The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[LoooSeR]

   Algerian T-90SA tanks assault during exercises.

 

[Beer]

Allegedly the Russian-made TPK-K thermal sights on the T-72B3 mod.2016. 

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4244403.html

[LoooSeR]

2 hours ago, Beer said:

Allegedly the Russian-made TPK-K thermal sights on the T-72B3 mod.2016. 

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4244403.html

   Viktor Murakhovskiy's telegram post, speaking about not thermal sight, but important part of it. Google translation:

 

Quote

   Thermal imaging sights, observation devices, and some missile homing systems are based on the so-called "thermal imaging video signal generation modules" (MFTV), in our terminology. Such a module is a matrix of photosensitive elements that perceive EMR in the ranges of 1-14 microns (infrared spectrum).

 

   There are no universal materials with high sensitivity to EMP in the entire IR spectrum. Therefore, the industry produces MFTVs of the near infrared range (3-5 µm) and far range (8-14 µm), which are sensitive to radiation in the so-called "transparency windows". The advantage of the 3-5 micron range is that there is less influence of atmospheric precipitation (fog, rain, snow) on the transmission of radiation. But the range is worse.

   In the region of shorter wavelengths (<2 μm), there are many passbands of near-IR, visible and ultraviolet radiation, within which optoelectronic devices of other (non-thermal) types operate. In the near range for matrices, mainly indium antimonide (InSb, a compound of indium and antimony), amorphous silicon (a-Si), and gallium arsenide (GaAs) are used. In the first case, the matrix requires deep cooling, the rest of the materials do not need cooling. At the same time, the cooled matrix has several times better sensitivity than uncooled ones.

 

   Sufficiently modern cooled MFTVs of the near infrared range (3-5 microns) with a resolution of 640х512 elements based on indium antimonide are made in Russia. Cheaper products use a microcryogenic cooling system from China, more expensive ones use a domestic one. The production of uncooled matrices based on amorphous silicon with a resolution of 640x480 elements is also well established in Russia.

   The long range (8-14 microns) has a better atmospheric transmittance and is more preferable for early warning and sighting systems. In the far-infrared range, for the production of matrices, heterostructures of the composition cadmium-mercury-tellurium (MCT, CdHgTe) are mainly used, which require deep cooling. In our country, there is a production of MFTV with CdHgTe matrices (8-10 microns) with a resolution of 640х512 elements and a proprietary microcryogenic cooling system. At the same time, cooled far-infrared MFTVs based on CdHgTe structures are many times more expensive than uncooled near-infrared systems on microbolts. They are usually used in aiming and observation systems for complex weapons: aviation, navy, armored vehicles, air defense.

 

   What did you choose for our tanks, import-substituting the French TPV-module CATHERINE-FC (installed in the Sosna-U sights)? It is known that the French have a scanned cooled SOFRADIR array with a resolution of 288x4 elements based on MCT (range 8-12 microns). The matrix scanning device generates a television signal (625 lines, 50 Hz), displayed on the monitor. We have chosen a medium-cost version of a domestic cooled matrix based on indium antimonide (range 3-5 microns) with a resolution of 640x512 elements. Sights with such a thermal imaging module TPK-K are already used in mass production of armored vehicles.

 

[LoooSeR]

   Heh, Uran-9 again on TV. 5 km range of control is bad. That means control vehicle will be in range of mortars and ATGMs. Video claims that vehicle use some AI systems to help with control, but doesn't go into details. Video also shows what is under side panels - lots of equipment and it doesn't look like it is well protected.

 

[Beer]

I guess there is a huge problem with continuous data transmission in the real ground environment, especially among tall buildings. 

[Stimpy75]

BTR-90 Walk Around

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Q3QMsWuFvk2bt58o8

[eggs benedict]

On 31/01/2021 at 12:39 AM, Stimpy75 said:

BTR-90 Walk Around

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Q3QMsWuFvk2bt58o8

Based on what are they selecting the 2A42 for some moduled and 2A72 for some others?

 Why not unify them (for me the 2A72 is the way to go)

[LoooSeR]

15 hours ago, eggs benedict said:

Based on what are they selecting the 2A42 for some moduled and 2A72 for some others?

 Why not unify them (for me the 2A72 is the way to go)

1) AFAIK 2A42 needs more space and more robust mount. If you don't have one of them, you go to 2A72.

2) Because 2A72 isn't good gun as a main weapon.

[Beer]

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

1) AFAIK 2A42 needs more space and more robust mount. If you don't have one of them, you go to 2A72.

 

Are you sure? I'm asking because 2A42 is mounted on helicopters and 2A72 is not. 

[LoooSeR]

1 hour ago, Beer said:

 

Are you sure? I'm asking because 2A42 is mounted on helicopters and 2A72 is not. 

   2A42 have higher peak recoil force vs 2A72, because 2A72 have recoiling barrel which "smooths" recoil impulse, which is also used to operate the gun feed system. On top of that it is lighter and smaller as a package because of less parts and lower recoil (less material needed to manage recoil). 2A72 is about 80 kg, while 2A42 is around 110 kg. 

