TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Armored Vehicle Thread

Go To

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#426: Jan 5th 2015 at 10:17:59 PM

Sensor fused cluster munitions and Grid Square Erasers firing DPICM rounds :P

Who watches the watchmen?
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#428: Jan 6th 2015 at 6:51:18 AM

The T-64s will destroy you anyway. You'll never see the T-72s.

cool

edited 6th Jan '15 6:51:25 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#429: Jan 6th 2015 at 4:10:58 PM

^ There weren't that many T-64s to begin with. And as we've seen in Ukraine over the past year, they aren't as powerful as memetically thought. A good HEAT or APFSDS(-T) round from a 105, 115, 120 or 125mm gun will blow clean through it. The T-64 was more technology demonstrator than mainline tank. Especially since the T-72 and very quickly the T-80 relegated it to storage and being targets. (Or exported as tacit Russian support as seen in Donetsk.)

edited 6th Jan '15 4:13:14 PM by MajorTom

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#430: Jan 6th 2015 at 5:38:12 PM

How the design performs half a century after frontline introduction in the hands of a fragment of the Soviet Army it was designed for isn't really a good indicator of quality. T-64 was probably the best tank in the world during the 1960s and 1970s, until Leopard 2 and Abrams began to narrow the gap.

T-72 was not considered by the Soviet Army to be a superior vehicle to T-64, hence why it was offered for when T-64 was not. It was merely cheaper and easier to produce in the event of general mobilization. Obviously T-80 "quickly replaced" T-64 since it was a successor vehicle, in the same way Abrams quickly replaced M60.

edited 6th Jan '15 5:46:18 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#431: Jan 6th 2015 at 5:46:42 PM

I am sorry Achae but it really isn't that fantastic as a tank these days compared to the more modern designs that all superseded it like the T-72. Trying to throw it against modern tank designs would be suicide. They would get chewed up and spit out mangled. Tank designs, shells, rockets, bombs, and missiles have long since left its design behind.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#432: Jan 6th 2015 at 5:46:44 PM

The T-64 was probably the best tank in the world during the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, until Leopard 2 and the Abrams began to narrow the gap.

Actually that was a combination of the Centurion, Chieftain and M60 Patton. The combat record of the Centurion alone took on things and won that by rights it should not have such as the T-62s of the Golan Heights in 1973. Especially once it got upgraded with the L7 105mm with HESH and HEAT rounds. Fun fact: Israeli Sho't tanks often had inferior equipment in some regards to the Soviet provided tanks of the Syrians and Egyptians. For example the T-55s they had had vastly superior night vision equipment compared to the Israeli Sho't. Same with the T-62.

The T-64 on the other hand never was combat tested until last year. And it was found wanting. (Curiously, the Donetsk separatists and their Russian "volunteers" seem to have expended all their T-64s and are running on newer model T-72s or captured Ukrainian T-84s.)

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#433: Jan 6th 2015 at 6:36:42 PM

[up][up]

I wasn't discussing it's performance today though, I was discussing it as it was meant to be used by the Soviet army during a hypothetical WWIII scenario.

The T-72 did not supersede it until the B model of that vehicle was introduced in 1985; the T-72 was to be a mobilization vehicle, not a grade-A piece of equipment. Hence why it was more widely exported and deployed. This old issue of Armor magazine has a good article from page 21.

[up]

Actually that was a combination of the Centurion, Chieftain and M60 Patton.

Chieftain is overrated. It was poorly armored compared to T-64 and had a crude fire-control system. Patton had a third of the armor, an inferior gun, and was slower and heavier than the T-64. The CIA rated the T-64 to be superior to the Patton in the 1970s.

Centurion I will address below:

The combat record of the Centurion alone took on things and won that by rights it should not have such as the T-62s of the Golan Heights in 1973. Especially once it got upgraded with the L7 105mm with HESH and HEAT rounds.

I'd submit this has far more to do with the low quality of Israel's opponents in that war and Israel's force multiplier of defending their own territory. I doubt the IDF would have found a fight with the Soviet Army in the Fulda Gap, equipped with the latest Soviet armor, quite so successful.

The T-64 on the other hand never was combat tested until last year. And it was found wanting.

Whereas I'm sure that Chieftains, Centurions, and Pattons would all perform brilliantly in a modern threat environment fifty years after their initial introduction.

