General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

medo wrote:Why is T-80 considered as non domestic tank? As I know they were also produced in Omsk, which is in Russia.

That is right, i think Gary related to the fact that Ukraine has had parallell production and keeps upgrading the design. They sell it now as "their" tank T-84.
Noenthenless, Gary was wrong using the word "non domestic".

Although the T-80 production has stopped for the Russian Army, the Omsk plant still makes the tank for export. As of 2011 the Russian military has upgraded some T-80s to prolong their service lives,[19] and the T-80 will serve in the Russian army for years to come.
In October 2009 Cyprus ordered an additional batch of 41 used T-80Us and T-80UKs from Russia for €115 million. Deliveries are expected to be completed in the first half of 2011.

About 500 T-80UD tanks were built in the Malyshev plant between 1987–91. About 300 were still at the Ukrainian factory when the Soviet Union broke up, so the T-80UD tank and its design was far more welcomed in Ukrainian Military service
Ukrainian T-80UDIn parallel with the T-80U and Russia in general, the Morozov Bureau in Ukraine developed a diesel-powered version, the T-80UD


Russia protested that they held the rights to the tank and that Ukraine couldn't export it. Nearly 70% of T-80UD components were produced outside of Ukraine (mainly in Russia). Under the guise of keeping good relations with India, one of its most important military customers, Russia withheld 2A46-2 125 mm smoothbore guns, cast turrets and other technology, which forced Ukraine to make its tank industry independent. It developed domestic components, including a welded turret which was in use on the new T-84.

Omsk was more of a repair factory for the T-80, though a design centre was there... if given the funding they could have produced the T-80 at the rate they eventually built the T-90s at.

The main problem that while many of the components for the T-80 were made in Russia the facilities for mass production were in the Ukraine.

Also combat experience had shown that because of the design of the autoloader with the propellent stubs stored vertically any hull or turret penetration would lead to an explosion on the T-64 and T-80 (both shared the same sort of autoloader).

The autoloader for the T-72 was different as both propellent stub and projectile were horizontal under armour plate which stopped sparks and hot metal fragments reaching the ammo in the autoloader.

Due to combat experience the frontal armour of the T-72 had been radically increased as well, to the point where it was comparable to the T-80, so when Russia stated they wanted one tank instead of two the makers of the T-72 basically put all new stuff into the T-72 that previously they had avoided to keep costs down and simplify production.

The result was called the T-90 and it won against the T-80 put forward by Omsk. In many ways it was similar to the Flanker Fulcrum fight however as the T-90 got an Indian order while exports of T-80s were largely political in nature (ie South Korea was as payment for debt, and Cyprus was to annoy the Turks.)

Another problem with the T-80 was that the T-80U model had a powerful but gas guzzling engine. The solution was an investment in much more powerful diesel tank engines which payed off with new engines that went into the T-80UD, where D is for diesel.

The problem for Russia is that the factory that made the much more powerful diesel engines was located in the Ukraine too and in the mid 1990s they didn't have extra funds to develop another new tank engine. In the last decade they have developed a few new engines.

After loosing to UVZ, Omsk went bankrupt and it primarily maintains T-80s in service... the design part of their company was transferred to UVZ... the Burlak T-90 upgrade combined the T-72 underfloor autoloader with the turret bustle autoloader of the Black Eagle, so the vehicle had about 53 rounds of ammo ready to fire, but the Russian military thought the turret bustle ammo was too vulnerable to enemy fire so they rejected it.

To be clear many of the T-80s in Russian service are old T-80B tanks. The T-80, T-80U, and T-80UD are Soviet tanks, as is the T-72. After the split the Ukraine continued to further develop the T-80, while the Russian military held a competition for a new tank to be their MBT and the Russian T-90 won. The T-90 is a Russian tank because it was developed after Russia and the Ukraine split. Omsk still produces limited numbers of tanks for export when it gets orders, but its primary role in Russia is maintainence for the T-80s in Russian service.

