Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I keep hearing talk of this 105mm smoothbore (and the British 110mm smoothbore), but I have never seen anything on these weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord_James said:

I keep hearing talk of this 105mm smoothbore (and the British 110mm smoothbore), but I have never seen anything on these weapons. 

 

 

Off the top of my head:

105mm Smoothbore was a German weapon.  I think it's this one on the Keiler prototype:
DsXfbDy.jpg

 

There was a later Rheinmetall 105mm that was rifled, essentially a roided-up L7 that fired stub-cased APFSDS and maintained backwards-compatibility with existing stocks of L7 ammo.  That strikes me as a decent idea.

 

The Brit 110mm was a rifled weapon and it was, by circuitous path, a halfway point between the L7 and L30.  Yes, you read that correctly.  There is a round of the ammunition on display in Bovington.

 

The 110mm was a post-L11 design.  The idea was, initially, to simply take an L7 and neck it out, just as the L7 was a necked-out 20 pounder.  The pressures were cranked up a bit, but this caused case sticking.  The gun was changed to a stub-cased design, and ultimately to a bagged case design similar to the L11, but with a new (and much better) breech sealing design.  Some iteration of the 110mm was tested as armament for the Abrams, but rejected.  The breech design was eventually recycled and used in the L30 120mm gun on the Chally 2.

 

There's a little bit about it in this book, but otherwise what I've been able to learn about it is from scattered discussions around the interwebs.

Share this post


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

 

Off the top of my head:

105mm Smoothbore was a German weapon.  I think it's this one on the Keiler prototype:
DsXfbDy.jpg

 

There was a later Rheinmetall 105mm that was rifled, essentially a roided-up L7 that fired stub-cased APFSDS and maintained backwards-compatibility with existing stocks of L7 ammo.  That strikes me as a decent idea.

 

The Brit 110mm was a rifled weapon and it was, by circuitous path, a halfway point between the L7 and L30.  Yes, you read that correctly.  There is a round of the ammunition on display in Bovington.

 

The 110mm was a post-L11 design.  The idea was, initially, to simply take an L7 and neck it out, just as the L7 was a necked-out 20 pounder.  The pressures were cranked up a bit, but this caused case sticking.  The gun was changed to a stub-cased design, and ultimately to a bagged case design similar to the L11, but with a new (and much better) breech sealing design.  Some iteration of the 110mm was tested as armament for the Abrams, but rejected.  The breech design was eventually recycled and used in the L30 120mm gun on the Chally 2.

 

There's a little bit about it in this book, but otherwise what I've been able to learn about it is from scattered discussions around the interwebs.

 

Thank you - I always value when you explain something, as it’s usually descriptive, yet understandable to my feeble mind :D 

 

 

For the German 105 smooth: I knew it was mounted on the Leo 2K and other prototypes before the actual Leo 2, but any specifics were always missing, or conjecture. I didn’t know about the “roided up L7” though; does sound like a good idea, though it is still rifled. 

 

 

I may have misread about the Brit 110, I remembered it as a rebore’d L7 to remove the rifling so it could fire better ammo, while still fitting in current L7 armed vehicles. I guess I should have known that was too good an idea for the post WWII British MoD; not the worst idea those wistful crones have forced upon their army, but still disappointing. 

 

 

Anyway, thank you again, Colli, and let’s get back to Soviet tanks and their transversely mounted engines! 

Share this post


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

   US troops driving Uzbekistan's T-64BV

P8swpkU.jpg

 

  Hide contents

wNN25eB.jpg

 

 

 

Those are actually US Army ROTC cadets...college students training to be officers when they graduate from their universities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first part of T-62 trials, 20mm DM43 

 

 


