Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/russia-funds-robotic-main-battle-tanks/

 

Full text:

Quote

Russian armoured vehicle manufacturer Uralvagonzavod Corporation (UVZ) has announced plans to develop assault robotic platforms based on the Russian T-72B3 tank chassis.

A Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) official confirmed the plans and said the robotic tanks will be used in military operations in urban environments. The robots will be operated in groups of up to four combat vehicles.

It is expected that the deliveries of the new tanks to Russian land forces will begin at the end of 2018.

Planned funding for the project has not been disclosed but sources close to the Russian MoD said it will allocate around US$200 million on the initial purchases of the new robotic vehicles.

Operation of the platforms will be carried out by one highly-mobile remote control command post and will have a set of all-round protection against hand-held anti-tank weapons.

It is understood one controller will be able to handle a platoon of combat vehicles within a radius of 3km. The maximum speed of robots with remote control will be 40km/h.

Despite the fact that it is based on the T-72 platform a number of new weapons will be used, for example an upgraded 125mm cannon.

According to a spokesman of the Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, the new platforms will have an artillery system with high fragmentation-explosive ammunition.

Shooting will be conducted in a programmable mode depending on the combat mission, entered into the on-board computer of the platform using data from previously reconnoitred targets.

Shoigu’s spokesman commented: ‘Due to a more moderate ballistic solution, it was possible to raise the angle of the gun's elevation to 20 degrees. This is important when fighting in the city - in order to fire on the upper floors of buildings.’

One of the major features of the new robotic tank is its high protection, which is said to retain combat capability after being hit by 10-15 rounds from an anti-tank grenade launcher or mine explosion. This extends to other weapons that can pierce up to 800 mm equivalent of steel armour.

 

Seems it wasn't just a hoax, at least not yet. I'll have to dig up more sources to see whether they fell for a hoax or that's an actual statement.

EDIT: Nothing on Otvaga or Sputnik yet. Same with RIA, TASS, or RT. The search continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/russia-funds-robotic-main-battle-tanks/

 

Full text:

 

Seems it wasn't just a hoax, at least not yet. I'll have to dig up more sources to see whether they fell for a hoax or that's an actual statement.

EDIT: Nothing on Otvaga or Sputnik yet. Same with RIA, TASS, or RT. The search continues.

 

Quote

It is expected that the deliveries of the new tanks to Russian land forces will begin at the end of 2018.

 

Another bullshit from Russian MoD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

 

 

Another bullshit from Russian MoD.

Which is why I am surprised to hear this from Shephard, a source I consider respectable enough to make occasional but terrible puns.

 

Funny thing is the always said word by word as Shoigu's words what was previously described as anonymous source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/russia-funds-robotic-main-battle-tanks/

 

Full text:

 

Seems it wasn't just a hoax, at least not yet. I'll have to dig up more sources to see whether they fell for a hoax or that's an actual statement.

EDIT: Nothing on Otvaga or Sputnik yet. Same with RIA, TASS, or RT. The search continues.

   I have no idea where they took those words from officials, i don't see them.

   Zuk, i already said what it is. Some journalist scum found a slides from presentation (that was posted here as well) and now claims that it is an actual design programm ("OKR"), when in reality it isn't (it was "NIR"), it was more of concept ideas and it is not going anywhere and not going to be made in metal. 

 

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

Another bullshit from Russian MoD.

I would like to see that claim first, because i don't see it. I suspect that this was article writer imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

 

Why is the Russian Army is such a bad state these days? Werent they taking steps try to make the army more professional and begin developing a strong NCO corps like western nations?  

Sanctions and stagnant economy. 

The big plans to modernize the army in equipment and structure came only after the 2010's, pretty much when the war in eastern Ukraine brought upon them a regime of sanctions. 

Now, sanctions are not a death sentence. It's something one can handle. But Russia's economy, despite being relatively young after the fall of the Soviet Union, sees a very low growth rate. One that may not even compensate for inflation rates. This could have many reasons, chief among them, I believe is corruption. 

Modernization of weaponry takes a lot of money, but so does professionalizing the army. A conscript is paid dimes and nickels. That's pretty universal. Not even minimum wage. But a professional soldier, as I was told, could very easily pay off his mortgage and then some, in just a couple years. 

Exorbitant salaries may definitely be one good reason for an overall not very efficient use of defense funds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

@LoooSeR

Why is the Russian Army is such a bad state these days? Werent they taking steps try to make the army more professional and begin developing a strong NCO corps like western nations?  

Russian army was in bad state in 1990s and early 2000s. Currently it is in "mediocre" state. It is more professional that it was before.

 

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Sanctions and stagnant economy. 

The big plans to modernize the army in equipment and structure came only after the 2010's, pretty much when the war in eastern Ukraine brought upon them a regime of sanctions. 

Now, sanctions are not a death sentence. It's something one can handle. But Russia's economy, despite being relatively young after the fall of the Soviet Union, sees a very low growth rate. One that may not even compensate for inflation rates. This could have many reasons, chief among them, I believe is corruption. 

