Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

A much more viable light tank concept than Sheridan. Scrapping all that work over "but does it float", in exchange for $5000 a shot missiles, a 400 meter armament dead zone and an overcomplicated main armament package, was ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The T92 had plenty of its own mechanical weirdness going on, although none of it looks obviously fatal.

 

The suspension was strange; a sort of rubber-based torsion design that I've never heard of being used anywhere else (although there is a British design study for a vehicle that amounts to a turbine-powered tortoise with a 183mm gun that was also supposed to use it).  The early designs also used band tracks, which was unusual for a vehicle that heavy.

 

Finally, it's arguably under-gunned.  Compare it to an ASU-85, or even worse Object 416, and it's clear that the Soviets were the kings of stuffing big guns into small tanks.

 

The lead engineer on T92 also worked on SPIW and ICBM designs.  Small Arms Defense Journal had a really good article on him about two years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The T92 had plenty of its own mechanical weirdness going on, although none of it looks obviously fatal.

 

The suspension was strange; a sort of rubber-based torsion design that I've never heard of being used anywhere else (although there is a British design study for a vehicle that amounts to a turbine-powered tortoise with a 183mm gun that was also supposed to use it).  The early designs also used band tracks, which was unusual for a vehicle that heavy.

 

Finally, it's arguably under-gunned.  Compare it to an ASU-85, or even worse Object 416, and it's clear that the Soviets were the kings of stuffing big guns into small tanks.

 

The lead engineer on T92 also worked on SPIW and ICBM designs.  Small Arms Defense Journal had a really good article on him about two years ago.

Torsiolastic was/is fairly well developed concept in the automotive field, it just had not seen much use in armor. (though you found use of the concept in rubber bushed tracks)

 

The sectioned band track also was not uncommon for automotive /industrial, and was being used in a number of projects and vehicles in that era (M114, the M50, the M49/M76, and M116 Husky amphibious transports).

 

The 76mm choice is debatable, as there were plans for what became Sheridan to mount a similar weapon.  Also, the Obj 416 was a bit larger than the T92..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torsiolastic was/is fairly well developed concept in the automotive field, it just had not seen much use in armor. (though you found use of the concept in rubber bushed tracks)

 

The sectioned band track also was not uncommon for automotive /industrial, and was being used in a number of projects and vehicles in that era (M114, the M50, the M49/M76, and M116 Husky amphibious transports).

 

The 76mm choice is debatable, as there were plans for what became Sheridan to mount a similar weapon.  Also, the Obj 416 was a bit larger than the T92..

 

At almost 19 tonnes, T92 was quite heavy to be using band tracks, and they did ditch the band tracks later in development.  Although band tracks are apparently back in style:

 

 

And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace.  By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer.

 

IMO, the Soviets did a much better job throughout the Cold War of making sure that their tanks had enough gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A much more viable light tank concept than Sheridan. Scrapping all that work over "but does it float", in exchange for $5000 a shot missiles, a 400 meter armament dead zone and an overcomplicated main armament package, was ridiculous.

 

 

i wouldnt even mind the Shelliegay if it work

 

but it dosnet

 

provided you get a function missile, its so inaccurate it makes a Malyutka (or a AT-3 Sagger for you HATO troglodyetes) look like a hellfire

 

speaking of which, if you so much as manage to find a mark on a Soviet tank, chances are its just gonna scratch the paint.

 

A T-55/62 crew could probably take the hit and survive rather unharmed, a T-72 crew will laugh at you, a T-64 crew will be wondering why HATO is using practice munitions, and a T-80 crew will just feel sorry for you and write your mother a letter 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At almost 19 tonnes, T92 was quite heavy to be using band tracks, and they did ditch the band tracks later in development.  Although band tracks are apparently back in style:

 

And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace.  By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer.

 

IMO, the Soviets did a much better job throughout the Cold War of making sure that their tanks had enough gun.

Not terribly so, there were examples of industrial or mining equipment that was heavier, using that trackform.

 

18.5 Vs 24 is a bit of a difference, the whole point was to develop something smaller and more compact than the M41. The '92 was a step in the right direction, versus Sheridan.

 

 

i wouldnt even mind the Shelliegay if it work

 

but it dosnet

 

provided you get a function missile, its so inaccurate it makes a Malyutka (or a AT-3 Sagger for you HATO troglodyetes) look like a hellfire

 

speaking of which, if you so much as manage to find a mark on a Soviet tank, chances are its just gonna scratch the paint.

 

 

 

It had a decent sized warhead, it's sole selling point.  IIRC all it saw shots in anger against were fixed emplacements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not terribly so, there were examples of industrial or mining equipment that was heavier, using that trackform.

 

18.5 Vs 24 is a bit of a difference, the whole point was to develop something smaller and more compact than the M41. The '92 was a step in the right direction, versus Sheridan.

 

 

 

It had a decent sized warhead, it's sole selling point.  IIRC all it saw shots in anger against were fixed emplacements.

 

good luck hitting anything that isnt and RPG range

 

and dont get me started on its armor 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace.  By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer.

 

 

While a few years older I think the PT-85/90 is a better comparison as they have the same roles. Still, the PT-85/90 packed a serious punch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, that's the really -good- part...

 

You couldn't hit anything at less than 800~900 yards with the MGM-51.

 

i was talking about the HE shell

 

i think i would of felt alot better in a SU-152, ISU-152, or Su-122-54 or any 20th century Eastern European infantry support vehicles 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was talking about the HE shell

 

i think i would of felt alot better in a SU-152, ISU-152, or Su-122-54 or any 20th century Eastern European infantry support vehicles 

Ahh. That had it's own well known foibles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, lets just say if i want to play 20 questions with the range markers i atleast want to be ethier a zip code away from any RPG-7s or have more armor than a Toyata Tercel 

More like "playing twenty questions" persuading the FCS and that wacky CBSS to function in a timely manner.

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 Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

    • By Sturgeon
      http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/bae_systems_presents_the_project_of_expeditionary_light_tank_able_to_be_airdropped_by_c-130_11310152.html
×
×
  • Create New...