Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:37 pm

    galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.  

    Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.    

    My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.  

    In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.

    Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.

    Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......



    No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  OminousSpudd on Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:39 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.  

    Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.    

    My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.  

    In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.

    Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.

    Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......



    No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.

    When Serbia strong goes to the other extreme... clown

    Bankoletti

    Posts : 4
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2016-02-27

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Bankoletti on Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:39 am

    galicije83 wrote:our FCS from late 80s

    That's Iskra Fotona's FCS, right?
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:12 am

    Ukrane Tank T-64: Remote Tirex

    Here: http://twower.livejournal.com/1947915.html

    The proposal of IG "Azov" of the project "Tirex" is a deep modernization of T-64, which, according to developers, allows to solve two crucial problems of today, and one - a perspective. First. Ensure rapid saturation tank and mechanized units of model equipment, which by its combat effectiveness will be comparable, and the introduction of tactical control system - and exceed the "BM" Hold "is probably the most modern Ukrainian tank.

    According to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness", "Tirex", as claimed by its creators, will exceed the capabilities of the T-64 in the form of BM "Bulat", in particular on mobility and the use of the tank weapons at night, but have a comparable price parameters

    It will also allow painlessly and cost-effectively upgrade individual components and platforms as new components and improved manufacturing system. "Our position is that the T-64 in Ukraine the existing fleet allows you to quickly create on its basis a new machine with the necessary combat capability.

    In terms of features, they are comparable to the most modern armored combat vehicles of our enemy, including the highly publicized "Armata". But our project - it's not the future of the tank, it's a massive tank for today and for a certain transition period.





    Look like baby apmata
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:28 am

    I suspect that somebody is trying to mimic the outer apperance of T-14.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:17 am

    Off Topic

    Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense


    USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?  

    As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.

    Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.

    “When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.

    “Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”

    To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.

    The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”



    The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.

    “The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.

    “I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”

    Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.

    With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.

    “And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said.
    “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”

    More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.

    “In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.

    “And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”


    They never heard of RPG-30 lol1



    Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US

    back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.

    Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG.
    This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.

    Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as

    Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).

    On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.

    Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.



    Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!

    Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:06 am

    max steel wrote:Off Topic

    Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense


    USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?  

    As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.

    Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.

    “When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.

    “Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”

    To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.

    The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”



    The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.

    “The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.

    “I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”

    Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.

    With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.

    “And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said.
    “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”

    More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.

    “In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.

    “And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”


    They never heard of RPG-30 lol1



    Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US

    back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.

    Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG.
    This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.

    Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as

    Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).

    On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.

    Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.



    Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!

    Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.

    Saturation is an easy answer. And actually the Trophy will be able to intercept the first threat. The issue is with the followup in a dense environment.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:27 pm

    The answer is always to overwhelm the APS system. It is similiar to Battleships, they are capable of intercepting Anti Ship Missiles, but the question is how many in what short time are necessary to destroy it. That is why the tactic is to flood it and overwhelm the defensive capabilities aswell to assure a destruction and not just damaging it. Tanks and ships are equal subjects to such tactics.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3451
    Points : 3569
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Marines May Protect Tanks

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:55 am

    Werewolf wrote:The answer is always to overwhelm the APS system. It is similiar to Battleships, they are capable of intercepting Anti Ship Missiles, but the question is how many in what short time are necessary to destroy it. That is why the tactic is to flood it and overwhelm the defensive capabilities aswell to assure a destruction and not just damaging it. Tanks and ships are equal subjects to such tactics.

    You can also launch a multiple decoy fake missile to confuse the tank radars ,followed close by a real one. that will be very effective if done right ,because the tanks radars will be unable to differentiate between a real Missile versus a fake decoy that looks identical in radars to a real missile.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Thu May 05, 2016 11:41 am

    Watch South Korea's First Homemade Tank Strut Its Stuff
    By Kyle Mizokami | May 3, 2016

    ​At $8.5 million, the K-2 Black Panther is one of the most expensive tanks ever built​.

    A new drone-captured video on YouTube shows off the South Korea's new main battle tank, offering spectacular aerial views of the K-2 "Black Panther" in the field, complete with firing smoke dischargers and wading a river.

