Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

AFAIK i posted about this months ago. Looks like they still didn't fixed those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious news.  On the one hand, making a reliable transmission for a tank has been historically difficult for a lot of designers.  On the other hand, I'm not sure how the South Koreans are having such a big problem.  Their transmission can't be that much more compact than the German one they are using as a substitute, because they both fit into the same vehicle.  It's unlikely to be much more advanced too, since those RENK transmissions have all the bells and whistles.  Also, it was designed decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this might sound retarded, but what sort of thickness of good ol´ regular steel do you need to stop 75 or 76mm HE shells? assuming good quality armour steel of course, not German "shatters like glass" types of steel. I am losing sleep over this. I am assuming that it is 30mm or so given the side armour of tanks like AMX-30, Leopard 1 and Type-74, as i assume that the designers would not be stupid enough to leave the tanks vulnerable to one of the most common weapons in soviet inventory.

Edited by Toimisto

Share this post


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

So, this might sound retarded, but what sort of thickness of good ol´ regular steel do you need to stop 75 or 76mm HE shells? assuming good quality armour steel of course, not German "shatters like glass" types of steel. I am losing sleep over this. I am assuming that it is 30mm or so given the side armour of tanks like AMX-30, Leopard 1 and Type-74, as i assume that the designers would not be stupid enough to leave the tanks vulnerable to one of the most common weapons in soviet inventory.

 

It depends exactly how and when the HE round explodes.

If the HE rounds are exploding overhead and throwing shell fragments, the Western paper-tanks should be safe.  In fact, even the aluminum-armored M113 was safe against this sort of threat.  HE round fragments have good initial velocity, but very poor sectional density and aerodynamics, so they are crummy armor penetrators.  The invention of proximity fuses at the end of WWII meant that it got a lot easier to have large-caliber HE shells explode before they hit the ground.  The proximity fuse detected the ground and triggered the shell some distance before it hit the ground.  This meant that the fragments spread from a higher level above the ground and chewed up more area around the shell strike, which is very good for pulverizing infantry.  I'm not sure when the Soviets got proximity fuses, but I doubt they were too far behind the USA.

If the HE rounds are exploding on contact with the armor of the vehicle, the armor needs to withstand not just the impact of the fragments but also the blast overpressure wave from the explosion.  Here again I would guess that the Western tanks are safe, since 30mm would be considered quite thick for belly armor against mines.  That said, there is a difference in the sort of steel that is ideal for armor against armor-piercing shells and armor that is good for dealing with blast overpressure.  Armor against armor-piercing shells is ideally rather hard but a bit brittle, armor against blast overpressure is ideally tough but a bit soft (toughness and hardness are always a trade-off in steel).

If the HE round in question is an APHE round that has some degree of structural integrity and is fused to explode a few fractions of a second after hitting something, I think the Leo 1 is screwed.  Regular HE rounds don't really overmatch thin armor well, since overmatch essentially involves the shell bending it's flight trajectory abruptly after hitting something hard.  Regular HE shells have enough of a shell wall to generate fragments, and they're not really well-suited for such extreme maneuvers.  But semi-AP HE projectiles have enough of an armor-piercing body, and usually have delayed-action fuses such that they could probably poke right through.

So as long as those 76mm guns have APHE, AP or they could pose a threat from the side.  Regular HE, especially with a contact or proximity fuse will probably not work well.  That said, there was also a HEAT round for the 76mm field gun, the UBP-344A.  I haven't been able to find performance, but it could be that those were a threat from the front.

Share this post


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

Sort of what i imagined then, given the armour of A-32 and the T-50 light tank, which if i remember correctly were considered "Shell-Proof".

 

According to Richard Ogorkiewicz's Seven Habits of Highly Effective AFV Designers, if you make a monocoque tracked vehicle hull out of RHA steel, about the point that it's structurally sound as a vehicle hull, it is also "shell proof."  So the only way an AFV could really fail to be shell proof is if it's open-topped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bangladesh refused to purchase Russian T-72B3 in favor of Chinese modernized tanks

from Gurkhan

Quote

   On February 3, the Ministry of Defense of Bangladesh reported that negotiations between Bangladesh and Russia on the purchase of T-72B3 tanks failed. Reason: Russia asked for too high a price.
    As sources in Bangladesh write, the price offered by the Russian side is at least $ 3 million for each tank. "For tanks manufactured over 20 years ago, this is an unacceptably high price," the Bengalis say.
    Earlier, the Ministry of Defense of Bangladesh reported that the T-72B3 purchased in Russia would be used to form a new tank regiment. Currently, Bangladesh is reforming its armed forces, with an increase in the number of infantry divisions from 7 to 10. This will automatically require an increase in the tank fleet.

  As an alternative to the Russian tank, the Bengali military chose the old Chinese "Type 59" with the upgrading kit "T series main battle tanks upgrade kit" from NORINKO. At the same time, modernization will be carried out at the capacities of the local tank-repair enterprise.

   The upgraded tank will receive the designation "59G Durjoy" (Du Qiaoyi) and will generally correspond to the Chinese tank VT-3, delivered to Tanzania and first demonstrated at the parade in 2011.

 

article in English

https://www.waonews.com/news/7095-Foreign_media_Bengal_s_refusal_to_buy_Russian_T72_will_buy_hundreds_of_Chinese_secondhand_59_tanks.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2018 at 8:22 PM, LoooSeR said:

Egypt, Abrams tanks

 

 

For a second I thought they were highlighting the benefit of child labour in their tank-building workforce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

For a second I thought they were highlighting the benefit of child labour in their tank-building workforce. 

Yeah, editing is not very good, confusing at first.

 

13 hours ago, Belesarius said:

They are useful things to have around.

I guess he is reffering to age of that thing. It is like if T-64 had a musket on top of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photo from Andrey's blog, Songun-915. ERA layout is not very good near the gun.

799446_original.jpg

 

5 minutes ago, Toimisto said:

So, whats wrong with the K2 other than the automotive problems? seen people being negative about it a lot lately.

So far only serious/noticeable problems are with transmission. I didn't heard about any other problem as serious as it.

Share this post


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

These tanks seem to use a different/larger ATGM system than the Ch'ŏnma-ho tanks.

My eyes says that caliber is similar. I guess they are just a mock up launchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


×