 

   Also:

https://weaponsystems.net/system/534-30mm+2A72

Quote

   The 2A72 is a much simplified design based on the 2A42 consisting of only 349 parts instead of 578. Unlike the 2A42 it is not gas operated but recoil operated. Unlike the fixed barrel on the 2A42 the barrel moves rearward upon firing. A new design muzzle brake is used in order to retain enough recoil to cycle the weapon. Since the initial recoil impulse is lower the 2A72 can be fitted to lighter vehicles, such as the BTR-80A.

 

   The fact that 2A42 is mounted on helicopters doesn't mean it is lighter or softer recoiling weapon. Mi-24P uses GSh-30K, double barrel autocannon that spews up to 3000 rounds per minute and put more recoil force on helicopter, enough to move it's body significantly:

 

[LoooSeR]

   Mine clearing attachments for our tanks. Rollers, ground "knifes", electromagnetic varaints are shown:

 

[LoooSeR]

   Libyan AFV museum shows some of their exhibits in open part of museum. Because of low income this museum and its workers also work as LNA armored unit.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[eggs benedict]

Thank you for the answer. LoooSeR.

 

[Beer]

I didn't know that but one of the IS-2 of Lešany muzeum (4 pieces) is actually an early IS-122 with screw breach and thinner frontal armor. The tank went through many battles including Odra-Vistula offensive and Prague operation. After the war it was used by Czechoslovak army till 1949. It spent most of its life as a memorial in Přelouč town but in 1990 it was moved to muzeum and in 2014 restored to working condition. 

 

Photos including some curious details from the restoration (like broken torsion bar) are here. 

 

The tank can be seen moving for example in this video @ 19:00 and 19:55. 

 

[LoooSeR]

   That burst at 0:45 with rounds landing everywhere around target, kek. This means that for effective use of 30 mm against point target this vehicle will need to get close, close enough that even light ATGMs with limited range (like ~2km) will be able to reach it.

[Beer]

Because the T-34 discussion is very much off topic in the German thread I post here several norms valid for T-34-85 used by ČSLA (the tanks were somewhat different to Soviet ones in various technical modifications however the earlier ones used many original Soviet components from WW2 production). The source is a book: Hlavní takticko-technická data tankové a automobiní techniky ČSLA.

 

Basic check: during stops on march or combat or whenever needed

Basic service: 150-200 km

Technical service 1: 500-600 km

Technical service 2: 1000-1200 km

Medium repair: 3000 km

General repair: 6000 km

 

Unfortunately I don't know what exactly was subject of each service or repair but anyway it looks like basically nothing major was considered necessary before reaching 3000 km. 

 

Normative times for component change:

- engine 39,3 h

- gearbox 22,8 h

- main clutch 21,6 h

- steering clutch 23,6 h

- track - 2,6 h

- bogey wheel - 2,5 h

- first wheel arm - 4,4 h

- arms of other wheels - 3,2 h

- sprocket wheel - 3,3 h

- idler wheel - 3,7 h

- track tensioning - 4,8 h

- gun - 9,8 h

- turret - 5,9 h

 

Regarding the discussed about air filters there is only an information that Czechoslovak tanks used different filters BTI-3 with ejector cleaning. 

 

[Volke]

4 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   That burst at 0:45 with rounds landing everywhere around target, kek. This means that for effective use of 30 mm against point target this vehicle will need to get close, close enough that even light ATGMs with limited range (like ~2km) will be able to reach it.

I were wondering many times, aside this thing being stupid in probably every aspect, wouldn't just making new muzzle break that doesn't interfere with the 2nd gun make them more accurate during rapid fire? Like it ain't rocket science to figure out that the current accuracy during burst firing is bad.

[LoooSeR]

4 hours ago, Volke said:

I were wondering many times, aside this thing being stupid in probably every aspect, wouldn't just making new muzzle break that doesn't interfere with the 2nd gun make them more accurate during rapid fire? Like it ain't rocket science to figure out that the current accuracy during burst firing is bad.

   This is one of the least problems of that vehicle. Just the type of main weaponry of this vehicle alone is strange and fixing different muzzle brake will not solve a problem of tactical niche vs actual design of BMPT.

[LoooSeR]

https://rg.ru/2021/02/10/poiavilos-pervoe-foto-opytnogo-obrazca-broneavtomobilia-lasok-4-p.html

Quote

   Tests of the Russian ultra-compact armored vehicle Lasok 4-P are underway. Sergei Tolmachev, director of the Innovative Chassis PCC, told RG: Russian Weapons that a prototype was created on an initiative basis last year.

   Some company decided to plop out weirdo armored car.

 

Quote

   This vehicle is airmobile, it is optimized for internal placement in multipurpose helicopters Mi-8 AMTSh and Mi-171Sh.

/.../

   The purpose of Lasok 4-P is to carry out tasks as part of special units, forward and reconnaissance groups. Such vehicles can also be used for patrolling, ensuring the actions of engineering and assault units in various conditions: block buildings, mountains, difficult rugged terrain.

