Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Proyas

Could Sherman tanks still have some military use?

Recommended Posts

Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 

 

I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 

 

Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 

 

What do you guys think? Thanks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to SH!

 

Just thinking about it off the top of my head, it could possibly be done (Brazil heavily upgraded their M3 Stuarts, and the NM116 was a heavily upgraded Chaffee that served into the late Cold War), several countries (such as Israel and Chile) kept them going until the 1980s. Is the hypothetical country for some reason unable to obtain more modern armor such as T-55s, T-72s, or M60s? Those tanks aren't too expensive, and there's numerous upgrade packages available for them already developed (even for something as old as the T-55).

 

For reference, some turret ring diameters;

  • M4 Sherman: 69 inches / 1752 mm
  • T-54/55: 71.8 in / 1825 mm
  • BMP-2: 68.5 in / 1740 mm (taken from a translated Russian site, use with caution)
  • M48 & M60: 85 in / 2160 mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Is the hypothetical country for some reason unable to obtain more modern armor such as T-55s, T-72s, or M60s? Those tanks aren't too expensive, and there's numerous upgrade packages available for them already developed (even for something as old as the T-55).

Let's say you just got the 1,000 Shermans for free, and you want to make use of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, the last Shermans only left service this year:

https://www.janes.com/article/79476/paraguayan-army-retires-last-m4-shermans-from-service

But to answer your question, if you were fighting guerillas that had no access to anti-tank weaponry it would be useful. I don't think it would be worthwile to upgrade them any further than maybe replacing the main gun with a low-pressure 90mm, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Interestingly enough, the last Shermans only left service this year:

https://www.janes.com/article/79476/paraguayan-army-retires-last-m4-shermans-from-service

But to answer your question, if you were fighting guerillas that had no access to anti-tank weaponry it would be useful. I don't think it would be worthwile to upgrade them any further than maybe replacing the main gun with a low-pressure 90mm, though.

Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun?

 

Why couldn't a Sherman have a 105mm cannon? The Styker is smaller but has it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought this would make a great contest, but I'm a bit biased I suppose. 

 

It could be up-gunned, and you can stuff modern radios and sights, but the armor is pretty hopeless, though I suppose you could cover it in ERA.  

Share this post


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

Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun?

 

Why couldn't a Sherman have a 105mm cannon? The Styker is smaller but has it. 

 

If I am remembering correctly, the Israeli's tried putting a 105mm L7 gun and the turret could not withstand the recoil.  So they went with the French 105mm gun instead with a special low power shell to reduce recoil.  The system on the Stryker is an external gun system which allows for a very long recoil, something that the small size of a Sherman turret would not be able to accomodate.  

 

As to the main question, I think one important factor is "which version of the Sherman are we starting with?"  An easy eight is going to have a lot more upgrade potential than an early M4A1 with 75mm gun turret.  

Share this post


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

Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun?

 

Why couldn't a Sherman have a 105mm cannon? The Styker is smaller but has it. 

 

Low pressure equals low recoil.  Which means it can be mounted on a vehicle that is lighter than a standard main battle tank.  The disadvantage is that a low pressure gun is also low muzzle velocity, which limits it to HEAT style anti-tank rounds.  

Share this post


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

Low pressure equals low recoil.  Which means it can be mounted on a vehicle that is lighter than a standard main battle tank.  The disadvantage is that a low pressure gun is also low muzzle velocity, which limits it to HEAT style anti-tank rounds.  

 

That is not quite true, Belgian and French 90 mm low-pressure gun can actually fire APFSDS and high-velocity HEAT rounds.

 

The French even designed APFSDS for their mortars...

Share this post


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

Spare parts would be a very significant cost if you actually wanted to use them, probably worth replacing the engine, transmission and tracks

Are there any newer tank engines that could be easily installed in a Sherman? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Proyas said:

Are there any newer tank engines that could be easily installed in a Sherman? 

 

I would think so.  So many different engines were used in the M4 that it's reasonable to assume that a new engine could be installed without too much trouble.  Israel put a Cummins diesel into the Sherman, although I can't find any information on which particular model of Cummins they used other than it was 460 HP.  The Cummins VTA-903T used in the Bradley family of vehicles would be my guess as to which modern engine to use in an upgrade since it's a proven performer and still in production.  Looking at the engine dimension figures, it seems pretty comparable with other Sherman engines in terms of size

 

VTA-903t dimensions 1148mm length, 1011mm width, 1288mm height

 

Ford GAA dimensions 1499mm length, 845mm width, 1214mm height

 

Continental R975  1092mm length, 1143mm diameter

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a few others have said: sell the M4s and buy T-55s/T-72s.

