.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)

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 2nd, 2010 12:15 PM

MBT's
 
2 Attachment(s)
Same thoughts as with APC and other threads started. Will focus on the new and major mods (Such as Jordan's PHEONIX program.)only. Trying to keep up with new armor packages etc. would be an absolute nightmare!
So here's a quick update on the long awaited Russian T-95:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news81146.html
Take note of the key word "Could".
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think at least the turret will look similar to the NEW one that was designed for the "BLACK EAGLE" in the joint Russian and S. Korean venture that never got past the 2 prototypes that were built. Why? It's the only modern Russian tank/turret that was designed recently (And be in a 8 to 12 year drawing board to production window for the T-95.) to carry the 152mm gun that I can find.
Here it is:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm and for further development background:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-95.htm and yes I noted the 25 years development process.

BLACK EAGLE and POSIBLE T-95 Pic:
Attachment 9783 Attachment 9784

Regards,
Pat

Wdll April 2nd, 2010 02:11 PM

Re: MBT's
 
I would like to know, about the T-95, where are they going to fit the rounds and how many. Unless the size of the tank increases or the crew gets even smaller, are we talking about less than 10 rounds?

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 3rd, 2010 01:09 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Well if the defencetalk.com purported picture of the T-95 is right, I can't shake the feeling the development of the
BLACK EAGLE continued. This wouldn't be the first military hardware that suffered that fate, went into a "Black Hole" and was brought back later in a further developed stage. Let's remember the turret for the BLACK EAGLE was of a completely new design. Also there were some reports that the BLACK EAGLE turret was unmanned as well. IF we assume dt.com somehow managed to get a T-95 pic and compare it to the known BLACK EAGLE pic the only difference I can see is the side mounted track armor. If it quacks it must be a duck. We'll see. As most know I'll keep digging, in the meantime here's another short article.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm
I would think the load out would be similar to the BLACK EAGLEs and others in the neighborhood of 30-40 rounds.
Hey if a guy named "Boris" comes around asking questions we could be on to something here!?!
Have a Great Weekend!
Regards,
Pat

Wdll April 3rd, 2010 01:53 AM

Re: MBT's
 
I am sorry but where are you going to fit 40 rounds of 152mm? It seems highly unlikely there is room for that.

As for the black eagle photo, it looks shopped to me. Not only that, but they both look they are from the same type of tank.

Imp April 3rd, 2010 09:22 AM

Re: MBT's
 
To fit what we consider a normal load the turret would have to be unmanned or telescopic ammo would have to be used. An 152 AP shell will be a lot bigger than a 122 one so much so I think probably no choice but to have an auto loader.

Cross April 3rd, 2010 01:30 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Looks like Israel are starting to deploy their new 'Trophy' anti-missile system on Merkava MBTs.

article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/..._of_the_future




Cross

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 6th, 2010 12:32 AM

Re: MBT's
 
4 Attachment(s)
One thing we were always taught was in any situation there's a solution, and not to "...give up until the ... water is coming in the people tank!" So to overcome the 152mm storage issue is not a problem, we (I) just have to think about the last (served until 1996.) "modern" era tank that was armed with a 152mm gun, carried 20 rounds plus 9 ATGW and weighed in at slightly more then 1/4 the current weight of a front line MBT. So with pics:):clap: I present the last Light Tank to serve with the USA.
USA/1968/M551 Sheridan/C4/152mm (20Rs),MGM-51 Shillelagh (9),
AA 12.7mm (1KRs) & 7.62mm (3KRs).

The design was "innovative" and served it's purpose to a degree but it had many issues which lead it to be replaced by the M60A1 and eventuaaly the M3 Bradley for the Recon role.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.htm
Pics:
Attachment 9807 Attachment 9808
Attachment 9809 Attachment 9810

Hope those that observe Easter and to everyone else that you all had a great weekend!
Regards,
Pat

thatguy96 April 6th, 2010 09:29 AM

Re: MBT's
 
The 152mm gun on the M551 (along with the different gun used on the M60A2) used a set of squat, combustible case rounds. The HEAT round was only intended to engage tanks at ranges shorter than the MGM-51 missile. In fact, its range was so sub-par that it created a range gap between it and the minimum range of the missile. This was one of the many problems with the system.

