That_Baka

Is there data on soviet specimens.

This one? Protection of cabin.
 
 
Yes, this missile appears to be 9M666 Photoshop-M tactical ground-to-internet missile.

if G12WT1412 is Г12ВТ1412, then it's serial number of soviet made T-72, made in december 1977 on Uralvagonzavod

WOw, it is like KRISS VECTOR (BEST SMG EVER OF COURSE)
 
Quick, Deviantart weapon designers, put this in every weapon concept art!

If there was, I haven't been able to find it.  @Monochromelody mentions what sound like one-off T-80 variants with neutral steer capability in this thread.
 
Mysteriously vanished SH user @Levi posted this excellent guide to Soviet MBT transmission design here.  Sadly, most of the important material has fallen prey to the dreaded link rot.  But I remember the basics well enough.
 
In short, the T-64, T-72 and T-80 have basically the same transmission.  The parts aren't compatible between the three (that would just be silly!), but they all work basically the same way.
 
In a typical Western MBT the power flowing from the engine is split into a steering drive and the transmission.  The transmission varies the drive ratio, and the steering drive alters the balance between the left and right tracks as needed.  The power is then re-combined and sent to the final drives.  In the Soviet tanks the power is split into left and right half transmissions.  Essentially, each track has its own transmission, and these transmissions also double as steering drives and final drives.  It's very simple and compact, and making a Western-style system that could fit in the same footprint would be quite a trick.  Not necessarily impossible, but quite a trick.

These are the magazines of the same author - Vladimir Kamzolov. The first one has a plastic case, and the second one is made of steel.
They are from the same project "Poplin"(1971), and have the same index - "M100" (100 rounds 5.45x39). 
On the RPK-16, this magazine is installed to draw attention to modern developments in this direction.
 
And a little more history:

On Lostarmor some attempt to make a statistics on damage to T-72/T-64 was made.
 
All known T-72s that were damaged during Donbass war:
 

 
 

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1018&p=8#p1179911
Posted on Otvaga, original sources: http://oeps.ifmo.ru/uchebn/UP_TPV.pdf and https://museum.ifmo.ru/images/pages/615/Vestnik_144.pdf
 
Soviet (1987) thermal sight "Progress 2M", competitor for Agava thermal sight. 

   Stats:
 
Spectral range - 8-13 mcm
Number of elements - 500x384
Field of view - 40ox30o
Zoom - 10x and 3x
Temperature sensitivity - not less than 0.1K
 

   Picture from Progress 2 TI.
 

   Sight was tested on T-80U, satisfied all requirements for all-time sight (day and night) and range of detection of threats.

A couple summers ago I had a chance to get inside an M113 and I have to say, I am not sure it was intended for human crewmen.  

Robo-Gavins are summoned by saying "Sparky" into a mirror three times in quick succession.
 

Best quote... showcasing a massive lack of self reflection:
 

So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before?
My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures:
 
They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries).
Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.

Kharkovite-80UD in Moscow

This is a list of materials I've found in the papers I have about SLERA, NxRA and NERA. It is by no means complete or containing only materials that are actually fielded, it's just what I've found:
Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) hardened with Desmodur N100 GAP (hardened) with CaCO3 GAP (hardened) with Guanidinazotetrazolat GAP (hardened) with varying amounts of RDX "Rubber or GAP" with a layer of Dottikon Perbunan NBR PU FKM SI Dyneema HB26 Carbon reinforced rubber Glass reinforced rubber Kevlar reinforced rubber PBO reinforced rubber But there's probably more, this is all I could find in the grand total of three papers I have on this topic.
 

They did, during the Cape Gloucester campaign, but only used them in that specific action. 
 

 
 
 
 

I am not sure if 80 mm mortar with airburst will be able to damage sensors, as for APS that can't see above, those sensors can be protected from above attacks rather well, as they don't need to see in that direction. 120 mm mortar or bigger can do serious damage to turret roof anyway, but again, why would you take out space for big mortanr and big mortar rounds if your main gun is capable of using HE in a first place (including long range indirect fire), which also can be used by tanks in many other direct combat situations.
 
   I do think that working on solutions with minimal changes to tanks and some changes to projectile/the way how projectiles are appraching to tanks protected by this "future APS" is less problematic approach.