 

If you absolutely had to keep them, then stuff in a new engine, transmission and gun. You could actually fit a fair bit of extra armour on (about 4 tonnes if Jumbo is any indication) but I honestly wouldn't bother with anything. This vehicle is scrap if it bumps into any even remotely modern anti-tank weapon system regardless of what you slap on. Far better to retain as much mobility as possible and improve crew survivability by, for instance, installing better ammo storage.

 

In terms of the gun, I agree that a 90/105mm low-velocity piece is the best option. Failing that, I'd put a word in for the Rooikat's 76mm gun as it can handle older MBTs and is overall less boring. You'd definitely want to add in a laser rangefinder and ballistic computer, but that's not too difficult these days. Stick an ATGM on the turret top for the commander to play with if you feel like it. Or a MANPADS if you're secretly North Korean.

 

About the other most useful (and hardest to implement) upgrades would be to put in full stabilization and modern optics. For the former I again wouldn't bother - you'd end up stripping and reworking most of the turret interior, at which point you might as well just replace the whole damn thing. For the latter a modern day/night periscope for the commander should be doable. You're not going to get a proper hunter/killer system in without work, so I'd just leave it there.

 

Finally; I'd add in obvious but little-discussed stuff like modern radios and a decent GPS system. This would need auxiliary power, so stuffing in a modern battery pack and replacing little joe with a modern 4-stroke generator would probably be needed. I'd also put in a proper air conditioning system and whatever quality-of-life stuff my crew really wants (a boiler for the brits, for instance). You can at least keep them comfortable while they wait for an RPG-7/IED/ATGM to suddenly enter their lives.

 

Having done all of this you'd end up with a valuable antique with most of the original bits gutted and a bunch of modern stuff slapped on (probably lowering the value in the process); capable of maybe ambushing last-gen MBTs or providing indirect fire support to infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Proyas said:

Are there any newer tank engines that could be easily installed in a Sherman? 

 

 

One advantage the Sherman has is that tranny, dif, and final drivers are not connected directly to the motor, so anything that fits and makes around 500 HP would work, but for it to work well, it needs to be making full torque and HP at no more than 2500 RPM and the lower the RPM the better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

One advantage the Sherman has is that tranny, dif, and final drivers are not connected directly to the motor, so anything that fits and makes around 500 HP would work, but for it to work well, it needs to be making full torque and HP at no more than 2500 RPM and the lower the RPM the better. 

 

When I was at the Russell Military Museum in Zion Illinois a couple years ago, I was talking to the museum owner about Sherman tanks.  He said it's really easy to stall out an Isherman with the Cummins diesel when turning.  He owns one, so I expect he is talking from experience.  His rationale was that it had something to do with how the lower RPM diesel interacted with the transmission.  Not sure I understood it to be honest.

Share this post


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

 

When I was at the Russell Military Museum in Zion Illinois a couple years ago, I was talking to the museum owner about Sherman tanks.  He said it's really easy to stall out an Isherman with the Cummins diesel when turning.  He owns one, so I expect he is talking from experience.  His rationale was that it had something to do with how the lower RPM diesel interacted with the transmission.  Not sure I understood it to be honest.

 

I've heard similar things from other sources, basically my understanding is the Cummins, (thanks for the page corrections, I fix them ASAP) doesn't make power at a low enough RPM so at low speed, the engine is struggling the extra load from the steering brakes stalls it out.  Maybe Meplat knows more, I could have it wrong too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

One advantage the Sherman has is that tranny, dif, and final drivers are not connected directly to the motor, so anything that fits and makes around 500 HP would work, but for it to work well, it needs to be making full torque and HP at no more than 2500 RPM and the lower the RPM the better. 

 

That'd be easy to fix with a pair of gears between the engine and transmission, if you wanted to run the thing off a high speed engine. Just a transfer case like the M7

Share this post


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

so anything that fits and makes around 500 HP would work, but for it to work well, it needs to be making full torque and HP at no more than 2500 RPM and the lower the RPM the better. 

Add a V55, that makes insane torque at low rpm... I dont know if it would be possible to squeezed in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 6:41 PM, Proyas said:

Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun?

 

 

 

The lower the pressure in the breech of the cannon, the less steel you need to keep the cannon from exploding.  Low-pressure guns are much lighter, but also lower-performing relative to their size.

