Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

   Kornet double tap



   From start of the video - Kornet duplet hit.

0:25, BVM, because of smoke can't see if it hit.

2:40 Kornet-D double launch, hard to tell if it was hit.

3:12 BVM from the move, GL-ATGM launch, hit.

4:35, Kornet, hit.

41:57 BMP-2 Berezhok, Kornet double tap, both hit.

43:45, same BMP-2, Kornet missed tank (looks like it flyed close to target, above it).

44:15, 4th Kornet, hit.

Way better this time.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


   Ministry of Defense at the forum "Army-2020" signed contracts for 1.16 trillion rubles

   Development of armored vehicles of the Strela family

   The Russian Defense Ministry and the Military Industrial Company have signed a contract to open experimental design work to create a line of the newest Strela light armored vehicles, VPK CEO Alexander Krasovitsky told TASS.

   The state contract provides for the development of a unified multipurpose vehicle, floating, light-duty and buggy type.

   "The developed vehicles of the family are designed to ensure the daily activities of troops, transport personnel (including the wounded and sick) and military cargo, perform reconnaissance tasks, patrols, escort convoys, mount and transport weapons with the provision of specified parameters of bulletproof and mine protection, tow trailers on all types of roads and terrain within the specified carrying capacity, ”the Defense Ministry said.


   Also, a bit info about Strela - 2 versions have different protection rating. Ampibious have 0.6 kg of exposives mine protection, while normal have 2 kg IIRC.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like BTR-82 still cant hit anything... What is the point of this stupid weapon system? Is it so hard to weld a damned guide rail to the 2A72 gun? Ukrainians already recognized this, looooong ago. And as I heard, the same weapon from the BMP-3 is also far more accurate... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Looks like BTR-82 still cant hit anything... What is the point of this stupid weapon system? Is it so hard to weld a damned guide rail to the 2A72 gun? Ukrainians already recognized this, looooong ago. And as I heard, the same weapon from the BMP-3 is also far more accurate... 

   I posted some time ago a picture of BTR-82A testbed for new turret, where 2A72 was in special sleeve, IIRC there was no big improvements, so it remained as prototype. Not sure about BMP-3 accuracy with 30 mm AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Some of VPK military cars:



   Tigr buggy.


   Under the hood of this buggy is the Yaroslavl turbodiesel YaMZ-534, overclocked to 240 hp. The gearbox is a six-speed automatic, Chinese manufacturer Fast Gear. The suspension of all wheels is independent, the maximum speed is 120 km/h, and the max range is up to a thousand kilometers.

   The company does not hide the fact that, although the machine was developed on an initiative basis, the experience of the latest operations in Syria was taken into account during its construction. So, the crew of five is accommodated in anti-traumatic seats and is not weakly armed. Above is a 12.7-mm 6P58 Kord machine gun, and 7.62-mm Pecheneg machine guns are fixed in special retractable clamps on the sides. Also, in a combat kit, RPG-26 and Igla-S MANPADS are fixed in special places. In addition, an emergency supply of fuel and medicines is provided on board.

   It is assumed that such a Tiger will be able to play the role of a high-speed reconnaissance and assault vehicle, capable of making deep sorties behind enemy lines.
















   Strela (Arrow), amphibious variant





   As we said above, this frog-like machine is built on the basis of the recently introduced Strela light armored car, which, in turn, is based on GAZ units.

   For example, the engine here is familiar to "gazelists", Next Cummins ISF. The gearbox is a GAZ own five speed. The bottom is flat and sealed, with a propeller in the rear. But here the rear axle is located outside - it will "swim". The total mass of this amphibian is 4.9 tons, and the carrying capacity is 800 kg.


   Having opened the heavy front door of the amphibian, I was not at all surprised by the front panel from the Next Gazelle installed inside. Everything here is familiar: the gearshift lever on the podium and the large multimedia system with a touch screen are preserved. Only on the exhibition model all this was covered with light leather.

