Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:57 am


    Pugnax wrote:Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.



    Pugnax say to me what part of loading three rounds in the tank (with also very explicative images of the action involved [minute 2:38 - 2:49] Rolling Eyes ) is not clear ?





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ak2iJQQVrT0





    If you had in mind the.... odd idea.....of three rounds shot in a minute and half Laughing you can see those others ,equally explicative, images :







    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tvQuV77KzqM



    Questions?

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:30 pm

    Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.

    Perhaps I am not being clear enough.

    When they talk about LOADING three rounds in one and a half minutes they are talking about LOADING the tank with ammo in a rear area before combat.

    The autoloader in combat or on the firing range loads the projectile and stub case together at a rate of about one round every 6 seconds which means the tank would be able to fire up to 10 rounds per minute. That is stationary or bouncing across country at 35 km/h.



    _________________
    “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
    Pugnax

    Posts : 98
    Points : 89
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    t-95

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:29 pm

    Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:26 pm

    Pugnax wrote:Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.

    Well yes, with more crew you can load faster.
    Should we go back to having a radio operator?

    We can play it the other way, there are big advantages of not having an extra crewmember who is useless in combat.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:47 pm

    Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.

    If we are talking about the combat loading of the main gun then we can ignore the 3 rounds in 1.5 minutes stuff.

    Firing 15 rounds per minute is hogwash, first it means the tank will be completely out of ammo in less than three minutes, and second if there are 15 targets per minute worth firing at then there are 15 vehicles firing at you... against a third world country that is fine, Against 152mm gun armed armatas and you are in serious trouble.

    Equally if NATO goes to 140mm rounds they will be two piece and that will mean an autoloader... and I am pretty sure that once the US and Britain have tanks with autoloaders they will be the best idea since sliced bread. Artillery vehicles in the east and the west already use autoloaders, flick rammers, and automated ammo handlers for large calibre rounds.


    _________________
    “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
    Pugnax

    Posts : 98
    Points : 89
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    t-95

    Post  Pugnax on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:19 am

    Garry your comments regarding rate of fire are equally absurd giving that the t 64/72/80/90 series have major stowage issues that have cut safe storage from 42 to 24 rounds.Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:32 am



    On rough terrain, while moving.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:04 pm

    Pugnax wrote:Garry your comments regarding rate of fire are equally absurd giving that the t 64/72/80/90 series have major stowage issues that have cut safe storage from 42 to 24 rounds.Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.

    Oh please. What stowage issues? By your standard Leo-2 doesn't have safe stowage of most of its rounds as well, since they are around the hull and turret.

    Hapless opposition, you mean like the only kind of opposition your beloved Western tanks have fought?

    Why don't you read the reports of people who have actually operated the t-72? They all swear by the autoloader.
    No surprise that a bunch of Western sources who have zero experience with the equipment deride it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:26 pm

    Even the Abrams has stowage space in the rear turret bustle for 32 rounds, the other 8 rounds are in the crew compartment.

    Most other western tanks store even more rounds in the crew compartment.

    Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.

    Please... and western countries only fight in single tank units against very well equipped first world enemies... not.

    The vast majority of the normal load in a Soviet or Russian tank are conventional HE rounds because 90% of a tanks job does not actually involve engaging enemy tanks. A decent HE shell is far more valuable the vast majority of the time in the real world... how many enemy tanks have been destroyed in Afghanistan may I ask?

    Very close to b^gger all.

    The reality is that a manual loader is no longer needed or wanted in a modern tank design, the extra body for guard duty and maintainence might be handy but in the Russian units that guy can come from the rear unit.

    Video posted by Zivo above is pretty conclusive that the autoloader is not slower than a manual loader.

    I remember when the T-62 first came out and the western experts derided it because its smoothbore design is inherently inaccurate. The BMP filled with ammo and fuel was a deathtrap... who would put more than a HMG on a troop transport. Funny thing is that those pesky Germans seem to have made a gun that was both smoothbore AND accurate!
    Modern IFVs are full of explosives and fuel...

    Of course autoloaders will be incredibly dangerous things that rip arms from sockets despite the video above showing there is a protection screen that would actually prevent the recoiling gun from hitting either turret crewman.