    The K-2 is South Korea's first locally designed and produced tank. Although development was completed in 2007, problems with the transmission and engine delayed production. The problem was temporarily solved by sourcing German power packs for the first 100 vehicles, to be replaced with a Korean-made power pack for subsequent production models. The first K-2s entered service in 2014 Roughly four hundred tanks will be built, replacing South Korea's obsolete M48 Patton tanks.

    The K-2 is roughly comparable to the French LeClerc and the American M1 Abrams. It has the same German-designed 120-millimeter main gun as the Abrams, but with a longer barrel to boost projectile velocity. An automatic loader replaces a human loader, reducing the crew to three. It reportedly can feed the gun one round every three seconds. The K-2 has a radar autotracker, allowing the main gun to lock onto and follow a moving enemy tank or low-flying aircraft.

    Another standout capability of the K-2 lies in the Korean Standoff Top Attack Munition (KSTAM) munition. KSTAM is fired from the main gun at long range and, like artillery, can attack targets beyond the line of sight. After it's shot into a target area, KSTAM deploys a parachute and turns on its sensor package, including a millimetric wave radar and infra-red sensor. Once it detects a target, it fires an explosively forged penetrator into the enemy's thin top armor. A weapon system like KSTAM is particularly useful in South Korea's mountainous terrain.

    The K-2 is smaller than many tanks, weighing a trim 55 tons. It has a peppy horsepower to weight (ton) ratio of 27.2, approximately 20 percent better than a late model Abrams tank. The tank's hydropneumatic suspension system can lower its profile by 16 inches, making it less vulnerable to enemy fire.

    In wartime, the K-2 would square off against the North Korean People's Army's Ch'ŏnma-ho and Pokpung-ho tanks. Both are upgrades of older Soviet-era tanks and are inferior to the K-2 in every way.

    More: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20701/south-korea-black-panther-tank/

    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue May 10, 2016 8:05 am

    M60 Tank Service Life Extension Program
    Published on May 6, 2016

    In response to modern battlefield needs, Raytheon offers the Service Life Extension Program to re-design and re-equip current M-60A3 tanks giving them significant tactical advantages.

    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Mon May 23, 2016 10:53 pm

    Ukraine markets MBT powerpack
    Christopher F Foss, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review | 23 May 2016

    Here: http://www.janes.com/article/60525/ukraine-markets-mbt-powerpack

    The State Enterprise Malyshev Plant in Ukraine is marketing its latest 1,500 hp diesel powerpack as a potential upgrade for existing main battle tanks (MBTs) or installation in newly built MBTs.

    The Malyshev Plant has manufactured more than 20,000 MBT engines and its latest development is a compact diesel powerpack that comprises the liquid-cooled 6TD-series six-cylinder, two-stroke multifuel supercharged engine.

    The engine features direct fuel injection, a lubrication system, a powerpack top deck with ejection-type cooling system, an uprated transmission, and a hydraulic control and transmission lubrication system. Hull component parts include the air cleaner, air inlet device, and gas duct.

    According to the Malyshev Plant, its ejection-type cooling system enables the MBT to operate in high ambient temperatures of up to 55°C without loss of power when using diesel fuel.

    The highly efficient cassette/cyclone air filter is claimed to ensure air filtration with an efficiency rating of up to 99.8%, which is critical for operating in desert conditions.

    The air-tight powerpack enables the MBT to wade to a maximum depth of up to 1.8 m without preparation and the compact design enables it to be installed co-axially with the side gearboxes. The company is also marketing its reversible transmission for use with the 6TD-series engine, which is claimed to improve forward and reverse speeds.

    The top deck is provided with thermal protection to reduce the exhaust signature.

    The company's smaller 3TD family of diesel engines features outputs of 280 to 600 hp and the larger 5TD with outputs of 700 to 1,050 hp for MBT applications. The 3, 5, and 6 in the designation denotes the number of cylinders.

    The company also supplies auxiliary power units (APUs) that are typically installed in MBTs to enable their main engines to be shut down while maintaining operation of its electronic subsystems.


