Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Article from International Defense Review 1981-12 "T-34 to T-80 "The Evolution of Soviet Battle Tanks PLUS the IDR's T-62 test report"



EAPUYfDWkAI_t4l?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAPUgu5XUAE3nh2?format=jpg&name=4096x409


EAPUjDeWkAIvHZb?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAPawPdXoAA2V-d?format=jpg&name=4096x409



OCR text w/ larger pics (and same pics of better quality from other sources) moved next to their captions:



The Evolution of Soviet Battle Tanks PLUS the IDR'sT-62 test report 
by D.H.C.Jenkins


In recent years, most Western nations have experienced great difficulty in developing and producing new battle tanks that are equal or better than those issuing from Soviet and Warsaw Pact factories. The philosophy has been, and still is, to produces new vehicle winch is a quantum improvement on the previous tank. This, however, is expensive both financially and in time. Western nations are increasingly turning to joint ventures in order to try and cut ultimate production costs but to date, these partnershps have all failed, resulting in further delays. Only one joint project is still alive, and the French and the Germans are attempting to design a tank for the 1990s, although the present indications are that this, too, may be doomed to failure. The result has been that individual countries are "going it alone" and producing ever more costly vehicles in sufficient quantities to provide anything approaching a balance to the vastly superior numbers of modern tanks deployed by the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies.

The Soviet Union has not yet subscribed to the "throw-away society" and as such has a different outlook. No old equipment is totally discarded. Effective and proven comportents in one design are generally retained in the succeeding generation of vehicles. Smplicity, effectiveness and numbers are the watchwords. Soviet tank design has, therefore, been evolutionary and could very well continue to be so even with the introduction of the T-80. 

Development history
The trend started during World War 2, with the introduction of the T-34. This was a very basic vehicle capable, however, of fulfilling its role. It was cheap to produce, simple to operate, and light. Crew training was minimal and the Soviet Army had no difficulty in finding the number of crews required to man the flood of vehicles being turned out. In battle they were no match for the heavier and more advanced German tanks in a one-to-one fight, but the Germans rapidly found that when their tanks had been expended, the T-34s were still there in quantity. A modified T-34, the T-34/85, entered service in 1944 and although withdrawn from Soviet Army service in the 1960s, it was still in action with the Vietnamese Army in 1973. The successor to the T-34 went into production in 1944, too. This was the T-44, a modified T-34/85. The turret was very similar, the suspension had been changed from the Christie-type to torsion bar and the hull was consequently lower. Unsuccessful attempts were then made to retrofit the T-44 turret with the D-10 100mm gun. A solution was eventually found by fitting a redesigned turret with the D-10 gun, to a stretched T-44 hull to produce a new vehicle designated T-54.

This tank was manufactured in very large numbers and six variants were produced before the introduction of the T-55, first seen in Moscow in November 1961. Subsequently a further three variants of the T-55 were produced. The only major change between the T-54 and the T-55 was the fitting of the uprated V-55 engine. All T-54s were then modified to T-55 standard, resulting in the Western designation of T-54/55 for all vehicles of this type. The tank was, however unpopular in many countries to which it was sold and in his book Modern Soviet Armor Steven Zaloga cites the case of Romania having had "such serious problems with its T-54s that it [has] approached several West German companies for bids to completely re-work the existing vehicles, adding new suspension, track, wheels, engine and other components."


▼ The author at the controls of a T-62A during the IDR test drive. The T-62A can be distinguished from the T-62 by the raised loader's cupola with the 12.7mm Dshk AA machine gun.

