Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

/.../

SU-76M is bad

SU-76M wasnt bad but wasnt good either.

   It wasn't "good" or "bad", it was necessary, as article shows pretty well.

 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, it is true that the SU-76 was a huge improvement over the towed ZIS-3, the importance of added mobility is especially true. But the problem with this vehicle was that it was designed as a light assault gun, so it suffered greatly thanks to its thin armor. Comparing it to the Marder III, and especially the Jadgdpazer 38t doesnt make sense. These are tank destroyers, not assault guns.

   In case of Marder 3, those vehicles are very close to each other in terms of design. SU-79 is light infantry support SPG, which means it can meet tanks and other AFVs as part of umm.. infantry support role, making it both light support gun carrier and tank destroyer. So comparisons are valid.

 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

About ISU-122 existance: myth and reality.

OK, although it is a fact that the ISU-122 was still a stopgap vehicle. The ISU-152 had a long career after WW2, even received two serious modernization packages. The 122 was neglected, didnt receive any modernization, its chassis was rebuilt as ARVs and missile launcher platforms.

   Not so much as "stopgap", but positive sides of this vehicle became much less obvious with end of the war and lack of German cats to destroy. It wasn't just a quickly put together half-assed AFV. I suspect that 122 mm gun serious production bottleneck played its role in decision about future of this SPG.

 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

About IS tanks

IS tanks were built for a breakthrough role. No doubt the 122mm gun was very useful against german tanks, and it played a role in its adopting. But its power against fortifications was also a key factor. Also it looks like the author tries to marginalize the low rate of fire. It was a BIG disadvantage! First shot kills were exceedingly rare in WW2. You needed to fire several shells to destroy an enemy tank, there were lots of causes, wrong range estimation, stress, not perfectly zeroed sights, etc. This applies to any tank of WW2, IS-2 is not an exception. MHV made a good video about this:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpe7qhWu76c  According to original german documents, rate of fire was 6-10 for KwK43. Even in the worst case, its more than double rate of fire compared to IS-2. Massive advantage. 

Then the author compares the ISU-122 to the Jagdpanther. Again, a mistake. Apples to oranges. The ISU-122 was an assault gun, the Jagdpanther a tank destroyer.

 

   He was talking about a myth that IS-2 was purely breakthrough tank that was incapable of fighting other tanks. 122 long barrel mm gun was chosen over any other big caliber howitzers or other short-barreled options because of it's better AT perfomance. 

   ROF of 88 mm gun inside of the tank IIRC was around 4-5 rounds, which is not that much far from 2.5-3 rounds with D-25T.

   ISU-122 is TD, as a gun for it was chosen for being better AT weapon in the first place, compared to 152 mm ML-20. So comparison with Jagdpanther is valid, it is not apples and oranges.

 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Optics

Yes, it is a trend to bash german tanks for their alleged "visibility problems"... "even on Pz.Kpfw.IV, which initially had a lot of viewing devices, by 1944 there was only a commander’s turret was avaliable for viewing of the flanks. Loader became completely blind, and the gunner looked only forward. " Hmmm... Isnt it the case with almost every cold war, or even modern tank?

   What Cold war tanks have to do with Pz4 and German armor in 1943-44? Does lack of visibility from Pz4 suddenly became less of a problem if we start to dig out WW1 tanks?

 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

This is nothing more than propaganda. I could also tell stories when soviet tanks, with "superior visibility" fell victim en masse to german tanks. And this is from 1944, so nobody can play the "poorly trained soviets" card. 

   Ow, yes, lack of visibility from Panther and other late Germans tanks is purely a Pasholokism!

 

Share this post


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

ROF of 88 mm gun inside of the tank IIRC was around 4-5 rounds, which is not that much far from 2.5-3 rounds with D-25T.

   ISU-122 is TD, as a gun for it was chosen for being better AT weapon in the first place, compared to 152 mm ML-20. So comparison with Jagdpanther is valid, it is not apples and oranges.

 

The captured King tiger in that test was shooting at targets around a test field(aimed), are there IS-2,ISU-122,SU-152 in the same kind of environment tested for fire rate(aimed)? The stowed ammunition is important too.

 

20 hours ago, Beer said:

Also the bad situation awareness of the Panther and Königstiger is true and combined with relatively thin side armor, sponsons full of ammo (Panther especially) and very slow turret traverse these tanks were indeed very vulnerable from side attacks. Due to the nature of the late war they however often fought from prepared defence positions where it was not such a big issue. Their offensive record is pretty bad nevertheless (also due to low availability, reliability issues and terrible strategic mobility). 

 

The King tiger tested above, in gear 2 at 2000RPM made a 360 in 20sec(gear 1 in 40sec), gear 2 at 1000RPM in 43sec(gear 1 minute 26 sec), gear 2/1 at 500RPM 1 min 15-20sec.