Also, I'm not really sure by what metric the T-64 has been "unsuccessful" in Ukrainian service, fighting a war it was never designed to fight in Donbass. I certainly think it's premature to say so, and I'd point out that it is fighting in situations where the enemy actually has something close to force parity, which is more than can be said for most extant Western designs.

edited 6th Jan '15 6:40:46 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#434: Jan 6th 2015 at 6:44:06 PM

Yeah the older Western designs would have a bad day on a modern battlefield as well.

Achae: The joke was after the T-55's and T-62's are gone what you going to shoot at the T-72 kinda implies more modern then the golden era of a single design.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#435: Jan 6th 2015 at 6:58:14 PM

I'd submit this has far more to do with the low quality of Israel's opponents in that war and Israel's force multiplier of defending their own territory. I doubt the IDF would have found a fight with the Soviet Army in the Fulda Gap, equipped with the latest Soviet armor, quite so successful.

The Fulda Gap is easier to defend than the Golan Heights, the Sinai and the Negev Desert. All three places Israeli Sho'ts had to fight. Often outnumbered and outgunned.

The effect showed itself elsewhere. SANDF Olifants (South African Centurions) in the 1970s (Operation: Savannah) and 1980s whupped the shit out of Soviet and Cuban provided T-62s headed for the MPLA. The crews on both sides were hardly what you'd call US Army or Soviet finest. (Though the SANDF was admittedly better trained.)

Those battles came down to the Centurion's reliability, small profile, hard hitting gun and ultimately crews. A craptacular T-62 crew would lose to a mediocre Centurion or Patton crew. Same with the T-64. Soviet crews in the 1960s weren't very good and the concept of deep battle hadn't really been developed yet so they didn't have the "Russian blitzkrieg" Soviet manuals spoke of in the 1980s. Meaning even the vaunted T-64 would have had its ass handed to em by the Bundeswehr and US Army in the Gap.

The situation only rolls further downhill when you introduce the West's (and Israel's) qualitatively superior air forces and their excellent ground attack capabilities. (Something the Soviets ALWAYS feared.)

TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#436: Jan 6th 2015 at 8:01:09 PM

Korea to bolster its land forces with 100 new Black Panther tanks by 2017

The Korean automotive industrial giant Hyundai Rotem Co. has signed a contract worth US$820.29 million (901.5 billion won) with the Korean Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency (DAPA) to deliver K2 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) to the South Korean Army. The initial order is believed to be for 100 tanks, with follow-on requirement for additional 400. The first production of pre-production models of the tank, powered by German MTU engines were delivered to DAPA and the Army in June 2014 for evaluations. Serial production of full production version with a Korean made powerpack is expected to begin in the first half of 2015. The K2 will replace the K1 tanks currently in service.

They look sooo cute! It's like the M-1 Abrams had a Moe little sister...

edited 9th Jan '15 4:27:13 PM by TairaMai

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
entropy13 Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#437: Jan 6th 2015 at 9:07:11 PM

The K2's hull looks more like the Challenger 2's though, while the turret seems like a Leopard 2's...tongue

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#438: Jan 7th 2015 at 7:16:28 AM

The effect showed itself elsewhere. SANDF Olifants (South African Centurions) in the 1970s (Operation: Savannah) and 1980s whupped the shit out of Soviet and Cuban provided T-62s headed for the MPLA. The crews on both sides were hardly what you'd call US Army or Soviet finest. (Though the SANDF was admittedly better trained.)

The SANDF failed in Angola.

Those battles came down to the Centurion's reliability, small profile, hard hitting gun and ultimately crews.

I'm not sure how a tank with a 105mm rifled gun that can only fire APDS is harder hitting than one with a 125mm gun that can fire APFSDS, or how a tank that is nine feet tall and thirty-two feet long has a smaller profile than one that is seven feet tall and thirty feet long. That's not even getting into Centurion's crummy armor.

Comparing a T-62 to a T-64 is like comparing apples to oranges anyway - they aren't related designs, and the 62 in particular was designed for mass use in motor-rifle - not - armored divisions.

A craptacular T-62 crew would lose to a mediocre Centurion or Patton crew. Same with the T-64.

So, that would be as a result of crew training and not design then, as you've already conceded?

Soviet crews in the 1960s weren't very good.

The T-64s did not start to be replaced until T-80 and T-72B saw mass use in the mid-1980s, so I'm not sure why we're restricting ourselves to the 1960s.

Again, you're moving the goalposts in a discussion of design.

the concept of deep battle hadn't really been developed yet so they didn't have the "Russian blitzkrieg" Soviet manuals spoke of in the 1980s.