The same basic design was than used in Ihe production of the T-62, first seen in 1965. The major change was the up-gunnig of the tank from the 100mm D-10T to the 115mm smoothbore U-5T. Many T-55 components are evident in the T-62 and it is conceivable that this was the start of a new trend in tank production — that of putting development vehicles into limited production, producing a number of variants, ascertaining the optimum combination of systems and then fielding a new tank in which all systems have been thoroughly tested, frequently in combat, without incurring the almost crippling test and evaluation expenditure of Western nations.
In its recent T-62 test drive IDR found that the tank was indeed basic in both its design and construction. External components lacked any form of finish and were, for the most part, fiimsily made. This conforms with the Soviet design philosophy that external components are of secondary importance and will be early casualties in battle. Therefore no time, money and effort are wasted in producing a solid, finished product. The tank has, however, been designed to make the maximum use of ground. The turret is small and well rounded, providing maximum protection from glancing shots, and the hull, with its Christie suspension and no top rollers, is low and squat. This gives the tank a low silhouette and make it very hard to spot when concealed in a hull-down position. It also makes the crew very uncomfortable. Inside the turret, space is extremely limited. The gunner sits on the left, below the commander and has little room in which to work. Indeed the commander's and gunners stations combined are hardly bigger than the commander's station alone in most Western tanks The loader, on the right of the turret, does have more room, but unless he is left handed his task is extremely difficult.
The driver's station is on the left of the hull. His seat can be adjusted for driving head-out, the normal driving position, or closed down whenever the turret is in operation.
Normally the T-62 is started using compressed air with a minimum pressure of 50kg/cm2. For IDR's test, however, the tank had to be bump-started as there was insufficient pressure in the air cylinders. The driver checks that the systems are functioning and then starts the engine, having first ensured that the engine oil pressure is between 6 and 7kg/cm2. If an air start fails, an electric starter can be used.
In common with most tanks, first gear it an emergency gear. To begin driving, second is selected and the hand throttle is set at 550-600rpm. It is at this point that the Western tank driver is thankful for the invention of the automatic gearbox. The T-62 has a crash gearbox and the driver has to double-declutch in order to change gear. Changing from second to third presented little difficulty but when it came to changing up into fourth gear, IDR found that the gear lever had to be moved across the complete width of the gate and was extremely stiff. It is no doubt this feature that has prompted reports that T-62 drivers are issued with a sledge-hammmer with which to persuade the gear lever to move into a different position. One user told IDR that training a US Army T-62 driver usually entails replacing the clutch at least twice.
Steering is by means of two tillers. These have three positions. When they are fully forward normal power is transmitted to the drive sprocket. To turn, one or other of the tillers must be pulled up to the first position, i.e. until resistance is felt for the first time. If both tillers are in first position a reduction gear is engaged and the tank slows down. From this position, however, smaller radius turns can be made by pulling a tiller up still further, to the second position. The second position effectively brakes the tracks and care must be taken to ensure that one tiller is not pulled into the second position if the tank is in fourth or fifth gear, since the resultant turn could be too severe. (It is by no means certain that the tank would throw a track in these circumstances, as a correctly tensioned track, i.e. when it hangs 60-80mm above the first roadwheel, is guided throughout its length by centre guides riding over the top and bottom of each road-wheel.) IDR initially felt it strange to have to pull both tillers completely up to the first position before starting a turn by pulling one of them up to the second position. This also required greater acceleration to maintain speed, which in turn led to clouds of black exhaust smoke.
IDR was unable to test the efficacity of the hydro-pneumatic clutch in the T-62 as the compressed-air bottles were being recharged during the drive. This clutch is engaged after moving off by the driver moving a lever, mounted on the clutch pedal, with his foot. It appears that use of this clutch does not facilitate gear changing but it does reduce clutch wear.


▼ An early photo of a T-64 with the characteristically small roadwheels and the IR projector on the left of the main gun. The driver's position is central in the hull. The open hatch is on the commander's station.

◄ One of theT-62As used by the US Army for training. A fuel pannier can be seen on the rear deck above the gap between the 4th and 5th roadwheels. The long tube on the rear of the turret is for stowing the snorkel and above this is the cartridge-case jettison hatch. An interesting point about the track pins is that they are not held in place at the outer edge of the links, leaving them free to move into the centre. This effect is countered by a raised piece of metal (the pin hammer), welded on to the hull forward of the drive sprocket, which knocks the pins back into position each time they pass over the sprocket.
► View, from the commander's seat, of the T-62 gunner's position with the telescope (right) and periscope (left) prepared for right-eye use. Key: 1 - IR power supply; 2 - Traverse handwheel; 3 - TPN1-41-11 infrared monocular periscope night sight; 4 - Gunner's duplex controls with coax and main gun firing switches on left and right handles respectively; 5 - TSh2B-41U primary telescope day sight; 6 - TNP-165 vision block.

