BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Victim of circumstances mate, I had to do enforced research to figure out all the flavours of smoke you were dishing out. So I became an expert at explaining smoke because some people were such experts at creating smoke.
When Talking about Smoke, cannot compare with you, as you constantly show superior in this area.
JC wept! Amazing powers of deduction Snowie ... my hats off to you ... really ...
Gather that you served in SCE.
Despite the fact that I've previously posted this thread and this picture ...
which I know you've picked up on 'cos you've commented on my MR status not long after ... amazing really!
Grow up or get a life ... either's fine with me.
Sorry repeat posting.
Kotay, show us your strenght in Research regarding this Topic Thread
Why not Enlighten Us, as to the Thinking Behind the Design of T-72(T-91) and Leopard Tank, both were mean to Face off each other During the Cold War. -
Yeah ... but it's a rude and derogatory one. So if you didn't mean to be rude, I'd say you owe him one.Originally posted by tankfanatic:REMF is a mil jargon, any mil guys know this, i thought you knew it too. -
Originally posted by kotay:
Sorry Repeating a old thing, But New there
I could swear the armour he described is more accurately termed "composite armour". Chobham is a type of composite armour but not the only type ... y'know ... kinda like how all carrots are vegetables but not all vegetables are carrots ... ? But of course, you da man ... I'm quite sure you're 100% correct.
What's with the 3 x
anyway? You laughing at people's mistakes or lack of knowledge?
[/b]
Believe in Open discussion and Exchange of Ideas.
Sometime, when focus too deep into a particular topic, one becomes myopic.
In the Area of Business, the business maybe made irreverent or close down.
In the Field of Defense, Lives can be lost.
Laughting at People
Laughting at People, usually does not good, But does knock off some high and mighty people to be more grounded and open.
Case of Point
In Armour, there are a series of Tanks call M60, Characteristic by the twin Turrets, One for the Main Gun, another for the Commander MG. (Ps was told that design was proposed by a young (pre teen) Girl.)
Later, in the 70s-80s period, people laught and jeer at the Twin Turret idea, Saying that it was not needed. Part of the reason was the added Maintance issue, Pinto mount MG is easier to up keep.
Fast Forward to 2004-2007, Iraq, IED, VIED, Snipers situation. Well without such Turret protection, Gunners/Commander sitting high were exposed.
Only these few months are the Old idea of Mounting turret are been implemented. After losing so many lives.
Hopefully with these forums, old good ideas are not lost, (Esp when the scholar makes a hi IQ comment) Lives saved
Question, Ever notice the Old M113 of SAF, have shielding around the Vehicle Commander position. -
Yeah ... but it's a rude and derogatory one. So if you didn't mean to be rude, I'd say you owe him one.
well it depend... if hes really a remf then i owe nothin but if hes a combat element then i appologise -
No Offensive taken.Originally posted by tankfanatic:well it depend... if hes really a remf then i owe nothin but if hes a combat element then i appologise
But note, when shooting, some people will run (Note that one particular individual ran when challenged), and others shot back. -
Question, Ever notice the Old M113 of SAF, have shielding around the Vehicle Commander position.
in Iraq even with those shielding gunner or commander were shot by sniper. Because most of them pop their head higher than the shielding. But i guess thats more to SOP. -
Running again? Recall the MOUT Situation question posed for Ang Mo Kio.Originally posted by kotay:Grow up or get a life ... either's fine with me.
Actually, if you can uncover the document(s) you will learned as what SingaporeTyrannosaur wrote: 11 May 2007 · 01:52 PMBut of course, you must realize the Soviets never intended their tanks to be doing much fighting by camping behind a ridge, their armoured doctorine was to chiong into the enemy with as many tanks as possible.
Ps Guess whose Tank were design to play defense. No choice, the Soviet out number NATO Forces, by factors.
Sorry didn't see that militarynuts.com posting. Were you from 3rd Guards? -
No Offensive taken.
nice metaphore...
But note, when shooting, some people will run (Note that one particular individual ran when challenged), and others shot back.
anyway different view on german firing on Erawa2Germans wanted to sell the Panzerfaust-3T something about year 2000 - polish land forces should have a next generation antitank grenade launcher. For RPG-7 there are some new tandem warheads with 500 RHA (cover by ERA) but not sold to forces yet (manufacturer site - http://www.dezamet.com.pl/dezamet/plakat11b/plakat10.html ).
