Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

for some reason the hull looks like KV-1

676 ‘s model.

Where is the gallery now..... OK, here are some Chinese cold-war prototype tank. 1980s, Type 80 tank with welded turret,this is one of the first Chinese welded tank turrets, as you can see i

Posted Images

On 8/5/2017 at 2:44 AM, Iron Drapes said:

Are those IFV targets somehow different? Because 2A72 is NOT capable of such accuracy. In fact, the Chinese team had quite miserable shooting results at the Suvorov attack competition in Russia last year. 

 

Hey, this is the PLA vehicles thread, not the "post videos from ever so unbiased "RT" channel and then complain that some Russian team lost in an ultimately pointless biathlon thread and clearly the Chinese can't beat such Russian Ubermen" Thread.

 

Just going to politely tell you that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Khand-e said:

 

Hey, this is the PLA vehicles thread, not the "post videos from ever so unbiased "RT" channel and then complain that some Russian team lost in an ultimately pointless biathlon thread and clearly the Chinese can't beat such Russian Ubermen" Thread.

 

Just going to politely tell you that now.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely stating that the 2A72 has horrendous accuracy and is unsuitable for long range shooting, even in single shot mode, and it is incredible that the Chinese team could somehow hit so many targets with them. I am not even talking about the Type-86A, just the gun itself, which is known without a doubt to be terribly inaccurate. If you cannot even consider my comment without accusing me of subversion or whatever, then maybe you are seeing this as a "Chinese can beat Russian Uberman any day" thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely stating that the 2A72 has horrendous accuracy and is unsuitable for long range shooting, even in single shot mode, and it is incredible that the Chinese team could somehow hit so many targets with them. I am not even talking about the Type-86A, just the gun itself, which is known without a doubt to be terribly inaccurate. If you cannot even consider my comment without accusing me of subversion or whatever, then maybe you are seeing this as a "Chinese can beat Russian Uberman any day" thread.

 

I'm calling out your comments for what they are, 1 of which was a biased video from RT of all sources (which even most of my Russian friends will call out), and second was you freaking out over a comment LoooSeR (not me) made over a simple score sheet, LoooSeR posted, not me. (and LoooSeR wasn't trying to start any fights or prove anything, he was doing it as a matter of fact post.) and you freaked out and said how it must be fake or rigged or some shit because clearly Chinese can't shoot well and the 2A72 proves they couldn't have won....even though the Russians were also using the 27A2 gun in that same trial.

 

I'll ask once more, contribute to the topic at hand, this doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 1:45 AM, Khand-e said:

 

I'm calling out your comments for what they are, 1 of which was a biased video from RT of all sources (which even most of my Russian friends will call out), and second was you freaking out over a comment LoooSeR (not me) made over a simple score sheet, LoooSeR posted, not me. (and LoooSeR wasn't trying to start any fights or prove anything, he was doing it as a matter of fact post.) and you freaked out and said how it must be fake or rigged or some shit because clearly Chinese can't shoot well and the 2A72 proves they couldn't have won....even though the Russians were also using the 27A2 gun in that same trial.

 

I'll ask once more, contribute to the topic at hand, this doesn't.

 

What? That RT video isn't reporting news or anything, it was a livestream covering the biathlon. Biased as RT is, how good do you think they are at editing live footage in real time to show that the Chinese team missed a couple of their shots? What value does that even have, and why would they want to do that? You think that the Russian government wants to spark a dispute with China over something as petty editing the scores in a shooting competition via RT? What are you smoking? It's just a livestream of the event, and the Chinese team did not hit as many targets as they should have given the advanced armour and skilled crews they brought to the biathlon. That is what I am saying. You are projecting whatever delusions you have into my statement. Now, back to the Suvorov Attack:

 

