Jump to content
Good Morn*ng

Main Battle Tanks (MBT's)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Its really interesting and cool to talk with you in this manner and confront our opinions.

 

Most of what i stated i fact Not opinion. The only part of the above post which can be opinion is preference for manual loaders or Autoloading mechanisms.

Quote

 

First of all i still do not believe that when you shoot out of T-62 that the gunner sights go up with the gun its just retarded (if the Russians have it like that in real life)

 

 

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the facts are. Your belief wont change Reality. Just like Marie Curie  iregardless if she would have believed Radiation would not offer any harm to the body , but of course belief would not have change her fate from prolonged exposure ;) 

 

SO if you want to Counter arguments use  Facts not what you want to think is right. 

 

 

 the Reason why you see that behavior in tank sims like Steel Beasts or Steel Armor Blaze of war because its Reality not myth. its simulated because this is documented. FOr T62 Models Until at least the 1972 Production ( initial production started in 1961) The gunner Couldnt track his targets during the reload targets due to the elevation.

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ca/2015/12/t-62.html

 

 

However, one inescapable flaw of the TSh2B-41 was that it lacked independent vertical stabilization. The movable aperture assembly of the sight is directly linked to the 2A20 cannon via a pair of rods. Due to the "loader assist" function of the "Meteor" stabilizer, the aperture of the sight will raise along with the cannon when the loading procedure is underway. This can cause the gunner to (very annoyingly) lose sight of anything he is aiming at at the moment, thereby making the commander's the only pair of eyes to observe the 'splash' and give corrections or search for new targets. However, this can be bypassed if the gunner switched to the 3.5x magnification mode, whereby he will still be able to observe the 'splash' at the bottom part of the sight picture. 

 

 

These complications led to the development of the independently stabilized TSh2B-41U.

 

 

In the 1972 modification of the T-62, it was given the upgraded TSh2B-41U sight with independent vertical stabilization as a transient solution. It lacks the usual components of a true stabilization system, like its own gyrostabilizer system, so its performance is highly unimpressive. The sight has a mean vertical stabilization accuracy of 3 mils - meaning that it has an accuracy of 3 meters at 1000 m, or a maximum deviation of up to 1.5 m, which would incredibly inadequate for anything other than just general observation. Fortunately enough, that's all that it is meant for, as the sight is only stabilized when the cannon is elevated during the loading procedure. When the cannon elevates, the sight does not follow, allowing the gunner to use his handgrips to manipulate the elevation of the sight. Once the cannon is ready to fire again, the "Meteor" stabilizer reengages and "catches up" to the sight, whereby the sight's stabilizer deactivates and defers its work to Meteor once again. This is different from true independent stabilization where the sight's stabilizer can be as precise or more precise than the stabilizer for thecannon, and the stabilizer for the cannon is perpetually slaved to the sight.

One tangible benefit of the independent vertical stabilization of the sight is that the gunner will be able to survey the landscape if the tank is on the move after firing from a short halt or crawl, or if the tank is firing on the move.

 

Anyways from a balancing point of view, ID say a T62 MOd 1975 could be added for insurgents  which were a number of earlier T62 tanks retrofitted with a KTD1 ( or KTD2)  laser rangefinder. It still has no actual Fire control, so gunner has to adjust the Sight to the specific distance for given ammo type but this would provide swift and Accurate Distance  to target instead of the Gunner or Commander having to estimate the range to target Via Stadiometric Range lines.

 

file.jpg

 

0.jpg

 

 

 

Thus still feeling like a really archaic tank but still allowing players to engage targets more quickly, although at close ranges given the hyper velocity of the APFSDS shell hitting armored target wouldn't be a problem. ( unless they were on the move in a Horizontal direction) which still takes some intitution.

 

Quote

Second if the gun goes up to eject the used casing out for the reload its not that bad actually as long as the sights dose not go up with it.BTR i know needs to put his gun up to the max for a reload.

