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
    Now it is totally obvious that rearming T-14 with 152mm gun is impossible. New tank needs to be designed. In my opinion, T-14 is a massive waste of money and time. Fully agree with Hlopotov, Objekt-195 was ready for production, it was equal or better than T-14 in every way, it was a huge mistake of abandoning it. Yes it was expensive, but so is T-14. 9 years lost in vain. http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html
  2. heretic88
    Yes, I meant the 490A. I read on your site that 2 prototypes were made. Do you know what happened to them? Is there any chance that at least one of them survived?
  3. heretic88
    Objekt-490A layout was the best I think. Crew below turret and separated from ammo, massive frontal hull armor, low turret, also with heavy armor. Sad that this tank didnt see serial production.
  4. heretic88
    The solution used on soviet 5TDF (and probably also 6TD) is especially interesting, because it is a hybrid of turbo and a gear driven centrifugal blower. Primary power source for the blower is of course the gears that connect it to the crankshafts, but at higher engine speeds, the turbine begins to produce more and more power.
  5. heretic88
    M1 Abrams, some armor measurements: https://warthunder.ru/ru/news/13992-v-razrabotke-v-minnesotu-za-abramsom-obnovleno-ru Of course this is only the outer layer, so it isnt enough to draw any conclusions. But its interesting.
  6. heretic88
    Yes, a more complex upgrade like that would make sense. Its a shame that Burlak was abandoned, it was a very interesting project. Sure, it was more expensive than T-72B3, but it offered serious improvements. T-72B3 is like an agony. The tank is practically on late 80s level.
  7. heretic88
    In my opinion, any "update" on T-72s is just a big waste of money. T-72 is hopelessly obsolete now. Instead, that money should be spent on T-90M, which is quite a nice tank.
  8. heretic88
    T-72 was never meant to be cheap. (In fact, it was more expensive than the T-64, at least, until the T-64 variants with the Kobra appeared.) There was a bitter struggle between the tank design bureaus, all competed for their product accepted as the main tank of the army.
  9. heretic88
    Same with T-72 and T-80...
  10. heretic88
    Except that the T-72 was more expensive in reality, and was less capable... Also in the second half of the '70s T-64 became reliable enough. This whole T-64/72/80 affair was nothing more than a sad story of infighting between tank design bureaus. This resulted in that the russian army stuck with now hopelessly obsolete T-72 tanks. The main victims of this infighting were such revolutionary designs as the Objekt-490A, Objekt-477, and perhaps also the Objekt-299.
  11. heretic88
    Except that it isnt hollow... another myth... (other than the holes for gun, MG and telescopic gunsight). There are absolutely NO evidences that it is hollow. On the other hand, the weight and size are known, and it can be used to determine if it is hollow or solid: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/371226-id-0059205-16jul2017-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet/ Same round was used for estimation in A&B report. It surely makes sense that the M-60A1 has worse protection frontally than the M-47... Especially ridiculous, because M-48 already had better turret armor than M-47. M-60A1 turret design was also aimed at improving protection even further. I have no idea what 95mm are you talking about. Armor directly behind the mantlet is more than 200mm thick. Around the lifting eyes, its still around 150mm. Proven by both the A&B document, and also by ultrasonic measurements. From that point thickness decreases even more, but angle increases rapidly. Viewed from the front, easily reaches 300mm LOS. Probably the most correct M-60A1 armor layout comes from Steel Beasts, already taking into account the softer cast armor. Very strong mantlet is clearly indicated. The only truly weakened area is the yellow part, but that is still far beyond BR-412D capabilities. There are more weakened areas for early 115mm APFDS and all existing 100mm KE, (260mm part, indicated in red isnt a weakspot, because such early APFSDS had problems with highly sloped armor, and also with high ricochet chance) but overall, the turret is well protected. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=File:M60frontarmour.jpg From my point, this topic is concluded. If you still believe this is pure fantasy, its your right to do so.
  12. heretic88
    Yes, the infamous "Auyer & Buda" report. They didnt even measure the WHOLE mantlet. You want proof? Just check what the report says. 4.5 inches for the gun shield. 114mm. Which is more or less OK, however, it does not take into account the fact that there is a huge block behind, on which the shield was welded on. This is still part of the protection, not just the shield. LOS thickness is around 380mm on average. Even with cast armor, effective protection shouldnt be below 300mm, I'd say in the range of 320-330. This definitely makes it 115mm proof, as the soviet report stated. (3BM21 just entered production in the same year, so they definitely didnt take it into account) Also. You want contradictions? I give you one: Even if the mantlet were just 254mm thick, it would be still impossible to penetrate by "100mm AP" up to 1000m as stated in A&B document. Why? Because yugo live fire tests revelaed that the much weaker M47 turret is only vulnerable up to 950m. Gamer or not, the guy who did the M60 analysis did a very thorough job. People can make mistakes, A&B definitely made one by using wrong data for mantlet. Check the date of the report. 1976. T-64 in production, T-72 in production. Their turrets, which are already stronger, are protected up to 30 degrees side angle. M-60 turret is well protected only directly from the front. Of course it has low level of protection! 10 years before that, M60A1 was a damn well protected tank! If you check the turret from above, it is obvioulsly false. It starts around 45 degrees, that alone is a 1.41 multiplier. Add a vertical angle, the result is above 300. This is why the turret is very strong if viewed directly from the front, and becomes much weaker very quickly. No contradictions. This is exactly what the soviet report says, and this is one of the reasons why they considered the M-60's protection low.
