Jartsev

Speaking of disputed presentation compiled by former FMV official(file was posted on his website originally, but later was replaced with reduced version without much juicy details), it is acknowledged as legit and unclassified by Krigsarkivet(e.g. swedish military archive). But source documents utilized for creation of presentation are still restricted and cannot be released. Just my 2 cents.

If I`m not mistaken it is "Танковый перископ командира, укороченный"- e.g. "Tank periscope, commander`s, shortened."

-Thats right. And it was never replaced with something newer(e.g. TKN-3) before collapse of the Soviet Union. -TPKU- have only magnifying optics, but it`s predecessor TPK-1 have unity window. People usually do not see much difference between those 2 devices.

Gunner`s control handles replicas are "specialised equipment for military training" per Wassenaar agreements. This basically means no export or import without end-user certificate and proper licenses in North America and EU.

This depends of particular unit`s TOE, IMHO. And in defensive scenarios ammo can be stockpiled on position, so it`s actual number can exceed unit`s ability to haul it by hand in single time

ATGM carried load depends of particular weapon system and size of the crew/team. For example AT-7 2-man team carries 4 missiles(1 by gunner and another 3 by his assistant), while AT-4 2-man team can carry only 2 9M111-series missiles which are carried by gunner's assistant(3-man AT-4 team will carry 4 missiles)... And when it comes to larger and heavier ATGMs like TOW or AT-5 average team can carry only one missile over relatively short distance. Speaking of ammo load for RPGs its again depends of weapon. Basic carried load for RPG-7 is 5 rounds(2 in gunner`s pack and another 3 in assistant`s pack) while Carl Gustav crew can carry 2-4 rounds(which are packed in rather bulky 2-round containers). Just my 2 cents...

Hmm, point taken... Probably inner plates are spaced few millimeters a part from upper glacis, so ultrasonic thickness gauge(most of inexpensive models) will very likely screw-up and not measure 'em.

Nope Its measured(yeah, it was really measured on actual vehicle) all the same uniform less than 2-inch thickness across entire surface, consistent with values on well-known sketch of CATTB hull . What you see on photos above are welded-in support rims, which as always are giving impression of thick plate.

Well, shaky gun or shaky turret in case of T-series tanks is likely caused by wrong adjustment of stabilizer "hardness" setting; sure it prevents tank from firing, but can be resolved by simple adjustment of some potentiometers in K1 box if cause is not a general failure of said box... Problem is that any tweaking or fixing of stabilizer is prohibited at crew or platoon level as a measure of protection against idiots(but procedures are described in operation manuals)... So only option for the crew is to switch to emergency modes of operation- semiautomatic(powered unstabilized AZ and manual EL,) manual EL and AZ, or in case of T-80U/UD, T-90 and T-84- to try enable mode "Double PA"; in this mode turret traverse is powered unstabilized, but main gun is stabilized by TC`s TKN-4/PK-5(depending of tank model). Issues with AL were very likely caused by air bubbles in hydraulics system... Relatively easy to fix, but not on the range or in the middle of firefight.

Those were presumably to be done by manufacturer`s representatives(crews were from T-64-equipped unit and had rather limited training and practical expeirience with T-84). But as it appeared, vehicles were not ready. Plus Ukraine have just 6 T-84s MBTs, so vehicles not utilized as competition tracks were used as donors of spare parts.

Actually as it appears, tanks of UA team were not completely refurbished at all because nobody bothered to pay factory for this. So manufacturer just added thermal sights, GPS receivers, some external stuff like ladders and applied new paint-job, but nothing more(while vehicles were stored for decade under open sky without proper preservation and maintenance).

Sooo... Can anybody explain to me, what is the point(read- real benefits) of VR support in AFV-centric simulation, not necessary Steel Beasts? Especially if things like optics and map views(actually primary views for armor simulation gameplay) and current VR technology limitations are taken in to consideration.

Yup, and people are giving their money for this.

Sorry, but this page from "CIA report" is actually not from real declassified "The soviet T-72 tank performance" report, which can be downloaded from CIA's FOIA reading room. Someone decided to fill "sanitized" pages with values from other different sources, and now sells his creation on Amazon. P.S. The real report: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/0000498195 Just compare page 10- yes, there is a plenty of stuff deleted, but it is still very different

Actually not. This presentation(more likely a draft version) was prepared by person who actually works for FMV and runs ointres.se website. His site contains final version of presentation, cleaned of the most of classified stuff, you can download it here: http://www.ointres.se/2012-11-08_OH_Arsenalen.pdf ...and if you download it and then take look on page 106, you will find sanitized down-scaled and unreadable version of the very same diagram.