 

As far as autoloader i have read a lot about it and so on.I do personally think autoloader are far better then a human loader.

And with the human loader you say in the M1 its 5 seconds to 7per a shot i do think thous messurmants are made when the tank is staying still becouse i have seen some videos and its hard for a human loader to reload when the tank is on the move i saw some videos where thy are tossed around the turret.

While the auto loader dose not,it keeps reloading and with Russian tanks you can fire while in full speed.

But this is just my opinion when it comes to autoloader vs human loader.

 

 

An "opinion"  you-tuber that plays Steel beasts ( that happens to a be EX Serviceman) , that covers the pros and cons of both.

 

 

 

Quote

 

If the Developers put tanks in the loader needs to be a player reloading if the real tank has a loader even if he needs to watch some animation as you say it is dull but important position and yes he dose have a coaxial machine gun mount that he can use.

Its going to be really interesting to see what thy plan to put in.

It would be even better if the Developers would give us some info of what thy plan about this topic.

 

 

agreed

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Normally the sights are not fixed to the cannon but instead using mirrors and stuff like that. At least for non-ancient stuff. Don't know about the t-62 but I seriously doubt the sights would go up. It's true the cannon goes up though for most tanks though. Auto-loaders can be fast like 3 sec sometimes but are prone to jamming, but another bigger reason to not put them in is because you really need a crew of 4 people to operate a tank properly with all repairs and stuff that may need to be done anyway . 

There is a cost to the 4 man crew you need a bigger turret that means your tank is high unlike the Russian autoloader ones.

And with the auto loader the ammo is stored below in the bottom of the tank or the tank floor becouse the Russian autoloader operates like that takes it from below and up to the gun wich makes it a lot safer then storing it in the turret.

As far as for repairs go its good to have one more pair of hands for maintenance but as far as reparing it in the field of bettel i dont think even 20 crew man could do anything if you brake down or something like that.

 

As far as sights go i can tell you that the T-72 sights are not attached to the cannon and you even have a reserve sights if your main one gets hit same goes for the Serbian variant of the T-72,M-84 or the upgraded model M-2001.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Bahrein said:

There is a cost to the 4 man crew you need a bigger turret that means your tank is high unlike the Russian autoloader ones.

 

it's not a major downside if your tank is better protected ( or the opposition has inferior ammo relative to your armor) and allows better ergonomics for the crew. Russian tanks are incredibly cramped and the rules dictate that a person no taller than 5.7 feet is allowed to crew.

 

Both were designed with different outsets. Soviets felt that smaller tank profile was better because they had an offensive oriented doctrine. Nato doctrine was more defense, and this allowed thier tanks to take hull down position with greater amount of GUN depression. which makes it far better suited for hull down that Russian tanks. Although of 3rd generation MBTs Offensive tactcxss are more than possible given Thier Exceedingly good mobility ( better than Any Soviet armor that wasnt the T80 Series of tank) 

Quote

And with the auto loader the ammo is stored below in the bottom of the tank or the tank floor becouse the Russian autoloader operates like that takes it from below and up to the gun wich makes it a lot safer then storing it in the turret.

 

no it's not safer. gulf war providedcmany examples of what happens to a t72 when penetrated by a tank round.

 

because their directly in the crew compartment. any penetrating shot to the lower front player or upper front hull results in ammunition cookoff. often times setting off s chain reaction and causing a catastrophic explosion often time causing the turret to rip clean off. And the crew is roasted alive.

 

all sovviet ( russian) tank designs up until the recent t14 armata share this design and as such are not survivable tanks. 

 

in comparison the storing of  ammuniion in the turret had proven to be safer.

 

 in the m1 Abrams is stored in the very rear of the turret  in a separate compartment which is closed behind blast proof doors. this preventing a fire from being the crew. if the ammo is cooked off there are blowout panels which rip off and the flames are directed upwards to prevent a pressure build up an thus ensuing the turret isn't ripped off on an explosion.