    Ukrane 6TD six-cylinder diesel engine from the Malyshev Plant develops 1,500 hp. Photo @Christopher F Foss
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Mon May 30, 2016 12:44 am

    Your thoughts on Strong Europe Tank Challenge, every country used their own equipment for which the crews were trained. ?

    new German tank – the MBT Revolution

    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon May 30, 2016 12:49 am

    max steel wrote:Your thoughts on Strong Europe Tank Challenge, every country used their own equipment for which the crews were trained. ?

    new German tank – the MBT Revolution


    The Americans came 3rd or 4th place if I remember correctly. I wasn't shocked, The US likes to hype up their training and vehicles way more then it should be. Very Happy Germans smoked them.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:36 am



    «KADEX-2016» Kazakh Foto event kid Fun T-72.

    Here: http://lite.bnews.kz...







    Raytheon Breathes New Life Into Patton Tanks [USA]
    Jen Judson, Defense News 11:57 a.m. EDT June 5, 2016

    Here: http://www.defensenews.com/story/...

    WASHINGTON — Raytheon, in concert with the US Army, has put together a package of upgrades to modernize 1960s-era Patton tanks still used by many Middle Eastern countries.

    The effort is a procurement formula for bringing old equipment up to speed in an era where most countries' defense spending budgets are declining and the idea of building anything new from the ground up is rarity.

    “I think the recipe we have, modernization through sustainment, is going to be a key mechanism for the US to move through this period,” he said.

    And that strategy will likely be employed by countless other countries around the world as well.

    Take the M60 Patton tank, for example. It became the standard main battle tank for the US Army in the 1960s, but was replaced by the M1 Abrams 20 years later. Yet, there are still Patton tanks used by countries around the world and there are estimated to be about 7,000 to 10,000 of them used by countries in the Middle East, Probert said.

    Raytheon said it was aware of tanks remaining in Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, Israel, Thailand and Taiwan.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:22 am

    Eurosatory 2016: French Army Leclerc renovation
    Published on Jun 13, 2016

    In this video filmed at Eurosatory 2016, Christopher F Foss, Editor, IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms discusses the renovation of the French Leclerc Main Battle Tank.



    Leclerc tank look good thumbsup
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:26 pm

    Eurosatory 2016: Rheinmetall lifts the lid on new 130 mm tank gun
    Christopher F Foss, Paris - IHS Jane's International Defence Review | 14 June 2016

    Here: http://www.janes.com/article/61255/eurosatory-2016-rheinmetall-lifts-the-lid-on-new-130-mm-tank-gun

    Rheinmetall Weapon and Munition has unveiled a new 130 mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory 2016 in Paris.

    Development of the gun commenced in 2015, with the company using internal funding for the project. The first technical demonstrator (TD) was completed in May 2016.

    After Eurosatory the gun will commence its firing trials from a static stand at Rheinmetall's proving ground, where its performance will be compared to the extensive simulation work already carried out on the weapon and its ammunition.

    The new 130 mm smoothbore gun is an L/51 weapon and has a vertical sliding breech mechanism, increased chamber volume, and is chrome lined. However, it is not fitted with a muzzle brake.

    Only scant details of the 130 mm L/51 tank gun have been released by Rheinmetall, with the company quoting an all-up weight of 3,000 kg, which includes the recoil system - the barrel alone is stated as weighing 1,400 kg.

    The example shown at Eurosatory 2016 is fitted with a thermal sleeve and muzzle reference system (MRS) and these will be fitted for the upcoming firing trials. The MRS enables the weapon to be bore sighted on a more regular basis and without the crew needing to leave the platform.

    In parallel with the new gun, Rheinmetall is developing a new generation armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) round, which will feature a semi-combustible cartridge case, new propellant, and a new advanced long rod tungsten penetrator.

    This will be followed by new 130 mm high-explosive air-bursting munition (HE ABM) that will have a number of fuze options depending on the target.

    This HE ABM round will leverage from technology from the 120 mm DM11 HE ABM, currently in production for the home and export markets for use with Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 and L/55 smoothbore tank guns installed on Leopard 2 main battle tanks (MBTs).


    Photo: JPW FIDES




    Rheinmetall’s new IFV, the Lynx
    14 Jun 2016

    Here: www.rheinmetall-defence.com

    Firepower, force protection, C4I, manoeuvrability, versatility


    At Eurosatory 2016 Rheinmetall presented its new Lynx infantry fighting vehicle today to the international public for the first time. Agile, hard-hitting and highly protected, this state-of-the-art tracked armoured vehicle is destined to dominate the modern battlefield, lending itself to operations from peace enforcement to high-intensity combat.

