AssaultPlazma

1 hour ago, wairoa said:

Ah thanks. When I was a watching a You tube video it showed them with that exhaust port on the side, but also with exhausts at the rear of the tank. Are these exhausts on the side and rear for the same engine?

 

 

A feature of USSR tanks that may exist to this day is something called engine smoke screen. Basically it's just pouring some fuel into the exhaust in order to produce white smoke behind the tank. If I had to take a guess the rear exhaust is primarily for the smoke screen function but still serves as a secondary exhaust point regardless. 

Just now, wairoa said:

Thanks for the quick response. Much appreciated. Do you know why this exhaust is different from the ones at the rear of the vehicle? Is it an exhaust for a motor for the turret maybe? In front of it are those storage boxes over the tracks?

USSR and RU tanks have transversely mounted engines meaning they're mounting "sideways". 

2 minutes ago, wairoa said:

Hi all. I  need help please! Does anybody know  the exhaust on the right side, near the rear of the tank is for? I can't find any source with that information. Also does is there a good labeled diagram anywhere of the T-64 by any chance? Thanks for your time.

It's a standard engine exhaust port.  

BMP-4? When did the BMP-4 come out? Also I didn't realize the RGF already had some T-90M/T-80BVM tanks in inventory. 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Answer should be obvious. You have a lot of tanks in working conduction and majority of them are fine for the caliber of enemies you are realistically going to fight, like Ukraine, Georgia and so on. Why you want to throw them away? That is a waste of big investment that are each of those combat vehicles.

Isn't it more expensive to maintain and produce spare parts for these three different platforms? 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   You don't understand. 

That's why I am asking

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   How you are going to settle on one design when your storages are full of different tanks that are not easily converted into each other or some kind of middle ground model?

Because wasn't that literally the states objective of the ARMATA platform? 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   T-80 chassis was one of parts that engineers were working on because of turbine. And again, conversion of existing tanks from storages by bolting on new ERA and sights is easier and way cheaper than taking T-72 and redesigning chassis, engine compartment, fuel system, cooling and air filters, etc, testing it, push through year(s) long state trials to get "O1" letter. 

Okay

Why is Russia upgrading T-80's, T-72's and T-90's? This seems reminiscent of the cold war days of procuring three relatively similar tanks that have virtually no commonality.... I understand the T-14 was meant to solve this, but that appears to be a glorified tech demonstrator. So why don't they just settle on one design? I understand someone told me earlier the Turbine T-80's function better in the artic, but this doesn't seem like enough of a justification for operating an entirely different tank.... If anything why dont they just create a T-72 variant with turbines in them at that point.... 

Why are T-80B tanks being upgraded instead of the theoretically better  T-80U/UD's? 

21 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others.

But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost.

With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

I keep forgetting that's the AMPV  and the Bradley hull. Seems like a easy enough solution. But alas funding and money n stuff. 

If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality....

I'm shocked MPF hasn't been canceled yet.... Even if it passes trials I wonder if in the end the Army will actually buy them.

I thought the Russian Military hated the T-80 because of its gas guzzling turbines? Didn't some high level official say something along the lines of "we'll never make/use turbine powered tanks ever again!" after the whole Grozney Fiasco (not that, that was the tanks fault....) 

Any update on those missing individuals? Hope they're alright....

Is it true the T-72BU was renamed to the T-90 in order to distance itself from the bad rap T-72s got after Desert Storm?

On 10/22/2019 at 10:37 AM, Pascal said:

I think that's because of the Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System (HMWHS) on it, supposed to increase the number of sorties with lesser aircraft.

 

Plus probably there will be an increase in the number of aircraft.

 

I am just happy that they got like double the number of aircraft over their older carriers.

Too bad HMS Ocean was sold, a dedicated helicopter carrier is a must.

Got any links to the HMWHS? Is that what's taking up all the space? 

Why do the Queen Elizabeth class carriers carry so few aircraft relative to their size? 

So is Russia building more tanks, or are they still upgrading existing platforms instead? 

Is the M2A4 still a thing or did that get canned in the budget? 

On 7/22/2019 at 1:58 PM, LoooSeR said:

kek, those guys look like toys compared to those drone jammers.

 

Those unbloused trousers/boots.......

On 8/27/2019 at 6:33 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Sultan and Darth Putin near Su-57 

   Putin:

   *Slaps Su-57

  "This bad boy can carry so much dumb iron bombs completely stealthily!"

If Putin is Dark Lord of the Sith (what happened to Chaney/Bush?) then who is his apprentice?  

On 6/12/2019 at 4:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Lynx KF41 has only been showcased with lightweight metal tracks, but Lynx KF31 has also been showcased with DST's segmented rubber tracks.

 

 

However weight limit seems to be 42 metric tons for their current rubber track system.

Why does it have that long rectangular casing around the gun? 

12 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Looks like Russia is ready to trash a T-80 at tank biathlon... And with female crew.

While I have nothing against the three women (who never were tankists actually), I feel pity for that poor T-80 which will more than likely to end up as spare part donor for other T-80s after the circus ends. What a waste... Using T-72s is more or less OK, those tanks are worthless anyway, but if this continues, they will end up trashing T-90Ms at the end.

 

 

So are they there just as a publicity stunt? Or did they legit train to compete in the competition? Also wouldn't Russia want to put forth its best tanks for this thing? 

6 hours ago, Liberator said:

Rheinmetall 10,5 cm

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/

On 7/13/2019 at 1:56 PM, Sovngard said:

What were the protection requirements again ?

 

105 mm APFSDS fired from the German smoothbore gun and the MILAN 1 ATGM ?

105MM APFSDS-Smoothbore gun....

wut? 

5 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

 

Wasnt there a stop production order on the CROWS-LP a while back? What CROWS are the M1A2C shipping with? 

 

I wouldnt mind the Abrams with a CROWS-J, not because it would be useful, but so that people can stop saying "Abroomz sux cause no gun launched missile" 

Who said that? 

On 5/16/2019 at 8:46 PM, Belesarius said:

German sub apparently ran aground in Norway.

 

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/16/another-german-submarine-runs-aground-in-norwegian-waters/

Hopefully the damage isn't too severe. Glad no one got hurt.