Tanks, tanks, tanks! Bovington Tank Museum, the Chieftain and others.

[lordroel]

Feb 9, 2022 4:21:47 GMT miletus12 said:

The Czech 38T becomes the basis for the "Hetzer". This vehicle is absolutely horrible as a tank destroyer.



The SPG was too cramped for the crew to fight it efficiently.  The gun stuffed into it was too much gun for the chassis.



The ergonomics were horrible. This thing was as awful as the British Valiant or the Australian Sentinel.  

The Tank museum recently did two nice pieces on the best tanks in the world made by the best producer of tanks, Italy.

[miletus12]

Italy?

I admit the Centauro is a nice tank destroyer, but the Ariete?



Remember the tank was designed in the late 1970s but not introduced until 1988. The characteristics are as stated in the video.

[lordroel]

Feb 9, 2022 5:36:19 GMT miletus12 said:

Italy?

I admit the Centauro is a nice tank destroyer, but the Ariete?



Remember the tank was designed in the late 1970s but not introduced until 1988. The characteristics are as stated in the video.

Was talking about the two tanks they talked about on the Tank Museum channel on YouTube.

[lordroel]

Hope miletus12 does not mind but found this:

CHIEFTAIN vs T-64A & T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 120mm L15A5 APDS

[miletus12]

Feb 11, 2022 15:21:13 GMT lordroel said:

Hope miletus12 does not mind but found this:

CHIEFTAIN vs T-64A & T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 120mm L15A5 APDS

I would say that those are range shot simulations, emphasis on the word range shot and simulation.  In the real world, much for the same reasons and same logic as anti-torpedo tactics, the Russian tank driver was trained to vary speeds and to angle his plate against the primary axis of incoming fire.  The idea was to throw off lead and to increase effective skip-off angles and to increase effective armor thickness presented to the incoming projectile. 

I would add, the gunner before he launched shot out, would try to hit a flank or side aspect presented to him to minimize the armor angles and thicknesses at the strike point.

In such cases, count on the NATO projectile to get it done. Russian plate was not too good along the flanks. 

[miletus12]

People rag on the Sherman.

How about these bottom 5 losers?

5. AEC Mark II armored car. Too tall. Gun armed for tanks but not for anything else. Sarg für vier Tommies (Coffin for four Tommies.)
4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 330 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer.  The crew who thought this one up, "should have been volunteered" to test it. 
3. Carro Veloce.  Bara per due soldati italiani. (Twin sized coffin.). The name says it all. The most popular version comes with its own barbecue so one can be cremated in situ.
2.  FV4005. We have seen this loser before. As a tank destroyer, it is too big, too slow and fires a round that would give three strong healthy Tommies hernias, unless the Josef Stalin tank had not killed them first. 
1. T-34. This tank makes a Sherman 75 look like a wonder tank. Glass armor, fragile transmission, lousy sights, lousy ergonomics and sights that only a seeing eye dog could use. Let me remind readers that the Russians built 72,000 of these pieces of junk and the Germans destroyed 58,000 of them! An estimated 300,000 Russians DIED in these machines. How many Americans died in the 3,000 the Germans managed to destroy? 1 per tank. 

Yup... the Sherman manages a 1 for 1 kill ratio and manages to only lose 1 crewman killed per tank.  It "must" be the worst tank of WWII. 
    

[lordroel]

Feb 11, 2022 16:53:07 GMT miletus12 said:

4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 150 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer.

Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum.



And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong.



Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator.

[miletus12]

Feb 11, 2022 17:00:26 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 11, 2022 16:53:07 GMT miletus12 said:

4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 150 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer.

Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum.



And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong.



Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator.

Goliath. At least the Germans did not drive the thing up to the target with the driver onboard.  They stayed well to the rear and drove it by WCLOS. The Springer required the driver to bail out 50 to 100 meters from the target, do the 500 meter dash to the rear and survive the Olympic training event. 

The explosive dogs were very loyal Russian dogs. They would zero in on any RUSSIAN tank and then blow themselves up. Now maybe if the Russians had trained the dogs to home on German tanks, the idea might have worked.  
 

[lordroel]

Feb 11, 2022 17:22:03 GMT miletus12 said:

Feb 11, 2022 17:00:26 GMT lordroel said:

Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum.



And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong.



Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator.

