Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I made a model of the T-34M: Astute viewers will notice that the commander's cupola is wrong - it's supposed to be a T-50 cupola rather than the T-34/85 model I stuck on.  

Supremacy of glorious T-72 over filthy Kharkovite tractor  

Object 219M with Burlak turret, without APS

2 hours ago, Beer said:

Allegedly the Russian-made TPK-K thermal sights on the T-72B3 mod.2016. 

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4244403.html

   Viktor Murakhovskiy's telegram post, speaking about not thermal sight, but important part of it. Google translation:

 

Quote

   Thermal imaging sights, observation devices, and some missile homing systems are based on the so-called "thermal imaging video signal generation modules" (MFTV), in our terminology. Such a module is a matrix of photosensitive elements that perceive EMR in the ranges of 1-14 microns (infrared spectrum).

 

   There are no universal materials with high sensitivity to EMP in the entire IR spectrum. Therefore, the industry produces MFTVs of the near infrared range (3-5 µm) and far range (8-14 µm), which are sensitive to radiation in the so-called "transparency windows". The advantage of the 3-5 micron range is that there is less influence of atmospheric precipitation (fog, rain, snow) on the transmission of radiation. But the range is worse.

   In the region of shorter wavelengths (<2 μm), there are many passbands of near-IR, visible and ultraviolet radiation, within which optoelectronic devices of other (non-thermal) types operate. In the near range for matrices, mainly indium antimonide (InSb, a compound of indium and antimony), amorphous silicon (a-Si), and gallium arsenide (GaAs) are used. In the first case, the matrix requires deep cooling, the rest of the materials do not need cooling. At the same time, the cooled matrix has several times better sensitivity than uncooled ones.

 

   Sufficiently modern cooled MFTVs of the near infrared range (3-5 microns) with a resolution of 640х512 elements based on indium antimonide are made in Russia. Cheaper products use a microcryogenic cooling system from China, more expensive ones use a domestic one. The production of uncooled matrices based on amorphous silicon with a resolution of 640x480 elements is also well established in Russia.

   The long range (8-14 microns) has a better atmospheric transmittance and is more preferable for early warning and sighting systems. In the far-infrared range, for the production of matrices, heterostructures of the composition cadmium-mercury-tellurium (MCT, CdHgTe) are mainly used, which require deep cooling. In our country, there is a production of MFTV with CdHgTe matrices (8-10 microns) with a resolution of 640х512 elements and a proprietary microcryogenic cooling system. At the same time, cooled far-infrared MFTVs based on CdHgTe structures are many times more expensive than uncooled near-infrared systems on microbolts. They are usually used in aiming and observation systems for complex weapons: aviation, navy, armored vehicles, air defense.

 

   What did you choose for our tanks, import-substituting the French TPV-module CATHERINE-FC (installed in the Sosna-U sights)? It is known that the French have a scanned cooled SOFRADIR array with a resolution of 288x4 elements based on MCT (range 8-12 microns). The matrix scanning device generates a television signal (625 lines, 50 Hz), displayed on the monitor. We have chosen a medium-cost version of a domestic cooled matrix based on indium antimonide (range 3-5 microns) with a resolution of 640x512 elements. Sights with such a thermal imaging module TPK-K are already used in mass production of armored vehicles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Heh, Uran-9 again on TV. 5 km range of control is bad. That means control vehicle will be in range of mortars and ATGMs. Video claims that vehicle use some AI systems to help with control, but doesn't go into details. Video also shows what is under side panels - lots of equipment and it doesn't look like it is well protected.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eggs benedict said:

Based on what are they selecting the 2A42 for some moduled and 2A72 for some others?

 Why not unify them (for me the 2A72 is the way to go)

1) AFAIK 2A42 needs more space and more robust mount. If you don't have one of them, you go to 2A72.

2) Because 2A72 isn't good gun as a main weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

1) AFAIK 2A42 needs more space and more robust mount. If you don't have one of them, you go to 2A72.

 

Are you sure? I'm asking because 2A42 is mounted on helicopters and 2A72 is not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beer said:

 

Are you sure? I'm asking because 2A42 is mounted on helicopters and 2A72 is not. 

   2A42 have higher peak recoil force vs 2A72, because 2A72 have recoiling barrel which "smooths" recoil impulse, which is also used to operate the gun feed system. On top of that it is lighter and smaller as a package because of less parts and lower recoil (less material needed to manage recoil). 2A72 is about 80 kg, while 2A42 is around 110 kg. 