The rounds were between 20 and 27 inches long. By comparison, the rounds for the 120mm gun in the M1A1 Abrams and subsequent variants range from 36 to 40 inches. The MGM-51 missile is of a similar length.

So, while it might be closer to 20-25 rounds in whatever tank that might mount such a gun, its definitely not going to be 40.

I personally think this is going to continue to be myth. They keep having to come up with new numbers as every tank that does come out is basically just a T-72 derivative. The gun keeps changing size too. From 135mm to 152mm. This is what the T-90 was predicted to be initially too. I really doubt the T-95 will be any different. Nothing has come of the large bore projects the Chinese are supposedly working on either.

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 18th, 2010 01:43 AM

Re: MBT's
 
2 Attachment(s)
ARJUN from INDIA last month entered operations against a like sized unit of Indian T-90s (14 unit Indian Tank Squadron.)the outcome could very well determine the future of India's indigenous tank industry. India had an independent foreign (And rumored as being a major tank maker.) analysis done on the ARJUN where it was determined that it was a top tier MBT. The ARJUN's main gun is supposed to be as good as the UK's CHALLENGER II 120mm RB main gun. The fire control system supposedly allows for a 90% hit probability as reported by several sources while firing on the move. It has also successfully fired the LAHAT munitions and will be equipped with it. The ARJUN has been in development for about 25yrs plagued by numerous issues the biggest being designing an engine that can handle the extremes in India's frontiers from desert to very cold mountainous regions. To solve the problem they purchased a 1400hp power plant from GERMANY which is built in country. It is speculated that it has been brought up to a MKII production configuration of the tanks now being fielded from the earlier MKI prototypes. The ARJUN is currently limited to 124 units assigned to the 43rd Armored Regiment (AR) with the 75th AR being equipped by the end of this month.
For your further review:
INDIA/ARJUN/2009/C4/120mm RB (39Rs), 12.7mm (3KRs) and
7.62mm (3KRs)

Sources oldest to newest (Hopefully!):
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arjun.htm,
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1391.html,
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news68434.html,
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news75850.html

and LAHAT http://defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm
Pics (Untouched hopefully!?!):
Attachment 9934 Attachment 9935
Gotta finish setting my defences against a N. Korean assualt. Have a great weekend everyone!!
Regards,
Pat

Wdll April 18th, 2010 03:04 AM

Re: MBT's
 
My god that is an ugly colour!

Marcello April 18th, 2010 07:22 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wdll (Post 738566)
I would like to know, about the T-95, where are they going to fit the rounds and how many. Unless the size of the tank increases or the crew gets even smaller, are we talking about less than 10 rounds?

Well, let's not exaggerate. What I have read lists 34-36 rounds as planned storage for the 152mm armed tanks (T-95, Molot etc.), which seems reasonable.
Chances are that we will never know, the latest word is that the ax has fallen on the T-95.

Quote:

I personally think this is going to continue to be myth. They keep having to come up with new numbers as every tank that does come out is basically just a T-72 derivative.
Thing is, nobody is interested im something better than that.
The export customers have lined up in droves to buy it because it provides a very cost effective follow on to the T-72/T-55 and 60's western tanks which make up their tank fleets. Since most of them already operates T-72M there is also a bit of commonality. Anybody with the cash and desire for something better generally either buys western or make their own. By comparison the "better" T-80s attracted very limited interest, the only big sale was ukrainan T-84s to Pakistan and even then only because they could not obtain T-90 in first place.
As for Russia itself T-90s and modernized T-72s are sufficient against what the georgians or chinese can deploy.
T-95 would be really needed only against western MBTs but, even if we assume a confrontation (say, something along the lines of Georgia) with the West that does not end with Topol and Trident exchanges, contesting the air will have the priority and tank on tank egagements may not even take place.

thatguy96 April 18th, 2010 02:51 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcello (Post 741057)
Thing is, nobody is interested im something better than that.

