Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

Ukrainian armor - Oplot-M, T-64M Bulat and other.

Recommended Posts

   To make a point clear - they already done some turret swaping with T-72-120 turret and T-72-based vehicles chassis, but i didn't saw any new produced test turrets/mods. I doubt that they will do anything with Yatagan or turret from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3300484.html

http://thaidefense-news.blogspot.com/2018/08/t-84-oplot-6-2-2.html

@Collimatrix

@Bronezhilet

Ukraine finally made it. Last Ololots were delivered to Thailand. Contract is done.

38788476_1923592664365849_6998355609162612736_n.jpg

 

Quote

   According to the Thai web site Thadefense-News, on July 29, 2018, a historic event happened without much of publicity: the last shipment of BM "Oplot-T" tanks delivered from Ukraine was unloaded from the Thai port of Sattahip, completing the implementation of the long-suffering Ukrainian-Thai tank contract of 2011 . The last shipment delivered to Thailand by sea on July 29 included the last six BM Oplot-T tanks from 49 ordered under this contract, as well as both armored recovery vehicles (BREM) "Athlet" on the same base.

   On July 30 all the unloaded equipment of the last batch was delivered from Sattahip to the location of the 2nd division of the Thai army in Prachinburi, east of Bangkok. It is reported that the final official acceptance of this party by the Thai army will be made in September after the tests.

   The contract number USE-18.2-356-D / K-11 worth more than $ 240 million was signed by SC Ukrspetsexport on September 1, 2011 for the supply of the army of Thailand with 49 new tanks BM Oplot-T and two armored repair- evacuation vehicles "Athlet" on their base, with a deadline for the execution of the contract by the end of 2014.

 

Share this post


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

All tank diesels at some modes produce a lot of smoke.

I know, but on russian parade 9th of May T-90 did not produce to much smoke. What is the reason for this? Engine сonstruction (6TD/V-92(84)) or army service?

 

%20%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%t-90A_guard_parad_+9+may_moscow_2011.jpg235387701.jpg

Share this post


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

Yatagan

24c6WzPpW4g.jpg

 

83HR0R9DRp0.jpg

 

No idea why they brought it up, as for general public T-84 and Yatagan look exactly the same.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

VK111xXTMR0.jpg

 

StiUX1Wx24Q.jpg

 

H-qqBZjwq30.jpg

 

RN7dTckU7pg.jpg

 

w_4whSMHFcw.jpg

 

vQvsjQeYsbs.jpg

 

Maybe they couldn’t produce enough T-84s for the parade until 2025 :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Karamazov said:

a lot of smoke

 b3AhWIPTVko.jpg

 

 

why?

 

Proper, god-fearing Soviet tanks use four-stroke diesel engines.  When the tank is cruising, the engine should be happy and produce very little smoke.  But when the engine is suddenly changing RPM, the fuel/air mix usually isn't quite right, and there will be some un-burned fuel that creates the clouds of black smoke.  If you watch videos of Soviet tanks they usually smoke a bit whenever they turn, because Soviet tank steering mechanisms don't maintain the same average track velocity when the tank turns, which means that the engine changes RPM.  It's the same thing as the puff of smoke you usually see big rig semis produce when they accelerate.

The Kharkov design bureau favored two-stroke diesel engines for their tanks.  The advantage of a two-stroke diesel is that it produces a lot more power for a given size and weight of engine than a four-stroke diesel.  In theory they are also more fuel-efficient, although I am not sure they are in practice.  The disadvantage is... well, there are lots of disadvantages.

 

One other quirk of two-stroke diesels is that they aren't lubricated the same way as four-stroke diesel engines.  A normal four-stroke engine has separate oil and fuel.  You fill up your car with gas, and every once in a while you check the oil and replace the oil.

Two-stroke motors aren't like that.  They don't have separate fuel and lubrication systems.  Think of a chainsaw; the fuel and lubrication oil are mixed together, and the moving parts of the engine are lubricated using this fuel/oil mixture.  This further reduces the size of the engine, but it means that there's a bunch of oil mixed in with the fuel, which tends to produce a blue or white smoke as the motor runs.

If you look at pictures of Chieftains on parade, they're usually surrounded with a blue/white smoke for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Proper, god-fearing Soviet tanks use four-stroke diesel engines.  When the tank is cruising, the engine should be happy and produce very little smoke.

 

Older tanks, like T-54/55/62, and anything that uses V2 derivative engines also produce lots of smoke. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with two and four stroke. M113 has a two stroke Detroit Diesel, and it barely produces smoke. Piston ring design for example, is much more important. Probably this is the case with 5TDF/6TD. 

There is a russian firm (Batmaster-Istra) that, among other things rebuilds engines. They developed a modernization package which involves replacing pistons. Result: much lower oil consumption (= less smoke) and significantly longer service life. https://web.archive.org/web/20170421001645/http://www.bmz.ru/disel/mdis.htm

Share this post


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

If you look at pictures of Chieftains on parade, they're usually surrounded with a blue/white smoke for the same reason.

thank you for full answer. 

Share this post


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

 

Older tanks, like T-54/55/62, and anything that uses V2 derivative engines also produce lots of smoke. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with two and four stroke. M113 has a two stroke Detroit Diesel, and it barely produces smoke. Piston ring design for example, is much more important. Probably this is the case with 5TDF/6TD. 

There is a russian firm (Batmaster-Istra) that, among other things rebuilds engines. They developed a modernization package which involves replacing pistons. Result: much lower oil consumption (= less smoke) and significantly longer service life. https://web.archive.org/web/20170421001645/http://www.bmz.ru/disel/mdis.htm

 

Older diesels smoke more.