  13. heretic88
    Oh again this 254mm myth... When will people forget this? M-60A1 turret is WAY more stronger than that. At least from head on. This turret is fully immune to any 100mm KE projectile ever developed. Also fully immune to its own APDS from point blank. 115mm APFSDS (probably excluding 3BM21 and definitely 3BM28/3BM36) is also totally ineffective. "Poorly protected M-60A1 turret" myth was debunked in WT forums, with real measurements. Mantlet thickness reaches 270mm at some points. (No, it isnt hollow!) And the angle isnt even considered. LOS thickness is around 380mm. Not even 125mm APFSDS (3BM9, 3BM12) was able to penetrate it in the beginning. Of course this turret design wasnt perfect, because as side angle increases, protection level falls rapidly. (same is true for Leopard-1) Still, M-60A1 was the best protected western tank until Leopard-2. http://btvt.info/1inservice/m60a1_israel/vop_m60a1_israel_armor.htm Mantlet analysis: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/404154-fwd2018-04-03-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet-measurements/
  14. heretic88
    BR-412 surely, BR-412B... well... maybe... BR-412D, very unlikely. 30mm outer layer may de-cap the shell, but I do not think the 30+30mm inner layer can shatter the core. Next step is the trunnion, and even if that stops the core, the gun will be damaged. Its just my opinion, correct me if Im wrong, Im no expert.
  15. heretic88
    I find hard to understand the logic behind this armor... Only barely more than bullet and autocannon proof. No chance to stop even 85mm APHE of ASU-85. Then why overly complicate this? What is this double layer for? A single, slightly thicker (~40mm) plate would work just as well, like the original Leopard turret. A little bit more for turret front, to make it resistant to at least the 76mm gun of PT-76.
  16. heretic88
    This reminds me of something from Warhammer 40k
  17. heretic88
    Yes, unfortunately, these statements are useless. I dont even understand why these are used, maybe marketing? In the same concept, it can be concluded that the M-60A1 is protected vs 125mm guns... There are huge differences between 30mm projectiles, ranging from the very underpowered 3UBR6 (which is significantly weaker than some then-contemporary 20mm projectiles) to the very powerful APFSDS of the MK30 for example. Exact type of gun and ammunition is needed to evaluate protection.
  18. heretic88
    Quite serious looking IFV. How does it compare to BMP-3? Protection, ergonomics, electronics...
  19. heretic88
    Funny, but eventually the glorious T-72s also dropped the single pin tracks, and started using the "inferior" double pin BTW, in my opinion, the 219 wasnt any better than the T-64 in that test, because even if the track didnt separate immediately in the explosion, it would surely do after traveling a few meters further. Then, without track the T-64 is almost impossible to tow thanks to its narrow wheels. On the other hand, the wheel is not damaged significantly, so with spare links, the track can be repaired and the tank will be operational again. On the 219, the wheel is destroyed, and such repairs arent possible, but the tank can be towed away.
  20. heretic88
    Google Detroit Diesel 6V53. Its a quite successful, reliable two stroke diesel. M551 also uses this engine. Old LVTP7 again had a two stroke engine, but a little bit bigger 8V53. M109 uses a 8V71.
  21. heretic88
    Older tanks, like T-54/55/62, and anything that uses V2 derivative engines also produce lots of smoke. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with two and four stroke. M113 has a two stroke Detroit Diesel, and it barely produces smoke. Piston ring design for example, is much more important. Probably this is the case with 5TDF/6TD. There is a russian firm (Batmaster-Istra) that, among other things rebuilds engines. They developed a modernization package which involves replacing pistons. Result: much lower oil consumption (= less smoke) and significantly longer service life. https://web.archive.org/web/20170421001645/http://www.bmz.ru/disel/mdis.htm
  22. heretic88
    A while ago, when the army decided to return the 2S4 and 2S7 to service, there were some rumors of modernization. How are they modernized? New modern radio (R-168)? GPS/Glonass receiver?
  23. heretic88
    No 2S4 Tyulpan this year? Too bad... I think its more interesting. And despite its age, I think its still a damn useful weapon, especially with those massive laser guided shells...
  24. heretic88
    Sosna, very serious missile system. Completely immune to every kind of jamming, and for most aircraft, the first sign that it is under attack, is the detonation of the warhead. Even if the aircraft has missile launch warning system, the only thing the pilot can do, is jettison weapons and try to outmaneuver the missile, which is very difficult.
  25. heretic88
    Still, the Panther in the swedish tests was damn impressive. It didnt appear to be underpowered at all. Sure, the Sherman in the test was an earlier variant, with narrower tracks, but I dont think even an M4A3E8 could beat the Panther in any of those tests. Equal at best. And Im pretty sure that the apparent inferiority of the Panther in curved courses was caused by the inexperience of the drivers. Putting an M60 driver in the seat of the T-72 would produce similar results.
×
×
  • Create New...