Of course, Russians have their new warheads for RPG. Especially specialist say that RPG-7VR was the version of weapon used againg this ABRAMS tank, that was penetrated of both sides (http://www.altair.com.pl/files/r1203_abrams.htm). So MoD guys organized with Germans the tests of PF-3T, they cowered steel with ERAWA-2, and it was shoot from several angles. Germans claimed PF-3T to be able to penetrate 1000RHA behind ERA. After thest it appeared that half of it was achieved, 500 mm penetration in the steel. But there are also some mysteries with those tets - some of the bricks did not explode, yet it protected the steel. Anyway, Polish Land Forces did not buy the Panzerfausts, although this kind of weapon is very necessary - on west border we have Germans with amazing Leo2A6, Leo2A4, on easter border we have Belaruss and Russia, with thousands of T-80 and Poland cannot spent the same money as the Germans, and unfortunately does not have so weapon industry in very different areas. We have a peace now, but relations with Russia gets a little worse, and Germans now start to want some of their lands back. Who can images what can happen in 15 years. So effective grenade lauchers are very needed, especially with some programable amunition. As i read some military analyzis from polish land forces, they want to introduce a new kind of RPG successor with about 1000 meters range. -
Diesel Smoke /Engine Smoke
Was just chatting aout this, and friend forward me the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNXL8PjYQ6E
Suspect that it was not intention, but a leaking fuel line that cause the smoke. But the outcome is the same.
This is another Video, of a supposed tatctic situation of deploying Engine Smoke.
Hope that you don't mind seeing Merkava throwing smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPjgPzSgdsQ -
Mate, it's not about running ... it's about not being stoopid.Originally posted by snowfox_my:No Offensive taken.
But note, when shooting, some people will run (Note that one particular individual ran when challenged), and others shot back.
When you find yourself unable to answer the questions posed to you, you divert attention by throwing "challenges" and posing new topics ... and you expect me to jump through your hoops? Nice try.Running again? Recall the MOUT Situation question posed for Ang Mo Kio.
Same thing isn't it? 10+ issues were raised to you to clarify comments you made but instead of answering them, out of left field, you ask people to write you a dissertion on how one would defend AMK from attack ... ??
I learn a new technique in debating from you ... when losing or out of things to say, challenge your opponent to prove their knowledge by writing an essay on some inane topic of my choice.
Brilliant innit? -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Which makes it all the more ironic that in a hypothetical conflict between Singapore and Malaysia, the roles will be reversed.
Ps Guess whose Tank were design to play defense. No choice, the Soviet out number NATO Forces, by factors.Sorry didn't see that militarynuts.com posting. Were you from 3rd Guards?
Right ... then how did you know I MR'ed if you didn't see the thread?
Nope. 2 GDS. -
The problem with Snipers is that the Comd has to stick his head out to look around. Some angles are just not covered especially if you are talking about the area directly next to an armoured vehicle.
While RWS has solved this partially, cameras are still very limited with today's technology. Good Cameras can see 360 degrees, imagine a circle drawn. Better ones can see in a sphere. However, the overdependence of cameras alone will result in a need to protect the cameras from damage. Transparent material and strength are apparently two different hard to have together properties(expensive too). Not to mention the amount of extensive wiring and controls require to cover the tank from bottom to top.
Basically, if you can see the tank on the outside, weapons from the enemy can hit you. It's part of the risk of being a vehicle commander. I know cause i'm one. It absolutely sucks. I'm hoping that they will either allow RW of the 40/50/scout or convert them into something like the 25mm. Suitable RWS that we can build will be like the Typhoon and mini-Typhoon. For those in doubt we can make that.... can PM me.
Anyway i'm waaaay off topic...since this is about MBTs first and foremost. *cough* -
According to newest information, Bumar plan license production of CV90120-T light tank. This is very advanced tank, much lighter than Leopard 2A6, Abrams A2, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and Leclerc, but with equal capabilities! CV 90120 has ACC active defense system of German IBD and Swedish Akers Krutbruk, first ADS system with claimed 100% effectivity with APFSDS rounds. CV90120-T also has:Originally posted by Wosiu:Maybe it will be interesting for you that in this year Bumar Labedy, producer of PT-91M, plan to reveal new light tank (20-30 ton class) with 120 mm gun in low profile, probably unmanned turret.
- light 120mm/50 gun CTG of RUAG Land Systems, only slightly inferior to Rheinmetall 120/55 gun but better of older Rheinmetall 120/47,
- anti-radiation and anti-thermal absorbent paint, add-on multispectral camuflage suite,
- anti-thermal water mist/artificial fog system,
- very advanced FCS with 3 independent sights (loader has own sight)! -
It's common for a dozer blade-equipped tank to dig its own berm or defensive fighting pitch. Just like the picture posted.Originally posted by tankfanatic:i seen the pic only and some notes that said it was digging the hole by it self. honestly i dont know how. the first time i heard about this is from an engineer friend of mine talking about malaysian tank can dig hole on the ground by it self....im sceptical so i done some research and found the pic. I'll post it when i came back.
