Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 7/16/2020 at 12:12 PM, LoooSeR said:

 

I actually investigated and wrote an article some years ago on the issue. Overall the video is good but Chieftain is getting some stuff partially wrong about the initial years of RKKA, mainly how the debate on the military doctrine of the RKKA was intertwined with the political debate in the Bolshevik Central Committee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 11:39 PM, LoooSeR said:

   "Marker" robotic complex during exercises of the Central Military District, Chebarkul training ground.

0odgMST.jpg

 

  Hide contents

q6aOv4d.jpg

 

AToiTyc.jpg

 

Wonder why BMD chassis are not being used as surrogates for these robotic systems , instead resources are being wasted developing the chassis and running geat that then prove to be much less  durable that they should be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way would BMD not be as maintainable as Uran9 or these , lets not forget Uran9  turned out also to be mechanically unreliable.

The current attempts to robotise  a BMP3 and even lift a roofline seem excesive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, one of the main UGV advantages is that you don't need to armor space for the crew, i.e. your vehicle can be small and of half or maybe even less the weight if it's armoured just same as the manned one. You defeat this advantage if you use a huge empty armoured box for the UGV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mr.T said:

Wonder why BMD chassis are not being used as surrogates for these robotic systems , instead resources are being wasted developing the chassis and running geat that then prove to be much less  durable that they should be

   BMD chassis have way too much empty space for UGV and as a result - weight. Also, new BMD (like BMD-4Ms) cost like new MBTs, so using their chassis just for testbeds is very costly, while older BMD chassis may have too much wear on top of being not very well fitted for UGV.

 

6 hours ago, mr.T said:

In what way would BMD not be as maintainable as Uran9 or these , lets not forget Uran9  turned out also to be mechanically unreliable.

The current attempts to robotise  a BMP3 and even lift a roofline seem excesive

   Uran 9 is not the only UGV in Russia. BMP-3 based UGVs are an optionally-manned testbed for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

llFznKUh5bw.jpg

 

 

http://real.mtak.hu/83224/1/HT_2018_4_cikk_02_u.pdf

http://real.mtak.hu/90566/1/HT_2018-5_cikk_03.pdf

http://real.mtak.hu/81246/1/HT_2018_3_Book_cikk_02_u.pdf

http://real.mtak.hu/98368/1/HT_2018-6_cikk-11.pdf

 

 

Hungarian tests with T-54 with, MT-12, T-54, T-72, 2S1, 2S3 shells, mines, RPG's, ATGM's etc... maybe someone can give good transaltion(not google) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 10:24 AM, Wiedzmin said:

Hungarian tests with T-54 with, MT-12, T-54, T-72, 2S1, 2S3 shells, mines, RPG's, ATGM's etc... maybe someone can give good transaltion(not google) ?

 

I can translate this for you, but you have to wait till weekend, now Im too busy with work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   T-64MV, Uzbekistan modification of T-64 wth V-84 engine instead of Kharkovites lunacy-fueled opposing piston diesel. Upgrade also includes minor stuff like new radios. They are going to upgrade their fleet of T-64s to MV level.

t2hQbPa.png

 

Spoiler

JpIEKP4.png

 

tJHoMaS.png

 

TCowzBX.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 10:24 AM, Wiedzmin said:

Hungarian tests with T-54 with, MT-12, T-54, T-72, 2S1, 2S3 shells, mines, RPG's, ATGM's etc... maybe someone can give good transaltion(not google) ?

 

Okay, as promised:


First some boring, uninteresting text, wont translate. There is some noteworthy fact: we exported 50 T-34/85s to Norway for use as mobile hard targets...


Anyway... Tanks in test were in fully operational condition, all ammo rack filled with dummy rounds, crews were simulated by wooden trunks. Fuel tanks filled with water though to prevent fire.

