That_Baka

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

Basically, this:

West: Lets build few high quality tanks, and continuously upgrade them

Soviet: Lets build lots of low quality trash, and be satisfied with them

+ lots of errors about T-54/55, how to differentiate them, etc. 

I hope you are refering to the misconceptions.

6 hours ago, ZloyKrolik said:

Why did the Soviets use 122mm for howitzers and guns? Why that particular diameter?

Because they had russian empire guns of same caliber. Same with 105mm howitzers .

1 hour ago, Pascal said:

In what sense a joke?

 

The point on accuracy was that it was equal in the original qoute, which it isn't.

 

May i see captured  KT KWK43 dispersion table?

I think you should use english terms instead of transliterated russian ones. For the reference :BPS- in this context means APDS,VLD is UFP

2 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Is it true the T-72BU was renamed to the T-90 in order to distance itself from the bad rap T-72s got after Desert Storm?

Real designation is T-88 ,Object 188 or "Upgraded T-72B".

1 hour ago, Pascal said:

Nothing vaguely, recognition range for a tank target in narrow field view is 2,6-2,8 km for Nocturne.

Uhh sources? Because all i can find is BTVT which quotes 3km.

19 hours ago, Pascal said:

 

That's unbelievable.

I think thats because ID range can interpreted vaguely.  And offcourse there is the question of the claimed performance like with MILAN maximum perforation in british tests .

On 11/3/2019 at 5:08 PM, SH_MM said:

 

The programs you mentioned are not failures because of them being handled by the private industry, but mismanagement on the government's side.

 

The negative difference between state-owned industry complexes and private industry can be summarized with one example: the army wants a new tank, so they tell the industry to design a new tank. In case of a state-owned industry complex, the tank designers will have to utilize components and technology from the state-owned industry complex - there are no alternatives and there is less technology available overall (why should the state-owned industrial complex design a second gunner's sight, when they just had designed a new one?). They end up with one offer and one component for every aspect.

I think its more complicated than that for USSR from what i read only monolists in Soviet Tank industry is ammo makers .For example when Soviets tested thermals for T-80U modified Agava and Nocturne from completely different NIIs are offered .Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 3km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

12 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

What make them different from the regular 125 mm ammunition ?

Longer APDSFS ,Bigger Propellant Charge.

9 minutes ago, Jim Warford said:

 

That_Baka: I disagree...Suvorov's T-62-based "IT-130" could have been planned and then cancelled by the Soviet anti-gun, pro-missile mafia, or it could have been built in very small numbers and then hidden away. IMO, the reason that the West eventually got the word on the IT-1 was because it was a modern missile system that the Soviets were happy with, and showed-off...at least initially. Just because the IT-1 is the only known vehicle to use the "IT" designation, doesn't mean it wasn't used secretly or very early in the life of other vehicles. The pattern of medium tank-based assault guns/tank destroyers supporting medium tank equipped MRRs was well established and could have continued (at one level or another), up to T-62 equipped MRRs. In any case, the planned role for these post-war assault guns/tank destroyers was a significant one...it just didn't turn out as planned. Finally, as far as the value of the info provided by Suvorov is concerned...some critics claim that he simply told his new US/NATO buddies what he thought they wanted to hear (mostly fabrications). On the other hand, it only makes sense that the Soviets would label him as a "hack" and his info as bogus...to do otherwise would be to validate the truth and importance of what Suvorov provided to their potential enemies.                    

I am refering to his Aquarium and Icebreaker books.Where he asserted that rifle cartrige self-loading rifles are instrument of aggression as is fast tanks

3 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

 

The response from Suvorov to his critics in IDR is important for a variety of reasons...not least of which is that he provides his own drawing of the “IT-130” assault gun/tank destroyer. Unlike the now well-known SU-122-54 labeled as the “IT-122” by Suvorov, the mysterious “IT-130” hasn’t been confirmed...in fact, AFAIK, the only references made to the “IT-130” relate directly back to Suvorov. Also, don’t let the “IT-130” designation sway your opinion regarding its existence...we know the “IT-122” (SU-122-54) actually did exist. It’s likely that at some point in Suvorov’s military history he heard this new secretive assault gun/tank destroyer (maybe both 122mm and 130mm vehicles), described using “IT;” we know about the real-world IT-1 after all.