Goliath. At least the Germans did not drive the thing up to the target with the driver onboard.  They stayed well to the rear and drove it by WCLOS. The Springer required the driver to bail out 50 to 100 meters from the target, do the 500 meter dash to the rear and survive the Olympic training event. 

The explosive dogs were very loyal Russian dogs. They would zero in on any RUSSIAN tank and then blow themselves up. Now maybe if the Russians had trained the dogs to home on German tanks, the idea might have worked.  
 

The British did build and design the Mobile Land Mine (originally named "Beetle")which seems to be a British version of the Goliath and also would not kill any person driving it.



However in 1942 Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces reported that it was not recommended for them to be use as there was no requirement for it. It was underpowered, slow, the motors overheated and it couldn't cross typical battlefield terrain.

[miletus12]

Why do the Americans dislike autoloaders in tanks?

Well... maybe they do and maybe they do not.



The Americans played along with autoloaders a lot. Here is what they found.
37 mm
1. Unreliable.
2. Eliminating the tank commander in one of two ways. No space or it would kill him.
3. No coax machine guns.
75 mm
1. Unreliable
2. Shell selector did not work.
3. Rammer separated the cartridge into two pieces, usually with an explosion as the side effect.
4. Zigzag travel path to the gun is a jamming event waiting to happen.
5. How much does one love one's arm. Clearing jams is exciting!
6. Hangfires.
Another 75 mm *(*T37 tank)
1. Actually 76 mm gun. Vertical loading with spent cases returned. Except that the return function would jam due to misfeeds and misalignments.
2. All the problems with the 37mm and previous 75 mm gun re-occurred.
3. Redesigned and fixed the new autoloader, now for the T41 tank, was a considerable improvement. It only tore off hands this time instead of arms.
90 mm autoloading gun in an oscillating turret no less! For the T42 tank.
1. The loader oscillated with the gun and the turret. Shake rattle and roll equals jams, misfeeds, only half the stowed ammunition and a motion sick tank crew who oscillated, too.    
2. T69 tank attempt with another variation of this autoloader. Why does the American army still give the contract to Rheem? Have they not been reamed enough by these crooks?  
3. Eight round revolver magazine for this turkey. Shots out sprung the hydraulic arms on the lifting turret roof jamming that closed and creating a "coffin for three dumb Americans" effect. 
4. The revolver drum jammed.
5. The aforementioned motion sickness occurred.
6. No room for the human loader to feed the revolver, so two questions? Why put a revolver in his way to the gun? Why do you need a human loader to feed the revolver?
7. Also, getting one's head concussed during all those oscillations was not going to make the bean counters at the VA happy. Head trauma is an EXPENSIVE service-related disability. Some of the autoloader designers seem to have suffered from something like it, because they were obviously brain damaged engineers who designed the technology demonstrator.
8. By the way, the vibration unbalanced the magazine and this affected accuracy.
9. The lesson learned is maintenance was a nightmare, that the revolver needed a lot of work for balancing. 
There was another attempt at a T37 (T54) United Shoe again.
1. All electric loader. Not too good.
2. Indexer sorted by measuring the length of the cased ammunition. 
3. Turret was unbalanced.
4. All the Oscillator problems appeared again. 
5. Z path problems again. 
6. This was an arm grabber.  
  
End of part 1.

 
   

[miletus12]

The Comet. Last of the British cruiser tanks, but was it as good as claimed?



Own opinion on part 1?

a. Shot traps and Christie suspension were the two obvious defects.
b. Less obvious is the lousy maintenance features.
c. Return rollers wallowed out and one still got track slap. Also track throw is a problem.



Own opinion on Part 2?

a. Rear drive and sprocket wheels are unusual. The Sprocket teeth are of the "fishhook" type which means a snap off event and faster wear than symmetricals. The track was good for 1,000 imperial miles as opposed to a Sherman's 2,000 mile track-shoe-life before pad replacement. Something I have noticed about expert commentary about British tanks, down to the present, is how universally awful even "good" British track was. British commentary makes light of this major problem, but if one changes sets of tracks every two weeks instead of shoe pads every month, then one has an expensive and intensive maintenance load that is unnecessary in the middle of a major world war. It also tends to SLOW tactical speeds to a crawl which defeats the operational art "purpose" of a "cruiser" tank. The Sherman outran the Comet in pursuit and exploitation easily as the British themselves tested it.
b. The track tensioning system is unnecessarily complicated and fragile.
c. Engine compartment is poorly laid out for access and maintenance. One thing I noticed was the dual path air filter system allows for an easy Molotov cocktail barbecue send-off. What were the designers' thoughts here? Had they learned nothing from Crusader or Cromwell?
d. The Merritt Brown gearboxes were an advantage the Comet, Churchill, Cromwell, etc., had over the Sherman as it allowed the British tanks to pivot turn on their tracks. (Not recommended, unless in an emergency, because of possible track throw in such a pivot.) It is a "minor" advantage.
e. The ungoverned Comets, the Chieftain neglects to mention, shed tracks and snapped links at speeds of over thirty-five miles per hour. Governed Comets became a necessity with an upper safe speed bound of about thirty miles per hour ON ROADS and about fourteen miles per hour cross country. This again made the Sherman FASTER.



