Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

@SH_MM

 

maybe you could help with this ?

 

kl. Stzpfr. ca. 120 Grad
gr. Stzpfr. 360 Grad
o.W. Randtreffer.

Sprungsicher

DmA 8mm (Durchschuss mit Ausbruch i think)

 

penetration test of 20mm DM43, what does all these therm means ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the first two abbreviations are supposed to mean, I cannot figure it out without context.

 

"o.W Randtreffer" means "ohne Wirkung, Randtreffer", i.e. no effect (no penetration/spall) due to hitting the edge (of a steel plate?).

"Sprungsicher" means "safe of cracks", i.e. the steel plate won't form cracks (one translation for Sprung is crack or fissure).

I agree with your interpretation regarding "DMA", it seems to mean "Durchschuss mit Ausbruch", i.e. "penetration with spall".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMP-1(plates cuted from BMP-1)

 

6.7mm Oberes Bugblech
Si-Mn-Vergutungsstahl
Elektrostahl
495 HB 30

 


7.62x51 30m
G3 FS , 7.62x51 SS(SS70 ? or what type of bullet?) Drall 200mm

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 90
V(m/sek) 803.1-814.1

Schuss-Nr 1-10 - BoR Sicher bei 90.0 Grad


7.62x51 30m
G3 FS , 7.62x51 SmK Drall 200mm

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 60,56,58
V(m/sek) 804.9-817.1

Schuss-Nr 11-25

11-12 - 60 grad - gl D
13-15 - 56 grad - BoR
16-25-  58 grad - BoR(19 - BmRoL) Sicher bei 58.0 Grad

 

 

 

18.8 mm Unteres Bugblech
Si-Mn-Vergutungsstahl
Elektrostahl
488 HB 30

 

 

20mmx139 100m

HS 820 , DM-13

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 90, 36,32,30,28,26

V(m/sek) 991.1-1000.8

Schuss-Nr 1-9

1-  90 grad - gl D

2- 36 grad - gl D

3 - 32 grard - gl D

4 - 30 grard - gr.Stzpfr.360 grad

5 - 28 grad - gl D

6-9 - 26 grad - l BoR ( 8 - o.W Doppeltreffer mit Nr 6) Sicher bei 26.0 Grad, Sprungsicher

 

HS 820 , DM-43

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 18,20,22,24,26

V(m/sek) 1099.2.1-1106.2

Schuss-Nr 10-17

10-  18 grad - o.M

11-  20 grad - o.M

12 - 22 grad - l BoR

13 - 24 grad - kl.Stzpfr.120 grad

14 - 26 grad - o.W Randtreffer

15 - 26 grad -- gl D

16 - 24 grad - kl.Stzpfr.120 grad

17 - 24 grad -  gr.Stzpfr.360 grad  Sicher bei 22.0 Grad, Sprungsicher

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"SmK" is Spitzgeschoss mit Kern (literally "pointy projectile with core"), i.e. a bullet with hardened steel core for enhanced performance against armor/body armor.

"SS" is scharfes Spitzgeschoss, i.e. a conventional lead/ball bullet. The term is more commonly used for WW2 ammo, but the same applies for "SmK".

"Stzpfr." should be Stanzpropfen (plug formed by projectile impact, i.e. a form of spall).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   "Marker" combat robotic platform, designed for full-scale development of technologies and basic elements of promising ground-based robots. The platform is able to automatically lay the route and move autonomously in urban areas and on rough terrain. The platform can be equipped with a unified payload module for different types of weapons and a module for cluster launch of drones. The developer of the platform is NPO Android Technika (Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk Region).

Photo: Ivan Suraev.

1XV8P6r.jpg

 

Spoiler

c4TVdCX.jpg

 

QUohHbQ.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Buggy "Chaborz" M-3 and BTR-80 of the servicemen of the TsSN of the FSVNG of Russia.

Russian troops in the province of Deraa (at one of the eleven permanent demarcation posts near the Golan Heights) arranged a tour for Syrian children.

AHSeXFc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Video (in Russian) showing Object 282 rocket-armed tank based on T-10M chassis and armed with new ATGM Salamandra. Lead designers - Kotin, Leningrad Kirov design bureau.

 

   Salamandra ATGM was 1.5 m long missile with 170 mm caliber HEAT warhead with ~500mm penetration. Missile was radio-command SACLOS using optical and radar sights (on the video Drakon ATGM was shown in action). Max range - 3km day, 1 km at night.

