Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

So, who have accurate information on Altay suspension? Pics from tank.net

wC1Vxxh.jpg

 

p1HTRfa.jpg

 

Also, are those sides small plates armor or armor mounting points?

nVsQ38L.jpg

 

It seems that driver have problem with leaving vehicle because of mantlet.

sceE3bv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK you can get in and out of Soviet MBTs with gun facing direct forward, because of space available (gun barrel don't completely block exit path). In case of Altay a big blocky mantlet seems to totally block exit way for a driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

One of the complaints about the protection on the later Soviet tanks was the weak area around the gun.  Putting a big, extended mantlet would solve that problem, but at the expense of the driver!

 

I suppose they could put the driver off to the side, like in a Leo 2, but I suspect it's hard to protect the driver adequately when they're offset like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merks and Leclercs managed to do that, in serial vehicles. In fact, drivers that are located closer to sides are outside of aiming point, and outside of most probable location of enemy fire hits (frontal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the driver's protection from attack on their side is much lower.  Modern armor is just too bulky; you can't put a reasonable amount of it on the sides without making the tank too wide.  Also, much of the area that would need to be protected is filled up with track.

 

Given the lower probability of hitting the hull in the first place, this is perhaps acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-14 have serious protection from the side. Crew capsule is fairly well protected from sides, above and below. Another example are Object 490A Rebel, 477 Molot.

BTW, I don't think that Merkava drivers are covered with less armour from their side that from other (at least in Merk 3BdD and 4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, there is clearly armor on the side hull under the tracks.

 

However, for a given type of armor, protection will be a function of thickness.  Which is a greater thickness, the distance from the driver's position to the near side of the hull when they are offset, or the driver's position to the sides of the hull when they are centerline?

 

Also, the vast majority of modern armor types have less protection per unit thickness than does RHA.  They are just much, much lighter than solid steel.  There are a few things that provide better protection per inch than RHA, like steel laminates, but their protection is rather modest (50% better than RHA or so).

 

So, you are more limited by geometry in how much you can protect something in a tank than by anything else.

 

The hull receives fewer hits than the turret, and the sides fewer hits than the front, so moving the crew down into the hull like in T-14 may be an improvement on average, but it is not without compromises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there are costs for each layout.

In Soviet MBTs driver position is rather not very good - his hatch and periscopes create a weakspot right in the middle of frontal projection, while protection from sides is no better than if he was located differently in frontal hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a baby M47, until your eye starts trying to locate the rangefinder, make sense of the tumor, and then you notice the drive sprocket location.

 

MBT70peak.jpg

 

The FRG version of the MBT-70 (that is, the less silly one) shows off its ability to take hull-down positions.

 

Adjustable tilt suspension seems like a reasonable way to get enough gun depression to take good defilade positions without making the turret taller and heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, you lose on ground clearance but only when you're not moving so nobody cares

 

 

It seems that driver have problem with leaving vehicle because of mantlet.

sceE3bv.jpg

 

On chieftain there's a hole in the turret basket, so when the gun's depressed right over the drivers hatch then they can climb into the turret. If the gun is elevated then the breech is in the way, but they can use the hatch then instead - I'm sure there's some means for them to get into the turret on altay as well.

 

 

Was discussing this with Colli on TS to discuss whether or not this is heresy, he declared it Halal so, that being that.

 

Potential future armament for IFVs and Naval applications, the 50x330mm Supershot. Much like the 40mm Supershot CTA ammo, this isn't actually fully telescoped, and much like how the 40mm can fit certain 30mm guns with a simple barrel change, this is designed to do the same thing for 35x228mm systems. (Bushmaster already has a conversion set for their Bushmaster III cannon.)

 

NOW THEN, Cutaway.

 

JNnK4PA.jpg

 

35x228mm HEI-T and APFSDS-T vs 50x330mm Supershot HEI-T and uncut case, Note the identical width in the case and identical rims and even the primers are the same (the 35x228mm casing is 50mm in diameter, hence the not so shocking caliber of the supershot) and that it's the same overall length, this makes them quick changeable with very minor changes to the gun that can be done in the field.

 

And a computer image of both with an APFSDS-T round loaded.

 

oC7eODv.jpg

 

Supposedly they hit like a ten ton hammer, with penetration figures at 230mm RHA at 1000m, compared to the 40mm CTA's 180mm.

 

And what looks like a shorter penetrator than 35mm in that last image, odd. Note that you're also limited to 35mm HE, and it's fired from a substantially larger gun than the CTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with that engine.  I looked it up, the stats on it seem pretty impressive.  125hp per cylinder is very good.

 

I heard a rumor that L3 is going to make an 8 cylinder version of the old AVDS-1790 and shoot for 1000HP out of it.  That will be interesting.

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 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.
       


    • 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 
          
×