 

Pretty sure the M113 has a four-stroke diesel.  It certainly doesn't sound like a two-stroke:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2018 at 5:36 PM, Collimatrix said:

Pretty sure the M113 has a four-stroke diesel.  It certainly doesn't sound like a two-stroke:

 

Google Detroit Diesel 6V53. Its a quite successful, reliable two stroke diesel. M551 also uses this engine.

Old LVTP7 again had a two stroke engine, but a little bit bigger 8V53.  M109 uses a 8V71. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2018 at 9:42 AM, heretic88 said:

 

Google Detroit Diesel 6V53. Its a quite successful, reliable two stroke diesel. M551 also uses this engine.

Old LVTP7 again had a two stroke engine, but a little bit bigger 8V53.  M109 uses a 8V71. 

 

 

The M113's relative lack of smoke might be because it's lighter and has a smaller engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really due to size or age, its purely due to the engine design. Diesels with better sealing and higher engine temperature don't smoke as much as lower-temperature or poorly-sealed engine (the smoke is unburned or partially burned fuel/oil).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2018 at 4:20 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

One other quirk of two-stroke diesels is that they aren't lubricated the same way as four-stroke diesel engines.  A normal four-stroke engine has separate oil and fuel.  You fill up your car with gas, and every once in a while you check the oil and replace the oil.

Two-stroke motors aren't like that.  They don't have separate fuel and lubrication systems.  Think of a chainsaw; the fuel and lubrication oil are mixed together, and the moving parts of the engine are lubricated using this fuel/oil mixture.  This further reduces the size of the engine, but it means that there's a bunch of oil mixed in with the fuel, which tends to produce a blue or white smoke as the motor runs.
 

 2 stroke diesels used in Tanks and APC's has a separate oil sump just like on a 4 stroke, it is not a moped engine. 2 strokes smoke more because of larger injectors and they always have pressure charged intake air by a compressor / Roots Blower. They usually have more torque at low RPM compared to a 4 stroke.
 

I was a Tank Mechanic in the Danish army, been working on Centurions, Leo 2, M113 and the M578 +  Centurion recovery vehicle.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 3:43 PM, Mortenbandit said:

 2 stroke diesels used in Tanks and APC's has a separate oil sump just like on a 4 stroke, it is not a moped engine. 2 strokes smoke more because of larger injectors and they always have pressure charged intake air by a compressor / Roots Blower. They usually have more torque at low RPM compared to a 4 stroke.
 

I was a Tank Mechanic in the Danish army, been working on Centurions, Leo 2, M113 and the M578 +  Centurion recovery vehicle.. 

 

 

Interesting.  I didn't realize that the large 2 strokes were that different.

 

Why do 2 strokes have larger injectors?

Share this post


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

I didn't realize that the large 2 strokes were that different.

There are a few tricks that separate gasoline and diesel (and AFAIK supercharged and naturally aspirated) 2 stroke engines.

The problem with 2-stroke engines is that the moment the down-stroke is done, the entire cylinder has to be scavenged and filled with clean air (and fuel, for gasoline engines). And the cylinder is full of hot gas above atmospheric pressure.

So on small engines, the crankcase and piston are used as a pump, with the piston sliding also playing the role of the valves. On the up stroke air is drawn into the crankcase, on the down stroke it gets pressured and then pumped into the cylinder, ready to work.

clip_image0028_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800

This of course means you have a lot of air going through your crankcase and can't just spray oil on it, but mix it in with the fuel. You can also get iffy performance thanks to questionable scavenging, rich mixture (if its a diesel, the fuel is injected directly, regardless of the scavenging efficiency), and so on.

In larger 2-strokes, the overpressure problem is solved with a blower of some kind, usually an engine-powered supercharger (turbos don't work at low speed, but external blowing is also possible), which allows the crankcase to not be used for air pumping. This means it can be lubricated like a normal engine.

Additionally, with some cam-operated valves, and careful arrangement of the system, good axial scavenging can be achieved.

image154.jpg

Linear scavenging is even more useful for cylinders with a high stroke to bore ratio; such as are found on opposed-piston engines. These are tempermental beasts, but when properly tuned put out a lot of power for their weight and volume. 

Napier_deltic_animation_large.gif

The Napier Deltic took this to a whole new level, and it worked pretty well, but was very hard to maintain.

 

With modern CFD and CAD, the precise arrangement of ports, timing, and dimensions can be found to make this work reliably and efficiently. 

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 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 
          
    • By delfosisyu
      Hey guys. This is my first post in this forum.
       
       
       
      I want to find out sources for 2 information.
       
       
       
       
      Firstly, a friend of mine told me about the accuracy of T-80B tested in 1980s.
       
       
       
       
       
      T-80B      1000m   1500m     2000m
                      
                      87%       66%       46%
       
       
       
       
       
      I asked him where he found this data. But he told me he forgot where he did find this since too much time passed from that moment.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      The Second one is about Russian ballistic computer's range-finding rate.
       
       
      One day, one of my friends who speaks russian quite well showed me a product info. of russian(maybe ukrainian) gunner's primary sight.
       
       
      It was written that range-finding rate of the sight after laser fired-off 0.3~3.0 seconds. 
       
       
      I totally forgot the address of that product brochure.
       
       
       
      I'd be very appreciated if you help me finding links of these information.
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
×
×
  • Create New...