Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Preliminary T-72ology Thread


Collimatrix
 Share

Recommended Posts

Soviet designers played with idea of using space between engine and turret compartment as protected ammorack. In fact Object 477/490 prototypes had version with 36-40 round mechanized ammorack between 6TD engine and turret, in addition to 8 round protected autoloader in turret. In case of T-72 storing non-autoloader ammunition anywhere outside is much better choice that storing it in fueltanks-ammoracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having looked at T-90MS (or SM, as you prefer) it seems to have retained the carousel auto-loader inside the turret with additional main armament rounds stowed in the bustle under blowout panels.  The traditional Western view would have gone for the autoloader in the bustle and the other rounds (where?) -a la Leclerc?

 

The Ukrainians seem to have experimented with a bustle loader on the Yatagan, but that was for a NATO 120mm gun, perhaps with a French auto-loader(?)

 

Can anyone tell me whether the Russians ever seriously looked at an autoloader with the ammunition in the bustle for the 125mm gun.  I realise the two piece ammunition might be a problem, but was any serious consideration given and, if so, why was it not proceeded with? 

 

Even in just export market terms, it would overcome the criticism that the internal ammunition stowage on the T-72 and derivatives (and T-64 and derivatives) was an additional vulnerability.  Which leads to comment on whether your ammunition stowage matters a damn if you are penetrated by a modern FSDS or HEAT round?

 

Is this the area to discuss this whole ammunition stowage as part of the layered protection concept issue?

 

Cheers

B

 

The stuff is atleast on the "floor" besides,if you get that far in any modern tank with a HEAT or APDS round the crew will be left dead or in no condition to fight, so the ammunition safety is an afterthought

Hell. its better than the Leopard 2s, which keeps it left center on the assumption that any round making it past the front armor will kill the crew reguardless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who replied.

 

I will chase up pics of the Burlac turret.

 

My interest was sparked by considering the T-90MS and what a very neat design it was.  Good firepower (including the gun control and fire control systems), good protection and good mobility - and still within the Class 50 bridge classification.  Your Engineers will like you and it does wonders for operational and strategic mobility.  It also has a complete family of support vehicle, recovery, engineer and the BMPT for long range anti-tank defence plus getting attack helicopters to worry about something other than shooting respectable tankies. 

 

The family, or lack thereof, is a weakness in M-1.  The Americans may be able to run a fleet of M-88s, as theirs must be quite large.  For other armies, trying to run M-1 and a small orphan fleet of M-88s is difficult.  Leopard 2 has a family of support vehicles, but is Class 80 and without access to classified material, there is a lingering doubt about protection levels(??)

 

The other strengths of Russian design are the families of mobile artillery and air defence.  By the way, Tied, should you move on to being behind 20 Pantsirs, or at least Tunguskas?  They really would take aviators minds off sex.

 

I am still exploring the Russian/Soviet approach to AFV technology, which is why I think this site is so useful.   And helpful - thanks again, guys.

 

Cheers

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely clear on why you couldn't have an autoloader with ammo under the turret basket that has blowout panels.

 

In any case, I don't think the turret detachment syndrome usually seen in T-72s is caused by the ammo in the autoloader, not most of the time.  It's very low and not really that likely to get hit, and the turret floor that the gunner and commander are on is spall-proof IIRC.  I think it's from the extra rounds they store in the turret.  If those were in spall-proof liners, ala merkava, that would go a long way in mitigating the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First turret is Proriv-2 (T-90M turret) and second one is Burlak.

1429755169_375450_original.jpg

Burlak had a turret bustle autoloader with blow out panels. Bustle sides were covered by active protection system, possibly a previous itteration of Afganit/Shtandart.

001.jpg

Prototype of the Burlak turret on T-72 chassis, AFAIK.

002.jpg

If you google T-72 Burlak turret, you can fimd more photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Ported from AW forums:

 

t-72exp_1.jpg

 
It's generally thought that the export variants of the T-72 Main battle tank are actually monkey models, or dumbed down in one way or the other, however this is only partially true. The only one that can be considered a true monkey is the T-72M, which featured a T-72 model turret, T-72 model suspension, while being based off the T-72A. Generally, however, the export models are newer than the actual variant. For example, T-72 is from 1971, while the export model is from 1975. Like wise, the T-72A is from 1979, yet, the T-72M1 was produced in 1982. It should be worth noting that in 1982.
 
Now, without further talk, lets explore the variants!
 
- Object 172M-E/E1 "T-72 Export"
 
This tank is the T-72 Ural Obr. 1975 offered for export. The Objekt 172M-E is for Warsaw Pact countries, while the Objekt 172M-E1 is for third world countries/any country outside the Warsaw Pact. It's a literal copy of the T-72 Ural obr. 1975. This tank is pictured above, in a parade in East Germany, identified as the "Gerät 172M", this tank was unveiled to the public in 1979, in that parade. The primary difference between the E and E1 is the NBC system. 
 
