Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

When you check the interior layout you realize that superstructure is necesary for the crew working space (lots of big screens and stuff to manage all the drones and smart weapons). Still, it weakens the already low protection of the vehicle.

 

Oh, I know *a superstructure* is required for the crew working space, but that poorly thought out thin steel box with basically no sloping (which results in the step) is a sad excuse for the design. At the very least, they could have fitted large composite blocks on the front of the step to at least attempt to provide protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

2 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Oh, I know *a superstructure* is required for the crew working space, but that poorly thought out thin steel box with basically no sloping (which results in the step) is a sad excuse for the design. At the very least, they could have fitted large composite blocks on the front of the step to at least attempt to provide protection.

Fully agree, for starters it is based on a tank with no composite armor so protection could not be relevant anyway. However now knowing the background of the company it is clear to me that this vehicle is just a statement to get into the spotlight and get the public talking about them, and in that evidently they succeded.  Because its not like the PLA is preparing for a "Grozni scenario".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

Seriously? Low effort posting much?  Wanna be a bit more specific with your question, with actual sentence structure so we know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

My mistake. I forget to write frontal.

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

What are you even asking?  All modern tanks have limited protection on the sides compared to the front.  It's a simple function of geometry and weight.

I mean frontal, yes, but even frontal arc, Chinese design seems unsuited! Armor array is designed in such a way that either the interior is awful or the weakness is exposed in the frontal 60* arc.

 

I realize Russian design is only frontal 60*, NATO include the sides, but China does not. Frontal array is thick but does not cover wider aspect. Like Russian/Soviet & NATO.

54 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Let’s try to be a little nicer and/or forgiving.

 

But if peasant could make the question clearer, that would be welcome. 

Thanks for kindness

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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...