Bk-0ni3uidc.jpg

_Kbgbh2r3Bw.jpg

ZK0jDwjFz0I.jpg

zqMMbG7YwT0.jpg

Nkyq_Ge14r0.jpg

alFLcDJgzk4.jpg

iOSeef5GiJ8.jpg

RMBctZikAGk.jpg

azA64rlFf4g.jpg

5hbNyxaijNc.jpg

lcaSJySxWrg.jpg

JxuplqNyf20.jpg

tpCBTWtWJhM.jpg

5V8wUh6-sz4.jpg

GZJarxHC9RI.jpg

y25obDABXpA.jpg

8qGzQ0sJfZI.jpg

uVwRlRHHfZ8.jpg

cHwmtZY4G8w.jpg
 

 

maybe german speaking members could help with term "Sicherheitskurve" ? it's protective thickness curve(min.required thickness to protect from specified type of ammo, speed and angle) or penetration of round curve ? and "sicher/nicht sicher" is really safe/not safe ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Restoring some pics after forum rollback

Quote

Camouflage ISU-122 of the 59th Separate Tank Regiment of the 9th Mechanized Corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army, Western Ukraine, 44

sc958Jq.jpg

 

Spoiler

dc657Ut.jpg

 

K166itI.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   KamAZ-63969 doors look a bit strange. They look not exactly well thought out in case if somebody will climb this ladder-door in really dirty boots, after closing all this crap will get inside of driver position.

   Source

JrywvBT.jpg

 

Spoiler

EYc2Df9.jpg

 

Share this post


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

They look not exactly well thought out in case if somebody will climb this ladder-door in really dirty boots, after closing all this crap will get inside of driver position.

Shouldn't then all ramps in AFVs have that problem?

Share this post


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

Shouldn't then all ramps in AFVs have that problem?

   They do to a degree, but it is far low in the list of problems of AFVs so nobody cares, i guess. It is just strange for me to see ladder on inside part of a door where there is clearly a space for external ladder that can offer "cleaner" enviroment for a driver.

 

1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

Doesn't look too bad, most MBT's need the driver to stand on the seat as he enters after all.

   Before than drivers do several steps on other parts of a tank, leaving some of their dirt before getting to their working space, unlike this door-ladder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Im not sure if it is the right place to put this.

A dutch guy bought an iraqi Type-69 tank (actually a pile of rust), and decided to restore it with the help of his friends. Despite not professional tank restorers, they do an amazing job, actually better than some more famous museums around the world. They took it apart completely, and restore it piece by piece. They have lots of videos, these are just some examples. Maybe we should have a thread for tank restorations (of course not only this) if there is interest?

 

The original sad state of the tank (I think the guys saved it from the arc furnace in the last minute. It is so badly rusted)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI32WUfkqtg

And now:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 10:14 AM, Wiedzmin said:

first part of T-62 trials, 20mm DM43 

  Hide contents

 


Bk-0ni3uidc.jpg

_Kbgbh2r3Bw.jpg

ZK0jDwjFz0I.jpg

zqMMbG7YwT0.jpg

Nkyq_Ge14r0.jpg

alFLcDJgzk4.jpg

iOSeef5GiJ8.jpg

RMBctZikAGk.jpg

azA64rlFf4g.jpg

5hbNyxaijNc.jpg

lcaSJySxWrg.jpg

JxuplqNyf20.jpg

tpCBTWtWJhM.jpg

5V8wUh6-sz4.jpg

GZJarxHC9RI.jpg

y25obDABXpA.jpg

8qGzQ0sJfZI.jpg

uVwRlRHHfZ8.jpg

cHwmtZY4G8w.jpg
 

 

maybe german speaking members could help with term "Sicherheitskurve" ? it's protective thickness curve(min.required thickness to protect from specified type of ammo, speed and angle) or penetration of round curve ? and "sicher/nicht sicher" is really safe/not safe ? 

Sicherheitskurve means that above the curve you will get complete perforation, on the curve it may be partial perforation and below you will have no perforation.

 

Share this post


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

Sicherheitskurve means that above the curve you will get complete perforation, on the curve it may be partial perforation and below you will have no perforation.

 

@Wiedzmin BTW from whom did you got this old stuff of 1975? It was classified secret and filed by BWB KG III 4 (protection referate).

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 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 
          
×
×
  • Create New...