Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 4/6/2021 at 9:32 PM, Atokara said:

I don't understand the need to make a single platform that does everything ok, but nothing really well. I thought everyone realized this when the North Korean's started putting both ATGM's and MANPADS on their MBTs. Let's say you send one of these out to patrol with a few infantry squads and it gets destroyed. Congrats, now your fire support, air defense, and anti-tank power are gone from a single RPG/IED.

I mean... North Koreans have to so because they lack modern SPAAG/SHORAD and their tanks' main guns are pretty crappy as well. Adding existing ATGMs is a pretty easy way to significantly improve the tank's fire power when compared with creating a brand new high performance APFSDS shell from scratch. Same thing applies to MANPADS on tanks. They literally add 14.5mm AA machineguns and MANPADS on every single AFVs they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/Rehearsal-in-Alabino-9-April-2021/i-HJJhwkC

   Some photos by Vitaliy Kuzmin:

 

K-4386-PVO / Typhoon-PVO armored vehicle (full of MANPADS)

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

   Typhoon K-53949 / KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K 4x4 with Kord HMG and gunner light protection

image

 

   Typhoon K-53949 / KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K 4x4 with 5ETs16U RCWS

image

 

   Typhoon K-4386 / KAMAZ-4386 Typhoon-VDV with 32V01 unmanned turret and 30 mm 2A42 AC.

image

 

   BMP-2M Berezhok

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

   BMP-3 and BMD-4M

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

   T-72B3 mod 2016/UBKh and T-90M

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Russia upgrading T-80's, T-72's and T-90's? This seems reminiscent of the cold war days of procuring three relatively similar tanks that have virtually no commonality.... I understand the T-14 was meant to solve this, but that appears to be a glorified tech demonstrator. So why don't they just settle on one design? I understand someone told me earlier the Turbine T-80's function better in the artic, but this doesn't seem like enough of a justification for operating an entirely different tank.... If anything why dont they just create a T-72 variant with turbines in them at that point.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Why is Russia upgrading T-80's, T-72's and T-90's? 

   Answer should be obvious. You have a lot of tanks in working conduction and majority of them are fine for the caliber of enemies you are realistically going to fight, like Ukraine, Georgia and so on. Why you want to throw them away? That is a waste of big investment that are each of those combat vehicles.

 

5 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

I understand the T-14 was meant to solve this, but that appears to be a glorified tech demonstrator. 

   You don't understand. 

 

5 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

So why don't they just settle on one design? 

   How you are going to settle on one design when your storages are full of different tanks that are not easily converted into each other or some kind of middle ground model?

 

5 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

If anything why dont they just create a T-72 variant with turbines in them at that point.... 

   T-80 chassis was one of parts that engineers were working on because of turbine. And again, conversion of existing tanks from storages by bolting on new ERA and sights is easier and way cheaper than taking T-72 and redesigning chassis, engine compartment, fuel system, cooling and air filters, etc, testing it, push through year(s) long state trials to get "O1" letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a little odd how a nation that benefited so much from standardization would produce and use so many different vehicles. Since I don’t know the history or circumstances that lead to those decisions, I’m not going to say any more. 
 

I do have a question, though: is the turret diameter the same across the T-64 through T-90? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Answer should be obvious. You have a lot of tanks in working conduction and majority of them are fine for the caliber of enemies you are realistically going to fight, like Ukraine, Georgia and so on. Why you want to throw them away? That is a waste of big investment that are each of those combat vehicles.

Isn't it more expensive to maintain and produce spare parts for these three different platforms? 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   You don't understand. 

That's why I am asking

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   How you are going to settle on one design when your storages are full of different tanks that are not easily converted into each other or some kind of middle ground model?

Because wasn't that literally the states objective of the ARMATA platform? 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   T-80 chassis was one of parts that engineers were working on because of turbine. And again, conversion of existing tanks from storages by bolting on new ERA and sights is easier and way cheaper than taking T-72 and redesigning chassis, engine compartment, fuel system, cooling and air filters, etc, testing it, push through year(s) long state trials to get "O1" letter. 

Okay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Isn't it more expensive to maintain and produce spare parts for these three different platforms? 

   Not really.

   Speaking production wise, parts for T-90 are produced on same machines as for T-72, as they are similar/same. So production of parts is effectively for 1.5 vehicles as T-64 is not in production, as T-80 AFAIK.

   Second reason is keeping companies alive.

 

7 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Because wasn't that literally the states objective of the ARMATA platform?

   New gen vehicle, it would have been single/unified chassis in any case. 