How other tanks are doing regarding their turret rotation speed?

 

Share this post


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

 

The captured King tiger in that test was shooting at targets around a test field(aimed), are there IS-2,ISU-122,SU-152 in the same kind of environment tested for fire rate(aimed)? The stowed ammunition is important too.

 

 

The King tiger tested above, in gear 2 at 2000RPM made a 360 in 20sec(gear 1 in 40sec), gear 2 at 1000RPM in 43sec(gear 1 minute 26 sec), gear 2/1 at 500RPM 1 min 15-20sec.

How other tanks are doing regarding their turret rotation speed?

 

 

For sure we have bigger experts than me here so take all I write with a truckload of salt :)

 

I read elsewhere that in Panther it was 17-93 seconds depending on the gear and it needed 1000 turns of the manual wheel for 360°rotation (Königstiger 700). In emergency at 3000 rpm it should have been possible to rotate the turret in 10 seconds but 3000 rpm was highly non recommended engine speed for the HL230. Somewhere I remmeber to see also a complaint that the manual traverse was not possible at a list of 5° already. For the Tiger I read 25-60 seconds depending on the gear and 720 rotations of the manual wheel. 

 

However the main issue with the hydraulic traverse was its huge dependancy on the cooperation between the driver and the gunner and a very high demand on the crew training. If the tank was on the move the turret speed was subject to shifting speeds, slow and was never constant. In theory since the gunner had only a straight narrow FoV in combination with this he could hardly keep his eyes the target on the move so when they stopped he had to start searching for it again. 

 

Sherman had electrical turret traverse independent on the engine speed, I believe, capable to rotate the turret at 24 second in any circumstances (plus vertical stabilizer).  

 

I found 22-28 seconds for IS-2 with D-25 with manual traverse possible up to the list of 8,3° and powered traverse up to the list of 15°. For T-34-85 I found 21 seconds, for T-34-76 10 seconds. All with electric traverse motor. 

 

For Pz.IV I found 32 seconds for Ausf. H with electric traverse. Ausführung J had only manual allegedly due to lack of copper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 8:52 AM, Wiedzmin said:

maybe somebody have more info on T-72 trials in Austria ? or more photos?

 

Three T-55AM tanks, three T-72 tanks, two BMP-1s and two unspecified amphibious/ferry vehicles (might be the GSP-55) were purchased from Germany in 1994, taken from former East-German Army stocks. Austrian crews were trained on all vehicles for a few weeks to properly evaluate the capabilities of the vehicles, including armor penetration of the various types of ammunition.

 

After the trials some of the vehicles were used to test their resistance to the Austrian arms. At least two of the T-72s are/were located in an Austrian military museum, the fate of the third is unknown. It might have been damaged too much during the ballistic tests (which included towing the tanks over anti-tank mines). The tank from the photographs has been used to test the effect of the Ulan's 30 mm ammunition according to an Austrian website, but I believe this to be a misinterpretation by the author.

 

As a result of the evaluation of T-55AM and T-72, the already planned upgrade of the M60A1 to the M60A3 was canceled and a program to purchase a new main battle tank was initiated. This ended up being the Leopard 2A4.

 

No idea what the source for the information from "Quadro" of the model train forum is. He must be talking about different tests.

 

On 3/30/2020 at 12:38 PM, Beer said:

That would mean the Bill was rather useless... 

 

PAL 2000 (RBS-56 BILL-1) has no tandem warhead, only a single shaped charge, which is tilted slightly downwards. The shaped charge jet might hit roof-mounted ERA in a near optimal angle, thus it might be possible for a T-72B with Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 ERA to survive a hit by PAL 2000.

 

Q2rnVCj.jpg

Share this post


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

What Cold war tanks have to do with Pz4 and German armor in 1943-44?

Target acquistion wasnt much different in cold war. No panoramic or thermal sights. (except Leo-1) It is primarily the TC who is responsible for target detection. Of course it is nice if the loader has a periscope to look out, but not that important. If it were, why was this periscope dropped from the whole M48/60 family? Gunner side vision slits were dropped even from later ww2 tanks from all sides.

 

German tanks had only one problem with visibility: lack of unity periscope for gunner. And this isnt even a target detection issue, but a target hand off difficulty. Even the french report on the Panther noted the near perfect visibility from the TC's cupola. Additionally, while this cupola was flawed in terms of escaping the tank, it offered an open protected hatch position which enhanced visibility further.

But lets compare the Panther, with lets say, the T-34/85. 

