A few MBT related questions

[Feanor]

In the indian case t east, what I heard is that the Indians opted not to have Shtora, because of the weak spot it eaves on the turret. The shtora mount replaces two K-5 bricks.

 

[STURM]

In the indian case t east, what I heard is that the Indians opted not to have Shtora, because of the weak spot it eaves on the turret. The shtora mount replaces two K-5 bricks.

Yes I read about the same thing in a defence mag. But I would think that in the coming decade or so as more and more armies make the transtion from wire guided missiles to IR ones, there will be less need for Shtora. On paper at least, assuming it's technical problems have been sorted out, Arena would make more sense, being able to deal with all missiles, whether wire guided or wire-less like Javelin.

I find it ironic that despite all the upgrade programmes to up-amour MBT's by fitting them with add on/applique armour, bar armour, ERA and APS's, there still remains one very weak spot for all MBT's, the loader/commander's roof hatch

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I find it ironic that despite all the upgrade programmes to up-amour MBT's by fitting them with add on/applique armour, bar armour, ERA and APS's, there still remains one very weak spot for all MBT's, the loader/commander's roof hatch

I can think of one example of a MBT's armor being less capable than its older version. Ukraine developed the T-84 based on the T-80U, but its armour may be substantially less resistant to kinetic penetration. Reason being, Ukraine does not have the manufacturing capability to make ceremic plates and relied on limited stocks left by Soviet Union. Once those ran out, they had to make do with special purpose rubber material sandwiched between steel and alloy plates.

And yes, I was the one that edited the wikipedia article in case you're wondering.

 

[Bastian]

I can think of one example of a MBT's armor being less capable than its older version. Ukraine developed the T-84 based on the T-80U, but its armour may be substantially less resistant to kinetic penetration. Reason being, Ukraine does not have the manufacturing capability to make ceremic plates and relied on limited stocks left by Soviet Union. Once those ran out, they had to make do with special purpose rubber material sandwiched between steel and alloy plates.

And yes, I was the one that edited the wikipedia article in case you're wondering.

it reminds me to the devolepment of the north korean Pokpung-ho MBT which was originally made from remains of the soviet union T-72s .
more info at wikipedia

 

[STURM]

I can think of one example of a MBT's armor being less capable than its older version. Ukraine developed the T-84 based on the T-80U, but its armour may be substantially less resistant to kinetic penetration.

Thanks for the info about the T-80/T-84, I had no idea. I'll have a look at the wikipedia entry.

Do you know anything about the bustle auto loader the Ukranians developed some years ago?

 

[Waylander]

The Conqueror cupola brought the gun to bear onto the target in both azimuth and elevation. The range finder was integrated into the cupola.

The S-Tank’s hunter killed system was not limited by the fact that the hull had to move to bring the gun to bear. It could even do this on the move. That is the commander finds a target off axis and hits the button to bring the main gun to bear and it would literally steer onto the target and adjust the suspension to bring the gun to the right elevation even while driving.

This kind of process is well within the capabilities of mechanical equipment. Obviously digital electronic devices make it a lot easier to install and maintain.

I stand corrected at the accuracy of the Conquerors system but I am still amazed of the proposed Hunter-Killer capability of the Strv 103.
Isn't this a recipe for throwing a track? If the tank automatically steers into the direction I can think of a couple of situations where the automatic may result in the tank trying to steer in a position were one may loose a track or jump into a ditch.

I for one wouldn't like to use this ability in heavy terrain, mud, a prepared position or at high speed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I stand corrected at the accuracy of the Conquerors system

The commander’s cupola on the Conqueror was officially called the Fire Control Turret (FCT) and would be used by the commander to find targets and then range them using a coincidence rangefinder. Once the commander was happy with the range he would press the line-up switch which would automatically rotate the turret (and counter rotate the FCT) to bring it into line and elevate the ordnance and gunner’s sight in accordance with the elevation and range established by the FCT. The system would then inject the graticule image from the gunner’s sight onto the commander’s eyepiece allowing him to precisely align for any difference or supervise the gunner’s targeting.

but I am still amazed of the proposed Hunter-Killer capability of the Strv 103.
Isn't this a recipe for throwing a track? If the tank automatically steers into the direction I can think of a couple of situations where the automatic may result in the tank trying to steer in a position were one may loose a track or jump into a ditch.

I for one wouldn't like to use this ability in heavy terrain, mud, a prepared position or at high speed.

