Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

 

29 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

073539cxs7dob79vt6dxud.jpg

Simply translate the words into English, hope it will help. 

9S2JFZR.jpg

Another figure, posted by Wiedzmin in a thread on otvaga, shows the fuel filling port of front fuel system unit. 

 

According to a video record,

about JGSDF tank training in US, they refuel a Type-10 MBT on a fuel filling port of similar location. I assume they both have similar arrangements. 

 

Share this post


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

it's strange, report says that hull special armor weight 1249, so "A" part on scheme can't be fuel cell ?

 

There might be some sort of spaced metal plates inside the fuel cell to improve its effectiveness as armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

it's strange, report says that hull special armor weight 1249, so "A" part on scheme can't be fuel cell ? but without big fuel cell how far type90 can ride ? 

type90 are mainly used in Hokkaido defense, i think they don't need too mach fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

it's strange, report says that hull special armor weight 1249, so "A" part on scheme can't be fuel cell ? but without big fuel cell how far type90 can ride ? 

With a internal fuel capacity of 1272 litre, Type-90 can travel about 300-340 km.

Type-74 in comparison, can travel about 400 km when equipped with external fuel container. 

Exact data could depends on terrain and weather, especially in winter condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

There might be some sort of spaced metal plates inside the fuel cell to improve its effectiveness as armor.

Hmmm!!! Just like Fuel Cell B, that surrounds the ammunition , fuel cell A could be a composite array that uses diesel fuel to complement its protective properties.

 

Type90_fh_fc.jpg.532e4aa1e4085c88e3b048e

Note: The front hull special armor is supposed to have  a mass of 1249 kg!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

 

Actually it is a well known idea used in "cells" armor developed by hydrodynamic institute of Siberian departament of academy of scince of USSR in 70s. http://btvt.info/5library/vot_yacheiki.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

More about how this works can be found in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281489377_Theoretical_Study_of_a_Diesel-Filled_Airtight_Structure_Unit_Subjected_to_Shaped_Charge_Jet_Impact

 

If you want the full paper, PM Me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

On 19.3.2018 at 5:36 PM, Alzoc said:

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

 

 

But how valid is this chart ?  Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.3.2018 at 2:01 PM, SH_MM said:

The British had some odd ideas about main battle tanks, although they wanted their MBT-80 to be more advanced in some aspects than the Challenger 2 currently operated by the British army...

  1. The lack of an indendepent sight for the commander was disliked
  2. The laser rangefinder of the M1 Abrams was incompatible with the thermal imager (?)
  3. For some reason the British military thought it was a bad idea to integrate daysight and thermal imager into a unitary optic
  4. The M1's fire control system resulted in a low hit probability (confirmed by statemens from US and German sources regarding the comparative trials of XM1 & Leopard 2AV)
  5. The armor of the M1 Abrams could be penetrated at ranges of 4,000 m by the 125 mm gun according to British estimates
  6. Storing ammo below the turret ring is/was seen as better than having a separated ammunition compartment at the rear of the turret because some US test proved that it might not always work with 105 mm ammo and wasn't tested with 120 mm; also the blast door needs to be open for reloading (silly complaint)

 

K7E4Sox.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys, i need your wisdom and insight!

 

would you guys know the approximate LOS thickness of the Leclerc front hull "beak" ?

 

Leclerc_armor_sb2x.thumb.jpg.0dcf1857b21

Im looking for the LOS thickness of the special armor in front of the fuel cell.

 

Here is my preliminary estimate:

 

Leclerc_front_hull_7.jpg.42cc2c479b04ca8

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SH_MM, some of the protection level bullets are familiar, some less so. 

 

More specifically:

 

It's a very nice summary, so I'd love to see the sources I'm missing that provide the additional specificity. My search terms may have failed me and I may have missed the links b/c I'm new to the site...

 