►► The right-hand side of the T-62 driver's compartment. One of the steering tillers can be seen, just to the left of the gear lever and gate. From the left the top three positions in this gate give 3rd, reverse and 4th gears and the bottom row gives 2nd, 1st and 5th. The yellow bands give the US translations for the Russian switch designations. The box below the two vision blocks is the gyrocompass for use when driving submerged on a river crossing.

Manoeuvrability is, thus, not one of the strong points of the T-62. Driving the vehicle is tiring and the ride is relatively uncomfortable.
The T-63 is lightly armoured and much of its passive protection is derived from its low silhouette. Active protection is, in some measure, provided by the engine smoke generator. This consumes 10 litres of fuel per minute and produces a smokescreen 250-400m long, lasting for up to 4 minutes, depending in wind strength. When the system is in operation, the driver must fully depress the accelerator to avoid starving the engine of fuel and should not be in higher than third gear.
In the event of operations in an NBC environment, a PAZ (NBC) pack protects the crew from radioactive dust by air filtration and slight over-pressure. It is tripped automatically by an RBZ-1 gamma-ray sensor.
The vehicle is powered by the V-55, V-12 diesel engine, with a maximum power output of 430kW at 2,000rpm, giving a maximum road speed of 80km/h. When driving cross-country, fuel consumption is between 300 and 330 litres per 100km. This is reduced to between 190 and 210 litres when giving on roads. Between 320 and 450km can be covered by the T-62 on its normal fuel tanks. This is increased to between 450 and 650km if the two jettisonable auxiliary fuel ranks, on the back of the vehicle, are used.
Maximum firing range of the U-5T 115mm gun, limited by the sighting range wthe TSh2B-41U gunner's telescope, is 4800m when firing the HE18 round, although it is unlikely that this extreme range would ever be used, except when the tank is in a static firing position (a Soviet speciality). Theoretical maximum effective anti-tank range, therefore, is 2,000m, although Middle East experience indicates that it is nearer to 1600m. Up to 40 rounds of 115mm fixed ammunition can be carried. These are stowed in open racks around the turret and hull and experience has shown that even a glancing blow from an incoming round can detonate them with catastrophic results. Stowage is also provided for up to 2,500 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition for the PKT coaxial machine gun. The T-62A also has a 12.7mm AA machine gun mounted on the loader's cupola with 500 rounds stowed externally.


T-64 and T-72
Before the first T-62 was seen in public, it became known in the West that a new Sowet tank, designated M1970, had been desigrind. According to some sources this design was never produced, but a tank did go into production in the late 1960s. It was totally different from any previous Soviet tank, mounted a 125mm gun in a new turret and had a new running gear. The appearance of this tank led to great speculation by analysts in the West. A new dimension was added to the "threat" and the corridors of power from Bonn to Washington resounded with calls for the production of more powenful and better protected tanks to combat this new vehicle.
For several years Western defense agencies designated this tank the T-72 and it came as something of a shock when a second new vehicle was displayed in Moscow in 1977. At first the second new vehicle was thought to be a new model T-72, but closer analysis revealed significant differences between the two tanks This prompted a change in the Western designations and the earlier vehicle became known as the T-64.
The major differences between the T-64 and the T-72 are the engine and running gear. Photos show that the arrangement of exhaust grills on the rear of the vehicles differs, indicating that a different engine has been used. It it probable that the T-64 has a diesel engine producing a maximum power output of 560kW with a power to weight ratio (kW/t) of 15:1. According to some IDR sources, this engine is a departure from conventional types, being a flat, five-cylinder design, with horizontally-opposed pistons. In contrast, the T-72 has the V-64, an uprated version of the V-55 diesel in the T-62. This produces 580kW, at 3,000rpm and gives a power to weight ratio of 14:1.
The T-64 has six small, stamped, dual road wheels and torsion bar suspension. The double-pin steel track is supported on four top rollers. The T-72 running gear comprises six large, die-cast, dual road wheels, also with torsion bar suspension. The single, dry-pin steel track is supported on only three top rollers.
Modifications to the turret are minor and consist of the re-location of the infra-red searchlight from the left of the main armament, on the T-64, to the right for the T-72. The AA machine gun, too, is different. The T-72 has a new pintle-mounted 12.7mm gun mounted to the rear of the commander s cupola. This can only be operated from the head-out position, in the same way as on the T-62. On the T-64 the AA machine gun is also mounted on the commander's cupola but it appears as if it can be fired remotely.