What is Active Suspension ? I have read Japanese new Type 10 and South Korean latest tank have it ( some say partially )

Indias FMBT one of requirenment is to have Active Suspension.

Austin wrote:What is Active Suspension ? I have read Japanese new Type 10 and South Korean latest tank have it ( some say partially )

Isnt that hydralic suspension, where you can adjust the tilt of the chassis to your liking?
Like we swedish had on the S tank from the 70´s, a tank destroyer where you aim with the chassis mostly.
The need of that to a turret tank i dont know really.

AFAIK active suspension means the suspension is adjusted in real time for a smoother ride.

In modern sports cars you can often push a button to alter the suspension, so on a motorway you can set the suspension to hard so you get a better feel for the road. On gravel you might set it a bit softer to reduce the vibration and soften the ride to make it more comfortable.

Each setting adjust the range the suspension can move and what it reacts to, so if you hit a real pothole on that motorway you will really feel it as the hard setting limits the range of the suspension.

Active suspension I presume takes all the bumps out but if you are barreling along on a flat hard surface it will stiffen up the suspension to make for a better ride... if you hit a pothole it will expand the range of suspension so it doesn't feel like you just hit a brick wall, if you leave the road and start driving on light gravel then it will soften the suspension a little, while on rocky country it will loosen it a lot.

Having the right suspension setting improves control and handling by not only making the ride easier on the passengers (and electronics and fuel and ammo) but also keeping the wheels/tracks in better contact with the surface being traveled over.

Thanks for verifing the deficiences of t_90.yep sub,no auto transmission,no steering wheel(tiger 41)Loads 7.5 secs yet a good crew can do 3 every minute and a half.Check your own link,tank is pathetic
.

I was just stating the technical issues.A trained crew must be active,the moment a gunner,driver and commander arent searching for targets they are dead.A crew isnt basket of jobs,its all inclusive(know everybody elses job).

Pugnax wrote:Thanks for verifing the deficiences of t_90.yep sub,no auto transmission,no steering wheel(tiger 41)Loads 7.5 secs yet a good crew can do 3 every minute and a half.Check your own link,tank is pathetic
.

lol.
A good crew can do 3 a minute in a half? what nonsense is this.

The auto loader is the future (or the past for certain nations ) sorry. Once the US gets rid of the archaec loader (and it will whenever the next MBT comes around), you will sing its praises.

Thanks for verifing the deficiences of t_90.yep sub,no auto transmission,no steering wheel(tiger 41)Loads 7.5 secs yet a good crew can do 3 every minute and a half.Check your own link,tank is pathetic

I drive a car with an automatic gearbox... changing gear manually is not that hard, and actually gives you more control... there is a hill near where I live which has a tight twisty road. My car is only a 1.8 litre and is pretty gutless so when I try to drive up that hill I have enormous trouble... in first gear I go too slow and hold up traffic, but if I put my foot down and it changes up to second I lurch forward too fast for the corners.

In a manual car I can select between third and second gear for speed and power so I can go as fast as I want when I want.

In a tank you are controlling two tracks. Controlling them with levers actually makes the vehicle easier to control.

If you think for half a second pushing one lever forward and one lever backwards you can turn the tank on the spot. You have the ability to have complete control of the turn because you have complete control of the tracks... you can turn right by pushing forward on the left lever, or pulling back on the right lever, or both for a very sharp turn on the spot. Your turning circle can be from zero to infinity... much harder... more work with a steering wheel.

Don't understand the rest of your post, you will have to elaborate.

moment gunner ,driver and commander arent searching for targhets they are dead. Acrew isnt basket of jobs,its all inclusivie.

Sorry but WHAT?

The crew of a tank all have very specific jobs and the equipment to perform those jobs only. The only exception is the Commander who can fire the gun if needed. Otherwise the driver cannot look for targets he has a pathetic view in any current tank way down in the hull with a narrow forward view. The commander has to direct him from his position up high because the driver can't see over most terrain barriers including small hedges and bushes and folds in the ground.
The Gunner has a very narrow field of view... perhaps 30-40 degrees wide and would be wasting his time trying to find his own targets... it would be like trying to find targets looking through a straw.

