Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

     So, unmanned turrets... how future tanks will look like after unmanned turrets? What is your opinion on "future" tanks possible layouts?

     

     As i understand crew will be no less than 2, because driving is hard and commander wrok is even harder for computers. Aiming - not as much as driving. Crew in the turret (again), or in hull with minimalistic turrets are 2 opposite possibilities, but is there anything else?

 

 

I thought this deserves its own thread.

 

Where do you see tank design going in the next few decades?  Where do you think it should go?

 

Here is where I think things will go:

 

 

-Western tank development will be depressing.  Every country will want their own indigenous tank design, and upon learning that they are lolnotevenclose to competent to actually make a first-rate MBT, they'll ask someone who is and end up making something that is practically identical to a Leo 2 or Leclerc, only without parts interchangeability.

 

-Except for the tracks, ammo and engine, because all new Western MBTs will have the same Diehl tracks, MTU powerpack and Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

 

-Anyone who deviates from this formula will soon learn that all the engineers who actually design tanks hung up their hats in the early 1990s, and that re-building that knowledge base is hard.  Being unwilling to put actual work into the problem, any tank designed that isn't based around these proven components will be a gigantic shitshow, and having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, the country in question will throw up their hands and quietly buy T-90s or T-14s.

 

-The vast majority of tank armor will be increasingly refined NERA, possibly with perforated stand off screens or those wedge thingies from Leo 2A5 to improve performance against LRPs.  This fact, abundantly evinced by pictures of damaged tanks and tanks undergoing repair and overhaul, will continue to baffle and elude journalists.

 

-The USA, Turkey, Franco-German consortium, South Korea and Japan will be the only "Western" countries still able to produce MBTs, and all will heavily lean on German-designed tracks, engines and guns.  Turkish MBTs and other AFVs will be materially designed by South Korean firms to Turkish specifications.  Italy and the UK will both lose their ability to design MBTs, the UK will actually lose their ability to make them, which will be rationalized by saying that MBTs are obsolete.  Crystal ball cloudy for Poland, Czech Republic, and whatever tank production capability remains in Romania and former Yugoslavia.

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

500px-Russiaball.jpg

RUSSIA STRONK

 

UNMANED TURRENTS BEST TURRENTS

 

REMOVE L-55 FROM THE PREMISIES

 

all kidding aside colli, your right on the mark

 

and unless your a fucking Nazi pigdog, you spell if Kharkov, like real men

 

Kharkiv is the equivalent of talking about a T-64 while desencding an a large, swastika shaped dildo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

 

Nonsense comrade, glorious Ukrainian arms industry will continue selling refurbished T-64s to third world countries for many years to come! Plus they almost managed to assemble an armoured car last I checked! Exciting news indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unmanned tanks will be produce in the US. It will perform subpar in combat against militia in the Middle East and Rand Paul will complain about them. Iran will capture one and sell it(after claiming they built it locally) to the Chinese who will build a version that is 10x as good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all of which will pale in comparison to the unmanned tank built by the Russians 30 years prior, which weighed less, had more armor, better engines, much larger guns and costed 1/3 of the competition, but remained a prototype due to obvious reasons (unmanned tanks?, who the hell will get out of the turrent and sing to internationale to the lamnations of liberated women) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense comrade, glorious Ukrainian arms industry will continue selling refurbished T-64s to third world countries for many years to come! Plus they almost managed to assemble an armoured car last I checked! Exciting news indeed.

 

Because it takes them forever to get anything done.  How long did it take them to fulfill that tiny Thai T-84 order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, lets just say by the time its finished it will be brought over on a boat with a big hammer and sickle painted on the side, and it will be delivered to the people's republic of Thailand 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

Why retool your factories when you can make a ton of dosh from them without retooling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-Anyone who deviates from this formula will soon learn that all the engineers who actually design tanks hung up their hats in the early 1990s, and that re-building that knowledge base is hard.  Being unwilling to put actual work into the problem, any tank designed that isn't based around these proven components will be a gigantic shitshow, and having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, the country in question will throw up their hands and quietly buy T-90s or T-14s.

 

This is most certainly true when it comes to diesel tank engines in the US.  The only place that really could make one was Getty st. in Muskegon MI, and they lost all their talent years ago.  Now they can barely manage to make a functioning AVDS-1790, an engine that has been in production since the 1960's.  Part of the problem is that as production numbers have declined, many of the subcontractors have dried up.  Tank engines are pretty unique, they require specialized parts.  For example, only one company has managed to make a piston ring that really works in the AVDS-1790.  They tried other companies, the rings failed.  So now since production is so low, they can only put in an order for rings once a year or so in order to reach the manufacturer minimum.  So yeah, we are barely maintaining our infrastructure to be able to make the shit we have been making for years, let alone develop anything new.  The next US tank will have a goddamn German engine in it and that will make me cry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are specific engineering and technological paths of development for anyone interested in making something other than a mediocre Leo 2A7 clone:

 

-Stereo rangefinders are retro and cool.  Advances in digital camera technology will obviate the need for a rigid optical connection.  Essentially, you'll have two high magnification cameras out on the sides of the turret, and software magic will tell you the range to things.  For extra super-duper precision, you can periodically re-calibrate against the laser rangefinder.  This technology already exists for smart phones, so putting it in a tank shouldn't be hard (also, something similar was initially planned for Leo 2).  Advances in laser detection and warning systems will necessitate some sort of passive rangefinding technology, in order to get firing solutions on targets without alerting them.