▼ A column of T-72s, with the new turrets, prior to embarking on a submerged river crossing The new design, full-length rubber skirting pfates have been removed, possibly to prevent them being torn off dunnn the crossing.


Main and coaxial armament details are identical for both tanks. The main armament is a 125mm smoothbore gun, firing high-velocity APFSDS, HEAT and HE rounds. Muzzle velocity is in excess of 1,600m/s for the APFSDS and 905 and 850m/s for the HEAT and HE rounds respectively. A 7.62mm PKT machine gun, identical to that in the T-62, is mounted coaxially on the right of the main gun. Evidently the commander is responsible for serving the coaxial MG. An automatic loader serves the main armament, although the systems differ in their method of operation. In the T-72, charges and projectiles are stowed in single-round boxes with the charge above the projectile. Up to 40 of these boxes are mounted on a turntable on the inside of the turret. The different types of round do not have to be in specific positions since a computer keeps track of the position of each round. Once the commander has selected the type of round he wishes to fire, the computer indicates the position of the nearest one and the turntable rotates until the box is under the loading mechanism. With the barrel at a 4° elevation datum position, the box is then hauled up until the projectile touches the rear of the breech. A swing-arm rams it into the gun and the box is then lowered slightly, to allow the charge to be rammed in the same way.
The T-64 loading mechanism appears to be more complicated. The projectile is stowed vertically alongside the charge, which means that the projectile has to be turned before it can be rammed, with the charge following it.
Some analysts believe that the T-64 was produced as an interim measure between the T-62 and the T-72. Recent observations may lead to this supposition being contradicted and it is possible that the T-72 is the follow-on to the T-62 with the T-64 being a leap sideways from the evolutionary chain.
First acknowledged western sightings of the T-64 were at the beginning of the 1970s, though it may have been deployed even earlier. Since then, the T-64 has been issued to the Soviet Army in large numbers. In 1979 it was estimated that over 2,000 were in service with GSFG. Little is seen of these vehicles but many photos of the T-72 have been released. For some reason the T-72 is being shown off. This was demonstrated during the visit of the French Defense Minister to Moscow in 1977, where he and his party were shown the T-72, although they were not permitted to see inside it. The T-72 has also been exported to countries outside the Warsaw Pact — IDR sources say that the current purchase price of a T-72 is about $2 million. Pictures have also been released of the T-72 with a new turret showing that the back-up stadiametric rangefinder has been removed. This exposure is a typical Soviet behaviour and leads to the conclusion that another tank, possibly a much-improved version of the T-64, is to become the standard Soviet battle tank. An additional argument has been advanced which states that the original T-64 has experienced many operational problems and that this is being hidden from prying eyes. These problems have been cited as including: inaccuracy oj the powerful smooth-bore gun; a tendenci to shed its tracks; and above all, a disastrous reliability record for the engine, which is also


► Early model T-72s on parade during the West 81 exercises. The light metal thermal jacket on the main armament is held in place by clips along the top edge. (The tank on the right has lost the end section of the thermal jacket.)

extremely smoky. Critics of the T-64 say that it was originally intended to become the Soviet MBT, but that its performance and reliability proved so poor that modernized T-55s, and subsequently T-72 export tanks, had to be used publicly in place of it. This view holds that T-64s in GSFG are merely training tanks, with their improved sucessors already stored secretly in forward locations.


