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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Sturgeon
      Let's say you're developing a tank with a unique (AKA non-historical) gun for one of our competitions here on SH. It would be nice to have an idea of the size of the gun, its shells, and what their performance both in terms of shell weight and velocity but also penetration, wouldn't it? Well, fortunately there is a way to do this with reasonably accurate results using your solid modeling software and some free to use browser tools.

      First, you want to have a general idea of the size and performance of your gun. For this example, I decided I wanted an optimized, high velocity 85mm caliber gun with a case about as big as the 7.5cm KwK 42 (as it happened, I ended up with a case that had significantly greater volume, but that fact is unimportant for this example). The cartridge I decided on has a 130mm wide rim and a 640mm long case, of course in 85mm caliber. My first step was to model this case in SolidWorks:


       
      You will also need to model your projectile, in this case a tungsten-carbide cored APCR round:


       
      Next, we need a bit of freeware: A Powley computer. Originally developed by DuPont engineers for small arms ammunition, the Powley computer is an accurate enough tool to use for much larger tank rounds as well! When you click the link, you'll be greeted with this screen:
       

       
      You'll note the dimensions are in inches and this thing called "grains" (abbreviated "gn"). The grain is an archaic Imperial mass unit equal to 1/7000th of a pound which is still used in the small arms field, today. Another quirk of small arms has the case capacity - a volume measurement - listed in grains as well. This is in fact grains of water (gn H2O), or the weight of water that will fill the case to the top. To find this, simply multiply the volume in cubic centimeters by 15.43 - which is also the exchange rate between the metric gram and grains mass.
       
      Finding the volume of the case is easy with a solid modeling program; simply model the interior as a solid and find the volume of that solid:


       
      Filling in my Powley inputs gives me this:
       

       
      Note that I typically use the diameter of the projectile across the driving bands for "Bullet Diameter", but it really makes very little difference.
       
      So far, though, we haven't actually produced any results. That's because our gun is well outside the bounds of DuPont production IMR powders, hence the output "Much slower than (IMR) 4831" in the lower left. So, we need to override the computer by checking the box next to the blue "Pressure" function, and typing in a pressure value in CUP that is reflective of tank guns of whatever era we are trying to represent. My tank gun is trying to represent something from about the late 1940s/early 1950s, so I'm going to use 45500 CUP EDIT: USE 41000 CUP for APCBC and 42800 CUP FOR APCR (or better yet, do your own calibration!):
       

       
      This gives me an estimated muzzle velocity of 3,964 ft/s for my L/50 barrel. Not bad! Note the outputs on the left, which tell you a bunch of fun facts about your round but aren't terribly relevant to what we're doing here today. Next, we need to put this gun's performance in terms of penetration. The way I like to do this is through comparative analysis.
       
      The first thing we need is to know to find penetration the ballistic performance of our round. We can estimate this using JBM's ballistic calculator and a few rules of thumb. When opening the calculator, the first thing you'll see is this:
       

       
      We care about basically none of these settings except BC, velocity, and maximum range. Caliber, projectile weight, chronograph distance, etc are all pretty irrelevant to us. Keep the environmental settings (temperature, pressure, etc.) set to their defaults. First, change the ballistic coefficient type from G1 to G7 using the dropdown menu. Then, change the muzzle velocity from 3000 to whatever the muzzle velocity was that was calculated by the Powley computer. Finally, set the maximum range to your desired distance - in my case 2,000 yards.

      For my round, I now have inputs that look like this:
       


      We also need to get some idea of how fast our projectile loses velocity, something we can't know for certain without actually building a real gun and test firing it - or at least without some really sophisticated simulations. However, projectiles with the same shape tend to fly the same way, and that's something we can exploit here. To figure this out, we need a graph showing us the performance of a real-life gun. Fortunately, there is a handy one for an IRL gun similar to what I'm designing, the 90mm M3 from World War II, and its M304 HVAP-T, which is broadly similar in construction and shape to my 85mm APCR projectile:
       

       
      Based on this chart, we see that the M304 should drop from its 3,350 ft/s muzzle velocity to about 2,500 ft/s at 2,000 yards. Doing a little trial and error with JBM tells me that this means the M304 has a G7 ballistic coefficient of about 1.13.
       
      Now, our projectile will not have the same ballistic coefficient, due to it being a different size and mass. But, we can figure out what its ballistic coefficient would be by finding its sectional density and comparing that to the sectional density of M304. To find sectional density, take the projectile's weight in grains and divide it by the square of the projectile's diameter in inches, times 7000. So for M304, we get:
       

       


      And for my 85mm, we get:


       

       
      This means that the ballistic coefficient for an identical-shape projectile with our size and weight will be about 1.019/1.330 - or 76.6% as much - as that of the 90mm M304. That means a BC of 0.866 G7 should be approximately correct for my 85mm APCR round. Let's plug that in:


       
      And then scroll down to the bottom to click "calculate", which gives us a big ol' chart that goes out to 2,000 yards:
       

       
      O-Kay! Now we have some data. It looks like at 2,000 yards, my projectile holds about 2,800 ft/s striking velocity. It's important to note here that what we really care about isn't the striking velocity of the projectile per se, but the velocity and energy of the projectile's core. The core is what's actually doing a lot of work to the armor, so for now let's stop thinking in terms of the whole projectile, and take a look at these two cores, that of the M304 90mm HVAP, and that of my 85mm APCR round. The core of the 90mm M304 is an approximately 8 pound lump of tungsten-carbide that is about 45mm in width. My penetrator is also 8 pounds, but it's longer and thinner in proportion - just 40mm wide, rather than 45mm. This means my penetrator will penetrate more armor at a given striking velocity, and we can estimate how much more by taking the specific energy of the rounds and comparing them. That is, the energy in Joules of the penetrator alone, divided by the penetrator's diameter squared:
       

       


      So the specific energy at 2,000 yards is about 826J/mm^2. Now, we need to find out at what impact velocity the M304 penetrator produces this same specific energy. Do do that, we go backwards, using the figures for M304:
       

       

       
      Therefore, the equivalent impact velocity for my 85mm APCR round at 2,000 yards is 3,150 ft/s for the M304. That means, in theory, that the M304 would have to impact a target at 3,150 ft/s to produce equivalent penetration of RHA to my 85mm APCR striking at just 2,800 ft/s.

      Now, we head back to that chart:


       
      On the left side of the graph, we put our cursor on the line that corresponds to approximately 3,150 ft/s velocity, and follow it over until it hits the curved line that corresponds with the angle of plate we care about - arbitrarily, let's pick 20 degrees. Then, we follow that point straight down until it hits the x-axis:


       
      Therefore, we estimate that at 2,000 yards, my 85mm has just over 10 inches of RHA penetration - not bad at all for a lowly APCR round!
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...