Karamazov

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

"Jackal" is no longer in fashion?

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The side armor modules for the sideskirts have resists penetration by the PG-7VLT (Bulgarian tandem-warhead ammunition for the RPG-7 with 550-600 mm penetration) in tests. A similar shaped armor module with large empty space and a steel plate (claimed to simulate the side hull armor of an unspecified tank) managed to resist penetration by a German-made tandem warhead with 800 mm penetration (simulating the PG-7VR warhead for the RPG-7). Given that the turret add-on armor is thicker (both at the front and sides) than the hull's side armor modules, one could expect a comparable level of protection, unless the armor optimizitations against APFSDS rounds had negative effects on it.

What is this brand of armor? It can be the same with this?:

with Google 

35 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Can somebody translate if this 1000 mm in RHA is against HEAT or APFSDS?

• "Central Wars®, the tank battalion deputy battalion, Jia Yuanyou have reached 1000 milli RIXE"
  
  
•  

Representatives of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Egypt in Kharkov on KMDB. 
 

It's all before the show IDEX-2018 which will be in Egypt. They were shown the BTR-4 and BTR-4-MB1,  T-72 and T-62 tanks with 6TD engines. And "BM Oplot".
Well, there were firing of course.  

https://theworldnews.net/ua-news/v-preddverie-debiutnoi-mezhdunarodnoi-oboronnoi-vystavki-khar-kov-posetili-egipetskie-tankisty-foto

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Heavy APC/IFV can be done on this chassis.

Yep, within 40 tons of weight

49 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Thats is where our differences are - you believe, i observe. If Kharkov will make something decent not by a remix of "Soviet best hits", than i will change my opinion.

Deal.
 

50 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Umm... than this is going to be yet another shuffling Soviet-made/derived subsystems.

Plan "b" as option
 

51 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

On chassis T-80UD, you wanted to say. "Normally" things can be done on T-64 chassis as well.

doesn't matter: on the Obj 219sp2 base. 
 

53 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

"Normally" things can be done on T-64 chassis as well.

Now even a normal tank cannot be made on this base. Chassis outdated. BM Bulat for example

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Exactly. It is just a Soviet-made tank cannon that was re-named.

with some modifications that made in Kiev after the death of the USSR. But in general, yes.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

It is great that they have piles of documents, problem is that:

1) Tank design was not finished before project died, it needs more R&D

2) Creation of systems that Soviet Union never produced or even had as test/prototype samples

3) Production of test vehicles will be needed, testing in order to make it work, especially brand new autoloader and FCS.

I agree with you, but in general, I believe that their strength will be enough. After the death of the USSR, they created some elements for tanks.
Finally, they can use any parts form T-80 chassis and combat control system from most newest tank what ukrain have. 
T-Rex its PR project. On the basis of the T-64 (Obj 432 if you like), nothing can be done normally. But something can be done normally on the basis of the BM Oplot, my opinion.

US Army pick 2 applicants for competition

"The Army picked its two traditional armored vehicle manufacturers, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, to build contending prototypes for its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, the service announced today. Each company will get up to $376 million to build 12 prototypes, with delivery starting in 14 months and testing in 16. In 2022, the Army will pick a final winner to build a planned 504 vehicles."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/army-picks-bae-gd-for-mpf-light-tank-prototypes/ 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Just for example - gun(s), ammunition, armor - were developed outside of Kharkov.

I do not condone anyone, but they themselves can make guns and shells. KBA-3 for example, but this is just a modification of 2A46M.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Azovets 2.0? Assemble a single vehicle from crap and then toss it into a trash bin?

Azovets was made by engineers from "Azov" nazi-regiment
 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 USSR didn't finished 477s. It is hard to remix of unfinished and not serially produced systems.

Yes, all works were transferred to the Russian Federation at the mid 90s. If i remember correct, "Nota" prototype stored in RF. But KMDB have more information about it, for obvious reasons. They can use (will use, if new project will start) this information. 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Majority of work was done on 477 by Soviet Union, not by separated Ukraine and Russia. Experienced is earned by designers and workers, not by country. I doubt that any of those who worked on 477 are still working on anything serious. Also, Object 195 was not a development of 477, while Armata was based on Object 195 and Object 299 ideas.

The main work was done by Kharkov KMDB while the USSR was alive. Of course, they didn’t do anything more serious than a "BM Oplot", but that doesn’t cancel their development capabilities. But as I said, they have money difficulties. And this is the most important problem.
 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

What? Kharkov barelly managed to poop out last Oplot tank out

This will not prevent them from making test samples of tanks. But they can only dream of mass production.
 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Ukraine in all those years didn't managed to make anything more advanced than "yet another version of T-64" or "yet another version of T-80UD". I doubt that Kharkiv have enough "brains" left, any sort of serious production capability needed to create anything more sophisticated than a re-mix of Soviet-designed parts, and enough money to get out current situation. 

As you said, Object 477 is a Soviet mbt. By the same principle, they can use it to "re-mix of Soviet-designed parts", i think.  Of course, if they didn't sold everything to China for example. 

11 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

And? Having several Soviet tanks don't automatically make you capable of designing and producing AFVs. And what "new generation" of tanks Ukraine created?

Object 477 - its colossal experience for any country and especially for Ukraine. As you can remember, Russia and Ukrain worked on it together. Russia after then created the Object 195 and T-14 after few years. Kharkiv KMDB have everything for the successful creation of a new generation of tanks: "brains", experience, production capacity. Everything except money. Anyway, they will have enough strength for a couple of demonstration tanks. Maybe foreign investors will help. Or the government will find money (hardly)

3 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Well, at least those 2 are made in metal and were tested, instead of 3D renders of T-Rex.

But Ukraine has 477 Godlike Objects. And more information with the experience of creating a new generation of tanks

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

Griffin III is an IFV

Griffin II is a light tank with a 105mm gun

 

Griffin II competes with the M8 and NGAFV-105 for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program, a light tank for Infantry BCT.

Well done, thank you. I thought Griffin III is evolution Griffin II.  It was confusing.

@Renegade334 @Clan_Ghost_Bear
Thanks. 
Can somebody tell me about this light tank?

if I understand correctly, Griffin 3 this is light tank with 50mm gun. But Griffin 2 was equipped 120mm smoothbore gun. Ok, what is it  ↑.  What the program for which it was created? 

What do Griffin 1 and 3 look like?

fantastic! No one guesses such mechanisms. It is strange i think 

1 hour ago, asaf said:

 

 

 

photos of spike missiles being launched from Eitan/Namer unmanned turret

 

 

 

Just now, VPZ said:

WTF?! 

This is Her Majesty's modified urban tank

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

Looks cool. David and Goliaf relevant again

By the way about CR2. recently i found it. May be somebody will find any time and translate it to english 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

   That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.

"Streetfighter" has everything he needs to work in town. Everything else is already on this tank. 

@rob89 welcome 

12 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Wire cutters have been standard on most british vehicles for a while:

thank you 

12 hours ago, VPZ said:

Wire cutters? Americans used them too.

never saw. Do you have any photo?

I noticed one detail. UK tanks in Iraq use this device. What is this?

I think it is something like device which the IDF use in 1948. Egyptian(arab) insurgents(and army) used traps on the roads. They pulled the line, like fishing line, to cut off the crew's heads.
 

14 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   I still remember what one ex-Soviet tank company commander told me after he went to Israel and served on Merkavas - "Agava sights are such type of sights where when you look in it, you are not sure if it is broken or should work like this"

You are a communist, Ivan! Communist looks into the sight - sees the enemy