skylancer-3441
-
Posts
273 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by skylancer-3441
-
short summary of information about this project (in russian) https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/27287.html has among its sources link to that book https://www.himush.co.il/himush.co.il/originals/ספר יחיעם.pdf
-
from IAV 2019 - what appears to be the same model as one which was shown back in September, but this time it's yellow-ish desert-ish instead of tri-colour camo ) (from this tweet https://twitter.com/gduknews/status/1087673769571831808) (from this tweet https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1087726889618288640) and from this article https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html
-
This was quite a while ago too, back in 2012-2014
-
well, you've already guessed that, but still - pictures might be helpfull: and that one for Koalitsiya:
-
more about this vehicle https://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/103284/CZE-Tatra-815-SOT-vozidlo-specialnich-sil
-
Track dimensions (width) could help, but IMO that it is not entirely reliable method, at least when it comes to Soviet/Russian designers pushing their vision and their proposals. Because ever since late 40s to any criticism about ground pressure they have a trick up their sleeve - removable track extensions. But it didn't go well enough apparently But that idea was not about to die so easily. In early 60s they made another version to test with T-54 again https://i.imgur.com/T1BrFY2.jpg, then in mid-60s they made some of those for T-64 https://i.imgur.com/nl0x1PO.jpg And then in the 80s BMD-3 was tested with some widened track - which looks like if it's has those things installed, and one of the official descriptions of BMP-3 also mentions widened track as a mean to reduce its ground pressure from ~0.6 to 0.42 kg/cm2 (which could allow to claim in some tablechart or smth, that it's /again/ superior to Bradley, which in it's basic form IIRC had a ground pressure of 0.52 kg/cm2) - could've been some of those too. ... UPD: apparently Red Army was trying to do that for the first time even earlier, in late 1930s http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/04/where-infantry-cant-pass.html /Fading institutional memory and poorly-maintained databases and archives, i guess... So they were in business of inventing a wheel over and over and over again/
-
Only some of those prototypes, and apparently it was modified. IIRC they even used longer torsion bars, and as a result their placement (and that of roadwheels) was no longer "coaxial" (which is what T-64/64A/etc has https://i.imgur.com/No1TfOQ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/orKZYZy.jpg, unlike T-72/T-80) Besides, they also tested T-80-derived chassis, and apparently in the end deciced to use that instead of T-64's one, even though T-80's chassis was some 2.1 metric tons heavier. Last i looked at what was claimed so far on weight of Molot, it was 57 tons, and later (post-soviet) Kharkov development was described as 60+. considering that they all have 7 roadwheels, simply adding 16.7% more mass to what is largest known GVW of T-64 or T-80 would lead possible weight limit beyond 50 tons. And than there is another thing. In early 2000s Omsk Design Bureau claimed some non-secret patents on some of their work related to Object 640, where they proposed not only that tank itsel, but an entire family of vehicles on that 7-roadwheel T-80U-derived chassis. http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/221/2210720.html Looking at Leclerc and M1A2 Abrams as goals they wanted to surpass, they derived a weight of 4550 kg per roadwheel as a limit, which would allow them to have 63.7 metric tons as maximum weight. ... According to what Gurkhan (Alexey Khlopotov) once published on Burlak turret in his Blogspot - in late 2000s even though apparently there was some actual weight limit during development of what is now known as T-90M/MS, alternative proposal had included not only what they were actually asked to design (a new turret) but also suggestion to make tank's hull some 3 feet longer to include 7th roadweel (and a fuel tank inside). Which, as they claimed, would increase weight to some 52.5 metric tons. (and Gurkhan mentions that it was probably more than that, more like 55)
-
So, 477 and 477A never existed?
-
Allmost 2 years ago Gurkhan (Aleksey Khlopotov) said on otvaga that 299-based HIFV was supposed to have 76mm autocannon, with two-section ammunition and some flexible hose feed system, and rate of fire of 60 rds/min. there is also an article from Vestnik Bronetankovoy Techniki 1986-03 http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1986_03_avtomat_76.htm on some 76mm cannon feed system prototype, which kinda fits that description, even though they only mention light armored vehicles. ... BTW, If that picture of the same vehicle is to be trusted: visible barrel lenght of depicted cannon is about 3.8 meters, and also it's rather thin. ... of course, an artist which made both of those two pictures, could've followed his imagination and could've depicted something else entirely. ... It is also known (from article in Technika i Vooruzhenie 2012-05 on BMD-3, which is also available on otvaga website) that in mid-80s as armament for BMP-3 they were considering some 76mm cannon, which is described elsewhere as medium-velocity, and some 45mm autocannon ...
