Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    Just arrived back at home. Sadly, taking photos was completely impossible. Hordes upon hordes of children... Well, yes this is only a showcase tank. We'll get newly built A7s. There was also an A4 present, from Austrian army. Old tank, with welded over ammo hatch. German army exhibited a Pzh-2000 too, with funny "no photos please" labels on it. It was hardly possible due to the crowd, but who cares... Additionally, there was a Leo-2 based bridge layer, and some kind of engineering vehicle.
  2. heretic88
    Yes, that was the 3BM36 "Kamerger". Almost no info available. What is known that is was accepted in service in 1988, and it was part of the same development programme as the 3BM32 "Vant" for 125mm guns. Was the L64 similar to M735 or M111 then?
  3. heretic88
    This weekend there will be an event here on which this tank will take part. I plan to go there, I'll try to get some information about this. Maybe some photos too, but probably hordes of children will prevent that sadly.
  4. heretic88
    I always find this "protection against 115mm" funny. What kind of 115mm? Penetration was ranging from around 220-240mm (3BM4) to probably more than 400 (3BM36). In 1978 3BM28 entered service, with DU core...
  5. heretic88
    Looks like russian army buys trash again... The idea of armored buldozers is fine, IDF used them with great success... However... Why russia buys the worst, most primitive, obsolete dozer available??? Chelyabinsk dozers are shitty, barely more than slightly "modernized" variants of ancient T-130 and 170. On the other hand, Chetra, another russian firm manufactures really modern machines in much larger variety. T-25 model is the equivalent of the Cat D9. Why army chose trash when there were far superior domestic alternatives? http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/05/blog-post.html
  6. heretic88
    I have serious doubts about that. The Objekt-477 had only 50mm armor on the turret sides where the gun was mounted. (according to paralay's drawings). Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS. The gunner's sight is also in a vulnerable position, far more exposed than on the Abrams, or even T-72.
  7. heretic88
    I think main problem with T-14 turret is protection against autocannons. I highly doubt its sides can resist 30x173 APFSDS. So for example even a Stryker Dragoon would be a serious threat (mission kill only, but thats enough). No such issue with normal manned turrets.
  8. heretic88
    Its the end of an era. South korea finally retires T-80U and BMP-3: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20190406.aspx#startofcomments It would be good to know what was their opinion about these two vehicles. Some sources say koreans were satisfied, others say they didnt like them...
  9. heretic88
    I think those are 9P122s (Maljutka-M). 9P133 has a small window between the driver's one and the ATGM sight, and the sight itself is bigger. Also the 133 doesnt have the vent/fan/air intake or whatever installed beside the driver's place. + these vehicles have the earlier engine deck configuation, not common with 9P133. Thanks for pictures anyway
  10. heretic88
    Very nice! The ISU-152 is not too authentic though... Its a post war K or M variant. But who cares, looks great!
  11. heretic88
    Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.
  12. heretic88
    Well, my not-so-interesting story. In the past, I visited a place frequently where you can drive different kind of demilitarised AFVs. My first tank drive became quite a... shocking experience Well, after a short training, I began to drive along the course. (VT-55 ARV) All went well, I began to feel the vehicle, I was quite confident. Then came a quite large puddle. The instuctor told me in the TPU to slow down. I shifted back to second gear, but kept the engine rpm at moderate levels. What a mistake it was! As I entered the puddle, it quickly became obvious that it is far deeper than I thought. A second later I guess I got more than 50 liters of stinky, cold water in my face. And since it was a hot summer, the cold water had a quite shocking effect on me, needless to say, a very, very unpleasant experience. For a few seconds, I didnt even know where I was. The instuctor just laughed, after all, he warned me to slow down The next time I approached such puddles, I strictly slowed down to idle rpm, and even applied some brake.