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Marcello April 19th, 2010 01:36 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy96 (Post 741119)
Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.

Wdll April 20th, 2010 12:43 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcello (Post 741218)
Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy96 (Post 741119)
Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.


For a second there I thought you were talking about the F-35 lol.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 3rd, 2010 02:42 PM

Re: MBT's
 
1 Attachment(s)
Next up will be the Turkish M60T which has been updated to the SEBRA MKII or MIII standard. In SP we have the M60A3 IMI ST which I understand is upgraded to the MKI standard. Others conflict on the M60T if it's the A1 or A3 that's been updated. Some Israeli papers report the A1 was updated. Outward difference between A3 SEBRA MKI and A1 (MOST POINT TO THIS.)
M60T is the MG cupola was kept. Just emailed IMI for clarification on the M60T. Below is a picture of the M60T. Again I'm awaiting clarification from IMI.
Pic:
Attachment 10065
Regards,
Pat

Wdll May 4th, 2010 07:54 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Is this photoshopped? The turret feels a bit touched.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 4th, 2010 12:04 PM

Re: MBT's
 
4 Attachment(s)
Couldn't say not in my area of expertise. All I can tell you is that the picture is on the IMI website and is used on the defence-update.com site reporting the delivery of the last of 170units converted to the M60T mod.
Additional Pics:
Attachment 10074 from http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/inde...alo1uhjpd3f35&
and Attachment 10075 Attachment 10076
Attachment 10077 from
http://mil.fznews.com.cn/wjjq/2007-6...moo12827.shtml a Chinese site.
Regards,
Pat

Wdll May 5th, 2010 07:07 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Perhaps it's just my imagination.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 8th, 2010 01:34 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Where's IMP? John thought you might find (and others of course!) this interesting as I recall you did some reporting on India's
T-90's. Doing a source check I was wondering what news there was on India's "competition" between the ARJUN and their T-90's. Based on this article the ARJUN did better then expected, as predicted by the evaluation conducted on the ARJUN by the as yet unnamed foreign major tank manufacturer. This just could really shake things up for India's Army not to mention their POSSIBLE export potential. Will follow this, see original post #9 (?)on pg. 1. Here's the update:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82347.html
Also no reply from IMI on the email I sent about the Turkish M60T. Might have to go with what I got and all of you be the judge.
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 8th, 2010 02:12 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Forgot to mention if we're to see the T-95 look to the IDELF 2010Military Expo on 30 June - 04 July in Zhukovsky, Russia. MANY sources point to a Military Expo early this summer and this is the most likely one currently scheduled.
Regards,
Pat

Marcello May 8th, 2010 09:29 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 744907)
Where's IMP? John thought you might find (and others of course!) this interesting as I recall you did some reporting on India's
T-90's. Doing a source check I was wondering what news there was on India's "competition" between the ARJUN and their T-90's. Based on this article the ARJUN did better then expected, as predicted by the evaluation conducted on the ARJUN by the as yet unnamed foreign major tank manufacturer. This just could really shake things up for India's Army not to mention their POSSIBLE export potential. Will follow this, see original post #9 (?)on pg. 1. Here's the update:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82347.html
Also no reply from IMI on the email I sent about the Turkish M60T. Might have to go with what I got and all of you be the judge.
Regards,
Pat

The Arjun may have done better than expected and additional ones will be likely purchased but I doubt the indian Army will do a full 180┬░on its T-90/T-72 based procurement plans.
And, to be honest, the choice of an indigenous rifled 120mm instead of a NATO ammunition compatible 120mm smoothbore or a
125mm is an unwise move. It means that new developments in the field of tank ammunition cannot be leveraged directly and developing new rounds forn a small number of tanks will be rather unattractive.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 8th, 2010 11:10 AM

