Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    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 1:32 pm

    The T-72's autoloader stores both the projectiles and propellant charges horizontally, underneath a firewall. Both the projectile and the propellant are raised into position by an elevator simultaneously then rammed separately into the breech.

    Like this.



    The T-80 stores the projectiles horizontally, and the propellant charges vertically.

    Here's a hard to find image of the T-80's magazine. It's actually a T-84, but it's the same setup.



    However, unlike the T-72, the T-80 loads in one smooth motion. This is why the T-80 has a slightly faster rate of fire.

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:55 pm

    Nice vids Zivo.

    Basically cassette and basket generally refer to both or either system... which are basically automated ammo handling systems.

    The T-80 system evolved from the system from the T-64, and the T-72 system was developed separately.

    The T-80 system is faster but is fatally flawed.

    The whole reason the Black Eagle had a rear turret bustle autoloader and removed all the under floor ammo is because in the T-80 autoloader the ammo stubs are positioned vertically and are exposed... and are made of propellent impregnated cardboard. They are supposed to combust completely in the chamber during firing so all that is left is a small stub steel shell case.

    The problem is that any penetration in the crew compartment will send a shower of sparks and hot fragments and any contact with the propellent stubs on the floor will start a fierce fire and explosion of propellent with all the stubs igniting each other together.

    In the T-72 they are horizontal and separated from the crew compartment by steel armour plate, which means any fragments or hot sparks that enter the crew compartment can't contact the propellent stubs and will fairly rapidly burn out.

    Experience in Chechnia is that a penetration with a T-80... boom. Penetration of the T-72 with the loose ammo in the crew compartment removed and no boom.

    Only solution for T-80 was to move the autoloader to the turret bustle.

    For the T-72/90 move the extra ammo to an armoured box between the turret and engine and the rear turret bustle in a separated protected position.


    _________________
    “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 2:34 pm

    Absolutely

    Another issue with the vertical propellant storage is that it produces a significantly larger target vs the T-72/90's magazine. By being cylindrical in form, any hit on the T-80's lower hull could result it a catastrophic detonation of the ammunition.

    ali.a.r

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

    Soviet Cold War Tanks

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:54 pm

    Thanks a for the explanations Zivo and Garry.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Anyways, what is the current status of Russian Tank Optics?

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:40 am

    Anyways, what is the current status of Russian Tank Optics? I have read that improved Catherine Thermals are under licensed production in Russia which is good news. Still, considering the importance of such equipment in staying relevant in today's battlefield why has there been no attempts as of late(dunno much dunno , please correct me if I am wrong, I just google translate potential "tags" and try to understand as much Embarassed ) to establish the domestic capability to independently produce and develop the tech.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Tank Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:05 am

    They just concluded a new licence to produce the newer Catherine XP thermals, which are third gen QWIP based thermal imagers, and if you pay careful attention quite a few new Russian systems actually use Russian developed thermal sights including their current thermal weapon sights.

    The experience and production facilities used for the production of the older Catherine Thermals and now the new models is being used to further advance Russian capabilities in this field.

    In fact in image intensification technology the last time I looked they were working on sights that could distinguish between natural colours (ie plants) and artifical colours (ie camouflage coloured fabric or paint).

    They seem to be moving forward just fine.


    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 15, 2013 6:48 am


    AFAIK modern MBTs offroad speeds don't really have any practical difference, If there is
    then it would be a liability since you need to stay in straight path to do so and you
    would be going to encounter all sorts of nasty bumps along the way that you would rather
    slowly cross. Also, I highly doubt Leopard 2s and Leclerc could withstand flying and falling
    2m in the air in T-90 speeds let alone their top speeds.