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
      Hello everyone,
       
      I'm very impressed by the technical expertise on this forum, and so I'd like your feedback on my theories about what a crew-less, robot tank would be like. I wrote about it here, on my blog:
       
      https://www.militantfuturist.com/what-would-a-robot-tank-look-like/
       
      I might edit the blog entry based on any feedback I get from you guys.
       
      Thanks.
    • By Sturgeon
      The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward.

      Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany
       
      The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif
       

       
      In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics.

      Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design.
      Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study.
       
      The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank.
       
      As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed.
       
      In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). 
       
      Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!"
       
      The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf.
       
      Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A:
       

       
      Dimensions
      Weight: 34 t
      Length: 6.95 m
      Width: 3.00 m
      Height: 2.85 m
      Armament
      Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38
      Caliber length (KwK): 55
      Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34
      Cannon ammunition: 45 
      MG ammunition: 2700
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 °
      Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 20 mm
      Hull Floor: 20 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 °
      Turret Roof: 20 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp
      Displacement: 16.63 L
      Gears (F / R): 7/5
      Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t
      Top speed: 55 km / h
      Fuel storage: 720 l
      Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road)
      Track width: 65 cm
       
      Leichter Panzer IV


       
      (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!)
       
      Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949
       
      NATO Medium Tank
       
      Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit"
      By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank.
       
      Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs.
       
      While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components.
       
      As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable.
       
      The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls.
       
      One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure.
       
      The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter.
       
      Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension.
       
      The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased.
       
      Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks.
       
      Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. 
       
      With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess.
       
      By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.
      In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production.
       
      The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles.
       
      Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver.
       
      The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74".
      NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request.
       
      Specifications, NATO Medium Tank:
       

       
      Crew: 4
      Dimensions
      Weight: 39.4 t
      Length (Hull): 7.2 m
      Width: 3.4 m
      Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG)
      Armament
      Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56
      Caliber length: 62
      Tube length: 5.60 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG
      Cannon ammunition: 65
      MG ammunition: 3200
      Elevation: +25/-12
      Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s:
      100 m: 22.2 cm
      500 m: 20.0 cm
      1000 m: 17.9 cm
      2000 m: 14.3 cm
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 °
      Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 25.4 mm
      Hull Floor: 25.4 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 °
      Turret Roof: 50.8 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled.
      Displacement: Depends on variant
      Gears (F / R): Depends on variant
      Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant
      Top speed: Depends on variant
      Suspension: Depends on variant
      Fuel storage: Depends on variant
      Range: Depends on variant
      Track width: Depends on variant
       
       
    • By Akula_941
      12 March fresh new video here
      just so many of good footage,praise the IRINN.IR

      so,Karrar MBT aka T-90MS mod 2017 Iranian limited Edition 2.0
      Has finally have a bit long TV report,and what is this?

      when i see this ‘barrel protective case’ thing,the only thing in my mind is
      "NO,T-72I4! It's him! He is Back!"


      but after watch the video i pretty sure it's nothing but reference ~
      first noticed difference is the ERA kit

      Karrar 'ERA kit is smaller, have 6 plate on each slide front
      compare to T-90MS 's 4 larger size Relikt ERA

      the thickness of the ERA are pretty close so i guess it's just the smaller new Relikt variant

      RCWS/Commander panoramic sight Station
      huge muzzle brake but it seems just a 7.62mm RCWS,but looks cool

      also the sight itself looks a cheaper product compare to T-90MS


      Digital map,commanding system and Vehicle information Display 
      this is pretty good, Karrar may have the best digital equipment in all Iranian tanks,not even Zulfiqar-3

      normal vision channal of the commander sight
       
      for the gunner,i noticed something interesting

      now this is something new, the Karrar have a whole new gunner sight,so obviously the new gunner sighting system is not simply rip-off from russian
      but the really interesting thing is, it keeps the 1K13,which compare to T-90MS removed 1A45 completely and replaced by Sosna-U and a back up sight

      why is this?  @Lightning think, that Iran hasn't prepare or able to create their own laser guide coding equipment,if they want to use 9K120 ATGM system,they need keep the 1K13 for laser coding
      which i found is a high possibility that could be true

      karrar‘s gunner displayer compare to T-90MS

       
      let's expect more information of this tank in the future

       
       
    • By Xoon
      I am not sure if you folks noticed:


       
      We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
      From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
       
      What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
       
      If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
       
       
      Mvh
      Xoon.
×
×
  • Create New...