Re: MBT's
 
I agree about the gun compatibility issue but, this could be a case of we just don't know yet also. It almost seems from the tone of the article(s) that India was surprised by the ARJUN's performance given the extremely long developmental process that took place to get it to this point. The ARJUN was designed to replace India's 2400 T-72 tanks and to save the cost of modernizing them, though this process has been ongoing over the last couple of years or longer. Not a munitions expert but, doesn't England have the same issue with the Challenger II MBT as it uses a rifled 120mm main gun or (SB vs. RB) does that matter?
Regards,
Pat

Marcello May 8th, 2010 01:25 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 744944)
I agree about the gun compatibility issue but, this could be a case of we just don't know yet also. It almost seems from the tone of the article(s) that India was surprised by the ARJUN's performance given the extremely long developmental process that took place to get it to this point. The ARJUN was designed to replace India's 2400 T-72 tanks and to save the cost of modernizing them, though this process has been ongoing over the last couple of years or longer.

As far as I know the indian Army never liked the Arjun and resisted it at every step, they preferred the T-72/T-90.
It was the industry which pushed it.
Now, the latest rounds of trials might have changed that a bit, so that more than 124 might be built and perhaps a few less
T-90 but I doubt the difference will be by an order of magnitude.

Quote:

Not a munitions expert but, doesn't England have the same issue with the Challenger II MBT as it uses a rifled 120mm main gun or (SB vs. RB) does that matter?
Regards,
Yes, it matters to the point that the british published plans to regun the Challanger with standard smoothbores some time ago, precisely for this reason. And keep in mind that the Challanger series is in service in a couple of others countries in addition to the UK, something the Arjun probably will not achieve. Yet it still isn't a pool large enough to make ammunition development and production an economical proposition.

Imp May 8th, 2010 02:46 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Hi Pat not really being following but I dont think they were surprised at all, at least people in the know seemed pretty confident it would do well.
The ammo thing is crazy though especially if you are going to have 2 MBTs shared ammo has got to be a priority both logisticaly & development wise.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 13th, 2010 01:47 AM

Re: MBT's
 
2 Attachment(s)
This will require some patience however I think in regards to the M60T I've "threaded the needle" on it to be able to present this to all of you. Further info are on posts #15 and #17 of this thread. I believe this will support the Turkish M60A3 IMI ST currently in WinSPMBT with the first source for background info. The next two will support the further upgrades done to the M60A1 or as designated for Turkey as the M60T. The M60T will need to be added to the game from what I can tell. Let's get started as I've spent more time on this then most others due to some confusion in sources between the M60A3 or M60A1 being the Turkish M60T.
Turkey/M60T/2007/C4/120mm SB 42Rds, 7.62mm 6KRds, 12.7mm 900Rds and a 60mm Mortor./
SABRA was designed to be a further upgrade to IDF M60A3 but was relegated to the export market with the further development of the MERKAVA MBTs. The SABRA Mods used many features from the MERKAVA MBTs from armor pkgs, weapons, electronics to suspension systems. Important to note on SABRA MKII & MKIII in upper left the designation of the M60A1 in those sources.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1801.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4281.html and
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3217.html
Further sources to support M60A1 as M60T:
Unofficial Turkish military site:
http://www.turkishworld.multiservers.com/equipment.html
Oldest to newest timeline articles:
http://www.tanksim.com/topic7.htm
http://www.elbitsystems.com/newsRoom...04&s_month=All
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136893
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/546/ and
http://www.defense-update.com/featur..._15042010.html
Based again on these with a through read of the articles the
M60T is at the SABRA MKIII Mod. What is certain is on the surface of it the M60T should at a minimum be a better protected and more maneuverable MBT then the M60A3 IMI ST. The date for fielding the M60T is subjective but I believe is correct from what I could piece together. Note Columbia's interest in the M60T something to watch for.
Pics simply for comparison purposes:
Attachment 10110 Attachment 10111
Still no word from IMI, though Elbit systems source helps.
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 14th, 2010 02:20 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Indian MOD announced a restructuring of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), among the projects to be continued will be the ARJUN MKII and AKASH MKII MBT programs.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15208/
Regards,
Pat