-
Soviets actually had considered for some time an idea of putting 57mm autocannon on HIFV in late 80s, when they were developing one, under designation of BMPT - even though in the end (back in 1989-90) they decided against it. There are 3 rather well-photographed prototypes which survived - all without 57mm, - objects 781 sb.7-1, 781 sb. 7-2, 781 sb.8 - which sometimes were called objects 781 and 782, but two years ago there was a post on otvaga forum, which claimed that there was 4th one - 781 sb.9 - which had that 57mm autocannon, and that according to some rumors it was lost in fire during transportation. Another text which claimed that they had considered 57mm autocannon in late 80s BMPT development, but does not mention that any prototype with such armament was built, - was published in August issue of 2018 in russian Technika i Vooruzhenie magazine.
-
so M113A3-style external fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle were not good enough for them, and also they decided against putting fuel tanks into engine compartment Igel (Hegehog), Panther, MMWS... some pics from early 2000s magazines:
-
there https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-army-awards-general-dynamics-contract-for-mobile-protected-firepower-300768433.html available even larger version of same pic - up to 76 mpix https://prnewswire2-a.akamaihd.net/p/1893751/sp/189375100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_mbts0c4m/def_height/10000/def_width/10000/version/100011/type/1 although apparently anything more than ~5.6 mpix (2700x2062 pix) is just an upscale
-
similar slide was in DTR's article on KF41 which became available back in June:
-
from some Chinese magazine: ...and apparently all of them could be 95th percentile. Unlike Puma, which was designed to fit only 75th percentile dismounts. That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width so Puma's internal space is narrower than what one might expect from a vehicle which is some ~16-18 inches wider than Bradley (when measured by tracks)
-
Nope
-
Whoever made this, IMO in attempt to make "naked" turret he kinda overdid that - I mean, he got rid of all APS launcher "tubes" mounted on turret, and kept only those which T-15's hull already has. So APS now covers only ~120 deg frontal arc, and (unlike what T-14 actually has) in some situations could not be quickly pointed towards threat elsewhere, because one needs to rotate entire hull to do that. On the other hand 299 - and also 299-based HIFV - has about 20-25 (depending on the picture) modules of what seems to be some version of APS Arena mounted around its turret
-
Documents for the Documents God
skylancer-3441 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
... https://cloud.mail.ru/public/87mv/NGc3PoEpo/ "The TARDEC Story: Sixty-five Years of Innovation 1946-2010", downloaded via some means from GoogleBooks, and ... welll, it lacks some 50 pages (out of 3 hundreed) which they do not show https://cloud.mail.ru/public/KL5T/U8pbM6iL7 "The Bradley and how it Got that Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army", which GoogleBooks also has, - it also lacks about 50 pages (out of 2 hundreed) Also, Archive.org has a some sort of online library, which allowes to borrow some of their scanned books - so one user could see that book, and enyone else willing to do the same at the same time should wait in line, as if it was not a bunch of .img/.png files but a real physical copy of the book. Anyway, among some things thay show that way, there is a scan of Burton's Pentagon Wars https://cloud.mail.ru/public/A1qi/Yem6Npsi8 https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ES1e/pSRmx6NzH several dozens of articles and small notes (predominantly in english) on Bradley and tracked APCs and IFVs in general, and how they should be employed, which appeared in 50s-80s in those magazines which I was able to find on the internet - mostly in Army, Armor, Infanry, Military Review, Soldiers, - and also some articles from newspapers like New York Times on scandals around Bradley development and acquizition ... more books there https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Jjk9/mHuYG7piH ... Now there are I guess about 40 volumes of Infantry available in full view on the same link, and I've asked them about Army magazine and got 69 volumes so far https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1006 - also they've denied my requests for 13 volumes (which are available on Hathitrust anyway). Apparently they've also scanned some Soviet and Russian magazines - like this one https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1010 (Soviet Miitary Review, english language edition of soviet propaganda magazine about Soviet Army) - also it seems to me that in this case copyright status is confusing and noone knows for sure whether it's in Public Domain or not, which is why my requests on that were mostly denied. those and other "bookshelves" (folders) are available there https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031 -
