Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

23 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

 

As per R. M. Ogorkiewicz, the NP 105 APFSDS penetrates 473 mm at 1,000 meters distance at normal impact (i.e. the armor is not sloped).

Share this post


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

 

As per R. M. Ogorkiewicz, the NP 105 APFSDS penetrates 473 mm at 1,000 meters distance at normal impact (i.e. the armor is not sloped).

Yeah, i saw that. Wonder what the penetration figure would be for a 60 degree inclined standard RHA plate.

Share this post


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

 

As per R. M. Ogorkiewicz, the NP 105 APFSDS penetrates 473 mm at 1,000 meters distance at normal impact (i.e. the armor is not sloped).

that's quite high for 105mm....

 

btw

 

https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XX/I/I_01286/fname_140175.pdf

 

Quote

Die nicht vorhandene Durchschlagsleistung der vor kurzem an T72 erprobten Pfeilmunition ist Faktum (hier wird mit politischem Restrisiko spekuliert). Die Kaufoption der NL Armee zum Verkauf von modernisierten 114 Leopard 2A4 sollte so rasch als möglich realisiert werden.

 

some more about problems with T-72 ?

 

 

Quote

Ende des Jahres 1989 und anfangs 1990 traten aufgrund von Schießergebnissen mit dem Kampfpanzer M60 A3 Zweifel bei der Truppe hinsichtlich der Erfüllung der an die Pfeilmunition gestellten Erwartungen auf, die auch in Medienberichten ihren Niederschlag fanden. Der Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung setzte hierauf eine interne Untersuchungskomrnission ein, die für werkstoffkundliche Untersuchungen auch ein österreichisches Universitätsinstitut einschaltete. Nach eingehenden Untersuchungen und achgesprächen sowie zahlreichen Präzisionsschießen stellte sich immer mehr heraus, daß die schlechten Trefferergebnisse eher auf einen waffenseitigen Fehler als auf eine übermäßige unitionsstreuung zurückzuführen wären. Diese Erkenntnisse wurden aber offensichtlich nicht von allen befaßten Stellen des BML V geteilt, was dazu führte, daß immer wieder neue und kostspielige Schießversuche stattfanden. Im Juli 1991 kamen aber alle Beteiligten dann doch zu dem Ergebnis, daß die Pfeilmunition den gestellten Anforderungen entspreche.

https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XVIII/III/III_00146/imfname_547596.pdf

 

but what written here(menthos posted) ?

Share this post


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

that's quite high for 105mm....

 

Yes, I believe it is either exaggerated or based on some really weird test criteria. NP 105 has a relatively high length-to-diameter ratio for a 105 mm APFSDS of 22 to 1, but even 105 mm DM63/M426 falls short of 473 mm...

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

some more about problems with T-72 ?

 

No, it says: "The lack of penetration performance against the T-72 of the recently tested APFSDS ammunition is a fact (there is speculation with residual political risk). The option to buy 114 modernized Leopard 2A4 from the Dutch Army should be taken as soon as possible."

 

I.e. it seems that some people doubted that the 105 mm APFSDS was incapable of dealing with the T-72, but the Rechnungshof answered in its report that the inability to defeat the T-72 with 105 mm APFSDS rounds is a fact and that the Leopard 2A4 should be purchased. If "modernized" means "Leopard 2A4 tanks to be modernized" or "Leopard 2 tanks that recently were modernized to the 2A4 configuration" isn't clear.

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

but what written here(menthos posted) ?

 
"At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, the firing tirals with the M60A3 main battle tank resulted in doubts among the troops regarding the ability to meet the expectations placed on the APFSDS rounds, which were also reflected in media reports. In response, the Federal Minister of Defence set up an internal commission of inquiry, which also inlcuded an Austrian university institute for material science investigations. After detailed investigations, professional discussions and numerous firing trials, it became more and more apparent that the poor firing results were more related to a fault on the part of the weapon system than to an excessive dispersion of the ammunition. However, these findings were obviously not shared by all the involved departments of the MoD, which led to further costly firing trials being scheduled again and again. In July 1991, however, all those involved came to the conclusion that the APFSDS ammunition met the requirements.
 
I.e. this paragraph mentions that the accuracy of the M60A3 was bad and some people blamed the new Austrian APFSDS for this, but after various investigations that lasted until July 1991, it was proven to be a fault of the M60A3 and not of the NP 105 APFSDS round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 3:25 AM, heretic88 said:

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.

 

There was actually a think regarding the 76 mm(L-11,F-32,F-34) and 45 mm cannons and their poor capabilities against Panzer IV and Panzer III armor. The firing ranges of these tanks against tanks with 76 mm were pretty much the same until the Autumn of 1941, after that ammo for 76 mm cannons got better.