   By the way, it is possible to get into the salon, in this version, designed for four people, either through the front doors or through a flap in the stern. The vehicle has an light armoring of the level 1 manned compartment, and can also withstand the detonation of the equivalent of 0.6 kg of TNT under the wheel or bottom.


   It is interesting, by the way, that the VPK is planning to expand Strela family with other modifications. For example, a buggy version similar to the big Tiger, as well as a large unarmored SUV for everyday work, a kind of analogue of large frame American all-wheel drive vehicles, is currently in development. Moreover, it is already known that the Ministry of Defense will also be directly involved in the further development of the Strela project, which means that light armored cars have interested our military and may well appear in their ranks.


   As for the cost of the current cars, the representatives of the VPK named a fork of 10-20 million rubles for the Tigers. Such a huge range is due to the fact that each machine is built according to the individual requirements of the customer. As for the Strelas, they will obviously be cheaper.





















   Stats and short description (incl. in English)




   Medved MRAP



Stats and description




   Strela and stats






   Strela next to a Tigr variant



Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Beer said:

Team Kongo managed to stuck the T-72B3 muzzle into the ground in the biathlon.

Good recipe for barrel explosions :D They are lucky that they already finished with main gun firing range. But seriously... why do organizers let these teams compete at all? All these african teams were just miserable, pain to watch. Quite pathetic that they are supposed to be "professional" soldiers. In 2019, russian girls, who have never seen a tank from inside before, finished a training in a rush, produced incomparably better results... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   I posted some time ago a picture of BTR-82A testbed for new turret, where 2A72 was in special sleeve, IIRC there was no big improvements, so it remained as prototype. Not sure about BMP-3 accuracy with 30 mm AC.

Sadly I do not remember where did I read about the improved accuracy of BMP-3, it was long ago. Of course, this info may be wrong, but it made sense to me. 2A72 barrel flexes quite a lot when firing, thats why I thought a guide rail or sleeve can improve accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2020 at 4:46 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Well, that was embarrassing. Somebody was using expired GL-ATGMs from stocks or something else was wrong.


27:18 - T-90A misses target with GL-ATGM (hit ground before getting to "tank"), 2nd launch was not shown (i suspect missed, announcer didn't told about hit), 3rd missile hit. 1 out of 3.


36:20 - T-80U cannon vibrates like on those videos of Oplots from European tank competition. 37:08 - missile launch, missed (flies over target). Next GL-ATGM (37:44), same thing - missile flies above target, missed. 3rd one managed to hit a tank. 1/3


45:15 - T-80UE-1, GL-ATGM flies way above target. 2nd one hit (not sure if it was solid hit), 3rd also probably was hit. 2/3


54:57 - T-72B3s. 4 GL-ATGM launches, all 4 hits. 4/4


1:11:10 - T-80BVM. 1st missed, managed to hit a forst about 150-200 meters behind targets, didn't saw 2nd one (announcer didn't told about hit, i guess it missed as 1st and 2nd were launched very quickly and on videofeed of targeted tanks there were no hits) and 3rd one hit a tree behind targets. 0/3


So, in total 16 GL-ATGM launches, 8 hits.



   Viktor Murakhovskiy about this: few corrections and remarks.


   I would like to unsee this, but alas. The best tanks, the best crews in the public display of the combat capabilities of Russian weapons and such a sh**show.
   Dynamic display of armored vehicles in Alabino on August 24, 2020
   Shooting guided weapon system (GWS), ranges to targets (tanks) 2400-2700 m.

   T-90A tanks of the 27th OMsBr Brigade (from 23:34), 1A45-T FCS, 9K119 "Reflex" GWS.
1 - shot, miss
2 - "boot", disruption of guidance
3 - on target
4 - misfire, failure of the FCS? As a result, the tank did not fire at all, neither GWS nor a shell.