 

RPG-7, PG-7V (7 shots, 6 hits, 200m)

1, miss
2, hull front hit, on the joining of upper and lower plates, on KMT mount. Jet penetrated the armor, but the exit hole was only about 3-5mm, and damaged a fuel line.
It could have started a fire, (driver - light wounds) but the PPO system would easily deal with it. Overall, damage was minor.
3, Rear external fuel cell hit, cell destroyed, jet penetrated side hull and damaged the water radiator. Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light.
4, side turret hit. Penetration, ABV unit ventilator destroyed, jet stopped by gun breech. Loader dead, tank needs small to medium repairs (dont know if its the correct term in english. On the other hand, I know the russian term: Средний ремонт)
5, hit on rim of 4th road wheel. Tire separated, other wheels received damage. No side hull penetration. Crew wouldnt even notice the hit. Damage very light
6, rearh hull hit, on right upper corner. Water radiator damaged. Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light.
7, rear hull hit, center. Cooling fan damaged, water radiator damaged, jet stopped by exhaust collector of the engine, but other than this, engine is undamaged and fully operational.Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light.

 

SPG-9, PG-9V (7 shots, 5 hits, 430m) (2A28 Grom not tested, because ammunition is practically the same)

1, hit on right mudguard, jet passed above track, and destroyed rear mudguard. Tank fully operational, crew unharmed. 
2, hit on turret side, on handrail. Rail torn off, no further damage. Tank needs no repairs, fully operational, crew unharmed.
3, hit on left rim of turret. Jet penetrated the turret, but went through the turret wall, did not enter fighting compartment. After exiting, it damaged the exhaust, and external oil tank on fender. Tank fully operational, crew unharmed, damage light. Possibility of fire due to oil tank hit, but this wouldnt affect the tank.
4, miss
5, turret side hit, near commander's hatch. Penetration, jet destroyed the radio, and hit the rear turret rack. OU-3 searchlight also damaged. Crew dead due to ammo explosion, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
6, miss
7, target side hull, but track was hit instead. Jet still penetrated side hull, but caused no damage. Gunner and Commander received heavy wounds, loader and driver minor wounds at worst. Tank needs only light repair work.

 

MT-12 anti tank gun, UBK2 (??? probably they mean 3UBK2, with 3BK3 shell)
Also, no tests for APFSDS! Damn...

(7 shots, 7 hits, 800m)

1, Front turret hit, 30cm from coax MG. Penetration, MG mount damaged, rear turret rack hit. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. L2 searchlight also destroyed. In case of empty rear ammo rack, loader dead, commander & gunner seriously wounded.
2, Front hull hit, almost center, 10cm to right side. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
3, Side upper hull hit, frontal part. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
4, Side upper hull hit, frontal part, 50cm to trh rear. Results as 3rd hit.
5, Side turret hit. Results exaclty like RPG-7 4th hit.
6, Hit on rear turret, right side. Rear turret rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rack empty, turret crew dead, driver alive. ABV unit ventilator and coax MG mount damaged. Tank needs medium repairs.
7, Rear hull hit, center. Cooling fan and water radiator damaged, jet stopped by right cylinder head of engine. Crew unharmed, but mobility kill, engine seriously damaged.

 

9M111 Fagot (2 shots, 2 hits, 1830m)

1, Front hull hit, on headlights. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
2, Hit on commander's cupola, right side. Penetration, jet left on hatch. Searchlight destroyed, TPN-1 sight head mirror damaged, crew compartment covered by molten metal. Commander and gunner dead, loader and driver seriously wounded. Damage is light tank easily repaired.

 

9M14P1 Maljutka (2 shots, 2 hits, 2000m)

1, Front hull hit, on right tow hook. Penetration, jet hit the driver, and stopped by engine components. Only the loader survives, with serious wounds. Damage is light tank easily repaired.
2, Front turret hit, 30cm left to the coax MG. Penetration, MG damaged, rear rack hit, jet even penetrated rear turret. Explosion also destroyed L2 searchlight, extermal fuel cells and loaders periscope. Crew dead due to ammo explosion, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
If rear rack empty, loader dead, commander, gunner seriously wounded, driver lightly wounded. Tank needs medium repairs.

 

9M113 Konkurs (3 shots, 2 hits, 2400m)

1, missile malfunction, hit the ground far from target
2, Front hull hit, 5cm below driver's periscope. Penetration, jet hit the driver, gunner, commander, stopped by left cylinder head of engine. Only loader survives, with serious wounds. Tank lightly damaged.
3, Front hull hit, center, 5cm below the roof plate. Penetration, jet hit the front fuel cell, destroyed the electrical equipment of the stabilizator, stopped by gun breech. tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.

