.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)
-   -   MBT's (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45260)

MarkSheppard May 4th, 2016 06:11 PM

Re: MBT's
 
1 Attachment(s)
Damaged MERKAVA showing internal configuration of "special" armor.

The proliferation of digital cameras, plus the last fifteen years of combat around the world has made it possible to see this stuff.

MarkSheppard May 4th, 2016 06:51 PM

Re: MBT's
 
2 Attachment(s)
Some information has been revealed (accidentally) by North Korea on their latest tanks.

LINK to photographs-from-north-korean-atgm-tests

Unit 025 P'okpoong-ho in the NK OBAT is the applicable tank.

It appears that from the picture that the P'okpoong-ho / Chonma-216 / M-2002 tank (same tank, different names from different people) has as much protection as a T-72M1 at least.

Good job Don and Andy, you nailed it. :D :up:

Also in the tank line up photo:

The Chonma-216 is the fourth tank in the frontal row. The [Chonma-] 215 with the same armor and engine is the third tank.

Oche May 12th, 2016 04:02 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Raytheon - M60 A4S Main Battle Tank Service Life Extension Program promo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFPuYIy3hB8

MarkSheppard May 12th, 2016 05:03 PM

Re: MBT's
 
3 Attachment(s)
The Frontal Turret ERA on the latest Chinese MBTs may not be ERA, but Non Explosive Reactive Armor.

Plus, the last ten years of tanks getting blown up in the Middle East along with recently declassified documents at the British National Archives -- indicate that "Chobham" armor itself may be a really advanced version of NERA.

Anyway; the Chinese "Brezhnev's Brow Module" as described in the attached image appears to be NERA/Ceramic tiles layered over a shell of High Hardness Steel, followed by a hollow space -- the concept apparently being to 'decap' or 'blunt' penetrator heads, followed by imparting yaw on the projectile to snap it, plus standoff space.

My own big takeaway from this is that the Chinese armor modules now look to be very ingenious -- you can easily upgrade the armor on the tanks by simply unbolting the modules, and craning them off; as opposed to having to send an Abrams to a high level depot to have the armor cavities cut open.

MarkSheppard May 12th, 2016 09:03 PM

Re: MBT's
 
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard (Post 834201)
recently declassified documents at the British National Archives -- indicate that "Chobham" armor itself may be a really advanced version of NERA.

To wit (see attached photos).

One drawing is of the MAXIMUM PROTECTION proposal to retrofit CHIEFTAIN with the 1969 or so version of BURLINGTON (precursor to CHOBHAM).

Second drawing is a cutaway of the BURLINGTON side skirt composition. Looks very similar to NERA.

Final photo is of one of the latest marks of ZTZ-99 -- the side turret armor looks very similar to the "MAXIMUM PROTECTION" proposal for Chieftain.

Still, we won't know for sure until someone actually drills a ZTZ-99 to see if it's ERA or NERA. :p

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 20th, 2016 12:23 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Well I don't know how these things "pop into my head" but they do. I was looking into the M-48 tanks Germany sent to Turkey and ended up with the M-67 flamethrower tank. The below ref. is representative of the data I've found concerning the dates of service. It would appear that the M-67 is the the game at least one year early and possibly taken out of service by one year or slightly more. Also this this tank was built on the M-48A1 and M-48A2 platforms my only concern, yet to verify, are the armor protection differences enough to to warrant a change beyond dates? This site was chosen
1. Because of USMC cohort in crime and

2. Because to me anyway I'm seeing what are rare pictures of the USMC tanks in the beginning of their use through at least or better the Korean War.

Please note the references at the bottom when you click on the M-67 section. They include...

1. Standard Military Vehicle Characteristic Data Sheets. Center Line, MI: Army Tank and Automotive Command Reasearch & Engineering Directorate, July 1960.

2. Hunnicutt, R.P. Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, volume 1. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984.

3. Crismon, Fred W. U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1992.

Over 30 years later Mr. Hunnicutt's books are still considered the "Bible" on the Patton tank series.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m67.html
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_...ine_Tanks.html


Well I'm going to "chill out" and take a walk before work today. A little bruised and tired from the "O" course earlier and the REDMAN yesterday.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG May 20th, 2016 02:32 PM

Re: MBT's
 
I have no idea why you question the armour values as they stock M48A1 Patton values

Don

Suhiir May 20th, 2016 10:53 PM

Re: MBT's
 
The M67A1 (7/57-12/64) was built off an M48A1 (4/55-11/64) and has the exact same armor values.
The M67A2 (7/64-12/73) was built off an M48A3 (7/63-11/78) and has the exact same armor values.
There is no change in armor values between the M48A1 and M48A3.
The USMC did not field the M48A2.

The "bible" for USMC armor is "Marines Under Armor" by Ken Estes (retired Marine and retired history professor at Annapolis), whom I've exchanged a couple e-mails with to clarify things in his book.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 21st, 2016 12:42 AM

Re: MBT's
 
2 Attachment(s)
Geez!?! What a tough crowd!?! Didn't I say that I had "yet to verify" the armor issue? That would be a yes, as noted in ref. 1 now that I've had a chance to look at it after putting away my gear and hanging up my uniform after just getting home to CINCLANTHOME, yes there is no armor difference.

Also from ref. 1 is this..."The M67A2 was again solely a Marine initiative, and brought the flame tank hull up to M48A3 standard. In addition to the work on the hulls, the M67 turrets were improved to M67A1 standard."

In ref. 2 is the main site that's run by, well, Marine tankers.

So about the M-48A2 well this next shows you had a USMC Lt.Col. who did have one and it's his picture...
Attachment 14284
This is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above..."M48A2 (the track tension idler wheel was cut off of these) Peter Saussy."

He must've been the only one to get one!?! :confused:

Attachment 14285
This again is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above...
Lt. Horner’s platoon, from F/2/5 take cover behind an M67A2 Flame Tank and a M48A3 during the battle for Hue. Photo ?

I did say I looked at the pictures though, that's the "rare" part I mentioned.

Ref. 2 from my previous if you missed it.
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_...ine_Tanks.html

I just don't know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG May 21st, 2016 07:10 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir
The USMC did not field the M48A2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 834289)
Ref. 2 from my previous if you missed it.
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_...ine_Tanks.html

I just don't know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Interesting..........that link was written by a retired USMC ( born in Canada I might add.... ):)

and under "Interwar Marine Tanks" he clearly lists the M48A2.........along with those photos


That said the armour values and those of the M67 are correct in the game which is what I was addressing. Whether the USMC should have the A2 added.......IDK but there is no "game difference" between the A2 and A3 so the if the USMC used it or not is not a "game changer"....more an academic excercise.....maybe they "borrowed" them from the Army....

Don


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2022, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.