Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pascal said:

 

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.

 

That's what I meant. On the move it's uncontrolable for the gunner how fast he can turn the turret. It depends on the driver. If he accelerates or decelerates the turret don't rotate with constant speed. The higher gear he selects the slower the turret rotation is, the lower rpm he uses the slower the rotation is again. Way too many variables which the gunner can not affect. 

Share this post


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

It was killed by the anti-gun/pro-missile mafia, not because of any performance issues.

Yes it is true. Also the Objekt-268.

 

16 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

The numerous SU-100s weren't preferred, there was just a lot of them around and they were cheap.

Not just that. They used the same D-10 guns as the T-54/55, with the same ammo, this greatly simplified logistics. ISU-122 didnt have many advantages over the SU-100. The D-10 gun had better rate of fire, and had more advanced rounds than the D-25. BR-412D had higher penetration than BR-471D and had flatter trajectory. Also the D-10 had HEAT, which wasnt available for D-25. The 122mm gun's only advantage was the more powerful HE shells.

Share this post


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

Yes it is true. Also the Objekt-268.

 

Not just that. They used the same D-10 guns as the T-54/55, with the same ammo, this greatly simplified logistics. ISU-122 didnt have many advantages over the SU-100. The D-10 gun had better rate of fire, and had more advanced rounds than the D-25. BR-412D had higher penetration than BR-471D and had flatter trajectory. Also the D-10 had HEAT, which wasnt available for D-25. The 122mm gun's only advantage was the more powerful HE shells.

heretic88; there are a few different issues here: first, comparing the SU-100 to the ISU-122 isn't a good comparison...the SU-100 is a tank destroyer, the ISU-122 is an assault gun. The ISU-122S with the D-25 successfully combined the abilities of both a tank destroyer and an assault gun, giving it significant advantages over the SU-100. According to documented discussions in 1944, a key factor in the Soviet decision not to use the 100mm gun on "JS" tanks was the significant advantage 122mm HE had over 100mm HE ammo. This decision was based on several factors to be sure, but they included the fact that, "JS tanks armed with the 122mm main gun are successfully repelling all counterattacks by German tanks of all types at all ranges (i.e. up to 1500 meters)."

 

Secondly, (IIRC) the D-25 did eventually get HEAT rounds although not until 1965/1966 (3BK9/3BK9M along with some others). And finally, the development of 100mm and 122mm AP ammo was done in parallel…and again (IIRC), they had the same level of technology until the late 1960s at least. Had the planned upgrade of the SU-122-54 taken place, it would have had the same ammo as the T-10M including the 3BM11 APDS round. It's also important to remember here that the SU-122-54 had the TDK-09 stereoscopic rangefinder which meant that it's D-49 (D-25TA) 122mm main gun was more accurate than the SU-100's main gun.              

 

         

Share this post


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

This decision was based on several factors to be sure, but they included the fact that, "JS tanks armed with the 122mm main gun are successfully repelling all counterattacks by German tanks of all types at all ranges (i.e. up to 1500 meters)."

 

I think it was somewhat a wishful thinking. Im not convinced that the 122 (especially its AP shells) was really that effective against Tiger II. But since it was a rare type, it didnt really mattered. But it soon changed after WW2. M48 tanks had very similar protection, and they were manufactured in significant numbers. According to a soviet document, the hull was completely invulnerable, even at point blank range. It is true that the same applies to the D-10, but it had a significant advantage compared to D-25: rate of fire. Im not entirely sure how ISU-122s were used in the cold war period. Heavy tank regiments which used assault guns had ISU-152s only as far as I know. Some medium tank regiments had a SU company, but they used SU-100s if Im not mistaken. ISU-122 actually fits to neither. If used as a tank destroyer, it has zero advantage over T-54/55 tanks. If used as an assault gun, it is significantly inferior to its big brother, the ISU-152. Probably this is t

he reason why was it eliminated from service so early. 

On the other hand, SU-122/54 with M-62 would be a good companion to T-54/55. It had significantly better AT performance, and also had parts commonality with the tanks. Sadly this didnt happen. (btw, Im also a fan of this interesting vehicle! A pity there is only a single survivor remaining in reasonable condition)

16 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

It's also important to remember here that the SU-122-54 had the TDK-09 stereoscopic rangefinder which meant that it's D-49 (D-25TA) 122mm main gun was more accurate than the SU-100's main gun.              

Any sources indicating this? As for the D-10, it was a quite accurate gun, as I heard from old tankists.