Well the S-Tank had a different track system to many other tanks to compensate for this issue. This includes the very short length of track in contact with the ground to reduce the grab of the ground on the track. But of course like any other tank the commander and driver need to make sure they don’t manoeuvre in such a way that throws the track.

You can see it in action here in the first part of this video. Not how the gyro stabilised commander’s sight keeps the commander’s MG on target during the turn as the main gun/coax MGs are brought into line.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz1rSQTAfA"]YouTube - Stridsvagn 103 s tank clutch and break manouvre[/nomedia]

 

[Feanor]

it reminds me to the devolepment of the north korean Pokpung-ho MBT which was originally made from remains of the soviet union T-72s .
more info at wikipedia

You mean the stripped T-72s they fit out with black market K-5?

 

[Bastian]

You mean the stripped T-72s they fit out with black market K-5?

Origin

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a significant number of T-72s were decommissioned from Soviet service and scrapped for metal. North Korea acquired some of these scrapped T-72s and obtained core technology for use on the P'okp'ung-ho through reverse engineering. North Korea is also believed to have obtained technology used in the Russian T-80 and T-90 tanks during this period, and may have utilized both this information and Chinese technology (reported to be from the Type 88 tank) to build the P'okp'ung-ho, with goals of creating a tank to match the T-90. North Korea's interest in the T-90 was demonstrated in August 2001 when Kim Jong-il visited the Omsk Transmash defense plant which builds the T-90 during his trip to Russia. It has also been reported that North Korea has acquired a single T-90S during the same period. North Korea may have since then used the T-90S as a reference to retrofitting the T-72s with parts from the T-90.

What initiated the need to develop a new tank was likely the poor combat performance the export variants of T-72 displayed during the Gulf War. Shocked at the destruction of Iraqi T-72s by western tanks such as the M1 Abrams, compounded with the fact that South Korea operates the K1 MBT, which has similar performance to the American M1 Abrams MBT, North Korea decided to significantly modernize their tank fleet to bridge the performance gap between their Ch'onma-ho MBTs and the South Korean K1 MBTs. However, economic struggles and a lack of several core technologies seem to have prevented North Korea from achieving high production numbers for the P'okp'ung-ho.
[edit] Production history

The first P'okp'ung-ho is believed to have been produced in 1992 in the Ryu Kyong-su Tank Factory, located in Sinhung, South Hamgyong Province.[2] The capabilities of later variants may have been augmented, although only to a minimal degree. Because of North Korea's limited industrial capability, compounded by the fact that North Korea has also spent most of the resources allotted for the development of the P'okp'ung-ho on their nuclear program, North Korea is believed to possess fewer than 250 of these tanks. The tank was witnessed by parties outside of North Korea in 2002 and thus codenamed the M-2002. The P'okp'ung-ho was shown to the public during a North Korean parade in 2010.
[edit] Design characteristics (Projected)

Images of the P'okp'ung-ho finally surfaced in 2010, which showed the tank appeared to be based on Chonma-ho or Type 85 more so than the T-72 tanks as previously believed.

North Korean propaganda claims that the P'okp'ung-ho is comparable or superior to the Russian T-90, which was developed in the 1990s.[citation needed] Although the design and size of the P'okp'ung-ho closely resembles the T-80 or T-90, its capabilities are said to be more or less comparable to export variants of the T-72 or other 2.5th generation tanks. Although the P'okp'ung-ho tanks may be superior to the M48A5K, K1 and somewhat comparable to K1 PIP, or K1A1, it is unlikely to have any advantage over the K2 Black Panther. In any case however, the P'ok'pung-ho has better mobility, survivability and firepower than the Ch'onma-ho.
[edit] Armament

The P'okp'ung-ho's primary armament is either a 115 or 125 mm smoothbore gun of a new type, which fires Armor Piercing shells produced in North Korea. The gun has been altered to be flat and round to resemble that of the T-80, although the purpose of this alteration is unknown. The tank also has a heavy anti-aircraft machine gun and a coaxial machine gun, as well as four smoke grenade launchers on the left side of the turret.
[edit] Hull/Armor

The hull of the Pokpung-ho is a heavily modified T-62 with a greater length and an additional pair of roadwheels. The engine compartment and the layout show some resemblance to a T-72 hull. The glacis plate of the Pokpung-ho is protected by appliqué armor, while the turret is reinforced with wedge-shaped armor modules.
[edit] Engine