    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Wed May 15, 2013 12:08 pm

    Haha. There is nothing practical with jumping and shooting in same time. Stupid pakazukha(maybe not only Soviet as i've seen germans doing it too). Can You imagine the stress T-90 suspension and equipment gets? There is a reason why T-90MS don't jump.
    Judging by that kangaroos are best MBT in the world.
    And TOP SPEED is not IMPORTANT in battle. Acceleration in forward and in reverse is.
    T-90 is not really flagship of advanced technology and mechanics. There is a reason it was called T-34 by Russian general. It does cost cheap, but Russian army never had big interest in this tank, they even stopped buying them for a year. It's clearly stopgap tank and if Soviet union wouldn't collapsed, T-90 would never happen. It's evolutionary dead end.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 15, 2013 2:43 pm

    Regular wrote:Haha. There is nothing practical with jumping and shooting in same time. Stupid pakazukha(maybe not only Soviet as i've seen germans doing it too). Can You imagine the stress T-90 suspension and equipment gets? There is a reason why T-90MS don't jump.
    Judging by that kangaroos are best MBT in the world.
    No one said shooting in midair was practical, if anything I was merely pointing out that for whatever reason these 3 tanks were to go top speed offroad and were to jump off dirt ramps, the slightly higher top speed would work against the western tanks. Anyway, marketing stunt or not, the point is they were confident enough that such stress would be handled by the suspension, something I don't see in the 2 other tanks. As for T-90MS, well there is a substantial 1.5 ton weight increase so we'll see.
    Regular wrote: And TOP SPEED is not IMPORTANT in battle. Acceleration in forward and in reverse is.
    Well, of course it is. The ability to move from cover to cover as quickly as possible would be the best armor of all.
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 15, 2013 5:35 pm

    Regular wrote:Haha. There is nothing practical with jumping and shooting in same time. Stupid pakazukha(maybe not only Soviet as i've seen germans doing it too). Can You imagine the stress T-90 suspension and equipment gets? There is a reason why T-90MS don't jump.
    Judging by that kangaroos are best MBT in the world.
    And TOP SPEED is not IMPORTANT in battle. Acceleration in forward and in reverse is.
    T-90 is not really flagship of advanced technology and mechanics. There is a reason it was called T-34 by Russian general. It does cost cheap, but Russian army never had big interest in this tank, they even stopped buying them for a year. It's clearly stopgap tank and if Soviet union wouldn't collapsed, T-90 would never happen. It's evolutionary dead end.

    That has nothing to do with the T-90, and everything to do with Makarov being an idiot.

    And it is not cheap either.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Wed May 15, 2013 7:09 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:

    Sorry, but off road speed of T-90 is adequate to batter it's crew into pulp by simply jumping from every "ramp". Same goes to western tanks too. Jumping does massive stress to suspension and equipment inside.
    Ever seen live fire exercises? Tanks move relatively slowly while maintaining precise fire for about 1km distance. To hit something precisely over 1 km You have to be stationary. That's Russian tactics. There would be serious consequences for driver-mechanic if his cowboyish actions would cause any mechanical problem.
    The ability to move from cover to cover as quickly as possible would be the best armor of all.
    You are right here, but You make it sound like tank is running on two legs and can dodge bullets like Neo.
    When we have big distances and tanks get in the duel there is certain time till projectiles reach their target. And here comes acceleration. Shoot, move ,shoot, move. TC is orchestrating those moves.
    You can't run from cover to cover while closing as You have upper hand in long distance engagements because of ATGM. One thing is certain, top speed and jumping is good for shows, military exercises that portray real battle look different.

    As for T-90MS, well there is a substantial 1.5 ton weight increase so we'll see.

    I think T-90MS can jump like it's preprocessors, 1.5t doesn't mean much.
    Hell, even Merkava jumps.

    Why we should be impressed by it? Would like to see drivers toothless grin after doing those jumps with battle-loaded tank.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Wed May 15, 2013 7:18 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    That has nothing to do with the T-90, and everything to do with Makarov being an idiot.

    And it is not cheap either.
    It wasn't just Makarov that stated that. Maybe You are right, he has some retarded statements. T-90 is a product of collapsed industry.
    And what about it's price? How the hell it's not cheap? It's fully domestic product. One general said that it would be cheaper to buy leopard-2 tanks, but sure they cost about 6 mil per unit not to mention logistics needed. So Armata will be what, over 8 mil per unit ?
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 15, 2013 7:36 pm

    T-90 is a fine product for the time. Was USSR working on replacement? Yes, but as T-90MS shows, T-90 is about as evolutionary dead as its late COld War contemporaries.

    If we compare export prices, T-90A is not a cheap product at all by world standards. And why should it be, it is a good MBT. I can't imagine T-90MS being much cheaper than Leopard 2s either.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 16, 2013 3:07 am

    It's clearly stopgap tank and if Soviet union wouldn't collapsed, T-90 would never happen. It's evolutionary dead end.