Well over ten years have passed since the introduction of the T-64 and a new Soviet tank is now known to exist. What is this tank? In the West it has been designated, for lack of surer indication, the T-80.
The T-80 has a high-pressure 125mm main gun and fires improved ammunition including HVAPFSDS with, possibly, a DU penetrator. It is said to weigh approximately 48.5t and may have hydropneumatic suspension. Experiments have been carried out in the Soviet Union with the use of gas turbine engines in tanks and two T-80 prototype series were produced, one with the gas turbine engine and one with an uprated diesel similar to that which powers the T-64. It is unlikely, however, that the turbine does power the T-80.
The most significant change is the addition of compound armour to the hull and turret, accounting for the increase in weight, and giving the vehicle the characteristic box-shape of modern NATO tanks. This armour could either be very similar to the British Chobham armour — samples of which have reached Russia from the FRG—or it could be a special, Soviet-designed laminate armour such as is used on the glacis plate of the T-64/72. The T-80 has been described as looking like a T-64 or-72 with add-on armour and this is likely to be the case, particularly since the appearance of the T-72 with a new turret.
A study of the evolutionary chart on p.1652 shows the likelihood of the hull coming from one vehicle, in this case the T-64, and a new turret (or a drastically modified T-72 turret) being mated to produce the new tank. The choice of hull could well be that of the T-64 with its innovative small roadwheels and engine. The T-72 engine will barely fit into its engine well and the possibility of further uprating it, to cope with the extra weight of the T-80, seems remote.


The benefits of evolution
The main aim of Soviet tank designers appears to be to design and produce tanks as quickly and cheaply as possible without diminishing the size of the tank park. The evolutionary concept has enabled them to do so and has also brought other benefits. Firstly a measure of standardization is always present, and time and effort do not have to be wasted in totally converting crews from one type of vehicle to another. The Soviet Army retains many old tanks as training vehicles, thus not risking damage to its prime materiel while still maintaining crews proficient in the skills required to fight their tanks. The concept also provides the designers with the capability of thoroughly testing components and adopting or rejecting them for the successive generation of vehicles.
The last innovative Soviet tank design was the T-64, and this was possibly because the hull had not been prepared in time for the introduction of the T-62. There is thus no reason to believe that the T-80 is also totally innovative and there are already rumours of the T-80 follow-on being ready to go into production.



▲ Cut-away drawings of a Soviet T-72 MBT apparently used as training aids and showing the interior layout of the tank from both the side and the rear. Note the rotating ammunition stowage ring at the base of the turret, with the semicombustible charge clipped on the top of each projectile for automatic loading via the hoist (10). The drawings also indicate the thickness of armour on the tank. If they are accurate and if previously published dimensions (see IDR 8/1977, p 1032) are still correct, then the armour thickness on the glacis plate can be estimated at approximately 200mm measured at 90° and approximately 600mm measured horizontally. This glacis armour appears to be made up of three layers although the exact composition is not known. Armour thickness on the turret roof, measured at a point to the rear of 7 in the side view, is estimated at 60mm and the thickness of the bow plate, measured at a point forward of the front roadwheel, is approximately 80mm.
Key: 1 — FG-125 headlights; 2 — Steering tillers; 3 — NBC protection systems; 4 — Gear lever; 5 - Gun elevation drive; 6 — TPD-2 gunner's sight; 7 — TPN1-49-23 gunner's night sight; 8 — Spotlight for TKN-3 commander sight; 9 — AA machine gun; 10 — Ammunition hoist; 11 — Antenna base; 12 — Turret bin for deep-fording equipment and rations; 13 — Engine; 14 — Gearbox; 15 — Supplementary fuel tank; 16 — Projectile and charge containers; 17 — Rotary base; 18 — Gunner's seat; 19 — NBC decontamination; 20 — Driver's seat; 21 — Parking brake; 22 — External stowage; 23 — Manual turret traverse gear; 24 — Traverse indicator; 25 — Breech; 26 — 7.62mm coaxial machine gun; 27 — Commander's cupola episcopes; 28 — Skirt plates; 29 — Machine gun ammunition boxes; 30 — Radio; 31 — Hydraulic turret traverse drive.
▼ An artist's impression of the T-80 which has been described by those who have seen actual photos, as very nearly exact. Of particular note are the small road wheels, typical of the T-64, and the apparent lack of special armour skirting plates. Main armament is a new, 125mm, high pressure gun, developed from that of the T-64 and T-72, firing improved ammunition. The lack of an IR projector is indicative of the use of image-intensifying or thermal imaging night sights. A further point of interest is the provision of two banks of smoke grenade dischargers. Untill recently all Soviet battle tanks used an integral engine smoke generator to provide smoke protection. T-64s in GSFG have, however, beem seem with smoke grenade dischargers. It is possible, that these T-64s have a new engine which is not compatible with a smoke generator, and that this engine is also mounted in the T-80.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Critics of the T-64 say that it was originally intended to become the Soviet MBT, but that its performance and reliability proved so poor that modernized T-55s, and subsequently T-72 export tanks, had to be used publicly in place of it. This view holds that T-64s in GSFG are merely training tanks, with their improved sucessors already stored secretly in forward locations."

