Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Levi last won the day on February 22 2017

Levi had the most liked content!

About Levi

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for your answers and new photos, which are great, just as always. As for the T-72-ish vehicle in the backyard, it's an interesting one indeed. But I don't think it's Russian made. Judging by the splash guard and overall shape of the upper glacis plate, I'd say it is WZ123 based. Also, going back to BK1871 you have mentioned earlier. I have only two pics of it (I think someone might have already posted them here) Do you have any extra info? Actual vehicle seems to have T-72M turret, but judging by the schematic, something else was originally intended, different from both T-72 and
  2. 3. What about it's power output? Was it the same or did it grow over time? Engine compartment of 96A seems to be larger than of previous models (most likely because of larger radiator), could it be related to the power increase? Some sources claim 96A to have 1000hp engine. 3a. Could it actually be that the tank from the museum (the one that stands between WZ111 and Type 69) is actually "68 revolution"? It is a 59/69 model with turbocharged V-2 after all. 4. Photos 1 and 2 show the same engine, photo 3 is a V-2 version above Type96A. Engine from the first two pictures I have already seen
  3. Type 99A 1500hp power pack was spotted several times, and it is a spitting image of MB873 Ka501, which might have strengthened the rumor of Gernam connection even further: But it is still very different from the German pack and the engine itself is clearly not a copy. So these pictures actually disprove the claim at least as much as they may suggest it. What kind of engines did earlier Type 99 variants had I have no idea. Many sources refer to it as "150HB" while also claiming MTU connection, but I have seen neither any photos, nor any other kind of additional detail. 12V150ZL
  4. 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
  5. T-72A models produced from 1982 onwards can be easily distinguished from T-72M1. Those made prior to 1982 are identical to T-72M1 at least on the exterior. But there are substantial differences (see below). There were two primary types of APFSDS rounds during the production period of T-72A/M1. 3BM15 was the older type, designed for T-64A and T-72. 3BM22 is a newer one, and was specific to Soviet inventory of the period, while 3BM15 was widely exported. The thing is, autoloader controls allowed only the selection between apfsds, heat and hef rounds, while specific apfsds type was to be
  6. I always thought that T-80U deal was official. There were no such tanks in districts bordering China, so this could not have been done without government's consent. Probably they hoped to sell it, probably it was done in exchange for some other favor. But it was already in 90s. WZ-123 program was based on T-72, and as far as I know, it started before 90s (correct me if I am wrong here). That's why I thought that getting hands on T-72B in 90s would have been insignifficant. My identification of this T-72 as T-72M1 (and not T-72M) was not just a product of deduction - features of "Dolly Parto
  7. Most of the photos seem to be a perfect T-72 match. Just as I said before, probability of this vehicle being T-72B was very low to begin with (T-72B couldn't have been found outside of Soviet Union prior to 1990s), and some pictures here prove it. Driver's and commander's controls (on photos 13 and 10) clearly identify it as T-72A/M1 and not T-72B (again, most likely M1). Picture 12 shows driver's place of neither T-72, nor any other Soviet vehicle, I do not know what it is. Photos 3 and 4 are ranther interesting. They seem to show typical T-72 autoloader, but something is off. I for one do no
  8. GTD-1250 transmission on tanks in Russian inventory is not different from GTD-1000 transmission. At least not fundamentally, probably the ranges are slightly different, I'm not entirely sure about that. Again, I should strees it that transmission with hydrostatic steering was never produced - Russian military was not interested in it, and no foreign customers have been found. Neutral steer is possible with BKP mechanically wise, but iirc control system does not have this option. Oplot has pretty much the same transmission setup as T-64, but with external gearset for reverse, so that the
  9. There were two types of power train for GTD-1250 equipped T-80s. First - for domestic use, and it wasn't different from any other version of T-80 (with no steering, see below). And the second one (posted above) was marketed for international customers. Regardless of the choice of steering, BKPs on all T-80 tanks were different from those used on T-64 and T-72.
  10. Reverse works pretty much the same way it does in your road car (see ZF transmission above for example) - by locking one of the carriers onto the case. Only it has to be turned on on both sides here. BKP is essentially not very different from any automatic transmission - it's a planetary gearbox with 4 planetary gearsets and 6 wet clutches. The only two things it lacks to become a proper automatic transmission are torque converter and governor - walve box is already there. It's small size is mostly the consequence of each gearbox transmitting only the half of the summary power output. This,
  11. 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 (an
  12. Early T-72M1 I think. And thanks for the clarification on BK1851 tank. By the way, how do WZ and BK codes relate to each other?
  13. I have seen most of these photos before, but didn't know the context. So I just dismissed them as "more pictures of WZ-122-2/3" because of the strong visual similarity. Now I notice that this tank's turret has rather developed elongated bustle, previous versions didn't - this is something new. It's a good thing this thread exists in other words
  14. I may have seen it, but name "Product 704" is unfamiliar to me. Is it a Three-Mechanical vehicle? If yes, then I of course have seen all the searchable photos of it (accessible from google and baidu). But from time to time I accidentally stumble across new ones, some of which still cannot be found via image search. Besides, others may not be as involved in this topic as I am, so I's say it's safe to post anything which haven't been posted in the thread.
  15. It has composite material on it's cheeks, but the rest is RHA. When saying "RHA welded turret" I meant welded turret with composite armor as opposed to cast turret with bolted-on welded modular armor packs typical to WZ-123. The turret on Storm-1 from Beijing museum is actually cast despite the angular shape. Thanks, this was the clue I was looking for.
  • Create New...