Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...