And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve.
Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts.
Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go.
Weight and volume better spent on electrical systems and 130mm ammo, not superfluous coax autocannon.
No, a coax MG exists to provide suppressive firepower against enemy troops whose location is not known precisely and to offer a close in self defence option with a large ammo reserve.
Anything larger than "jihadyota" is "worthy" of 120/130mm MPHE.
At the cost of displacing 130mm MPHE, which is a price not worth paying.
The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place?
Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots.
So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no.
What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m?
No it isn't. There are options that do not require sticking around after announcing your presence like that.
What is leading the target
Who let the target get within 3km
Confirmed for not understanding how ballistics or time work.
Protip-30/35mm fullbore rounds take a lot longer to reach 3km because the MV is low and the shells lose velocity quickly.
And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts.
Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter.
Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance.
The point of such shutters is that you close them for a very short amount of time to protect the soft portions from frag and then open them again. They dont have to be closed for any longer than 0.1 sec per fragmentation round sent the way of the protected vehicle.
Servomechanisms powerful enough to move STANAG 3 level shutters at high velocity are established tech.
Really fucking fast. Its a matter of how fast you want them to move, and building an appropriate servo mechanism. Servos are insanely fast.
And yes these shutters could also protect the system from small arms fire.
Protective covers are not shutters. If you need to manually remove them before action they aren't the kind of system I'm talking about. Shutters as their name implies *shut*. Watch the vid LooSeR linked.
Yes, because you can carry 10k linked rounds for a machine gun as 7.62 rounds are tiny and because you want an emergency backup weapon that can prevent you from getting overrun by squishies and practically speaking eint run out of ammo. The MG is not however considered a primary weapon system substitute for any target.
No. 120 or 130mm MPHE shits all over 35mm HEAB against all squishy targets. And to top it off the multiple smart fuzes on the multiple HEAB rounds you need to send downrange to provide a similar effect means the autocannon option is more expensive.
And thats without getting into how at long ranges the 35mm just cant reack and suffers such poor dispersion that significantly more rounds are required.
35mm cannot compete in the big league with the big boys.
M. P. H. E. 
If you dont want to bring down the building you set it to SQ or PROX. Will bring down part of the wall and anyone behind it but not the building. If you want the building to come down you use PDD. You don't need autocannon rounds for this.
There are many upsides too. Most of them involve the multipurpose selectable destructive effect of MPHE rounds. And you're going to have autocannon equipped IFVs around anyway, in case you happen to run into a contrived situation which somehow only an autocannon can solve but a 120mm MPHE can't (or that a RCWS with a 40mm AGL with high elevation also won't solve). Still not a reason to install a coax autocannon on a tank.
100% of released future concept "tanks" with autocannon have no main gun to cut down weight and save cost, not because it provides complemetary firepower on the same platform.
I like the way you ignored all the other targets I listed. But just to make the point clear- the autocannon does not provide any additional AP capability against them either, as they will be immune. So again it is redundant.
This is just grasping at straws. 130mm ammo vs 120mm ammo requiring lengthened racks 'may cause problems' despite such work having already been done for the old 140mm systems? Last time I checked most countries are satisfied with current ammo capacites. And the shrinking of crews as you point out frees up volume, so what prevents you utilizing that volume for effective useful 130mm ammo?
 
There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others.
All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them.
 
So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.

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


 
 
 

Dictator Macron fights human right activists in Kiev Paris!

Found this comment by Yuri Pasholok on otvaga to be interesting.
 

@LoooSeR and @Bronezhilet mentioned a lot of downsides, but there are even more. This idea is not a good one.
For a start, you're willingly throwing away the ability to destroy the enemy at extreme ranges; There's a reason every MBT designed since the 1980s has a LRF with a range of at least 4 km, and that's because effective ranges increase with time, and the Gulf wars already had armor engagements at around 4-5km. limiting yourself by concept to 2km range is just flat out stupid.
Secondly, properly crewed MBTs are fleeting targets. Sending a burst of autocannon ammo downrange and waiting until its almost arrived before firing your main gun greatly increases the exposure time needed to nail a target, and leaves you exposed for longer than is ideal, particularly as much of this exposure is after you've announced your presence in a less-than-subtle manner.
Thirdly, 35mm KETF just isn't that impressive against armor. ~5mm dia tungsten fragments just don't go through all that much armor at all. so small motorized shutters tied in to the APS radar can effectively 100% counter both that and PROX artillery threats at very little additional cost. Such a shutter system could probably be retrofit on to existing tanks with APS within half a year of such a threat materializing. and protip- if your basic design concept can be subverted by an afterthought retrofit you should get better ideas and better taste.
Another major point against such a layout is that the single greatest advance in tank ammunition in the past 30 years has been MP HE rounds, capable of reaching out to 5+km and destroying any target other than current-gen MBTs in one shot. small bore autocannon simply do not have the range with HE rounds, nor can they fully fill the MP role- 35mm HEAB will not bring down buildings or penetrate and wreck IFVs. Likewise, 35mm HEAB has a hard time reaching out to extended ranges to counterfire on ATGM teams- more rounds are required, dispersion is worse, and time to target is significantly worse. Displacing fullbore MP HE rounds for less capable autocannon rounds is a non-starter.
And on a further note, future threat IFVs are likely to be immune to 35mm APFSDS, at least at extended ranges, as that is the current standard armament for many NATO IFVs. This means that the coax 35mm will be almost completely useless and redundant and therefore does not belong on future MBTs. (and for the ones that wont be immune to 35mm APFSDS, 120/130mm MPHE on PDD will destroy them more thoroughly and faster than a burst of autocannon APFSDS).
And on a final note, why would a switch to the new 130mm mean lower ammo capacity? the base diameter is the same as the NATO 120, and most stowage is horizontal. Extend the bustle of an Abrams and it'll hold just as many 130mm rounds as it holds 120mm rounds today (seldom used hull rack excluded).
 
So in conclusion, this seems like a bad idea all around.

I think it is time to embrace the vile concepts of the missile gods:

 
Blast em with shittons of missiles:

 

Hard to tell this by words,  very simple tank, very easy autoloader, looks like "mamoth" in "red alert" game, but with engine in front, next year.

GShG used by FSB TsSN on Viking MRAPs