    You are being unfair... the T-90 is a tank developed from a cheap mass production tank that turned out to be even better than the top line expensive tank it was produced in parallel with... ie the T-80.

    The T-90 is the top of its evolutionary chart the same way the M1 Abrams in its current in service model is too. Just because the next gen vehicles will likely have unmanned turrets and perhaps even be completely unmanned does not mean they are bad tanks.

    The ability of a tank to leave the ground and not require to be immediately sent for repair is not a practical thing that would be useful in combat... much like a tail slide for a fighter, but it shows acceleration and a certain level of mobility... just as a tailslide shows robust engines that are not bothered even by reverse air flows... which is very significant in combat... no point fitting your plane with TVC systems if your engines stall when the airflow changes direction.

    To hit something precisely over 1 km You have to be stationary.

    Except with Refleks... Smile

    You are right here, but You make it sound like tank is running on two legs and can dodge bullets like Neo.

    Claims of marketing departments are often exaggerated... but even the tail slide manouver showed a level of design and performance with symetrical air flow that suggested these aircraft were not like the generation before them.



    _________________
    “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
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 11:34 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You are being unfair... the T-90 is a tank developed from a cheap mass production tank that turned out to be even better than the top line expensive tank it was produced in parallel with... ie the T-80.
    I can I agree on that, but only because T-80 never achieved it's maturity. What Ukrainians are doing with T-80 tanks are nice, for example Oplot-M adresses all disadvantages of T-80 family. I can only imagine what Russians could do with that tank if they could make T-90MS. I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too. So many years ago I was catching all the details about Black Eagle, who was considered T-80 on steroids. It happened to be just a mock up, but heart was in the right place. Not to mention FST projects that where way ahead of their time.
    The T-90 is the top of its evolutionary chart the same way the M1 Abrams in its current in service model is too. Just because the next gen vehicles will likely have unmanned turrets and perhaps even be completely unmanned does not mean they are bad tanks.
    I've heard that M1A3 will only get minor upgrades, new wiring/cables, new computers and other minor upgrades that will make tankers life bit easier. Nothing revolutionary, or maybe i'm missing something.
    Soviet union already had unmanned tank turret in the 70ies. Army like always, objected something that was ahead of it's time and over their heads. Nowadays we have better control suites and over all smaller and better electronics, maybe it was lack of them that stopped west and east to use remote controlled tank turrets. Cause it looks like no brainer to me.
    ..does not mean they are bad tanks.
    Again, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's bad, but it going for T-90 is like dating super models and marrying a plain looking girl next door only because she will cost You less. Sorry for this analogy, Soviet union had some very advanced tanks of it's time. Should I mention T-64? Having two tanks wasn't an option for Russia and they chose the cheapest one. Too bad :/

    The ability of a tank to leave the ground and not require to be immediately sent for repair is not a practical thing that would be useful in combat... much like a tail slide for a fighter, but it shows acceleration and a certain level of mobility... just as a tailslide shows robust engines that are not bothered even by reverse air flows... which is very significant in combat... no point fitting your plane with TVC systems if your engines stall when the airflow changes direction.
    Can't argue with that.
    To hit something precisely over 1 km You have to be stationary.

    Except with Refleks... Smile
    You still have to maintain line of sight to guide the missile so driver have to behave properly. But I believe ATGM gives You edge in longer distances like steppes in Russia or vast deserts in middle east. So instead of moving in I would rather keep my distance and try to score hits while enemy tanks will have to close in or evade. For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach. I expect no less from Reflex. Still not sure about it's performance in central European landscape where engagement distances are short.
    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 Thu May 16, 2013 11:48 am

    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach.

    Care to elaborate on this?
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 12:25 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    If we compare export prices, T-90A is not a cheap product at all by world standards. And why should it be, it is a good MBT. I can't imagine T-90MS being much cheaper than Leopard 2s either.
    Well prices depend on loads of things. Does the customer get logistical support, tech transfer,training, spares and of course how many tanks they are buying. It's cheaper to buy more. It's really hard to determine real price. South Korean tank K2 tank could be so expensive because of their industry not being ready to produce it and not because it's a spaceship with lasers.
    Then again, just a question. What makes T-90MS as expensive as Leopard 2A6? Is suspension on T-90MS is on same price range? What about it's gun? Engine? Transmission? Fire and control systems? Sights? Com systems?
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 1:18 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach.

