Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I like that way of arranging ERA, you get the most protection (i.e. airgap) where you're hit the most.

It is true until enemy have some elevation or projectile approach tank at angle.  :D  

BTW, frontal armor "pockets" are quick-replaceable units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On those statistics about hits to the turret on T-72s during the Gulf War; weren't a bunch of the Iraqi T-72s dug into defensive positions with just the turrets showing?  I wonder if that threw off the numbers by some amount.

      Yes, it did. Although designers does not use this information without understanding reasons why stats are such. According to "certain comrade", each vehicle have different "danger zone", i.e. different point, where enemy will aim (gunners usually are trying to aim at center of visible mass), different mathematical expectation of where majority of hits would be, their spreading according to range and environment, etc.

 

warh.gif

 

icnTI.jpg

 

      I was thinking - Russia could upgrade Syrian T-72s with Burlak, lol. It would be relatively cheap, IMO. Bustle autoloader, RCWS and APS would certainly help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, from combat footage in Syria, thermal optics would make the biggest difference.  Those ATGM anti-tank kill teams would be just be picked off from long range if they were highlighted in white in the commander's optics.  Just turn the coax or RCWS to bear on them and mow them down.

 

T92.jpg

 

Cleft turrets are an interesting idea.  Most of the advantages of oscillating turrets, but few of the disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those pictures should be posted here from other threads.

 

Ukrainian FMBT - a T-64-Yatagan/Leclerc-Merkava combination/abomination.

 

156267_original.jpg

 

Unmanned turret with turret bustle autoloader (Leclerc/Yatagan-like), frontal engine and transmission, crew of 3 (driver in the front, others are little bit behind him somewhere under turret or near), side fuel tanks, rear door (sounds like Merkava, lol).  

 

157387_original.jpg

 

Soviet paper future tank layout from 1980s.

image002.jpg

 

Crew of 2 in the rear section of vehicle, middle-mounted 2 engines, autoloader between crew compartment and engines, near rear part of hull.

 

zGAgzLa.jpg

 

929Go1F.jpg

 

 

Object 477A picture (don't know if it is accurate).

EH3aI7tahIQ.jpg

 

WBDVShZTaeU.jpg

 

3 "revolver" autoloaders, isolated from crew, AFAIK. Turret is unmanned according to picture, although IIRC several different turrets were planed to be tested/prototyped.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more pictures about tank layouts.

 

Object 299, Gun, gun mount and autoloader are located in the rear, engine in the front with not very good armor, crew compartment in the middle, between weapon and engine compartment.

vSxC1.jpg

     Crew is located in the middle, in rather dangerous place in general - where enemies will aim at from any angle - center of mass. But from the front engine and some armor give additional protection to crew capsule. Rear part of crew capsule is also protected by weapon and ammunition system and additional 75 mm capsule rear plate (at least). Engine and ammunition compartments are not very well protected as i understand from this scheme.

     According to this picture this tank can have low survivability as a system, but very high crew survivability (major tank parts are located around crew capsule). Basically designers striped out from armor some parts to increase crew protection, sacrificing with ability of the tank as whole to resist AT fire, but gaining lower human casualties.  

 

 

Object 490A "Rebel"/(Buntar')

Low-profile turret, externally mounted gun. Crew is located usually.

 

87098b154ab0.jpg

 

Turret armor modules and side hull armor are interesting.

GqPORVsbb2I.jpg

sIUc4.jpg

 

IfgZV.jpg

     That vehicle can act pretty well as hull-down. Note how gun and sights are located above turret roof and crew compartment. Rebel is not so unusual as Leningrad's 299, but still have some interesting ideas with turret, weapon mount and observation (TV cameras are visible on turret roof on those photos). Side hull armor together with side mounted modules would be able to provide a formidable protection from sides against RPGs and HEAT warheads.

     Also, 490A continue T-64's "dense layout" - with gun moved out of turret, designers managed to decrease needed internal volume for gun breech to elevate/depress. This mean that overall tank gained more efficient armor layout, i think. At first they kicked out loader and in this case - gun itself.

 

 

I want to see actual Object 477A inside, with 3 autoloader drums. If it survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ob 490 reminds me a bit of the black eagle.  The turret is crewed, but the crew sits at the very bottom.

 

Similar concept to M60A2, but the goofy hull shape of the M60 precludes this from working well, since the turret basket can't be deep enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

143782242665224464.jpg

This is test rig for suspension and engine. Crew is on the left part of the tank (yes, whole crew in on the left side of the tank), while right part is for fuel tanks and autoloader for ~40 rounds. This is a bit unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

datglacis_zps9b0f3675.jpg

 

US training videos from the '70s mention that if you shoot the left side (their right from the front) of the T-62, you stand good odds of killing the driver, gunner and commander.

 

iel6aa.png

That test rig had pretty serious armor. It also seems that they had special rear plate to catch fragments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, early abrams had a small amount of ammo stowed in the hull, not under the blow-out panels in the isolated turret compartment.

 

IIRC, they got rid of this later.

 

You can also see in this how the fuel tanks (yellow) are used to protect the driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, early abrams had a small amount of ammo stowed in the hull, not under the blow-out panels in the isolated turret compartment.

 

IIRC, they got rid of this later.

 

You can also see in this how the fuel tanks (yellow) are used to protect the driver.

 

AFAIK it's still there, and I believe it also has blowout panels. Chieftain didn't use it, he only had a bustle full of M830A1, whereas someone on TN (IIRC DKtanker) did use it during the run into iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     So, unmanned turrets... how future tanks will look like after unmanned turrets? What is your opinion on "future" tanks possible layouts?

     

     As i understand crew will be no less than 2, because driving is hard and commander wrok is even harder for computers. Aiming - not as much as driving. Crew in the turret (again), or in hull with minimalistic turrets are 2 opposite possibilities, but is there anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will tanks look with an unmanned turret? *cough* like T-14 *cough*

In all seriousness, I think the Type-10 represents a lot of future design elements outside of the manned turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

The Abrams, Type-96, K1A1 all seem to be better

 

no way in hell the Type-10 got decent enough armor for battling first world armies with that weight

 

only Russians have unlocked the ultra light weight and ultra effective Stalinium armor  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a lot of different reasons;

- Super advanced FCS system and sighting systems.

- Extremily compact and light weight. This makes it easy to transport, work on etc.

- It is built for a specific ourpose; to work Japanese ridge lines and defense urban areas.

- Modular armor, easily upgraded and adaptable.

- Very mobile.

I don't think this makes it a great tank by default...but it represents a lot of "the tank of the future".

It won't have crazy amounts of armor but I'd put it above the Type-96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Type-10 does not have anything new with its layout. It is pretty usual vehicle in that regard. IIRC Leclerc have modular armor, Merkava (from model 3 AFAIK) have modular armor, even T-72B for some degree had "modular" armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they don't combine much of the other segments. 

 

I'm not saying the Type-10 is revolutionary, just that it represents what is to come of future Western (manned turreted) designs. 

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
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • 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 Sturgeon
      This is the place for flame wars about rifle-caliber MGs versus autocannons for tank coaxial weaponry. First, we have Ensign's blog post about tank machine guns:
       

×
×
  • Create New...