- Object 172M-E3/E4 "T-72M"
 
t-72m_1.jpg

 
This tank is the T-72A obr. 1979, however it comes with several limitations. The primary difference is the turret. Unlike the T-72A, the T-72M has the turret's cavity filled with sand instead of the traditional multi layer armor mounted on the T-72A. Like the T-72 Export, the T-72M comes in 2 versions; Object 172M-E3 and Object 172M-E4, the E3 is offered for Warsaw Pact countries, and the E4 is for the rest of the world. It should be worth mentioning that the turret is also the Cast turret mounted on the T-72 Ural, not the composite turret mounted on the T-72A. It also has the old commander sight of the T-72, and not the upgraded one on the T-72A. Furthermore, it features the old suspension of the T-72 Ural, not the T-72A's upgraded suspension. The T-72M was offered and produced in 1980. The Object 172M-E4 has the same NBC protection as the Object 172M-E1.
 
- Object 172M-E5/E6 "T-72M1"
 
t-72m1_1.jpg

 
This tank is the same as the T-72M, however it features the upgraded suspension, turret and commander sight of the T-72A. It also comes with additional armor bolted on the Upper Frontal Plate of the tank. The T-72M1 was offered and produced in 1982. Like the T-72M and T-72 Export, it features 2 variants. The E5 for the Pact, the E6 for the rest of the world. The E6 has the same NBC protection as the Object 172M-E1.
 
- Object 172M-E7 "T-72S" 
 
This tank is an upgrade over the T-72M1, and features the latest technology available. The 1A40 FCS, the Kontakt-V Reactive armor, and so on. However, such technology does not come cheap -- Indeed, the Object 172M-E7 did not find any customers due to a very high price tag. The Object 172M-E7 was offered for export and produced in the late 80s. 
 
- Object 172M-E8 "T-72S"
 
t-72s_1.jpg

 
The high price tag of the Object 172M-E7 led to development of a tank produced for export utilizing older and cheaper technology. The tank features Kontakt ERA, the 1A40 FCS and a specialized night sight made to specially fire laser guided ATGMs. This tank was produced and offered in 1987. It is similar to the older early T-72B. It is NOT identical to the T-72B obr. 1988. It looks similar to the T-72B obr. 1987, however. I am not sure which B model it is based on. However, oddly enough, in Iraq, after the war, one example was found in Iraq. 
 
One important detail: The E7 and E8 were merged together at one point. The tank found in Iraq was designated E7, however it had the properties of the E8.
 
@Iraqi T-72S: A Marines friend who served in Iraq told me that they found a T-72S with the laser targetting and the new sights and the new FCS, which means that it could fire ATGMs, however they found no ATGMs with the tank. Whether the tank itself fired any ATGMs or not, nobody knows. Yet.
 
 
- Object 172M-E9 "T-72S1"
 
For users who are too poor to purchase the normal T-72S, this tank, like the T-72B1 was produced. It uses a cheaper night and day sight. As a consequence it cannot fire ATGMs. It is identical to the T-72S in everything but the inability to fire ATGMs. Visually, it's identical to the T-72S.
 
It should be worth noting that unlike the previous export models, the Object 172M-E9, E8 and E7 do not have different versions for Warsaw Pact/other nations. It's only one version.
 
This tank was exported to Iran (along with the E8) after the collapse of the USSR.
 
Notice on the Object 172M-E7, E8, E9: Western and Russian sources conflict here. Western sources mention nothing on the E7 being advanced, and mentions it as the E8, but for Warsaw Pact, while the E8 is for the rest of the world. I decided to rely on Kampfpanzer.de for these 3 tanks, instead of the Western sources, since I cannot read Russian well and that site uses Russian sources.
 
Pictures also taken from Kampfpanzer.de.
 
---
 
That's all for now. It should be worth noting that this only covers Soviet era export T-72s. The Russian era export T-72s are different, and in 2013, an upgrade called "T-72M1mod" was offered to modernize the T-72M/M1 to modern standards. I may cover export T-90s and modern T-72s later.
 
Please point out any mistakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Jeez, don't you guys know anything about cold war soviet tanks? :P  The T-70 MBT!   It totally existed, at least in the minds of western intelligence experts.  It looked almost exactly like a very early T-64 but it was somehow different.  Much like bigfoot, it only existed in blurry, hard to see pictures.  

 

This is an old post but do you know what is it? Imo it looks suspiciously close to the T-64R, which were T-64s upgraded to A standard, but not fully. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an old post but do you know what is it? Imo it looks suspiciously close to the T-64R, which were T-64s upgraded to A standard, but not fully. 

That picture came out of an US Armor school book on Main Battle Tanks published in 1973.  As far as I can tell, that picture was one of the first the west got of early model T-64s, which they for some reason called T-70's.  The notion that there was a tank called the T-70 persisted for a while.  In fact, there is an amusing series of letters in ARMOR magazine between Steven Zaloga and a young Jim Warford arguing about it.  I have to run off to work, but when I get home I'll look it up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I suspect, but do not know for a fact that the T-64 has a more complex transmission than the T-72.  It's hard to find good information about something as arcane as tracklayer transmissions of Soviet vehicles in anything approaching English technical idiom.

 

Xlucine spoke to an old DDR tanker who said that the T-72 had some sort of geared steering, and a syncromesh gearbox with 7 forward gears.

 

The Swedish reports on the T-80 say that it had one turn radius per forward gear, which means it had double or triple differential steering.  Fofanov's site mentions a multiple-radius hydrostatic pump packaged with the improved GTD-1250 turbine, which means it's a double differential.

 

If the T-80's transmission is based on the T-64's, that would mean that the T-64 has the more sophisticated (but complex) steering system.  It sounds like the propulsive gears were comparable, however.

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
      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
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By T___A
      This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.
    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • 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
       
×
×
  • Create New...