Share this post


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

 

There was actually a think regarding the 76 mm(L-11,F-32,F-34) and 45 mm cannons and their poor capabilities against Panzer IV and Panzer III armor. The firing ranges of these tanks against tanks with 76 mm were pretty much the same until the Autumn of 1941, after that ammo for 76 mm cannons got better.

only problem what 45mm has was 50mm plates IIRC, 76mm doesn't have any problems with Panzer IV or III even when firing HE at 900 meters, with up-armoured III(spaced armour) and IV(welded/bolted 30mm plate over 50mm and solid 80mm) yes there was problems for 76mm guns.

Share this post


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

only problem what 45mm has was 50mm plates IIRC, 76mm doesn't have any problems with Panzer IV or III even when firing HE at 900 meters, with up-armoured III(spaced armour) and IV(welded/bolted 30mm plate over 50mm and solid 80mm) yes there was problems for 76mm guns.

 

What you are talking about is the second wave for the 76mm guns.

 

The first one was this:

https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/22260.html

 

 

Share this post


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

 

What you are talking about is the second wave for the 76mm guns.

 

The first one was this:

https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/22260.html

 

 

thats interesting, considering the fact that firing trials 1942 with HE and APHE from F34 doesn't have any problems vs III and IV, thank you, will read

 

81-12104-9-2copy.jpg

 

p.s even with bad ammo F34 penetrate 50mm/30deg from 800 meters in 1940, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI , concerning the NP 105 A2 round:  "Land Forces of the World" (Christopher Chant, 1990, Crescent Books / Crown Publishers / Brian Todd Publishing House Ltd, ISBN 0-517-69128-0),
 on page 146 the book describes an NP 105 A2 tungsten APFSDS round with a complete weight of 19.3kg (mid-1980s Jane's A & A suggests a penetrator length of 980mm and penetrator weight of 3.7kg Tungalloy T176FA) and a muzzle velocity of 1485m / sec, giving 150mm @ 60degrees @ 5800m performance (almost 6 inches at just over 3 & 1/2 miles).

 

And the glacis of that T-72M1 was able to stop this round ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pascal said:

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

 

Sorry for nitpicking but your statement is mathematically incorrect. 

 

The tables state average percentage for each crewmember occupation loss (the average value of all crew position values is 25,3% for T-34-76 and 24,6% for Sherman) but like you said such comparison doesn't take into account the number of crew members. If I count right it tells that for killing one hundred crewmen you needed to destroy in average 99 T-34-76 tanks or 81 Shermans. 

Share this post


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

And the glacis of that T-72M1 was able to stop this round ?

Centurion with some addon plates(spaced steel, not very thick) could stop L23A1 point blank for example, it's not about "wow that's can penetrate over 9000mm at distance over 9km", but about specific round design, alloy, weaknesses etc.

 

but again 

 

- strange articles and holes on real tank

- no any details on distances etc

- the presence of indirect confirmation of the problem with penetration by the Austrian docs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Sorry for nitpicking but your statement is mathematically incorrect. 

 

The tables state average percentage for each crewmember occupation loss (the average value of all crew position values is 25,3% for T-34-76 and 24,6% for Sherman) but like you said such comparison doesn't take into account the number of crew members. If I count right it tells that for killing one hundred crewmen you needed to destroy in average 99 T-34-76 tanks or 81 Shermans. 

It's not nitpicking, the post exists for many reasons, for reply's too.

 

It's straightforward, in a shot T-34, one crew member dies from 4.

In a shot Sherman, probability of one crew member dying is 0,85% from 5.

Share this post


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

It's not nitpicking, the post exists for many reasons, for reply's too.

 

It's straightforward, in a shot T-34, one crew member dies from 4.

In a shot Sherman, probability of one crew member dying is 0,85% from 5.

 

From which numbers did you get the 0,85 value (not percent)? Did you count KIA and MIA (letter M?) together divided by number of tanks (171+59)/274? Not saying it's wrong, just asking. Anyway I clearly read the table wrong at first, sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 2:12 AM, Wiedzmin said:

 

I hate to barge in with a late reply, and this is a side point - but why would the poor lifespan of the R-975 have any relevancy in a discussion comparing to the GM 6046 on the M4A2? All of the other sources earlier posted comparing T-34 engine life to Sherman engine life were using the 6046-equipped M4A2 as that is what the Soviets had.

Share this post


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

 

I hate to barge in with a late reply, and this is a side point - but why would the poor lifespan of the R-975 have any relevancy in a discussion comparing to the GM 6046 on the M4A2? All of the other sources earlier posted comparing T-34 engine life to Sherman engine life were using the 6046-equipped M4A2 as that is what the Soviets had.

