Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

@Andrei_bt, thank you for posting that translation.  It is a good article.  I have a few questions:

 

-Were there any designation differences between T-64s with the aluminum-filled turret vs the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel?  Or were they all just called T-64A?

 

-When did the T-64 get a straight hull glacis plate without the "cheekbones?"

-Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

 

Afaik the fibreglass material used on the glacis requires a lot of slope to work efficiently, which makes it bad for turrets.

 

3 hours ago, Xlucine said:

To save weight, around 450lbs. About half the stuff in the national archives on chieftain is hand-wringing about how they can make it lighter

 

Interesting. Still seems a bit odd, that the UK originally was planning with a frontal arc of 60°, while other NATO tank designs were focused on a much smaller arc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

@Andrei_bt, thank you for posting that translation.  It is a good article.  I have a few questions:

 

-Were there any designation differences between T-64s with the aluminum-filled turret vs the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel?  Or were they all just called T-64A?

 

-When did the T-64 get a straight hull glacis plate without the "cheekbones?"

-Do you know why the fiberglass/steel composite material used in the hull was not also used in the turret?  They seem to have given similar protection.

 

There were no T-64 with the aluminum oxide spheres vs the high hardness steel in mass productin.

Only T-64A were with the aluminum ceramic vs the high hardness steel.

Designation were only drawings numbers.

 

Problems with cheeks Cheekbones were stresed by minister of defence industry in 1965. Drawings dated that year show tanks with a straight hull glacis plate.

 

It did not provide reqired iffecency, also look at the shape of turret - it is rounded, hard to place rectangel plates there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

They are from solid sourse (VNIITM) book on tank design by Isakov, now declasified.

 

Well, could you share the penetration values of armor-piercing ammunitions for D-10T and U-5TS tank guns ? So that I could compare with my own data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be a bit off-topic but:
Why did the US engineers chose such a huge copula?

If they wanted protection for the operator of the machine gun, why not use a remote operated one?
And if they wanted a high vantage  point with good vision, why not use periscopes? 

 

 

And, what is the protection requirement for a copula? Minimum against HMGs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

5Wu1Hxc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The arguments I have seen revolve around fighting in an NBC environment.

 

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

So the reason for adding the heavy and bulky copula was so that the commander could service and reload the MG under armor and with NBC protection. 
 

Not really worth it in my opinion.

 

 

Thanks for the info though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.

 

The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.

 

Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:

 

5Wu1Hxc.jpg

 

Argghhh what sucks really really bad is that M73 M219 & M85 machine gun development saga actually justified the killing of US Army Ordnance pretty thoroughly since the abortions that those 3 guns turned out to be was entirely the result of the original designer of the root gun refusing a job offer at one of the Arsenal's after selling the working and thoroughly debugged design to Army ordnance, he took an offer to work at colt instead,  and in a fit of irrational stupidity said arsenal hired TRW to "evaluate" (read evaluate as fix the fucker until it's irretrievably broken) the design they just purchased. The guy that was in charge of the redesign supposedly needed to fix all the "flaws" TRW "found" was pretty much known as a consummate douche canoe already and never once owned up to taking a production ready gun and turning it into irredeemable shit either!

 

The designer of the gun was Russell S. Robinson, and in the decade or so British ordnance or whatever messed with it but never managed to buy the very good gun that stayed a very good gun over something like a decade of playing with the gun ... You'd think they would have noticed all these serious flaws and safety issues TRW "found"!

 

 Robinson was understandably irritated by this turn of events, but GE was flat fucking pissed off since they wound up running the arsenal and having the now thoroughly fucked formerly working gun dropped in their laps after Army Ordnance got killed for one too many such incidents where bureaucrats who acted more like bitchy teenage girls actively sabotaged a design because their feelings were more important than defending the free world from dirty commies.

 

And the tool bag project manager, you guessed it! 

 

He told anyone and everyone who would listen that the gun worked great after his team fixed the fatally flawed design and GE chose not to keep him on when they wound up in charge of the arsenal, therefore GE must have changed something!

 

Yes folks, he is the original SHIT LORD in whose image all other lesser shit lords since him have failed to measure up to his standards of consummate and uncompromising cradle to the grave shit lording!

 

Dude has to be like 90 now, but I swear to God.... He's the one old man I'd beat like a red headed step child if I ever met him face to face!

 

Really really hate that guy...

 

For those wondering, I'm pretty sure that the gun in question was the Robinson model 33 but I can't find the damn PDF of both fighting firearms articles for some reason.

 

P.S: Australia, England, and JSSAP you guys suck too for, you know, not adopting any of the guns he developed for you guys...

 

Especially England and Australia

 

Here's why:

 

Australia aka the original sin...

So the Australian government put out this completely insane set of requirements for a new machine gun. It was a very long list but here's the really fun one's (from memory here and I'm not certain if the fire rate piece got tacked on later to their already "totally reasonable and easy to meet" list of initial requirements)

1. Must be in .50 caliber BMG

2. Must fit in aircraft wing and other gun stations which currently have .303 Browning anm2 guns installed.

3. Must not exceed the peak trunnion force generated by the .303 anm2 guns installed.

4. Must match the fire rate of .50 BMG aircraft machine guns (were the .50 BMG versions anm2 also or anm3?)

 

Completely sane and reasonable list... Which is why Robinson's design was the only one submitted & or the only one that even came close to meeting the requirements. And yes, over a remarkably short development period he met all 4 of the requirements above. (anyone who tells you his design was rejected because of low fire rate just assumed that GD was at least as competent & or with the 50 years of technological advancements couldn't possibly fail so miserably to even reach the bar Robinson set so long ago with XM307/XM312... They underestimated GD grievously) He actually achieved comparable fire rates to the browning aircraft specific .50's and apparently wound up with pretty comparable receiver life which statistically speaking was perfectly acceptable because the planes tended to be destroyed before the guns wore out.

