Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Thanks, very interesting. So multi-layered Schottpanzerung relied on using multiple of same type of Schotte armor arrays in the tests (not mixing different types). Also at 800 meters distance the 105 mm APFSDS penetrates 165 mm steel armor according to TL-2350-001 (i.e. 340 HBW) at 60° (330 mm thickness along line of sight).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sovngard said:

Apparently, its maximum gun elevation didn't exceed +15°, that's too bad, because it would have been perfect as a self-propelled howitzer.

This vehicle is playable in the video game War Thunder but the ammo racks configuration is somewhat different :









Regarding its armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile, was it a 152 mm APDS or APFSDS ? It's not specified.



   Looks like those were APFSDS, according to stats table



Penetration with a fin-stabilized sabot projectile against steel - 295 mm along the normal at a distance of 3500 m.






Due to the fact that for a 130-mm rifled gun NII-24 developed only an armor-piercing subcaliber projectile, and for a 152.4-mm cannon - a HEAT and armor-piercing projectiles with fins,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

is there any difference between 120 and 105mm APFSDS ? if not then DM13/105 at 200 meters = DM13/120 at 3-3,5km ? 


Apparently mid-1970s variant of DM13 looses 75 m/s per kilometer; fired from the 105 mm smoothbore gun, the velocity (measured at 50 m distance) ranges between 1,376 and 1,392.5 m/s, from the 120 mm smoothbore gun the muzzle velocity is just stated as 1,650 m/s.



Assuming the deceleration stays consistent, after travelling 3,500 m the 120 mm DM13 will reach the v50 of the 105 mm variant. The ballistic tests against the T-62 were conducted with a firing distance of 200 m, but the penetration data shown in the Sicherheitskurve is for 800 m. At 200 m, the penetration of the APFSDS should be slightly higher.


It seems that the 120 mm DM13 APFSDS can penetrate more than 330 mm (165 mm at 60°) at a range of ~3,500 to 4,000 m. I probably underestimated its penetration power earlier. This is somewhat consistent with the tests against the (incorrectly) simulated T-64 hull armor, where 100 mm at 70° (292 mm effective thickness at the line of sight) could be defeated at ~4.300 m distance.


Given how poorly it performed against the simulated T-64's hull armor with spaced applique plate (was this also a multi-layered Schotte array?), it seems that DM13 really suffered against complex/spaced armor arrays, penetration is reduced to just ~336 mm armor (effective thickness, not equivalent protection) at ~1,240 m distance.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Uran-9 aka "how many weapons will it have? - Yes". They added some simple cover for RPG launchers.






   2S25M "Sprut-SDM1"



   BMP-3 with addition protection kit






   Whatever that thing is



   VPK-Ural (updated Ural-53099)



   BTR-82AT with additional cage armor and armor plating kit



   Updated VPK-3924 SPM-3






Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Tigr Next official name is Tigr ASN


   New armored vehicle "Tiger ASN"

   With 4 x 4 wheel arrangement, it is intended for transportation of personnel and military goods with the required level of protection. To replace the ASN Tigr-M SPN. The premiere of "Tiger ASN" will be held at the International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2019", which opens June 25, 2019 in Kubinka


   photo: Ltd. "Military Industrial Company" (MIC)

   (c) Military Informant / Rustam Bogaudinov











Link to comment
Share on other sites

   About new Tigr:


   Tiger Next from GAZ


   The car was developed by the GAZ Group's Military-Industrial Company (VPK), it also produces the Tiger of the current model.


   According to Drom.ru, the armored car took over the frame, bridges and engine from the current Tiger (this is the 4.4-liter turbodiesel YMZ-534 with a capacity of 215 hp), but the transmission was replaced. The current one [old Tigr] is equipped with a 5-speed domestic manual transmission or a 5-step Alliance 1000 automatic transmission (USA). On the Tiger Next , the GAZ-1K0808 hydromechanical “automatic” with six ranges was used. The production of this gearbox is currently being set up by GAZ Group, a month ago the company certified the Vector Next bus with this “automat”. The SUV drive is permanent full 4x4.