I am not talking about the score sheet, and I am not talking about the Chinese team winning overall, because the Type-86 IFV is clearly faster than the BMP-2.  I am talking about the shooting accuracy of the Chinese team at 3:15 of the video: https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI and https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI. The 2A72 is not known for its accuracy, and AFAIK Type-86 doesn't have a ballistic computer, so I suspect something fishy. Maybe the Chinese team used APDS or APFSDS or something like they did in the 2014 tank biathlon when they used 125mm APFSDS instead of 125mm HEAT like everyone else. And how come we don't see any tracers and we hardly see any signs of impacts? Take a look at these two instances of the Chinese team doing their shooting in the 2016 Suvorov Attack: https://youtu.be/feUNb8pmI3g?t=12m48s and https://youtu.be/ulRAOOUqqgM. In both examples, we clearly see tracers, but none during the shooting in the 2017 event. Now look at the Angolan team's shooting at 56:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1IhN07EJtI&feature=youtu.be?. Here, you can see multiple tracers flying over the target as they miss again and again. Why? Now I strongly suspect that it is because Chinese team got some higher velocity ammo like APFSDS, and since APFSDS is so fast, you can't see the tracer. So yes, it is very suspicious to me. No, I am not blaming the misses the Angolan team made on sabotage, because I know that the competency of the Angolan crew is very low, and they are not very familiar with the vehicle as they had some problem before commencing the shooting stage and Chinese technicians had to assist them.

 

No, I don't care that the Russian team missed one of the targets when it was their turn to shoot, because that is already considered quite a good result by the standards of the BMP-2, which has a very crude FCS. BTW, Russians were not using 2A72 in the same trial, because BMP-2 is equipped with 2A42. 2A42 has a fixed 38.5 kg barrel measuring 2416mm with short stroke recoil dampening device, and the 2A72 has a 36 kg barrel measuring 2500mm in length and it uses long recoil action with an unsupported cantilever barrel. You tell me: All things considered, which cannon will tend to have better accuracy? 

 

I feel that these are very constructive comments indeed. This is a PLA discussion thread, not a PLA glorification thread, right? Right?

 

Edited by Iron Drapes
wrong TB year (2016 -> 2014)
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

What? That RT video isn't reporting news or anything, it was a livestream covering the biathlon. Biased as RT is, how good do you think they are at editing live footage in real time to show that the Chinese team missed a couple of their shots? What value does that even have, and why would they want to do that? You think that the Russian government wants to spark a dispute with China over something as petty editing the scores in a shooting competition via RT? What are you smoking? It's just a livestream of the event, and the Chinese team did not hit as many targets as they should have given the advanced armour and skilled crews they brought to the biathlon. That is what I am saying. You are projecting whatever delusions you have into my statement. Now, back to the Suvorov Attack:

 

I am not talking about the score sheet, and I am not talking about the Chinese team winning overall, because the Type-86 IFV is clearly faster than the BMP-2.  I am talking about the shooting accuracy of the Chinese team at 3:15 of the video: https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI and https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI. The 2A72 is not known for its accuracy, and AFAIK Type-86 doesn't have a ballistic computer, so I suspect something fishy. Maybe the Chinese team used APDS or APFSDS or something like they did in the 2016 tank biathlon when they used 125mm APFSDS instead of 125mm HEAT like everyone else. And how come we don't see any tracers and we hardly see any signs of impacts? Take a look at these two instances of the Chinese team doing their shooting in the 2016 Suvorov Attack: https://youtu.be/feUNb8pmI3g?t=12m48s and https://youtu.be/ulRAOOUqqgM. In both examples, we clearly see tracers, but none during the shooting in the 2017 event. Now look at the Angolan team's shooting at 56:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1IhN07EJtI&feature=youtu.be?. Here, you can see multiple tracers flying over the target as they miss again and again. Why? Now I strongly suspect that it is because Chinese team got some higher velocity ammo like APFSDS, and since APFSDS is so fast, you can't see the tracer. So yes, it is very suspicious to me. No, I am not blaming the misses the Angolan team made on sabotage, because I know that the competency of the Angolan crew is very low, and they are not very familiar with the vehicle as they had some problem before commencing the shooting stage and Chinese technicians had to assist them.

 

No, I don't care that the Russian team missed one of the targets when it was their turn to shoot, because that is already considered quite a good result by the standards of the BMP-2, which has a very crude FCS. BTW, Russians were not using 2A72 in the same trial, because BMP-2 is equipped with 2A42. 2A42 has a fixed 38.5 kg barrel measuring 2416mm with short stroke recoil dampening device, and the 2A72 has a 36 kg barrel measuring 2500mm in length and it uses long recoil action with an unsupported cantilever barrel. You tell me: All things considered, which cannon will tend to have better accuracy? 

