Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Ukrainian armor - Oplot-M, T-64M Bulat and other.


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Proper, god-fearing Soviet tanks use four-stroke diesel engines.  When the tank is cruising, the engine should be happy and produce very little smoke.  But when the engine is suddenly changing RPM, th

BM "Oplot"     Ukrainian designers managed to make biggest panoramic sight i ever saw - overall weight of it is reaching 500 kg.            Oplot-M, or BM "Oplot" after addoption to service i

Undisputable evidence of Russian aggression against the Mighty and Unified Independent State of Ukraine! Behold these vehicles personally blessed by Ramzan Kadyrov when issued to GRU GSh FSB GIBDD spe

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
On 5/14/2019 at 9:40 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

I understand that, it's made clear in the article - but at 3'11" you're gonna have to be crouching - and I don't think that 19.5" per dismount is enough width to actually fit guys in - that's similar in size to notoriously cramped economy class airline seats, which aren't going to fit an infantryman, crouching, in combat gear.

3 feet 11 inches, about 120cm is normal interior height for most of the sedans.

70cm is absolutely enough for shoulders.

 

Why ifv are used like a troop transporter?! 

Why should you ask comfort or more number of dismaunts in a vehicle which is supposed to be on frontline taking hits from every direction.

 

Its disregard of soldiers life in favor or comfort and internal volume. Ifv should protect soldiers from more then just a bullets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/14/2020 at 2:47 AM, Eliz said:

3 feet 11 inches, about 120cm is normal interior height for most of the sedans.

IIRC sedans usually have doors to exit right next to passenger seats, not 5 feet away, and passengers usually do not seat with their back turned towards center line of the vehicle (or in opposite direction, with back turned towards left/right side of the vehicle).

 

On 7/14/2020 at 2:47 AM, Eliz said:

70cm is absolutely enough for

Depends on what kind of clothes or equipment people are wearing, and what they are doing (give everyone an RCV to control with some kind of joysticks, like MET-D demonstrator, you'll probably need more than 70cm).

 

But 19.5 inches equals to ~49.5cm

 

Quote

Why should you ask comfort or more number of dismaunts in a vehicle which is supposed to be on frontline taking hits from every direction.

It's not about such vague thing as comfort, it's about basic necessity required to prevent dismounts and crew from getting too tired too fast (thus - reportedly -decreasing their combat effectiveness).

 

Small infantry squad has a problem of seriously decreasing its combat effectiveness with only 2-3 people killed, IIRC what US Army's studies said about that.

 

IIUC in order to make vehicle substantially harder to hit compared to regular vehicles, nowadays or anytime during last 50 years or so, one have to make it much, much smaller, as even 30cm difference in height would not make that much of a difference. 

One could look at 1970s-1980s experiments with external pod guns and very small profile turrets, designed this way to decrease enemy's hit probability among other things, - as regular tank turrets looked too big, too easy to hit -

and frontal area of those regular tank turrets from back then is much smaller than any infantry-carrying-vehicle's hull

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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 Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
       
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
       
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
       
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
       
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
       
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • 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 
          
    • By delfosisyu
      Hey guys. This is my first post in this forum.
       
       
       
      I want to find out sources for 2 information.
       
       
       
       
      Firstly, a friend of mine told me about the accuracy of T-80B tested in 1980s.
       
       
       
       
       
      T-80B      1000m   1500m     2000m
                      
                      87%       66%       46%
       
       
       
       
       
      I asked him where he found this data. But he told me he forgot where he did find this since too much time passed from that moment.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      The Second one is about Russian ballistic computer's range-finding rate.
       
       
      One day, one of my friends who speaks russian quite well showed me a product info. of russian(maybe ukrainian) gunner's primary sight.
       
       
      It was written that range-finding rate of the sight after laser fired-off 0.3~3.0 seconds. 
       
       
      I totally forgot the address of that product brochure.
       
       
       
      I'd be very appreciated if you help me finding links of these information.
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain

×
×
  • Create New...