Driver: 2 periscopes forward for T-34/85. One periscope forward, one about 45 degrees to left for Panther.  - slight Panther advantage

Radio operator/bow gunner: small telescope for MG in T-34/85. small telescope for MG, and one periscope to 45 degrees for Panther - clear Panther advantage

Gunner: Primary sight + MK4 periscope for T-34. Primary sight only for Panther - slight T34 advantage for target detection, big advantage for target hand off process

Loader: MK4 periscope for T-34, fixed periscope for Panther - slight T-34 advantage

Commander: cupola with vision slits + MK4 periscope for T-34, cupola with periscopes and hatch with open protected position - clear Panther advantage.

I fail to see how "far superior" the visibility is from T-34, especially because the vision from an MK4 periscope is quite poor. (I checked it personally) The slits in the T-34 cupola are also greatly inferior to periscopes.

 

As for KwK43 rate of fire, another german report says 8rpm

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Beer said:

read elsewhere that in Panther it was 17-93 seconds depending on the gear and it needed 1000 turns of the manual wheel for 360°rotation (Königstiger 700). In emergency at 3000 rpm it should have been possible to rotate the turret in 10 seconds but 3000 rpm was highly non recommended engine speed for the HL230. Somewhere I remmeber to see also a complaint that the manual traverse was not possible at a list of 5° already

15 sec @ 3000rpm, 18 sec @ 2500 for Panther. Traverse became impossible at 20 degrees according to french report. 

Share this post


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

. Of course it is nice if the loader has a periscope to look out, but not that important. If it were, why was this periscope dropped from the whole M48/60 family?

 

There is a mount for a periscope in the loader's hatch of the M60A1/A3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_tank#/media/File:M60qatar.jpg

Share this post


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

15 sec @ 3000rpm, 18 sec @ 2500 for Panther. Traverse became impossible at 20 degrees according to french report. 

 

First is highly non-recommended engine speed, the second is allowed maximum engine speed, i.e. first is very very emergency case which can brake the engine, the second is ideal case. None of that is possible without being stacionary and without perfect cooperation between the crew members, in other words in the real world it was most likely unachievable in most of the situations.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to remember that the D-25 122mm gun was not only very successful in WWII, but it also served well into the Cold War. In fact, the ISU-122 didn't get much attention in the West until it was fitted with a "tank gun" and became the ISU-122S. The ISU-122S fitted with the D-25 (known as the Object 249, SU-249 and JSU-249 while it served with the GSFG in East Germany after the war), got a lot of attention. It was as close to a truly combined assault gun/tank destroyer that had been developed up to that point. Finally, regarding the D-25, fitted to Egyptian IS-3s, it was knocking out Israeli M48s in 1967...using ammo from 1945/1947.

 

HLkdtCz.jpg

 

 

 

 

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After WW2, soviets thought differently. They found the ISU-122 much less useful, and began converting them to ARVs and missile platforms in the 1950s. On the other hand, ISU-152 was modernized twice, and served well into the 1970s. There was no need for ISU-122. The army had plenty of tanks with the D-25 gun.

Share this post


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

After WW2, soviets thought differently. They found the ISU-122 much less useful, and began converting them to ARVs and missile platforms in the 1950s. On the other hand, ISU-152 was modernized twice, and served well into the 1970s. There was no need for ISU-122. The army had plenty of tanks with the D-25 gun.

 

It's true that the ISU-122S didn't stay in service as long as the ISU-152...my point is that it not only served in East Germany after the war, but it also was a key development in bringing a dual-purpose assault gun/tank destroyer to the field. 122mm-armed assault gun companies (more tank destroyer companies really), were an important part of the Soviet Army until the late 1960s or early 1970s.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 11:53 AM, heretic88 said:

German tanks had only one problem with visibility: lack of unity periscope for gunner. And this isnt even a target detection issue, but a target hand off difficulty. Even the french report on the Panther noted the near perfect visibility from the TC's cupola.

 

The gunners sights on Panther(2,5x-5x) and King tigers(3x-6x) had optics with variable magnification, using least magnification had a very wide view angle. This can be also put to the comparison. The Panther gunner also had a two-dial turret position indicator, that may also have helped.

 

Another interesting thing is the "blindspot" from up to down and how other AFV had their way with it, like in the first image with a side view of a Panther.

Spoiler

3ovEBQb.jpg

 

The accuracy myth is one interesting too, soviets captured a random King tiger and tested it, the R100 is a lot tighter.

Spoiler
Quote

The next is accuracy. According to this indicator, the A-19 and D-25T were equal to the German 88-mm gun Pak 43 L/71 and its tank version. Therefore, theories of inaccurate "logs launcher" are just the fruits of the sick imagination of their authors.

 

phyFZSt.jpg

   Distance - 2000m. R50 (half of shots) - 72sm, R100 - 130 sm. "+" is point of aim, central part of the group is 10 sm above and 100sm to the right from point of aim.

   To the question of the accuracy of the D-25T. And such accuracy was achieved during standard warranty tests.

