Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one time in the Army (I'm required to start all my army stories this way by my wife)....

 

Well I was a driver on an M60A3 when I was in C Co. 1/70 AR in Germany in 1983. We were driving down this tank trail, the lead tank of our platoon, when this crunchy (infantryman) pops out from behind a tree. He was about 50 meters or so down the tank trail when he holds up his rifle across his body in a "Halt!" fashion. I ask my TC if I should stop & he says to keep on driving. The crunchy motions for us to "Halt" a couple more times in an increasingly more aggressive and desperate fashion. When we get about 10 meters from him he suddenly realizes that we aren't stopping and an M16 isn't going to faze us one bit. He dove one way and his rifle went the other as we rolled on pass him. I said to my TC "I wonder what he wanted?" and my TC replied "Who the fuck knows." It isn't a wonder that there's no love lost between DATs and crunchies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worked on a few bits of armor, some "semi famous".  Like the Littlefield M4A3E2 (Albeit briefly) and their "Swiss Hetzer".

Also did more than a little work on the M-18 Hellcat that appeared in that "The Void" movie that came out (and probably went direct to video) at the same time as "Fury".

 

An anecdote from it is from my first time working on it.

I was staff on a large MG shoot (Media/Photo/Technical(firearms)), and was trying to sleep on on a friday (the shoot starts noonish friday, we'd been there since thursday morning), and one of my friends asks "You said you were or are an aircraft mechanic, what do you know about Continental radials?".. (Now I'd heard that there was going to be a warbird or three showing up. So I semi lucidly said "hold on"  and threw on my coveralls and boots. Only to find myself diagnosing a no start condition on a M-18.

 

The gaggle there was about to pull the engine (The M-18 power plant can roll out on rails, but it's still a fucking shitshow, in the Arizona desert) when I showed up and said "Hold the fuck on, lets make sure it has spark, fuel, etc before fucking around with pulling engines".. Yes it had spark. Yes it had fuel, in one tank.. And you could hear the boost pump work.

 

SO I had a guy sit and listen at each fuel filler, as I blew into the line from the mechanical pump (the boosters are centrifugal). The guy at the full tank heard nothing. The guy at the empty tank "heard waves".  (he was like 12).

 

"Your fuel selector is not working"  I said.

 

But the switch works (It's on the firewall under the turret) I was told.

 

"No, the lever is working. (I hopped on the deck and looked down one of the air cooling grates and saw "Well, your linkage has popped off the selector. Hang on."

One  5/8" socket, innumerable bolts, lots of hanging inverted while my beer baby tried to smother me, and a bit of .040" safety wire later, and the boost pump was delivering fuel to the engine, and the beastie ran.

 

From then on (til 2015) I was the "defacto/default" driver and/or crew chief on that thing (and approved RKI and things big and tanky).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just dont ask about the first "gathering of eagles" in Arizona, where I lost  all composure and was fawning over a proper BoB  Hurri, and a Mk II Spit.  To where I offered to escort them home, in exchange for  10.000 rounds of  .303" De Wilde  and 5000 rounds of Mk VI explosive Manstopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abrams Driver then Gunner* 

 

Anyway once after we returned from Kuwait and not to long after we gotten our tanks back from the boat/train we had to loan out some of ours to another unit conducting training. So after like a week of so the guys return the tank claiming the turret was traversing on its own with zero human input whatsoever. So one day the mechanics tell us to go ahead and startup this particular tank and move it forward (so the turret can be freely moved without hitting other parked tanks). They specifically told us not to worry about the turret because its hydraulic line had been completely disconnected and that there was no way it could move unless manually.

 

I hop in and startup and I swear that thing made the freakiest engine startup noises I'd ever heard. Sure enough a couple of moments later with my head out cause I was open hatch in the seat the freakin turret starts traversing on its own! Needless to say I immediately ducked my head and dropped the seat and did an emergency shut off of the engine. Even if I hadn't have ducked I would have been fine since it was parked with 2 tanks on either side and once the gun tube hit the adjacent tanks bore evacuator it stopped it in its tracks anyway. No one got hurt but the tank next to it had to get a replacement bore evacuator though lol......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my not-so-interesting story. In the past, I visited a place frequently where you can drive different kind of demilitarised AFVs. My first tank drive became quite a... shocking experience :) Well, after a short training, I began to drive along the course. (VT-55 ARV) All went well, I began to feel the vehicle, I was quite confident. Then came a quite large puddle. The instuctor told me in the TPU to slow down. I shifted back to second gear, but kept the engine rpm at moderate levels. What a mistake it was! As I entered the puddle, it quickly became obvious that it is far deeper than I thought. A second later I guess I got more than 50 liters of stinky, cold water in my face. And since it was a hot summer, the cold water had a quite shocking effect on me, needless to say, a very, very unpleasant experience. For a few seconds, I didnt even know where I was. The instuctor just laughed, after all, he warned me to slow down :) 

