Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The main problem with the L30 isn't the fact that it's rifled, it's the fact that the propellant charge is pathetic.

Here's a picture of various L30 ammunition from @SH_MM's blog:

JTE14Lc.jpg

Now here's a picture of Rheinmetall 120mm ammunition:
 

 

36ErssN.jpg


Both have (within mm) identical caliber, so you can easily scale the images based on the width of the projectile.

Or, you don't even have to, because it's really obvious that the L30 ammunition is straight-walled while the Rheinmetall 120mm is bottlenecked, and is thus burning oodles more propellant with each shot.  Max chamber pressure is similar too, although the German gun may have a small edge.  Bottom line though is that the German gun turns a lot more nitrocellulose into boom with each shot, and its projectiles therefore kill things deader.

The design of the L30 breech is quite clever, and allows slight economy in the weight and size of the ammunition.  As you can see, it entirely lacks the metallic obturating case at the bottom of each cartridge.  A gun with an L30 style breech mechanism with bottlenecked, one-piece caseless ammunition would really be something.

I doubt this affects performance in the tank biathlon at all, although it is possible that the Leo 2 has received some FCS upgrades that the Chally 2 has no equivalent to.  Chally 2, hell, the entire British military has been cash-strapped and hurting for critical upgrades for years.

Share this post


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

although it is possible that the Leo 2 has received some FCS upgrades that the Chally 2 has no equivalent to.  Chally 2, hell, the entire British military has been cash-strapped and hurting for critical upgrades for years.

 

I totally forgot the Chally 2 also has the same FCS as it did in 1998 (along with armor, gun, 1200hp engine)... now 20 years old. I feel like Britain is competing with Germany on how quickly they can self destruct their country. 

Share this post


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

 

I totally forgot the Chally 2 also has the same FCS as it did in 1998 (along with armor, gun, 1200hp engine)... now 20 years old. I feel like Britain is competing with Germany on how quickly they can self destruct their country. 

Germany at least keeps a small # of vehicles to close to top standard.  Upgrade programs should get an obsolete Leo 2 fleet up to date as quickly as you can get them through your factories.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Roman Alymov of tanknet; the Ukrainian’s low offensive scoring might be related to the tanker in this video complaining about the dugouts being made for Abrams and therefore too tall for a T-84, which blocked their view.

 

 

Share this post


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

Germany won.

 

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/280177/germany-takes-prize-strong-europe-tank-challenge-winner

 

Sweden got the second place, Austria came in third. Like last year, the lower places probably won't be officially revealed.

 

last I checked, 810 > 763: 

 

7 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

DfG_l9_W0AEvuds.jpg

 

... or is this chart wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Serge said:

What ?

Leclerc MBT are not last !

 

Makes my day. 

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures (or something close to it) so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

 

Dat edit war on the wiki page though xD

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge&action=history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

Tank biathlon has WARPACT procedures?! :blink:

:lol:BEST-JOKE-EVER!!! :lol:

Share this post


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

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures (or something close to it) so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

 

Dat edit war on the wiki page though xD

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge&action=history

 

Yeah there are distinct groups in the scores.

 

Germany, Sweden

Austria

France, Poland, UK, US

Ukraine

 

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the website of the Austrian Truppendienst magazine (the official magazine of the Austrian military), a summary has been published by the Major of the Panzerbataillon 14:

 

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/die-setc18-im-rueckblick/

 