 

2S1 Gvozdika, 3VBK9 with 3BK13 shell (6 shots, 6 hits, 600m)

1, hit on left mudguard, track lightly damaged, but tank still mobile. Damage minor, tank fully operational, crew well and alive.
2, hit on turret front 15cm above main gun sight. Penetration, jet hit both gunner and commander, stopped by gun breech. Radio damaged, rear turret rack hit. Explosion was so powerful that it dislodged the turret, balls from turret ring fell out. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
If rear rack empty, turret crew dead, driver survives with wounds. Damage is severe, tank needs industrial rebuild.
3, side turret hit, center. Penetration, jet hit the loader, stopped by breech, which was seriously damaged. Gun jammed. Rest of crew seriously wounded. Tank needs medium repairs.
4, side hull hit, above 2nd road wheel. Fender totally destroyed, 2nd road wheel seriously damaged. Jet penetrated the hull, stopped by pre-heater. Mobility kill. Crew suffers negligible injuries, and if road wheel arm remains intact, tank needs light repairs only.
5, rear turret hit, center. Penetration, rear rack hit. Jet stopped by gun breech, which was dislodged. Hull roof warped.  Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rear rack empty, only driver survives, tank repairable, but needs new turret.
6, rear hull hit, center. Water radiator destroyed, jet stopped by gun breech. Only driver survives, tank needs medium repairs.

 

2S3 Akatsiya, 3VBP2 with BP540 shell (6 shots, 6 hits, 600m)

1, Turret front hit, near coax MG. Penetration, coax MG mount torn off, rear rack hit. Explosion was so powerful that it lifted the turret, turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls fell out. Fragments carved 8-10mm deep grooves in barrel. Damage is massive, both in and outside. If rear rack empty, only driver survives, but tank needs industrial level rebuild.
2, Hull front hit, 30cm below gun barrel. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
3, Turret side hit, frontal part of side. Penetration, jet hit loader, stopped by gun breech. Massive damage, gun torn off its mounting. No ammo detonation, but still, everyone dead. Tank needs at least medium repairs.
4, Hit on 4th road wheel, fender totally destroyed, track broke, huge damage on wheels. No penetration, but hit left a 2cm deep, 10cm wide mark on side hull. Mobility kill, crew alive, suffers only minor wounds. Tank needs light repairs.
5, Rear hull hit, 20cm below top. Water radiator torn off, roof plate opened. Engine also torn off its mountings, dislodged towards crew compartment, about 5-10cm. Crew suffers only minor wounds, but the damage in engine compartment is so severe that even industrial rebuild is questionable, due to warped hull and engine mounts.
6, Target was rear turret, but the previous shot opened the roof plate, and the shell detonated on it. Even more damage on engine compartment. Rear turret not penetrated but 2-3cm deep grooves in a 15cm diameter circle.

 

T-72, 3BK14 (3 shots, 3 hits, 800m) (again, no APFSDS... sad)

1, hull front hit, above headlights. Penetration, jet hit hull fuel cell/rack, then the loader, and dissipated in turret ring. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
2, Hit exactly between gun sight and the gun. Penetration, jet torn off the sight, and thrown out along with the commander's hatch which was locked. Jet penetrated rear turret too. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
If rear rack empty, driver maybe survives, tank needs medium repairs.
3, lower hull front hit, on KMT mount. Jet penetrated the hull, through the batteries, and stopped by the engine. Loader may survive. Tank needs medium repairs, unless hit causes fire.

 

I'll translate the rest tomorrow.
 

Share this post


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

 

Okay, as promised:


First some boring, uninteresting text, wont translate. There is some noteworthy fact: we exported 50 T-34/85s to Norway for use as mobile hard targets...

 

 

Any more info on this? The only T-34/85 in Norway, that I know of, was brought back from the Balkans.

Share this post


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

Any more info on this? The only T-34/85 in Norway, that I know of, was brought back from the Balkans.

Sadly nothing...

 

Second part. 