    Care to elaborate on this?
    Sorry can't find where I was reading that, it was years ago. But M3 and M2 bradleys working together with infantry/heavier vehicles scored more kills in first and second war in Iraq than tanks did. Still the death rained from the sky.
    The only thing I can find is fas.org website without proper source.

    I think there was even some kills made with Bushmaster, but the real killer was TOW missiles. Hopefully I will go back from work and will find some info if You are interested.

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 16, 2013 2:15 pm

    Haha. There is nothing practical with jumping and shooting in same time......Judging by that kangaroos are best MBT in the world.


    Practical ?
    What this has to do with practicality ?

    Capability to execute those "jumps" on HARD soil (....not the very soft one ,on which the Merkawa of the video land, which obviously absorb the stress in place of MBT's suspension Wink ) retaining perfect mobility after, is a very good "marker" of a CRUCIAL battlefield capability for a MBT -product at its own time of a sound technical design- capable to enormously influence its exchange ratio in mobile engagements against direct enemy fire.

    In substance those "jumps" or ,for better say, capability of the MBT's torsion bar suspensions to absorb similar level of energy (see attentively the slow motion from 0:25 of this video)






    indicate capability of the tank in question to proceed off-road in battle at any speed and velocity's delta and long any vector of motion independently of the gradient and height's gap characterizing it.

    The combined effect with the vastly reduced target area of domestic MBT and theirs turret design produce an enormous difference in the final PHit of unguided enemy direct fire in mobile engagements at tactically relevant ranges.


    I provided a brief explanation of the terms of this specific question and its effects about an year and half ago at post 555 of another thread ,read it if you want.



    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p540-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am


    Usually the fire produced during those "jumps" (the round ,as you would have surely noted by now, is effectively shoot just before leave the terrain when FCS can still compute a fire solution) include mostly HE/HE-Frag rounds against infantry positions/bunker or Ainet-programmed rounds against known position of hovering helicopters/ATGM squads.



    Still not sure about it's performance in central European landscape where engagement distances are short.

    Metropolitan legends....even more those useful at justify in some way a western failure in designing a particular weapon system Razz....are truly die-hard even in the era of Google map. Laughing Laughing

    Give a direct "look" to the morphological characteristic of area involved in the hypothetical Warsaw Pact armoured offensive in Europe, such as the "Fulda Gap" the "Northern Plain route" or "HOF's Bisector" (or even better visit those places personally..) and you will realize the incredible nerve of those people attempting, still today, to justify western failure to produce an efficient gun launched ATGM for theirs MBTs with fairy tales on the LOS in Germany Laughing Laughing






    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 17, 2013 2:14 am

    I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too.

    The T-90 is a brilliant tank... it manages fire power and armour comparable with western tanks at 10-20 tons less weight... and several million dollars less cost.

    I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too. So many years ago I was catching all the details about Black Eagle, who was considered T-80 on steroids. It happened to be just a mock up, but heart was in the right place. Not to mention FST projects that where way ahead of their time.

    The Black Eagle was a design necessitated by the way ammo is stored in a T-80. Turret bustle ammo is exposed to enemy fire and is a potential weak point. The Burlak upgrade of the T-90 was rejected because it used both an under floor autoloader like the T-72 and a turret bustle autoloader like the Black Eagle.

    I've heard that M1A3 will only get minor upgrades, new wiring/cables, new computers and other minor upgrades that will make tankers life bit easier. Nothing revolutionary, or maybe i'm missing something.

    Certainly nothing revolutionary, just like the T-90MS is not revolutionary either... both are top of the evolutionary charts of their tank families is all I said. For the Russians the introduction of the armata family of vehicles is the revolutionary new tank... along with the medium and light vehicles families.

    Cause it looks like no brainer to me.

    The turret front of a tank is generally the most heavily armoured part of a tank because it is the most likely part to get hit in combat, but it is not as simple as just deciding to put the crew in the hull. They need to be able to have the same situational awareness as a tank commander with his head sticking out the top of a tank. A US tank commander was killed in desert storm because his vehicle turned a corner and stumbled upon a BMP which when fired upon exploded and the commander of the Abrams was killed by shrapnel from the explosion. The Abrams has excellent optics... panoramic sights, thermal imagers etc etc... yet the commander operating in a built up area wanted to have his head and upper body exposed so he could see the battlefield better.