Share this post


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

122mm-armed assault gun companies (more tank destroyer companies really), were an important part of the Soviet Army until the late 1960s or early 1970s.      

I may be wrong, but as far as I know,  ISU-122 was withdrawn in early 60s. Even the more modern SU-122/54 left service in the second half of 60s. For tank destroyer role, the SU-100 was preferred, and retained much longer (early-mid 70s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Pascal said:

The gunners sights on Panther(2,5x-5x) and King tigers(3x-6x) had optics with variable magnification, using least magnification had a very wide view angle. This can be also put to the comparison. The Panther gunner also had a two-dial turret position indicator, that may also have helped.

True, the low magnification had a relatively wide field of view, but still, an unity periscope, like in the Sherman was better.

 

34 minutes ago, Pascal said:

The accuracy myth is one interesting too, soviets captured a random King tiger and tested it, the R100 is a lot tighter.

Soviet testing of the KT was a joke. But aside that, the 122mm guns were indeed very accurate, and the quality of soviet sights was quite good, almost reaching the german level. 

Share this post


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

Soviet testing of the KT was a joke. But aside that, the 122mm guns were indeed very accurate, and the quality of soviet sights was quite good, almost reaching the german level. 

In what sense a joke?

 

The point on accuracy was that it was equal in the original qoute, which it isn't.

Quote

The next is accuracy. According to this indicator, the A-19 and D-25T were equal to the German 88-mm gun Pak 43 L/71 and its tank version. Therefore, theories of inaccurate "logs launcher" are just the fruits of the sick imagination of their authors.

 

Share this post


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

In what sense a joke?

 

The point on accuracy was that it was equal in the original qoute, which it isn't.

 

May i see captured  KT KWK43 dispersion table?

Share this post


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

I may be wrong, but as far as I know,  ISU-122 was withdrawn in early 60s. Even the more modern SU-122/54 left service in the second half of 60s. For tank destroyer role, the SU-100 was preferred, and retained much longer (early-mid 70s).

 

You're making my point for me...the ISU-122S served until the 1960s...the SU-122-54 (my favorite), served until at least 1969/1970. The SU-122-54 was the first truly combined Soviet assault gun/tank destroyer that had clear advantages over any other Soviet assault gun or tank destroyer. It was killed by the anti-gun/pro-missile mafia, not because of any performance issues. It was accepted for mass production and for upgrading to the M62T-2 gun from the T-10M. The numerous SU-100s weren't preferred, there was just a lot of them around and they were cheap...so they survived for (maybe) a few years longer. SU-122-54s actually replaced SU-100s in tank destroyer companies in selected regiments.  

 

 

          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 3:36 PM, Beer said:

 

First is highly non-recommended engine speed, the second is allowed maximum engine speed, i.e. first is very very emergency case which can brake the engine, the second is ideal case. None of that is possible without being stacionary and without perfect cooperation between the crew members, in other words in the real world it was most likely unachievable in most of the situations.  

 

 

 

So i looked in the report on King tiger, regarding the turret, because it had a similar system and there's nothing reported about the system being crew intensive, it's even recommended to use the hydraulic turret system on the move because of it's overall comfort without even including the controlling handles.

 

The whole system is a bit bigger then equivalent hydraulic system specially designed for tanks, the one in King tiger is from machining equipment and that means complex, as a downside is mentioned the engine being off means no hydraulic turret control, other observation being the gunner and loader having both manual turret controls, probably meaning only in rotation not elevation.

 

9 hours ago, That_Baka said:

May i see captured  KT KWK43 dispersion table?

https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/1700.html

There are more docs in that list, the King tiger is under the "Tiger B" name, the .pdf links do not work, download in the original format .djvu and just convert them into pdf with an online djvu to pdf converter, works like a charm.

Share this post


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

So i looked in the report on King tiger, regarding the turret, because it had a similar system and there's nothing reported about the system being crew intensive, it's even recommended to use the hydraulic turret system on the move because of it's overall comfort without even including the controlling handles.

 

That makes no sense to me. All reports I have seen gave variable rotation times depending on the engine speed for Tiger, Königstiger and Panther. The engine speed was controlled by the driver and nothing else. 

 

As far as I understand the hydraulic system was used only to avoid using scarce copper needed for the electric system. 

Share this post


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

 

That makes no sense to me. All reports I have seen gave variable rotation times depending on the engine speed for Tiger, Königstiger and Panther. The engine speed was controlled by the driver and nothing else. 

 

As far as I understand the hydraulic system was used only to avoid using scarce copper needed for the electric system. 

 

Yes it's variable and the gunner uses whatever RPM he has while the tank is on the move, i guess the gunner only controls the RPM trough the driver only while the tank is stationary.

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...