The next time I approached such puddles, I strictly slowed down to idle rpm, and even applied some brake. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Well, my not-so-interesting story. In the past, I visited a place frequently where you can drive different kind of demilitarised AFVs. My first tank drive became quite a... shocking experience :) Well, after a short training, I began to drive along the course. (VT-55 ARV) All went well, I began to feel the vehicle, I was quite confident. Then came a quite large puddle. The instuctor told me in the TPU to slow down. I shifted back to second gear, but kept the engine rpm at moderate levels. What a mistake it was! As I entered the puddle, it quickly became obvious that it is far deeper than I thought. A second later I guess I got more than 50 liters of stinky, cold water in my face. And since it was a hot summer, the cold water had a quite shocking effect on me, needless to say, a very, very unpleasant experience. For a few seconds, I didnt even know where I was. The instuctor just laughed, after all, he warned me to slow down :) 

The next time I approached such puddles, I strictly slowed down to idle rpm, and even applied some brake. 

 

 

 

Next tile, the trick is to "hatch down,  and hope the seal holds".

(It will, if I worked on it that is. ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 4:04 PM, Meplat said:

Next tile, the trick is to "hatch down,  and hope the seal holds".

 (It will, if I worked on it that is. ).

 

Another time when I was driving an M60A3 in the LTA (Local Training Area), I was the 2nd tank in the column as we approached a rather large mud puddle. More like a mud pit. My buddy Ray was driving the lead tank, the platoon leader's. He comes up to the hole and drives right in, not slowing down much. SPLASH! SPLAT!  The mud flew up and splattered the TC, the 2LT wasn't happy, but Ray was drenched in mud as he was driving with the hatch open. Just as they cleared the pit, I rolled up, fortunately I had slowed down as to not run into them and the mud only flowed up to, but not into, the driver's hatch. I didn't get a mud bath, but Ray did. He was covered in mud, dripping all over the place, I saw him reach into the driver's hatch and pull out his camera case, covered in mud. Luckily it was well sealed and the camera was fine. It took Ray a couple of days to clean out the interior of his tank when we got back to the motor pool. 

 

So always slow down before driving into a mud puddle if you have your hatch open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite memories when it comes to working on and driving my Daimler Ferret was the time I took it to an off-road park. It was very entertaining to watch the ATV and jeep guys look completely shocked when an armored car was going through mud that they were afraid to drive into. I very much have a love hate relationship with British wheeled armor. At this point in time I have one running Ferret, one that is awaiting restoration, and a Saracen that is also awaiting further restoration. The reason for my love hate relationship with them is that while they are a ton of fun to drive, maintaining them can be difficult at times, especially if you have to deal with an electrical issue. Despite the many, many, ups and downs I've had with working on British armor, it's always rewarding when you fire up the engine and take them for a drive, be it off-road or on a run into town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 10:49 PM, AssaultPlazma said:

Abrams Driver then Gunner* 

 

Anyway once after we returned from Kuwait and not to long after we gotten our tanks back from the boat/train we had to loan out some of ours to another unit conducting training. So after like a week of so the guys return the tank claiming the turret was traversing on its own with zero human input whatsoever. So one day the mechanics tell us to go ahead and startup this particular tank and move it forward (so the turret can be freely moved without hitting other parked tanks). They specifically told us not to worry about the turret because its hydraulic line had been completely disconnected and that there was no way it could move unless manually.

 

I hop in and startup and I swear that thing made the freakiest engine startup noises I'd ever heard. Sure enough a couple of moments later with my head out cause I was open hatch in the seat the freakin turret starts traversing on its own! Needless to say I immediately ducked my head and dropped the seat and did an emergency shut off of the engine. Even if I hadn't have ducked I would have been fine since it was parked with 2 tanks on either side and once the gun tube hit the adjacent tanks bore evacuator it stopped it in its tracks anyway. No one got hurt but the tank next to it had to get a replacement bore evacuator though lol......

 

I stand corrected.

So what exactly causes the turret to swing around on its own like that?  That sounds... bad.

Share this post


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

 

I stand corrected.

So what exactly causes the turret to swing around on its own like that?  That sounds... bad.

