Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well, Leopard 2A7 is just next step in PSO kit that was upgraded and standarized. While Revolution and Evolution are upgrade packages for older and newer variants. All are similiar and it is hard if not impossible to tell what package is better, because all are more or less the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Eh. It sounds counterproductive, though, that more manufacturers of a country would offer similar stuff. Well, I am personally still waiting for the whispered successors of the T-90 appearing in my lifetime... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 T-90M was allready shown, nice vehicle. Object-195 photos also leaked recently byt rumor said that this was early prototype. Also recently Object-640 was shown while some guys taken it for a ride. And that thing based on T-90 with strange designed and very big dynamic protection elements. So something is moving there. But my favorite from Russian/Ukrainian designs is T-84M Oplot-M, what a beast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The Ukrainians have done really admirable jobs, surely, especially in converting older models. I think their T-64 BULAT is one of the finest pieces of olden junk out there. Kharkov's plant really was the great innovator, since the CCCP days, and Uralvagonzavod closed the gap only with the T-90. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yup, they know how to do good jon in this buisness. Pitty that at former Leningrad and Omsk there are not much things in the work... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hmmm. When they do something, these days, it's usually for export. Talking of export, have you seen the YATGHN? If they told me there would be an export west/east hybrid tank some years ago, I would have laughed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 T-84-120 Yatagan is indeed interesting vehicle, well basicly it is T-84U Oplot with a turret bustle with mechanical loading system and 120mm smoothbore. Interesting design because they not only added that bustle but also left standard mechanical loading system under and around turret basket. This means two mechanical loading systems and good quantity of ammo. This also means that there is no additional ammo stored everywhere in a tank and survivability increased. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yes. That ammo cookoff thing is really what russian type tanks should get rid of, not the crampedness of the fighting compartment. Well, that's bad too, but a soldier can get used to that, unlike HE ammo exploding behind your bum and above your head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well, not only Russian or Ukrainian tanks suffers from that problem, from western tanks only M1 Abrams series have all ammo stored in isolated magazines. Even Merkava tanks contrary to popular belifes have with that problems, and actually all tanks across the world... besides M1 and several prototypes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Guess the info I read was biased. Because they really rave on about explosive failure of the T-80. ALWAYS. Are my sources ****ed up? No literature whatsoever told me ammo cookoff was ever a problem in western tanks, courtesy of manual loading allowing for separate storage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Guess the info I read was biased. Because they really rave on about explosive failure of the T-80. ALWAYS. Are my sources ****ed up? Problem with T-64/80/84 series is that in mechanical loading system propelant charges are stored vertical, in T-72/90 series it is not a problem, propelant charges are stored lower. The problem with all designs is rest of ammo not stored in mechanical loading system is stored everywhere and not in isolated compartment. In most western tanks ammo is also stored in simple racks. Leopard 2 have only 15 from 42 rounds stored in isolated magazine in turret bustle. Challenger 2 have only propelant charges stored in armored bins filled with extinguish fluids, HESH rounds are stored below turret ring in hull. Leclerc have only 22 rounds stored in isolated magazine in turret bustle, rest from 40 rounds are in hull, similiar in K2 and Type-90 (TK-90) and Type-10 (TK-10). Arjun have similiar storage as Leopard 2. C1 Ariete have all ammo stored in hull in unprotected racks. Merkava series have all ammo stored in hull in rear compartment, ammo is stored in armored bins, only Merkava Mk.4 have isloated magazine in turret bustle with blow off panels for 10 rounds. As I said from all tank in the world only M1 Abrams series and several prototypes from different countries have ammo stored in isolated magazines with blow-off panels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hmmm. So the yanks are undeniably ahead in something. OUCH! I just felt a pang in my European pride. Sustain me with your fierce Polish passion, Damian, or I might fall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hmmm. So the yanks are undeniably ahead in something. They allways were, for example M4 Sherman was really good medium tank, better tha German, British and Soviet medium tanks in any aspect especially in it's later versions. Also they got many great prototypes, pitty never fielded. M26 Pershing was lighter than PzKpfw. VI Ausf.H/E and in the same time better armored at some aspects. They only have problems with ammunition back then, it was made from too soft steel. M60 series, especially M60A1 for it's generation was very well armored. Yanks are strangely underestimated with their designs, while in fact they allways made at least competetive designs. M1 is not exception. The fact is congress