 

   Also:

https://weaponsystems.net/system/534-30mm+2A72

Quote

   The 2A72 is a much simplified design based on the 2A42 consisting of only 349 parts instead of 578. Unlike the 2A42 it is not gas operated but recoil operated. Unlike the fixed barrel on the 2A42 the barrel moves rearward upon firing. A new design muzzle brake is used in order to retain enough recoil to cycle the weapon. Since the initial recoil impulse is lower the 2A72 can be fitted to lighter vehicles, such as the BTR-80A.

 

   The fact that 2A42 is mounted on helicopters doesn't mean it is lighter or softer recoiling weapon. Mi-24P uses GSh-30K, double barrel autocannon that spews up to 3000 rounds per minute and put more recoil force on helicopter, enough to move it's body significantly:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that but one of the IS-2 of Lešany muzeum (4 pieces) is actually an early IS-122 with screw breach and thinner frontal armor. The tank went through many battles including Odra-Vistula offensive and Prague operation. After the war it was used by Czechoslovak army till 1949. It spent most of its life as a memorial in Přelouč town but in 1990 it was moved to muzeum and in 2014 restored to working condition. 

 

Photos including some curious details from the restoration (like broken torsion bar) are here

 

The tank can be seen moving for example in this video @ 19:00 and 19:55. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   That burst at 0:45 with rounds landing everywhere around target, kek. This means that for effective use of 30 mm against point target this vehicle will need to get close, close enough that even light ATGMs with limited range (like ~2km) will be able to reach it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the T-34 discussion is very much off topic in the German thread I post here several norms valid for T-34-85 used by ČSLA (the tanks were somewhat different to Soviet ones in various technical modifications however the earlier ones used many original Soviet components from WW2 production). The source is a book: Hlavní takticko-technická data tankové a automobiní techniky ČSLA.

 

Basic check: during stops on march or combat or whenever needed

Basic service: 150-200 km

Technical service 1: 500-600 km

Technical service 2: 1000-1200 km

Medium repair: 3000 km

General repair: 6000 km

 

Unfortunately I don't know what exactly was subject of each service or repair but anyway it looks like basically nothing major was considered necessary before reaching 3000 km. 

 

Normative times for component change:

- engine 39,3 h

- gearbox 22,8 h

- main clutch 21,6 h

- steering clutch 23,6 h

- track - 2,6 h

- bogey wheel - 2,5 h

- first wheel arm - 4,4 h

- arms of other wheels - 3,2 h

- sprocket wheel - 3,3 h

- idler wheel - 3,7 h

- track tensioning - 4,8 h

- gun - 9,8 h

- turret - 5,9 h

 

Regarding the discussed about air filters there is only an information that Czechoslovak tanks used different filters BTI-3 with ejector cleaning. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   That burst at 0:45 with rounds landing everywhere around target, kek. This means that for effective use of 30 mm against point target this vehicle will need to get close, close enough that even light ATGMs with limited range (like ~2km) will be able to reach it.

I were wondering many times, aside this thing being stupid in probably every aspect, wouldn't just making new muzzle break that doesn't interfere with the 2nd gun make them more accurate during rapid fire? Like it ain't rocket science to figure out that the current accuracy during burst firing is bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Volke said:

I were wondering many times, aside this thing being stupid in probably every aspect, wouldn't just making new muzzle break that doesn't interfere with the 2nd gun make them more accurate during rapid fire? Like it ain't rocket science to figure out that the current accuracy during burst firing is bad.

   This is one of the least problems of that vehicle. Just the type of main weaponry of this vehicle alone is strange and fixing different muzzle brake will not solve a problem of tactical niche vs actual design of BMPT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://rg.ru/2021/02/10/poiavilos-pervoe-foto-opytnogo-obrazca-broneavtomobilia-lasok-4-p.html

Quote

   Tests of the Russian ultra-compact armored vehicle Lasok 4-P are underway. Sergei Tolmachev, director of the Innovative Chassis PCC, told RG: Russian Weapons that a prototype was created on an initiative basis last year.

   Some company decided to plop out weirdo armored car.

image

 

Quote

   This vehicle is airmobile, it is optimized for internal placement in multipurpose helicopters Mi-8 AMTSh and Mi-171Sh.

/.../

   The purpose of Lasok 4-P is to carry out tasks as part of special units, forward and reconnaissance groups. Such vehicles can also be used for patrolling, ensuring the actions of engineering and assault units in various conditions: block buildings, mountains, difficult rugged terrain.

   The curb weight of the prototype is 2045 kg, the total weight is up to 2700 kg, the weight of the transported cargo is about 650 kg. In the future, it is planned that the weight will be reduced to 1900 kg, while the carrying capacity will be increased to 800 kg. Height - 1720 mm, width - 1880 mm, length - 4580 mm. If the body of the cargo compartment is folded, the length of the machine will be reduced to 3970 mm.