Part 3 thoughts.

a. Entry and exit paths in this tank for personnel and ammunition are HORRIBLE. Worse than a T-34 and that was a crew killer function on the Russian tank. If anything, as an example, the hatch offset for the Comet's driver is much worse than it was aboard Churchill. It is as if the British tank designers went out of their way to make it certain that British tank crews would DIE inside their tanks as well as make the machines extremely user-unfriendly.  
b. Instrumentation and controls are laid out British-fashion, which is to say backwards to the way human beings (Right handed ones anyway.), operate. 
c. Cruise select is second-gear, which is ridiculous because what happens if one has to hill climb in a convoy route and the interlock has to be disengaged to go down into first? The tank behind will get a Comet rolling backwards into it, that's what, or the transmission gearbox pops and sheds parts.  This seems to be the hallmark of the lack of common sense that went into this tank. 
d. I agree that the BESA was an excellent machine gun. It was about as good as the Browning and if the Browning was not in US service, the BESA or rather the Czechoslovak ZB-53, would have been a good substitute for the Browning 0.30 or Vickers 7.7 mm as a general-purpose machine gun. 
e. The hull interior is cramped. Is it worth it to get the British version of the Christie suspension as opposed to the American volute system or the Hara bellcrank? or the Russian version of Christie suspension? No. The only thing worse is the Porsche system of torsion bars. 



Part 4 thoughts.

a. Commander's position was designed for a Munchkin. If the tank commander throws out an elbow or knee he will collide with someone else or bark it or cut it on hard metal. 
b. Gunner's position, the place where the commander's knees hit the gunner in the back of his beret wearing head, is CRAMPED. 
c. The 77 mm gun, which was a 75 mm / 50 gun designed up to take US 3 inch ammunition, is a bodged up deal of a British 3 inch AAA gun breech and a 17 pounder gun barrel chopped short that might have been more useful as a replacement for the 75 mm gun on a British Sherman 75 instead of this death trap tank.  Seriously, to make matters even more confusing, the 17 pounder (3 inch) British shell and shot was itself modified to FIT the same necked down Vickers cartridge case designed to fit US 3 inch shells into this gun. It worked, but it should not have worked. 
d. Gunner controls are British. (Backwards.).
e. Looking at the loader's position I rolled off my chair and laughed at the ridiculous ergonomic disaster this was. One has to be a one-armed person to move about to access the ammunition which is stowed in impossible to reach locations. One thinks the T-34 was poorly thought out as to ammunition stowage? This setup is "unacceptable". 
f. My comment about the smoke bomb thrower is that it is "unacceptable as designed and used". 
g. As the Chieftain explains the ready-use ammunition feature and the lack of a sustained gun engagement capability in a tank fight in this tank, I thought of just what that would mean. Shoot off four rounds, then spend three minutes to reload the ready use four shot bins? Comets would have been slaughtered at Arracourt.

====================================================    
     
The Chieftain may have good things to say about the Comet, but when compared to the deathtrap T-34 and the really user-friendly and very effective and reliable Sherman, this end of the WWII British tank shows that the British still have not got the plot right when it comes to "effective" tank design.

It is "unacceptable".     
  
 

[miletus12]

Based on the fact we have not seen these turkeys committed yet in the Ukraine War...

Russia (2002)
Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle – 15-20 built



BMPT Terminator being showcased at an expo.

Philosophy of a Russian heavy IFV

The BMPT Terminator (the name “Terminator” is not an official designation, but used by the designers for publicity reasons) is a support combat vehicle which is mainly meant to be used in urban areas. It is, quite obviously, based off the T-72 without the iconic hemispherical turret, which is exchanged for an unmanned platform with a single machine gun, four anti-tank missiles and dual 30 mm (1.18 in) auto-cannons. The hull has a superstructure built onto to it, which allows for more space for the crew.