   Tanks T-80U of the 4th Guards TD (from 31:41). 1A45 FCS, 9K119 "Reflex" GWS.
1 - overshot, miss (before the shot, the self-oscillations of the gun barrel are clearly visible, that is, the stabilizer is not adjusted)
2 - overshot, miss
3 - "boot", disruption of guidance
4 - on target

   Tanks T-80UE1 4th Guards TD (from 42:04). 1A45-1 FCS, 9K119 "Reflex" GWS.
1 - overshot, miss
2 - "boot", disruption of guidance
3 - shot, miss
4 - on target

   Tanks T-72B3 mod. 2011, without a single tactical sign, it is quite possible that those are from those delivered by UVZ for tank biathlon, as indicated by the unpainted railway gauge on one of the cars and the Army forum label on the other (51:34). 1A40-4, "Sosna-U", 9K119 "Reflex" GWS.
1 - on target
2 - on target
3 - on target
4 - on target


   You can think of a lot of supposedly objective excuses, such as the expired designated service lives of guided missiles. But "after a fight you don't wave your fists". It hurts for our tank troops ...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Variant of BTR-82AT with BTR-BM combat module. Few pics and stats from Army 2020.












   Some more info from this thread:




   Additional protection for BMP-2 and BMP-3 in the army will be, contracts have been signed.

On BMP-2 and BMP-3 Manul, additional armor at the exhibition is not ERA, but such options exist.
BMP-3 with the Epokha (the purchase of which was promised for the Army-2017) is on trial.
BMP-3 Manul in terms of armor protection is similar to the usual BMP-3. Development is proactive under the requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense for the front engined IFV.
BMP-3 with Arena is practically forgotten.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

@LoooSeR can you explain this? "Изделие 305 внешний вид уже не секретен, в следующем году надеются получить экспортный паспорт и показать на выставке."



Link to comment
Share on other sites

   A great post by tankoff about Russian thermal imagers and sights with thermal channel.




   Shvabe holding.
   1. NPO Orion and Moscow plant Sapphire.

   MFTV (thermal imaging video signal generation module) FEM18M-03. "Our everything" for the near future in military thermal imaging. Known orders have been completed, production version is finalised.
   Unfortunately, currently FEM18M-03 uses the Chinese microcryogenic machine SCI04R (a copy of the machine of the famous Israeli company Ricor). It seems to be planned in the near future to replace it with a Russian version.
   Work is underway on a detector of the same resolution (640x512) in long-wavelength range. Megapixel detector will not be soon.



2. State Institute of Optics (NPO GIPO).

   TPVK-A, thermal imaging channel for Armata. Inside of it - FEM18. And the new channel TPVK-A-PCS for, if I'm not mistaken, the PKP-T panorama, inside is the same.












3. Krasnogorsk plant named after S. A. Zverev.







Spectral range - 3-5 μm


Field of views:
- wide 9.0x6.75 degr.

- narrow 3.0 x 2.25

- electronic zoom 1.5 x 1.12


First lense d - 85 mm


Range of identification in narrow field of view - at least 3500 m

Detection range in wide FOW - at least 4500 m


Ready time

- in normal conditions and in lower temperature up to - 50 C - 8 min

- in conditions of high t up to 55 C - 11 min

Weight of module - 8 kg, Control panel - 1 kg.



"Peleng" [Belarus]
   Thermal imaging camera Victoria-TK. An analogue of TPK-K for Peleng is made by a little-known Moscow-Novgorod company Quantum-optical systems. Inside, again, FEM18.