 

T-55AM, BR-412M (actually, BR-412B. It was also known as 3UBR3, no idea where this "BR-412M" comes from...)
7 shots, 7 hits, 800m

 

1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 45mm deep gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Front lower hull hit, at the lower edge. Shell torn out a chunk of metal, 50mm deep, and flew below the tank. Damage is only cosmetic, requires no repair. Tank fully operationa, crew unharmed.
3-4, Turret side hit, right side, center. Both shots landed about the same place. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Side hull hit, right side, in front of 3rd road wheel. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6-7, Rear turret hit, one on lower, one on upper part. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.

 

T-55AM, BR-412B
9 shots, 9 hits, 1200m

 

1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 30mm deep, 22cm long gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Target front turret, but gun barrel hit instead. The shell torn out an 50x200m long chunk of metal from the barrel, bending it, then hit the gun mantlet and exploding on it. The force of the impact was such that the turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls from the ring fell out.
Damage requires medium repairs, but actually no penetration, so the crew is unharmed. 
3, Hit on upper edge of front hull, near driver's periscopes. Shell left a 35mm deep gouge, no penetration. Driver's hatch opened, so large amounts of fragments entered the compartment. Driver received serious wounds. Rest of crew unharmed. Tank requires light repairs.
4, Side hull hit, right side, between 3rd and 4th road wheels. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Right side hull hit, on the rim of 4th road wheel. Wheel damaged, then penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6, Left side hull "hit" (actually, I would consider this a miss), between 3rd and 4th wheels, on tracks on ground. Slight damage to wheels, track broke. Mobility kill, but otherwise tank and crew unharmed. Damage is so slight that even the crew can repair it quickly.
7-8, Rear turret hits. 8th was actually aimed at rear hull. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.
9, Rear hull hit, center. Penetration, shell explodes inside engine compartment. Gearbox, water and oil radiators completely destroyed. Massive damage in other equipment. Engine rear cylinder bank also destroyed, and whole engine torn off its mountings, tilted towards firewall.
No damage in crew compartment, crew may receive negliglible injuries. Mobility kill. Devastation in engine compartment is so massive that even industrial rebuild is questionable due to warped hull and torn out engine mountings.

 

T-55AM, BR-412B
8 shots, 8 hits, 1600m

 

1, Front hull hit, right side. Shell left a 40mm deep, 25cm long gouge. Mudguard broke off. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (mudguard)
2, Hit on joining of turret and commander cupola. Cupola rim broke off, but no serious damage. Crew unharmed, maybe except commander with insignificant injuries. Tank operational, and needs only minor repairs.
3, Front turret hit, left side, in the level of gun barrel. Shell left a 45-50mm wide, 18cm long, 35mm deep gouge. No damage. Tank requires no repairs, crew unharmed.
4, Side hull hit, right side, above 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated at the firewall between crew and engine compartment. Shell fragments hit a rear ammo rack, damaged the transfer case, and stopped in the engine.
Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Hit at almost the same place as 4. Results same. 
6, Hit on right 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated the wheel, flew below the tank, penetrated the wheel on other side, and exploded 20 meters away from the tank. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (wheels).
7, Turret side hit, on joining of loader's cupola and turret. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
8, Turret side hit, 15cm above lower rim. No penetration. Shell left a 70mm deep crater of 200mm diameter. Crew unharmed, tank operational. Minor damage to outside equipment, nothing serious.

 

GYATA-64 anti-personnel mine. (4 explosions)
This type of mine is infamous for containing huge (in fact, record) amount of explosives for an anti personnel mine. (300g) It was actually designed to damage wheeled vehicles too.

1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Caused absolutely no damage.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion lifted the plow, but caused absolutely no damage.
3, mine placed below track, between two roadwheels. Explosion blew off a small part of the track, and bent the track pin. This damage does not affect the tank's mobility, and can be repaired by the crew.
4, mine placed below the 4th road wheel. Explosion lifted the wheel, and caused totally insignificant damage on tire. Requires no repairs, mobility unaffected.

 

UKA-63 anti tank mine.

UKA means universal cumulative mine. Can be fitted with conventional or tilt rod fuse. Explosive mass is 6kg.