 

   The engine, other components and assemblies - from serial light off-road chassis of domestic manufacturers.

   As a weapon, it is possible to use a 12.7-mm Kord machine gun, as well as cal. 7.62 mm and 5.45 mm. It is planned to create an amphibious modification, as well as a Lasok-REP version with special equipment to combat low-flying drones.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   This is one of the least problems of that vehicle. Just the type of main weaponry of this vehicle alone is strange and fixing different muzzle brake will not solve a problem of tactical niche vs actual design of BMPT.

 

I always thought the original "Model 2000" (nickname of course) version of the 199 made the most sens of the modern BMPTs. Single 2A42 + 4 Kornets instead of the wacky setup they settled on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I always thought the original "Model 2000" (nickname of course) version of the 199 made the most sens of the modern BMPTs. Single 2A42 + 4 Kornets instead of the wacky setup they settled on.

   None of UVZ attempts in BMPT under Object 199 designations made much sense. If BMPT was a jet fighter, it would be an F-22 without a radar, armed with 2 gun pods, 1 AA missile mounted on externally on one wing and crew of 4 for some reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Beer said:

Because the T-34 discussion is very much off topic in the German thread I post here several norms valid for T-34-85 used by ČSLA (the tanks were somewhat different to Soviet ones in various technical modifications however the earlier ones used many original Soviet components from WW2 production). The source is a book: Hlavní takticko-technická data tankové a automobiní techniky ČSLA.

 

 

Yes, the post war T-34,especially those that were manufactured by Poland and Czechslovakia were different beasts compared to WW2 soviet production. These were built in far higher quality standards, and were generally far more reliable. Also featured improved components. This was the experience in hungarian army. The book T-34 Mythical Weapon also says the same.

20 hours ago, Beer said:

Regarding the discussed about air filters there is only an information that Czechoslovak tanks used different filters BTI-3 with ejector cleaning. 

Exactly. That was an excellent and reliable filter, introduced in the 50s that finally solved the problem of severe dust wear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

Yes, the post war T-34,especially those that were manufactured by Poland and Czechslovakia were different beasts compared to WW2 soviet production. These were built in far higher quality standards, and were generally far more reliable. Also featured improved components. This was the experience in hungarian army. The book T-34 Mythical Weapon also says the same.

 

Well, per our historical records there were plenty of problems and manufacturing defects with our own built T-34 and large percentage of tanks was not even accepted by the army at first. It took a long time to get the production working well. 

 

Per the records of our tank brigade in USSR (and previous smaller units) operating tanks between 1943-45 there were no major complains about T-34 except having not enough of them (they got table numbers of tanks only before Odra-Vistula offensive) however most of the reports about reliability and mainteanance issues turn around BA-64B and T-70M. After the war we had major issues with our semi-officially handed* IS-2 due to having no spare parts train established (we kept running them solely by canibalizing battlefield wrecks for nearly 15 years) but not with T-34 from wartime production.

 

The tank brigade during combat used a lot of tanks which were simply put together from wrecks on the battlefield and one of such tanks (originally Soviet tank brigade vehicle destroyed near Ostrava) was in service till 1959 obtaining a new serial number only more than five years after the war. Another one which made it to Prague in May 1945 was an ex-Soviet, ex-German T-34 captured near Čáslav in May 1945. 

 

* When the fighting was over the whole Czechoslovak armed corps in USSR was able to show only around 20 badly battered T-34 in a victory parade in Prague therefore the Soviets borrowed us 8 IS-2/IS-122 for the parade where the drivers were Soviet and the rest of the crews was "Czechoslovak". Since nobody ever asked the vehicles to be returned back, they stayed. Three tanks somewhere disappeared in the history and nobody knows what happened to them. The rest shall be preserved till today (at least four for sure, fifth probably as well). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We used both soviet and polish T-34s. Generally, the polish tanks were significantly more reliable, and were better built. Transmission failures were a common thing however, especially the older 4 speed gearboxes failed frequently, which were still present in some soviet built tanks. Also the steering difficulties remained. (not just the excessive physical effort, the overheating of steering brakes was a serious problem too)

The T-54 that arrived later was just a wholly different world. Lightyears ahead in every imaginable aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Four speed gearbox was replaced since 1943 T-34-76, i.e. any tank with the old gearbox was a worn-out machine, which was produced in a critical phase of the war and which spent at least two years in combat. It's normal that such tank is not as reliable as post-war newly built machines. 

 

T-54 being better in every aspect is natural thing. That's why it was created in first place. That comparison makes no sense at all. I can aslo say that T-34 was in every aspect better than T-26 and I would be just as right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

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



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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...