Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I hope this wasnt posted before.

 

There is an article that claims Kurganets was tested in syria. Interesting. May it be true, or fake news?

http://anna-news.info/boevaya-mashina-pehoty-kurganets-25-protestirovana-v-sirii/

Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Karamazov said:

Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
 

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.

Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.

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

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.

Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.

I agree. In Russia, in tank communities, someone gave information "from an insider" that the Kurganets are being reworked.

It did not suit the military. I do not know what is true of this, but since then there has been little heard about Kurganets.
There were similar rumors about the T-14's onboard protection. And about the T-15, about its dimensions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I hope this wasnt posted before.

 

There is an article that claims Kurganets was tested in syria. Interesting. May it be true, or fake news?

http://anna-news.info/boevaya-mashina-pehoty-kurganets-25-protestirovana-v-sirii/

We have special thread for Armata and rest of new familities of AFVs.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/131-glorious-t-14-armata-pictures/page/64/

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it really did appeared in Syria, as PAK-FA and BMPT prototypes were there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At SOFINS-2019

6725299_original.jpg

Quote

   The Thales Hawkei light armored vehicle equipped with a FN Herstal remote-controlled combat module with a 12.7 mm M2 machine gun and a 68-mm unguided or guided SNEB (c) Frederic Lert / Jane's four-rocket launcher

/.../

   Vehicle can fire both unguided and corrected (with a semi-active laser guidance system - apparently, of the SYROCOT type) 68-mm SNEB missiles. Accuracy of guided missiles declared as less than 1 meter. At the rear of the vehicle is an armored container with four spare missiles. Reloading the launcher from this container can be carried out by one of the crew members in less than a minute, including on the move. Firing rockets, however, is made only from the stop.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true then:

- Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is.

- Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio

- Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently.

- T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio

 

I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

If this is true then:

- Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is.

- Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio

- Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently.

- T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio

 

I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.

It also doesn't mention that it's not current day prices, but prices taken out of any random phase of production. I remember about a decade ago people would actually say the Leclerc is so fancy because it's so expensive, and then the K2 is so fancy because it's so expensive, citing figures of $8 million to $14 million, not knowing those are figures for early tranches, with a lot of the development costs built in.

 

Type 99 also seems somewhat misplaced - not too long ago we've heard China prefers now to rely more on Type 96 tanks because the Type 99 are too expensive to produce in such quantities. For an economy like China, making thousands of tanks worth $2.6 million each sounds dirt cheap.

 

The figure for the Merkava 4 is definitely wrong. In 2010 in Eurosatory, SIBAT officials (defense export agency for the IDF) said the price of a single tank is $4.5 million, for export. The unit price for export will always be greater than what the IDF pays to procure it.

The topic has been only raised few times since then, but it always concluded in a "we don't know". The IDF buys parts for the tanks in bulk. And by 'bulk' I mean they always stock up on enough parts to keep production going for several years even if there's a complete supply chain shutdown. A lot of the procurement is completely independent of the desired amount of tanks, because the production goes on indefinitely. It's almost impossible to assess the true cost of a single unit. 

Of course, the IDF does not buy the tank as a complete system from a private company, but the tank is for the most part privatized, and the IDF even pays premium, and prioritizes contracts, for companies in suburban areas. 

 

There are also typos in the headline, and it appears the K2 image is this nice but ultimately failed attempt at a computerized model (main issue is the hull front shape):

Spoiler

k2_2.jpg0C1B40BC-96AD-484F-8C96-F93866C8

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Type 99's 2.6 million USD quote was from 2005. Factor in the inflation from 2005 to 2019, that would be 3.4 millions. Consider that the VT-4 export mode to Thailand is 4.8 millions with downgraded armor and no laser soft-kill system, although the VT-4 does have RWS, automatic transmission, newer FCS and LWS. The ZTZ-99's price is mostly an internal price with no profit margin, so if you use the VT-4's price as the factor (assuming it has the 2nd gen TI, not 3rd gen as in the 99A), the actual price for the ZTZ-99 (the late model with 2nd gen TI and digital battlefield management) should be around 4.6 millions in today's price.  

 

Now factor in the cost of living and purchasing power index, which China is 1/4 of that of the USA, so x4 of 4.6 millions, the true cost of ZTZ-99 is about equivalent 18.4 million to their economy. What I mean by internal price is that it's the material cost to build the tank, but the salary and pension of the workers, the energy bill, the facility cost, the R&D costs are all subsidized by the government in one form or another. Also consider that some material like ballistic steel and germanium lens are priced about the same doesn't matter where you at. So that $1500 germanium lens for your gunner's sight is now costing a equivalent to $6000 for the Chinese to acquire, although they may have a small discount by locally produce it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 12:33 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The figure for the Merkava 4 is definitely wrong. In 2010 in Eurosatory, SIBAT officials (defense export agency for the IDF) said the price of a single tank is $4.5 million, for export.

Then it is even better. For more or less same amount of the money that a single Leclerc costs, you get two massively superior tanks...

Anyway, I think there is another error on that picture. Type 90 for 9.4 million??? I do not believe that. Its a relatively old tank compared to the Type 10, no way that it is so expensive. Probably the 9.4M is for the Type 10, although Im quite skeptical about this. Wikipedia (yes, yes I know do not trust it) says unit cost is "only" 8.4M.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Then it is even better. For more or less same amount of the money that a single Leclerc costs, you get two massively superior tanks...

I know this theory. 

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Type 90 for 9.4 million??? I do not believe that. Its a relatively old tank compared to the Type 10, no way that it is so expensive. Probably the 9.4M is for the Type 10, although Im quite skeptical about this. Wikipedia (yes, yes I know do not trust it) says unit cost is "only" 8.4M.

The hight cost of the Type-90 comes from its very low rate of production. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that it's photoshopped using that picture of Rooikat:
40ZDRyC.jpg
and this picture of BMP-3 w/ Arena APS,
Iu2eQY5.jpg
which was made narrower, and also it's roof and entire Arena APS radar was cut in order to keep Rooikat sights, because this particular version of BMP-3 turret lacks panoramic sight.

btw, it still has built-in Arena APS projectiles along frontal 270-degree arc:
OwCXgs9.jpg
sYrNOQi.jpg
which happend because apparently all that photoshopper needed was a photo of BMP-3 turret in desert sand color, made from the right angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Not sure where to post.

Quote

   On May 2, 2019, 19 kilometers from Prague (Czech Republic), an auto trailer with two museum tanks M36 Jackson and M3 Stuart crashed into a prison bus. From a collision the bus caught fire. Inside the bus were 19 people. Unfortunately, one person died and another 14 received injuries of varying severity. Tanks hardly suffered

   Interesting what those 15 people were in that prison bus that were injured.

 

DDy6O6F.jpg

   Truck is totally trashed, drivers is probably who died from this crash.

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • 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?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...