Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Proyas

Upgrading tanks that have steel armor

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrading old tanks like M60 and T-55 is still somewhat economically viable, but only for poor states, or those with very old fleets. For example Taiwan, Turkey, or the Philippines.

 

The two big issues are the all steel construction and integrated armor, and the design that accounted for decades old tech.

Another issue that could arise is cracked hulls but those can be fixed in relatively cheap refurbishment processes. 

 

Indeed the integration of the heavy steel armor into the construction of the hull, adds a ton (actually, tens of tons) of weight. Parasitic weight. It cuts into the weight of upgrades that can be added thus limiting any sort of applique armor. 

 

And the tank is obviously not built to accommodate any of the new tech built after its entry to service. Things like NBC may already have been standard on all tanks we can see on the battlefield today, but proper air conditioning was not. Any new sights, sensors, or gadgets, will require a completely new electrical grid coupled with a new generator, for which a new compartment must be made.

The ammunition has to be carried outside a safe compartment or is just placed in a horribly vulnerable place. 

The engine is likely no longer supported by the manufacturer, or any other part really.

The ergonomics were shitty even before any new stuff were added to the turret or driver's station.

 

 

You either replace so many things that you're ought to buy a new tank at that point, or you make enough cost cutting compromises that your tank is no longer worth shit.

 

I believe that in about 5 years, upgrades like the Sabra but for any tank built prior to the 1970's, will no longer be viable. Economically-wise, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other approach is redefining role.  A Leopard 1 for example would make a potent recon asset - once upgraded to suit.  All Mighty_Zuks comments apply regarding support of eng/trans etc but the older steel base armours can be upgraded to withstand 30mm (which is the typical standard for recon now) without stupid size/weight barriers.   There will still be a weight penalty but not impossible.  The other issue is that an old tank is old....  Leopard 1 for example developed lots of cracking around all suspension mounts - rewelded many time over service life.  Then there is EMI/EMC - old vehicles are were designed to lower standards so will be electronic beacons compared to modern standards.

 

Probably best used s gate guardians or suppressing unarmed populations....

Share this post


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

funny about "tens of tons" considering the fact that Challenger 1 for example have 6925 kg of special armour on whole tank...

Not really a good measurement when it only really has armor on the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The two big issues are the all steel construction and integrated armor, and the design that accounted for decades old tech.

...And the tank is obviously not built to accommodate any of the new tech built after its entry to service. Things like NBC may already have been standard on all tanks we can see on the battlefield today, but proper air conditioning was not. Any new sights, sensors, or gadgets, will require a completely new electrical grid coupled with a new generator, for which a new compartment must be made.

What about my idea to develop new turrets for old tanks? The turrets would be lighter weight because they would be made of modern armor, and would come integrated with other modern tech. The old tank turrets would be removed and the new ones dropped in. 

 

Quote

The ammunition has to be carried outside a safe compartment or is just placed in a horribly vulnerable place. 

Is the ammo storage location in the M-60 and T-55 safe? If not, could it also be fixed by dropping in a new turret that stored all the ammo safely in the back, like in the M1 Abrams? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DIADES said:

Then there is EMI/EMC - old vehicles are were designed to lower standards so will be electronic beacons compared to modern standards.

What is EMI/EMC? 

Share this post


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

What about my idea to develop new turrets for old tanks? The turrets would be lighter weight because they would be made of modern armor, and would come integrated with other modern tech. The old tank turrets would be removed and the new ones dropped in. 

 

Is the ammo storage location in the M-60 and T-55 safe? If not, could it also be fixed by dropping in a new turret that stored all the ammo safely in the back, like in the M1 Abrams? 

   Example of a turret with fighting compartment that were made to upgrade T-72s and T-80s in Russian stocks:

image018.jpg

   New turret had modular frontal armor, allowed to quick replacement if damaged and could be upgraded easily with new packages.

Spoiler

03.jpg

 

   Burlak turret also had a  bustle, space inside of it was used to mount second autoloader and remove number of shells outside of original autoloader from tanks hulls into separated from crew compartment.

 

Spoiler

i9KMr.jpg

 

01.jpg

 

   On top of that turret also was equipped with APS to protect sides and RCWS that original T-72s don't have. Never saw service. 

Share this post


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

What is EMI/EMC? 

