Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

In Sevastopol they did it right! IS-2, SU-76, ISU-152, etc. So good to see these beasts instead of stupid T-34s!

I wonder, how many original ISU-152s left? As far as I know, being a quite useful and successful vehicle, most were upgraded to K/M level.

Share this post


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

   That sounds like not really usefull test in the first place, i was under impression that there should be plenty of data about T-55 in US. Hell, T-84s with Drozd APS were sold to US, why bother to test T-55s?

Share this post


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

   That sounds like not really usefull test in the first place, i was under impression that there should be plenty of data about T-55 in US. Hell, T-84s with Drozd APS were sold to US, why bother to test T-55s?

I was wondering this too. I can only imagine it would be useful if they were

testing some updated fire control system that’s being used on T-55s in Syria or Libya but I’m not aware of any. 

Share this post


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

   That sounds like not really usefull test in the first place, i was under impression that there should be plenty of data about T-55 in US. Hell, T-84s with Drozd APS were sold to US, why bother to test T-55s?

 

5 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

I was wondering this too. I can only imagine it would be useful if they were

testing some updated fire control system that’s being used on T-55s in Syria or Libya but I’m not aware of any. 

 

It is doubly baffling because it was ancient BK-5M ammo they were firing - they weren't even trying to verify a new ammo type or change to the gun.

Share this post


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

   That sounds like not really usefull test in the first place, i was under impression that there should be plenty of data about T-55 in US. Hell, T-84s with Drozd APS were sold to US, why bother to test T-55s?

 

I can't help myself but to me it looks like a camouflage to hide an accident during some fun shooting. 

Share this post


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

I can't help myself but to me it looks like a camouflage to hide an accident during some fun shooting. 

 

Quite similar thing happened to an M-18 Hellcat too in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Hey, MT-LB may be put to rest, finally. It is possible it will be replaced with JGBT-LB MGTT-LB.

 

Quote

   The new multi-purpose tracked tractors MGTT-LB and MGSH-LBU, which are modifications of the oldest of the Russian Federation Ground Forces vehicles of this class MT-LB, will be shown for the first time at the Army 2020 military-technical forum. This was reported by RIA Novosti with reference to the press service of JSC Remdiesel.

 

   “At the upcoming Army expo, we will for the first time demonstrate the modernized MGTT-LB and MGSh-LBU crawler tractors, which were worked on as part of the "Reconstruction" experimental design work on the tactical and technical assignment of the Russian Defense Ministry. As a result, we were able to increase such indicators as mobility, protection, ergonomics, handling, payload and firepower, ” said the company representative.

   It is known that prototypes of modernized machines of Remdiesel JSC have already been manufactured and are being tested.

 

   The Army 2020 forum will be held from August 23 to 28, 2020 at the main exhibition site of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Patriot Park.

 

QsLPgh4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://avia.pro/news/egipet-pokupaet-u-rossii-500-tankov-t-90ms-za-156-mlrd-rubley

 

Quote

   Egyptian authorities concluded a deal with Russia to supply Egypt with 400-500 T-90MS tanks. The cost of one combat unit is estimated at 314 million rubles, which indicates that the total transaction amount is about 156 billion rubles, which is a colossal amount.

 

   “Moscow and Cairo signed a contract for the supply of 400-500 T-90MS tanks for the Egyptian army. The agreement provides for the transfer of technology and the organization of joint production of military vehicles in Egypt. This was announced on June 26, 2020 on Facebook by the Minister of Transport of the country, Major General Kamel al-Wazir. The organization of the production of T-90MS will allow Egypt to acquire technologies for creating tanks and armored vehicles, enriching the already existing experience in the joint production of M1A1 Abrams tanks with the American side, which has been ongoing since 1992, the minister wrote. Al-Wazir stressed that this deal will provide an opportunity to significantly increase Egypt's military power in the region, making it the largest operator of T-90MS tanks. At the same time, Egypt will be the first state to simultaneously produce Russian and American tanks, ” reports the Reporter.