 

1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Explosion threw up the arm of the trawl up to hard stops. Some components broke off. Of the 3 segments on the roller, the middle suffered damage. Tank also suffered a bit, left mudguard and the ZIP case broke off.
Tank operational, but the trawl requires light repairs.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off the plow, totally deforming it. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
3, mine placed below the 3rd road wheel. Explosion dislodged 3rd and 4th wheel, tire destroyed, track broke. Fender above is seriously damaged. Belly plate slightly warped, so tank requires industrial level rebuild. Crew suffers light injuries.
4, mine exploded below the driver's seat. Seat along with driver completely destroyed, torsion bar bent upwards to compartment. Fragments also destroyed the batteries, and holed the fuel tank. Only loader survives. Chance of tank burning is high.
Repair impossible due to seriously warped belly plate.
5, mine exploded below the engine compartment. Jet made a 6x8cm hole, cut the engine crankshaft in half, and stopped by a cylinder head. Engine was also torn off its mountings. Belly plate bent upwards by 5cm. This kind of damage is unrepairable, tank total loss.
Crew suffers light to moderate injuries.
6, explosion under drive sprocket, imitating a tilt rod fuse. Track broke, sprocket and its shaft damaged. Crew unharmed, tank requires only light repairs.

 

crazy experiment No1: mine placed on top turret, next to night sight. Explosion warped top plate, jet damaged gun breech. Crew seriously wounded. Tank needs new turret.
crazy experiment No2: mine  set up like a MON-200 directional mine, 20 meters away from the side of the tank. Jet almost completely dissipated, causing no damage. On some periscopes glass cracked.

 

TM-62P3 shaped charge anti tank mine.

Explosive mass 7.5kg. We acquired more than 70 thousand pieces from Bulgaria.

 

1, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off part of the plow. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
2, mine placed below 2nd road wheel. Explosion torn off the wheel along with the suspension arm. Track broke in many places. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
3, mine placed between 3rd and 4th wheels, below track. Track broke in many places, serious damage on wheels. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
4, mine placed below left drive sprocket. Track broke, some damage on sprocket. Damage is light, easily repairable. If explosion also damages the final drive casing, tank total loss, repair impossible.
5-6, one mine below front of tank, one in back. Front explosion split open the belly plate, torsion bars deformed. Front fuel cell/ammo rack hit, causing ammo detonation. Rear mine damaged the engine and water radiator, and also warped the hull.
Damage is unrepairable in both cases.

 

MON-200 directional mine.

It was placed 30 meters away from the tank, at 150cm height. Warhead contains 12kg of explosives and 900 pieces of fragments. Stuff on left side suffers considerable damage, the worst is 3rd road wheel, where tire was separated, and bearing cap destroyed.
Periscopes also suffered damage. Still, overall damage is light. Crew unharmed if buttoned, but if not, exposed members surely die.

 

LPO-50 flamethrower.

Tank was attacked by a team of 2 soldiers, each with flamers. They blasted the tank from the front, side and rear. Only the cover of the gun mantlet, and the rubber seal between turret and hull caught fire.
Basically, the flamer was useless. The little fire on the turret seal was easily extinguished by the PPO system or by the crew. However, the crew would be forced to leave the tank to avoid breathing in the extinguisher agent.

 

"Napalm field".

2 shallow trenches were dug in front of the tank, 100 meter long. Trenches were filled with plastic bags, containing napalm. Tank was controlled remotely without driver, in 1st gear. Tank was supplied with only 5 liters of fuel, for safety reasons, so it could drive for 100-150 meters.
Crew was simulated by temperature sensors. When the tank rolled over the trenches, napalm was ignited. Absolutely nothing caught fire, tank survived the test without any damage. Temperature sensors detected no temp increase.

 

"Napalm bomb".

A hole was dug below the tank, and filled with 300 liters of incendiary. This time, there was a glitch in the test. Somebody forgot to close the escape hatch in the belly, so the tank totally burned out.

