INSTEAD of T-64. T-72 was actually MORE expensive than the T-64A. The only thing was cheaper, is the V-46 engine. Yes it is true that the T-64 was horribly unreliable. T-64A already got better, and in the early '70s, its reliability problems were mostly fixed. By the time the T-72 entered mass production, the T-64A was just as reliable tank as the T-72, although it indeed required more careful maintenance. As for the T-55, I do not think it was as hopeless as you describe it. In my opinion, Leopard-1 was an easy target thanks to its paper thin armor. Yes it was fast and well armed, but as mentioned in an original soviet gunnery manual, it did not have stabilizer, so it had to halt for firing, canceling out the speed advantage. Leopards had optical rangefinders, true. But it didnt really matter at average european combat distances. Above 800 meters, the T-55 had an advantage, only 40% of the turret front surface was penetrable by DM13 APDS. T-55 also had advantage at target detection since it had stabilizer and a primitive hunter killer system. M-48 had similar armor to the M-60 yes, similarly good on hull front, and similarly bad on turret, which was inadequate even against the 100mm D-10. Only the M-60A1 with its new turret was a problem, but HEAT dealt with it with ease (yugo tests revealed that soviet fuze worked quite reliably even against steep surfaces) Tell this to a Leopard crew... Or M-48... Or Centurion... Also, simulators are one thing, real life another...
  8. This includes Czech, Polish and Chinese production. Not at all. T-72 was a result of rivalry and jealousy between Tagil and Harkov. Nothing more. It wasnt cheaper and wasnt simpler than the T-64. The soviets did not need the T-72 at all. Also, a myth. T-64 was also present in second line units, just as the T-72 was present in elite units. In addition, I do not think the T-55 deserves any bashing. It was a very, very good tank, even in the '60s. It had absolutely no trouble dealing with Centurions, Leopard-1s (that could be killed even at extreme ranges, at any angle), M-48s. In theory the Chieftain was a serious opponent, but in practice it appeared late (1965), produced in relatively limited numbers in the first few years, and was just utterly unreliable. The only really tough opponent was the M-60A1, which was a problem even for the T-62. Even then, the HEAT rounds were easily capable of penetrating the front of the M-60 turret and hull.
  9. Sadly no. Indeed, almost all surviving AFVs are preserved in Kubinka (or actually, Park Patriot, all of them nicely repainted). Except one. There is a Nimród somewhere stored in Budapest(?), but no idea where. It was exhibited in Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University, but then moved to Petőfi Army Base for restoring it to fully operational condition. After the restoration, it was moved to unknown location. Some pictures of the restoration: http://www.muemlekem.hu/magazin/nimrod_restauralas_hadtorteneti_intezet_es_muzeum
  10. They have some, but who knows in what condition. Some museums certainly have running IS-2, ISU, etc. but they appear only on some events. Really, I dont know why they prefer T-34s on parade. Sure, it was the most produced tank of the red army, that may be a reason. Also the undeserved "legendary" status of the 34. But whatever is the real cause, it seems that restoration of T-34s is always the no1 priority over anything. Sad. Especially when other, far more interesting vehicles just rot away in outside exhibits. Like the KV-2...
  11. Interesting that on most new vehicles they replaced the old offroad tires to these general-use-military-type tires. Quite average on paved roads, great on dirt roads, but piss poor in mud...
×
×
  • Create New...