   The main feature of the Next Tiger is a new armored body. It is designed according to the principles of MRAP, armored vehicles with enhanced mine protection. A key feature of MRAP is a bottom with a V-shaped profile that dissipates the energy of an explosion. The Tiger of the first generation does not have a mine protection. In addition, the new Tiger has a higher load-carrying capacity and a more convenient layout of the cabin.


   Note that the development of the Next Tiger began in 2017, research and development was conducted with money from the Ministry of Defense.


   Inside of that thing. Looks like normal Tigr with small changes in the back, AFAIK.






Link to comment
Share on other sites


   As Sergei Suvorov, head of media relations and advertising at Military Industrial Company LLC, noted in an interview with RG: Russian Weapon, on the eve of the forum, some sources were quick to call this new vehicle as the Tiger Next or Tiger-2.


   “In fact, these are unofficial designations; we represent it here as the “Tiger of a new generation” or “Athlete”, because it was created under design program with same name” said Sergey Suvorov.

   “If we talk about the armored car itself, then over time it should replace the current production version of the Tiger,” he also added.

   The new machine has all the features improved. It was created taking into account the large experience of the combat use of armored vehicles obtained in various "hot spots". For example, the mine resistance was significantly improved, as a result, the ability to withstand explosions of ammunition up to 6 kg in TNT equivalent under the bottom or wheel.

    The gross weight is about 9 tons. Capacity, depending on the modification, from two to eight people. The engine is still 240 hp, with more power in the future. Maximum speed - at least 120 km / h. Max range - 1000 km.

   At the request of the customer, vehicle can be equipped with various weapons, including remotely controlled combat modules. As well as the currently released version, the new "Tiger" can serve as base for the installation of various weapons and combat systems.



   “We created the hull, using spaced armor. I personally shot this machine from 30 m with a SVD with a heat-strengthened core bullet. The material was not penetrated” the company’s CEO told to Zvezda.



   Tigr Next or Tigr-2 or Tigr Athlete or Tigr ASN, lol. 9 tons, 240 hp 6.7l engine so far, GAZ own automatic transmission, 120 km/h max speed on road, range - up to 1000 km, resistant to detonation of up to 6 kg of explosive under bottom and protects against AP bullets from SVD from 30 meters.




   The head of the company also talked about plans to equip BTR-82 armored personnel carriers with the Ataka anti-tank missile systems.

   Krasovitsky told about plans to make a vehicle with more serious weapons. The tests have already passed, he noted, adding that the Ataka system was operating at a distance of 6 km.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


“We created the hull, using spaced armor. I personally shot this machine from 30 m with a SVD with a heat-strengthened core bullet. The material was not penetrated” the company’s CEO told to Zvezda.


Sort-of-direct translation of "hardened", or were they talking about steel cored AP? Seems to me that "hardened" could include WC cores, but "heat-strengthened" suggests just steel (and steel cored 7.62 at 30m seems kinda dull, with the gerpercers the US is looking at)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xlucine said:


Sort-of-direct translation of "hardened", or were they talking about steel cored AP? Seems to me that "hardened" could include WC cores, but "heat-strengthened" suggests just steel (and steel cored 7.62 at 30m seems kinda dull, with the gerpercers the US is looking at)

   Material was not given, direct quote was "с термоупрочненным сердечником" which literally translates as "with heat strengthened core".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Mango-M (modernized Mango) and Svinets-2 APFSDS rounds for 125 mm guns (2A26 and 2A46M).





   "Mango-M" is an export-oriented shot. One of its main advantages is full compatibility with the autoloaders of T-72 and T-90, which does not require the introduction of structural changes. In our opinion, this can play a key role in the selection of this ammunition by our foreign partners, who are armed with modern Russian-made tanks” said Vladimir Lepin, General Director of the Tehmash Concern.