 

Conclusions:

Training:
- RPG and SPG gunner training needs more emphasis on countering crosswind
- Enemy tanks need to be studied more, to identify weak points.
- Hits on fenders and stuff stored on them cause no damage that affect the capabilities of the tank

Effects of AT weapons:

- All AT weapon was able to destroy the T-54, even from the front.
- Hull front, where the fuel cell/ammo rack is mounted, is very vulnerable. Penetration here is likely to cause ammo detonation.
- Side hull of any type of tank is very vulnerable, surface to be attacked is much bigger, and also armor is weaker.
- Most vulnerable part is rear of the tank. Rear turrt hits were always fatal, but hull hits arent, engine and other components absorbed most hits.
- HEAT shells of MT-12, and especially of the 2S1 and 2S3 have a huge secondary effect of fragmentation. This is devastating for any external components. Also seriously damaging for running gear.

Additionally, the results obtained on firing at T-54 tanks cannot be applied to NATO tanks in service (I think they mean Abrams and Leopard-2), but M-48A2 and M-60A3 may be similar, although ther was no data on
the chemical composition and quality of their armor material. Compared to previous live firings on T-34 tanks, the behavior of shaped charge jet was different. On T-34, the penetration channel was conical, exit hole was larger.
On T-54, the entry and exit holes were similar, thanks to its harder armor.

Effects of mines:

-GYATA-64 anti personnel mine is able to damage wheeled vehicles, and may able to damage tracks too. (WTF???)
-UKA-63 and TM-62P2 mines met the expectations, very effective

Incendiaries:

- LPO-50 flamer is good vs infantry, and useless vs tanks, unless hatches are opened.
- "napalm field" and "napalm bomb" are ineffective, but for crews is important to close all hatches.

To be tested in future:
- more tests for behind armor effects on crews, primarily shaped charges.
- results of live firins should be shared (for tank crews?)
- need a firing range where APFSDS can be tested.
- existing tanks need uparmor kits
- SPG-9 as "light artillery"


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Strela armored vehicle stats.

grgtrtx.jpg

 

   Stats, from VPK site (maker of this vehicle)

Spoiler

3pDleE3.jpg

 

4.5 t, can carry up to 800 kg, 200 hp. Cummins engine, max slope that vehicle can overcome - 31 degr, vertical wall - at least 0.4m. 

Protection. Ballistic armor of the crew compartment - against LPS from SVD and PS from AKM, (OTT level 2). Explosives - up to 2 kg under wheels and under crew compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   On the eve of the 100th anniversary of domestic tank building, Uralvagonzavod registered new trademarks: Tankprom (100 years), Tankprom (100 years), T-34, T-34 (Uralvagonzavod), Tridtsatchetverka and UVZ ".
   For the anniversary of the tank industry, Uralvagonzavod designers have developed unique logos "Tankprom" (100 years) and "Tankprom" (100 years). They will be used in promotional materials and at all industry anniversary celebrations.

 

Um5uZ2j.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Army 2020 expo is starting soon, so some info about new AFVs starts to show up.

   New export version of Tigr with some of Atlet features/parts.

Quote

   Export modification of the armored vehicle SBM VPK-233136

 

   The export modification of the armored vehicle SBM VPK-233136 (complete set 233136-0000060) based on the components and assemblies of the Atlet car is intended for the transportation of personnel, military cargo with the required level of protection, installation of weapons systems and special equipment, as well as for towing trailed systems.

 

   The main differences between the new export modification of the SBM and the previous models of the armored vehicle SBM VPK-233136 are: a new five-door armored hull with increased protection, including mine protection; diesel engine YaMZ-534 or Cummins ISB6.7E5300, 292 hp. with environmental class Euro 5, automatic transmission. As standard, the car is equipped with anti-traumatic seats for all crew members.

 

   With a gross weight of 9 tons, the armored car is capable of a maximum speed on the highway of at least 120 km / h, and the fuel capacity allow to reach range of 1,000 km. The armored hull provides the crew with ballistic protection of class 2 or 3 according to OTT 9.1.12.1 and mine protection when detonating explosive devices under the wheel or bottom with a capacity of up to 2-4 kg in TNT equivalent.

