Jump to content
apelles

Centauro and T-72 Turms

Recommended Posts

The T-72 Turms really has the same FCS like the Centauro? Or there is some differences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are BASED on the TURMS fire control system developed for the Ariete MBT. To which extent the implementation differs, we don't know yet. I expect that there will be differences. They may be as subtle as what you can see when comparing the Leopard 1A5 with the 2A4 fire control system (specifically in this example the question when to press dynamic lead), or the differences may be larger. We haven't had a chance to look at the T-72M4 or the Ariete yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it compare to what the T-90S is packing?

I'm kinda underwhelmed with the FCS on the Centauro. Sure, it works, but it's time consuming. I find hitting movers easier and quicker with the Leopard 1AS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both are BASED on the TURMS fire control system developed for the Ariete MBT. To which extent the implementation differs, we don't know yet. I expect that there will be differences. They may be as subtle as what you can see when comparing the Leopard 1A5 with the 2A4 fire control system (specifically in this example the question when to press dynamic lead), or the differences may be larger. We haven't had a chance to look at the T-72M4 or the Ariete yet.

The T-72M4 and T-72 Turms is identical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like the syrian army has gotten their grimey mitts on TURMS-T for their T-72s:

2012-fb-album-military-campaigns-14-06-12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have had it for sometime.

This is why when working on another company's product it was included in CM:SF.

Unsure of the scale of distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They may be as subtle as what you can see when comparing the Leopard 1A5 with the 2A4 fire control system (specifically in this example the question when to press dynamic lead)

Uh oh...I just checked the 1A5DK wiki and the 2A4 wiki, but didn't see any notes about this...

Is the procedure different? I thought with both of those you were lasing first, and then using dynamic lead any time the target was moving regardless of own vehicle's movements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Leo 1A5, also press dynamic lead if the target is static and your own vehicle moves. Not so in the 2A4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens in the 2A4 if I press the dynamic lead button when the target is static and I am moving?

For some reason I think I've been using dynamic lead like that all the time without any trouble, but I don't recall off the top of my head now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens in the 2A4 if I press the dynamic lead button when the target is static and I am moving?

As the FCS already compensates for your own movement, pressing dynamic lead will cause "overcompensation", that is, the induction of lead in addition to the compensation of your own movement. This need not necessarily result in a miss, but certainly the deviation from the aimed spot will be bigger. Give it a try and look at the impact spots in the AAR, aiming for the same spot and pressing dyn lead on one pass, and not on the other. The impact point would be shifted in the direction of "apparent travel" of the target (or, against your own (horizontal) movement direction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the FCS apply both the required correction to the FCS and also counter-steer the turret to maintain the target aim point without gunner intervention?

It seems that if the FCS can accurately bring the gun to the correct alignment to both compensate the firer and target platforms' movement in the moving case, that it should also continue to do so as the target platform movement approaches (and eventually reaches) zero.

I can see that deriving target movement from noisy angular & (movement derived) range rates can increase error when this can be correctly and explicitly set to zero by a mode change, but this isn't the same as 'doubling the correction' or applying it twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't the FCS apply both the required correction to the FCS and also counter-steer the turret to maintain the target aim point without gunner intervention?

Only the (very small) lateral movement component of the firing platform (Verschleppungskorrektur). There is no parallax compensation, if that's what you're alluding to.

It seems that if the FCS can accurately bring the gun to the correct alignment to both compensate the firer and target platforms' movement in the moving case

...yes, if dynamic lead is being pressed...

that it should also continue to do so as the target platform movement approaches (and eventually reaches) zero.

Yes, except for the case of movement zero (or close to it). In that case, NOT pressing dynamic lead tells the fire control system that the turret's current angular velocity is used only to compensate for (apparent) parallax motion but not real movement by the target.

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...