Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

General AFV Thread

Recommended Posts

I still dont understand why they requested to have the cupola if:

1)The original Sabra eliminated the cupola, and it is unique to the M60T.

2)IMI was already offering its WAVE series of RCWS at the time.

Share this post


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

What are we looking at?  Is that just an ammo stowage rack, or is it some sort of autoloader?

 

The hull ammunition drum, I cannot remember if there is an automatic mechanism to transfer rounds to the bustle autoloader or if it has to be done manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
Nice Video about the history of Tank development between east and west. But its in german.

Especially the talk about maintanence. How long it took to change the engine/Power pack of a Leopard vs. T-72.

Also sadly no talk about Hard and Soft Kill APS.
And no Talk about western next gen MBTs

 

 

Share this post


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

 

He's wrong, as usual.

When the Germans broke through Poland in their shitty, mostly Czech box tanks, the Poles had about 1,200 37mm anti-tank guns, 3,500 anti tank rifles, 880 tanks and tankettes (some of which only had rifle caliber MGs), and maybe 2,500 howitzers and field guns of various calibers, mostly of WWI vintage, plus some number of 40mm Bofors AA guns.  So we're talking 9K-10K or so weapons capable of killing German tanks (and many of those not designed to to so, just capable of it) spread out over an army of 1 million.

 

Or, looking at it another way, a Polish infantry division would have been around 16,500 men armed with a grand total of less than 100 dedicated anti-tank rifles and field guns, and 52 artillery and antiaircraft weapons that could be forced into an anti-tank role.

Let's compare that to a late Cold War Soviet motorized infantry division, which typically had three motor infantry regiments and one tank regiment.  Each infantry regiment will be packing 152 RPG-7s, 9 BRDMs with Malyutkas, 39 manpack ATGMs, 6 recoilless guns.  Multiply by three for the division, and add 18 division-level rapira 100mm AT guns and 27 more ATGM carriers.

 

And that's not even getting into the division's organic tank support.

 

So, a Cold War Soviet infantry division has something like six times the density of infantry-portable anti-tank weapons.  And we know what happens if you drive tanks that lack serious protection into infantry armed and organized that way; you get 1973 when the Israelis lost about 800 tanks to Malyutka ATGMs alone.

 

On top of that, military communication is much better than it was in 1939, air support is much better at killing vehicles than it was in 1939, and secondary anti-vehicle technologies like mines and engineering obstacles are much better understood and much better developed.

 

If you throw a lot of crap tanks as opposed to a few gold-plated ones at a modern opponent you get a lot of dead crap tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

Ah, I knew it would trigger you. :anticipation: I think his point wasn't that tanks don't need protection., it was that the obsession with invulnerability is perhaps a bit misplaced.

 

He specifies what he thinks appropriate levels of protection are.  I want to see the calculations showing that frontal turret protection against 125mm APFSDS, frontal hull protection against HEAT and engine compartment protection against 14.5mm plus ten degrees of gun depression is possible at 40 tonnes.

 

The author is supremely confident in pontificating about things he clearly has no technical knowledge of.

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

×