P.S. Greetings

  • On 3/1/2018 at 7:54 AM, SH_MM said:
    •  
    •  
    • That leaves us with the following (is there any easy way to add tables?):
    • Tank type
    • T-72
    • Leopard 2K
    • Leopard 2AV
    • (X)M1 Abrams
    • MBT-80
    • Weight
    • 41 tonnes
    • up to 47.5 tonnes
    • 56.935 tonnes
    • 52.6 tonnes
    • (?)
    • KE threat
    • 105 mm "next-generation" AP(FS)DS from 500 m along ±30° from the centerline
      14.5 mm - 20 mm AP allround (?)
    • 105 mm APDS from 800 m along ±15° from the centerline (turret only),
      90 mm AP(DS) from 1,500 m along ±15° from the centerline (hull),
      20 mm AP from 100 m (upper portions of the hull sides) or from 500 m at 20° (lower portion)
      14.5 mm AP from 100 m (engine comparment)
    • 105 mm APFSDS with 38 mm core diameter (ammo for the smoothbore gun?) along ±30° from the centerline,
      7.62 mm AP at 30 m (engine vents),
      14.5 mm AP all-round (20 mm AP at crew compartment?)
    • 115 mm APFSDS from 800 - 1,200 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round (?)
    • 125 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round
    • CE threat
    • 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) at ±30° from the centerline
    • None
    • MILAN warhead
    • 127 mm HEAT warhead (TOW-1?) at ±25° from the centerline,
      81 mm HEAT at 45° (crew compartment)
    • (?)
    • Artillery threat
    • (?)
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10 m
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10-15 m,
      155 mm artillery fragments at 25 m (vehicle rear),
      no protection required (cover above the tracks at the engine compartment)
    • 95% protection against 155 mm splinters at 15 m (crew compartment),
      57% protection elsewhere
    • 155 mm splinters at 10 m
Edited by Olds
increased specificity, grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olds said:

 

SH_MM, some of these protection level bullets are familiar, some are not. Are these all definitely documented somewhere--some other thread with links or whatever--or is this a list from memory? (I don't mean that in a bad way :), but I'm curious just how definitive some of these items are).

 

P.S. Greetings

  •  

Welcome to SH Olds.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/4-a-beginners-guide-to-posting-on-sh/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is some info dealing with the protection requirement of the Chieftain of the 1980s:

 

Chieftain_protection_medium

 

 

This also makes me believe that the turret "cheek" armor protection of the Challenger 1 is 500+ mm RHAe against subcalibre KE threats. The Armed Forces Journal estimate of 580 mm RHAe and the British CR1 engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following diagram seems to show some old "weldlines" on the hull of a Leclerc prototype concept. Given the dimensions of the hull, nothing much seems to have changed between this prototype concept and the Leclerc Serie 1 hull.  This would give the front hull a LOS thickness of 600-620 640 mm, which conveniently falls within the limits of the earlier diagram:

 

Leclerc_prototype_concept_drawings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laviduce said:

engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

I also read that the CR2 was expected to have a KE resistance lower than that of the M1A1 HA. I think this came from a British assessment document.   Yet there is a problem , the British were aware of the threats posed by the 125 mm guns. There is little reason to believe that the British were not successful of reaching a protection level of 500 mm RHAe in the 60 frontal arc. This would translate to about 580 mm RHAe from the front. The M1A1 HA KE protection in the frontal 60 degree arc was stated to be around 600 mm RHAe. This would translate to a KE resistance of up to 690 mm directly from the front.

 

What we know:

 

CR1 - Armed Forces Journal estimate: 580 mm RHAe

CR1 -  Engineer Rumor:  620 mm RHAe

 

Average between the sources: 600 mm RHAe

 

M1A1 HA - multiple sources - up to 690 mm RHAe

 

CR2 - British document projection - below M1A1 HA level

 

This would give us:     600 mm RHAe < CR2 KE resistance < 690 mm RHAe      -> reasonable middle ground for the CR2 turret cheek armor from the front 650 mm RHAe

 

This would satisfy the requirement of the CR2 offering marginally inferior KE resistance compared  to the M1A1 HA but marginally superior KE protection compared to the CR1. Now 50 mm is not much of an improvement but it could still be true. 

 

The jump in KE resistance from the M1 to the M1A1 was also around 50 mm if we follow the given sources.  The increase in CE resistance was more significant, from 700 mm RHAe all  the way up to 1000 mm RHAe for the frontal 60 degree protection arc.

 

The CR2 could have followed the same idea, where an increase in CE protection was emphasized over an increase in KE protection.

Share this post


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

I note that in 10 pages, the Abrams, Leo 2 and even Challenger have had their defenders, but nobody has gone to bat for the Ariete.

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

 

according to mysterious sources:

 

" ... In any case, the level of protection, in particular against APFSDS projectiles, remains the Achilles' heel of the vehicle, reaching 500 mm in the frontal arc of the turret (C1 Ariete), a thickness comparable to that of a Soviet T-72B of the 1980s  but lower than that of contemporaries M1 Abrams or Leopard 2. "

 

Yay !!!! :P

 

...wait a minute!!!! :o:what:

 

 source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13    :wacko::huh:

 

OM*G!  <_< 

 

The turret values might actually be correct but there is no way of practically veryifying it either way. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

 

:shitpostdiarrhea:

 

 

 

Share this post


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 Proyas
      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. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...