Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Levi

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Levi last won the day on February 22 2017

Levi had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Levi's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/3)

20

Reputation

  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 later Type 90-II developments.
  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 before: Just haven't paid enough attention to the photo because of the overall informational "static" around the subject (too much irrelevant information out there). But since it is the same engine, Zhu Yusheng stands next to, it must be 99s 150HB indeed. And yes, it does look neither like MTU, nor CV12 or V-2. Seems to be original.
  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 (as well as all of it's predecessors) was clearly based on V-2-54, but whether new engine was it's knock off, or an entirely new design, it's unclear. By the way, you have mentioned "Type 99 - 2004 type", did you mean the version that also had a welded turret? I am asking because it was only spotted in 2006 if I remember correctly, so this may be a valuable clarification. Thanks for all of the info. Type 85-IIA was according to several sources a version of 85-II (with L7 and simplified engine and transmission) that Pakistan was initially going to order, before switching to 85-IIM/85-IIAP. I have only heared about 85-III's engine as having eastern european origins, Poland was my own assumption, do not mind it. What about Type 96 engines? 96A is equipped with 12V150ZL, right? Can't point to the source of Type 99 prototype photos unfortunately. I have those for a rather long time already. I once used to make a lot of searches in baidu with several specific queries such as "prototype" or "test vehicle". Likely there was not much additional info, on the site whewe it came from. New questions (since you have mentioned BK1850). What are the recognition points of WZ1224/BK1850? I have gathered that one of them had rectangular exhaust tubes, while the other - round ones, but which is which? What was the purpose of BK1850? What kind of engine did it have? And snce we have touched this, what kind of engine did WZ1224 have? Was it the same as WZ1226 or something different?
  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 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?
  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 selected in gunner's sight's presets, and the process was not exactly straightforward. And I do not know, whether T-72M1 had any artificial limitations here. But regardless whether it did or not, there is a WAY easier method of telling T-72A apart from T-72M1: those two had entirely different infrared sights. T-72A was equipped with dual mode active/passive image intensifier, not unlike that M60A1 RISE PASSIVE had: (this is not T-72, but the sight is the same) While T-72M1 had this: By the way, speaking of WZ123. The most interesting (to me) version of it was the one you were talking about - "would be type 93 or 94". Here it is I assume: How much information about this vehicle is there? EDIT (this is important): since I didn't provide the clear answer to Zuk's question, I have done some searching and came up with something more solid. It turns out that unlike T-72B, T-72M1 and T-72A both lack controls to set the type of ammo used. Their FCS use the same ballistic settings for all types apfsds, heat and hef rounds. It may be possible that T-72As got retrofitted with "correction input devices" during overhauls (since it wouldn't require modifications to the sight itself), but at least judging by manuals released at the time of T-72B appearance, production T-72A didn't have them. As I said, I know little about T-72M/M1 specifics, but it is unlikely that those tanks were equipped better than their domestic versions. Still, the easiest way is just to look at the night vision sight.
  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 Parton" turret (specific to T-72A and T-72M1) are clearly apparent. It is distinctively different from both full cast turret of T-72 and T-72M, and "Super Dolly Parton" of T-72B. This is interesting because it could not have been the tank from Romania - there were only T-72Ms there. It seems that China was collecting Russian tanks from different sources at some point.
  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 not recognize boxes on the right side of the turret. Other pictures are typical to T-72. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 show gun's breech, 2 - floor behind commander's seat, 8 - view behind driver's position (again, evidently this is a version prior to T-72B). 11 - transmission shift lever.
  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 vehicle can move backwards on any range. There is also a bizzare version with hydrostatic steering, that doesn't have any links between BKPs other than engine's crankshaft. It has two IVTs each paralleled to the mechanical part of respective BKP so that reduction can be made continuously without shifting down. But it is forever in development and was never produced. No schematics available.
  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, plus the fact that there is no steering mechanism. I must also add that T-80 wasn't very different from T-64 and T-72 in this department. It also didn't have neither any differentials, nor steering. It's BKPs were slightly smaller with 3 gearsets instead of 4 (it had 4 ranges instead of 7). Probably along with the fact that gas turbine doesn't have many auxiliaries reciprocating engines require and occupies less space, this was the motivation behind the idea to equip T-80 with hydrostatic ivt steering. The system was developed (see schematic below), tested, but never went into production.
  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 (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:
  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...