 

 

a similar story with the leopard 2 family, although the German designers placed a second rack in the front  wuthout vlowout panels so it  technically less survivable  than an m1 if hit on the  front hull.

 

 

t14 armata went the western design route of storming ammo in a turret. and good for them. this is a safer design

 

even if the crew was in the turret not in the hull. their chances of survival are still much greater.

Quote

As far as for repairs go its good to have one more pair of hands for maintenance but as far as reparing it in the field of bettel i dont think even 20 crew man could do anything if you brake down or something like that.

rd

As far as sights go i can tell you that the T-72 sights are not attached to the cannon and you even have a reserve sights if your main one gets hit same goes for the Serbian variant of the T-72,M-84 or the upgraded model M-2001.

  

well the t72 is a different story. I never said otherwise that the sights do work like the ones in the t62.

 

as for reserve sights. all modern tanks that I know of have auxillary sights

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 3:22 PM, kev2go said:

 

it's not a major downside if your tank is better protected ( or the opposition has inferior ammo relative to your armor) and allows better ergonomics for the crew. Russian tanks are incredibly cramped and the rules dictate that a person no taller than 5.7 feet is allowed to crew.

 

Both were designed with different outsets. Soviets felt that smaller tank profile was better because they had an offensive oriented doctrine. Nato doctrine was more defense, and this allowed thier tanks to take hull down position with greater amount of GUN depression. which makes it far better suited for hull down that Russian tanks. Although of 3rd generation MBTs Offensive tactcxss are more than possible given Thier Exceedingly good mobility ( better than Any Soviet armor that wasnt the T80 Series of tank) 

 

no it's not safer. gulf war providedcmany examples of what happens to a t72 when penetrated by a tank round.

 

because their directly in the crew compartment. any penetrating shot to the lower front player or upper front hull results in ammunition cookoff. often times setting off s chain reaction and causing a catastrophic explosion often time causing the turret to rip clean off. And the crew is roasted alive.

 

all sovviet ( russian) tank designs up until the recent t14 armata share this design and as such are not survivable tanks. 

 

in comparison the storing of  ammuniion in the turret had proven to be safer.

 

 in the m1 Abrams is stored in the very rear of the turret  in a separate compartment which is closed behind blast proof doors. this preventing a fire from being the crew. if the ammo is cooked off there are blowout panels which rip off and the flames are directed upwards to prevent a pressure build up an thus ensuing the turret isn't ripped off on an explosion.

 

 

a similar story with the leopard 2 family, although the German designers placed a second rack in the front  wuthout vlowout panels so it  technically less survivable  than an m1 if hit on the  front hull.

 

 

t14 armata went the western design route of storming ammo in a turret. and good for them. this is a safer design

 

even if the crew was in the turret not in the hull. their chances of survival are still much greater.

well the t72 is a different story. I never said otherwise that the sights do work like the ones in the t62.

 

as for reserve sights. all modern tanks that I know of have auxillary sights

You do know that T-72 also can store ammo in the turret the normal storage is in the belly of the beast or as i sead at the bottom of the tank thats their main ammo for the autoloader that the auto loader uses the addicional ammo can be stored in the turret too it all depents of the battle strategic and tactical plans but also its not mandatory to store it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2018 at 8:39 AM, Bahrein said:

You do know that T-72 also can store ammo in the turret the normal storage is in the belly of the beast or as i sead at the bottom of the tank thats their main ammo for the autoloader that the auto loader uses the addicional ammo can be stored in the turret too it all depents of the battle strategic and tactical plans but also its not mandatory to store it there.

 

yes thats some backup ammo. but its not part of the main carusel. it requires the crew to withdraw from battle and load that into carusel. OTherwise the autoloader isnt capable to taking that from the turret itself.

 

If anything more ammo = worse for the T72.

 

 

If anything field modfication to T72 tanks in more modern armies or export user theyd rather reduce ammo loadout and in some cases have filled fuel tanks with sand.

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×