 

-Those German lubricated half-track track links were... um...

Vk4f7h1.jpg

 

Well, perhaps not a great idea, as implemented.

 

However, lubrication technology has come a long way.  It should be possible to make some sort of PTFE or POM-impregnation coating for track link pins that lasts as long as the pins themselves, and gives similar reduction in rolling resistance to the sealed needle-bearing design.  This will improve track life, fuel economy and top speed.  As an added bonus, it will make tanks less squeaky, which is obviously very important.

 

-LRPs will not be the most efficient way to kill tanks, but they will remain the most reliable.  Because they move so goddamn fast and do not rely on guidance of any sort, LRPs will remain completely immune to APS for years, and because the material in them is not under rheological conditions, breaking them up is much harder than HEAT jets.  Tank main armament should be, contra the military reformers, designed around flinging the biggest, baddest LRP, with all other functions secondary.  It'll still be a big fucking gun, it will do fine at secondary tasks even if it's a little inefficient at them.

 

-Pursuant to the above, research into advanced metallurgy, composite overwrap, and refractory liners should be accelerated in order to run breech pressures higher to keep the main gun ammunition as small as possible.

-Primary armament has such a gigantic overpressure danger zone:

M256_danger.png

 

And rifle-caliber MGs are deficient at reducing many types of obstacle in the infantry support role.  Some sort of intermediate armament should be investigated.  Mid-caliber autocannon?  Heavy machine gun?  Automatic grenade launcher?  Mortar?  I dunno.

-The gas turbines in the T-80 and Abrams are utter crap compared to what airliners have now.  Pressure ratios of 9:1 or 14:1, and TIT of 1100 degrees or so?  That's adorable.  What could a purpose-designed MBT turbine do?  There are goddamn magical SiC turbine blades now, 52:1 pressure ratios with better isentropic efficiency than the old ones, variable stators, FADEC, and if you want to get really fancy, science-fiction heat exchangers.  Turbines were good enough decades ago to be worth a looksee against diesels.  They should utterly clobber them now, because diesels haven't gotten that much better while turbines have gotten a whole lot better.

 

-Improvements in the efficiency of electrical motors and generators may make them attractive.  The biggest advantage would be redundancy.  With multiple engines and a mechanical transmission, you end up with goofy, bulky gearboxes like the M5/M24 family.  With electrical transmission, it would be fairly easy to have, say, two or three little turbines scattered around the tank, making it very hard to M-kill.  Also, for cruise only a single turbine would be needed, while the others could come online for combat.  This would overcome the poor part-load efficiency problem of turbines.  LoooSeR has mentioned this idea before.  A dinky, high-technology turbine with modest specific power but good SFC would be attractive for drones as well as tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just repost this here

gcv_hed_design.jpg

 

gcv_hed_layout.jpg

 

     Obvious use of this system is heavy IFVs. Like T-15. Another possible place to use this tech are tanks with unmanned turrets, those vehicles have bigger hulls than usual. In fact T-14 have sponsons, which are not so small near rear part of hull. WIth futher development of this system i think some tanks may lose their classical engine compartment, space could be used to store ammunition or it may became a crew working place.

     Anyway, with unmanned turrets and such engines tank designs maybe can become more diverse in future. I think we will not see a 2 man crew tank in serial production for a long time, so Western tanks could gain even more weight in future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more focus on MGS type platforms. Possible resurrection of the M8 style AGS. Lighter, smaller, and more portable vehicles. Crew reductions, unmanned turrets, stand off weapons systems, urban suitability packages, with an emphasis on infantry support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more focus on MGS type platforms. Possible resurrection of the M8 style AGS. Lighter, smaller, and more portable vehicles. Crew reductions, unmanned turrets, stand off weapons systems, urban suitability packages, with an emphasis on infantry support.

Canadian Operation experience in Afghanistan, (Not exactly tank friendly terrain) shows that some times, you just need a fucking tank because that's what works. Sometimes you need to get in your face with a big goddamned gun, heavy armor,  and nice thermal sights and fuck all the ATGM teams at 3 km with 120mm. It works.

Our army staff was arguing  hard for the Stryker MGS as a tank replacement for the Leo 1.   Then oops, we hit some real combat and then all of a sudden some used Leo2s became our General's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that really shows is that the Canadian army needed an assault gun and had to resort to deploying what they had readily available in order to fill a the need, which was basically an infantry support role. Something a vehicle like the M8 would have filled perfectly.  In low intensity conflicts when the threat from enemy armor is close to 0, vehicles like the M1128 or the defunct M8 program are easier to deploy and support yet pack the punch needed to deal with any potential threats.  The M1128 has some pretty serious design flaws but the concept is pretty sound. 

 

I do not foresee the large tank and tank battles being the typical future conflict. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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...