Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Spoiler

rGKbIx6r.jpg

Found the T-72, 

"[Talking about snorkel] Driving underwater was a dangerous and nerve wracking operation for the crews, yet considered important because the Soviet Union has many rivers but few Bridges" 

 

No KGB in tank, only short men. 

"Once the turret hatch was closed the height inside was minimal, so that neither the commander nor gunner could stand upright. It is said that the Soviet Army deliberately chose shorter men for their tank crews. Could You fight in such a claustrophobic space?" 

 

Also Soviet State Arsenals best manufacturer, move aside UVZ. 

 

Was in Nicholas or the museum that started the "T-34s have weld gaps everywhere and are made to survive 6 months"

 

Share this post


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

Closer look at BTR-80 firing ports from outside

70M

 

  

8 hours ago, JDyer said:

"T-34s have weld gaps everywhere and are made to survive 6 months"

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43380&page=13

 

from "with all due respect to Chieftain's work, is it real to correct old article ?"

Share this post


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

try to fit in fully stowed(ammo, spare parts etc) Panzer IV(where gunner have 4 round on his legs etc) or III lol

Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran. Panzer IV wasnt much different.
T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort. Driver's place is quite okay, until you start driving the thing. Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force. Gearshifting is another thing. Yes, sometimes it indeed needs a hammer to do it. Not a myth, fact, talked about old tankists about this. Terribly exhausting to drive. Bow gunner's place is also OK, comfortable, but... well, chieftain's hatch video, he explains.  Turret is exceedingly cramped in 1940/41 variants, somewhat got better in 1942 but still very bad, since commander also had to fire the gun. Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement, no turret basket and absolutely no headroom. With the T-34/85, things got significantly better for commander, and also the gunner's place was quite acceptable, but the rest remained just as bad as before. And finally, add to this the horrible, bumpy, jerky ride of the tank. And I personally have experience to compare it with another tanks, namely the T-55. I've driven a VT-55  many times, and also rode on a T-34. T-55, even with its quite stiff suspension is luxury car compared to T-34 where I felt every bump on the road! American report also stated that it greatly contributes to crew fatigue. And exactly these ergonomic problems were the cause of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.

Share this post


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

"Once the turret hatch was closed the height inside was minimal, so that neither the commander nor gunner could stand upright. It is said that the Soviet Army deliberately chose shorter men for their tank crews. Could You fight in such a claustrophobic space?" 

 

Looks like they never sat in their own T-72... It is quite comfortable actually. Especially the driver's seat. At least for me.

 

Share this post


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

Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran.

i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks 

 

as for "very ergonomic panzer III" loader doesn't have turntable, and will dance around cardan shaft 

 

or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! 

 

driver and radiooperator don't have hatches 

 

and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well...

 

loader site, tank doesn't have MG which will reduce free space in turret...and again open hatches(vision block on hatch again will reduce free space)

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort.

with 

t34.jpg

this turret has some problems.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force.

same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox

0d6OGLKD2rA.jpg

AyIvA1chqR0.jpg

and human memory never was and never be a good source.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

since commander also had to fire the gun

it's not problem of a turret, but basic idea of that tank at the moment.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement

horrible in what term ? or in comparison with what tank ? Panzer III with commander sitting on ammo bin ? or Panzer III rack in engine room ? or Panzer IV  gunner have ammo oh his foots ? maybe Comet where loader can't load gun without hurting himself ?

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.

great conclusion :)

 

and again, all of that it's not in protection of "holly T-34", just hate tons of stupid old myths and new made by Chieftain sitting in empty tank and making conclusions out of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but for some reason I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV... Wonder why... Also, the chieftain's hatch video of the Panzer IV was filmed in a relatively empty, poorly restored tank  but on the other hand, Bovington's Panzer III is complete. Ammo is located in bins, and all bins are present. So Moran's conclusion is very valid. And as he pointed out, the ready rack is in quite convenient position. (btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment...) In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the turret is manually traversed. In Pz. IV, again not a problem, since it had a platform. In the T-34, it is a real problem, since it didnt have platform, the loader had an uneven footing, and the power traverse was very fast, with big risk of injury. Correctly pointed out by Moran. You can also read this in a post war CIA report.

 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! 

Watch Pz.IV video. Closed hatch, "commander" (Hilary Doyle) present. No serious complaints.

 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well...

Bigger gun is worthless if the commander/gunner cant see a damn thing out of the tank. Which was a real and crippling design fault of the T-34/76. The often quoted case, when a german 37mm AT gun hit the tank more than 20 times perfectly illustrate this problem. And also other combat reports.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox

Again, I didnt read complaints of Sherman crews about this... 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2. The old 4 speed unit was still frequently installed in 34/85s, evidenced by the reports of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war), and also by the CIA report of a captured korean tank. The new gearbox helped only to increase the speed of the tank (finally it had some real speed advantage over Pz IV and Stug III in combat conditions). It was still extremely hard to operate, and was still an immensely primitive design. Clutch is also extremely heavy. Together with the bad suspension, result = crew fatigue, low combat effectiveness.