Imp May 14th, 2010 07:34 AM

Re: MBT's
 
The Indians do seem to get there on the R&D front which seems to have been noticed by Russia to can see them angling for more cooperation in the future.
Yes they take a bit longer but thats probably down to spending.
What they do need to do is improve quality control on manufacturing as that does seem there downfall.
In fact most nations with a potentialy hostile neighbour at least one seems to do pretty well with home grown stuff. Israel, North Korea to name but two.
The bonus to this is also the equipment is designed for your enviroment & in North Koreas case while money is puting a temporary hold on play they are fast catching the big hitters. If there new IFV is anything as good as its supposed to be can see that being a big export at the costs they are talking about. Probably like a Korean car not the best does the job but lacks the finnesse that makes it great. But it only costs 1/3rd the price and there cars are getting better but remaining cheap. Some of their small arms stuff looks really nice to of course a lot of it looks based on USA stuff just tweaked a bit.
Funny thought I had modern small arms use of plastics to keep weight down & compact designs some look more like toy guns than toy guns ever have.
Some support weapons look like modern art all sweeping lines curved tripods etc.
Functional as no sharp edges & curve allows flex to help absorb recoil.

Marcello May 14th, 2010 01:35 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp (Post 745566)
Yes they take a bit longer but thats probably down to spending.
What they do need to do is improve quality control on manufacturing as that does seem there downfall.

Most emerging industrial powers have similar issues. A long, long time ago japanese exports were cheap, not so good stuff too. When I hear people talking about how the chinese or others will never be able to make anything on par with the West I can't help but :re:
Just wait some more years...

Quote:

In fact most nations with a potentialy hostile neighbour at least one seems to do pretty well with home grown stuff. Israel, North Korea to name but two.
I suspect you are confusing North Korea with South Korea. North Korea is a dying country with a devastated economy. To the extent they are still producing military hardware, in limited quantity and even then only thanks to their codified "Military First" policy, it is almost exclusively modified variants of obsolete soviet and chinese vehicles and weapons.

Imp May 14th, 2010 05:42 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

I suspect you are confusing North Korea with South Korea
Indeed always get the 2 the wrong way round

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 17th, 2010 08:58 PM

Re: MBT's
 
As I thought, I had a feeling about this and ...well anyway India wasting no time, they've just ordered an additional 124 ARJUN tanks these will be of the MKII variety. All current 124
MBTs are and will be fitted to the MKII version as well with upgraded armor packages and top ERA added to the Russian T-90 standard or better as is suggested by some.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15266/
Regards,
Pat

Marcello May 18th, 2010 12:08 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp (Post 744992)
The ammo thing is crazy though especially if you are going to have 2 MBTs shared ammo has got to be a priority both logisticaly & development wise.

Actually two MBTs with different main gun is pretty manageable and in any case spares would be different, so you need a separate logistical line anyway.
A 60 tons (weights here are given as approximation), "western style" MBT could actually be a decent choice to supplement a fleet of 45 tons russian style MBTs, perhaps using the former for attritional armor vs armor battles, while ther latter could be used for infantry support, deep penetrations in the enemy rear or where terrain (bridge capability etc.) is unsuitable for heavy tanks.
Thing is, it would make sense to use a standard 120mm smoothbore, instead of some home brewed gun whose ammunition is not compatible with anything else in the world.

Coincidentally the results of the Challenger regunning tests have been published: the german smoothbore fit without problem, its ammunition however could not be stored without a very major internal reworking.
Bottom line, the existing tooling and supply contract will be used to ensure continued production, so that the british tankers will not be forced to shout "Bang" at the sight of enemy tanks.
But as far as developing and producing updated ammo... Well given the looming fiscal issues of the UK and military priorities it is likely to happen at some point between never and never.

DRG May 18th, 2010 06:22 PM

Hi Marcello, do you have an internet link to the Chally Smoothbore tests ?