   Heh, Kharkovite trash




The T-80 ... and may have hydropneumatic suspension.


It is unlikely, however, that the turbine does power the T-80.

   How little "West" knew about about Soviet tanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Heh, Kharkovite trash



   How little "West" knew about about Soviet tanks


As was discussed previously on this site, the two most important things to keep secret about secret things are not revealing how much you actually know, and the source of what you actually know. Open sources like IDR and Jane's don't always get it right...over the years, they have provided some very good open source info, but they're not all-knowing. Here again, is the previously confidential pic of the T-80 from 1979...2 years before the IDR article. Who knows what the "West" knew at higher and higher levels of classification?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 How little "West" knew about about Soviet tanks

How little they knew even about the T-62! 

"christie" suspension, or "clutch-brake" steering... lol. And even though they tested the tank, they had no idea how to drive it! There is no "crash" gearbox, it is synchronized from 2nd gear. Also you surely dont need to double clutch, and absolutely no need to use sledgehammer to change gears! This is not a shitty T-34! No wonder they destroyed the transmission... morons. From personal experience I know the difference between a properly maintained gearbox and a poorly maintanied one. (T-55) Surely not the lightest gear shift, but if the gearbox is good, and the connecting rods are properly adjusted, you shouldnt have any problems with shifting, all you need is a determined push or pull on the gear change lever, and you are good to go.

The article claims that it is tiring to drive the tank. Total BS. I fully admit Im not a strong guy at all, actually on the weaker side, but I didnt have any fatigue problems after 1 hour driving in a T-55. (on the other hand I was totally tired in the GSP-55, after 10 minutes! PT-76 derived components)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

9   During one of trainings of Armored forces - T-72 zoo (T-72B3 UBKh/mod 2016, base Budget Cuts 3 model and even including vintage T-72A).










   Iraq received next shipment of BMP-3s (yesterday)








Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 BRDM-2MS donated to Serbia  

The add-on armor plates look cheap, and very poorly made, with massive gaps between them. But on the other hand the upgrade is great, especially the new electronics and the diesel engine are a huge leap forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Some internals are visible here:

   Not too terrible, but at some places it looks strange. Addon armor looks like 2 types of plates randomly placed on top of original body. Vehicle have thermal imager, which is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Some internals are visible here:

   Not too terrible, but at some places it looks strange. Addon armor looks like 2 types of plates randomly placed on top of original body. Vehicle have thermal imager, which is good.


That has to count as one of the slopiest uparmoring  jobs with lots of holes in coverage  , it looks like someone tried to use same panel on multiple places. Why? , armor plate is not expensive as is not cuting it on water jet.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mr.T said:


That has to count as one of the slopiest uparmoring  jobs with lots of holes in coverage  , it looks like someone tried to use same panel on multiple places. Why? , armor plate is not expensive as is not cuting it on water jet.



Because that's exactly what it is. It's preset sheets of armored steel cut in a way to maximize protection and cost reduction. The issue is due to the highly irregular surfaces of the BRDM-2.

To properly up-armor the hull needs to get totally reworked (Kaiman) or transformed in such a way that the vehicle loses an already average mobility. 





Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRDM 2Mobility is actualy not that bad even tough it has a weak engine. When  our military was testing patria 8x8 and Pandur 8x8  ,BRDM 2 was the mobility benchmark and in most regimes  the modern 8x8 couldn't match it. . These upgraded russian versions have an upgraded engine so only real issue could be loss of amphibious capability.


Like ia said armor plate is cheap and should have been cut into more segments for better coverage like the one on the pic above. Only areas that is curved are just above the front vender and hull side where the observation blocks lie. Like said partculary lazy atempt at up armoring in all respects. 

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...