 

I feel that these are very constructive comments indeed. This is a PLA discussion thread, not a PLA glorification thread, right? Right?

 

 

Ok, look bitch, now you've pissed me off, you didn't take the hint the first 2 times and instead chose to insult me after I asked you to change your conduct in this thread, so let me just stamp it down in plain fucking English for you.

 

This is my thread, not yours, you don't get to tell me what my thread is or isn't, which is a "neutral" (key word) topic to discuss PLA and other Chinese vehicles, I could in theory make this thread a "PLA glorification" thread if I wanted to, and so long as neither of the admins disagreed, it would be fine, but it isn't, so stop trying to pull your retarded mental gymnastics. You came in here and posted dumb shit that was more ranting or biased shit posting, when I called you on this politely and asked you to stop 2 times only for you to get butthurt and try to insult me in my house? no, fuck that, and fuck you for doing so and thinking you're going to get away with it because you suck at being subtle.

 

"I'm not saying the Chinese team cheated, but I suspect the Chinese team cheated based on some evidence I'm pulling out of my ass and also I'm going to bring up 2016 for no real reason, not because I'm biased, I'm simply being "objective". Yeah, no one believes your shit, sorry to tell you.

 

You're like someone who just comes into ones house party uninvited, and when you piss on the rug and get smacked on the neck with a newspaper like a dog for doing so and asked to clean it up, you freak out and say how It's your fault and you have a right to piss in this house and tell the owner what he wants to do with his house or not.

 

Sorry to tell you that you don't, and you've worn out your welcome here, now get the fuck out of my thread until you pick up a dictionary and learn what the fuck "Cognitive Dissonance" means and decide you actually want to contribute to the topic, the only delusions here being projected are from you, I've met a lot who fit this particular posting profile, they're all banned or posting on complete shit holes, fix your shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Khand-e said:

 

Ok, look bitch, now you've pissed me off, you didn't take the hint the first 2 times and instead chose to insult me after I asked you to change your conduct in this thread, so let me just stamp it down in plain fucking English for you.

 

This is my thread, not yours, you don't get to tell me what my thread is or isn't, which is a "neutral" (key word) topic to discuss PLA and other Chinese vehicles, I could in theory make this thread a "PLA glorification" thread if I wanted to, and so long as neither of the admins disagreed, it would be fine, but it isn't, so stop trying to pull your retarded mental gymnastics. You came in here and posted dumb shit that was more ranting or biased shit posting, when I called you on this politely and asked you to stop 2 times only for you to get butthurt and try to insult me in my house? no, fuck that, and fuck you for doing so and thinking you're going to get away with it because you suck at being subtle.

 

"I'm not saying the Chinese team cheated, but I suspect the Chinese team cheated based on some evidence I'm pulling out of my ass and also I'm going to bring up 2016 for no real reason, not because I'm biased, I'm simply being "objective". Yeah, no one believes your shit, sorry to tell you.

 

You're like someone who just comes into ones house party uninvited, and when you piss on the rug and get smacked on the neck with a newspaper like a dog for doing so and asked to clean it up, you freak out and say how It's your fault and you have a right to piss in this house and tell the owner what he wants to do with his house or not.

 

Sorry to tell you that you don't, and you've worn out your welcome here, now get the fuck out of my thread until you pick up a dictionary and learn what the fuck "Cognitive Dissonance" means and decide you actually want to contribute to the topic, the only delusions here being projected are from you, I've met a lot who fit this particular posting profile, they're all banned or posting on complete shit holes, fix your shit.

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

 

I am not saying that barrel weight is the culprit, but barrel thickness, and I also mentioned the long recoil operation and unsupported barrel. There is a very, very good reason why most of the turrets using the 2A72 include some sort of frame to support the barrel. BTR-3U, BTR-4, BMP-3, Uran-9, 30mm RCWS from Tigr-M and so on. The barrel of the 2A72 is not supposed to be unsupported, because accuracy drops very fast when you start shooting. Every 2A72 barrel has a pair of guide rings around them, and they are supposed to fit inside a support sleeve. So yes, 2A72 is indeed less accurate, and everyone knows it. Look at the ZBL-09 and ZBD-05.

