Met749

More of ISIS technical with BMP-1 turret

Made in iraq, IIRC with external support. It's NERA all right, here's a better look at the cutaway section:

I'm hijacking this thread now.
 
Eitan APC in mobility trials both in the Negev and Golan (South and North respectively). Still waiting on them to have a turret and APS developed and ready for the Eitan, but given the time schedule they still got plenty of time (til 2020).
 
 

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1422653797784687&id=243233719060040

 
 

Not a Merkava but worth sharing.
 
This Magach seems to employ Thai armor techniques as the Blazer became outdated.
 

 
 
*I believe more info on the Barak program should be announced soon, as first testing of the IronVision should be done this month. 

I don't see what's wrong with the concept. Most ATGM launchers on IFVs and other lightly armored vehicles also can't be reloaded safely in combat. Recoilless rifles have been pretty much only used in poorly armored vehicles or with a completely exposed crew. The overlapping armor on the recoilless 75 mm guns of the design seems to provide rather decent protection compared to other solutions...
 

 

Trucknical-55

Elbit has unveiled the TORC30 turret made for the Guarani by its subsidiary company Ares. The turret uses an MK30-2/ABM gun. 
Seems that this gun has stability issues which warrant a cage. Where exactly do they come from? Longer barrel? Higher pressure?
 
 

 
 

Though, I found these fresh photos of T-72 Ural scrapped in China. Someone have uploaded them into public networks. (Also,there is someone said that there are still available T-72M and T-72B collected in Plant 617, but have no more photo infos can prove that we have the second T-72. BTW, The T-80U might be located in Beijing Tank museum but do not show to public )

2 more new photos from plant's testing ground:

this "T-72" is interesting, it looks like some kind of T-72's hull + Type80's roadwheels. Levi, do you have any idea what it might be if it is still a Russian made tank?

By the way, Type85-III's 1000hp engine pack from Yugoslavia:

WZ122-4's engine pack's running test in March 1979 before it been installed to the tank ( MTU8V331TC41 engine + Chinese hydraulic transmission ):


WZ122-6 &WZ122-6F2 's Chinese automatic transmission:



WZ122-6's 8V165 engine:

And for your other questions before:
WZ1224 uses [ imported MTU 8V331TC41 engine ( yes, the civil engine, according to MTU it's a 748hp engine) + Chinese hydraulic transmission ( learned from M46 captured in Korean war and M48 captured in Vietnam war) ] power pack ( the first Chinese power pack),
WZ1226 uses 8V165 engine ( 960hp, the Chinese tank engine version of MTU8V331 which failed as I said before) of Changchun plant, WZ1226F2 uses 12V150 engine ( some said it is 12150L, which means V-2-54's copy, maybe with some improvements. If 12150L is ture, then this is obviously a very reliable backup choice) of Datong plant, and they both use Chinese automatic transmission ( no detail info).
After WZ1224 became BK1850 it uses [ British CV12 engine (1200hp) + western transmission ( either be British TN12 or French ENC200, nobody said which one exactly) ] power pack, in order to install this bigger pack, it cut out the rear hull and welded a new one.
WZ1224:


WZ1224's engine:

WZ1224 installed 2 extra cooling fan later when we found its original cooling system is not strong enough, like this:


Then installed western power pack and became BK1850:


I think the difference of its rear part is clear visible:
1, the shape of exhaust hole: in WZ1224 it is square, in BK1850 it is round.
2, the shape ( size) of the engine part: in WZ1224 it is trapezoid and havn't cover the whole width above the track, in BK1850 it is square and covered the whole width above the track.
(maybe you can find more difference)
I'll post more photos of WZ1226 and 1226F2's engines later.
 