EMI - electromagnetic interference.  This is electromagnetic noise generated by the electrical systems of an object (the vehicle).  The present limits for EMI are very low.  They have to be.  EMI interferes with radio performance and leads to EMC failures.  There is also remote data reading (TEMPEST) potential.

EMC - electromagnetic compatibility is concerned with a systems ability to operate in an environment with particular levels of electromagnetic radiation.  Common EMC failures include one system performing strangely as a different system is operated.  Can be non-trivial.  I have seen cases where a poorly shielded crane caused the turret of a nearby vehicle to traverse....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 4:00 PM, Proyas said:

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? 

 

The extra useless steel certainly doesn't help, but it is far from the most serious problem.

 

Older tanks like the T-55 or M60 have much worse suspension than modern tanks.  Do you also upgrade that?  These older tanks also have drastically inferior engines and transmissions.  Do you upgrade those as well?  Their fire control systems are quite old.  Do you upgrade those too?

At this point, you are basically using a T-55 shaped box that you're going to put modern systems into.  Is that meaningfully cheaper than an all-new tank?

 

On 3/17/2019 at 4:00 PM, Proyas said:

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. 

 

 

Even modern tanks are made of steel.  Maybe even mostly of steel.  The underlying hull needs to be made of something that can withstand the automotive stresses and provide a firm backing for the composite armor packages that are welded/bolted to them.

 

Steel is cheap, and RHA-grade armor steel has enough toughness that it can work as a structural material while doubling as an additional layer of protection.

 

Furthermore, ERA doesn't _completely_ stop HEAT warheads.  The tip of the shaped charge jet, also called the jet precursor typically punches through the ERA without being disrupted very much.  So there needs to be some sort of armor behind the ERA element to stop the jet precursor.

Share this post


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

 

The extra useless steel certainly doesn't help, but it is far from the most serious problem.

 

Older tanks like the T-55 or M60 have much worse suspension than modern tanks.  Do you also upgrade that? 

What makes their suspensions worse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 9:12 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

Older tanks like the T-55 or M60 have much worse suspension than modern tanks.  Do you also upgrade that?  [...] Their fire control systems are quite old.  Do you upgrade those too?

Back in early 2000s there was a proposal from Omsk design bureau to do that with T-55.  They suggested to replace turret, and also suspension, roadwheels, tracks (using those 3 components from T-80U, I guess), and proposed to bolt on an addiional armour module at front - so big that it required additional roadwheel per side. I don't know about engine though.
Apparently it went no further than drawing board, but still, that option existed.
BG6yF1r.jpg
Ovf82Xol.png
UPD: speaking about that turret - they were really struggling for money back than, searching for every customer they could get
1OY1BYJ.jpg

 

 

On 3/19/2019 at 9:12 AM, Collimatrix said:

At this point, you are basically using a T-55 shaped box that you're going to put modern systems into.  Is that meaningfully cheaper than an all-new tank?

I don't think it all that simple.

It seems to me that in order to make a new tank one needs much more advanced factory than to upgrade one.
And also one should not forget about politics and budgets and all that stuff. IIRC for example back in 1700s-1800s in British Royal Navy there was a situation when it was much easier to get money on ship's overhaul, than to get money from Parliament on making a new ship - so they systematically did just that, replaced so much during overhaul that sometimes one might say - with only little exaggeration - that all that's left from original ship was furniture from officer's mess and figurehead.


There is also another thing with all-new tank - one have to develop it all the way to serial production in the first place, which is not guaranteed. I mean - just look at US Army and its NGCV-OMFV for example, which is 4th Bradley replacement effort in last 35 years. Or Soviet/Russian army with its T-64, and its next proper clean-sheet design somewhat close to however limited serial production been T-14, some 5 decades later. Taking into account several tank design bureaus, it seems to me there are like a company or may be even two - worth of mockups which vere supposed to be next-generation replacements of T-64/72/80.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

Back in early 2000s there was a proposal from Omsk design bureau to do that with T-55.  They suggested to replace turret, and also suspension, roadwheels, tracks (using those 3 components from T-80U, I guess), and proposed to bolt on an addiional armour module at front - so big that it required additional roadwheel per side. I don't know about engine though.
Apparently it went no further than drawing board, but still, that option existed.

That was the T-55M6 project. They even built it.

It had longer hull thanks to additional armor at the front, but with T-72 roadwheels and the usual 580mm RMSh type tracks. Engine was probably a V-46-5M, maybe V-46-6, Im not sure. Turret was straight from a T-72B.