    Still I carefully scan the Moscow parades for these legions of one armed tank men that must exist. Rolling Eyes


    _________________
    “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
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:47 pm

    Lol, the autoloader eating arms is the best example of utterly baseless Western propaganda against Soviet designs.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:23 pm

    From firing, loading, to the breech being closed takes an average of 5 seconds. That is 12 rounds per minute max, with an undeniably fast reload in an M1.



    Here's a Leo 2 loader, trying to do the same thing while moving on rough terrain. 8 Seconds from shot, to closing the breech.



    The T-90 on rough terrain from shot to shot was 6 seconds average.

    Based on this evidence, it's clear there is no distinguishable increase in fire rate with a manual loader. Feel free to show me otherwise.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:47 pm

    Standard practise in many different environments is to shoot and then move.

    In the desert where there are wide open spaces it was standard procedure to sit just below the brow of a hill with just the top of the turret visible while the commander looked for targets. When a target was found the vehicle would drive forward and take a shot and then reverse back and drive to another spot to observe the results.

    Taking a second shot from the same place meant the enemy was alerted to your position and anyway the first shot threw up so much dust and smoke you couldn't observe the target anyway.

    In urban settings a tank will often reverse into a building for cover... fire and move.

    6 or 7 shots might be needed per minute and a fast reloading rate is handy if your first shot doesn't do the job, but most of the time it is shoot and scoot, so that fast second shot is not so important anyway.


    _________________
    “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
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:59 pm

    Zivo wrote:From firing, loading, to the breech being closed takes an average of 5 seconds. That is 12 rounds per minute max, with an undeniably fast reload in an M1.



    Here's a Leo 2 loader, trying to do the same thing while moving on rough terrain. 8 Seconds from shot, to closing the breech.



    The T-90 on rough terrain from shot to shot was 6 seconds average.

    Based on this evidence, it's clear there is no distinguishable increase in fire rate with a manual loader. Feel free to show me otherwise.

    Good stuff.
    IN the case of a human loader, there is always possibility of human error, injury, or just simple slip up, especially during intense maneuvers. Auto loader is more reliable in this respect as well.
    avatar
    psg

    Posts : 21
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : united kingdom

    Tanks autoloading

    Post  psg on Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:54 pm

    The mechanics, speed, reliability, maintenance have all been improved over the decades of use and in the tens of thousands produced.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 904
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:06 am

    What exactly is Chobham armour ? It is a series of layers of steel, ceramic and air gaps.

    Chobham armour does provide some protection against HEAT and HESH rounds . However , against APFSDS rounds it provides no protection at all . And as we all know that against tanks placement of shots is more important than what is shot. It's not a coincidence that IED's ( mostly artillery shells ) blew up Abraham tanks in Iraq.


    APFSDS rounds are solid projectiles which by its nature would be far less affected by all the layers than the plasma jet of HEAT or the concussion of HESH. The projectile is a long thin pencil of some extremely hard and dense metal, with little fins on the back and a sharpened point.  Where older tank rounds relied primarily on the power of the explosives they carried, a sabot round is entirely dependent on the muzzle velocity of the gun which fires it. The faster it's traveling, the harder it hits and the more it can penetrate. Chobham pales into insignificance.


    The reason why tank guns are almost by definition smoothbore these days is the development of the APFSDS rounds. The Soviets realized it long ago that smoothbore guns were better for sabot rounds and therefore placed such a gun on the T 72 . At that time Chobham armour did not even exist . But then, there is something on earth called foresight.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:12 am

    That is not strictly true.

    Layers of different materials can be very effective against APFSDS rounds, and in practical terms at the velocities we are talking about, both the penetrator and the armour can be considered as liquids because of the temperatures and forces involved, the main difference is that the APFSDS tends to be rigid but where it contacts the material it is penetrating it acts like a liquid on contact because of the heat and pressure involved.

    The Soviets introduced the first smoothbore tank gun on the T-62, it was a 115mm calibre weapon and it was primarily because their favourite ammo... the HEAT round, is more effective if it is not spinning. Their HEAT rounds tended to be the most accurate right up into the 1980s and were the preferred round to use as they were multipurpose rounds effective against vehicles and structures etc.

    Chobham armour was very effective against HEAT rounds as was developed as part of the program to produce the Shah-1... a tank for the CIA puppet Shah of Iran, but obviously that fell through and the British got the Challenger I tank largely paid for by Iran.