 

Australia and if I recall right did the only logical thing when someone managed to actually meet the requirements... They didn't put the gun in production.

 

Onto England now!

 

We cannot let ourselves be outdone by a prison continent:

 

Robinson is now in England, the war is still ongoing. Robinson develops about the simplest possible ring mount that you can for a simplified ring mount competition (I believe this is pre D day, and people realize that a majority of, if not every truck they send over to supply the march towards Berlin needs a ring mount and some sort of machine gun.) Robinson designs a universal ring mount that will fit any machine gun a trucker can "liberate". Being an overachiever he designs a full auto only .50 BMG gun that feeds from top fed 20 round detachable box magazines.

 

Seeing their requirements met and exceeded even, England does the only sensible thing and doesn't buy the gun or the ring mount.

 

Then there's the model 11 machine pistol which Robinson figures out how to make a single hand friendly machine pistol which any idiot can kill the shit out of you with where even the magazine auto ejects once empty, and the Stock is essentially a piece of steel tube that screws into the bottom rear of the pistol grip. Seeing that someone somehow actually succeeded, whichever Commonwealth nation decides that the requirements were too easy and decides that it should function and have an accuracy in semiautomatic like a hi power... Robinson was from all evidence on his way to figuring it out, but something happened and no one produced this either. (It was the only sensible thing to do)

 

JSSAP epilogue: the model 11 nee 14 is now the model 16 idk wtf happened here but I'd sure love to find out. If anybody has anything about this of any sort please let me know.

 

The moral to this story: If you want to design machine guns that are really truly good, especially if they're lightweight...

 

Be born Russian

Edited by roguetechie
Jerry springer's final thought: Warsaw Pact edition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning of 60-s cast turrets with composite armor were introduced for T-64, T-64A (later for T-72A and T-80B) which had a significant protection against shaped-charge projectiles and APDS rounds. Such protection provided Soviet tanks with protection superiority over western designed tanks of that time like M60A and “Chieftain”. But in same period of time in the 1-st half of 70-s it became evident, that future development of tank cast turrets has no long term perspectives comparing to welded design. An experimental turret was tested with results published in 1977 special literature.

image005.jpg

Development of welded turrets for post-WW2 tanks in USSR, Russia and Ukraine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been writing:

" An effective cellular type “special armor” installed in turret cavities. (...) Due to “special armor” functioning peculiarities there is an intermediate plate dividing “special armor” cavity into two pats. Into each of them plates with cells filled with polymer resin are installed"

So more or less Oplot-M turret armour is no diffrent then Ob.219AS? Polymer cels in cast BTK-1? Some information sugest completly difrent "special armour" in Oplot ;-) Rather simillar to the on of the T-80UD version whit SiC in steel sheets oraz cermaics in steel sheets.

NzkfYrT.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how about hull? Factory welding shown obviously Duplet module and...space and STEF and backplate -nothing more to be honest.

 

d4q5ThQ.jpg

 

5UDtIAU.jpg

 

VVmzuev.png

 

JE0Fslr.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

In the beginning of 60-s cast turrets with composite armor were introduced for T-64, T-64A (later for T-72A and T-80B) which had a significant protection against shaped-charge projectiles and APDS rounds. Such protection provided Soviet tanks with protection superiority over western designed tanks of that time like M60A and “Chieftain”. But in same period of time in the 1-st half of 70-s it became evident, that future development of tank cast turrets has no long term perspectives comparing to welded design. An experimental turret was tested with results published in 1977 special literature.
Development of welded turrets for post-WW2 tanks in USSR, Russia and Ukraine

Very good article , Can I translate this article into Chinese and share to Chinese Forum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Militarysta said:

You have been writing:

" An effective cellular type “special armor” installed in turret cavities. (...) Due to “special armor” functioning peculiarities there is an intermediate plate dividing “special armor” cavity into two pats. Into each of them plates with cells filled with polymer resin are installed"

So more or less Oplot-M turret armour is no diffrent then Ob.219AS? Polymer cels in cast BTK-1? Some information sugest completly difrent "special armour" in Oplot ;-) Rather simillar to the on of the T-80UD version whit SiC in steel sheets oraz cermaics in steel sheets.

NzkfYrT.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how about hull? Factory welding shown obviously Duplet module and...space and STEF and backplate -nothing more to be honest.

 

d4q5ThQ.jpg

 

 

Well, BTK-1 is rolled armor for hull and turrets inserts in 80s, it's not cast.

   cells can be both cast and rolled (drilled-in). Hull is another question, it has 1 non metallic plate instead of 2 in t-80ud-84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-reading @Andrei_bt's article on the early T-64's protection, it actually sounds like the one thing that chieftain's would have been good at was taking out T-64s.  Their APDS would have been poor to marginal against the turret, but would have reliably penetrated the hull.  I'm not sure any other NATO weapon system around at the time of the T-64's introduction would have reliably killed it from the front.  Even the early BGM-71s didn't quite have enough penetration.

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

  • 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...