The commander has the best view on the tank and it is his job to find targets and also to find threats. It is the commanders job to find targets and threats and allocate them to his gunner to engage. While the gunner is engaging the commander is looking for other targets or monitoring potential threats. Gunner engages targets he is directed to by the commander till they are destroyed to his satisfaction or the commander gives him a new target.

Very simply the Driver drives, the Gunner shoots, and the commander commands... ie directs the driver and gunner and allocates jobs to them.

Manual loaders add about 5 tons to a vehicle and are subject to fatigue and sleep deprivation and injury.

They might load the first few rounds quickly... might, but how good are they bouncing cross country at 30km/h?

BTW just watched those tank videos... Pugnax!...

Loads 7.5 secs yet a good crew can do 3 every minute and a half.Check your own link,tank is pathetic

When they are talking about loading three rounds in one and a half minutes they are talking about loading ammo into the autoloader. As shown in the video that requires three men, one outside with the pile of ammo to be loaded into the tank that has to be unpacked and handed up to the crewman standing on the tank. The crewman standing on the tank then hands the projectile or propellent charge to the third crewman inside the tank who places the component into the autoloader system and then programs the ammo type into the autoloader system.

90 seconds to load 6 parts of ammo is pretty damn good in my opinion, with 3 projectiles and 3 propellent charges all being stored in specific places in the autoloader magazine and the ammo type recorded in the system so that when the gunner or commander selects the ammo type the autoloader will turn to the closest available round ready to load.

Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.

Pugnax wrote:Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.

Pugnax say to me what part of loading three rounds in the tank (with also very explicative images of the action involved [minute 2:38 - 2:49] ) is not clear ?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ak2iJQQVrT0





If you had in mind the.... odd idea.....of three rounds shot in a minute and half you can see those others ,equally explicative, images :







https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tvQuV77KzqM



Questions?

Western manual loaders,however archaic are getting 6-9 down range per minute.I guess its all training.

Perhaps I am not being clear enough.

When they talk about LOADING three rounds in one and a half minutes they are talking about LOADING the tank with ammo in a rear area before combat.

The autoloader in combat or on the firing range loads the projectile and stub case together at a rate of about one round every 6 seconds which means the tank would be able to fire up to 10 rounds per minute. That is stationary or bouncing across country at 35 km/h.

Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.

Pugnax wrote:Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.

Well yes, with more crew you can load faster.
Should we go back to having a radio operator?

We can play it the other way, there are big advantages of not having an extra crewmember who is useless in combat.

Indeed i am talking about manually loading the vehicle,the extra body does help,as for rounds fired per minute 12-15 is a Nato low standard in Canada.

If we are talking about the combat loading of the main gun then we can ignore the 3 rounds in 1.5 minutes stuff.

Firing 15 rounds per minute is hogwash, first it means the tank will be completely out of ammo in less than three minutes, and second if there are 15 targets per minute worth firing at then there are 15 vehicles firing at you... against a third world country that is fine, Against 152mm gun armed armatas and you are in serious trouble.

Equally if NATO goes to 140mm rounds they will be two piece and that will mean an autoloader... and I am pretty sure that once the US and Britain have tanks with autoloaders they will be the best idea since sliced bread. Artillery vehicles in the east and the west already use autoloaders, flick rammers, and automated ammo handlers for large calibre rounds.

Garry your comments regarding rate of fire are equally absurd giving that the t 64/72/80/90 series have major stowage issues that have cut safe storage from 42 to 24 rounds.Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.

On rough terrain, while moving.

Pugnax wrote:Garry your comments regarding rate of fire are equally absurd giving that the t 64/72/80/90 series have major stowage issues that have cut safe storage from 42 to 24 rounds.Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.

