Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the videos, Sturgeon.  The Centurion one really took me back.  Australia kept the 20pr, but added the ranging gun, to give the 5/1 (Aust).  And may I suggest that the fume extractor was one of the truly great innovations from the point of view of the turret crew.  We still had a few Type A barrels in service, as in the video, and "you can really tell the difference".

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the videos, Sturgeon.  The Centurion one really took me back.  Australia kept the 20pr, but added the ranging gun, to give the 5/1 (Aust).  And may I suggest that the fume extractor was one of the truly great innovations from the point of view of the turret crew.  We still had a few Type A barrels in service, as in the video, and "you can really tell the difference".

 

B

Welcome to SH Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the videos, Sturgeon.  The Centurion one really took me back.  Australia kept the 20pr, but added the ranging gun, to give the 5/1 (Aust).  And may I suggest that the fume extractor was one of the truly great innovations from the point of view of the turret crew.  We still had a few Type A barrels in service, as in the video, and "you can really tell the difference".

 

B

 

Welcome to the forum, Bill! Glad you liked the videos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Chieftain video seems a bit optimistic regarding it's mobility.  Also, I have no experience as far as what it's like to be a tank crewman, but the claim that crews can spend three days in the tank in case of NBC attack seems quite horrifying.  Three days locked up in a metal box with three other dudes?  Sounds pretty stinky.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Al-Zarrar that's burnt down and missing a good chunk of the spaced armor.  Is it the lack of anything behind that spaced armor that is the focus here (as in, it was some type of composite add-on)?

Edited by Scolopax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Those UAE Leclercs in Yemen may provide us with interesting information about how well Lecs are protected. It would be very interesting to see results of combat between ATGM-equipped Houthis and those tanks. This is first serious conflict for French MBT that i remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have at one point wondered "why is the Leclerc turret so big?  It has a two-man crew and autoloader, so shouldn't it be more T-72-sized?"

Well, if you've ever thought that, you're a nerd.

 

Turns out that the Leclerc's turret is pretty tidy:

 

8310b.jpg

 

8387106036_6ce5eaaa1d_b.jpg

 

However, it has large composite armor modules that make it look much larger.  Also, the area above the gun is large to allow good depression of the armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia Today fails at basic tank ID

 

"Hundreds of Abraham M1 Abrams, provided by Saudi Arabia, rolled out of Aden, Tuesday, in a bid to strengthen forces loyal to ousted president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi as they continue to fight with Houthi militants for the al-Anad air base in Taiz. Reports emerging Tuesday claim that the base has been re-captured to those loyal to Hadi, with the forces reportedly aided by heavy aerial assistance from Saudi-led coalition"

 

Abraham M1 Abrams?

 

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 LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • 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...