   The curb weight of the prototype is 2045 kg, the total weight is up to 2700 kg, the weight of the transported cargo is about 650 kg. In the future, it is planned that the weight will be reduced to 1900 kg, while the carrying capacity will be increased to 800 kg. Height - 1720 mm, width - 1880 mm, length - 4580 mm. If the body of the cargo compartment is folded, the length of the machine will be reduced to 3970 mm.

 

   The engine, other components and assemblies - from serial light off-road chassis of domestic manufacturers.

   As a weapon, it is possible to use a 12.7-mm Kord machine gun, as well as cal. 7.62 mm and 5.45 mm. It is planned to create an amphibious modification, as well as a Lasok-REP version with special equipment to combat low-flying drones.

 

[TokyoMorose]

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   This is one of the least problems of that vehicle. Just the type of main weaponry of this vehicle alone is strange and fixing different muzzle brake will not solve a problem of tactical niche vs actual design of BMPT.

 

I always thought the original "Model 2000" (nickname of course) version of the 199 made the most sens of the modern BMPTs. Single 2A42 + 4 Kornets instead of the wacky setup they settled on.

[LoooSeR]

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I always thought the original "Model 2000" (nickname of course) version of the 199 made the most sens of the modern BMPTs. Single 2A42 + 4 Kornets instead of the wacky setup they settled on.

   None of UVZ attempts in BMPT under Object 199 designations made much sense. If BMPT was a jet fighter, it would be an F-22 without a radar, armed with 2 gun pods, 1 AA missile mounted on externally on one wing and crew of 4 for some reason.

[heretic88]

20 hours ago, Beer said:

Because the T-34 discussion is very much off topic in the German thread I post here several norms valid for T-34-85 used by ČSLA (the tanks were somewhat different to Soviet ones in various technical modifications however the earlier ones used many original Soviet components from WW2 production). The source is a book: Hlavní takticko-technická data tankové a automobiní techniky ČSLA.

 

 

Yes, the post war T-34,especially those that were manufactured by Poland and Czechslovakia were different beasts compared to WW2 soviet production. These were built in far higher quality standards, and were generally far more reliable. Also featured improved components. This was the experience in hungarian army. The book T-34 Mythical Weapon also says the same.

20 hours ago, Beer said:

Regarding the discussed about air filters there is only an information that Czechoslovak tanks used different filters BTI-3 with ejector cleaning. 

Exactly. That was an excellent and reliable filter, introduced in the 50s that finally solved the problem of severe dust wear.

[Beer]

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

Yes, the post war T-34,especially those that were manufactured by Poland and Czechslovakia were different beasts compared to WW2 soviet production. These were built in far higher quality standards, and were generally far more reliable. Also featured improved components. This was the experience in hungarian army. The book T-34 Mythical Weapon also says the same.

 

Well, per our historical records there were plenty of problems and manufacturing defects with our own built T-34 and large percentage of tanks was not even accepted by the army at first. It took a long time to get the production working well. 

 

Per the records of our tank brigade in USSR (and previous smaller units) operating tanks between 1943-45 there were no major complains about T-34 except having not enough of them (they got table numbers of tanks only before Odra-Vistula offensive) however most of the reports about reliability and mainteanance issues turn around BA-64B and T-70M. After the war we had major issues with our semi-officially handed* IS-2 due to having no spare parts train established (we kept running them solely by canibalizing battlefield wrecks for nearly 15 years) but not with T-34 from wartime production.

 

The tank brigade during combat used a lot of tanks which were simply put together from wrecks on the battlefield and one of such tanks (originally Soviet tank brigade vehicle destroyed near Ostrava) was in service till 1959 obtaining a new serial number only more than five years after the war. Another one which made it to Prague in May 1945 was an ex-Soviet, ex-German T-34 captured near Čáslav in May 1945. 

 

* When the fighting was over the whole Czechoslovak armed corps in USSR was able to show only around 20 badly battered T-34 in a victory parade in Prague therefore the Soviets borrowed us 8 IS-2/IS-122 for the parade where the drivers were Soviet and the rest of the crews was "Czechoslovak". Since nobody ever asked the vehicles to be returned back, they stayed. Three tanks somewhere disappeared in the history and nobody knows what happened to them. The rest shall be preserved till today (at least four for sure, fifth probably as well). 

[heretic88]

We used both soviet and polish T-34s. Generally, the polish tanks were significantly more reliable, and were better built. Transmission failures were a common thing however, especially the older 4 speed gearboxes failed frequently, which were still present in some soviet built tanks. Also the steering difficulties remained. (not just the excessive physical effort, the overheating of steering brakes was a serious problem too)

The T-54 that arrived later was just a wholly different world. Lightyears ahead in every imaginable aspect.

[Beer]

Four speed gearbox was replaced since 1943 T-34-76, i.e. any tank with the old gearbox was a worn-out machine, which was produced in a critical phase of the war and which spent at least two years in combat. It's normal that such tank is not as reliable as post-war newly built machines. 

 

T-54 being better in every aspect is natural thing. That's why it was created in first place. That comparison makes no sense at all. I can aslo say that T-34 was in every aspect better than T-26 and I would be just as right.