Jump to content

Thread mistakenly deleted


Marko

Recommended Posts

  • Members

That gives another challenge: tanks a high mobility well protected platforms...what vehicles will the extra manpower that you need use to keep up with the tanks in a high threat enviroment?

 

To me, only something similar to the Namera would fit the bill. It must be armored just as well as the tank itself, and have similar mobility characteristics. Maybe you can get by with something slightly slower and slightly less armored (if you need to compromise a little as far as vehicle dimensions are concerned and/or because you need to lug around extra equipment, like maintenance tools). Let's say, a transport capacity of at least eight (or twelve) people, depending on whether you shoot for two-, or three-man crews. So, one additional transport tank per platoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, if you don't add the extra crewman, you won't need the extra crewman for maintenance. 

you complain about how heavy it is to work with the track. if you remove the extra crewman, 

you remove the need to armour the parts of the turret where he is located, which reduces weight of the vehicle, and also the load on the running gear, which basically means you reduce

the weight of the track, and therefore the number of people needed to work the track.

 

as an example, both tracks on the abrams weight a total of 4055kg with T-156, and 5323kg with T-158. 

on the T-72, the weight is 3650kg for both tracks with RMSH. 

on the T-64 it's even lower, 1982kg. 

and KE protection on the T-64 is equivalent to the early M1 and IPM1 abrams tanks. 

 

T-64 also has a reduced number of roadwheels, and they are lighter than the abrams roadwheels.

abrams roadwheels are 144kg each, T-64 roadwheels are 110kg.

the reduced weight also means reduced maintenance requirements, since everything is just under less strain due to the weight saved by not having to accomodate an additional crewman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

 

To me, only something similar to the Namera would fit the bill. It must be armored just as well as the tank itself, and have similar mobility characteristics. Maybe you can get by with something slightly slower and slightly less armored (if you need to compromise a little as far as vehicle dimensions are concerned and/or because you need to lug around extra equipment, like maintenance tools). Let's say, a transport capacity of at least eight (or twelve) people, depending on whether you shoot for two-, or three-man crews. So, one additional transport tank per platoon.

I think the Russians have a similar concept.

 

 

RUSSIAN_NEW_ARMOR2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/7/2016 at 6:47 AM, dejawolf said:

well, if you don't add the extra crewman, you won't need the extra crewman for maintenance....the reduced weight also means reduced maintenance requirements, since everything is just under less strain due to the weight saved by not having to accomodate an additional crewman.

 

Russian stuff always looks great on paper because they never mention the downside.  Compared to the western tracks, how much better or worse were they in terms or noise, vibration, durability, maintenance and road damage?

 

BTW, according to their own studies, the T-64's crew workload was 2.2 times more than that of the T-62.  A large part of the reason was the loss of the 4th crewman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Homer said:

 

Russian stuff always looks great on paper because they never mention the downside.  Compared to the western tracks, how much better or worse were they in terms or noise, vibration, durability, maintenance and road damage?

 

BTW, according to their own studies, the T-64's crew workload was 2.2 times more than that of the T-62.  A large part of the reason was the loss of the 4th crewman.

 

given that the tracks are mounted on a 38-42 ton tank instead of a 56-62 ton tank and one with lower speed at that, i'd say better in all respects.  that just goes without saying. 

mount those tracks on a 62 ton tank and they will shatter like glass. on a 40 ton tank however they are fine. 

same deal with leopard 1 vs leopard 2 tracks. leopard 2 tracks are heavier, because they are mounted on a heavier vehicle. 

as an example, diehl 840L designed for a vehicle with max weight of 49 metric tons, has a track shoe weight of 26.6kg per shoe,

while T-158 is 34.1kg per shoe. 

for a T-64, a track designed for a 49 ton vehicle would be overkill. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote long post in topic which went through the window but ill say short one here again:

im for human loader: it can keep watch , it can brew coffee, dig a trench, it can help with ammo load,vehicle maintenance, and it can do 100 other things which stupid mechanism in my turret cant :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But that entire argument rests on the unspoken assumption that the whole doctrine remains unchanged. Once that we think of a crew on a two-shift system where you still have four, maybe even five people per vehicle, of which only two or three are actually inside the tank at any given time, the picture changes entirely.