  13. heretic88
    The main problem is that the ammo was placed so far in the rear of the tank, that it is almost always exposed to attack, except a in a small frontal arc. Worse than in T-64/72/80. https://forum.index.hu/Article/viewArticle?a=150468274&t=9010902&openwith=1
  14. heretic88
    By world standards, probably not a single one. Lots of completely obsolete T-72Bs, T-80BVs and some T-80Us. T-72B3 is end of 80s level. It has lots of problems: 1960s level commander's station (OU-3GK searchlight in 2019? Seriously?), no armor (Kontakt-5 is hopelessly obsolete), no modern communication systems, no navigation systems, huge maintenance problems (doubtful durability of engine, and its change takes half a day), some mobility issues (very slow reverse), inadequate gun, ergonomic problems with using Sosna. T-80BVM is the same except: It has modern Relikt ERA (so has decent protection at least), reliable engine with good durability, much easier engine extraction, and no ergonomic problems with using the thermal sight. T-90A, same as T-72B3, except it has no ergonomic problems, and has better commander's station (still inadequate, although better than what the Challenger-2 commader has) So yes, the first tank that will be really modern by western standards, is the T-90M, although it still has the engine problems shared with all recent T-72 variants. Hopefully they start producing it soon.
  15. heretic88
    Then it is even better. For more or less same amount of the money that a single Leclerc costs, you get two massively superior tanks... Anyway, I think there is another error on that picture. Type 90 for 9.4 million??? I do not believe that. Its a relatively old tank compared to the Type 10, no way that it is so expensive. Probably the 9.4M is for the Type 10, although Im quite skeptical about this. Wikipedia (yes, yes I know do not trust it) says unit cost is "only" 8.4M.
  16. heretic88
    If this is true then: - Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is. - Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio - Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently. - T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.
  17. heretic88
    This BVM wouldnt be a bad tank with just a little more improvement. Already has quite good mobility and decent protection. Its main flaw I think is the hopelessly obsolete commander's station. Its still the '60s. Also it needs modern communication and navigation systems, and maybe an APS capable of defeating top attack ATGMs.
  18. heretic88
    I hope you guys forgive a little bit of nitpicking: There is no such thing as "BDD". I have no idea who invented this term, but there is absolutely zero trace in russian literature for this. Correct term is "Металлополимерный блок" (metal-polymer block).
  19. heretic88
    Thats interesting... But what about the recently reactivated T-62M/MVs? Or was that just for one event only? (Vostok 18) Also, I think "modern" is quite relative... T-72B3 may be modern in this list, but otherwise... Lets just say there is room for improvement... To put it mildly... Realistically, the only modern tank in Russian army will be the T-90M in the near future. Maybe later the T-14... maybe... Its quite sad to see that the whole fleet is dominated by T-72s, and the otherwise superior (tue potential for modernization) T-80U and T-90A are slowly dying out.
  20. heretic88
    I have to say, beautiful 3d model! More here:https://warthunder.com/en/news/6140-development-merkava-mk-1-chariot-of-fire-en
  21. heretic88
    "Suspect the pressure will be on to go for a wheeled solution, given the way the SP artillery market has gone in recent years." Are they going with the herd then? I think this western wheeled artillery concept is a big big mistake. Basically, the problem isnt the wheels. The problem is that they install these artillery systems on low offroad capability trucks. Im a heavy equipment operator, so I saw quite a few trucks stuck in the slightest amount of mud. This is no different. That Archer above on the MAN HX chassis is a disgrace of the original. Maybe its cheaper, but has zero offroad mobility compared to the Volvo chassis.
  22. heretic88
    Well, I agree about Burlak turret, that was also a big missed opportunity. Also, I have an even better idea, Objekt-187 hull with Burlak turret... Base T-90 hull would need a serious redesign to fix its 2 main problems, the driver's weakspot, and the half day engine change. 187 already fixed both.
  23. heretic88
    Thats not what I believe, it is a fact. UVZ confirmed it. Look for it on Gurkhan's blog. Edit: meanwhile I found it: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html Also the 125mm gun is indeed inadequate: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/03/blog-post_32.html
  24. heretic88
    There was a better option. Start mass producing Objekt-195. It was ready. It had the 152mm gun, 30mm coax, and better protection. Back then they said it is too expensive... But in my opinion, its total BS. Actually, it was indeed expensive, but developing a new tank (that is inferior) from zero cost far, far more. Add the fact that the 125mm gun is now inadequate, and the T-14 is incapable to receive the 152mm gun without a massive redesign... Compared to all of this, the 195 is cheap... Unfortunately, the 195 is a missed chance, all we can hope for is that we will see it some day in a museum. In my opinion, the Kurganets is also a waste of money. It has zero advantages compared to the cheaper BMP-3 Dragun. Only the Koalitsiya and the Bumerang make sense amongst these development programmes.
  25. heretic88
    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/
×
×
  • Create New...