    Ben Hudson, Head of Rheinmetall’s Vehicle Systems Division, said "Lynx is an advanced new modular family of vehicles that offers our customers the highest levels of survivability, mobility, lethality and capacity while utilising proven technologies to deliver a compelling value proposition for our global customers. Lynx delivers the capabilities that will allow our customers to fight, survive and win on the battlefields of today and tomorrow".

    Cutting edge capabilities

    Four core capabilities characterize the Lynx infantry fighting vehicle: firepower, force protection, situational awareness and mobility.

    Firepower: Lynx features a Rheinmetall LANCE turret armed with a stabilized, externally powered, airburst-capable automatic cannon (either 30mm or 35mm). This enables Lynx to effectively engage targets with high precision at ranges of up to 3,000 metres – even on the move. Lynx can also be equipped with an antitank guided missile launcher and a secondary weapon station linked to the main optics (main sensor slaved armament). Not only does Lynx have hunter-killer capability, it can operate in killer-killer mode, since the commander and gunner can observe and engage targets independently of each other.

    Force protection: With the diesel engine mounted in the forward section and a modular armour concept, the vehicle architecture offers a high degree of protection. The vehicle’s ballistic armour shields Lynx from antitank weapons, medium-calibre ammunition, artillery shrapnel, IEDs and bomblets. In addition, a spall liner in the vehicle interior protects the entire crew. Mine and IED protection packages, decoupled seats and the optional hard kill Active Defence System (ADS) significantly boost the vehicle’s survivability.

    Situational awareness: The commander and gunner both have access to the Stabilized Electro Optical Sight System/SEOSS, a digital TV - IR optical system with an integrated laser range finder and fire control computer. In the fighting compartment, displays provide the crew with a seamless 360° panoramic view. Rheinmetall’s Situational Awareness System (SAS), featuring automatic target detection and tracking, enhances the hunter-killer capability and minimizes crew reaction time. Emerging threats can be swiftly engaged with Lynx’s main or secondary armament. Laser warning sensors and the Acoustic Sniper Locating System (ASLS) likewise form part of the sensor suite. A combat management system and intercom for tactical communication round out the array of on-board equipment.

    Owing to the manned turret, the commander can still lead from the hatch. The gunner and driver each have hatches, too, while two soldiers in the rear of the fighting compartment can also observe the area around the vehicle from an open hatch.

    Mobility: Lynx features an excellent power-to-weight ratio and can handle gradients of up to 60 degrees and lateral inclines of more than 30 degrees. It can cross ditches up to 2.5 metres wide and ford bodies of water up to 1.50 metres deep. Furthermore, it can climb over one-metre-high obstacles. The vehicle can run on either rubber or light metal tracks.

    One vehicle family – one logistics system – one supplier: Rheinmetall

    Another characteristic of Lynx is its versatility. For example, the new IFV comes in two versions: the KF31 and KF41 (KF stands for ‘Kettenfahrzeug’, or tracked vehicle in German). Weighing up to 38 tonnes, Lynx KF31 on display at Eurosatory and can seat 3+6 soldiers. Lynx KF41 is slightly larger and can carry 3+8 soldiers.

    Both vehicle classes – Lynx KF31 and Lynx KF41 – can be configured for other roles include a command & control, an armoured reconnaissance, repair & recovery and an ambulance.

    A high degree of commonality in parts and components is another prominent feature of the Lynx family of vehicles. This simplifies logistic support and has a positive impact on training. Furthermore, customized service support is available worldwide – ranging from training and logistics to in-theatre repairs and technology transfer.

    The Lynx family of vehicles highlights once again Rheinmetall’s role as a high-tech enterprise for security and mobility.




    Photo: Rheinmetall Defence
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:43 pm

    IHS Jane wrote:However, it is not fitted with a muzzle brake.

    "However" ??? Why was IHS Jane so surprise about a smoothbore tank cannon does not have muzzle brake ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:48 am

    Few modern smoothbore guns will have a muzzle brake as they are designed for high velocity.


    Their primary round will therefore be APFSDS rounds and muzzle brakes and Sabots don't mix well...