Spectral range - 3-5 μm

Format of sensor - 640x512 pixels



Field of views (variant 1):

- observation - 25.0 x 20
- wide 10.4 x 8.3 

- narrow 2.0 x 1.6

- electronic zoom (x2) 1.0 x 0.8


Field of views (variant 2):
- wide 9.0x6.75

- narrow 3.0 x 2.25

- electronic zoom (x2) 1.5 x 1.12

- electronic zoom (x4) 0.75 x 0.56


Range of: 

Detection  - 10000 m

Recognition - 4000 m

Identification - 2500 m


NETD - less than 30mK


Minimal FPS - 25 Hz


Ready time in normal conditions  -  less than 8 min


Weight of module - 5 kg






PNK (gunner's combined sight), a novelty from Peleng, installed in the BTR-82AT.
Thermal imaging channel on a Chinese uncooled bolometric array.


Optical and thermal imager (8-14 μm)

Laser rangefinder - monopulse, 1.54 μm


Stabilization in vertical plane

Range of: 

Detection  - 3000 m

Recognition - 1600 m


Field of views (thermal):
- wide 6.1x4.6

- narrow 3.1 x 2.3

- electronic zoom (x2) 1.5 x 1.2

Vertical range - from -5 degr. to +30


Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100-4000 m

Discreteness - 5 m



Ranges of depression and elevation - -5 to +70 degrees.

Speed of aiming 0.02-6o/s

Speed of traverse - 30o/s

rms error of LOS stabilisation - 0.15mrad



PPK (panoramic combined sight).


Panoramic observation - 360o

Ranges of depression and elevation: -15o to +60o 



Optical main

Optical observation

Thermal imager (uncooled)

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm


Stabilization - independent 2 axis

Range of (thermal): 

Detection  - 4000 m

Recognition - 2000 m


Field of views:
- wide 6.2x4.6o

- narrow 3.1o x 2.3o


Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 7000 m

Discreteness - 5 m



Independent 2 axis

Ranges of depression and elevation - -15o to +60in vertical, 360o in horizontal

Speed of aiming 0.02-10o/s

Speed of traverse - 60o/s







PKP-MPO. Inside of it - Victoria-TK.


Panoramic observation - 360o

Ranges of depression and elevation: -15o to +60o 

Can receive remote automatic commands to scew to designated angle



Optical main

Optical observation

Thermal imager

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm


Stabilization - independent 2 axis

Range of (thermal imager): 

Detection  - 7000 m

Recognition - 4000 m


Field of views:
- wide 9x 6.75o

- narrow 3o x 2.25o


Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 10000 m

Discreteness - 5 m



Independent 2 axis

Ranges of depression and elevation - -15o to +60in vertical, 360o in horizontal

Speed of aiming up to 50o/s

Speed of traverse - 80o/s






Sakura, panoramic combined sight. There is also Victoria-TK inside.


Panoramic observation - 360o

Ranges of depression and elevation: -15o to +60o 

Can receive external targeting information

9M119 guidance channel



Optical main

Optical observation

Thermal imager (3-5μm)

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm, monopulse or multipulse/frequency mode

Missile guidance with conitnues laser raster modulation for 9M119


Stabilization - independent 2 axis

Range of (thermal imager): 

Detection  - 10000 m

Recognition - 4000 m


Field of views:
- wide 25x 20o

- narrow 10o x 8.3o

- narrow with electronic zoom (2x) 10o x 1.6o


Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 15000 m

Discreteness - 5 m


Laser guidance system:

Wavelength - 0.875μm - 0.92μm 

Range - 6000m



Independent 2 axis

Ranges of depression and elevation - -15o to +75in vertical, 360o in horizontal

Speed of aiming up to 40o/s

Speed of traverse - 60o/s






MOE, optical-electronic module.






Thermal imager (8-14μm)

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm, monopulse or multipulse/frequency mode (1Hz and 5Hz)


Stabilization - image stabilisation

Range of (thermal imager): 

Detection  - 4000 m

Recognition - 2000 m


Field of views:
- wide 6.2x 4.6o

- narrow with electronic zoom (2x) 3.1o x 2.3o


Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 7500 m

Discreteness - 5 m

Range of strobing of measured distance - 90 - 5000m






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...