 

Its not about creating new myths. T-34 was not a bad tank, but wasnt good either. An average. Far, far inferior to the Sherman, and also markedly inferior to Pz IV until /85. The sole reason: as I said, the utter disregard of ergonomy. Even the soviets were perfectly aware of this. IS-2 was already a huge improvement. T-54/55, even better. I have a very positive opinion about these tanks, when sitting in these it becomes totally obvious that designers learned a LOT from the problems of T-34. Nicholas Moran also had a very good opinion about gunner and loader positions. Commander's place is not that great though, and for him drivers place was also uncomfortable, although he is too tall to fit. For a smaller person, like me, driver's place is quite good. 

 

Share this post


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

I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV

did you encounter ANY reports on Panzer III/IV ?:) because i'm not, only that it have shitty optics before long barelled gun was installed(+ some other british test on tank)

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Bovington's Panzer III is complete

nope, there is no complete tanks.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment..

oh really ?

ZUTu_CXRSyw.jpg

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the

since the Chieftain said it lol ? 

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

the loader had an uneven footing,

he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Watch Pz.IV video

i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. 

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2

started from 1942 IIRC, and your conclussion came from where ? if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war)

polish + hungarian T-34 units it's a 80% or RKKA tank fleet or what ? level of maintenance in this units ?

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Far, far inferior to the Sherman,

better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ?

 

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3344/rec/206

 

Fire control.-(1) Because of the excessive dispersion which occurs with the M4 periscope, firing of tank guns is confined almost entirely to the artillery method of sensing and locating bursts and giving corrections in mils to the gunners. The average dispersion which occurs as a result of slack in the periscope holder and linkage extends 4 mils in both planes. This dispersion is so great that guns do not stay bore-sighted with the telescope after any operation. The modification consisting of a spring between the periscope holder and turret will be greatly welcomed. The officers who saw the M4A1 periscope liked it extremely, but all were emphatic in saying that only one reticle pattern should be used and that if these new periscopes are used the telescope mounted on the gun mount should have the same reticle.

 

(2) There is very little use of the coaxially mounted telescope; the dispersion which results from its use is even greater than that experienced with the M4 periscope. In addition, the optics of the M55 telescopes are unsatisfactory, resulting in unsatisfactory light-transmission characteristics. Furthermore, most gunners report that it is very difficult for them to get their heads into proper position for sighting through the coaxial telescope. When tanks are operating in combat, the crash helmet is always worn; in most cases, the steel helmet without liner is worn over the crash helmet.

 

(3) About 75 percent of the tanks in England are equipped both with azimuth indicators and with the M9 range quadrant. Less than half of the tanks in Italy are equipped with the azimuth indicator, and few have the M9 range quadrant. Both of these items are essential equipment in this theater

 

h. Ammunition stowage.-Except for the ready rounds in the turret, the ammunition stowage is unsatisfactory and should be improved. Experience in Italy indicates that 2 rounds out of every 40 in the stowage bins will separate, creating a very serious fire hazard and making it difficult to remove the rest of the rounds from the stowage bin. When going into combat, the crew invariably puts a full complement of ammunition in the floor of the turret basket because they are anxious to carry a very large quantity of ammunition. Tank crews are very little concerned with protection of ammunition and consider accessibility and quantity of primary importance.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

T-34 was not a bad tank

it was bad tank, with many flaws as any other, but main problems often was it's crew and people who command operations, but all this old shitty myths about "bad soviet sights" etc only a myths...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

nope, there is no complete tanks.

Comparing it with wartime photos, yes, it is complete.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34.

Yes, he has a seat, and it is removed in combat. T-34/85 has ammo in turret, yes thats easy to reach, but /76 has ammo only in hull, in difficult to reach positions, cannot be done seated. (btw, Pz.III loader also has seat, again removed in combat conditions). I wouldnt say that nobody rotates the turret during loading. Stress can do "interesting" things to people... Or inexperienced crew...

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. 

Hilary Doyle is not just a "famous book writer", he is probably the greatest expert of ww2 german AFVs.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius.

T-34 gearbox, no matter what type 4 or 5 gear, is an unbelievably primitive (and unreliable) piece of junk. Spur gear transmission, without synchronizers... Every shift results in metal fragments breaking off gear teeth, this comes with extreme wear, very short life and high probability of failure. Fragments can also jam in the internal components, thats where sledgehammer is required to shift.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ?