    In other words with all the sophisticated optics in a modern western tank at the end of the cold war the visibility and automation from the top of the turret wasn't sufficient for the tank commander... there is little chance that 1970s level technology would provide a better view from down in the hull.

    Keep in mind that the BMP-1 had the commander sitting in the hull behind the driver... next to the front mounted engine, with the gunner in the one manned turret. Operationally however the commander often kicked the gunner out of the turret and took that position himself for better views of the battlefield.

    The BMP-2 had a two man turret with the commander and gunner seated there.

    The first prototypes of the Bradley had the same arrangement as the BMP-1, but they copied the new arrangement of the BMP-2 later on.

    but it going for T-90 is like dating super models and marrying a plain looking girl next door only because she will cost You less.

    It feels great entering a bar with a super model on your arm, but can she cook... can she even hold a sensible conversation? Beauty fades with time... and is in the eye of the beholder too. What happens when there is a male supermodel in the bar... are you sure she will be leaving with you, or the guy with the most expensive car there?

    Should I mention T-64? Having two tanks wasn't an option for Russia and they chose the cheapest one. Too bad :/

    No they didn't.

    The T-64 and T-80 were the most expensive Soviet tanks but were also troublesome. The T-72 was simple and cheap to make, but the T-90 adopted all the expensive technology that made the T-80 expensive... it got new armour and new sensors and new guns etc etc and in the end it was a better tank than the T-80... and likely not cheaper at all. Its main advantage was that it was Russian made, whereas the T-80 was only partly Russian made... the two main strands of development for the new T-80s made in the Ukraine were to remove Russian made components and to make it more NATO friendly.

    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach. I expect no less from Reflex.

    The advantage of the TOW in that respect is that at night the Iraqi tanks likely couldn't see 4km in the dark so they likely never saw them coming. In Europe however the wire guided requires the Bradley to remain stationary during the entire flight of the missile to the target, which is quite some time. With refleks there is no wire so the tank can be moving slowly while controlling the missile. In the T-90 there is an autotarget tracker... just like in the Kornet-EM so firing while moving should not be a problem... though obviously line of sight needs to be maintained.

    I think there was even some kills made with Bushmaster,

    True, but only T-55s from the side, not from the front.



    _________________
    “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
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 5:52 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Capability to execute those "jumps" on HARD soil (....not the very soft one ,on which the Merkawa of the video land, which obviously absorb the stress in place of MBT's suspension Wink

    What makes You think that Merkava landed on a pillow? I'm pretty sure it hurt them pretty bad. Merkava suspension would be the weakest part of this tank.
    retaining perfect mobility after, is a very good "marker" of a CRUCIAL battlefield capability for a MBT -product at its own time of a sound technical design- capable to enormously influence its exchange ratio in mobile engagements against direct enemy fire.
    Why not to stick bayonet on it too? Koроче, умеешь ты говорит конкретно? ))
    In mobile engangements You will hardly have speed to jump at all.





    You can see same thing in war games that recreate real battle. No one is flying their tanks there.

    In substance those "jumps" or ,for better say, capability of the MBT's torsion bar suspensions to absorb similar level of energy (see attentively the slow motion from 0:25 of this video)
    Torsion bar suspension is well known to be durable.

    indicate capability of the tank in question to proceed off-road in battle at any speed and velocity's delta and long any vector of motion independently of the gradient and height's gap characterizing it.
    Capability that is used to impress crowd. Pokazukha. Torsion bar suspension is already proven, what else there to prove? But somehow in real life Russian tanks don't parquer. Maybe it is something to do with crew not wanting their spines go right through their arses? All Russian tank maneuvers involve moderate speed and tanks tend to keep battle formations and don't rush through field like headless chickens.

    The combined effect with the vastly reduced target area of domestic MBT and theirs turret design produce an enormous difference in the final PHit of unguided enemy direct fire in mobile engagements at tactically relevant ranges.
    In era of modern FCS reduced target area doesn't play such important role. Tanks use even smaller targets for practice. Where is enormous difference when look at the size of T-90AM, it's not really a dwarf.

