Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 8/27/2018 at 5:28 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

Soviet tank development in the second half of the Cold War was... interesting.  NATO intelligence assumed that the T-64->T-72->T-80 represented a continuous development of better and better tanks.  In reality, they were three parallel developments.  This obviously didn't make any sense from a logistical standpoint.  It was driven by political considerations and different factions of engineers trying to grab as much glory as possible for their design bureau.  The article "Why Three Tanks" by Stephen "Cookie" Sewell in this edition of Armor magazine explains it in more detail.

 

The "Kharkovites" were the faction out of Kharkov, Ukraine, responsible for the T-64 tank.  This amazing thread by LoooSeR helps explain the differences between the three tanks.

 

 

Thanks for explaining that too me. Even today many of us still believe those 3 tanks were continuous development. I'd didn't realize otherwise until probably about a year ago reading damians post on AW forums. I guess the MOD didn't have much in the way of an accountability office back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1DjLVvTSBww.jpg

KamAZ-7850, OKR "Platforma-O" during dynamic display at the Alabino fire range.

 

eK1GF7Qn3eo.jpg

KamAZ-7850, OKR "Platforma-O" during dynamic display at the Alabino fire range.

 

Z5yrR56QMSE.jpg

KamAZ-7850, OKR "Platforma-O" during dynamic display at the Alabino fire range.

 

SZT4VQc97nE.jpg

KamAZ-7850, OKR "Platforma-O" Something went wrong, the axles are out of sync.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BTR-82A, according to Google, was put in a phase of production for the Russian armed forces in 2013. And even then thermal imaging tech was not trivial. 

I started thinking that with a severe lack of funding, maybe upgrading T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks was not a bad idea, but stuff like this little BTR-82AT fella make me wonder just how much tech that is trivial in the west is still missing because the Russian MoD started thinking in almost British concepts (almost, please don't bash me for this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the T-62's gun moving after firing may have more to do with the stabilizer than the auto ejection system:

Quote

Starting in March [1964], in order to reduce the odds of the barrel sticking into the ground when firing on the move with the stabilizer on, as well as improving the conditions for loading, a device that automatically moved the gun within the 2 deg-4 deg 30 min range and hydraulically held it at that angle. As a result, the Meteor stabilizer was changed. In addition, a switch was added, composed of an angle meter for the gun (the switch was housed on the gun cradle). At the same time, in order to prevent water from leaking in through the spray opening, as well as to introduce the ability to used compressed air to clear the vision ports (with water in the tank), a valve to turn off the water was added on the pipe of the water container.

 

I have to do more digging into this though.

 

@Collimatrix

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

×
×
  • Create New...