Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 2/7/2019 at 3:37 AM, Karamazov said:

Russian armored vehicles and tanks with installed laser training system
 

Z3nZebla1E4.jpg

  Reveal hidden contents

DIgZTph28Hc.jpgIh2BbdZLSpc.jpghoeWkyCvgpA.jpg

 

 

   Soviet LISP

Quote

T-55 with LISP, incomplete on the photo (Laser Simulator of Shooting and Hit). 181th tank regiment, Yavorov.
Probably "Shield 76"

1775616_original.jpg

 

Spoiler

1776243_original.jpg

 

1776734_original.jpg

 

Modern: http://rusbitech.ru/products/tks/lisp/

links stolen from Andrey's LJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need a petition to Kubinka for restore it to running condition... TiV journal showed some interior photos, and its still in quite good condition. It wouldnt be that hard to make it a runner again.

Best looking soviet heavy tank ever!

Share this post


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

T-90M footage

 

Actually impressed for a change.

The commander's station definitely looks quite comfortable even by western standards, and I'm a long time proponent of high prioritization of ergonomics as a cheap way to increase crew efficiency.

 

The turret also looks different, but it may be just the paint scheme.

 

Leaves plenty to be desired, but I still like it a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive upgrade. Finally something that is indeed modern. Stupid T-72B3 upgrades should be stopped immediately, and more T-90M should be built from the saved money. Fewer modern tanks are far better than shitloads of totally obsolete trash. T-72B3s then could be wasted on tank biathlon en masse.

I even go as far that Armata should be also abandoned in favor of the T-90M. Add an APS to the T-90, then the Armata will have zero advantages over it. In fact, it will be inferior thanks to its huge unarmored turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Massive upgrade. Finally something that is indeed modern. Stupid T-72B3 upgrades should be stopped immediately, and more T-90M should be built from the saved money. Fewer modern tanks are far better than shitloads of totally obsolete trash. T-72B3s then could be wasted on tank biathlon en masse.

I even go as far that Armata should be also abandoned in favor of the T-90M. Add an APS to the T-90, then the Armata will have zero advantages over it. In fact, it will be inferior thanks to its huge unarmored turret.

   This crap could be sorted out in 1990s with adoption of finished Object 187 as T-90 and if MoD aimed to get less but better tanks. This T-90M upgrade will unlikely to be adopted in such numbers as B3s, simply because they can't put big numbers of "modern" weapons adopted for service in X year.

Share this post


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

/.../

The turret also looks different, but it may be just the paint scheme.

/.../

   Turret is different from T-90A (and not only by bustle box). It have a "step" on a roof to increase space inside (hello, additional weakspot).

 

   Can be sort of visible here, covered by upper row of ERA blocks
analiz_tanka_T90MS_13.jpg

 

Spoiler

t-90ms-1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

I even go as far that Armata should be also abandoned in favor of the T-90M. Add an APS to the T-90, then the Armata will have zero advantages over it. In fact, it will be inferior thanks to its huge unarmored turret.

Well, not exactly zero, obviously, considering that t90m still has upper frontal plate, position of driver, and engine/transmission  quite similar to t72, or t64 (and all that thanks to Kharkov attempt to fulfill request of fitting than-next-generation tank into 36 metric tons).

I guess it's still smth like 96 man-hours to remove or change engine, isn't it?

Share this post


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

Well, not exactly zero, obviously, considering that t90m still has upper frontal plate, position of driver, and engine/transmission  quite similar to t72, or t64 (and all that thanks to Kharkov attempt to fulfill request of fitting than-next-generation tank into 36 metric tons).

I guess it's still smth like 96 man-hours to remove or change engine, isn't it?

I think the weakspot in front of the driver isnt that big deal. On the other hand, the difficulty of engine change is indeed a problem. I wonder what engine the T-90M uses... Looks like there are troubles with the V92S2F in the latest T-72B3... http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/02/723.html

Share this post


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

I think the weakspot in front of the driver isnt that big deal

Still, dissatisfaction was there, and all the way back it 1964 (prototype was built 2 years later) Chelyabinsk proposed (second version of) object 775 without such weakspot. Although they achieved that partly because driver was not in hull.
first and second version of 775:
vw5TzXx.jpg

But in 1975 they came up with Object 785 which reportedly lacked that weakspot too, and this time driver was in hull
(in a reclining position -  someting that apparently was tested all the way back in 1962-1964 on modified t-54s and pt-76;
nLIqsDX.jpg
wjM0Rft.jpg
something that was proposed on first version of 775; and something that finally could make its way into Russian Army with Armata only now, decades later... along with steering wheel.
Which is another thing (lack of thing) they were not satisfied with for decades, all the way since T-54s and T-10s in 1950s,  which is why Object 770 has it's motorcycle-type steering wheel:
EcOBHdK.jpg)

 


And then over the last 45 years there were at least 7 more projects without that UFP weakspot, with T-14 been like 8th one.

 

Share this post


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

Which is another thing (lack of thing) they were not satisfied with for decades, all the way since T-54s and T-10s in 1950s,  which is why Object 770 has it's motorcycle-type steering wheel:

 

Now this is what I absolutely do not understand... Why "steering wheel" or T-bar or anything like that necessary? Steering a tracked vehicle with levers is just as easy. I know from experience: steering a T-55 or MTLB is not harder than a BMP-1. Not more uncomfortable in any way. Maybe its just that Im a heavy equipment operator, and Im used to it. This steering method is still used in industry too, like the larger CAT dozers, although you use your fingers in those. Or the skid steer loaders. H-pattern control, quite similar. (actually, I like it more than ISO or T-bar)

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 LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Something I haven't seen discussed on this site before; Soviet/Russian efforts to domesticate foxes by breeding for domesticated behavior. Article in Scientific American here; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
       
      Interesting that there were physical changes correlated with the behavioral changes the Russians bred for.

       
      Buy one for only $7,000! https://domesticatedsilverfox.weebly.com/aquiring-a-tame-fox.html
       

      (not entirely unlike a dog I guess)
       
       
      It seems like a pretty cool idea to drunk me, though I don't have a spare 7,000 dollars laying around (thanks student loans!). Also, I don't think my cat would approve.
       
×
×
  • Create New...