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

Proyas

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Proyas

  1. Hi guys,

     

    Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 

     

    https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw

     

    At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 

     

    Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 

     

    Thanks in advance. 

  2. On 4/9/2019 at 9:48 AM, Krieger22 said:

    Leo 1 and the AMX-30 don't have much of an excess steel problem, but they don't have the growth space for significant upgrades due to how light they are. Chieftain... well, eventually a version of the design shorn of most steel armor and replaced with Chobham, and with hydropneumatic suspension became Challenger. 

    The Leopard 1 and AMX-30 lack the growth space for what? Later iterations of the Leopard 1 had 120mm cannons. And surely, both tanks could have been upgraded over time with better engines. 

  3. On 3/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, Collimatrix said:

     

    The extra useless steel certainly doesn't help, but it is far from the most serious problem.

    ...

    Even modern tanks are made of steel.  Maybe even mostly of steel.  The underlying hull needs to be made of something that can withstand the automotive stresses and provide a firm backing for the composite armor packages that are welded/bolted to them.

     

    Steel is cheap, and RHA-grade armor steel has enough toughness that it can work as a structural material while doubling as an additional layer of protection.

     

    Furthermore, ERA doesn't _completely_ stop HEAT warheads.  The tip of the shaped charge jet, also called the jet precursor typically punches through the ERA without being disrupted very much.  So there needs to be some sort of armor behind the ERA element to stop the jet precursor.

    With these factors in mind, what is the appropriate thickness of steel for a modern MBT?

     

    How does the steel thickness of the T-55 and M-60 compare to that? 

     

    I'm curious to know how bad the "excess steel armor" problem is on the older tanks. 

  4. 13 hours ago, Belesarius said:

    Not gonna happen. License build here in Canada? Maybe... but very highly unlikely.  And the early flight Burkes didn't have hangar space, which was pretty much viewed as essential.

     

    Canada could buy newly-constructed Arleigh-Burke destroyers made in the U.S. The bigger the orders, the more that economies of scale lower the individual costs. 

  5. 14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

    The two big issues are the all steel construction and integrated armor, and the design that accounted for decades old tech.

    ...And the tank is obviously not built to accommodate any of the new tech built after its entry to service. Things like NBC may already have been standard on all tanks we can see on the battlefield today, but proper air conditioning was not. Any new sights, sensors, or gadgets, will require a completely new electrical grid coupled with a new generator, for which a new compartment must be made.

    What about my idea to develop new turrets for old tanks? The turrets would be lighter weight because they would be made of modern armor, and would come integrated with other modern tech. The old tank turrets would be removed and the new ones dropped in. 

     

    Quote

    The ammunition has to be carried outside a safe compartment or is just placed in a horribly vulnerable place. 

    Is the ammo storage location in the M-60 and T-55 safe? If not, could it also be fixed by dropping in a new turret that stored all the ammo safely in the back, like in the M1 Abrams? 

  6. Hi guys,

     

    I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  

     

    I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 

     

    Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 

     

    Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 

     

    https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ

     

    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html

  7. Hello everyone,

     

    I'm very impressed by the technical expertise on this forum, and so I'd like your feedback on my theories about what a crew-less, robot tank would be like. I wrote about it here, on my blog:

     

    https://www.militantfuturist.com/what-would-a-robot-tank-look-like/

     

    I might edit the blog entry based on any feedback I get from you guys.

     

    Thanks.

  8. 4 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

    Interestingly enough, the last Shermans only left service this year:

    https://www.janes.com/article/79476/paraguayan-army-retires-last-m4-shermans-from-service

    But to answer your question, if you were fighting guerillas that had no access to anti-tank weaponry it would be useful. I don't think it would be worthwile to upgrade them any further than maybe replacing the main gun with a low-pressure 90mm, though.

    Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun?

     

    Why couldn't a Sherman have a 105mm cannon? The Styker is smaller but has it. 

  9. 4 minutes ago, LostCosmonaut said:

    Is the hypothetical country for some reason unable to obtain more modern armor such as T-55s, T-72s, or M60s? Those tanks aren't too expensive, and there's numerous upgrade packages available for them already developed (even for something as old as the T-55).

    Let's say you just got the 1,000 Shermans for free, and you want to make use of them. 

  10. Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 

     

    I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 

     

    Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 

     

    What do you guys think? Thanks. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...