Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I'm anxiously waiting for the Turkey's K2-derived Altay to have all these teething problems which will be denied with as much vigor as the Indians defend the Arjun. 

  • 2 weeks later...

Something new regarding Czech IFV tender. After several months of internal disputes about MoD financing vis-a-vis covid situation there is now a request from the ministry of industry and trade to enlarge the required value of the offsets. At the moment it is expected that by late April the trials of the vehicles shall finally restart and by early May the competitors shall receive the conditions for their final bid. The size of the order stays on 210 vehicles. 

https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/bvp-bojova-vozidla-pechoty-tendr-ministerstvo-prumyslu-ministerstvo-obrany_2104141347_ako

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question to ask. Why is it that Russian/Chinese tanks seem to have significantly worse recoil absorption when compared to western tanks such as M1, Leopard but also K2.

This obscure video demonstrates it. The video describes it as a comparison between stabilizers but I think it has more to do with hydraulic/recoil springs, recoil length, turret weight more than capability of the stabilizer.

But it seems the Russians/Chinese didn't really place much design emphasis on this. Are they just cutting cost as usual? Does the superior recoil absorption provide a significant practical advantage? One advantage I can think of is crew comfort. But in a tank where you're only shooting once every roughly 10 seconds does this really provide much practical advantage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, h44 said:

I have a question to ask. Why is it that Russian/Chinese tanks seem to have significantly worse recoil absorption when compared to western tanks such as M1, Leopard but also K2.

This obscure video demonstrates it. The video describes it as a comparison between stabilizers but I think it has more to do with hydraulic/recoil springs, recoil length, turret weight more than capability of the stabilizer.

But it seems the Russians/Chinese didn't really place much design emphasis on this. Are they just cutting cost as usual? Does the superior recoil absorption provide a significant practical advantage? One advantage I can think of is crew comfort. But in a tank where you're only shooting once every roughly 10 seconds does this really provide much practical advantage?


I'm not sure if strong conclusions can be taken from that one video.  Different ammo types produce radically different amounts of recoil.  Discarding sabot training ammo doesn't produce too much recoil, while HE-FRAG is firing a big, heavy shell with a lot more momentum.

 

Aside from that, it occurs to me that the 120mm armed tanks listed are all heavier than the 125mm armed ones, although the weight of the K2 and T-14 overlap.

 

How a tank responds to the recoil of its gun firing is a function of the total momentum of the shot, the mass of the vehicle, the moment of inertia about the recoil axis (which is affected by which way the turret is facing), suspension stiffness, suspension damping, and recoil system length and forces.  You are correct in thinking that the stabilizer doesn't have very much to do with it.  In addition, I suspect that the K2 may enjoy very low recoil when firing from a stationary position, as it has adjustable suspension.  The rear hydropneumatic stations can be filled with additional gas pressure, which increases the K* of the stations, which reduces the amount that the tank rocks when firing provided the gun is pointed more or less forward.

 

The most effective way for light vehicles to deal with high trunnion loads from their cannons is to have very long recoil lengths for their cannons' recoil systems, but this comes at a cost.  The longer the recoil path of the cannon, the more empty space needs to be reserved to accommodate the movement of the breech.  This makes the turret more voluminous and taller.

I don't think that it's a significant cost driver.




*Compressed gas doesn't act exactly like a spring, but close enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Collimatrix said:


I'm not sure if strong conclusions can be taken from that one video.  Different ammo types produce radically different amounts of recoil.  Discarding sabot training ammo doesn't produce too much recoil, while HE-FRAG is firing a big, heavy shell with a lot more momentum.

 

Aside from that, it occurs to me that the 120mm armed tanks listed are all heavier than the 125mm armed ones, although the weight of the K2 and T-14 overlap.

 

How a tank responds to the recoil of its gun firing is a function of the total momentum of the shot, the mass of the vehicle, the moment of inertia about the recoil axis (which is affected by which way the turret is facing), suspension stiffness, suspension damping, and recoil system length and forces.  You are correct in thinking that the stabilizer doesn't have very much to do with it.  In addition, I suspect that the K2 may enjoy very low recoil when firing from a stationary position, as it has adjustable suspension.  The rear hydropneumatic stations can be filled with additional gas pressure, which increases the K* of the stations, which reduces the amount that the tank rocks when firing provided the gun is pointed more or less forward.

 

The most effective way for light vehicles to deal with high trunnion loads from their cannons is to have very long recoil lengths for their cannons' recoil systems, but this comes at a cost.  The longer the recoil path of the cannon, the more empty space needs to be reserved to accommodate the movement of the breech.  This makes the turret more voluminous and taller.

I don't think that it's a significant cost driver.




*Compressed gas doesn't act exactly like a spring, but close enough.

