Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Present transmissions seen working into any T-72 and T-90 model are not fully automatic, it is proven by the fact they cannot rotate around their central axis with a track rolling forward and the other rolling backwards.
Really?
You think that?
A T-34 has control sticks... forward to go forward and back to slow down or go backwards.
One stick for each track.
Gears for higher speeds.
When sitting still a T-34 driver can push one stick forward and one stick back and do what you suggest you need an automatic transmission for...
Manual clutch and manual gearbox in T-34.
By itself, rotating around the central axis sounds as it could be just a stunt, but it speaks about the capabilities of the transmission to manage power variations and wrong manouveurs by the pilot, in this way relieving him from a lot of workload.
Yes... of course... because if he turns too hard and gets the angle of rotation wrong he has to stop the vehicle.... get out... make sure all the tires are fully pumped up and then get back in and start up the engine and... no he does not... if he turns too hard he might cut a corner and run over a car or smash into a building... which is not really that big a deal.
BTW what if the driver is a super dooper western tank also makes a mistake.... how the fuck does this transmission detect whether he has turned too sharply or not sharply enough, or has done it just right... how does he know what manouver was intended? Does it read his mind or is it in the manual?
Driving a tank in a battle, it is just too easy to ask a transmission too much in terms of braking, reversing or turning, up to the point to stop abruptly the tank altogether.
Most transmissions are built around the engine and the weight of the tank, but having said that transmissions break down occasionally to think otherwise is to be naive. The drivers do get training and learn what they can do and what they can't, and what they should or should not do.
An advanced, fully automated transmission, will apply any input just up to the maximum extent it could manage, superseding any input potentially dangerous.
Really... I thought it just changed gears.
T-72 and T-90 present engines are quite powerful, but far from being all that dependable, to the point that in peace time they are downrated to prevent too much tear and failures, again it has to be rectified with an engine able to provide all the full power for all of its standard life expectancy.
F-16 pilots are g limited during training to maximise the life span of the air frame, engines in tanks are not... these engines are designed to be used at the rated level... to save engine life they will use tank simulators more and more but in the mean time they take older model tanks out for drives...
If the standard for a tank engine should be like 50,000 running hours before total overhaul and rebuild, than it has to work at full settings for 50,000 hours, with no compromise being acceptable.
So without knowing anything about the new engines fitted to the upgraded T-72 and the T-90AM you are saying their engines are crap?
Please provide all the evidence for these accusations or in future I will refer to you as May.
About APFSDS, together with the alloy properties and its molecular structure, penetrator length is the real performance defining factor.
A given thickness will limit length, because a very long narrow rod will flex and any flex would be fatal to penetration performance because it would fold like a bent nail and not penetrate at all.
So, given as defined the alloy used for the penetrator, and given as defined the building process with the resulting internal molecular structure, the only real way to boost penetration capabilities is to design longer penetrators.
Length means weight concentrated on a small point, which is good, but as I said too much and everything goes real bad real fast.
A longer penetrator is heavier but the material it is made of and its construction is just as important as its length... if not more so.
Even boosts in speed are of limited usefulness, without an appropriate increment in penetrator's length.
If that were true then why aren't APFSDS penetrators that are 3m long the standard?
The Sprut towed gun of the Soviet and Russian Army could have a penetrator of any length you like...
You could equally say that the longer the barrel the better the penetration and performance of all rounds will be... so where are the 20m long tank gun barrels?
At the end of the day extreme length would be more of a problem than any sort of solution.
Guns seem to be around 6-8m long for tanks... they could make them longer but they would keep bumping them into things and damaging them... besides a long gun is a heavier gun... it is the same with ammo.
I read some of your other posts and it's become clear to me that dozens of exploding HEAT and HE shells cannot be held back by rather thin "blast-proof" doors. The "blast-proof" doors on the M1A2 Abrams are apparently only 10cm thick.
There is no such thing as blast proof... just like there is no such thing as bullet proof...
These are blast resistant doors into the crew area (a sliding door so the loader can get ammo but kept closed in case the ammo area is hit and so the blast does not enter the crew compartment). The blow out panels are designed to prevent enemy fire entering the ammo compartment but are design to blow out if there is an internal explosion. This compromised design is intended to stop an enemy using an anti material rifle to shoot your main gun ammo and set it on fire to destroy the tank, but also if an enemy ATGMs like Konkurs hits the side of the tank and penetrates and ignites the ammo that the ammo will blow up and through the blow out panels and not through the blast door into the crew compartment.
10cm is 100mm which is more than the frontal armour on a T-34.
I understand that a turret bustle is more exposed to enemy fire but it also increases the offensive qualities of the tank through the use of longer rounds.
I agree, and with fluid binary propellent then the risk of putting APFSDS rounds in the turret bustle is eliminated because with just penetrator rods and no propellent there would be no risk of fire... just the chance of some damaged rounds.
Does the binary liquid propellant set-up reduce the chances of explosion or does it completely remove the possibility of that event? I presume that this binary liquid design enables the 62 rounds in the rear turret autoloader to consume the same space as 31 rounds.
There are three risks of secondary explosion in a tank... fuel, HE and HEAT warheads in rounds and missiles, and propellent.
The biggest risk is propellent because it is very easy to set off... just a spark will do it. In comparison most modern explosives need an explosion to detonate them... if you set them on fire they will burn but that is all.
Fuel needs to be heated to a flashpoint before it will explode... which is rather hot and with diesel it will need to burn for several minutes to achieve that...
A Konkurs hit directly to a HE warhead will detonate it and its detonation would probably set off other HE and HEAT rounds near is so there is always the risk of explosion... the risk of it hitting fuel and setting it off in an explosion big enough to destroy the vehicle is rather low IMHO.
Binary liquid fuel systems would make a tank a hard nut to crack...
The T-90AM could certainly serve as a test-bed for systems in the T-14 Armata and would greatly benefit from the incorporation of advanced systems like the Afghanit APS. If the T-90AM essentially became roboticized, would it not be vulnerable to hacking - just like the drones currently in use?
Encrypted datalinks could be used, but you would have to monitor the battlefield for enemy EM signals and any platforms directing signals at your robots should be priority targets...
but an APS is absolutely essential.
I agree, but against most current threats ARENA-2 should be fine... keep afghansi a secret... the sooner information about it spreads the sooner it will need an upgrade...
Underfloor blow-out panels would not stop exploding HEAT and HE rounds from piercing up into the crew compartment, so I now see the folly of underfloor blow-out panels - especially in the age of asymmetric warfare. I
I suspect the logic is that any underfloor explosion that penetrates the floor armour will kill the crew anyway... so by putting the autoloader there it is first of all unlikely to get hit and secondly if it is hit the crew would likely have been killed anyway...
Thanks again for taking the time to answer the flurry of questions I directed your way. respekt
No worries.
Actually I often find questions about things I know interesting, because it makes me think more about how the things I knew about work and why they work the way they do...