  • The Swedish team didn't finish first, because one of their soldiers got an injury during the last task, the "tanker olympics". Sweden got the last place in this discipline as a result.
  • The Polish team didn't bring its own training ammunition (is there a shortage in the Polish army?), so they did all live fire tests with high explosive ammunition (!). As this was proper HE ammo and not HE training/practice ammo, they were always the last to shoot (the hosts didn't want to replace the targets in the middle of the competition). This might also explain the poor score compared to other Leopard 2 users...
  • Leclerc required more maintenance than other tanks, but French army send more/better people to take care of that
  • Aparently the rules of the competition were slightly changed, so that having a three men crew wasn't indirectly punished (i.e. three men crews had to do less in certain competitions than four men crews). The Leclerc did a poor job at spotting targets.
  • The UK might reconsider the idea of equipping one tank regiment with AJAX vehicles, because  the Challenger 2 performed quite well. Supposedly the better shooting results of tanks with smoothbore guns might affect the decision wether the Challenger 2 LEP will adopt such a gun or keep the old rifled one.
  • The T-84's fire control system did not perform (significantly) worse than that of NATO tanks. The old Soviet-derived autoloader provided similar reload speeds compared to the manned tanks.The crews had combat experience and knew how to properly deal with drones (something that the US team apparently didn't knew).
  • Originally another German team was meant to participate, but a short time before the competition it was swapped. Still they were giving some preparattion. The Germans had higher physical fitness than others.
  • The stabilizer of (one or multiple) Leopard 2A6 tanks from Germany failed due to the unexpectedly high temperatures (and probably because they weren't replaced in the past years, as spare parts are low...). The gunners of the Leopard 2A6 tank(s) could compensate the lack of a stabilizer to some extend.
  • Germany will co-host next year's SETC aswell, but the Bundeswehr decided that they will only send teams to the challenge, which never participated before.
  • Canada, Croatia, Denmark ,Greece, Switzerland and the Netherlands had observers at the competition. Canada and Denmark will definetly not participate next year (Canada has no tanks in Europe, Denmark is switching from Leopard 2A5 to 2A7), the other countries might.
2 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

Tank biathlon has WARPACT procedures?! :blink:

 

It doesn't? Given that half of the participants are former members of the Warsaw Pact, I would expect that it might include some...

 

6 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

 

I've read different things regarding this shoot-off. Some sources say that it was the "inofficial" 14th task (the SETC however only included 13 rated tasks, unless something was changed from last year), which not all contenders did serious (like the Swedes according to the Truppendienst article). Based on videos the  "shoot-off" seems to be done from static positions at a shooting range with the targets being clearly visible. The offensive and defensive ops (for which exact scores were leaked) are also including gunnery, but from the move and without always knowing the location of the targets (the crews have to spot them).

Share this post


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

 

Yeah there are distinct groups in the scores. 

 

Germany, Sweden

Austria

France, Poland, UK, US

Ukraine

 

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

 

A bit more communication on those events wouldn't hurt indeed.

Besides that it would makes some extra cookies for our tank nerd community, it would help to show to the general public that even with the current mess on transatlantic relations operational cooperation is still going on nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

On the website of the Austrian Truppendienst magazine (the official magazine of the Austrian military), a summary has been published by the Major of the Panzerbataillon 14:

 

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/die-setc18-im-rueckblick/

Is that an official press organism because, some statements are pure BS.
All trials are crew based which allows to have three and four man crews without disparity in the scoring.
Nobody from French Army got sent to Graffenwöhr after the fact.
Spotting targets... they mean the SITREP trial???

 

 

37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It doesn't? Given that half of the participants are former members of the Warsaw Pact, I would expect that it might include some...

It's just a dumb biathlon... They run in circle, shoot stuff. Get penalties if they miss...
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted on 4chan with a timestamp of a medal so it might be legit.

 

Quote

I was the commander on one of the Swedish tanks.


We trained for 4 months before SETC. The Germans trained for a full year. They have already selected their crews for next year and are probably gonna start training soon.

Sweden only lost to Germany since we came in last in the "Tanker Olympics".
That is because we had one guy fall and injure his knee during the event.

 

 

 

twEuhGz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some countries like the Ukraine even have competitions to decide which crew will be send to Grafenwoehr. However as mentioned earlier, the German unit didn't know one year ahead of time that they will participate at SETC 2018, because the original plans saw another unit participating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:55 PM, Xlucine said:

The US team really win on style points, hopefully we see the other teams following suit next year

 

You are kidding.....They almost missed the yellow car!  :lol:

 

The Challenger was clearly the winner with its perfect execution of the white people-carrier.  ;)

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...