 

ZOwA7wM.jpg

Quote

   Vehicle SBM VPK-233136 "Tiger" in Buggy version

 

   The vehicle was developed on a proactive basis in order to meet the requirements of customers in terms of creating high-speed reconnaissance and assault vehicles of high cross-country ability, capable of making deep raids behind enemy lines. "Buggy" was created on the basis of the chassis of a special armored vehicle SBM VPK-233136 with the installation of a YaMZ-5347-24 turbodiesel, developing a maximum power of 240 hp, combined with an automatic transmission.

   The Buggy is equipped with brackets for the installation of a 12.7-mm 6P58 KORD machine gun on the 6U16 mount and three 7.62-mm PKP Pecheneg (or PKM) machine guns, as well as stowages for placing three RPG-26 anti-tank rocket grenades (or assault rocket grenades RShG-2), two portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) "Igla-S" (or "Verba") and a magazine-boxes with ammunition for machine guns - 400 rounds of ammunition for a 12.7-mm machine gun and 4,000 cartridges for 7.62 mm machine guns.

   The Buggy has anti-traumatic seats to accommodate five crew members, including the driver.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   BTR-82AT with new turret/combat module

Quote

   BTR-82AT armored personnel carrier with a new combat module

 

   The BTR-82AT armored personnel carrier with a new combat module and a set of protective and cage armor in terms of the composition of the armament complex, protection and the ability to solve tactical and fire missions, in fact, has turned into a wheeled BMP. Thanks to the implemented measures, the combat effectiveness coefficient of the BTR-82AT increased by 1.2 times compared to the BTR-82A.

 

   A set of protective and slat armor plates mounted on the hull and turret significantly increases the anti-bullet and anti-HEAT resistance when hit by ammunition from large-caliber machine guns and anti-tank rocket grenades.

   Additional protection installed on the BTR-82AT increased the combat weight of the armored personnel carrier to 17.25 tons, which limited the vehicle's ability to overcome water obstacles by swimming. However, when the uparmor kit removed from the machine, it is again capable of performing this task.

 

   At the Army-2020 International Military-Technical Forum, the BTR-82AT is being demonstrated for the first time with the BTR-BM remotely controlled combat module (DUBM).

 

   As the main and secondary weapons in the BTR-BM DBM, a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun paired with it, respectively. In addition, a 9K111-1M Konkurs-M guided missile system with two 9M113M ATGM launchers was installed on the DUBM. As an auxiliary weapon, there are 6 launchers of the 902V Tucha smoke layingsystem.

 

   Thanks to the thermal imaging channel, the detection range of BMP-BTR-type targets at night increased from 1,200 m to 3,000 m. The presence of an automatic target tracking system significantly increases the likelihood of hitting moving targets on the move, regardless of the operator's training level. The combat module is controlled from the automated workstation of the gunner-operator, installed in the chassis of the combat vehicle, on which the DUBM is mounted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   Multipurpose armored vehicle VPK-59095S "VPK - Ural"

 

   A characteristic feature of this machine is that it is created on a two-axle chassis of the Ural-53099 vehicle, using mass-produced units and assemblies of military multi-purpose vehicles of the Ural brand. This significantly reduces the overall cost of the product, improves usability and lowers operating costs.

   The chassis has a dependent leaf spring suspension, however, as the first off-road runs of the car showed, the car has a good ride.

 

   The armored vehicle "VPK - Ural" is designed to carry 12 people in full gear, including the driver. At the same time, they are located in a one-volume armored hull, providing class 2 ballistic protection according to OTT 9.1.12.1. Optionally, the level of ballistic protection can be increased to class 3-4 by installing armor screens. Mine resistance protects from the detonation of explosive devices under the wheel or bottom of mines up to 6 kg in TNT equivalent.

 

   The multipurpose vehicle "VPK - Ural" is equipped with the domestic YMZ-536 turbodiesel, developing a power of 360 hp. and an automatic transmission. A 14-ton car on the highway is capable of a speed of 100 km/h and more.

 

   The large volume, high protection of the armored vehicle "VPK - Ural" contribute to the use of this vehicle as a base for the installation of various equipment and its use as an electronic warfare machine, KShM, armored medical vehicle, etc.

 

3XRugS6.jpg

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...