 

 

Share this post


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

M48 tanks had very similar protection, and they were manufactured in significant numbers. According to a soviet document, the hull was completely invulnerable,even at point blank range.

not all soviet(any country) docs are good, if it says "we think that..." or "we calculated that..." it's BS in 90% of time

 

for example, T-10 cast hull nose variant(experimental) with 102mm/63° have Vпкп=750m/s which is 600 meters IIRC, and 102mm/60°  Vпкп=700m/s which is 1.2km IIRC

 

T-10 with rolled plates(serial tank) could withstand 122 blunt nose at 795m/s at upper part(point blank), and 710 m/s at lower(120mm/50°) 

 

so i'm not sure about M48 hull could resist 122mm PB, but yes not very easy to penetrate for sovet AP rounds 

Share this post


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

and IIRC even T-54 UFP doesn't give PB protection vs 100mm AP-T

Fully immune, at least against BR-412B. Confirmed by Yugoslav tests. In Hungarian tests it also proved to be ineffective, although it was tested only at 800,1200 and 1600m. 

Share this post


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

Fully immune, at least against BR-412B. Confirmed by Yugoslav tests. In Hungarian tests it also proved to be ineffective, although it was tested only at 800,1200 and 1600m. 

soviet tactical diagramm BR412B  gives 500 meters for UFP, 1000 LFP, don't know why, maybe it's about пкп(backface integrity limit), and not псп(full penetration limit)

 

oQcIzicxNJw.jpg

 

brits during BR412B trials penetrated 90mm/60 RHA at 850m/s once(400 meters or so) IIRC, and 80mm/60 at 790 m/s(1-1,1km)

 

 

Share this post


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

soviet tactical diagramm BR412B  gives 500 meters for UFP, 1000 LFP, don't know why, maybe it's about пкп(backface integrity limit), and not псп(full penetration limit)

Is it possible that they didnt take into account the actual quality of the T-54 armor, and they made the calculations for this diagram with a generic armor steel plate? The yugoslavs tested the M-47 Patton too, in theory the results would be the same as the T-54, same 100mm plate at 60 deg, but while the BR-412B couldnt do anything even at PB against the T-54, it penetrated the M-47 UFP at 750m. And it turned out that the armor of the T-54 was not only harder (290 vs 210 BHN), but much better quality too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 6:21 AM, heretic88 said:

 

I think it was somewhat a wishful thinking. Im not convinced that the 122 (especially its AP shells) was really that effective against Tiger II. But since it was a rare type, it didnt really mattered. But it soon changed after WW2. M48 tanks had very similar protection, and they were manufactured in significant numbers. According to a soviet document, the hull was completely invulnerable, even at point blank range. It is true that the same applies to the D-10, but it had a significant advantage compared to D-25: rate of fire. Im not entirely sure how ISU-122s were used in the cold war period. Heavy tank regiments which used assault guns had ISU-152s only as far as I know. Some medium tank regiments had a SU company, but they used SU-100s if Im not mistaken. ISU-122 actually fits to neither. If used as a tank destroyer, it has zero advantage over T-54/55 tanks. If used as an assault gun, it is significantly inferior to its big brother, the ISU-152. Probably this is t

he reason why was it eliminated from service so early. 

On the other hand, SU-122/54 with M-62 would be a good companion to T-54/55. It had significantly better AT performance, and also had parts commonality with the tanks. Sadly this didnt happen. (btw, Im also a fan of this interesting vehicle! A pity there is only a single survivor remaining in reasonable condition)

Any sources indicating this? As for the D-10, it was a quite accurate gun, as I heard from old tankists.

 

 

heretic88; first of all...the quote I included above regarding the performance of the 122mm gun is from official Soviet sources...that's not my opinion. As far a performance against the M48 is concerned, I've dug-up reports that claim that the bow (or lower glacis), and the turret front can be penetrated by the D-25...also, a lot of the reporting available on the performance of the D-25 relates to testing of the BR-471 APHE and BR-471B APBC rounds, not the more capable BR-471D APCBC round. It's important to remember that according to authoritative Israeli sources, IDF M48s were knocked out by Egyptian IS-3s in 1967. So far, I haven't been able to confirm the AP rounds the Egyptians were using...it's possible that in combat, the significant amount of force created by being hit by a full-bore 122mm AP round alone did enough damage to knock out the Israeli tanks.

 

According to previously classified US reports, Soviet assault gun organizations used 122mm-armed assault guns at least through 1969/1970...including both the ISU-122S and the SU-122-54. Getting organizational details about the SU-122-54 is challenging since most of the details were highly classified at the time. You're right about medium tank regiments having an "SU" company, but it was more than "some" and included MRRs as well. According to official US references, both tank divisions and mechanized divisions had 122mm-armed assault guns. Some of the references include: 1955 = SAU-122 company, 1958 = SU-122 assault gun company, and 1964 = assault gun battery. In rifle divisions, by far, most of the regimental assault gun/tank destroyer companies were equipped with SU-100s. In some select cases however, those were replaced by SU-122-54s...confirmed in the 128th Guards Motorized Rifle Division for example (when they were deployed in Czechoslovakia during Operation Danube in 1968). It's likely, that the ISU-122S was pulled from front line service when the tank division Heavy Tank/Assault Gun Regiment was dropped and replaced by a third Medium Tank Regiment in the 1962-1964 timeframe.