Since tanks aren’t really suited for use in urban areas, this is a great alternative to the regular MBT, because it possesses a rapid enough rate of fire to react to any enemy vehicles in its surrounding and the four missiles are excellent when fighting against heavily armored targets. However, this vehicle is not a tank substitute, as it cannot perform as well in non-urban areas. While it is still lethal against other softer targets, it is unsuited to the extreme ranges that tanks battle at. Another advantage that the BMPT has over regular tanks is the elevation and depression. The gun is able to elevate and depress enough to hit at any targets, like building tops and other tall structures.

Early developments

Before the Terminator, two earlier prototypes were placed in competition for the BMPT requirements. These were the Object 781 and the Object 782, both made by Chelyabinsk and lead by V.L. Vershinsky. The main reason these two vehicles were ordered was the performance of IFVs in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. IFVs such as the BMP-1 and the BMD series proved to struggle against infantry when faced with portable anti-tank weapons, such as the well-known RPG series. Another downfall of the BMP-1 was the lack of elevation (the BMP-2 fixed this problem) which allowed the enemy to take a major advantage when engaging it from above. The Object 781 and the Object 782 were based off the T-72B, with major modifications.

The Object 781 was dual turreted, each turret having a 30mm 2A72 (basically a simpler 30mm 2A42, which is seen on Soviet/Russian helicopters and IFVs) with a PKT 7.62mm machine gun as a companion. It also mounted an anti-tank missile system of an unknown type (most likely the 9M133 Konkurs). Its competitor was the Object 782; it had an actual turret, as opposed to the two unmanned turrets of the Object 781, with a very similar hull. The profile was smaller and it was armed with a 100mm 2A70 low recoil gun and a 30mm 2A72 auto-cannon which were directly connected to each other (similar system and weapons on the BMP-3). It was also armed with two 40mm grenade launchers (one on the hull and the other on the turret). The Object 781 won and was probably considered for mass-production, but the break-up of the Soviet Union ruined that prospect.

About five years later, another prototype was made and built by Chelyabinsk; this prototype was based off the T-72AV. This project was built because of tank performance in Chechnya (which was abysmal). The project kept the turret but removed the big 125mm main gun for a pair of 30mm 2A72 auto-cannons and six unguided rockets on each side. It also added extra structure at the back, in order for the armament to work properly and shield it from flanking fire. This tank was praised by many of the designers and some military officials. Unfortunately, work on the project was canceled because it was being advertised on radio and on television. Everyone who was working on the project was accused of “giving away Russia’s secrets” (keep in mind that Russia was in chaos during the 90’s). While they weren’t allowed to work on this vehicle, in particular, this did not stop the urge for an armored fighting vehicle with missiles, auto-cannons, and lots of armor.

The BMPT Terminator prototypes

In the early 2000’s, work started on a new project called the Object 199, with the name “Ramka” attached to it. The Object 199 is the tank that came to be known as the BMPT Terminator. It was shown to the public in 2001 as a mock-up and the real project was unveiled to the masses in 2002. The early design was armed with a single 30mm 2A42 and four 9M133 “Kornet” ATGMs with two AG-17 grenade launchers and one 7.62mm PKTM as secondary armaments. Further development accompanied the 30mm auto-cannon with another 30mm auto-cannon and replaced the 9M133 “Kornet” ATGMs with 9M120 “Ataka” ATGMs.

Design of the BMPT

Armament

Instead of the 30mm 2A72 seen on the first 3 prototypes, the BMPT was equipped with the more complex 30mm 2A42 autocannon (effective range of 4000 meters). This auto-cannon is stabilized on two planes and has a rate of fire ranging from as low as 200 rounds per minute to 800 rounds per minute, with both having -5° and +45° and 360° of turret rotation. The BMPT’s second primary armament is the 130mm 9M120 “Ataka-T” anti-tank missile (industrial code is B07S1), with claims from the manufacturer that it can penetrate 800 mm (2’7”) of homogeneous armor with ERA with its HEAT ammunition (good enough for the side or rear of any modern tank). There are four of these anti-tank missiles, with two of them being placed vertically on both sides of the 30mm auto-cannons. This anti-tank missile is guided by a semi-automatic laser beam with flexible elevation angles (-10°/+25°). The missile has a flight velocity of 550 m/s with a maximum range of 5800 meters; it is controlled by the VIAM.461112.001 ground control equipment inside the BMPT. Since this is not a 9M120F variant (anti-personnel variant), it does not have the ability to carry anti-personnel missiles or not supposed to.