    I provided a brief explanation of the terms of this specific question and its effects about an year and half ago at post 555 of another thread ,read it if you want.



    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p540-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am
    Thanks, I'll do that

    Usually the fire produced during those "jumps" (the round ,as you would have surely noted by now, is effectively shoot just before leave the terrain when FCS can still compute a fire solution) include mostly HE/HE-Frag rounds against infantry positions/bunker or Ainet-programmed rounds against known position of hovering helicopters/ATGM squads.
    Flying bunkers? Barrel can't depress lower because hull is climbing up on the hill/ramp, look again at the video. Best effective way to toast infantry positions is not to jump at all, just shoot from stationary position. Infantry is helpless if You keep right distance. What about shots in mid air? How You gonna rehabilitate them?

    Metropolitan legends....even more those useful at justify in some way a western failure in designing a particular weapon system Razz....are truly die-hard even in the era of Google map. Laughing Laughing
    |
    So what are typical combat ranges in Europe?
    And what's so special about 80ies technology that West can't design? Oh, I get it, they are stupid.
    What's wrong with Lahat then?


    Give a direct "look" to the morphological characteristic of area involved in the hypothetical Warsaw Pact armoured offensive in Europe, such as the "Fulda Gap" the "Northern Plain route" or "HOF's Bisector" (or even better visit those places personally..) and you will realize the incredible nerve of those people attempting, still today, to justify western failure to produce an efficient gun launched ATGM for theirs MBTs with fairy tales on the LOS in Germany Laughing Laughing
    There is still places where ATGM wouldn't be perfect choice. If it was such game changer Why soviets didn't go for full missile tank then like we seen before? Are You saying that when monkey countries like Iran or Ukraine can build AT-11 derivatives NATO can't?


    Last edited by Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 6:08 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 6:06 am

    [quote="GarryB"]


    Thanks for reply, good read. Voted.
    Can't say that I disagree, but for me it's natural to feel more sympathetic towards T-80 family, Ukraine is lucky to have Kharkov. Too bad they are rehashing same thing all over again. They are not as capable as Russia and their financing must be way lower. I was reading a lot about Soviet prototypes and some of them really make my jaw drop.
    The only thing that restrained soviet designs was imposed by doctrine and.. stubbornness of certain people.
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 17, 2013 7:20 am

    T-80 was made in Leningrad.

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 17, 2013 11:49 am

    As TR-1 points out T-80 was also made in Omsk...

    I don't dislike the T-80, but the ammo arrangement needs serious attention.

    If it was such game changer Why soviets didn't go for full missile tank then like we seen before?

    Because the Soviets were very conservative... the people doing the buying... not the designers. There were plenty of missile armed tanks including the IT-1 with ATGMs based on AT-2, but it was realised that like ERA it wasn't the secret super solution.

    ERA is useful, but heavy base armour is needed too... plus soft kill systems like smoke grenades and IR dazzlers like Shtora, and of course hard kill systems like ARENA.

    Missiles are excellent, but APFSDS rounds are very good too as are HEAT rounds and HE FRAG ANIET fused rounds too.

    More importantly the first missiles used command guidance boxes like SHTURM and ATAKA, but the most common ones were laser beam riders which can be very high speed and very high performance missiles.

    Interesting to note the US gun launched ATGM system was the Sheridan which was rubbish... they later did what the Soviets did and developed a tank based version, but they made the mistake of basing the gun around the missile instead of the other way around so they ended up with an M60 with a gun that was useless for anything except firing a missile that didnt really work. The French made the same mistake.

    In comparison the Soviets came up with a range of missiles that could be added to most of their tanks with a minor change of sights... the cost was a minor reduction in the number of live rounds it could carry.

    In comparison the Sheridan was a joke... an M113 filled with TOW missiles cost a fraction of what the Sheridan did and was more mobile and far more effective in actual combat.


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri May 17, 2013 4:30 pm

    What makes You think that Merkava landed on a pillow? I'm pretty sure it hurt them pretty bad. Merkava suspension would be the weakest part of this tank

    What ? Practically anything....