A lot of Iraq's tanks were used in this role but this makes them sitting ducks for aircrafts.
But this is the first time I hear a tank digging with its tracks. Doesn't sound probable but I could be wrong.
The dozer blade, besides digging this pitch, can also be used to clear (potential) landmines on its path, though a more purpose-built blade for this is shaped like a plough.
And of course, the standard type blade is used for clearing debris in urban area etc.
I wonder why all tanks are not fitted with a blade? -
Oh really? When was this?Originally posted by snowfox_my:In Armour, there are a series of Tanks call M60, Characteristic by the twin Turrets, One for the Main Gun, another for the Commander MG. (Ps was told that design was proposed by a young (pre teen) Girl.)
Tanks with multiple turrets were in use since the period between the 2 world wars. The most famous multiple turret vehicle is the US M3 Lee. It had a added "wedding-cake" turret for the commander MG.
(In fact, the British left out the TC MG turret ion their version called the M3 Grant. The M3 was already a very tall vehicle without the extra turret and the turret is of limited usefulness.)
Multiple turrets raised the height of a tank unnecessarily and is very cramped as the TC has to share the cuppola with a HMG. Not just for "maintenance issues" though it made good sense to have one less moving part that can break down.Originally posted by snowfox_my:Originally posted by snowfox_my:[b]
Later, in the 70s-80s period, people laught and jeer at the Twin Turret idea, Saying that it was not needed. Part of the reason was the added Maintance issue, Pinto mount MG is easier to up keep.
Inside the M60 TC HMG turret visibility is also not good, so if the TC wants to have good vision he still has to open hatch and expose his head and shoulders. LPPL
And especially dealing with air threat - visibility from inside the M60 HMG turret and its maueverability is too poor for AA role.
Not ideal. But as someone said, no choice.
And as you say "Fast Forward" to present day.Originally posted by snowfox_my:Fast Forward to 2004-2007, Iraq, IED, VIED, Snipers situation. Well without such Turret protection, Gunners/Commander sitting high were exposed.
Only these few months are the Old idea of Mounting turret are been implemented. After losing so many lives.
IDF operates a lot of M-60s and and later modified them to Magach 6 or 7 standard. In nearly all versions, including in its original M-60 form, the IDF removed the commander MG turret and replaced it with a standard TC cupola.
The IDF has fought in a lot of urban combat and also lost TCs to sniper fire but putting back the HMG turret would have made absolutely no impact for the reasons I mentioned as to why the TC has to poke his head out to begin with.
And TCs had been lost to small arms fire since WW2. The Soviets tried to lessen this by having their hatches open forward like the T-34. They have since dropped the idea and basically given up trying to achieve protection and visibility for TC at one go.
original M60A1
IDF modified M60A1 Magach 6. TC HMG turret removed to be replaced with a standard cupola ring.
IDF modified M60A1 Magach 7. Same, no HMG turret.
If you have heard proposals about adding a cuppola to the commander's hatch, it probably meant the open top cupolas like the M113 for some added protection when the TC is top hatch, not the M60A1 type turret. 2 differrent things. -
Originally posted by Wosiu:
Apples and oranges, you are comparing the latest light tank convert of the CV90 with previous generation MBT designs. It would be better to compare it with the American FCS concepts or even the latest Korean K-2. After all the previous generation MBTs do not include signature-management systems and the latest in FCS developments.
According to newest information, Bumar plan license production of CV90120-T light tank. This is very advanced tank, much lighter than Leopard 2A6, Abrams A2, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and Leclerc, but with [b]equal capabilities! CV 90120 has ACC active defense system of German IBD and Swedish Akers Krutbruk, first ADS system with claimed 100% effectivity with APFSDS rounds. CV90120-T also has:
- light 120mm/50 gun CTG of RUAG Land Systems, only slightly inferior to Rheinmetall 120/55 gun but better of older Rheinmetall 120/47,
- anti-radiation and anti-thermal absorbent paint, add-on multispectral camuflage suite,
- anti-thermal water mist/artificial fog system,
- very advanced FCS with 3 independent sights (loader has own sight)![/b]
And ADS with 100 percent effectivity against APFSDS rounds? Sounds highly suspicious... who wants to be the first to bet their life on it? Sounds like some people are trying to confirm the dream of tank designers that they can rely totally on active defences and not worry about needing to mount any armour at all. Let's just say it's suspicious.
And of course when you come up against non conventional threats like insurgents with IEDs and simple, unguided RPGs... armour is still an asset that you can't find in a light tank. In the end the most bombproof and simple-AP weapon-proofAFV is still the MBT.