Modernization of weaponry takes a lot of money, but so does professionalizing the army. A conscript is paid dimes and nickels. That's pretty universal. Not even minimum wage. But a professional soldier, as I was told, could very easily pay off his mortgage and then some, in just a couple years. 

Exorbitant salaries may definitely be one good reason for an overall not very efficient use of defense funds. 

   Sanctions are not serious problem now, they will be in future if they will become much more serious. Oil industry will start to feel some serious pressure after new "package" sanctions will start. 

   Stagnant economy is not directly a reason, although it is fore sure put pressure on planning and cut "fat". 

   Although...

Quote

The Finance Ministry explained where the money goes, which were claimed to be not enough for current pensions system
  
   Three days after the State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin announced a "hole" in the budget and a shortage of money to pay pensions, the Ministry of Finance reported on a record surplus of the federal treasury since 2011.
   By July, the government collected 10.497 trillion rubles from taxpayers. Against the backdrop of rising oil prices and the fall in the ruble, revenues increased by 1.705 trillion rubles compared to last year's.
   For the first time in seven years, the federal budget is in surplus - for 7 months receipts exceeded expenditures by 1.383 trillion rubles.
   These funds were fully used by the Ministry of Finance to purchase foreign currency, the ministry said.

 

   In total, for this purpose, by August 6, 2,039 trillion rubles were spent. In dollars, euros and pounds sterling, not only the entire budget surplus was converted, but also the funds that the Ministry of Finance occupies on the market through federal loan bonds in the amount of about 0.7 trillion rubles.

 

   Acquisition of currency became the second largest item of federal budget spending, second only to allocations for "social policy" (2.7 trillion rubles). The latter meanwhile decreased by 238 billion rubles in comparison with the previous year, mainly due to savings on pension provision of the population.

 

   For 7 months, the Pensions Fund received from the budget 1.836 trillion rubles - 280 billion rubles less than a year ago.

 

   Recall, it is the lack of funds in the budget, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin on Saturday explained the need to raise the retirement age at a meeting with the residents of Saratov.

 

   "We have a deficit in the state pension system, there is such a hole in it, and it is filled at the expense of the budget. We will have state pensions or not, this is also a question, because the budget became scarce," the chairman of the State Duma

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

I've always wondered why the Soviet/Russian keep ERA mounted on their tanks despite not being actively deployed to combat zones? 

All ERA containers mounting will be a very long procedure, much longer then just inserting explosives tiles in already mounted ERA containers/modules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

 

Thank you. 

 

I know this is a Soviet tank thread, but since you're an Abrams tanker, Plazma, I guess the following video should illustrate just how much of a hassle it is to mount a full ERA complement on your tank...and why you don't want to do that too often:

 

 

So, yeah, sometimes it's best to leave the damn things on rather than have to take them off then put back on with every even or odd mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also modular armor, which can be taken off as larger pieces so it's easier to remove and not so much of a hassle. 

But it's best to use the full armor kit to simulate the weight.

 

You don't want to be driving around in a 50-ton tank (not illustrative of the Abrams' or any tank's weight) feeling light af, accelerating to 32 km/h in a milisecond, then putting an extra 5 tons only for battle and having to feel those 5 tons whenever you start driving. 

 

It's something that takes time to get used to, and you don't want to start getting used to something on your moment of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

I've always wondered why the Soviet/Russian keep ERA mounted on their tanks despite not being actively deployed to combat zones? 

 

Just to clarify @LoooSeR's point; the brick-looking things on Soviet/Russian tanks are the ERA containers.  They're little mild steel boxes with some mounting hardware. 

 

fP3kVCJ.png

 

The actual explosive elements can be removed and stored elsewhere.  Usually, the explosive sandwiches are stored somewhere else so they don't catch on fire or accidentally detonate or (and this is really the most likely problem) get stolen by bored conscripts who want to make a quick buck.

There was a nasty rumor that a lot of government tanks in the Ukranian Civil War were going into combat with just the containers installed, but no actual ERA inside those containers.  The explosive inserts had long since been misplaced, and the boxes were just for show at that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

There was a nasty rumor that a lot of government tanks in the Ukranian Civil War were going into combat with just the containers installed, but no actual ERA inside those containers.  The explosive inserts had long since been misplaced, and the boxes were just for show at that point.

 

 

In the '90s the hungarian army bought about 100 T-72A tanks from belarus, of which there were about 4 T-72AV variants. Of course, we didnt buy the explosive inserts... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:


There was a nasty rumor that a lot of government tanks in the Ukranian Civil War were going into combat with just the containers installed, but no actual ERA inside those containers.  The explosive inserts had long since been misplaced, and the boxes were just for show at that point.

 

I've heard this rumor before, is there any proof of it being true?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • 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
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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 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 LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×
×
  • Create New...