Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Walter_Sobchak

Name that AFV: The New Tank ID thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Yes you did, that's one in the picture.  ;)

I am not sure that this is UA and not just UK. Majority of UAs were for Cyprus, and about 10 vehicles for Russian Army.

 

   UA was supposed to have gun muzzle reference system that is not visible on the photo because gun is in the way. There are almost no other visible differences, as UA modernisation of T-80Us is mainly FCS and gun-related changes. Thermal imager (Plisa) was offered as well, similar to T-80UE-1 Sp2, but on the photo that sight is covered by a tarp. The ERA block to the left of the gun can be different between T-80UK and UA AFAIK, with UA having both upper and lower part of K-5 ERA "wedge", wile UK have only 1 block, but i am not sure here as well. Never bothered much with those modernisation of 1.5 vehicles, that consist of getting some insignificant changes.

otvaga2004_tank_t80_04.jpg

 

1362111459_25D025A225D025B025D025BD25D025BA25D025A2-8025D025A325D02590.jpg

Share this post


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

 

No one has attempted this one yet?

No leads, no.  You implied it was British, correct?

 

50 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Yeah that was the easy part. ;)

There doesn't seem to be any unusual items or attachments, so I'm going with either the troop carrier version or a mortar carrier again.

 

3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Bonus round for infinite points:

8X4iJc1.jpg

A YA-4442 or something with a weird armored cab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

No leads, no.  You implied it was British, correct?

 

There doesn't seem to be any unusual items or attachments, so I'm going with either the troop carrier version or a mortar carrier again.

 

A YA-4442 or something with a weird armored cab?

It's indeed the normal troop carrier variant, the command variant has an extra antenna.

 

Well yes, it is an armoured cab. And it's a DAF but not a YA-4442.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 6:12 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

Sorry for the image quality on this one.  And yes, this is an actual armored fighting vehicle.

 

20180625_1807591.jpg?w=680

 

 

 

Since nobody got it, I'll finish this one off.  It's the Martel "Mechanical Coffin".  Page 47, David Fletcher's book "Mechanized Force: British Tanks Between the Wars".  Martel had created some of the early tankettes in the late 1920's, but after a while, he decided those were too big.  So he created this silly thing.  A soldier was supposed to lay down in it and drive forward.  Once he got close to the enemy, it had a lift up panel he would use as armor and fire his rifle through.

Share this post


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

YA-5442 or another in the series.  That's my final guess, and I'm assuming that details on this thing are hidden in a book somewhere.

Nope!

 

It's a DAF YAZ-2300 'Mad Max'.

 

AUmAqwR.jpg

oTicdfo.jpg

pdtJOU2.jpg

hMW_jSStNETMuFH34cK-Aiyle58rEtXzHT9MyFSQ

When it was clear that the Netherlands army had to operate in ex-Yugoslav republics not much was known about the possible dangers. So in 5 weeks a unit called "770 Hrstcie" (770 repair company) build 20 armoured cabs for the YAZ-2300 which could be lifted over the cab by its own crane. The armoured cab itself was constructed with polymer plates in a steel frame. After it became clear that these cabs did not provide sufficient protection they were used as static emplacements for an encampment in Santici.  At least two variants existed.

 

Sources:

https://sites.google.com/site/dafmilitairevoertuigen/home/index/tactisch-militaire-voertuigen-1975-heden/daf-ya-2300/daf-yaz-2300-armoured

https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/beeldbank/indeling/detail/start/21?q_searchfield=daf+yaz-2300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, I skipped over that series cause I was stuck with the idea that the thing only had 2 axles.  What I see now is an outrigger post behind the first set of wheels looks right now.  I figured the white paint job was UN related.

 

Something new

tLIQ0kh.jpg

Share this post


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

Darn, I skipped over that series cause I was stuck with the idea that the thing only had 2 axles.  What I see now is an outrigger post behind the first set of wheels looks right now.  I figured the white paint job was UN related.

 

Something new

tLIQ0kh.jpg

Exf 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:26 PM, LoooSeR said:

I am not sure that this is UA and not just UK. Majority of UAs were for Cyprus, and about 10 vehicles for Russian Army.

 

It only has four smoke dischargers per side, T-80UK has six.....I reckon this is one of 'The Ten';)

 

PS - I didn't even like the T-80 until I found this place, now it's second only to the T-72 in my modern kit collection.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

It only has four smoke dischargers per side, T-80UK has six.....I reckon this is one of 'The Ten';)

 

PS - I didn't even like the T-80 until I found this place, now it's second only to the T-72 in my modern kit collection.  :rolleyes:

I see 6 per side (at least on the left side of the vehicle, right side is obscured by Shtora IR dazzler). 4 smoke grenade launcher is not exclusive to T-80UA as photos of T-80UA shows 6 per side, like on T-80UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are clearly only four on the tank's right side. 

 

Six is the exclusive number of launchers AFAIK, exclusive to the T-80UK.....Given the rarity of the T-80UA, I'd be inclined to suspect that the tanks with Shtora and six launchers are more likely to be misidentified T-80UKs.

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Should be easy.

 

Bonus points:

  Reveal hidden contents

iBkmgP8.jpg

 

Top is AMX-D, or AMX-13 ARV

 

Bottom made me think of a Hungarian Csaba, but both parties of people in the pic and your posting of all things Dutch leads me to it being an Alvis-Straussler AC3D armored car.

 

 

 

WLxPFrf.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

There are clearly only four on the tank's right side. 

 

Six is the exclusive number of launchers AFAIK, exclusive to the T-80UK.....Given the rarity of the T-80UA, I'd be inclined to suspect that the tanks with Shtora and six launchers are more likely to be misidentified T-80UKs.

 

T-80UA have 6 launchers per side. I also was told on otvaga forum that vehicle on photo is UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Your own pictures contradict this statement (Greek UAs in T-80 thread, they all have four dischargers, except the UKs which have six).  :rolleyes:

hqdefault.jpg

 

Those 2 photos show actual T-80UA.

1362111459_25D025A225D025B025D025BD25D025BA25D025A2-8025D025A325D02590.jpg

 

otvaga2004_tank_t80_04.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Véhicule blindé de combat d'infanterie

 

Sorry but missed.

A VBCI looks like this (one of the variant at least):

 

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/operations/afghanistan/15-10-10-afghanistan-le-vbci-en-vallee-de-tagab/le-vbci-en-vallee-de-tagab-4/903240-1-fre-FR/le-vbci-en-vallee-de-tagab-4.jpg

 

But the vehicle on the right of the photo is indeed a VCI variant (VCI literally stands for IFV, and VBCI for armored IFV)

Hint it was a modular plateform just the way the boxer is nowadays and was supposed to replace the AMX 13 for the export market.

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 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?
       
       
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
×
×
  • Create New...