 

Share this post


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

   Hey, MT-LB may be put to rest, finally. It is possible it will be replaced with JGBT-LB MGTT-LB.

 

 

QsLPgh4.jpg

Would this possibly be complimenting the number of Kurganets in service, perhaps seeing more use in remote or "lower intensity" areas in the country?  The vehicle weighing about half that of the Kurganets might be worth something in that regard.

 

Alternatively, could this be another case of the army procurement decision makers getting antsy and choosing upgrades of existing vehicles over newly developed ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So army is receiving the BMP-1AM. Yes, agree, this is horrible.

 

But lets play with the idea a little bit. OK, army needs those old, obsolte BMP-1s modernized, what to do?

 

My idea:

1, keep the original turret! 

2, develop better ammo, main point is greatly improved accuracy. Also a better HE-FRAG round.

3, add a new sighting system, with thermal imager and a LRF. 

4, add stabilization to the turret, and a simple FCS.

5, replace Konkurs ATGM with Kornet, one tube on either side of turret

6, - option, if still fits into budget - add an elevated platform to the turret, and mount an independent commander's sighting system

 

In my opinion, this would be far superior to the current abomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMP1AM upgrade is a joke . 

 

BMP1 biggest issue is thin armor ,  all western APC let alone IFVs have these days allround 14.5mm protection with add on armor, and 20+mm over frontal arc .while you can still destroy the BMP-1 with  modern 12.7mm AP rounds at angles outside frontal 60°. And any opponent will likely have ither 23 or 25mm cannon 

Also lacking night fighting capabilty , western armor greatly outclasses Russian armor in terms of optics and thermal vision

 

Unmanned turret could save weight  and space inside

Share this post


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

Would this possibly be complimenting the number of Kurganets in service, perhaps seeing more use in remote or "lower intensity" areas in the country?  The vehicle weighing about half that of the Kurganets might be worth something in that regard.

 

Alternatively, could this be another case of the army procurement decision makers getting antsy and choosing upgrades of existing vehicles over newly developed ones?

   MGTT-LBU is replacement for MT-LB, a general purpose towing tractor/tracked vehicle for everyday work / secondary "jobs". MT-LBs were used for so lond because they have their role and niche, and army wanted something similar, but new and in production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Photo by Andrey Kryuchenko showing differences between Typhoon-K 4x4 and Typhoon-VDV

Quote

KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K 4x4 with a combat module 5ETs16U and KAMAZ-4386 Typhoon-Airborne with a combat module 32V01

EcLPVkAXkAA2tE_?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   General Director of Military Industrial Company LLC (VPK LLC, part of the GAZ Group) Alexander Krasovitsky told the RIA Novosti news agency about the creation of a military-industrial complex of a new light armored vehicle Strela with a 4x4 wheel arrangement.

 

... the mass of the car was 4.7 tons, which is half the mass of the machines of the "Tiger" family. Strela also has ballistic protection, capable of withstanding shots from AK-74, AKM and SVD rifles. The maximum speed on the highway reaches 155 kilometers per hour.

 

....anti-mine protection of an armored car allows you to save the lives of the crew when mines or explosive devices are detonated under the wheel with a capacity of up to two kilograms in TNT (against 600 grams for the "Tiger").

 

   According to him, "Strela" is designed to transport people and various goods. The car can be used as an operational service vehicle for special units of executive authorities. It can also be equipped with weapon systems and special equipment.

 

   Krasovitsky emphasized that components of the Arrow are used domestically or produced in Russia.

   Chassis and manual gearbox are from GAZ, frontal wheels have spring suspension, rear are leaf springs. Cabin internals use GAZ Next parts as well. Strela uses parts unified with Atlet and Ural VPK.

 

fcM28cw.jpg

 

Spoiler

krAKNLf.jpg

 

LeFs8gn.jpg

 

QRmqWnA.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the price is right this could be a great car  with better mine protection than base Tiger, just split the front wind shield in half, for cheaper raplacemnts

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...