So what is the important factor here? I assume it is the question whether the recoil affects accuracy. Or whether ealignment is needed? I guess if sights are independent from the barrel and wobble doesn't disturb the shot the bounce doesn't matter until the reload is finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suspect it has something to do with the recoil length and chamber pressure; the shorter recoil length being necessary to fit in the eastern-block turrets would produce a higher impulse, but I don’t really have any numbers, and I am too lazy right now to go look. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english). But Russian MBT's also don't necessarily have 'strong' suspensions like the NATO mbts and are much lighter. So they dont have to give much care to ground pressure and track size due to their weight being 20+ tons less than the West. And just as said the K2's hydro suspension will help a bit with absorbing the force from firing, just like the Leclerc and admittedly CR2, though watching them fire with the additional weight packages makes them seem like unmovable bunkers instead of 'stable firing platforms'.

 

It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.

Edited by Korvette
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Korvette said:

Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english). But Russian MBT's also don't necessarily have 'strong' suspensions like the NATO mbts and are much lighter. So they dont have to give much care to ground pressure and track size due to their weight being 20+ tons more than the West. And just as said the K2's hydro suspension will help a bit with absorbing the force from firing, just like the Leclerc and admittedly CR2, though watching them fire with the additional weight packages makes them seem like unmovable bunkers instead of 'stable firing platforms'.

 

It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.

 

Very interesting thanks. Also interesting is according to this website, they mention that "US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards, so a version using fewer parts was developed (such as a new coilspring recoil system, instead of an hydraulic one, like on the Rheinmetall 120mm L44), and designated the 120mm M256 gun." I also vaguely remember looking at a picture on here that someone posted with a M256 gun taken apart and you can see the recoil system but I can't find it now.

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

It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.

 

Simple size and weight shouldn't really be an excuse here seeing as the Type 10 is the lightest MBT with a standard chamber pressure that is 100 bar short of the 2A46M-5s maximum chamber pressure, while also having the smallest recoil impulse. That isn't to say that Russia NEEDS a better recoil system though. When you have 7+ seconds between firing and a completed reload cycle there isn't much point of having an immediate stable firing platform when you still need 5 more seconds to finish reloading. My point is just that Russia's recoil system is pretty substandard and being light isn't an excuse for that.

Spoiler

 

 

11 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The most effective way for light vehicles to deal with high trunnion loads from their cannons is to have very long recoil lengths for their cannons' recoil systems,

 

Japan went this route for the Type 16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDJPxZKXlcU&t=21s

Spoiler

YxVE1Bw.png

w2OxL4H.png

 

Although the Type 16 doesn't have active suspension like the MBTs it still has passive suspension for smoothening regular cross country driving as well as recoil impulses which allows for stuff like this. 

Spoiler

 

 

While the Stryker which ironically has an active suspension system, lacks a proper passive one looks like this

Spoiler

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Atokara said:

 

Simple size and weight shouldn't really be an excuse here seeing as the Type 10 is the lightest MBT with a standard chamber pressure that is 100 bar short of the 2A46M-5s maximum chamber pressure, while also having the smallest recoil impulse. That isn't to say that Russia NEEDS a better recoil system though. When you have 7+ seconds between firing and a completed reload cycle there isn't much point of having an immediate stable firing platform when you still need 5 more seconds to finish reloading. My point is just that Russia's recoil system is pretty substandard and being light isn't an excuse for that.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Japan went this route for the Type 16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDJPxZKXlcU&t=21s

  Reveal hidden contents

YxVE1Bw.png

w2OxL4H.png

 

Although the Type 16 doesn't have active suspension like the MBTs it still has passive suspension for smoothening regular cross country driving as well as recoil impulses which allows for stuff like this. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

While the Stryker which ironically has an active suspension system, lacks a proper passive one looks like this

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I did also specifically state the amount being absorbed is also important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Korvette said:

Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english).

 

The recoil length is 340 mm for the L/44 and L/55 guns with a hard stop at 380 mm. Only the L/47 LLR (light low-recoil) has a recoil length of 500 mm.

 

12 hours ago, h44 said:

I also vaguely remember looking at a picture on here that someone posted with a M256 gun taken apart and you can see the recoil system but I can't find it now

D1nJZXMX4AEhSd4.jpg:large

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

The recoil length is 340 mm for the L/44 and L/55 guns with a hard stop at 380 mm. Only the L/47 LLR (light low-recoil) has a recoil length of 500 mm.

 

D1nJZXMX4AEhSd4.jpg:large

Okay thanks, I was reading off this where it said 'width of recoiling mass' which seemed off but sort of what I was trying to find.

unknown.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2021 at 7:45 PM, Beer said:

Photos from the military trials scrutineering of the three contenders for the Czech IFV tender. 

 

Interestingly the CV90 is on rubber tracks while the ohters on metalic ones. 

https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/nato/bvp-obrana-metnar-havlicek-vlada-pasove-vozidla-armada-vybor.A210428_131259_zpr_nato_inc/foto/nahledy

 

Short video:

 

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 Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     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 judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^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 4 inches.
      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- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in 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 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     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-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in 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.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 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- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.

×
×
  • Create New...