 

IMO, it's much more likely that the ISU-122S was finally removed from service because the MBTs it was supporting evolved to the point where they simply no longer needed assault guns or gun-armed tank destroyers. That's also the likely reason that (AFAIK), the SU-122-54 wasn't ever seen supporting T-62-equipped units...only T-54/55 units. As far as gun accuracy is concerned, the D-10 is an excellent gun...with a good gunner, it could be very accurate. The advantage the SU-122-54 and it's D-49 main gun had was the use of the TKD-09 stereoscopic rangefinder. As a retired "Tankist" myself, I have a lot of experience with rangefinders...and I know what a good gunner can do with a rangefinder...especially at longer ranges. This system gave the SU-122-54 an accuracy advantage over all other fielded Soviet assault guns, tank destroyers, and tanks until the introduction of the T-64.

 

Finally, there are actually two surviving SU-122-54s; the one at Kubinka (which I have seen in person), and the one at the military museum in Krasnodar. The Krasnodar SU-122-54 is shown below:

 

DYroPb2.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

Why did the Soviets use 122mm for howitzers and guns? Why that particular diameter?

Because they had russian empire guns of same caliber. Same with 105mm howitzers .

Share this post


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

As a retired "Tankist" myself, I have a lot of experience with rangefinders...and I know what a good gunner can do with a rangefinder...especially at longer ranges. This system gave the SU-122-54 an accuracy advantage over all other fielded Soviet assault guns, tank destroyers, and tanks until the introduction of the T-64.

Yes, it is definitely true. The problem is, that the TKD-09 was a stereoscopic rangefinder. As I read in numerous sources, unlike coincidence rangefinders, not everybody is able to use them. 

 

13 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

 

Finally, there are actually two surviving SU-122-54s; the one at Kubinka (which I have seen in person), and the one at the military museum in Krasnodar. The Krasnodar SU-122-54 is shown below:

Yes, thats why I said only a single Su-122-54 remains in good condition. The one in Krasnodar is sadly nothing more than an empty shell. Too bad in russia restoring stupid T-34s is always more important than bringing back these awesome beasts to life. I'd love to see the SU-122 in running order, or a T-10M, maybe the Objekt-770... Well, maybe one day... :( 

Share this post


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

Yes, it is definitely true. The problem is, that the TKD-09 was a stereoscopic rangefinder. As I read in numerous sources, unlike coincidence rangefinders, not everybody is able to use them. 

 

Yes, thats why I said only a single Su-122-54 remains in good condition. The one in Krasnodar is sadly nothing more than an empty shell. Too bad in russia restoring stupid T-34s is always more important than bringing back these awesome beasts to life. I'd love to see the SU-122 in running order, or a T-10M, maybe the Objekt-770... Well, maybe one day... :( 

It's true that not everyone can successfully use stereoscopic rangefinders...but they were still used around the world (M48, M103, Type 61, etc.), and selected for the SU-122-54. It still gave the vehicle a significant accuracy advantage...

 

You're also right about the interior of the Krasnodar SU-122-54 (see photos below); but for me, it's still better than nothing. I'm still hoping that one or two more SU-122-54s will be uncovered some day...             

 

6SmMLIF.jpg

 

OavM8aR.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Because they had russian empire guns of same caliber. Same with 105mm howitzers .

But why did the Russians pick that particular caliber? I get that 76.2 mm is 3", but why 122 mm? Why not 127 mm which is 5".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 5:37 PM, Jim Warford said:

 

You're also right about the interior of the Krasnodar SU-122-54 (see photos below); but for me, it's still better than nothing. I'm still hoping that one or two more SU-122-54s will be uncovered some day...             

Very, very unlikely. Most were converted to prototypes (BTS-600, Objekt-610), MTP-3 ARVs,  BMR-1 mine clearing vehicles. Small number of BMR-1s are still in service in the ukrainian army and maybe one or two in DNR/LNR militias. These are the longest serving SU-122/54 variants, and they were quite successful in their new role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zadlo said:

But Russians didn't use inches but lines.

OK. 76.2 mm is 30 lines,  so 122 mm is 48 lines.  Why did they decide on that particular caliber? Most nations had field artillery of around 3" (75/76.2 mm), but next up in size is around 4" or so (105 mm)  for medium artillery before they jump to around 6" for heavy artillery (150 mm/152/ 155).

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...