demanded cheap tank, after MBT-70 fail. This is why M1 needed so much time to become what is it today. And armor thickness increased greatly from 740mm to 960mm as our research and books indicate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ah! The seeds of infart! I feel them! Seriously the M4 was that good? I thought WW2 was one of the moments when the USA were still on par with the rest of the world. I thought especially the late models of T-34 were good competitors to the M4, and the IS-3 was tougher than the Pershing? Am I wrong again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Seriously the M4 was that good? I thought WW2 was one of the moments when the USA were still on par with the rest of the world. I thought especially the late models of T-34 were good competitors to the M4, and the IS-3 was tougher than the Pershing? Am I wrong again? M4 yes, it was first tank with gun stabilization, however turret was not stabilized and there were no FCS back then. Late M4's like M4A3(76)W and M4A3E8 were safer in case of armor penetration than other tanks, thanks to firstly armored ammo storage and later besides armor at ammo racks there were also bulkheads filled with extiguish fluids. From automotive point of view M4 was also the best out there. T-34/85 was only comparabale in turret front armor and with theoretical gun capabilities. IS-3 was probably a bit better armored than M26 but the gun was not well suited to tank vs tank combat, rather direct fire support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You are an excellent teacher, Damian, but you lack empathy! My request of comfort was totally ignored! I even tried to stir a bit of Polish pride, yes? The spirit of Jan Sobieski and his 3000 winged Hussars trampling the Ottomans underhoof at Kahlenberg? Or Pilsudski's forces resisting the advance of Semjon Budjonni's 1st cavalry army? Heartless, Damian... Just kidding, of course. I'm very ready to learn new things, and despite my liking of Soviet/Russian hardware, I'll acknowledge flaws readily, unlike some idiot fanboys on the internet. And you've been a very knowledgeable teacher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I said it later, I will say it now, kind but too big words. Of course soviets were not so bad. In fact in cold war times only Americans and Soviets were innovative, while of course Germans and Brits also made good and competetive designs, but allmost all innovations were made in USA and USSR. Soviets had problems in WWII and directly after WWII. Lets say this clearly T-34 is to greatly overestimated... but it is also proof how good was soviet propaganda. If I can recommend some books, good are Dmitry Loza books about how he commandered Soviet M4 Sherman and other tanks. And book "T-34 Mythical Weapon". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well, there are bigger fishes than you, probably... but I have to see them yet in battlefront Forums! The knowledge of others here is usually of more general nature, and I myself do not aim for overspecialization in the field of warfare, and discourse with you is more fun then immobile essays on the internet. I could use a good informative read, yes. I'll see if the thing can be found in italian libraries (probably not). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You can found them on the internet and download. Khem, khem... http://military-machine.blogspot.com/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 "T-34 Mythical Weapon"? I'd like paper very much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yup, in case of US armored fighting vehicles I would greatly recommend a true bible. Richard Hunnicutt books, here are titles. Armored Car - A History Of The American Wheeled Combat Vehicles Half-Track - A History Of The American Semi-Tracked Vehicles Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles Stuart - A History of The American Light Tank Vol.1 Sheridan - A History Of The American Light Tank vol.2 Sherman - A History Of The American Medium Tank Pershing - A History Of The Medium Tank T20 Series Firepower - A History Of The American Heavy Tank Patton - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.1 Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2 Great books, very informative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Woah. A truly ponderous series of monographies. I already heard the name somewhere, so I can infer it's a popular author. I added Military machine to my bookmarks and I'm about to devour the first issue of "war machine". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 http://avaxsearch.com/avaxhome_search Here is another site, I also recommend Osprey books, just type that there. There are several series, best are Duel, Vanguard and New Vanguard. Also Concord books are good. Many more, I have so many of them that I'am too lazy to wrote all titles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 As I said before in another post, I like Osprey, but I recently read their stuff until my eyeballs bled, so it's a no-no. (for now) Plus Osprey books, for the sake of reaching a more comprehensive audience, perhaps, never get too detailed, not even in monographies, and they sometimes iterate trite stereotypes and consolidated military history assumptions (like the explodey soviet tanks of before). Don't sweat it! I'm quite tired myself, and I might go to sleep in ten-fifteen minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well Osprey books are good as support sources, but I agree that sometimes some things are just wrong. Ok then, I also must go sleep, next day is hard working day. So good night and good luck. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.