barbaria
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by barbaria
-
-
-
https://twitter.com/MON_GOV_PL/status/1395992622347530240?s=20
Poland is buying 24 TB2's in 4 batches of 6, with associated munitions. Deliveries starting next year.
-
https://twitter.com/IsmailDemirSSB/status/1389870572688093186
QuoteOur defense industry is taking firm steps towards its targets in engine technology.
The firing of our first engine with 1500 horsepower, # BATU, developed by BMC Power for tanks, various armored vehicles and machines, was successfully completed.
# Our Engineers are doing it! -
The HISAR-A system passed the acceptance trials of the Turkish army successfully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUBM5UWiEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR1SNrox8tQ
-
Nice! The 54th carrier for the OMTAS missile carrier is in production for a total of 184 OMTAS/Kornet tracked carriers, with an additional 76 wheeled OMTAS/Kornet carriers in production, for a total of 260 tank destroyers produced by 2022.
Edit: It seems the total number has been increased to 344
https://www.defenceturk.net/kara-kuvvetleri-komutanligi-113-adet-silah-tasiyici-arac-teslim-aldi
-
Some milestones have been reached in the developments of the 1000HP and 1500HP powerpacks:
https://www.bmcpower.com.tr/tr/sayfa/22/cozumlerimiz
QuoteIt is a power pack development project of BMC Power, which is carried out on behalf of SSB, consisting of engine, transmission and cooling package. The power group developed within the scope of the project is planned to power New Generation Light Armored Vehicles and Track Howitzers up to 45 tons. The engine of the system, which has a 1000 HP engine, a transmission with steering and braking capability, a low-volume high-efficiency cooling system and a multi-functional electronic control unit, was successfully fired at the beginning of 2021 and the transmission was successfully started in April 2021. Testing and qualification studies are continuing at the BMC POWER Test Center. The project completion date is planned as 2023. Within the scope of this project, it is aimed to localize the turbocharger, torque converter, hydrostatic unit, engine and transmission control units that could not be developed in our country before.
Feature table: 1000 HP Power Pack 8 Cylinder - V Type Engine 6 + 2 Cross Drive Transmission
QuoteBATU Power Group Project is a power group development project consisting of engine, transmission and cooling package given to BMC POWER by SSB to power our domestic and national tank ALTAY tank. The engine developed within the scope of the project provides 1500 HP power, the cross drive transmission has the ability to transfer high torque, the cooling group works with high efficiency in the low silhouette vehicle structure, the control unit has a wide range of functions, and the development of our total power group ALTAY tank to provide uninterrupted power to our tank in all operating conditions. is targeted. In this context, the BATU project, whose engine start-up was successfully carried out in April 2021, continues with the testing and qualification studies at the BMC Power Test Center. The commercialization calendar is targeted as 2024.
Feature table: 1500 HP Power Pack 12 Cylinder - V Type Engine 6 + 2 Cross Drive Transmission
-
-
42 minutes ago, TINDALOS said:
ZBD04 (not ZBD04A, I think you guys call it ZBD08？) also don't have a thermal sight. For a pretty long time ZBD04A is the only ifv equipped with thermal sight in the PLA arsenal. For tanks, ZTZ-96A and ZTZ99's sight is pretty much T-90A level (one for thermal and one for daylight, just like ESSA+1G46M on T-90A). ZTZ-99A and VT4 has something similar to SOSNA-U, a multi channel combined day/night sight.
I remember when I got personally attacked a couple years ago for stating that the majority of the Chinese IFV's were lacking thermals.
A lot has changed on this forum since then..
-
On 2/26/2021 at 1:53 AM, LoooSeR said:
Nice display of hospital bombing you got there. Only in Russia I guess...
-
Quote
After the delivery of HİSAR-A +, our HİSAR-O + Medium Altitude Air Defense System successfully passed the farthest range and highest altitude test conducted in our country so far, by directly hitting and destroying the air target.
The target was hit at roughly 11-12 km altitude at roughly 40km range. The missile wasn't equipped with a live warhead (blue band on missile canister) and thus no explosion, but it did directly hit the target. Again we can see the second pulse of the booster kicking in at 00:50.