   282 was very well armored, using significantly re-made chassis of T-10M. Pike nose was deleted, 150 mm UFP at 64degrees was placed. Behind frontal armor a fuel tank was placed, behind which - 30 mm armored plate. Side armor - 60 mm at different angles (shown on the video at 3:20). Upper part of side armor was 150 mm (!). Bottom of the hull was made using spaced plates with 50 mm gap between them for additional anti-mine protection.

   1000 HP engine, 44 tons, 500 km range. Vehicle probably carried 16 missiles, 8 of which were loaded automatically, other 8 - unknown.

   Commander was also a gunner, located in small "turret". Salamandra ATGM was unfinished, so tank was tested with unguided rockets TRS-132 (as "Object 282T"). Vehicle had 2 launchers, with new guidance system "Topol" it was planned to be capable firing at 2 targets in the same time.

 

    Object 282K was armed with 2 launchers for TRS-132, with additional new ATGM launcher in the rear (on the video - 11:45) for testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Interesting info was found on otvaga about BMP-2 with Berezhok turret

OuHFw.jpg

   Around 54 BMP-2 with Berezhok turrets are going to be produced until September of 2020. Also that vehicle is designated as B-22 in documents. And about designations:

Quote

B-14 - "Kurganets" with the "Kinzhal" turret
B-15 - "Kurganets" with the "Epokha" turret
B-16 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with the "Kinzhal" turret
B-17 - BMP on the BMP-3 chassis with the "Kinzhal" turret
B-18 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with the "Epokha" turret
B-19 - BMP on the BMP-3 chassis with the "Epokha" turret
B-22 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with the "Berezhok"
B-23 - BMP on the BMD-2 chassis with the "Berezhok"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catherine-FC_thermal_imaging_camera_Inno

Can somebody translate? Google suggest this means (among others) 625 lines at 50 hertz... so the T-90's thermal imager is better than Raytheon's second generation FLIR for the M1A2 SEP or is the translation incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Spoiler

Catherine-FC_thermal_imaging_camera_Inno

 

Can somebody translate? Google suggest this means (among others) 625 lines at 50 hertz... so the T-90's thermal imager is better than Raytheon's second generation FLIR for the M1A2 SEP or is the translation incorrect?

   Видеовыход is "video output", not directly related to thermal imager matrix capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Видеовыход is "video output", not directly related to thermal imager matrix capabilities.

 

Thank you. A bit further research shows that Catherine-FC makes use of the Pluton LW SOFARDIR 288 x 4 IRCCD array, which as far as I understand is a result of the Franco-German cooperation for the TRIGAT program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Zvezda footage of Kungas family of robots. Can be controlled from single command vehicle from same control panel.

6yTTFM7.png

 

Spoiler

fC8bC5N.png

 

4IJZ2Pz.png

   Looks like Nerekhta UGV

 

G3qyhot.png

   Oh yeah, it is Nerekhta. 2.5t, HMG+AGS in 360 rotatable turret.

 

1GgPFxs.png

   UGV on BTR MDM Rakushka chassis. UGV weight is 17t, optionally manned

 

jKzWcMo.png

   That small UGV is called "Nosimiy" ("Wearable" or "Carryable")

 

LCC58QJ.png

  Looks like AGS mount (probably guts were removed for safety).

 

mcxNtRI.png

   "Vozimiy" ("Transportable", yes, this is a name of that thing). 2 tons, HMG+AG-30. 300 rounds for HMG and 90 grenades for AG-30

 

JpprWbb.png

   First in that line is "Legkiy" ("lightweight" or "easy"). Can have arm or combat module, 200 kg.

 

mrRYWY7.png

 

sVSWJpu.png

 

   Command vehicle (for ground forces, VDV have CV on BTR MDM chassis with minor differences from usual BTR MDM)

WeLRHAg.png

 

   B-22 aka BMP-2 with Berezhok turret.

EaJ2Yk9.png

 

Spoiler

MV7AbaF.png

 

   Atlet MRAP

8E3tL1A.png

 

   Tube is used to create a shockwave

feTgOsr.png

 

Spoiler

vABUCwh.png

   BMD blown away by a shockwave from nuclear explosion

 

vdj2ehi.png

   Rig for electromagnetic testing. Made out of wood, heh.

 

 

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...