Don

Mobhack May 18th, 2010 06:37 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 745962)
Hi Marcello, do you have an internet link to the Chally Smoothbore tests ?

Don

Tanknet thread here: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=31585

- The German S/B Gun fits the CR2 fine
- However the ammo stowage for single piece rounds would be a problem (big job)
- 120mm rifled ammo is still in production however. At least for now.

- New Con/Lib government in power, so everything is up for grabs, a very big axe is going to be swung on all public spending, to include defence.

Andy

Wdll May 18th, 2010 08:15 PM

Re: MBT's
 
The whole thing is absurd. Defense spending is very low in all western countries, apart from USA. I don't know, perhaps it's just me who sees conspiracy theories against the West.

Cutting military spending (UK) is even more crazy with the UK actively engaged in conflicts. Meh.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 19th, 2010 02:53 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Sorry I missed this but, ARJUN 12.7mm should have read 1KRds vice 3KRds.
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 21st, 2010 01:51 AM

Re: MBT's
 
ARJUN making news again. Note para three that discusses it's performance versus the T-90, I found the 30% number interesting, though not so surprising at least for now, India's commitment to the T-90. If the performance was that good I'd be fixing some bridges regardless of the political issues involved with my "new friends". Also the mention of the MKII, as noted earlier.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15370/
I do feel it'll get to 500 units regardless within two years, but we'll see!?!
Regards,
Pat

gila May 21st, 2010 02:05 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wdll (Post 745974)
The whole thing is absurd. Defense spending is very low in all western countries, apart from USA. I don't know, perhaps it's just me who sees conspiracy theories against the West.

Cutting military spending (UK) is even more crazy with the UK actively engaged in conflicts. Meh.

It's all irevelant on how many tanks or how good they are anyway.
No.Korea has nuclear weopens and aggresivly sunk a ship today http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...ion=cnn_latest warning if retaliations are coming they will use them,then there is Iran flexing her muscles:mad:
Sorry for taking this to a political level.

rfisher May 21st, 2010 09:58 AM

Re: MBT's
 
I'm certainly not defending North Korea here, but I think your comment feels a little one-sided. Firstly, the sinking was back in March, not today. And to call it aggressive suggests there is no precendent for the incident. The truth however, is that there are often scuffles between the two Koreas over this area, and it was only a matter before something like this happens. South Korea will defend itself by saying that its ship was on its side of the Northern Limit Line, but that is a meaningless statement for the North Koreans, as they don't officially recognise the NLL.
Opposing forces always bait each other across disputed borders for all sorts of reasons (testing defences for instance) and I'm sure the military on both sides know that stuff like this will inevitably happen (hell, it's often the reaction they are seeking!)
The political reactions in the press however, depicting aggressors and victims, is pure PR.
The BBC report includes this line:

"It was a "surprise military attack from North Korea [that came] while South Korean people were resting late at night", President Lee Myung-bak said. "

Really? I'm sure there are more military minded people here than me, but I find it hard to believe that a warship patrolling on one of the 'hottest' borders in the world would ever normally be as passive and vulnerable as that statement suggests.

FASTBOAT TOUGH May 21st, 2010 11:30 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Hey, anyone for tanks with some small commentary?
Regards,
Pat

Wdll May 21st, 2010 05:27 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Say what?

Imp May 22nd, 2010 10:58 PM

Re: MBT's
 
I think Pats refering to getting back on topic as in "tanks with a small commentary"

Marcello May 25th, 2010 03:00 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp (Post 746340)
I think Pats refering to getting back on topic as in "tanks with a small commentary"

Speaking of which the north korean P'okpoong-ho may have been unveiled at last:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

It appears to be a somewhat different beast than expected: an incremental improvement of the Ch'onma-Ho series rather than the T-72 derivative suggested by the rumor mill.
I will eventually suggest the OOB changes in the North Korea thread.