Although the horsepower of the P'okp'ung-ho's engine has been speculated to be as high as 1500, the engine is likely to have around 1000-1100 horsepower. It has been reported that North Korea rejected developing the 1,250 hp (930 kW) engine of the T-80, judging that it would not be suitable for a tank engagement within the narrow, mountainous terrain of Korea, and that it would prove to be of little difference on defensive missions. During aggressive missions, the P'okp'ung-ho can quickly engage the enemy due to its already excellent speed and acceleration, which is the basis of North Korean tank tactics.
[edit] Internal systems

The Fire Control System of the P'okp'ung-ho is relatively modern, and some reports claim that it may be based on the Chieftain FCS, which Iran may have illegally exchanged for North Korean Technology. If the P'okp'ung-ho's FCS is based on the T-72's, it may implement the PNK-3 or PNK-4 day and night sighting system with the 1K13-49 periscopic combined passive/active sight guidance system.

The P'okp'ung-ho also has an infrared sensor (TPN-3-49 or TPN-4), a laser rangefinder and a search light, all of which allow the P'okp'ung-ho to operate during the night. Although the quality of the equipment are likely inferior to the South Korean counterparts, the P'okp'ung-ho is believed to be a considerable threat at medium/short range engagements, although lacking when firing from long ranges.
from: wikipedia

 

[Feanor]

Ok next time instead of CnPing an entire wiki article, try linking to it....

 

[Bastian]

Ok next time instead of CnPing an entire wiki article, try linking to it....

sorry sir, i'll do it next time.

 

[Tavarisch]

Seeing as this is an MBT-related thread, I have a few questions.

Firstly,

I have read on the L/44 120mm gun page on Wikipedia that the gun was considered incapable of defeating armour on the T-80B during that time period ( 70s-80s). By whom such a statement was made and under what explanations and observations, I do not know. I am aware that this may not be true in modern context, given the development of the APFSDS rounds such as the M829A3 and DM-53. However, for those of you who are more knowledgable than I, please clarify. A link to the page : [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun"]Rheinmetall 120 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun-Leoaprd_2E.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Rheinmetall 120 mm gun-Leoaprd 2E.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun-Leoaprd_2E.jpg/300px-Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun-Leoaprd_2E.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/7a/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun-Leoaprd_2E.jpg/300px-Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun-Leoaprd_2E.jpg[/ame]

The fact that it states that the L/44 gun was not capable of defeating T-80B armour has surprised me somewhat, especially since it points out that such a realisation was made in 1990. However, Wikipedia isn't known to be the best source about anything, so armour experts, do clarify. Thanks in advance.

Secondly,

In regards with the first question, has the L/44 gun been completely replaced by the L/55 gun by NATO armies ? UK being the only exception, since they are operating their rifled L30s, but there was talk that they were inquiring for and testing the L/55 for possible replacement. I am aware that German, Spanish and Hellenic Leopards have them, but what of the American Abrams? Are their M256s of the same length?

Thirdly,

Soviet / Russian designed tanks are notoriously small, which precludes tall crew members. But just the other day, I managed to get inside a T-55M tank in New Zealand ( some people bought the tank from Hungary and decided that it would be a tourist attraction to let people explore and drive it. Pretty good idea ) and had no problems sitting in the gunner and commander seats.

Thing is, I intend to join the Army after completing tertiary education. Call it silly or crazy, but I'm doing it purely to get into tanks. I love em too much. Sometimes I just get on youtube to watch The Beast over and over again, for the sake of seeing the interior of the T-55 and watching the loader ram the shell into the breech.

I am aware that the PT-91M is infact an uprgaded T-72M1. That's why I'm concerned. Does the Malaysian Armor Corps have the same height restrictions as the Soviet Army did? Couldn't find the answer to it on google. And after having sat inside a T-55M ( without ammunition load though, so not quite a reliable observation ) I felt the tank wasn't that bad in terms of space. My other bros and uncle were in it too. I was only 14 then, ( 16 now ) and my height then was 172 cm. Now I'm 175.5, according to the school physician. The average height of a Russian tankman would probably be less than that.

Regrettably, I have been out of touch, not only on the forums but about the latest in tank development, and in general. You can thank the Malaysian Education system for that; I get back home around 7:00 pm nowadays and school starts around 7:25 AM. For comparison, my dad comes back at 6:00....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have read on the L/44 120mm gun page on Wikipedia that the gun was considered incapable of defeating armour on the T-80B during that time period ( 70s-80s).