    Right now Chobham armour would actually be inferior to the armour on the T-90 model tanks and would not be an improvement as it would increase the weight of the tank and require dramatic changes in shape for no improvement in protection.

    You would end up with a 60 ton tank that had better side protection but less front protection.


    The idea behind the layers of protection is to break up and fracture the penetrator so that its penetration performance is greatly reduced. In many ways the purpose of ERA is generally to guillotine the front 10cm or more off the tip of the penetrator so that it reduces its weight and length and creates a large flat penetrator tip which is very inefficient for penetrating, though the force behind the penetrator means that as it penetrates it will use a lot more energy and the penetration will shape the tip into a rough point again, though penetration will be greatly reduced... assuming the penetrator doesn't snap or shatter.


    _________________
    “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
    Sujoy

    Posts : 904
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sujoy on Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:39 am

    *** Below calculations/formulas as per Armour Penetration table ***

    [These formulas are not necessarily very accurate but nonetheless they give a ballpark estimate] .

    To find out the penetration capability of any round you need to know 2 of the three factors :

    a)weight,
    b)velocity, or
    c) penetration

    and you can workout the missing variable.

    Armour Penetration Calculator

    To find out the probable penetration of a HEAT round you take the warhead diameter times its generation modifier DxM=P

    1st generation modifier 3.5
    2nd generation modifier 7.5
    3rd generation modifier 10

    To figure out 120/125mm tank cannon APFSDS penetration you use the Ke (Ke=1/2MxV^2) formula and divide the result by 11,000 the number you end up with is penetration vs RHAe in milimeters .

    Formula of tank kinetic rounds (long rod):

    T * (1/cos@)^0.75 = (M/D^3) * (D/L)^0.3 *(v^2/U^2)

    T = plate thickness (cm)
    * = multiplication
    ^= to the power of
    @ = angle
    u = constant
    L = penetrator length (cm)
    M = penetrator mass (g)
    D = penetrator diameter (cm)
    v = penetrator velocity (m/s)

    The 3BM48M developed for the T80UM2 Black eagle can penetrate 900mm RHAe and APFSDS fired from the 2A46M4 travels at1750m/s

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

    Therefore , the 3BM48 "Свинец-2" can penetrate Cobham armour.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:13 pm

    You are ignoring your own terms...

    RHAe is rolled steel armour all the way through and Chobham is anything but homogenious rolled hardened armour.

    That is what they mean by an armour array that has the equivalent thickness of say 800mm of RHAe against APDSFS rounds while its performance might be 1,200mm against HEAT rounds. Very simply it is the same armour, but the layers of the armour interact in a very specific way to impede HEAT more than APFSDS rounds.

    Another important thing is that previously ERA had little to no effect on APFSDS rounds and was largely effective against HEAT rounds only.

    A change in the design has allowed new ERA armour to degrade the performance of APFSDS rounds too.

    The very latest ERA uses a lot less explosives and actually use deforming plates that move on impact and greatly increase the amount of actual material the incoming round has to penetrate.

    The point is that this new technology doesn't just apply to external armour... when there is no explosives involved then there is no maintainence required and such NERA designs can be applied to internal armour structures. This is not to say that NERA can be replaced by internal structural NERA, in fact it can be applied to both external and internal armours... the new armata will likely have modular armour, so making that modular armour with NERA performance maximises its protection level, allows NERA panels to be externally attached that increase protection even further and with the external and modular internal design allow fairly straight forward replacement of both in the field to offer excellent protection and easy of repair and maintainence in the field. Damaged blocks and modules could be fairly easily replaced... assuming it gets through the APS in the first place.

    In many ways APFSDS rounds are like arrows... angled plate is never effective in deflecting them because their energy is concentrated over a narrow radius, but a side thrust can completely destabilise the round, which risks total failure in the same way that hitting a nail in with one sharp very heavy hammer blow will lead to lack of penetration and a very bent nail if the nail is on any angle at all.

    It an APFSDS round it wont bend... it will simply shatter and the fragments will simply not have the mass or shape to penetrate even very light armour.

    The formula you posted is interesting, but doesn't include hardness... either of the target or the penetrator.

    I would suggest there is a significant range in penetration performance for different materials... Tungsten, DU, steel... and of course all the related alloys and combinations.

    DU would offer the best performance having the highest density, good hardness with certain alloys, and of course its natural pyrophoric reaction to steel armours.