 

 

No idea never asked the mechanics after the fact what they did to fix it. 

Share this post


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

So what exactly causes the turret to swing around on its own like that?  That sounds... bad.

The turret on the Abrams is hydraulically powered and the hydraulic unit is powered by a power take off from the powerpack, IIRC. a jammed valve would mean the turret moves whenever there is pressure in the system. Fun times for the entire family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for another tank story:

 

This time it is the early '90s, I'm a TC on an M1A1 in the Oregon National Guard, G Trp 82nd Cav. Annual training at Gowen Field, Orchards Training Center, outside of Boise ID. This didn't happen to me, but I witnessed the event. We were down range on the night portion of TT VIII. My buddy Duncan was the gunner on the Platoon Sergeant's tank. This happened during Duncan's run. It was what we called the "Widow Maker": on the move, NBC environment, two targets, a BMP & then a troop target.

 

During this engagement, Duncan's TC gives the fire command "Gunner, HEAT, PC!", the rest of the crew & Duncan react appropriately and service the target. The TC calls cease fire on the PC & gives the fire command of "Gunner, Coax, Troops!", but the loader had already loaded a new round in the main gun and had placed the main gun safety to fire. Not normally a big deal if the gunner had switched from main gun to coax, but on the M1A1 there was a switch for each of the main gun and coax, so it was possible to fire both at the same time if both were set to fire and the loader's safety was set to fire.

 

This time at Gowen Field, on the main tank range for TT VIII, the observation tower for that range, they had a TTS thermal sight from an M60A3 rigged up in the tower with a video camera to record it for the evaluation NCO to use during night gunnery, so there was a recording of what happened.

 

Duncan lays on the troop target, gets a range and fires. "On the Way!', BOOOM rattatttattaat! goes the main gun and coax, "Shit!" goes Duncan. 

 

Later in the tower, I was there when the evaluator goes over that engagement with Duncan's crew., along with the video from the tower. You could clearly see the troop target as it rises on the range, hear the fire commands given by Duncan's TC and watch as a 120mm training heat round hits the left most troop target. The troop target just disappears, flies right off the target array, and then you can see the tracers from the coax strike around the troop target as it lowers back down. 

 

The evaluator commented that while that they hit the target & it was suppressed, they engaged with the wrong weapon system, - 30 points. They were impressed that he hit the target. Later someone went down range and retrieved that target, it had a 120mm hole in it at about the level of the heart, nice shot. They later hung it up in the tower briefing room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I forgot about this.

 

I have a whole bunch of stories from the time my dad was in the army, for a reunion they made a little book with all sorts of stories from their time as hussars. I'll try to make a nice story from a bunch of them.

 

Over there in the Netherlands we don't have those massive training areas like they have in the US or Germany, we have to make do with smaller ranges or have areas where we can't fire weapons. The only area where tanks can fire their guns is on a range called "Vliehors", which is on one of our islands. Every once in a while they go there for training, and of course, there has to be a first time for everything. Now, back in those days (1966-67) we had conscription, and conscripts were just assigned a role and had to make do. This did not always turn out well.

 

So, the newly conscripted tankers arrive at the Vliehors for their first life fire shots. They line their Centurions up at the firing range, the commanders give their orders and the Cents point their barrels straight at and old tank used as a target.

 

Except one.

 

When the signal is given, all tanks fire, including the one aiming up. And of course he immediately gets the nicely asked question of "WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING YOU FUCKING MORONS!?".

 

Turns out the gunner heard "Target, brisance, 1800 meters" instead of "Target, armour, 1800 meters", so he aimed like he had an HE shell loaded (and seeing how it's written, he aimed poorly too). So basically he fired an AP shell at angles only used for long range artillery support. They never really figured out where that AP shell went. Probably somewhere in the sea.

 

And that's why we don't have more firing ranges! And it's also why that gunner immediately was a loader after that.

 

 

Anyway, during a later training...

 

My dad, as a fresh Hussar got the task of cleaning the gun of another Centurion. Of course, you can't have a live firing session with a dirty gun, now can you?

He 'happily' went on cleaning the gun, replacing oils, whatever you need to do to clean a tank gun. When he was done the tank was sent on his merry way to the firing range.

Seconds after firing a voice thundered over the range "HUSSAR BRONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!". To which my dad replied "Sir, I'll immediately get the end-caps of the recoil cylinders and get to cleaning, sir!".

 

I guess you can imagine how the inside of a tank looks when you forget to put the caps back on the recoil system of a tank gun, and fire it.

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 N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


×
×
  • Create New...