    1) Depressed position of the front axle
    2) Very high amount and overall consistency of the terrain lifted by the track train in the motion and in the "jump"
    3) Wide presence of short root plants (it is an any effect a soft grassland Smile )
    4) Almost complete absence of any suspension generated elastic bounce after the landing (you can notice the immense difference with any video where a MBT, forcibly much lighter than western behemoth, absorb really the energy produced by similar impact)


    Why not to stick bayonet on it too?

    Shocked

    Reading comprehension anyone ? Laughing



    In mobile engangements You will hardly have speed to jump at all.

    I image that you know the difference between engagements in marksmanship training (where the maximum hit percentage is the central parameter taken into account) and tactical maneuver training (where variation of position in relation to tempo and time of exposure to enemy fire and the mode of enemy direct fire's Phit is taken in consideration too).







    Usually in war MBT armored spearhead proceed ,in uncontested zones, at high speed (compatibly with average speed in that specific terrain of the supporting IFVs and APCs) to deprive enemy vital time for reactive manoeuver; in contested zones instead average MBT's speed depend on volume and nature or enemy fire : where high density of unguided direct fire (mostly artillery barrages, MBT's APFSDS and auto-cannon fire ) a relatively high speed with frequent changes of direction is maintained, where instead enemy fire is constituted mostly by ATGMs and PGM munitions the speed is significantly lower, to maximize Phit and capitalize at maximum zone of coverage of multispectral battlefield obscurants.


    Western nations MBT's training has historically stressed on marksmanship training for the simple reason that them expected to fight a defensive war against overwhelming enemy forces from almost fixed entrenched or defilades positions, neither that theirs same design don't allowed for good strategic and tactical mobility or capable to achieve a substantial hit avoidance in mobile engagements.



    Torsion bar suspension is well known to be durable.

    Obviously not.
    Above all if over the same suspension, in the same condition of T-90, would burden 17-18 tons more falling from 1,80 m.......
    There is no chance that an M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and the likes would not disintegrate their suspensions with a solicitation ,on hard terrain, even only several times lower than that.


    Flying bunkers? Barrel can't depress lower because hull is climbing up on the hill/ramp, look again at the video.

    Shocked

    Not Regular, simply any fixed targets attacked with HE-Frag rounds (possibly with Ainet setted detonation) with usual ballistic trajectory.
    I repeat one more time: it is not that the "jump" is necessary for something Laughing ; being capable to sustain similar jumps point instead to the capability to proceed at relatively high speed off road in terrain characterized by high gradient.



    So what are typical combat ranges in Europe?


    Well ,only to talk of the area interested in Soviet offensive in West Germany :


    Fulda Gap's "mouth" near Rasdorf and Geisa




    Ulst-Tann area ,start axis of second Warsaw Pact spearhead in the sector



    http://www.ipernity.com/doc/m83.eu/4683277



    On the southern sector: Bogen,(... the famous "Bogen's Fulcrum") near Danube. You can realize also the Soviet stress on amphibious capabilities Wink .







    Central/Northern sector :


    Berga's grassland (always Third Shock Army)





    Northern Plain : Rhine's plateau




    Do you can realize now why i laugh when see people attempting ,still today, to sold around this comical fairy tale on the gun launched ATGMs....not fruitable in European regions, when in reality it represent an almost perfect environment for theirs employment Razz Razz


    And what's so special about 80ies technology that West can't design?

    The same preventing, for example,to the West to design any supersonic cruise missiles up to today Wink

    Obviously it is not a problem of stupidity or intelligence but of different evolutionary priority and sector of historical excellence between West and East : West in particular USA ,has always strongly stressed as first priority on information and data processing/integration/dissemination technology and the related electronic components; this is the main sector of western excellence.


    In era of modern FCS reduced target area doesn't play such important role. Tanks use even smaller targets for practice. Where is enormous difference when look at the size of T-90AM, it's not really a dwarf.

    This is simply NOT TRUE (unless someone manage to create a future reading FCS or KE rounds increase enormously theirs average speed Very Happy ) and nothing more nothing less than the umpteenth metropolitan legend circulating on those subjects.

    We talk here of unguided fire (such as today APFSDS ) at tactically relevant range in mobile engagements ; please read why at the link i pointed out in the last post.
    Anyway this is an image showing the difference in target area between a T-90 and an M1 Abrams









    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:18 am