Both the A+ and O+ versions come with two way datalink and capability to switch targets during flight. Both of the systems are capable of guiding 12 missile to 6 targets at the same time.
The O+ variant will also have an active radar guided variant in the future. For now the Hisars have IIR guidance with the A+ variant having a stubby nose and the O+ and pointed nosecap to protect the missile seeker against heat and will only discard of the cap during later stages of the flight.
Rumored 15 A+ batteries and 30 O+ batteries are going to be purchased. This amount is enough to cover the entire Turkish ground forces with a divisional air defense capability under O+ umbrella with the A+ variant providing independent brigades with brigade level air defense. (30 O+ batteries=30 divisions=10 army corpse=3 armies with one corps (3 divisions) redundant. 15 A+ batteries provide independent brigades with brigade level air defense.)
In the future the Siper(120km) is going to provide for the corps level air defense. The Sungur(6km) manpads provides company level air defense and perhaps even on the battalion level.
-
-
4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:
The armor coverage on the gunners and commmanders side is even worse than previously thought...
-
-
7 hours ago, Beer said:
- the officially admitted manpower losses are nearly same for both sides (1,1-1)
Losses in manpower are not documented in Oryx's count. Solely material losses. The nature for the skewed losses in material is caused by a number of factors of which IMO are: Whether one is attacking vs defending, the terrain, the amount of defensive positions, artillery support, logistical support and above all the technological disparity between the two sides.
7 hours ago, Beer said:majority of visually confirmed losses come from UAV footage, i.e. only one element operating on the battlefield, we know from experience that far majority of losses come from artillery and MLRS while such strikes are usually not caught on the camera
This conflict was quite different to that of Ukraine or any conventional mechanized clash between (near)peers. The Azeri's had overwhelming technological superiority in the form of tactical UCAV's, kamikaze drones and NLOS guided weapons. These weapons gave the Azeri's the ability to destroy and damage equipment behind the front line accurately and effectively, something which the Armenians completely lacked. Ergo, even though arty was used by both sides, the Azeri's had a vastly greater capability and tools (UCAV's, drones NLOS weapons) to deal damage to the enemy than vice versa. It wasn't as if the Armenians had the same capabilities but they somehow forgot to record their strikes.
7 hours ago, Beer said:- the Azeri occupy most of the battlefield, naturally they tend to show only evidence of enemy equipment destroyed
- thanks to that they are in possession of everything what was not evacuated from the captured territory by Armenia but in the same time they could and for sure did evacuate majority of their own lost equipment bar some total losses
- most of the evacuated equipment for sure never made it on the internet
I can't give you numbers or sources or anything but what ever losses where sustained on the Azeri side have been well documented either during the war or after with Azeri service members often showcasing their own destroyed equipment and sometimes with commentary as how the equipment was lost. I have seen no indications that the Azeri material losses where somehow massively covered up.
-
10 hours ago, alanch90 said:
Any available time frame of when the development of that engine is planned to be finished?
Not that I know of. But looking at the development time that is contracted for the 900-1000hp (UTKU) engine until ready for serial production the 1500hp could have a comparable development time (68 months) of which 36 months still remain.
QuoteUnder the ALTAY MBT National Power Pack Development (BATU) Project, on June 14, 2018 the SSB awarded a contract to BMC Power for the development of indigenous power pack with 1,500hp diesel engine to be coupled with a hydro-mechanical transmission for the ALTAY MBT.
QuoteLocated at Teknopark Istanbul, BMC Power was also selected under the New Generation Armoured Combat Vehicle (NGACV) Power Pack Development Program by the DIEC on October 28, 2016 and a contract was signed between the company and the SSB on October 13, 2017. Under the program BMC Power will design, develop, test, qualify and deliver a power pack which will consist of a 675kW (905hp), V8 type 18-litter diesel engine coupled with an automatic transmission under a 68-month schedule. The contract become effective on January 4, 2018 and ‘To’ started.
But in a very recent interview, the director of the company tasked to develop these engines (BMC Power) stated that in a wartime scenario they could skip the whole testing and integration phase and put the powerpack immediately to work in the Altay.
