Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Pretty much, the US army has thrown money away for a lot of shiny experiments, and has performed much better when sticking ti their vast know-how and improving it. The only thing they really need to develop more is UAVs, since modern planes have the gross maneuver limitation of a man piloting them and being vulnerable to the vagaries of G force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Pretty much, the US army has thrown money away for a lot of shiny experiments, and has performed much better when sticking ti their vast know-how and improving it. This is more complicated. Before FCS concept made by Shinsheki, Rumsfeld and co. the intention was for evolutionary development. So this is why M1 tank and M2 IFV have Block and Increment upgrades. For example: Block I is basic M1, the first interim increment is M1IP, then we got Block II M1A1 (called Block II Minus) and next is first increment upgrade the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor), second increment upgrade is M1A1HC (Heavy <Armor> Common), and then next incremental upgrades for M1A1's, we also have the original Block II the M1A2, and it's incremental upgrade M1A2SEP and it's incremental upgrades V.1 and V.2. Same with M2, we got Block I the M2 and M3, incremental upgrades the M2A1 and M3A1, the Block II M2A2 and M3A2 and their inremental upgrades M2A2ODS and M3A2ODS, then Block III M2A3 and M3A3 and teir current incremental upgrades, but they don't have any additional designations because upgrades were minor. So the intended Block III could have been very different tank than Block II as the Block II is completely new but similiar tank compared to Block I. Block III was also intended base for vehicles sharing common components like HIFV, SPH and ARV and probably many more, same M2 Bradley was intended as a base for whole family of vehicles, and this was partially achieved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I know, but... really, botched programs from small arms (OICW) to big hardware (unmanned tanks, chrissakes) make me sigh a bit. But back to tanks, I once again need your insight on two soviet tanks, since I plan to order CM Afghanistan soon. Can that be done? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Ok ask, I will try to help, but only one thing, currently I don't using my notebook so I don't have access to books, so I will try from my memory. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Since in Afghanistan the soviets didn't really shoot from the latest intentory, in cma I'll be stuck with T-55, T-62, and variants thereof. That led me to a bit of search. And, the modernized T-55 was more popular than the T-62, pretty much everywhere. And it says, on the wiki, that the main selling point of the T-62 (the first smoothbore gun, and with a 115mm cal at that) was invalidated after the development of new high velocity 100mm rounds. How can a smoothbore gun be beaten by a smaller rifled gun in APFSDS effectiveness? Plus, wasn't the T-62, despite being thinner in certain points (for the turret's adaptation to what was essentially a T-55 body), overall heavier? Surely that's a good thing against insurgent RPGs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Since in Afghanistan the soviets didn't really shoot from the latest intentory, in cma I'll be stuck with T-55, T-62, and variants thereof. That led me to a bit of search. And, the modernized T-55 was more popular than the T-62, pretty much everywhere. Well T-55 was cheaper and simpler than T-62, while T-62 in reality not offered much more than upgraded T-55. This is why T-55 was so popular, in Poland while WarPac was still in it's best shape, our army tested T-62 but they figure out that it will be better to wait until T-72 will be availabale for licence production. And it says, on the wiki, that the main selling point of the T-62 (the first smoothbore gun, and with a 115mm cal at that) was invalidated after the development of new high velocity 100mm rounds. How can a smoothbore gun be beaten by a smaller rifled gun in APFSDS effectiveness? Well it is not a gun problem but ammunition. For example the 105mm M900 APFSDS with DU penetrator designed for M68A1/L52 105mm rifled gun have better penetration values than amny early 120mm rounds for Rifled and smoothbore guns. Everything depends on ammo. But overall smoothbores are better. Plus, wasn't the T-62, despite being thinner in certain points (for the turret's adaptation to what was essentially a T-55 body), overall heavier? Surely that's a good thing against insurgent RPGs? Yup, some areas of T-62 was thinner armored than in T-55 while T-62 had better frontal armor. And yes it was heavier because it was bigger + it was underpowered. There were also problems when firing on early T-62's, because main sight was slaved to the gun not copposite and when gun was elevated to loading position gunner lost view in his target and firing was diffcult. Well in SU T-62 was more threated as tank destroyer than MBT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 And about the ammo thing, sure the latest 115mm rounds are better than the latest 100mm rounds? I remember, despite the game manual extolling the modernized T-55 in face of the T-62, having always a better performance against Amis in CM:SF with the latter. And since this game is fairly realistic I thought I'd put one and one together... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Dunno what is current situation with 100mm and 115mm ammo. But I doubt that Russians made any significant upgrades in this, they prioritate is 125mm ammo, same with Ukrainians, they even designed upgrades for T-55 and T-62 with 125mm guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I think they upgraded them at least 'til the late nineties, both to fatten up sales prospects and give some teeth to their reservists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I really don't know, maybe, but such ammo could not have been exported. T-90A after armor tests: There is also possibility that this tank is after attack, but only known unit using T-90A's in Caucasus is stationing in Abhkazia or Ossetia, and there situation is rather calm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Wowwww. Were they shot with 120s or what? That's a pretty radical armor test right there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah I am now 100% certain that these were armor tests. Dunno what was fired at this tank. Don't worry yanks made similiar tests with M1A1HA, but the only publicly known results where about what will happen with DU after hits. However Yanks fired at M1A1HA until whole armor package was completely destroyed, so they fired many rounds of different types in to one area of tank, just to know what will happen, the armor protection was not messured at these tests. Russians probably made the same, they wanted to know what will happen when armor protection will be completely destroyed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 That pic gave me an existential pang. The T-90, all painted, with the electronics in place, brand new, is unlike old soviet rustbuckets, and I find it one of the most aesthetically pleasing tanks to look at. But the charred hulk... It's like seing the skeleton of what once was a beautiful woman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Besides T-84M Oplot-M and T-64BM Bulat I don't like design of Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks, too many things stored outside. Western "boxes" have a nicer look. ;-) US CATTB turret drawing. Armor fully modular, side armor thickness is 40 inches, frontal turret armor was 40 or 50 inches thick depending on version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Those R2-D2 looking trash compactors? No, the western tank that wins aesthetically is the challenger 2, with its nice turret curves that smooth out the overall boxiness. Now we're talkin'! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Well, aesthetics are not important to me, tank can be ugly as hell, it need to be effective... but yeah it is good when tank is looking good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I know, but the last post was aesthetics only. I am perfectly aware that boxes contain better armour, more countermeasures and stuff than the gentle soviet slope. You probably (and that's a good thing also) are so professionally deformed to connect shape with functionality that you don't pay much heed to other things. But let's say for a second, forget about all your knowledge. What's your favourite looking tank of all (can be the MARK I, screw effectiveness right now! )? Take your time, no hasty replies. Dig around others. Like that south korean thingy. Really, anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 What is best looking for me? M1A2SEP v.2 with TUSK-2 kit, however I like also the M1A1SA, i don't know, I think it is that TC cupola, I also like Challenger 2 with lates up-armor kit and Merkava Mk.4. These are my favorites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 You were fast. (have to resist "that's what she said" jokes. Damn it, I just lost) The Merkava... Always looked strange to me. The layout of the engine is unconventional, and the turret is the most elongated I have ever seen. I think I never saw schematics, but I guess most of the space goes to thick armour. Could have used some good ECM against Hezbollah's kornets though. At least they were not armed with Khrizantemas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Merkava Mk.4 indeed have a thick armor. But not thicker than other western tanks, there are mainly some geometry tricks for turret armor so thanks to that it is light enough and hull front, side, belly and rear armor can be thick. Belly armor thickness. Engine compartment design and drivers compartment citadel. Drawing showing internall compartments, ammo placement in hull, and in case of some places of hull and turret thickness of some armor elements. Two types of side skirts, thinner and thicker ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Multispectral camouflage netting similiar to Saab Barracuda from Sweden and Nagidka from Russia. More will come. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Rear hull storage area for ammo, this in merkava Mk.3 I believe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Merkava Mk.4's, You can see side turret armor modules and glacis plate thickness. Damaged modules of side hull sponson and side turret, You can see design of multilayer laminate armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Interior of Merkava Mk.3. Merkava Mk.4 turret modular armor system. Merkava Mk.4 turret also have additional internal armor package for front turret, it is made from thick steel only or there are cavitis for special armor also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Merkava Mk.3 (base variant) turret special armor modules. 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.