One of the BMPT’s secondary armament is one 7.62 PKTM machine gun that is situated between the two autocannons, with an aiming range of 1500 meters, muzzle velocity of 850 m/s, and a theoretical rate of fire of 700-800 rounds per minute. This machine gun has the same elevation and depression as the 30mm auto-cannons since it’s fixed on the same oscillating platform with the 30mm auto-cannons. The BMPT’s second secondary armament are two 30mm AG-17D grenade launchers. These grenade launchers are placed at the front of the tank on the far side of each other. They have the ability to fire 400 rounds per minute with a low muzzle velocity of 185 m/s and are able to kill a person up to 7+ meter radius from 1700 meters away. The grenade launchers on the right have 5° to the left and 27° to the right and the grenade launchers on the left have 27° on the left and 5° on the right with horizontal stabilization. Both of the grenade launchers have -5.5° depression and +20° elevation (no vertical stabilization). The BMPT is truly a killing machine with nine weapons (four different weapons) at the BMPT’s disposal

Mobility
The BMPT is powered by a V-92S2 (2000 rpm, V12, 4-stroke, multi-fuel, liquid cooling, and turbocharger) engine that churns out about 1000 hp. Combined with the weight (48 tonnes, 53 short tons, and 47 long tons) of the BMPT, it has a power-to-weight ratio of 20-21 hp/t, with a range of 550 km and a speed of 60 km/h on hard roads. The gearbox has seven forward gears and one reverse gear. The BMPT’s suspension is a torsion bar suspension (like most tanks designed from the 50’s and onwards) with shock absorbers, six rubber-lined road wheels, one front idler wheel, one rear drive sprocket, and three return rollers on each side. Ground clearance is 406mm and it’s able to ford water as deep as 1.8 meters with preparations and 1.2 meters without preparations. It is also able to climb over obstacles up to 0.85 meters at 30 degrees and able to cross trenches of 2.6-2.8 meters wide.

Protection

Since the armor is based on the T-72, it will most likely have the same armor as the T-90 or a modernized T-72. It also has Relikt ERA, which is said to be stronger than Kontakt-5. The side skirts are covered with soft material armor, cage/slat armor at the rear, and hard panels made of different materials. The crew is NBC protected from nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, as the acronym suggests. It also has an automatic fire extinguisher and System 903A smoke grenade launchers to conceal itself when spotted by the enemy or against guided weapons using infrared.

Active service

While the BMPT is not in Russian service since it is based on old Soviet tank designs, it is being used and bought by Kazakhstan and Algeria. Kazakhstan even went further by signing an agreement with UralVagonZavod in September of 2013 to co-produce the BMPT. Kazakhstan is providing decommissioned T-72s while Russia, specifically UralVagonZavod, will provide modules and spare parts with which Kazakhstan will assemble these tanks in their nation. This is a great way for UralVagonZavod to make a profit and for Kazakhstan to revive their old Soviet-era T-72s to current standards.

Peru also expressed interest to UralVagonZavod during Peru’s SITDEF (Salón Internacional De Tecnología Para La Defensa Y Prevención De Desastres Naturales) expo in 2015, with an interest to upgrade their aging T-55s with BMPT turrets and other possible modifications to the hull. However, these T-55s may be replaced or at most accompanied by Russian T-90s, Spanish Leopard 2A4s, or Dutch Leopard 2A6s. In addition, various Israeli companies and the Peruvian Desarrollos Industriales Casanave, with the association of the Ukrainian Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau, have also offered upgrades for the Peruvian T-55s.

BMPT-72 Terminator-2 (2013)

This support combat vehicle was first revealed at the Russian Arms Expo (RAE) at Nizhny Tagil, Russia in 2013. The Terminator 2 is being sold as an armor upgrade package, rather than an actual tank, with two engines available. The two engines are the V-84MS (840 hp, 2000 rpm, V12, 4-stroke, multi-fuel, liquid cooling, and gear driven centrifugal type supercharger) and the V-92S2 (1000 hp, 2000 rpm, V12, 4-stroke, multi-fuel, liquid cooling, and turbocharger). These upgrades removed the two frontal 30mm grenade launchers; this reduced the crew from five to three, but also lightened the load from 48 tonnes to 44 tonnes.