 

10 hours ago, Lord_James said:

It is a little odd how a nation that benefited so much from standardization would produce and use so many different vehicles. Since I don’t know the history or circumstances that lead to those decisions, I’m not going to say any more. 
 

I do have a question, though: is the turret diameter the same across the T-64 through T-90? 

1) Mainly politics and Kharkovites failing at main battle tank, specifically "main" part. They designed a vehicle that most of country tank factories couldn't produce, on top of being not reliable enough. 

   Because of that T-72 was given a green light, as more sensible combat machine. T-80 grew from prototypes with gas turbines that were noted by generals and became mostly political matter.

   T-90 was also somewhat complicated, but at least it had a lot of commonality with 72.

 

2) 1815mm for T-55/72/80/90. Burlak turret was supposed to be unified turret for 72s and 80s. Main problem is autoloader design and layout of autoloader area, as plenty of parts are packed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

So production of parts is effectively for 1.5 vehicles as T-64 is not in production, as T-80 AFAIK.

IIRC some T-80Bs and T-80BVs were set aside to be cannibalized for spare parts for the T-80BVMs for the rest of their service life. It's possible spare parts are still being produced somewhere, but I doubt it, wouldn't make much sense to keep factories building parts for 40 year old tanks when it's clear that the army doesn't really care for the T-80 in the first place.

19 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Isn't it more expensive to maintain and produce spare parts for these three different platforms? 

Read above, it really isn't any extra burden, and of course there is even parts commonality between designs, i.e. the gun.

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Second reason is keeping companies alive.

Is LKZ even involved with the T-80s anymore? I thought UVZ was handling all the work.

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

) Mainly politics and Kharkovites failing at main battle tank, specifically "main" part. They designed a vehicle that most of country tank factories couldn't produce, on top of being not reliable enough.

You're implying that the T-64 was even designed to be a universal tank for the Soviets, when it most likely wasn't. KMDB had entered this sort of rythm where they would design a high tech tank, and then UVZ would spool up production of a derivative of that tank a few years later when the technology had matured. This happened with the T-34, the T-54, and yes the T-64.

 

Really, UVZ wasn't even the first to conceptualize a T-64 with a V-12 diesel, KMDB did make about 10 of those V-12 powered T-64 and T-64A prototypes, Object 436 I think.

 

So, the T-64 was never designed to equip the entire Soviet Union let alone it's client states, it was merely designed to catch up to(and surpass) western designs, since the Soviets had fallen pretty far behind by using nothing more than T-54 derivatives for over a decade. Yes, the T-62 was a good stepping stone, but it wasn't enough to properly scare the west, and that's the role that the T-64 played.

 

As for the reliability problems, understand that it's incredibly common for a new design of tank engine to have some teething problems. The 5TD was a totally novel design, AFAIK it was the first opposed piston tank engine, and certainly the first of it's kind within the USSR. Those early mechanical problems have probably ruined it's legacy, first impressions are always the strongest, but in the end the 5TD did mature into something pretty impressive, especially given it's size.

 

If the T-64B and T-64BV were as unreliable as people claim (based on those bad early experiences with the T-64 and T-64A), it certainly wouldn't be running in practically third world conditions with no maintenance well into the 21st century.

 

It wasn't a great tank on it's own, but if nothing else it can probably be described as the best technology demonstrator the world of tank design has ever seen.

Edited by watch_your_fire
Changed some phrasing, came across as too opinionated, also added a little conclusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

IIRC some T-80Bs and T-80BVs were set aside to be cannibalized for spare parts for the T-80BVMs for the rest of their service life. It's possible spare parts are still being produced somewhere, but I doubt it, wouldn't make much sense to keep factories building parts for 40 year old tanks when it's clear that the army doesn't really care for the T-80 in the first place.

   Old FCS systems are no longer in production, so for upgraded tanks they had to put something new in them anyway. Engine and suspension assemblies are probably in low production.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

Read above, it really isn't any extra burden, and of course there is even parts commonality between designs, i.e. the gun.

   Umm, not even gun if we speak about T-64/T-80 and T-72/T-90. Those vehicles have little common as parts go.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

Is LKZ even involved with the T-80s anymore? I thought UVZ was handling all the work.

   Omsk is responsible for T-80BVMs.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

You're implying that the T-64 was even designed to be a universal tank for the Soviets,

   AFAIK it was supposed to be put into production in all major tank factories in USSR, so it was intendent to be Main battle tank.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

when it most likely wasn't.