 

a0109941_498af0472a6b6.jpg

1_ZNLS.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

It seems to me that in order to make a new tank one needs much more advanced factory than to upgrade one.
And also one should not forget about politics and budgets and all that stuff. IIRC for example back in 1700s-1800s in British Royal Navy there was a situation when it was much easier to get money on ship's overhaul, than to get money from Parliament on making a new ship - so they systematically did just that, replaced so much during overhaul that sometimes one might say - with only little exaggeration - that all that's left from original ship was furniture from officer's mess and figurehead.


There is also another thing with all-new tank - one have to develop it all the way to serial production in the first place, which is not guaranteed. I mean - just look at US Army and its NGCV-OMFV for example, which is 4th Bradley replacement effort in last 35 years. Or Soviet/Russian army with its T-64, and its next proper clean-sheet design somewhat close to however limited serial production been T-14, some 5 decades later. Taking into account several tank design bureaus, it seems to me there are like a company or may be even two - worth of mockups which vere supposed to be next-generation replacements of T-64/72/80.
 

 

I don't buy that upgrades of the depth you're talking about require any smaller a factory than just making a new tank.  You're stripping the tank down to the hull, pulling off the old suspension elements and putting new, high-performance ones on, potentially pulling the turret and replacing it with a new one, pulling the powerpack, etc.

So, aside from welding up a new chassis, you still need a facility with gantry cranes capable of handling the weight of the vehicle (if you want to get the upgrades done this century), you still need the ability to pull and install new powerpacks, etc.

 

You might be able to pull a quick one over the government, just because congresses and parliaments are filled with self-important know-nothings, but the bottom line is the only thing you're economizing on is the metal box that you put all the important stuff on.  Why is the T-14 taking so long?  I can guarantee you it's not problems with the underlying chassis itself.

Share this post


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

I don't buy that upgrades of the depth you're talking about require any smaller a factory than just making a new tank.  You're stripping the tank down to the hull, pulling off the old suspension elements and putting new, high-performance ones on, potentially pulling the turret and replacing it with a new one, pulling the powerpack, etc.
So, aside from welding up a new chassis, you still need a facility with gantry cranes capable of handling the weight of the vehicle (if you want to get the upgrades done this century), you still need the ability to pull and install new powerpacks, etc.

 

Well, exactly that explanation which i gave earlier - was given on why in late 80s Israelys choose to make Achzarits using T-55 hull, instead of going straight to Merkava-based vehicle.

 

 

3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Why is the T-14 taking so long?  I can guarantee you it's not problems with the underlying chassis itself.

It took some time do develop all those different chassis during that 5-decade period, too.
It's like every single time they start a contest on some clean-sheet designs, or even if they go with one single design - it turns out there are several opinions on every part of it. And the fact that one of them was able to win and got implemented into design - does not guarantee at all that by the time this project moves closer to production noone would strike back claiming this allmost-ready-design obsolete, and trying to win again.


Just look at weight of US Army IFV developments of last 40 years. 
Around 1977 with TBAT-II Bradley was 21.4 metric tonnes, and it sucesfully dodged a 50-60 metric tonnes SAIFV proposal during Creizer study. And then it dodged another SAIFV proposal in another study. So it goes into production and weights around 22.5 metric tonnes.
By late 80s US Army has it first next-generation-IFV program, part of larger ASM program, and even though they looked at all sorts of designs, including those close to 28 metric tonnes, what they - apparently - choose - was a continuation of that SAIFV idea, based on tank chassis, with weight of some 60+ metric tonnes. Which dies in early 90s,
and by mid-90s another concept emerges, which was also studied in mid-80s. It becomes second program on next-generation-IFV after Bradley, by early 2000s - or FCS as we know it, much lighter vehicle which had to fit in AMT and C-130 - so, around 18 metric tonnes. Well, sort of. By late 2000s it was clear that it would not fit into C-130 at all, with options on increasing weight limit up to 24.5, or 27, or 30 metric tonnes on the table.
Then they have another program, GCV, with famous figure of 84 short tons (76 metric) including future upgrades, and later with design-after-trades of like 45-51 metric tones in configurations stripped for transportability on aircraft.
And now there is an NGCV-OMFV with nothhing so far going beyond 50 metric tonnes, and requirement of 2 on C-17.

