Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

It depends on what you want to achieve but the rule is the following : when heavy load must be carried, use track drive train. 

It more compact by a 1/3.

 

Considering just the weight, if you want to put Leclerc MBT on wheels, you will have 6 more tons. Abrams or Leopard will be higher by 2t. I don’t want to think about Challenger 2 or Merkava Mk4.

And I don’t think about cross country capability. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 429
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The specs required a highly mobile tank capable to destroy any Warsaw pact (PAVA) tanks at long range with a high hit probability on first shot. This led to the crafting of highly precise system. To

Well it's just a certain nuance. Obviously there is a stabilisation system but it is limited to the stabilisation of the line of sight (within the sights). The turret itself has no stabilisation s

*Warning, Walter engine sperg ahead*     The engine in the Merkava 4 is actually the most compact engine in the market, the MTU 883.  All the other Merkava models use a version of the AVDS-1790 eng

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to revive an old debate about which layout would be the best for the next generation of MBTs.

 

What I had in mind is an MBT that necessarily places its crew, inside a protected capsule, at the very rear of the vehicle.

What this gives them is a rear access door through which they can escape, rather than try to escape through the top hatches or a floor escape hatch. This, in order to both improve mine protection and allow more comfortable operation when the tank is stationed in a ready hull-down position.

What's left of this is to locate the powerpack and the turret. Since a forward placed turret may be problematic to handle in almost any type of terrain or combat area, it'd be best to put the engine at the front and the turret in the middle.

The batteries for the engine would be located all across a double V floor (between the two floors) to save space and keep the engine bay as small as possible.

 

@Xoon, you're the top authority on making neat sketches. What's your take on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Whilst not exactly concerning tanks, do 20mm autocannons need a coax MG in your opinion, a lot of cold war APC/IFV seem not to have one, like the HS.30, Schutzenpanzer 61/73,  the US 20mm M113 prototypes and then there are the swedish APC´s.

coax MGs are always good as a backup rangefinder. In some cases I believe it would be best to use a smaller armament like HMG/MMG rather than a cannon. 

Though considering footage I've seen of 30mm HE rounds, it doesn't seem like 25mm or let alone 20mm rounds are that much lethal. How much filler could there possibly be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Has this layout ever been considered?

AAO2ozy.png

 

Instead of placing the engines in the sponsons, we could place the electric motors in the sponsons, and in this way have a rear sprocket drive while also having a front mounted engine, or wherever you want.

(Gearbox is a reduction gear).

 

Also, has a industrial robot arm like autoloader ever been considered? 
It would be quite flexible and be able to use normal racks like a loader.
And do we have a place for discussing autoloader designs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is the most suitable place to debate autoloader designs. I personally believe it should be as minimalistic as possible.  What I envision is a tank powered by a hybrid engine, with the bulk of the powerpack sitting at the front-middle, crew capsule in the middle-rear, a rear access hatch, and an unmanned turret being completely overhead, positioned in a way that protects the crew from top attack munitions. For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe this is the most suitable place to debate autoloader designs. I personally believe it should be as minimalistic as possible.  What I envision is a tank powered by a hybrid engine, with the bulk of the powerpack sitting at the front-middle, crew capsule in the middle-rear, a rear access hatch, and an unmanned turret being completely overhead, positioned in a way that protects the crew from top attack munitions. For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

Do you know any autoloader that would fit in the turret and house 42 120x570mm NATO shells? 

Or preferably 130mm.

 

Because I am having a hard time designing an autoloader that accomplishes this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 42. Meggitt designed one with 34 rounds, which seems to be as optimal a use of available space as it can get. A 44 round system requires a turret basket.

On second thought, the design I proposed would culminate in a very short tank, and a very high center of mass, so it would probably be a good idea to stay with a turret basket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Not 42. Meggitt designed one with 34 rounds, which seems to be as optimal a use of available space as it can get. A 44 round system requires a turret basket.

On second thought, the design I proposed would culminate in a very short tank, and a very high center of mass, so it would probably be a good idea to stay with a turret basket.

This autoloader? 
120mm-Crop.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 5:52 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk :) 

The QuickDraw autoloader that Xoon showed here is supposed to be in the bustle.

 

And hello there James. Nice to see you migrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk :) 

 

Nice to see you as well.

I also saw that even Tovarish is starting to think about joining as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The QuickDraw autoloader that Xoon showed here is supposed to be in the bustle.

 

And hello there James. Nice to see you migrated.

 

The problem I see with that loader is the shells are stored in reverse, which would require another assembly to flip the shell over, which would reduce the load time. Though, the gears in my head are spinning, and I wonder if something like a hybrid of that Meggitt loader (turned so the shells face forward) and an oscillating turret could happen; would have a great RoF while still retaining the 34 round rack [see AMX-50 Surbaisse autoloader]. 

 

 

PS. I also adhere to the design philosophy of the front mounted engine and rear crew compartment, which (managed properly) can provide additional crew survivability, IMO the most important part of a tank. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2016 at 6:36 PM, Xoon said:

So while I was tinkering with the engine compartment layout I came up with these three layouts inspired by Soviet design:

 

Layout 1:
z9FI57Q.png

 

This layout has the advantage of being the shortest of the three. This is because the rounds lie along the length of the engine on each side.  The total ammunition count here was about 36 rounds when using the 120x570mm NATO shell, with the entire engine compartment being 1,8m wide and about 1m tall. One potential I see with this design is that it could possibly be retrofitted on a Leopard 2. By shrinking the fuel tanks on each side of the engine, and isolating the ammunition and modifying the engine deck, this should be possible.  This layout also works with the 130mm without being any longer, at the cost of even smaller fuel tanks in the engine compartment. 

 

 

 

Layout 2 and 3:

 

EqFjpks.png

 

Layout 1 here is just for almost for the fun of it. Put simply, it is longer than layout 1, but gives you a ludicrous ammunition capacity. You can fit about 72 shells of 120x570mm NATO ammunition in there! Any tanker that thinks that a tank with over 72 rounds of ammunition has to little ammunition deserves a slap.

 

Layout 2 here is a bit more realistic, sacrificing ammunition capacity for space for fuel and/or a APU or whatever you want to fit there. With identical length to layout 1 by the way. However, this layout still sports a pretty solid amount of ammunition, around 54 rounds in fact!

 

 

Of course, all of these layouts use isolated ammunition with blowout panels and a blast door, so in case of a penetration the crew will survive. Also, if I am not mistaken, tanks with all of their ammunition in the hull experienced less cook offs after penetration. And of course, this design allows for smaller turret, with either a 16 rounds ready rack bustle, a Leclerc style autoloader with 16 rounds, or the glories Soviet carousel autoloader. 

 

 

Any questions?

 

Couldn’t you (theoretically) place that extra ammo in a wet rack? I mean, if fuel could become an issue, why not just add that extra capacity by placing a fuel tank around the ammo? I’m not saying remove the blow out panels, but integrate the wet storage into the safe storage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      This is the place for flame wars about rifle-caliber MGs versus autocannons for tank coaxial weaponry. First, we have Ensign's blog post about tank machine guns:
       


×
×
  • Create New...