We can't just ask "autoloader or human". In order to increase armor protection without weight growth (essential to retain tactical and operational mobility) a reduction of the protected internal volume is without serious alternative. It also means "unmanned turrets", otherwise neither the volume can be significantly reduced nor the silhouette (compare frontal silhouette of Leclerc with Leopard 2). The Leclerc probably offers a comparable protection level at about 8 tons less weight, so there's SOME savings due to the autoloader, but the Armata shows the more radical alternative. It remains to be seen if the Armata, after some time in the field to mature it, will actually perform substantially better. But one shouldn't underestimate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remote systems seem to be getting more popular now too.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that all the weapons maybe remotely controlled at some distance in the near future, and possibly have on board 'intelligence'. But I guess that increases the maintenance exponentially and ignores signal security.

Having said that, now we need four crew to maintain and secure an MBT. So any reduction in crew needs a rethink of maintenance, supply and security.

Edited by ssidiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ssnake said:

But that entire argument rests on the unspoken assumption that the whole doctrine remains unchanged. Once that we think of a crew on a two-shift system where you still have four, maybe even five people per vehicle, of which only two or three are actually inside the tank at any given time, the picture changes entirely.

We can't just ask "autoloader or human". In order to increase armor protection without weight growth (essential to retain tactical and operational mobility) a reduction of the protected internal volume is without serious alternative. It also means "unmanned turrets", otherwise neither the volume can be significantly reduced nor the silhouette (compare frontal silhouette of Leclerc with Leopard 2). The Leclerc probably offers a comparable protection level at about 8 tons less weight, so there's SOME savings due to the autoloader, but the Armata shows the more radical alternative. It remains to be seen if the Armata, after some time in the field to mature it, will actually perform substantially better. But one shouldn't underestimate it.

A current french Leclerc platoon is 4 tanks and 4 VBL, with 3 crew members each (how can we simulate this in SB now? 6 vehicles max...)

So there are 24 guys in the platoon, is it enough to fix a damaged track, handle ammunitions or provide close security?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a manning perspective its more then fine but from a tactical perspective it can be a nightmare because the VBL cant always go where the Leclerc can  go both because of mobility and armor.

 

So its one solution its not perfect but at least its a sort of an indicator of what Gibson and others have said are necessary to get 24/7 out of your tanks.

 

MD 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2016 at 3:42 AM, dejawolf said:

 

given that the tracks are mounted on a 38-42 ton tank instead of a 56-62 ton tank and one with lower speed at that, i'd say better in all respects.  that just goes without saying. 

mount those tracks on a 62 ton tank and they will shatter like glass. on a 40 ton tank however they are fine. 

same deal with leopard 1 vs leopard 2 tracks. leopard 2 tracks are heavier, because they are mounted on a heavier vehicle. 

as an example, diehl 840L designed for a vehicle with max weight of 49 metric tons, has a track shoe weight of 26.6kg per shoe,

while T-158 is 34.1kg per shoe. 

for a T-64, a track designed for a 49 ton vehicle would be overkill. 

 

You are making assumptions.  Logic and reality do not always match up.  I was hoping you had an article or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homer said:

 

You are making assumptions.  Logic and reality do not always match up.  I was hoping you had an article or something like that.

 

logic and reality always matches up as long as it is not flawed, and you failed to point out any flaws in my logic. 

i gave you solid numbers, you gave me rhetoric. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

 

logic and reality always matches up as long as it is not flawed, and you failed to point out any flaws in my logic. 

i gave you solid numbers, you gave me rhetoric. 

 

Items such as rubber pads and bushings which are normal on western tracks does nothing to mitigate noise, vibration or road damage... the only factor is weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

Items such as rubber pads and bushings which are normal on western tracks does nothing to mitigate noise, vibration or road damage... the only factor is weight?

 

i was comparing a track designed for a 49 ton tank to a 60 ton tank, both tracks designed by the same company diehl, and the track for the 49 ton tank is 22% lighter. both tracks are still sold by diehl.

i am baffled that you are still arguing. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

i was comparing a track designed for a 49 ton tank to a 60 ton tank, both tracks designed by the same company diehl, and the track for the 49 ton tank is 22% lighter. both tracks are still sold by diehl.

i am baffled that you are still arguing. 

 

I had asked a question on my original post.  Since you quoted it, I can only assume you were attempting to answer it. 

 

Nevermind... You were clearly the wrong person to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...