It is in Turkish so you'll have to excuse me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vAMg1lvm_E
- Stimpy75 and Lord_James
-
2
-
Lots of AFV development coming out of Turkey. Apart from the vehicles themselves, they are also focusing on powerpacks with various power outputs. 380hp, 600hp diesel engines are fielded or ready to be used. 360hp, 450hp, 530hp, 630hp and 1000hp engines all from different companies (BMC and Tumosan) are currently being tested with the 1500hp engine going to be ignited for the first time in coming April/May.
If they succeed in achieving all of this, the tank engine market will get another competitor with less stringent user requirements which will make the few companies in this sector at the very least nervous, and at the most force them out of business. *cough... cough.... MTU cough..cough..
-
Thought I would post the link to Oryx's blog: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/09/the-fight-for-nagorno-karabakh.html
Total loss ratio Armenia vs Azerbaijan according to visually confirmed sources: 8,5-1
A decisive victory for Azerbaijan.
This war has shown the importance of air power, both defensively and offensively.
-
16 hours ago, Ramlaen said:13 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
Ground launched Tomahawk happened.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/703577/dod-conducts-ground-launched-cruise-missile-test
edit: bigger picture
So the Russians were right when they complained about the land aegis system capability to launch land attack cruise missiles. Great... what a world we live in
-
I saw that track-throwing on the livestream. Whereas the rest of the tanks reaches 65-67 km/h and the Chinese one 71 km/h, the Russian T-72B3 reaches an astonishing 77 km/h!! After closer examination of that tank I conclude that the Russians are cheating again.
IMO, they took a T-72B3M with the more powerful engine (1130hp) and took of the commander's independent sight to mask the tank as an ordinary T-72B3. You can see the covered hole of the commanders sight on the Russian tanks but not on the other participants tanks.
-
That running gear looks quite flimsy for such a big IFV. When it drove of the ramp with low speed, the front sprockets hit the ground. I wouldn't want to imagine what would happen at higher speeds.
This amphibious race will either be very fun or very boring to watch...
-
Come on guys, this LEOCLERCtm is obviously just to show the world that Germans and French can indeed cooperate on tank design, how small and lack of innovation of this LEOCLERCtm is. Let us see what they have in store in a couple years, granted that the cooperation lasts...
-
12 hours ago, Shield of the Great Leader said:
Pictures of Royal Thai Army’s VT-4 MBT during its demonstration earlier this year. I have some close up pictures of the Oplot-T and VT-4 from the Children’s Day this year working as a service member of the Thai Army so tell me if you want to see them.
Pls post whatever you have on the VT4
-
A true treasure that has been found. Finally some official figures about armor values.
-
17 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:
There are several reasons commonly cited for this choice:
1. Turrets are the part of the tank anatomy most frequently targeted (assuming your FCS or guidance system is precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on the spot aimed at) by the enemy.
2. Placing half or most of your ammo in the hull lightens your turret (better traverse speed and whatnot), frees up space for more freedom of movement for the crew and provides potential growth room for turret armor.
3. It plays well with hull-down tactics, as it means most of the ammo will be out of sight and reach in these conditions.
Then again, the Leopard 2's turret allocates half of its turret bustle to hydraulics and a computer, so they have no choice but to stuff the rest in the hull.
I would rather sit in an Abrams being a couple tonnes heavier and a top speed of a few km/h slower, than in a leopard 2
.gif ":AHDOTCOM:")
Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
It does come with its own drawbacks though IMO. What about the repearability after penetration of the ammo compartment? Wouldn't an internal ammo cook-off destroy the turret beyond any cost-effective repair, seeing how the turret contains all the sensitive and expensive parts.
Of course for this to happen the APS needs to run out of interceptors or malfunction. So I guess the chance of the aforementioned problems to play out seems very slim though.
IMO, there seems to be a clear cut-off for when at least an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is a necessity in a tank and that is when the shells are becoming too heavy for a human loader to handle. I think this is what we are going to see when we go beyond the 120/125mm caliber, both for the western and eastern tank designs. Anything less than that is manageable by a human loader and thus an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is not necessary IMO.