Didn't see this one before, hence many thanks!
So, as we now have seen the vehicle's engine compartment, I assume it was to be powered by the same engine the final Type 99 version ended up with, wasn't it? Is it actually based on MTU MB 873 design as many articles suggest, or is it just a rumor?
I also have couple photos of WZ123 running prototype, more advanced design than what this mockup represents, but still inferior to the final Type 99:


Note that it is armed with 2A46 gun instead of ZPT-98, lacks commander's panoramic sight, and turret's cheek armor has visibly less los thickness than production variant.
Another interesting thing - unknown Type 80 prototype armed with D-10:


And another bunch of my questions:
-What were the factory codes for Type 80 and Type 85 family vehicles? Not all of them were developed out of factory's own initiative.
-What is the difference between Type 85-II and Type 85-IIA? Was Type 85-IIA ever made? I have seen no photos.
-What engine and transmission did Type 85-III have? Some sources claim it was equipped with 1000hp V-2 derivative and BKPs. If yes, then are we to assume these originated from Poland?
-Can you give a rundown of Chinese V-2 derivatives and transmissions Type 80 and 85 tanks had?

Not much, I know sth about what we have in that era ( specific armour and weapon performance, but it is still classified info, so I can't told you the detail, what I can share is in 1989, the lowest Chinese composite armour is a copy of early T72's UFP armour, 200mm at 22  degree, which resist 320mm VS AP and 425mm VS HEAT; the best one is also 200mm/22 degree, which can resist 400mm+ VS AP and 600mm+ VS HEAT. So we may assume that's what the first prototype has ), but not WZ123's original design's detail info.
All I have about it, is another photo of its early model, this is declassified:

Maybe it's an estimation error - 50 mm protection difference is not really much. But it also might have another reason. The quote from the US document says that "one version of the M1 turret armor is rated as [...] 400mm RHA against kinetic energy munitions." It is not specified which part of the turret armor has this level of protection: is it the frontal armor, when directly hit from the front? Is it the side armor when hit at 30° impact angle (so worst case in the frontal ±30° arc)? Is it the turret armor hit from ~20°, so that the horizontal slope is nullified?

Which line equals the 400/750 mm RHA equivalent protection? Red, blue, green, yellow? Which line is used by Rheinmetall (or their German sources) for armor estimations?
The Rheinmetall-made graph also shows no information of what part of the tank has the estimated protection level. The value for the Abrams tank might be a wrong estimation of the frontal turret armor when directly hit from the front; it might be a value for the lowest level of armor protection along the 30° arc. The value also could reflect the minimum protection when hitting the turret so that the horizontal slope is negated. Sweden at least tested the armor in such a way:

In theory these estimations for armor protection might even be a composite value/average (300 mm frontal hull armor + 400 mm turret armor = ~350). It's hard to say without having a more detailed description for both sources.
However what I think is well reflected in the estimated protection levels, is the relation between protection increase from M1 Abrams to M1A1 Abrams to M1A1HA/M1A2. We roughly know how thick (or thin) the added steel plates added to the M1E1 for simulating the increased armor weight are. Suggesting that the M1A1 Abrams has a protection level of ~600 mm RHA equivalent vs APFSDS doesn't make much sense, unless the weight efficiency of the armor made a giant leap. Even more so the values of the M1A2, which are based on Paul Lakowski's old Armor Basics with incredible mass efficiency and thickness efficiency (in general Steel Beasts values seem very questionable - Leopard 2A6 turret with 1380 mm vs APFSDS...).
The M1A1 with T158 tracks (59.1 metric tons) is only ~ 2 tons lighter than the M1A1HA with first generation DU armor (61.2 metric tons). Two metric tons are equal to about ~254 mm RHA per square metre. Given that M1A1's turret cheeks cover an area of ~1.73 m², this means the armor weight increase is roughly equal to 147 mm RHA. So seeing the estimated protection level increase from 490 to 650 mm (+160 mm) makes some sense. It depends on how the armor exactly looks, but based on the penetration calculator from W. Odermatt's website, hardened DU (alone, no other armor elements) requires about 37 more weight for a given protection level compared to normal RHA (300 BHN). So there must be some very strong magic involved to boost the frontal turret armor to 820 mm (Steel Beasts value). The M1A2 has second generation DU armor, but armor weight stayed pretty much constant given the addition of APU, commander's sight, driver's thermal viewer, GPS system and new electronics. The SEP upgrades seem to have added more armor than the transition from M1A1HA to M1A1HA+/M1A2.
 
