Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I guess the concept of unbalanced MBT production in Europe will forever elude me.

One of the few programs in the IDF's ground forces that I can say has remained very consistent in its efficiency is the tank, and subsequently AFV, development and production program.

And a key reason to that is the fact that other than times of budgetary crisis when there was simply no money to pay for new tanks, production has run continuously and with little to no fluctuations in the output. 

This created a situation in which every tank that reaches its universally agreed age of obsolescence (30-40), it gets replaced just on time (actually a few years earlier just in case there will be unexpected delays). The way to do this is by producing only 30 tanks per year, i.e one battalion. 

Scale this to the number of battalions, or companies (really depends upon the size of the army), and what you get is an army that is always fairly modern, supported by an industrial base whose stability is ensured by an IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) type contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I guess the concept of unbalanced MBT production in Europe will forever elude me.

One of the few programs in the IDF's ground forces that I can say has remained very consistent in its efficiency is the tank, and subsequently AFV, development and production program.

And a key reason to that is the fact that other than times of budgetary crisis when there was simply no money to pay for new tanks, production has run continuously and with little to no fluctuations in the output. 

This created a situation in which every tank that reaches its universally agreed age of obsolescence (30-40), it gets replaced just on time (actually a few years earlier just in case there will be unexpected delays). The way to do this is by producing only 30 tanks per year, i.e one battalion. 

Scale this to the number of battalions, or companies (really depends upon the size of the army), and what you get is an army that is always fairly modern, supported by an industrial base whose stability is ensured by an IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) type contract.

 

Personally, I blame the end of the Cold War - many 'western' governments more or less convinced themselves that they had no major threats likely and that existing equipment was 'sufficient'... so procurement has often been the first thing on the chopping block to save funds. The IDF & Israeli government crucially has a different view. The issues are pretty simple when you take into account the governments don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's an improvement.

 

It's made by the same guy (Kwadwo Safo Kantanka) who built these for the Ghanaian military:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

That...illuminated human, who also calls himself an "Apostle" and also goes by the nickname of "Star of Africa", also designs...uhm...helicopters:

 

Spoiler

uajN1kj.jpg

 

^--- Note where those tail "missiles" are pointing. Don't worry if you can't even, it's normal.

 

And he also "designs" indigenous cars that in reality are Chinese cars whose spare parts are imported, then assembled in Ghana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

*blink*

Tires under the trackbelt. Okay... I guess it's a hybrid wheeled-tracked vehicle, then? *insert philosophical raptor meme here*

It has precedent. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DogDodger said:

It has precedent. ;)

 

Okay, but that Scammell Pioneer is wearing an optional chain to help it navigate soft terrain. It's not like it's wearing it all the time around its rear tires, only when it needed to increase its traction potential. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Italians in Russia

1-00-0008.jpg

 

1-00-0009.jpg

What's the story behind that? Last time I've heard of any Russian-NATO member cooperation was between them and France (Atom IFV) but it was quite a while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What's the story behind that? Last time I've heard of any Russian-NATO member cooperation was between them and France (Atom IFV) but it was quite a while ago.

Russian MoD was testing Centauro and Freccia IFV during MoD vs military industry times, somewhere in 2010s. 

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...