   Svinets-2 on the right


   “These are the latest models of ammunition, the armor penetration rate of which has been increased by more than 20%. If a regular shot penetrates 230 mm of an obstacle, then for “Mango-M” this indicator is equal to 280 mm, and for a shot “Svinets-2” - 300 mm. Improved technical characteristics of ammunition ensure the destruction of practically the entire spectrum of armored weapons and military equipment of a potential enemy over a distance of more than 2 km” said the industrial director of Rostec Sergey Abramov.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Tigr Atlet/Next 





   Source (in Russian)


   The BTR-82AT, along with the Atlet armored vehicle, is presented to the public for the first time. Unlike the base version, the BTR-82A, the upgraded armored personnel carrier is equipped with a combined gunner's sight with thermal, optical and rangefinding laser channels with stabilization of the visual field in the vertical plane. This increases the accuracy of shooting /.../

   Another difference immediately striking - vehicle is equipped with protective screens on the hull and the combat module. Their installation protects rear and side projections of the BTR from penetration by large-caliber machine guns. In addition, anti-HEAT grille will save the crew of the BTR-82AT from reactive anti-tank grenades.

   Anti-HEAT screens increased the combat weight of the BTR to 17.5 tons. This limited the ability of the armored personnel carrier to overcome water obstacles by swimming. However, this problem is solved by dismantling the passive protection kit.

   "Currently modernized vehicle is coming to test trails. The Minister of Defense announced the delivery of updated equipment for service this year, and we have to meet the deadlines. It is likely that the active test phase will start in August," said Sergei Suvorov, head of the direction on work with the media company "VPK".

   The company also notes that the modernization of the BTR-82A vehicles in service to the BTR-82AT level is possible at the locations of the customer [units?].


Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Pasholok's photo of new Nakidka (i think)






   BMP-3 with the latest module "Epokha" is being tested by the Ministry of Defense

   June 27 - RIA News. Infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3, equipped with the latest combat module "Epokha", are being tested at the Russian Defense Ministry, told RIA Novosti in the press service of the holding "High-precision complexes" (part of Rostec)
   "Currently, BMP-3 with Epokha are being tested at the sites of the Ministry of Defense. In accordance with the terms of the supply contract, samples are being manufactured. Deliveries will be started after the tests are completed," the company said.
   Earlier on the forum "Army-2018" between the Ministry of Defense and the holding "High-precision Complexes" a contract was signed for the supply of infantry fighting vehicles with a new combat module "Epoch".




   KUBINKA / Moscow Region /, June 27. / Tass /. The new light amphibious tank is being developed in Russia on the basis of the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun. This was reported by TASS in the framework of the forum "Army-2019" by chief designer of JSC "SKBM" (part of the holding "High-precision complexes") Sergei Abdulov.

   "Work is underway to create a lightweight non-airdroppable but amphibious tank on the basis of the Sprut-SDM1. The new vehicle will receive enhanced protection and a different suspension compared to the Sprut, the torsion suspension from the BMP-3 will be used, which is more reliable and less whimsical, than hydropneumatic at "Sprut", - he told. The designer added that "the weapon of new light tank will remain the same [as on Sprut]".

   He did not specify the name of the new project.




   BMP-3 for the Russian army will be equipped with additional protection

   According to the chief designer of the JSC "Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering" Sergey Abdulov, this decision was made on the basis of the antiterrorist operation in Syria

   KUBINKA / Moscow Region /, June 27. / Tass /. Infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3 will receive additional protection in the form of anti-HEAT cages and steel screens to withstand an RPG hit. It is planned to sign a contract for the supply of sets of such protection kits for the Russian troops, on Thursday at the Army-2019 forum the chief designer of the JSC Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering (part of the High-precision Complex) Sergei Abdulov told to TASS.

   Abdulov explained that interest in providing enhanced protection for the BMP-3 appeared among the military as a result of the antiterrorist operation in Syria. "Now passed departmental tests and almost signed a contract for the supply of a set of additional protection, which includes steel screens and anti-HEAT cages" - he said.


   This kit at Army 2019:


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.

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
      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).
                                                                   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.
                                                                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
      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.
      Vehicle Designation and name

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

      Table of basic statistics:



      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:

      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.


      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.


      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.


      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...