    It was the introduction of the APDS rounds in 30mm calibre that got rid of the muzzle brake on the 2A72 cannon on the BMP-3.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Sat May 27, 2017 7:22 am

    Ukraine Main Battle Tank OPLOT
    Published on May 26, 2017

    The up-to-date Ukrainian BM OPLOT tank is intended for effective day and night combat use under adverse environmental, climatic and weather conditions including those under high temperatures of the surrounding air and high dust loading. The following were introduced: the multifuel engine, the transmission with extended speed range and complex system of movement control, the autonomous power unit for power supply when the vehicle is parked, the unique explosive reactive armour protection against tandem HEAT and APFSDS projectiles, the effective complex system of detection and optical-electronic suppression of the enemy’s guidance and sighting devices, the up-to-date sighting and observation complex with thermal imager, the digital ballistic computer and navigational support system. The capability of targets destruction by missiles at the range of up to 5 km without entering the dangerous area.



    Nice toon.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Mon May 29, 2017 9:19 pm

    Ukraine is expected to unveil its upgraded T-84 tanks during celebration of the 26th anniversary of independence
    May 28, 2017 Here: http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-is-expected...

    Ukraine is expected to unveil its upgraded T-84 main battle tanks (MBTs) during a 24 August parade as part of the 26th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence.

    SE “Malyshev Plant”, part of Ukrainian defence concern UkrOboronProm, to upgrade six T-84 main battle tanks.  This tank is a predecessor of the latest vehicles Oplot.

    “T-84 is actually the same Oplot in its characteristics, at the same time, the cost of upgraded the T-84 tank is an order of magnitude lower than the production of the Oplot ” – said chief engineer at Kharkiv-based Malyshev Plant Oleksandr Sheiko.

    The first T-84 prototype vehicle rolled out in 1994, and in the same year it was decided to build several more vehicles. They were subjected to extensive company and army trials. After successful completion of the extensive trials programme in the late 1990s the T-84 MBT entered service with the Ukrainian Army in 1999. On 24 August 2000, 10 T-84 MBTs took part in the parade dedicated to the 10th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence.

    The main armament comprises a stabilized 125-mm KBA3 smoothbore gun fed by a carousel-type automatic loader and fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor (bore evacuator). The gun is stabilized in both elevation and traverse. The main gun has a quick-replacement barrel which can be changed under field conditions without the need to remove the gun from the tank.

    The specific feature of the tank is that it is fitted with a guided missile system to enable the main gun to fire a laser guided missile and engage targets out to 5,000 m.

    As of today, Malyshev Plant begins routine repair and modernization of the batch of tanks T-84 for Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    The T-84 tank is a further development of the T-80UD tank by means of installing, among other things, multiple protection explosive reactive armor modules, these being supplemented by passive armor array, and a more advanced fire control system similar to that installed on the modern Ukrainian Oplot tanks.




    Foto: Dylan Malyasov
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Wed May 31, 2017 11:40 pm

    Excalibur offers T-72 main battle tank upgrade at IDET 2017
    May 31, 2017 Here: http://defence-blog.com/army/excalibur-offers-t-72-main-battle-tank-upgrade-at-idet-2017.html

    Czech Company Excaliburhas developed an upgrade package for the Soviet-made T-72 main battle tank. The set of upgrades for the T-72 main battle tank (MBT), with the improved vehicle designated called the T-4 72 Scarab or T-72 Scarab.

    The Czech Company Excalibur unveiled it’s improved T-72 Scarab main battle tank during the International Fair of Defence and Security Technology (IDET) in Brno.

    According to armyrecognition.com, the T-72 Scarab is motorized with the V-84 engine developing 618 kW replacing the original engine V-46-6. It can run at a maximum road speed of 60 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km.

    The T-72 Scarab of the Czech Company Excalibur keeps the main armament of the standard Soviet-made T-72 main battle tank which consists of one 125 mm (2A46) smoothbore gun fitted with a light-alloy thermal sleeve and a bore evacuator. The turret is fitted with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the turret floor and also on the rear wall of the turret.

    The ballistic protection of the T-72 was substantially increased while maintaining its outstanding mobility. For the T-72 Scarab, the front of the hull is fitted with ERA Explosive Reactive Armour, front and sides of the turret are equipped with passive armour and rear part of the turret is protected with wire cage armour.


    Foto: PPPARTNERS.CZ

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:27 pm