FASTBOAT TOUGH June 13th, 2010 02:13 AM

Re: MBT's
 
I was trying to find some info on the Yugoslav ammo question when I came across this from the USA Vehicle Recognition (Threat Armor) as taught in November 1995 to our young Infantry Officers at Fort Benning, GA. You designers etc. might find this information very useful on the "threat" MBTs and APCs up to that point we faced. This is the most complete listing I've come across to this point, it shows all the stats, varients broken down by countries etc. and more. I hope this benefits someone!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...534/index.html
Got stuff coming in the next couple of days, take care!
Enjoy the rest of your weekends as I start mine!!
Regards,
Pat
P.S.
John if you read this no harm intended but, it wasn't as it was 60yrs. ago but I'll take the 1-1 tie!?!

Imp June 13th, 2010 08:08 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Course I am reading but brain must be slightly adled what was the following a refrence to?
"John if you read this no harm intended but, it wasn't as it was 60yrs. ago but I'll take the 1-1 tie!?!"

FASTBOAT TOUGH June 13th, 2010 12:55 PM

Re: MBT's
 
3 Attachment(s)
John,
Was referring to the first meeting and yesterdays World Cup match results between U.S. vs England.
And since I'm here someone had a 40th birthday this past week any guesses, he's not shy especially when pressed into service!!
Happy Birthday MERKAVA!!:birthday::cheers: So I digress.
Staying on subject, the MERKAVA 4 will replace all other IDF MBTs over the years with Israel's renewed commitment to the program (It was in jeopardy within the last few years.) This next talks about the changes to the MERKAVA 4 with up gunned
120mm main gun, armor package and TROPHY system. These are rolling off the assembly line now with fielded MER 4s to be upgraded over time.
http://www.defense-update.com/featur..._09062010.html and more on the TROPHY System:
http://www.defense-update.com/featur..._09062010.html
Some pics:
Attachment 10207 Attachment 10206 Attachment 10208
Watched the YOUTUBE video and was surprised how compact the TROPHY System is.
Regards,
Pat

Imp June 13th, 2010 09:10 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Was referring to the first meeting and yesterdays World Cup match results between U.S. vs England
Hmmn yes one nation moves forward the other well erm, can you guess which is which ;)

Do think the Merk wins the tank style awards hands down:)

FASTBOAT TOUGH July 14th, 2010 12:03 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Though I've been on T-95 watch as it was to be unveiled later this month, it appears the program is dead. I submit the following it gets a one obituary is this first article about midway down.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100603/159294042.html,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...d-2e8de47fbf49,
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456 and
http://www.rosprom.org/news3216.html.
Regards,
Pat

Imp July 14th, 2010 12:28 PM

Re: MBT's
 
One wonders what you did in the Navy if you can read cryllic or you use the translator programs of course.

Marcello July 15th, 2010 12:33 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 751830)
Though I've been on T-95 watch as it was to be unveiled later this month, it appears the program is dead. I submit the following it gets a one obituary is this first article about midway down.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100603/159294042.html,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...d-2e8de47fbf49,
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456 and
http://www.rosprom.org/news3216.html.
Regards,
Pat

I would argue that considered the threats Russia can face the balance of firepower, protection, mobility, logistical footprint and pricetag offered by the late models of T-90 is perfectly adequate to satisfy current and next future russian needs.
About the only issue I can find in the T-90 line is insufficient protection of the ammunition; though I vaguely recall they may have added individual containers for the spare rounds it is still not good enough in my book, yet not enough to warrant switching to a different tank.
The T-95 is really needed only to match/exceed the latest western MBTs, otherwise it is useful for technological development and keeping something boiling on the plate in case something better is actually needed.
But most customers interested in high tech tanks and with the cash to spare either buy western (Saudi, UAE etc.) or, as increasingly is the case, develop their own (India, South Korea).
The T-80 line died in Russia. Nobody was interested in developing the Black Eagle. I can't imagine anybody forking money for the T-95, especially if not even the russian army buys it.

FASTBOAT TOUGH August 2nd, 2010 02:27 PM

Re: MBT's
 
General purpose "cheat" article as already posted on the APC and MRAP threads.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature90405/

Regards,
Pat


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:35 AM.

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