This is not the case. This is a presentation from Rheinmetall, that's why it most likely doesn't include any M829 variant in the penetration graph. However Rheinmetall has mentioned in numerous other occasions, that the current APFSDS are optimized against special armor. You shouldn't read it as "can penetrate X amount of steel armor", but "can penetrate composite armor, that provides protection equal to X mm steel against conventional APFSDS ammo". According to German sources, the DM53 + L/55 can penetrate special targets that are equivalent to 1,000 mm RHA, but it cannot penetrate 1,000 mm RHA. How this armor target exactly looks is unknown, but another presentation mentions that Germany/Rheinmetall expected tanks with 1,000 mm RHA equivalent armor, consisting of ~220 mm protection provided by ERA, ~380 mm protection provided by steel and ~400 mm by ceramic and composite materials.
The Danish Army has chosen DM53 over the KEW-A2 APFSDS, even though the latter is 30 mm longer and has a 30 m/s higher muzzle velocity - because the Rheinmetall APFSDS performed better against complex special armor targets. Turkey has tested the current South Korean, Israeli and German APFSDS rounds; the South Korean round performed worst, while being faster (1,750 m/s vs 1,720 m/s of DM53) or respectively shorter (750 mm vs ~700 mm M338?).

Not sure if what I'm writing now is needed (or wasn't posted before), but I'll make a little contribution of my own.
I always thought of Russian 2nd gen MBTs having "very special" transmission arrangement as a well known fact, but constant confusion and numerous gaffes (like wikipedia articles claiming T-72 transmission to be a synchromesh, or Al-Khalid being equipped with SESM ESM500, which are both garbage) drove me to write this.
I do not have much time and haven't been able to find any decent articles, so I'll be brief. Long story short - Soviet/Russian tanks from T-64 through T-90 (and Ukrainian T-84) do not have a transmission per se. All the shifting is done in final drive assemblies instead - so called BKPs - "half-gearboxes". There is no main clutch - when clutch pedal is pressed, clutches in both BKPs are disengaged, and there is also no steering mechanism. Steering is done by switching one of the half-transmissions to the lower gear, or braking with disengaged clutch if it already was in the first gear. It's easy to deduce that this way you get a unique turning radius on each gear.
Here's an excerpt with description from T-72A manual:





And a gorgeous picture from Rolf Hilmes' "Kampfpanzer Heute und Morgen". Unfortunately I don't have a scanner, so the quality is medicore to say at least.

The interesting part is why did they come up with such a system to begin with. BKP was originally designed as a part of Object 430 tank's powerpack, and later used on it's successor - T-64. In both of those tanks BKPs were coupled each to a different end of the "briefcase engine's" crankshaft. One of crankshafts actually, since briefcases (both 5TD and 6TD) are horizontal transversely mounted opposite piston engines. The simple schematic of this:

(and here's why 6TD-equipped Al-Khalid couldn't possibly have a SESM transmission)
All of it was done in favor of saving space - T-64 was and is easily the most compact main battle tank ever produced. And the tradeoffs were considered acceptable. The obvious downside to this is a principal inability to insert a torque converter in such a power train, attempts to introduce hydrostatic steering also didn't produce any viable results. None the less BKPs were carried onto many subsequent Soviet MBT designs, in favor of both uniformity and space saving. Here's an example of North Korean Chonma tanks model 215 and 216 I've made some time before. Transition from synchromesh to BKP was most likely made because of latter ability to handle more torque, but difference in engine compartment size is also obvious:

Where is the gallery now.....
OK, here are some Chinese cold-war prototype tank.
1980s, Type 80 tank with welded turret,this is one of the first Chinese welded tank turrets, as you can see its quality isn't very well:



1970s, WZ122-6 tank (the 6th prototype of WZ122), this tank's design is effected by M48 tank we got from Vietnam, and armred with a 120mm L/48 smooth gun (not the German L44 gun or any kind of its copy, but a local developed low pressure tank gun, never used in any Chinese mass- produced tanks).



WZ122-2 or WZ122-3 prototype:

WZ132, if you are a WOT player, I believe you surely heared it already:

BK1851 prototype tank, it's a project started in 1985 which meant to use steering wheel driving and western engine & transmission parts.