 

Quote

Can a snake break its spine? Yes, if it tries to follow the general line of the Party

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

The extra useless steel certainly doesn't help, but it is far from the most serious problem.

...

Even modern tanks are made of steel.  Maybe even mostly of steel.  The underlying hull needs to be made of something that can withstand the automotive stresses and provide a firm backing for the composite armor packages that are welded/bolted to them.

 

Steel is cheap, and RHA-grade armor steel has enough toughness that it can work as a structural material while doubling as an additional layer of protection.

 

Furthermore, ERA doesn't _completely_ stop HEAT warheads.  The tip of the shaped charge jet, also called the jet precursor typically punches through the ERA without being disrupted very much.  So there needs to be some sort of armor behind the ERA element to stop the jet precursor.

With these factors in mind, what is the appropriate thickness of steel for a modern MBT?

 

How does the steel thickness of the T-55 and M-60 compare to that? 

 

I'm curious to know how bad the "excess steel armor" problem is on the older tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Enough to retain structural integrity for the rest of the tank that isn't (N)ERA, with frontal arc also functioning as a backstop for HEAT's remaining penetration"

 

The "excess steel armor" problem came around due to increasingly powerful HEAT shells and ATGMs, their relative inaccuracy asides. If one of those connected, they would probably go through a lot more steel than you could reasonably fit on a tank.

 

The Germans and French responded with the Leopard 1 and AMX-30, which were intended to trade armor for speed to get out of the line of fire with. The British had Chieftain, which relied on sloping to hopefully deflect was fired at them (this didn't work, hence Stilbrew). The Americans had the M60, which was designed for fused silica that would probably be pretty effective against period HEAT, but was never built with it.

 

Leo 1 and the AMX-30 don't have much of an excess steel problem, but they don't have the growth space for significant upgrades due to how light they are. Chieftain... well, eventually a version of the design shorn of most steel armor and replaced with Chobham, and with hydropneumatic suspension became Challenger. M60s soldiered on for far longer than they should have in US service no thanks to MBT-70. Marine Corps M60A1s eventually got an ERA kit (apparently not Blazer) in time for Desert Storm, but remaining stocks were rapidly sold off afterwards. Israeli M60s (Magachs) got very extensive (N)ERA upgrades following the agonizing experiences of Yom Kippur. Sabra is a further evolution of late Magach design principles, but it's really close to the absolute maximum you can do with an M60, assuming it's not already there.

 

magach-7-latrun-2.jpg

 

You may have noticed that I didn't mention Soviet tanks. Starting from the T-64 on, all of them had NERA protection on the frontal arc. BDD kits with similar (if not identical) working principles to Chobham were made available for T-54/55s and T-62s as well, although never for export.

 

EDIT: General Dynamics actually did propose your suggestion of putting a new turret on an old tank with the M60-2000, an M60 hull with an M1A1 turret. Nobody bought it.

 

Edited by Krieger22
M60-2000 says hi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 9:48 AM, Krieger22 said:

Leo 1 and the AMX-30 don't have much of an excess steel problem, but they don't have the growth space for significant upgrades due to how light they are. Chieftain... well, eventually a version of the design shorn of most steel armor and replaced with Chobham, and with hydropneumatic suspension became Challenger. 

The Leopard 1 and AMX-30 lack the growth space for what? Later iterations of the Leopard 1 had 120mm cannons. And surely, both tanks could have been upgraded over time with better engines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest limit to these sorts of upgrades is the ground pressure.  Engines could be developed that are more powerful, but fit into the old engine bay (the original Leo 1 engine wasn't even turbocharged, so there's probably lots of room for improvement there).  New transmissions that can handle the power could reasonably be developed.  New torsion bars that can handle the weight could be installed.

 

But there's not really any practical way to make the track contact area bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could simply redefine allowed trafficability levels, while doing nothing about ground pressure, just making statements that it's worth the increase in survivability.
I mean - back in late 70s XM2 had ground pressure of about 0.5kgf/cm2, and now with Bradley M2A3 w/ BUSK its like what, more than 0.8? It was accompanied with change of Go/No-Go terrain in German Wet scenario from 98/2 percent to 92/8 percent, and they were ready for much worse - while looking for AMPV, US Army was ready to accept 85/15 percent.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 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 Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


×
×
  • Create New...