   Idea was to prepare rest of factories for production of T-64, but engine production was main problem for rest of factories and their suppliers.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

KMDB had entered this sort of rythm where they would design a high tech tank, and then UVZ would spool up production of a derivative of that tank a few years later when the technology had matured. This happened with the T-34, the T-54, and yes the T-64.

   What? I don't remember Kharkov making T-34 and UVZ shortly later creating "T-42" that had nothing in common with T-34 except general looks to replace it and went into serial production togather with T-34. Same with T-54.

 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

So, the T-64 was never designed to equip the entire Soviet Union let alone it's client states

   It was. T-72 was somewhat a result of those plans not working out as was invisioned. Problems with production, costs/price of T-64s played a role of T-72 gaining momentum.

 

   UVZ pumped almost twice as much of T-72 compared to T-64s. In T-72 production ChTZ was also involved after 1980. There was a need in new tanks and Kharkov production couldn't covered it. 

image 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Omsk is responsible for T-80BVMs.

Oh, I knew they were acquired by UVZ but I didn't know that they were still operating under the Omsk name.

54 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

What? I don't remember Kharkov making T-34 and UVZ shortly later creating "T-42" that had nothing in common with T-34 except general looks to replace it and went into serial production togather with T-34. Same with T-54.

Not T-42, T-43, which was developed by KMDB in their time at UVZ... it's kind of weird, I don't know who to credit with it.

In any case, the turret of the T-43 was then developed into the T-34-85, which was produced by UVZ in massive numbers.

 

The pattern holds pretty well over most of the Soviet Union's existence. Kharkov develops the T-34, and a few years later UVZ starts churning out T-34-85s en masse. Kharkov develops the T-54, UVZ produces a lot of them, and then develops their own T-55, and produces even more. Kharkov develops the T-64, and then a few years later UVZ comes out with the T-72.

 

In the world of computer hardware development, Intel famously coined the "Tick-Tock" development method, which I think is a pretty fitting allegory here. The "Tick" is a completely new design, and it is always followed by the "Tock", which is a derivative of that "Tick" only with all the teething problems and bugs sorted out. You see this pattern in all sorts of technological development.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

 It was. T-72 was somewhat a result of those plans not working out as was invisioned. Problems with production, costs/price of T-64s played a role of T-72 gaining momentum.

 

   UVZ pumped almost twice as much of T-72 compared to T-64s. In T-72 production ChTZ was also involved after 1980. There was a need in new tanks and Kharkov production couldn't covered it.

Of course, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

But..... That was always how it had been. Kharkov had never been able to produce tanks in numbers large enough to equip the Soviet union. I don't think even on day 1 that the top brass was dumb enough to believe that Kharkov was going to produce their new super tank in numbers large enough to equip the whole Union, especially when historically that had not been the case, as in T-54/55 production UVZ had to do most of the actual work in building them in large numbers.

 

I think we're 90% in agreement here anyways so I'm sorry this was so long winded, my goal with all of this was just to show @AssaultPlazmathat having an ecosystem of multiple tank platforms being developed at the same time actually isn't a bad thing for militaries that can afford it, and the legacy of all this rapid development and rivalry between designers during the Soviet era is that Russia has inherited a surprisingly diverse and profitable tank industry, whose ability to keep developing multiple platforms at the same time is a strength, rather than a weakness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Oh, I knew they were acquired by UVZ but I didn't know that they were still operating under the Omsk name.

Not T-42, T-43, which was developed by KMDB in their time at UVZ... it's kind of weird, I don't know who to credit with it.

   "T-42" in my post was not a real vehicle, allusion to T-72/T-64 situation.

 

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

In any case, the turret of the T-43 was then developed into the T-34-85, which was produced by UVZ in massive numbers.

 

The pattern holds pretty well over most of the Soviet Union's existence. Kharkov develops the T-34, and a few years later UVZ starts churning out T-34-85s en masse. Kharkov develops the T-54, UVZ produces a lot of them, and then develops their own T-55, and produces even more. Kharkov develops the T-64, and then a few years later UVZ comes out with the T-72.

   This is not really a pattern and very much not a design/production procedure. T-80, T-62, T-44 doesn't fit here. Also, T-34-85 situation was different because it is hard to produce tanks in Ukraine in 1943-44 for obvious reasons, and -85s generally were produced not only by Ural. And decision to make T-34-85 the way it is was on USSR military. So you are left with T-54 and T-64. In T-54 case UVZ didn't do much, it was modernisation only, not a new design. So only T-64 is left for this theory/pattern.