1, There isn't too much info about Type 80 welded turret, the only thing we know about is it is a steel turret (without any kind of special armor) for test use only. So it is safe to say they made more than one  prototype turrets.
2, These tanks are in Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Corporation (plant 617) 's museum, only who were invited may visit there.
Here are more photos of WZ122-6:



About WZ122-1, we call it "三液样车" (in English: 3-hydraulic prototype, meaning hydraulic control + hydraulic transmission + hydraulic suspension), here are its photos:


 
otvaga questions:
Storm-1 tank ( type85-I, and you all know type85-II which went to Pakistan service and PLA service) is not any kind of classified stuff in China, we know almost all of its common data, so, what they want to know ?
The turret is its original turret, I checked from  several sources. The gun isn't, this displayed vehicle didn't have any gun in the early years, the current gun is installed by the museum. BTW, Storm-1's original gun is 105mm.
I never heard of "type59 with  turbocharged engine and 1-piece cast turret", the only Chinese "1-piece cast turret" I know about is WZ122's turret. So could him upload some photos of it so I may know what tank he talk about?

The real "1st Chinese welded turret" ( built in 1979 or 1980. some parts are cast made, I think it means the hatchs and the part around mantlet) of type 80 tank, which is used as a ballistic test target, there is a project ( maybe a 122mm HE? ) right in front of it.

Plant 617's testing ground, there are 2 WZ122s in the right, and a T72 (T72B?) in the left.

 
You asked me about the different between 2 sets of photos of "Type80's welded turret" before, I just found out why:


This tank is not the "Type80 with test welded turret" at all, it is BK1851 as wrote on its turret. It's much later than "Type80 with test welded turret", it is a project started in 1985 which meant to use steering wheel driving and western engine & transmission parts.
Another unkown tank, maybe still BK1851:

I'll post BK1871 ( a early prototype of Type90-II tank, more like VK3601 to Tiger but not VK4501) 's photo later.

Didn't want to sign up, but it seems I have no choice but to step in to clarify some things. All of the questions were mine.
Hello, everyone, by the way!
That's a shame. I was wondering if there are more photos of those specific vehicles, sitting in the 617 plant's museum, where these came from, not any photos in general. Specifically, I am interested in seeing engine decks of 122 vehicles. But you have already partially provided this, thanks a lot.
This is golden.
It's a good thing you have gathered I was asking about WZ-122, not WZ-111
But I've made a mistake. The vehicle standing behind WZ-122-6 is WZ-122-2, not WZ-122-1. It can be easily identified as Three-Mechanical, but for some reason I thought that Three-Mechanical was built first, and Three-Hydraulic after, not the vice versa. I was wrong. So it is WZ-122-2 aka WZ-122B in the museum. And of course I was asking about never-seen-before photos (such as from this museum), not those two we all have surely already seen.
No, the turret it not original either, It just was installed earlier than the gun. It is clearly evident that this turret was built to house 2A46, since it has large round opening for commander's cupola on the right side (1) and typical gunner's hatch on the left (2). This constitutes for the crew of 3 (autoloader is present). And if this is not enough, it also has the case ejection window (3). This kind of setup is unsuitable for 105mm.


Here it is, sitting next to WZ-111 hull:


There is a name plaque in front of it, but nobody bothered to make a photo of it yet.
I suspect that this may be pre-1969 WZ-121, but it's only a hunch.

1, we built 3-hydraulic (WZ122-1) first, and it is a disaster, completely unreliable; that's why we turned back to mechanical (3-mechanical, WZ122-2 and WZ122-3), but they didn't work very well else, one of WZ122B (I don't whether it is WZ1222 or WZ1223) is in plant617's museum as the photo showed before, another one's turret is installed on a Type80 tank body and displaying in BeiJing tank museum (the photo below).

2, buddy, I don't know what pictures you've saw already, and since plant617's museum is not a pubilc museum (and these tanks may also be stored in the warehouse untill now), the photos I uploaded are the only new photos so far.
3, there are other Storm-1 and Storm-2 (they are almost identical except the engine and transmission part) displaying in Chinese North Industries Corp's park and plant617's park. I checked their photos and I found you're right.:








4, I havn't notice this special 59 tank before, I'll see to what I can find.

It is a mechanical vehicle, but not WZ122-2 or -3 or even WZ122s, it's a variant which designed and built by LuoYang plant (plant 704, that's why this tank is named as Product 704), you can take it as a improved WZ122 3-mechanical.