 

For the last several years, most of Suvorov’s critics confidently disregard the reported existence of the “IT-130.” Maybe it was a fabrication...but for me, I’m not quite ready to jump on that band-wagon. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a few of these things hidden away in some storage facility somewhere. Time will tell...

1)How we know about Objects 299/2,490/477 and T-74 not the mention assault guns on T-10 chassis alongside Object 152 .There is no place for T-54 chassis assault gun with 130mm gun.

2)IT index is exclusive to IT-1 all TD and Assault guns used Su index in documentation

3) In russian historical community Suvorov known as hack and troll since by his cuckoo cloudland logic USSR and USA(same traits ie:Self-loading rifles,Fast tanks et cetera) is responsible for WW2

7 hours ago, Pascal said:

You mean this passage?

 

"Результаты экспериментальной оценки ударного заброневого действия 120-мм БФС и ОФС калибра 115 и 125 мм по корпусу танка с комбинированной броней показывают, что динамические нагрузки от 120-мм БФС в среднем на 15% ниже, чем от 125-мм ОФС и на 5-10% превосходят 115-мм ОФС. При попадании в лобовую часть башни ди­намические нагрузки от 120-мм БФС в среднем на 15% выше, чем от 125-мм и на 50% больше, чем от 115-мм ОФС."

Ohh i quess i confused things .

Why .224 isnt considered for USA army next cartrige?

On 2/3/2019 at 9:59 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

With this phrasing - you are setting a bar too low, compared to what they (soviet army and especially soviet defense industry) had advertised as achievable, and were paid big bucks (well, roubles and other goods) to provide.

To be fair in my humble opinion it is more fault of engine makers(Shitty kharkovite tractor engine, slow development of X Diesels and Turbines) and guys responsible for electronic development(FCS and computational technology )

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Stefan Kotsch has published the following excerpts from East-German documents regarding the reliability of the T-72 on Tank-Net.

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there data on soviet specimens.

Problem with HESH is that even against Homogenous armour result is that depending on the angle  HESH achieves measly 15~20% over 125mm HE-Frag.Not super speshful HE-Frag with base fuze but your run of the mill HE-Frag with delayed fuze.

On 12/31/2018 at 6:53 PM, Hisname said:

 

Everything new is well forgotten old

On 12/28/2018 at 4:02 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

Yes, that is very interesting.  But Pasholok has a lot of access to the Soviet archives, right?  I am curious to know how he developed this view.

 

He have articles on IS modernisation efforts in which he explains why IS-3 is modernisation rather new revolutionary tank

M100 pan mags.Developed under OKR Poplin for RPK-74

https://www.kalashnikov.ru/spetsificheskij-vyhlop-12-7-mm-vintovka-vks-vyhlop/

https://www.kalashnikov.ru/rebus-ot-brata-predohranitel-karabina-orsis-orsis-k-15/

tlrd :Vladimir Zlobin is alternatively gifted individual. And his designs is garbage.

@Scav

t

I refered to Abrams UFP which is really hard to uparmour.

18 hours ago, Scav said:

Fixed that for you.

Doesnt change that fact abrams armour arrays have cover much amount of space though. So it is better optimised.

48 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I made a model of the T-34M:

Astute viewers will notice that the commander's cupola is wrong - it's supposed to be a T-50 cupola rather than the T-34/85 model I stuck on.

 

Rivet counters will notice that the exhausts don't have the crazy bolt arrangement they should have (and are kind of the wrong shape), the front hooks are missing, the radio antenna is missing, the hull periscopes are missing, and that the turret periscopes are of the wrong type.

Permission to send it to Yuri Pasholok?

Anyone interested in communicating with Ruslan Chumak? I can translate questions. He was not only historian but weapon designer that worked at TsNIITochmash developing underwater guns.

Fighter aperture sight . Used by Soviet Border guards in their mosins in 30'.