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4314232545708008 some new pics on NGCV OMFV's MET-D, for example: and also and another render of GCV: this picture comes to mind: ... Comparing that Bradley drawing with one of the original Bradley from All Vollunteer 1980-07 https://i.imgur.com/WykRCXe.jpg (most detailed picture of soldiers in Bradley i've got so far) Those 6 dismounts got some very generous 202-203 cm of space - that is 67,5 cm (26,5 inches) per person, for sholder or forearm-forearm breadth, which is obviously increases a lot (compared to person in summer clothes or nude) when person is carrying a lot of gear of wearing winter clothes (which no one seems to be bothered about in 1960s or even early 1980s, so IIRC Bradley was designed with something like 56 cm/22 inches in mind - and when in 1984 they measured 95th percentile soldier in uniform for extreme cold weather ("Anthropometry of the Clothed US Army Ground Troop and Combat Vehicle Crewmen"), in turned out that he needs 62 cm/24.5 inches)
-
well, some news sites like this one for example http://www.ukraineindustrial.info/c37-machinery/176/ actually claimed that its UFP has 1200-1900mm, - without mentioning against what kind of threat - and it seems to me that they simply misunderstood that table chart in the middle of that photo of BMP-80's drawings (in my previous post): (btw I'm not quite sure about 600 - it might as well be a 300 - or smth else) Judging by drawing above that table chart - one with red missile and yellow armor - "H" values represents distance measured from the ground. And "S" probably represents LOS thickness at that height (and this is why I'm not sure about 600). Alternatively one could've made some generous assumptions using those LOS thickness values, and aso considering that it has engine at the front, and also that blue box has vertical frontal plate which is apparently 60mm thick (even though it has large rectangular hole in it for a driver)
-
It's not BMP-64, it's T-80-based vehicle usually mentioned as BMP-80 - and unlike BMP-64, they never finished a mockup of this thing. Although they made some drawings, for example: (original photo was posted there http://s540.photobucket.com/user/tigersblog_photo/media/btt21.jpg.html) and with those steel plates 50-100mm thick and 7 roadwheels - it seems to me that they were aiming at 50-60 metric ton class. That blue box alone (with what seems to be 100mm thick roof, 100mm right and left sides, and 60mm everything else) weights about 17 metric tons. (well... If my plugin for Sketchup was working correctly while calculating volume of it's parts) ... It seems to me that Bradley in it's basic form was more protected than Marder 1 in his basic form - Bradley had all-around protection agains 14.5 (from 250 meters) even though it was about 7 metric tons lighter than Marder.
-
from this article and comment section https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/the-american-s-tank/ so - I guess, that means 14 concepts, with 8 of them posted so far ....Including a couple of infantry carrying vehicles - Heavy IFV with tank-like protection, and another vehicle with remote-controlled turret (and machineguns) and protection against radiation https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/us-afv-concepts-no-5/ https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/us-afv-concepts-no-8-armored-infantry-carrier/ ... and another proposal, which reminds me of Soviet (Chelyabinsk) BMPT prototypes from late 80s - same idea of providing something better than port hole for every dismount, coupled with doctrine which demands to distmount as little as possible, coupled with reducing number of dismounts to 4-5. https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/us-afv-concepts-no-9-armored-combat-carrier/ and another proposal - lightly armored this time https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/us-afv-concepts-no-10-infantry-carrier-low-profile/
-
It was also narrower - 100/107 inches according to this diagram from Raport WTO 2002-12 (article on AUSA-2002): photos:
- 1,043 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
speanking of TH-495 variants and from romanian magazine "Știință și Tehnică" 1993-06:
-
IFV Task Force Study results (1978-04), chapter VIII (Appendices), Appendix E - BRL Vulnerability Analysis of the IFV concepts, page 2. More there
-
About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1 884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices. cost figures from Appendices F and B: things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17): (there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment) apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). ... btw, GAO's report "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23: and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):
