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

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...