Jump to content
dejawolf

Ukraine to create T-64 with unmanned turret

Recommended Posts

I don't know...the T-64 seems an awfully small platform for this kind of conversion.  Maybe a two man crew would work, but that would mean cramming a lot of technology into a marginal hull.  Let's say I have doubts about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

I don't know...the T-64 seems an awfully small platform for this kind of conversion.  Maybe a two man crew would work, but that would mean cramming a lot of technology into a marginal hull.  Let's say I have doubts about this.

 

It's not official KMDB design for Ukrainian Army, but a design made by volunteer Azov Battalion which have some help from former KMDB engineers and workers.

 

Based on T-64 chassis they made a heavy APC kind of vehicle called Azovets.

 

1035829286.jpg

 

 

Yep that thing drives (no conventional vision blocks for driver, just cameras"), and seems to be more or less functional.
Protection is provided by conventional RHA and Duplet ERA.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

I don't know...the T-64 seems an awfully small platform for this kind of conversion.  Maybe a two man crew would work, but that would mean cramming a lot of technology into a marginal hull.  Let's say I have doubts about this.

 

nonsense, T-64 hull is as wide as abrams hull, only tracks are not as wide on T-64, so there's plenty of room for 3 people in width. 

you have less room in abrams gunners seat than in this proposal, thanks to it's elevated roof.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

nonsense, T-64 hull is as wide as abrams hull, only tracks are not as wide on T-64, so there's plenty of room for 3 people in width. 

you have less room in abrams gunners seat than in this proposal, thanks to it's elevated roof.

Actually, it's the T-64's short hull length I had in mind and the widened weak zone created in the upper glacis both from having two hatches abreast and the elevated roof line, but I don't have to stake my life on the thing, so...  Anyway, it's an interesting concept at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Actually, it's the T-64's short hull length I had in mind and the widened weak zone created in the upper glacis both from having two hatches abreast and the elevated roof line, but I don't have to stake my life on the thing, so...  Anyway, it's an interesting concept at least.

 

Well, technically speaking, the same can be done with M1... and was done, kinda. :P

k2VALzx.jpg
lFMFeKJ.jpg

Technically speaking, every country can make a 4th generation tank by using their current 3rd generation tank base components and chaginign the general layout of the tank + adding some more modern stuff like electronics, engines, autoloaders etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Technically speaking, every country can make a 4th generation tank by using their current 3rd generation tank base components and chaginign the general layout of the tank + adding some more modern stuff like electronics, engines, autoloaders etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the concept. I'm just wondering aloud if the T-64 is the appropriate platform; if it works out for the Ukrainians, be it the Azov goons or otherwise, cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the concept. I'm just wondering aloud if the T-64 is the appropriate platform; if it works out for the Ukrainians, be it the Azov goons or otherwise, cool. 

 

T-64 is perfect. you get a tank that weights the same as a T-55, yet has better protection than an abrams. 

and hull is short mainly because engine is short.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

 

T-64 is perfect. you get a tank that weights the same as a T-55, yet has better protection than an abrams. 

and hull is short mainly because engine is short.

 

Well I would be carefull saying protection is better than Abrams. ;)

And for a good reason, there is no composite armor protecting front hull, only layers of steel and ERA, same as in case of T-84BM Oplot-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the concept, 

 

I am no metallurgist  but surly the T-64 hulls must be past there sell buy date.

Dose-ant metal develop micro fractures i think there called, as it ages.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. I don't think that the metal ages so fast in all areas. The running gear is probably under the highest stress, but comparatively easy to fix. Gun parts like the recoil dampening and the gas pressure spring to move the gun forward again (plus the associated hydropneumatic parts of the gun assembly) is probably another one of these critical parts. But consider that most of these tanks have been mostly standing around from the date of manufacture to the invasion of the Crimea. The mileage on tanks is typically low (I'd be surprised if they drove more than 500km, on average, with each tank every year). So, stress induced materiél degeneration is probably not such a big problem.
  2. Even if I may be wrong about this, what else do they have at their disposal? The Ukrainian inventory consists mostly of T-64s. The T-80s that they built were mostly exported. They can convert only what they have, or else must build entirely new tanks - an effort which is probably taking place parallel to the proposed T-64 modernization, but which takes more time (and then you have a largely untested vehicle in small numbers, exactly the kind of thing that you want on the frontline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2016 at 0:42 PM, Damian90 said:

 

Well I would be carefull saying protection is better than Abrams. ;)

And for a good reason, there is no composite armor protecting front hull, only layers of steel and ERA, same as in case of T-84BM Oplot-T.

 

if you compare hull to hull ;) in fact, the portion where the T-rex glacis plate is located, is also where the abrams glacis plate is located, and parts of the abrams weakspot around the turret. 

further, with the multipurpose ERA like duplet, hull protection would temporarily be on par or exceed that of the M1A2 abrams front turret, and afterwards at least compare to the abrams glacis. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dejawolf said:

 

if you compare hull to hull ;) in fact, the portion where the T-rex glacis plate is located, is also where the abrams glacis plate is located, and parts of the abrams weakspot around the turret. 

further, with the multipurpose ERA like duplet, hull protection would temporarily be on par or exceed that of the M1A2 abrams front turret, and afterwards at least compare to the abrams glacis. 

 

Depends how we look at this, we would also need to take in to consideration probability of hit in to the glacis due to it's size and angle.

 

Altough yeah I agree that a vehicle in such configuration in general will have greater protection and survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
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...