This report would be wrong. What actually happened is in trials in the mid 1990s the L44 120mm gun APFSDS ammunition was unable to penetrate a T-72M fitted with Kontakt 5 ERA at long range. The K5 ERA was not developed until the late 1980s and was the important array in this defeat of the penetrator. So to counter this a new generation of ammunition was developed. For the 120mm guns firing ADFSDSDU (depleted uranium) it just meant a new round but for the non DU ammunition (Tungsten dart) it required a longer barrel (L55) to maintain the ability to kill K5 ERA tanks at over 3km range.

In regards with the first question, has the L/44 gun been completely replaced by the L/55 gun by NATO armies ?

Nope. Some armies have upgraded their Leopard 2 tanks with the longer tube. DU ammunition users (the USA) haven’t bothered. The British L30 gun and French 120mm smoothbore both had barrel lengths of over 50 calibres to begin with and the British use DU ammo. The British did plan on replacing their L30 gun on the CR2 with the German gun so they could save money on ammunition. But since this would be a very complex upgrade I doubt it will survive their extreme cost cutting of their latest budget.

Soviet / Russian designed tanks are notoriously small, which precludes tall crew members.

This story is based on analysis by one of the greatest tank experts of all time (Simpkin) observing a demonstration of the T-72. The crew members were all very short and he assumed this was a reason why the tank was so low and small. The Soviets did select tank crews with a height bar but they had so many short people (poor nutrition as a baby) they had to do something with them.

But the T-72 can be and has been crewed by men of a height well over 183cm. The difference between the T-64 family (including the T-72, T-80 and T-90) and the French Lecerlec and most other tanks is that the inside of the turret is not based around an open basket but is completely consumed with equipment. So it is like hoping into the cockpit of a fighter you just have room to sit and operate the various switches around you. You can’t get out of the seat. But you can fit into the sit if you are a big guy but you won’t have much wiggle room.

 

[Feanor]

I wouldn't call the T-72 or T-90 part of the T-64 family. If anything, I'd say they're closer relatives of the T-62.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wouldn't call the T-72 or T-90 part of the T-64 family. If anything, I'd say they're closer relatives of the T-62.

The T-72 was specified as a cheap version of the T-64 and it shares the configuration and same main armament. For the purposes of considering tank configuration they are in the same ‘family’ without any concern for a transverse engine or not.

 

[Tavarisch]

Thank you, Mr. Gubler. I am somewhat relieved at the information. My hopes of joining the tank corps are not totally diminished.

@Feanor : Have there been any recent developments in the procurement of the Burlak T-90? I have seen several drawings and pictures of the new turret, and it looks interesting. My question is that will it have both the carousel loader AND the bustle-mounted loader? A dual set would be redundant, but then again, theoretically couldn't all the ammo be stored in the autoloaders? Is it even be possible to actually have BOTH autoloaders in the same tank?

 

[STURM]

This story is based on analysis by one of the greatest tank experts of all time (Simpkin) observing a demonstration of the T-72. The crew members were all very short and he assumed this was a reason why the tank was so low and small. The Soviets did select tank crews with a height bar but they had so many short people (poor nutrition as a baby) they had to do something with them.

I've read somewhere that the main design criteria of Soviets MBT's was hit avoidance unlike Western MBT's where design priority was given to hit survivability. If true this could explain why Soviet MBT's are smaller and lower than Western ones.

I had a close look an at ex-Iraqi BMP 1 at Bovington and was surprised at how cramp the troop compartment is.

I am aware that the PT-91M is infact an uprgaded T-72M1. That's why I'm concerned. Does the Malaysian Armor Corps have the same height restrictions as the Soviet Army did? Couldn't find the answer to it on google.

The Malaysian army tank and AFV crews I have seen seem to be of average Malaysian height, which of course is shorter than average Western height :.

Tavarish, have you seen these videos.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O0EUc07QbM"]YouTube - German Tank Leopard 2 / Kampfpanzer Bundeswehr[/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBI9d0-IfEM&feature=related"]YouTube - Battle for Cologne - tank duel[/nomedia]

YouTube - Merkava 4 Tank

. My question is that will it have both the carousel loader AND the bustle-mounted loader?

A KMDB salesman I met in 2001 confirmed that a bustle mounted auto loader had been developed for the T-84. He couldn't say why, but the bustle auto loader was not offered for the Malaysian MBT requirement, for which the T-84 was widely believed to have been the leading contender.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I had a close look an at ex-Iraqi BMP 1 at Bovington and was surprised at how cramp the troop compartment is.:.