A light tank has it place and purpose, but I seriously doubt you can replace the 50 ton MBT with this "light tank" anytime soon.
And these "features" sound suspiciously like a sales pitch, as opposed to a pratical look at how things really play out on the ground. -
Anyone can post a picture of PT-91M...
-
The reason why I find the claim of 100 percent effective against APFSDS suspicious is because so many parties have been working on an ADS solution for APFSDS rounds for quite some time now and indeed to make a 100 percent claim is a very tall order indeed.
The way I understand it, ADS solutions to APFDSDS rounds work by attempting to deflect or distrupt the round by projectiles, explosions or even projecting an ERA plate into it (even before the round impacts), causing the round to miss the target entirely or impact with greatly reduced force (up to 50 percent loss in penetration)
But even with 50 percent less energy, I doubt the light tank carries enough armour to prevent a penetration... and that is assuming the ADS managed to cause this effect in the first place!
So yeah, I am greatly interested... how does this ADS work? Or is it another "look it's a secret but it's just 100 percent effective I tell you!"
Also, can this APS defend well against say... a stream of medium-caliber (25-40mm) incoming cannon rounds from an autocannon?
I am interested to know. -
Energy of blast is capable to change penetrator line of flight, in result, penetrator hit target own side. Impact still is big, so armour must be sufficient. Similar technology is in Israeli "Iron Fist" ADS, but not as advanced as in IBD/Akers Krutbruk product.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So yeah, I am greatly interested... how does this ADS work? Or is it another "look it's a secret but it's just 100 percent effective I tell you!" -
AFAIK,
The Puma with the Armour "C" configuration has the most amount of RHA/Composite armour. It is 35mm proof on the sides alone.
The CV90 is an AFV (modern). However, it's barrel is unlikely to be that of a high velocity version. 60 tons MBT vs 40 tons AFV, obviously the heavier vehicle has better gun stability.
CV 90 with it's 40 mm cannon and smart / programmable rounds however, are very impressive.
ADS is an emerging technology. It will require much refining before it's a real adversary to modern ATGMs. -
Anyone can post a picture of PT-91M...
there were all over this forum even the old thread have.
heres a link that have the tank pic.
http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2389498&posted=1#post2389498 -
** pedantic mode on **
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Huh? When people talk of multi-turret tanks, the picture that comes to mind is more the Russian T-35 or T-28 (amongst others) ... the armoured cupola on a M60 counts as a turret ... ?
Case of Point
In Armour, there are a series of Tanks call M60, Characteristic by the twin Turrets, One for the Main Gun, another for the Commander MG. (Ps was told that design was proposed by a young (pre teen) Girl.)
eg. See here ...
The M60's thingy is called a turret? Where did you get that from? I believe the US Army designation for the so called "turret" is M19 Cupola
Let's try and and not mix up turrets, cupolas and gun shields shall we? I confuse easily ...
** pedantic mode off **
re: new Polish light tank
Rah, rah marketing write up aside, it's still a fairly tricked out light tank.
Paper specs looks good ... and expensive. My concern is can the Poles , in the short - medium term, afford them in quantities that make a difference? -
If you wanna talk about sniper proof commander's position for COIN ops, this would be the way to go ...
It's a bit OTT but what the hey ... -
But my point is, no matter what you put on top of a tank, the TC will still poke his head up to get a better view.Originally posted by kotay:If you wanna talk about sniper proof commander's position for COIN ops, this would be the way to go ... -
AFAIK, the blast does not cause the "penetrator to hit target own side", but causes it to yaw somewhat of 8 degrees or so, which in the penetrators with high D/L ratios represents a great decrease in penetrating power. In rounds with lower D/L ratios this effect is less.Originally posted by Wosiu:Energy of blast is capable to change penetrator line of flight, in result, penetrator hit target own side. Impact still is big, so armour must be sufficient. Similar technology is in Israeli "Iron Fist" ADS, but not as advanced as in IBD/Akers Krutbruk product.
But even if it strikes, it is still striking with a force that can possibly penetrate over 200mm RHA or even much more. So you still need to carry sufficent base armour.
And of course this assumes the system works perfectly each and every time. We know passive armour in the path of projectiles won't miss, but ADS can and will have a failure to intercept rate, a reason why they can complement, but not replace armour.
As I said, this light tank "convert" of the CV90 is impressive, but if you look on the same page, you'll realize the same company has also given the Leo2 their own souped up technologies.
And of course, you still need armour to properly defend against non conventional threats like IEDs.
And the autocannon question is still open... can the ADS defend against a stream of medium caliber rounds all arriving in a very short space of time? You still need armour at the end of the day.