Oh please. What stowage issues? By your standard Leo-2 doesn't have safe stowage of most of its rounds as well, since they are around the hull and turret.

Hapless opposition, you mean like the only kind of opposition your beloved Western tanks have fought?

Why don't you read the reports of people who have actually operated the t-72? They all swear by the autoloader.
No surprise that a bunch of Western sources who have zero experience with the equipment deride it.

Even the Abrams has stowage space in the rear turret bustle for 32 rounds, the other 8 rounds are in the crew compartment.

Most other western tanks store even more rounds in the crew compartment.

Rose coloured goggles once said the autoloader could support a ROF 12 per min.Given that Russian armour is not capable of sustained offensive actions unless committed in great numbers or against helpless opposition.

Please... and western countries only fight in single tank units against very well equipped first world enemies... not.

The vast majority of the normal load in a Soviet or Russian tank are conventional HE rounds because 90% of a tanks job does not actually involve engaging enemy tanks. A decent HE shell is far more valuable the vast majority of the time in the real world... how many enemy tanks have been destroyed in Afghanistan may I ask?

Very close to b^gger all.

The reality is that a manual loader is no longer needed or wanted in a modern tank design, the extra body for guard duty and maintainence might be handy but in the Russian units that guy can come from the rear unit.

Video posted by Zivo above is pretty conclusive that the autoloader is not slower than a manual loader.

I remember when the T-62 first came out and the western experts derided it because its smoothbore design is inherently inaccurate. The BMP filled with ammo and fuel was a deathtrap... who would put more than a HMG on a troop transport. Funny thing is that those pesky Germans seem to have made a gun that was both smoothbore AND accurate!
Modern IFVs are full of explosives and fuel...

Of course autoloaders will be incredibly dangerous things that rip arms from sockets despite the video above showing there is a protection screen that would actually prevent the recoiling gun from hitting either turret crewman.

Still I carefully scan the Moscow parades for these legions of one armed tank men that must exist.

Lol, the autoloader eating arms is the best example of utterly baseless Western propaganda against Soviet designs.

From firing, loading, to the breech being closed takes an average of 5 seconds. That is 12 rounds per minute max, with an undeniably fast reload in an M1.



Here's a Leo 2 loader, trying to do the same thing while moving on rough terrain. 8 Seconds from shot, to closing the breech.



The T-90 on rough terrain from shot to shot was 6 seconds average.

Based on this evidence, it's clear there is no distinguishable increase in fire rate with a manual loader. Feel free to show me otherwise.

Standard practise in many different environments is to shoot and then move.

In the desert where there are wide open spaces it was standard procedure to sit just below the brow of a hill with just the top of the turret visible while the commander looked for targets. When a target was found the vehicle would drive forward and take a shot and then reverse back and drive to another spot to observe the results.

Taking a second shot from the same place meant the enemy was alerted to your position and anyway the first shot threw up so much dust and smoke you couldn't observe the target anyway.

In urban settings a tank will often reverse into a building for cover... fire and move.

6 or 7 shots might be needed per minute and a fast reloading rate is handy if your first shot doesn't do the job, but most of the time it is shoot and scoot, so that fast second shot is not so important anyway.

Zivo wrote:From firing, loading, to the breech being closed takes an average of 5 seconds. That is 12 rounds per minute max, with an undeniably fast reload in an M1.



Here's a Leo 2 loader, trying to do the same thing while moving on rough terrain. 8 Seconds from shot, to closing the breech.



The T-90 on rough terrain from shot to shot was 6 seconds average.

Based on this evidence, it's clear there is no distinguishable increase in fire rate with a manual loader. Feel free to show me otherwise.

Good stuff.
IN the case of a human loader, there is always possibility of human error, injury, or just simple slip up, especially during intense maneuvers. Auto loader is more reliable in this respect as well.

The mechanics, speed, reliability, maintenance have all been improved over the decades of use and in the tens of thousands produced.