 

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

In the world of computer hardware development, Intel famously coined the "Tick-Tock" development method, which I think is a pretty fitting allegory here. The "Tick" is a completely new design, and it is always followed by the "Tock", which is a derivative of that "Tick" only with all the teething problems and bugs sorted out. You see this pattern in all sorts of technological development.

   This is not a computer hardware. Each tanks cost a lot of manhours, machine hours to produce, all that cost is obvious in price of each vehicle. We are not counting on use of rare earth materials, costs of buying expensive production machines (for T-64 production line plenty of new equipment was bought, including from capitalist countries).

   And spend all this human work, time and resources just to make a beta version of a tank that can't be produced in numbers needed to equip Army? Why even bother in the first time with this?

 

   With tanks you are better to develop new vehicle in first try. And put new design in "generations" instead of constantly creating and putting into service tanks with big differences in chassis, engines and other production intensive pieces. Soviet Union failed at that with T-64, T-72 and T-80 line of tanks. Each vehicle was pretty good individually compared to contemporary "Western" MBTs, but strategicallly it was a failure.

 

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Of course, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

But..... That was always how it had been. Kharkov had never been able to produce tanks in numbers large enough to equip the Soviet union. I don't think even on day 1 that the top brass was dumb enough to believe that Kharkov was going to produce their new super tank in numbers large enough to equip the whole Union, especially when historically that had not been the case, as in T-54/55 production UVZ had to do most of the actual work in building them in large numbers.

   Idea was to equip other plants and produce single tank design, which as we know failed. And yes, top brass are humans that can do dumb decisions. There are plenty of evidence of that. Like Soviet political leadership and ruling "class" managing to get whole Soviet Empire to collapse on its own.

 

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

I think we're 90% in agreement here anyways so I'm sorry this was so long winded, my goal with all of this was just to show @AssaultPlazmathat having an ecosystem of multiple tank platforms being developed at the same time actually isn't a bad thing for militaries that can afford it, and the legacy of all this rapid development and rivalry between designers during the Soviet era is that Russia has inherited a surprisingly diverse and profitable tank industry, whose ability to keep developing multiple platforms at the same time is a strength, rather than a weakness.

   Jesus, our conclusions on situation is completely opposite.

 

   What the hell "ecosystem of multiplie tank platforms" even mean? Having unstadartised combat vehicles occupuing same role is a good thing suddenly if you throw enough money at it? Parts commonality when 2 units fighting together on the frontline but having completely different set of AFVs with limited logistical support becoming not a problem if your miltiary budget is big enough to survive expanses of production of thise diverse lines of vehicles for the same roles?

 

    Russia inherited a mess of tank industry, most of which didn't survived to this day. They only profitable thing we have left from USSR tank industry are T-90s and T-90As.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the only major thing taken from the T-43 to the T-34/85 the turret and even that one with different gun? I mean the torsion bar suspension, the new gearbox, removal of bow-gunner/radio operator, different fuel tanks and other new features never migrated to the T-34 and thus claiming that T-43 evolved into T-34/85 seems to me to be a bit over the top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beer said:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the only major thing taken from the T-43 to the T-34/85 the turret and even that one with different gun? I mean the torsion bar suspension, the new gearbox, removal of bow-gunner/radio operator, different fuel tanks and other new features never migrated to the T-34 and thus claiming that T-43 evolved into T-34/85 seems to me to be a bit over the top. 

   T-43 turret was chosen just because it had space and was ~ready for production. There is nothing more in this story, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 12:28 PM, Beer said:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the only major thing taken from the T-43 to the T-34/85 the turret and even that one with different gun? I mean the torsion bar suspension, the new gearbox, removal of bow-gunner/radio operator, different fuel tanks and other new features never migrated to the T-34 and thus claiming that T-43 evolved into T-34/85 seems to me to be a bit over the top. 

 

On 4/26/2021 at 2:16 PM, LoooSeR said:

   T-43 turret was chosen just because it had space and was ~ready for production. There is nothing more in this story, really.

 

It would be remiss to not note that the T-43 turret wasn't even new! It was a mild reworking of the T-34M turret developed by Kharkovites before the war started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

Same protection levels as BMP-3, but in bigger package. Excellent new tech right here, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Same protection levels as BMP-3, but in bigger package. Excellent new tech right here, heh.

part of front can be a bit stronger than BMP-3, but due to impossibility installation of ERA on front...kinda... BMP3+ERA(can swim with ERA)+APS and no need in any kurgovnec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...