I'm curious what you mean by this: Deep battle was codified in that name by the Soviets in the 1930s, and executed with dazzling success during Bagration, Vistula-Oder, Lower Dnieper, and Manchuria during the 1940s. Not sure why the Soviets would have forgotten operational art between 1945 and 1980.

The situation only rolls further downhill when you introduce the West's (and Israel's) qualitatively superior air forces and their excellent ground attack capabilities. (Something the Soviets ALWAYS feared.)

That's pretty irrelevant to our discussion on tank design though, isn't it?

To further inform our discussion, this late-1970s internal CIA assessment of Soviet vs American armor in Europe includes a useful - if rather hard to read - graph on page 14. The CIA rate the T-64 superior to its American counterparts right through to 1980.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#440: Jan 7th 2015 at 1:23:32 PM
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#441: Jan 7th 2015 at 2:16:43 PM

Achaemenid, I think the lesson of a lot of wars is that the better-trained, better-motivated and better-led army frequently wins even if they have somewhat lesser equipment, unless the equipment difference is very large indeed.

I don't think the T-64 was enough better than its opposition when it was reasonably up-to-date for it to be the deciding factor in engagements.

There's also the fact that sometimes equipment's superiority isn't in the obvious things that are visible on the spec sheet. Quite frequently it's in human-factors issues. Things that allow a good crew to operate more effectively.

A brighter future for a darker age.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#442: Jan 7th 2015 at 2:30:43 PM

[up]

Yeah, sure, but I never doubted that. My standpoint is that from a design perspective, the T-64 outclasses all of its contemporaries by a considerable margin. The thing was years ahead of its time. That can be acknowledged without rareified debates about crew training etc - indeed, the fact that the "anti-T-64" side has to resort to bringing in completely extraneous details like NATO airpower or crew ability would suggest that they already do!

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Demetrios Lucky Seven from Des Plaines, Illinois (unfortunately) Since: Oct, 2009 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#444: Jan 7th 2015 at 6:40:35 PM

Army to send even more troops, tanks to Europe

"For those folks, the threat from Russia is real," he said. "Their freedom is a unique thing, and they certainly don't take it for granted. It's very real for them."

Just months after bringing home the last of its M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles from Europe, the Army's heavy vehicles are back in the region as it faces a new but familiar threat.

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#445: Jan 7th 2015 at 7:27:27 PM

[up][up]That more or less lines up with the comparatively little studying I've done, too; the main fault with the T-64 seemed to be that it came out too early, before it could be thoroughly bug-tested for reliability. I seemed to remember that Western tanks had figured the shaped-charge was the weapon of the future, and as a result didn't invest in armor; the Sovs took the different route and pioneered laminated armor.

Speaking of APFSDS, does anyone have a history of its development and use? I figure the British more or less ironed out the accuracy problems with APDS by the 1950s, and I vaguely recall that the Sovs were the first to go with finned-dart projectiles, but are there more details?

[up]British Army of the Vistula, anyone?

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#446: Jan 7th 2015 at 7:58:11 PM

According to The Other Wiki there was some work before World War Two.

APDS was developed by engineers working for the French Edgar Brandt company, and was fielded in two calibers (75 mm/57 mm for the Mle1897/33 75 mm anti-tank cannon, 37 mm/25 mm for several 37 mm gun types) just before the French-German armistice of 1940.[1] The Edgar Brandt engineers, having been evacuated to the United Kingdom, joined ongoing APDS development efforts there, culminating in significant improvements to the concept and its realization.The APDS projectile type was further developed in the United Kingdom between 1941–1944 by Permutter and Coppock, two designers with the Armaments Research Department. In mid-1944 the APDS projectile was first introduced into service for the UK's QF 6 pdr anti-tank gun and later in September 1944 for the 17 pdr anti-tank gun.[2]

The L7 gun was developed in The '50s. It was around that time that the sabot was developed.

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#447: Jan 7th 2015 at 8:06:46 PM

Well, yes, APDS has a pretty long pedigree, being used in WWII by the Brits. It also had some pretty serious accuracy issues: 17pdr APDS had deadly anti-armor penetration but also had trouble hitting targets that HVAP and ordinary APCBC had no trouble with at 500m. I can only presume that at some point, the accuracy issues were solved, but that is only informed guessing on my part (the 20pdr was supposedly armed mostly with the Mark 3 APDS, which seems unlikely if the round suffered from accuracy problems—beautiful pics here.)