    The obvious problem is its toxic nature and ongoing radiation hazard on the training grounds and war zones...


    _________________
    “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
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:38 pm

    Don't you know that DU is 100% safe, with absolutely zero negative health effects. Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:58 pm

    Any Russian round can penetrate Chobham, just depends on thickness of the array.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:52 am

    Don't you know that DU is 100% safe, with absolutely zero negative health effects.

    There is no such thing as a 100% safe heavy metal.

    Lead is perfectly safe in solid form... if you wash your hands after handling it.

    The problem with DU is that it is mildly radioactive... which all experts agree on. What they don't agree on is how safe that level of radiation is.

    Most of the supporters of DU ammo will say that DU is actually less radioactive than things you will find in your garden in many northern hemisphere countries and therefore it is not dangerous.

    Those who oppose DU as an ammo option talk about how, when it is used, the pyrophoric nature of DU (ie it burns) and of course the velocity and energy of impacts both create a very very fine dust of DU that spreads over a very wide area around the impact point.

    In other words they are not saying the material is dangerous to handle, they are saying that when you use it it suddenly becomes very ingestible... and that is the problem. Outside you body it could be two or three times more radioactive than it is and still not do you any harm. Once it is inside your body however the problems suddenly become fairly drastic. Your body does not recognise is for what it is and mistakes it for different materials... just like caesium is mistaken and used in bone structure, the DU gets built into the body structure and while its low level of radiation can't penetrate skin it is genotoxic. It damages human body cells at the genetic level.
    Victims will suffer the effects of radiation poisoning... though the very low doses will delay the onset of symptoms, the half life of DU is billions of years... which means if you have a 7kg penetrator that completely burns out with the vehicle it destroys then in a billion years the radioactive decay means there will be 3.5kgs of DU and 3.5kgs of lead left. After another billion years there will be 1.75 kilos of DU etc etc.

    The effect on the soldiers will be serious and unexplained sicknesses that will be quite debilitating, but the worst thing is that their children will suffer a much higher rate of mutation because of the genotoxic nature of the DU.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:02 am

    BTW if you don't believe me that is fine... there is a powerful lobby in the US that wants to pretend that DU is perfectly safe... it is certainly effective in the role.

    The problem is the clean up afterwards, but then the US military doesn't care about that... look at how much agent orange and a range of other chemicals they poured over Vietnam in the 70s.

    Very simply DU is depleted uranium and is basically made of spent nuclear fuel rods. It is radioactive waste.

    While tricky to handle (it reacts with steel) it is very cheap and a "good use for waste".

    The alternative is very expensive alloys of tungsten, which together with a longer barrel like the L55 gun on the new Leopards gives it comparable performance to a DU round from the shorter barrel of the US Abrams.

    If DU really was 100% safe then why bother with expensive tungsten alternatives?

    Why do the US keep their DU rounds for war and not use them at their own training grounds?

    Clean up at home is expensive, while clean up in Iraq and Afghanistan and Serbia... is total free because it isn't done, because they deny there is a problem.

    It is the head in the sand attitude... we don't know that it is dangerous so we will continue to use it till proved otherwise.

    Of course they don't use it at home and as my nephew said... he can get me the empty 25mm shell cases from a LAV III, but he can't get the live AP rounds because they are radioactive... (and to be honest... I don't want the radioactive bits anyway.)


    _________________
    “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
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:11 am

    BTW if you don't believe me that is fine... there is a powerful lobby in the US that wants to pretend that DU is perfectly safe... it is certainly effective in the role.

    Sarcasm, DU is horrible stuff. I hate it and it's sad to see my country using it, when even the supposedly evil Russians wont unless it's a doomsday WWIII scenario. I don't think many other European countries use it either.

    Really, there's some serious denial in the US military regarding DU munitions.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 106
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:34 am

    Question guys. Whats the difference between the "cassette" loader and the "basket" loader, as in the difference between the ones used on the T-64/80 and the T-72/90?
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Chobham armour

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:30 am

    Chobham armor is good, but it isn't invincible. The M1 has incurred causalities from the humble rpg-7, same with the T-72. There's also instances were both tanks have absorbed multiple RPG hits and have made it out with the crew intact.

    The east and the west have just taken far different approaches to MBT design and protection.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:34 pm