The armament of the BMPT-72 Terminator 2 is the same (except for the removal of the two 30mm grenade launchers), however, the armament is better protected and the structural support of the four ATGMs is enhanced and positioned horizontally instead of vertically. The FCS has also gotten an upgrade with a new multi-channel gunner’s sight that is equipped with a thermal channel, night vision, laser range finder, laser guidance system for missiles, and independent 2-plane stabilization of field of view with a sighting range of 5000 meters. The BMPT-72 received a new digital ballistic computer with weather and topographical support and the armament is stabilized on two axes with electromechanical traversing and elevating drives. Lastly, improved NBC protection is provided for the crew.

While the Terminator 2 isn’t in service as far as we know, Azerbaijan held an arms expo named ADEX (Azerbaijan Defense Exhibition) in 2014, which allowed arms dealers to show off their weapons to the armed forces of Azerbaijan. Since Azerbaijan has territorial issues with Armenia about the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the small Caucasian nation is looking for potent weapons in case things get heated again between the two countries. During the expo, Azerbaijan had stated that they’re interested in the Ka-52 attack/scout helicopter and the BMPT-72 Terminator 2 and numerous other weapons. In 2013, various unspecified Persian Gulf nations also expressed interest in the Terminator 2 during the Russian Arms Expo (RAE).
The Russian Federation has however refused the second iteration of the BMPT as well. The reasoning is that since the T-15 Armata exists, there is no reason to adopt the Terminator 2, with possibly less armor and no infantry carrying capacity. Lastly, during India’s DEFEXPO in 2014, UralVagonZavod proposed two upgrades to India’s obsolete T-72s. UVZ (UralVagonZavod) proposed the BMPT-72 package on India’s T-72s, which would extend their service life. They also proposed an Arena-E APS upgrade on Indian T-72s. Active Protection Systems fire a small projectile at cumulative and explosive missiles from portable/non-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs, Kornet, Konkurs, TOW, etc, detonating them before impact.
An article by Joshua Martinez a.k.a. SovietTenkDestroyer

BMPT specifications
Dimensions 7.2 x3.37 x3.80 m (23x 11x 12 ft)
Total weight, battle ready 48 tonnes
Crew 5 (driver, gunner, commander, 2 operators)
Propulsion V12 multifuel V-92S2 diesel, 1,000 hp (736 kW), 20 hp/t, turbocharger
Suspension Torsion bars
Speed (road) 60 km/h (37 mph)
Range 550 km (340 mi)
Armament 2 x2A42 30mm autocannons
4 ×130 mm Ataka-T launchers
Coaxial 7.62mm PKTM
2x AG-17D grenade launchers
Armor See notes
Total production At least 15 built

The tank seems to have been an internal development failure and has had limited export succsss.

[miletus12]

Meet Lazerpig again. And consider his case for the T34 again. He summarizes the case of what I also know about this lousy tank. But pay attention to the details about the RUSSIAN ARMY as he discusses the T34 and how it was made, and how it was used. 
 


As you laugh your way through this video, keep in mind that the Russian army of 1941... sure looks familiar to us as the Russian army of 2021-2022...

LOL. Enjoy the comedy!

[miletus12]

Plastic tanks?



Properly this demonstrator of concept was built on a Warrior AFV chassis. The armor package is a composite of plastics, fiberglass, and other unnamed materials which was called E-glass. The program was subsumed under TRACR, a recon vehicle program, and was cancelled after the FRES program was substituted.

The "plastic tank" weighed less, was radar absorbent, had a smaller noise and heat signature than a warrior. The Americans experimented with the idea in WWII. They found the elasticity at the time against kinetic projectiles was fairly good but not as good as later composite steel and ceramic packages that they tried out in the 1950s.

===========================================================================================

Centurion cut in half.



This is a good lesson about what the British get right and wrong about tanks. See if you can identify the seven bolos.

Here is a hint and a start: the wrong side driving position directly contributes to and goofs up natural human steering and brake control ergonomics biases.

[lordroel]

Mar 11, 2022 16:15:42 GMT miletus12 said:

Plastic tanks?

We are seeing what tin cans do in battle, i doubt plastic tanks will do any better.