 

ZBD05+Tracked+Amphibious+Infantry+Fighti

 

b97a55391205752f89803b1a804a978e-995x0-9

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Iron Drapes, your signal-to-noise ratio is too low. Making unsupported statements and expecting them to be accepted without question is not something the members of this forum have ever responded favorably to. I will refresh you on the forum rules:

 

Quote

As the title suggests, please read this post before you yourself posts.

First, it's appropriate for me to introduce this forum to the new posters that may be reading this. Sturgeon's House is a forum for those concerned with technical topics. Those of us that make up the core of the website are those who value good information over bad, who value the best sources and documents over those poorly executed. We thrive on sharing primary sources with each other and discussing them. As I once said on another forum, it doesn't matter if the airplane looks good, it matters how well it flies. That's how we feel about sources and documents here on SH. It has to make sense, and it has to fit within the ever-refining context in which it exists. In short, SH is a document-based forum, in the same way that 4chan is an image-based forum. 

 

Before you post, I think it's fair that you know that in this forum I intend to hold everyone to a - relatively speaking - higher standard of posting. It's my goal to make this forum a place with not only a high signal to noise ratio, but also a place with a high level of cultivated humor and levity. So at once, I expect posters to take posting seriously, but also to not take posting seriously. It's easier than it sounds, I think. Perhaps, instead, I should say: "The quality of posts should be high, but the subject need not be serious."

If you're new to the forum, the safest course of action to being accepted here is to try to post sources without commenting on them, and to pay attention to the forum Nobility (they are tagged as such). If you find something interesting, post it without making any comment of your own. For instance, perhaps post a documentary and ask "what does the forum think of this?". Be sure to pay attention to the responses you get, especially those of the Nobility. They should tell you a lot about how we do things at SH, and what a good or bad document looks like.

If I were a new poster here, I'd tackle technical subjects first (by posting sources without commentary), then once you've gotten a few likes from the Nobility, maybe try your hand at humor or the more recreational areas. I would not try to post anything about politics or religion until you are very well established on the forum.

I do not enforce any moral codes here on SH, only anti-obnoxiousness and anti-spam rules. Your language will not be censored, but your content may well be, especially if it contributes nothing to the discussion or is otherwise a deliberate attempt to reduce the value of content on this website. The lack of censorship here at SH is not an excuse to be a cad.

 

There are three basic guidelines to posting at SH that were for a long time unspoken but understood by everyone here. However, since we have grown in membership, it is worthwhile to state them openly:


1. This forum was created to be a place where technical discussions can take place without drama. That is a burden every single poster needs to bear, and it comes before anyone's honor, reputation, etc.

 

2. No one on this forum is an "untouchable"; not even I am, though as a general rule it's stupid to piss off an admin.

3. Any shitstorms that occur are to be worked through, and must not be allowed to wreak permanent havoc on the forum's membership. This is the Internet, and no grudges or bad blood are really very real. If you have a problem, you can work it out like adults. There is no "or else", just work it out.

 

4. Keeping the post quality high here is a group effort. Think of it like a group hike - you don't have to like everyone you're marching with, but if someone stumbles or trips up you pick them up and help them, you don't break your own leg in escalation. Posting here is like that - if someone else, regardless of what you think of them - falters in posting well, do what you can to keep the conversation on track and the posting quality high.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

@Iron Drapes, my explicit recommendation to you to improve your post quality is to dump some documents into the Documents Thread, without any commentary. Simply provide a link and a brief description of the document.