Sherman is not one model A2 right ? and T-34 is not only early war period 76mm version, so it's comparsion of all what is out there, as for M4A2 lifespan for it was 300 hours by factory IIRC, during trials M4A2 76mm in USSR right engine dead after 949km due to hard road conditions, second engine 2126 km and needed light repairs, suspension start to break after 1339 km, as for average lifespan of M4A2 from early 75mm version to late war 76mm never saw any good reports, maybe you have some ?

 

Share this post


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

Sherman is not one model A2 right ? and T-34 is not only early war period 76mm version, so it's comparsion of all what is out there, as for M4A2 lifespan for it was 300 hours by factory IIRC, during trials M4A2 76mm in USSR right engine dead after 949km due to hard road conditions, second engine 2126 km and needed light repairs, suspension start to break after 1339 km, as for average lifespan of M4A2 from early 75mm version to late war 76mm never saw any good reports, maybe you have some ?

There has already been a CAMD report linked, translated handily by Samsonov, listing both the V-2 in the T-34 and the 6046 in the M4A2 as having ~200 hours (the numbers are slightly different but well within a reasonable margin of error of a few hours) average lifespan. That was from the second guards' tank army in 1945.

 

Your points on the other Shermans having various models of engines is of course valid, as is the various T-34 derivatives. But the posts you were replying to for the R-975 post were discussing the M4A2 for comparison's sake (it's the easiest statistical comparison to T-34s as it was operated by armies who operated enough T-34s to get good average data) and just stuck out in my mind as being very irrelevant.

 

T-34-85+reliability+1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

for comparison's sake (it's the easiest statistical comparison to T-34s as it was operated by armies who operated enough T-34s to get good average data) and just stuck out in my mind as being very irrelevant.

thanks,  but here difference between T-34(and SU85 which is based on T-34 but not T-34, and which T-34 ? 76 ? 85 ? 76 + 85 ? ) not that big 185-190 vs 195-205 and this does not seem to contradict what i wrote about similar or worse reliability ?

 

and again, it all depends a lot on the level of maintenance and crew training.

Share this post


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

thanks,  but here difference between T-34(and SU85 which is based on T-34 but not T-34, and which T-34 ? 76 ? 85 ? 76 + 85 ? ) not that big 185-190 vs 195-205 and this does not seem to contradict what i wrote about similar or worse reliability ?

 

and again, it all depends a lot on the level of maintenance and crew training.

 

No, no I agree with you overall. I just thought the discussion of the R-975 was really odd in the context of what was going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

No, no I agree with you overall. I just thought the discussion of the R-975 was really odd in the context of what was going on.

maybe i had to point out that R975 is worst case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 8:28 AM, SH_MM said:

"At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, the firing tirals with the M60A3 main battle tank resulted in doubts among the troops regarding the ability to meet the expectations placed on the APFSDS rounds, which were also reflected in media reports. In response, the Federal Minister of Defence set up an internal commission of inquiry, which also inlcuded an Austrian university institute for material science investigations. After detailed investigations, professional discussions and numerous firing trials, it became more and more apparent that the poor firing results were more related to a fault on the part of the weapon system than to an excessive dispersion of the ammunition. However, these findings were obviously not shared by all the involved departments of the MoD, which led to further costly firing trials being scheduled again and again. In July 1991, however, all those involved came to the conclusion that the APFSDS ammunition met the requirements."

 
I.e. this paragraph mentions that the accuracy of the M60A3 was bad and some people blamed the new Austrian APFSDS for this, but after various investigations that lasted until July 1991, it was proven to be a fault of the M60A3 and not of the NP 105 APFSDS round.

 

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

Share this post


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

 

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

I think it's a matter of interpretation. My understanding after reading the german text was that the weapon system used for the trials was faulty, not the M60A3 in general.

Share this post


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

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

 

That is a very emotional response to the topic. You cannot call bullshit without knowing the Austrian requirements and test conditions. Maybe the Austrian military used smaller targets, wanted an acceptable hit probability while firing on the move, wanted to engage targets at longer ranges or where expecting firing performance closer to the Leopard 2 or M1A1D/M1A2?

 

That the fire control system of the M60A3 wasn't on par with the newer tanks is well known. In CAT it managed to get a third, an eight and a ninth place...

 

6 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

I think it's a matter of interpretation. My understanding after reading the german text was that the weapon system used for the trials was faulty, not the M60A3 in general.

 

It isn't really a matter of interpretation. The NP105 APFSDS wasn't tested with one single gun, it already was accepted for service in 1985 after demonstrating its ability to defeat the required targets (including an arrangement of three spaced steel plates). The complaints about the unsatisfactory dispersion with the NP105 lead to the investigations criticized by the Rechnungshof.

 

The waffenseitiger Fehler either refers to  all M68A1s being faulty or all M60A3s being considered faulty in regards to meeting the Austrian requirements. Not the single (?) M68/M60A3s in the trials, as otherwise the common soldiers would never have complained about the lack of accuracy in 1989 and 1990.

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...