Karamazov

Does anyone have information about the number of Sherman tanks produced by modifications?

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That the MBT-70 contained ceramics, aluminium etc. seems to be based on the blatantly incorrect Wikipedia article to Chobham armor, which also claims that the Leopard 1A3 has "foamed ceramics" filling the empty space of its spaced armor. This is also wrong.

 

Thanks, now I got it

Guys, can somebody tell about MBT-70 armor components?

Developer Var Thunder from Gaijin made his reservation on the "armor - air - armor" scheme.

But I read somewhere that the composition of his armor is still secret. And that there was not air. Is there any information about this?

Found this picture. It says that the composition of the armor consists of steel, aluminum, fiberglass and more steel.

Tiran-6 with 105mm M68 gun. Never seen it before

Syrian or Egyptian artillery based on the Sherman tank. Year is unknown, but I think a photo of 1969-1973.
I hope this is artillery and I was not mistaken with thread. Somebody now what is this? 

14 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   You don't need that in our age of MMPs, Spikes, ALAS, AFT-10s and so on.

This is what I am talking about. With the advent of the 3rd generation of ATGM, the situation changes.

14 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Laser homing, low energy and sad 105mm caliber, and inferior in every way to the Spike family. Literally why would you use that missile, and more to the point why would you saddle a tank with one and what round would you replace in the rack to make room for it?

I give it as an example because it can be launched from a gun. They can shoot a leopard 2. 

Spike can't do it yet. Anyway - its caliber is not important. Because he hits the target from above

12 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

ERA is more dangerous to surrounding infantry than a 6in ATGM like Kornet or TOW? 

 

 

ERA responds not only to ATGM. On the battlefield, many threats to the tank. If any of them cause an ERA detonation, the infantry will suffer.

Look at the Israeli tanks. They had many ERA models. But in the end: they only use NERA. Because their infantry always interacts with the tank. Always nearby tanks

12 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

1 - ERA explosion is the least "problematic" thing that can happen to infantry near tanks when tanks are taking AT fire.

 

Anyway, this is almost the main reason. For example. British tanks have an ERA. British IFV / APC - not. The same is with the French.
 

12 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

3 - I commented about your point of ATGMs not being usefull on European soil (" In Europe, there is no point in ATGM."), which is BS. 

ATGM in the first place - it is a powerful tool to combat armored vehicles. It is necessary for infantry. And it is very effective at distances from 1km to 3km and even more. The problem is that in Europe there are few places where there are such open spaces. Therefore, it is always easier for them to hit a target with APFSDS. For them, ATGM is an infantry weapon. They can't carry guns on themselves. And APFSDS is a tank weapon. That's all I meant. 
The situation varies greatly with the advent of the 3rd generation of ATGM. Now you may actually need a similar ATGM. For example LAHAT

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

1. What? 

2. T-55 with Drozd, 200+ were modified IIRC.

3. Stupid Europeans are still developing and bying ATGMs for some reason.

1 - Infantry often walks with a tank. Hit into ERA is dangerous for infantry near the tank.
2 - 200 T-55AD in 1980s. Yeah, thas really cool. 
APS is a very expensive system. Even the USSR could not afford it en masse. Now in peacetime, it is generally very few people need.
3 - So what? I also speak about it. There is development - no purchases. The picture above shows this. 

3 hours ago, Ronny said:

The Leopard 2A7 or Leopard 2A4 revolution?

The first is a deep modernization of 2A5. Second 2A4 with composite armor plates. I do not remember that KMW revealed strength of armor. But in my own opinion, 2A7 is better in everything. 

26 minutes ago, Ronny said:

i have always curios about the design philosophy of Western tanks such as Leopard, M1, Challenger versus Russian tank such as T80, T-90.

This is the legacy of the school of tank design designer Morozov. "More protection and features - less size"
Therefore, the Soviet MBT is as compact as possible. 
1 - The main reason for abandoning the ERA - was the possibility of hit the allied infantry near tank.

2 - What Soviet tanks does have any APS modules?

3 - In Europe, there is no point in ATGM. Because there are no distances at which they would be effective.

Opposite - in Russia there are a lot of huge fields and valleys, where it would be useful. In addition, Western tanks could be equipped with an ATGM.

Models have been developed. But not purchased. Like this:

And 5 years ago Germans was tested Israeli LAHAT ATGM system with firing from smooth barrel Rh120 gun

17 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

South Korean JihadUAVs

it starts to be scary

good museum. been there many times. I can go again and take photos if someone is interested

10 hours ago, heretic88 said:

But what about the recently reactivated T-62M/MVs? Or was that just for one event only? (Vostok 18)

Yes. they are not in the army, they are all in storage. At the "Vostok-18" exercises, they trained to quickly remove old tanks from storage. 

4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Libya

Is this not a rehearsal for the victory parade?

15 minutes ago, Serge said:

Budget. 

Maybe. But I think this is a stupid resource management. Mrap they buy. Armored cars too. There are models like GAZ Tiger. But year after year we see this ridiculous cars.
I am sure this is all the influence of mobile strike groups by ISIS. 

"Syrian experience"

Why does NATO Middle Eastern wars experience look like this:

But Russian ME wars experience looks like this:

18 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Turkish-made ERA.

is it their own development? or bought from someone?

27 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.

Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.

I agree. In Russia, in tank communities, someone gave information "from an insider" that the Kurganets are being reworked.

It did not suit the military. I do not know what is true of this, but since then there has been little heard about Kurganets.
There were similar rumors about the T-14's onboard protection. And about the T-15, about its dimensions.

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I hope this wasnt posted before.

 

There is an article that claims Kurganets was tested in syria. Interesting. May it be true, or fake news?

http://anna-news.info/boevaya-mashina-pehoty-kurganets-25-protestirovana-v-sirii/

Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
 

6 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

IMHO, it's a bit small to be the mystery cylinder on the M1A2C,

is very similar

11 hours ago, Scolopax said:

The presence of the side skirts, turret storage baskets, and the laser rangefinder made me lean towards Type 69.

The same, but it could be installed during the upgrade. By this I look at the chassis

45 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

It appears to be a Type 69 with maybe add-on composite armor.  No idea outside of that.

This is 59, i think. And If you believe this source http://militarium.net/tag/chinese-tank/ this is Type-59-1 

41 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

What is seen here?