Early shermans had poor optics, true. But it got significantly better soon, 76mm versions were among the best in the world, and crew visibility was THE best. As for reliability... I do not buy it that they were on the same level. 1941-42 versions of T-34 were among the least reliable tanks of WW2. They improved, yes, but even the T-34/85 wasnt reliable at all. It had two major problems, frequent transmission failures, and also engine failures caused by not having a functional air filter. Even the "multicyclone" filter was totally inadequate. This problem was only fixed post war, in 1955 with the introduction of the VTI-3 filters. The "reliable T-34" myth comes from these post war overhauled tanks, which were uncomparably better than those in ww2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JDyer said:

I have my reservations about anything from Tank Archives. Im not buying that the T34 had similar engine life as the Sherman. But lets not get into this. 

 

As for the gearbox. 1700km. About 200km longer than the notoriously problematic final drives of the Panther... great achievement... The supposedly "totally unreliable" Panther's drive components were designed for 5000km, and according to the french post war experience, indeed lasted for this amount, except of course the final drive. There is a report about a Bergepanther, with 4200km in the clock, with its original engine, transmission, and even final drive! (Panzer Tracts 16-1). Another report about a Panther, with 1878km, all original components except track... On the other hand, the T-34/85 in CIA report had only 741km in the odometer, but the gearbox was judged to be already failed, the wear was so severe thanks to clash shifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if the T-34 from NK wasn't well maintained, that mileage is far below anything else I've seen so far. I'll try to find the report though and see what else they say. I wonder what was written about the T-34 sent to the US during the war. I'll check that report too. 

 

I posted the links because they provided primary sources. You can ignore what the authors say entirely if you like. 

 

I also don't mean to be taking a side, just want to provide more data and sources instead of conjecture and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 4:27 AM, Wiedzmin said:

i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks 

driver and radiooperator don't have hatches 

 

Those two sentences are contradicting one another.

I do hope you are not referring to the panzer III...

Share this post


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

I do hope you are not referring to the panzer III...

LYWvXzIN6CY.jpg

J5Gf_qa468w.jpg

and ? if you referring to escape hatch on transmission roof plate, well, good luck to crew trying to escape from these hatches(especially when full radio set is in place) lol

 

  

18 hours ago, heretic88 said:

and according to the french post war experience

aNsGAYXGWmk.jpg

eWwYzciHzys.jpg

4xm8pW9KOuU.jpg

 

yeah, super reliable, stronk engineering skills 

Share this post


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

I have my reservations about anything from Tank Archives. Im not buying that the T34 had similar engine life as the Sherman. But lets not get into this. 

 

As for the gearbox. 1700km. About 200km longer than the notoriously problematic final drives of the Panther... great achievement... The supposedly "totally unreliable" Panther's drive components were designed for 5000km, and according to the french post war experience, indeed lasted for this amount, except of course the final drive. There is a report about a Bergepanther, with 4200km in the clock, with its original engine, transmission, and even final drive! (Panzer Tracts 16-1). Another report about a Panther, with 1878km, all original components except track... On the other hand, the T-34/85 in CIA report had only 741km in the odometer, but the gearbox was judged to be already failed, the wear was so severe thanks to clash shifting.

 

This article quotes a lot of books and reports about Panther and I dare to say that basically all content doesn't agree with you. Please take into account that maximum means something different than average and that one sample is worthless for any meaningful statistics. 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

Share this post


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

 

This article quotes a lot of books and reports about Panther and I dare to say that basically all content doesn't agree with you. Please take into account that maximum means something different than average and that one sample is worthless for any meaningful statistics. 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

 

Statistics, well there is something:

 

Reliability of soviet tanks, including post ww2 tanks.

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1979_03_garantija.htm

 

Some statistics regarding crew loss, T-34, 4 crew versions and Sherman, of course the latter has 5 crew members but even with that it has fewer crew losses.

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/365699.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/360075.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/359840.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe not including weak zones. I would expect T-72B hulls to be this resistant but not T-72A/M1 hulls. Can someone explain this to me ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe

numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level.

 

 that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated.

 

as for article, it's strange, holes doesn't look like APFSDS hits IMHO

 

2MuPYUVfFgM.jpg

 

same tank

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level.

 

 that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated.

 

 

I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety. 

Share this post


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

I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety. 

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470, and so on, what kind of steel was used etc, so it's very hard to compare "some penetration numbers" with "some protection numbers" IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470, and so on, what kind of steel was used etc, so it's very hard to compare "some penetration numbers" with "some protection numbers" IMHO

Yes, exactly. I might have jumped the gun by just looking at the numbers and not knowing anything about the testing conditions (e.g. range to target,etc.).

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...