 

Noted. I will be sure to follow this guideline to make high quality posts such as this:

 

11 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

Noted. I will be sure to follow this guideline to make high quality posts such as this:

 

Bronez has been here a long time, and we know his degree of expertise very well. You have not been here for very long. Should Bronez have been rude? No, probably not. That could be as much my error as his, because without looking at the thread I told him he did not have to be gentle. Regardless, you worry about you. Remember this guideline:
 

Quote

4. Keeping the post quality high here is a group effort. Think of it like a group hike - you don't have to like everyone you're marching with, but if someone stumbles or trips up you pick them up and help them, you don't break your own leg in escalation. Posting here is like that - if someone else, regardless of what you think of them - falters in posting well, do what you can to keep the conversation on track and the posting quality high.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Iron Drapes said:

 

I worry.


Well, I doubt you'll find a place on the Internet where people enjoy being corrected as much as SH. But that doesn't mean you don't have to work at it a bit. We'd be fools if we let any random person come in here and yank the facts around.

 

If you know what you're talking about, we'll probably find out with time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:


Well, I doubt you'll find a place on the Internet where people enjoy being corrected as much as SH. But that doesn't mean you don't have to work at it a bit. We'd be fools if we let any random person come in here and yank the facts around.

 

If you know what you're talking about, we'll probably find out with time.

 

Absolutely. I am sure that window lickers like me will fit right in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Iron Drapes is right about 2A72 being hilariously inaccurate compared to other 30 mm ACs if it is not supported by some sort of sleeve, i posted photos of BTR-82A with such sleeve, Uran-9 UGV have it, Tigr with 30mm RCWS, Vikhr UGVs have it as well, BMP-3s, Ukrainian APCs and IFVs with Skval RCWS are equipped with it and so on.

   I didn't bothered to watch whole video from competition, but there are problems with scores counting in tank biathlon as well, some teams got additional scores for "hits" that were actually a missies, something is wrong with judging/spotting. And Iron also right about Chinese team using APFSDS rounds during last year TB competition compared to all other teams using HEAT and i will not be surprised to see something similar this year. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

  I didn't bothered to watch whole video from competition, but there are problems with scores counting in tank biathlon as well, some teams got additional scores for "hits" that were actually a missies, something is wrong with judging/spotting. And Iron also right about Chinese team using APFSDS rounds during last year TB competition compared to all other teams using HEAT and i will not be surprised to see something similar this year. 

 

 

TBH, they all used HEAT training munition last year and also this year. The Chinese HEAT munition doesn't have a tracer though so it looks different. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, barbaria said:

 

TBH, they all used HEAT training munition last year and also this year. The Chinese HEAT munition doesn't have a tracer though so it looks different. 

 

Marks on targets shows APFSDS rounds were used. I think i even posted screengrabs that showed very well what kind of rounds were used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

Marks on targets shows APFSDS rounds were used. I think i even posted screengrabs that showed very well what kind of rounds were used.

 

Last year wasn't 2014. The Chinese did use APFSDS then. On top of that 125 mm HEAT munition have fins just like APFSDS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, barbaria said:

 

Last year wasn't 2014. The Chinese did use APFSDS then. On top of that 125 mm HEAT munition have fins just like APFSDS.

China didn't participated in 2014 competition. HEAT caliber is 125 mm, holes were much smaller. I will try to find photos. Chinese team use of APFSDS were pretty widely discussed on russian forums.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
       
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
       
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
       
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
       
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
       
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • By phasers on stun
      Fellow fish - imagine you had some money to develop the "next generation" 20-40mm" modular architecture turret.  Of course, you could talk about sensor fusion, using AI to detect threats, better / more integrated sensors... targetting linked to drones etc... But is this the way forwards. ?
       
      What is the SOTA 30mm turret on the market ? - more importantly, what are it's attributes ?? [ no need to name the manufacturer unless you want to] 
      Built in APS ?
      intelligent Armour ?
      Reconfigurability ?
      Self Repair ?
       
      We all have ideas... what would you see as a truly game changing set of characteristics ?  
       
      I think the T2000 looks interesting and there are some nice turrets from lower profile companies (as seen at AUSA).  
       
      Alternatively, we might be at the end of the roadmap - "gun + armour + sight is good enough"
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Belesarius
      http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it
       
      New high velocity 125mm tank gun reportedly starting testing for the Chinese military.  Not surprised that the data disappeared off the university website at all.
       
      Edit: 125mm/60? oO

×
×
  • Create New...