I saw some ex East German BMP's BTR's and T-72's and was also struck by how cramped they were in comparison to western equivs... the BMP's and BTR's were very agricultural...

 

[kato]

unlike Western MBT's where priority was given to survivability.

Which isn't true at all, and only came when heavy and medium tanks were rolled into one concept with MBT70 and its derivatives Leo 2 and M1. Although the armour of MBT70 was pretty crappy too in my opinion, compared to the derivatives at least.

The Leopard 1 for example, as the intended Western standard tank of the 60s and 70s with almost 5,000 built, was intentionally built around speed (it could outrun anything on the battlefield of its generation), maneuverability and hit avoidance, with rather miniscule armour for its size. The AMX-30, as a derivative of the same specifications, had a similar design towards speed.

British tanks in comparison were designed towards survivability, trading speed for armour. US tanks before the M1... well, the less said about them the better. Neither here nor there.

 

[Marc 1]

I've read somewhere that the main design criteria of Soviets MBT's was hit avoidance unlike Western MBT's where design priority was given to hit survivability. If true this could explain why Soviet MBT's are smaller and lower than Western ones.

I'm no armour guru, but its all about where the priorities lie in the design of the tank and the doctrine behind the design. The three competing needs are protection, firepower and mobility.

If you empasize mobility you make the tank small, light (these two aid strategic mobility - the ability to move tanks between theatres - width for rail transport weight for bridge weight classes) and have an excellent power to weight ratio so it accellerates well and spends less time exposed to enemy fire when on the move. Of course to make a tank small, you tend to cramp the crew which can decrease their effectiveness and increase their fatigue. Another byproduct of keeping the height of the tank low is that it can restrict the depression of the main armament - which depending on how you intend to operate the tank is either a problem or merely an 'inconvenience'

Firepower means emphasizing overmatch of your adversaries. You should be able to consistently outrange (bigger gun/faster muzzle velocity /longer barrel) which usually means more recoil, a heavier gun, larger ammunition and a larger turret that needs to be carted around the battlefield. All the extra size and weight is the enemy of mobility.

Protection. Fairly self explanatory - although it used to be that more protection = heavier armour = more weight. And of course, weight is the enemy of mobility, requiring larger engines, transmissions more fuel etc. However recent developments in passive armour have added protection without necessarily increasing weight, and active protection systems

These are (used to be anyway) the tradeoffs inherent in design. Now, doctrine plays another larger role - the older soviet designs were designed to operate in large numbers, by conscript crews so were rugged, fairly simple and emphasised firepower and mobility - but to retain a reasonably high degree of protection were designed small. Because the doctrine used to be mainly offensive ops in large numbers deficiencies such as the limited depression of the main armament and the fact that they were relatively fatiguing for the crews was overcome by sheer numbers.

On the Nato side, british tank designs tended to empasize protection and firepower (fewer tanks and precious crews), firepower (Chieftan's 120mm was arguably the most potent of the 60's designs) over mobility - piss poor performance from unreliable engine - but then again given that the doctrine the Nato tanks were employing (mainly defensive - stopping the red tide of armour through the fulda gap was the classic scenario) the tank was mainly going to be employed a short distance from its bases in W Germany- so the large weight wasn't such an issue, but given the much smaller numbers, the abilty be comfortable for the crews and to allow the main armament to depress meant the Chieftan could could fight from the reverse side of hills hull down and use its superior main armament to pick off the soviet designs (so the theory went).

The French somewhat predictably took their own route on the AMX30 - firepower and mobilty over protection and the Leopard 1 was probably a good mix of all three.

Interestingly, the three competing designs have tended to become more similar the mobility of the Challenger has improved out of sight, the Leo2 has maintained its good mix, and the Leclerc has increased its protection. One thing that hasn't changed much is that the designs have not sacrificed interior volume (comfort) or the ability to depress their main armament, they are decent all rounders. The soviet designs worked well (suposedly - we never saw the 50,000 MBT's roll into W Germany thankfully) in the doctrine of mass attacks supported by masses of artillery, but in today's more generalised environment the tradeoffs that weren't that much of an issue back then start to look like real problems in today's operating environment.

So in a roundabout way the reason the soviet tanks were small was doctrine, and cost. Sorry about the longwinded explanation, but the history lesson helps to explain the why's of these designs.

Any other persons better qualified to add or correct - feel free to pile in.