I was hoping for answers specifically about APFSDS, the long-rod rounds. Aside from vague references to the T-12 100mm AT gun, I've not been able to find much about them; I know the US didn't adopt them until the late 1970s as a result of work done on the big 152mm that was supposed to have armed the MBT-70. When the 152mm didn't pan out, they kept the penetrator but shrunk the size of the aluminium sabot to fit the L7, and brought it into service as the M774. But that was long after the Sovs first brought them into service.

(Also, much appreciation for anyone able to unearth the history of APFSDS for the other NATO countries as well. I vaguely remember the Brits sticking to APDS well into the 1980s, and the Germans bringing out the finned sabots with the Rheinmetall 120mm on the Leopard 2, but aside from that, zilch.)

edited 7th Jan '15 8:12:50 PM by SabresEdge

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#448: Jan 7th 2015 at 8:27:17 PM

If by laminated you mean composite which is what they had on the T-64 with a type of fiberglass sandwiched between steel armor. However the US had already developed that technology back in the 50's with a fused silica plate sandwiched between steel armor on the T-95 program. The Russians certainly beat the US to fielding it though and smartly upgraded the armor to use a boron carbide based armor instead.

Oooh I just remembered something for you. Gerald Bull the gun designer extensively used Discarding Sabot rounds in many of his experiments including the early years. I can't recall where I saw it but supposedly one of his early experiments involved firing test models using a petal type sabot round which sounds a lot like APFSDS type round.

There are more specifics but I can't recall where I found them. It has something to do with his involved in a Canadian project called CARDE or something similar. But a nice bit of visual example for the likely Origin of the APFSDS rounds can been seen in an old documentary. At about the 10 minute mark until 10:50 you get to see first hand the types of projectiles he designed and fired.

edited 7th Jan '15 8:51:09 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#449: Jan 9th 2015 at 4:17:38 PM

China gets a new "mountain tank".

At last our M1128 Stryker MGS have a proper nemesis that it can defeat.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#450: Jan 10th 2015 at 4:05:38 AM

Guess the AFV! Without cheating and looking at the imgur sources.

Exterior shots!

Guess the AFV Classic.

Easy I. Correctly identified by tryrar as a Panzerkampfwagen II ausf J. Only 22 of this "reconnaissance tank" were made - it was up-armored to 80mm at the front. Only seven saw service, with 12th Panzer in the East.

Easy II. Correctly identified by Greenmantle as a Renault R35, known as the Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731 (f) in German service. Not sure where this picture was taken, but likely far behind the front - the captured French infantry tanks made for adequate security vehicles.

Medium I. Correctly identified by Greenmantle as the the Schwerer Ladungsträger Borgward B IV heavy remote-controlled explosive carrier. Not considered a great success due to impracticality.

Medium II. Correctly guessed by entropy 13 as the Object 292, a Soviet 1990-1 project to up-gun the T-80 main battle tank with a giant 152mm rifled main gun. The collapse of the USSR - and thus the project's funding - put an end to that.

Hard I. Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as a Soviet IRM Tracked Amphibious Armoured Engineer Vehicle. A very interesting vehicle - hattip to Greenmantle for bringing it to my attention. Can operate fully submerged!

Hard II. lazarus 238 has identified the type - it's an Italian CV 33 tankette. But I want more specifics, because this one has an interesting history. The CV 33 was designed for use against colonial uprisings and in a defensive battle in the Alps - the planned Alpine battle never materialized, though it was adequate in colonial service.

Detail shots!

New feature - a larger image cropped: can you guess what the tank is?

Easy I. Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as a T-34's exhaust port.

Easy II. Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the HVSS suspension used on several Sherman variants, in this case the M4A3(105)

Medium I. - STILL UNIDENTIFIED

Medium II. Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the right-back aspect of a T-62M. This photograph was taken during the First Chechen War.

Hard I. - STILL UNIDENTIFIED

Hard II. - STILL UNIDENTIFIED

Interior shots!

What's the tank, and what are you looking at?

Easy I. - Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the driver's seat of a T-34.

Easy II. - Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the Tiger's turret interior.

Medium I. - STILL UNIDENTIFIED.

Medium II. - Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the Sturmtiger's ammo rack. There is no record of a Sturmtiger suffering a catastrophic kill in combat, which would have been rather spectacular.

Hard I. - Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the St Chamond WWI tank's interior, specifically the breech of the hull-mounted 75mm Mle 1897 it had as a main gun.

Hard II. - Correctly identified by lazarus 238 as the Pz VIII Maus's co-axial 75mm gun and its forward ammo rack. If you ask why, Ferdinand Porsche will chew his crayons and suggest some moronic flak-gun alignment to distract you.

edited 10th Jan '15 1:57:06 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Total posts: 6,519
Top