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 post
Share on other sites
  • 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.  

Development of future Soviet tank in 80-s and was a continuation of works started in 1970-s under designation “Project 101”. Necessity for development was grounded by the development of next generatio

Supremacy of glorious T-72 over filthy Kharkovite tractor  

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 post
Share on other sites

   This is interesting look inside of T-72B mod 1985. First few sections of video shows some button pressing/playing around with autoloader/FCS/sights. With ok-ish Eng subs.

   BTW, this youtube channel is basically Russian Demoranch, but with bigger guns.

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

Is the complete Vystrel hul made of double-layered armor plates? It looks so. 

IIRC yes, but not sure if it is true for entire family of armored vehicles. 

 

Also, turret is armed with 2A42 30 mm autocannon instead of 2A72.

Link to post
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 post
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 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...