Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

MBTs - TANKS - PANZERN


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#1 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:16 PM

http://www.mainbattl...ky/blackeag.htm

http://www.mainbattl...ky/Merkava4.htm

I could be wrong but the ring-neck is weak.
:P
http://www.homestead...es/T92apg02.jpg

A little better

http://www.mainbattl...ky/strv2000.htm

The best
  • 0

#2 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:39 PM

If someone stop the ring-neck He/she stops all the system.:P
The middle is the ring-neck, every gunner try to hit the ring-neck with guns or missiles. :P
  • 0

#3 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:46 PM

These included study of hit- and damageassessment from WWII aquired from the british in 1954. More than 2000 books and magazines on the reactions and injuries of tank crews as well as damage to hit tanks in actual combat were studied. These showed a high percentage of disabled tanks due to damaged turrets and gun controls as well as the fact that very few hits were scored below one meters height. They also showed that the risk of a hit per presented target area increased with height and that it was about 100% higher in the turret compared to the chassi. This led to the idea of mounting the turret directly on the tracks (or if you prefer, mounting the gun in the chassi). This would allow a low silouette with good protection in relation to weight. :P

The Strv 103 was to be 25% lower that contemporary tanks. The target area became 25% less and in fire position 50% less (Soldat und Technik 7/82).
:rolleyes:
  • 0

#4 AnotherEuropean

AnotherEuropean

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1611 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 07:35 PM

I tnink un modern times, a question of "spot-aim-fire" technique, or speed and accuracy. Most western military, keeps a close control over what is produced and thus have a large list of "weekness/cateogry" list. This means, that if they have a computer guided missile system, it is guaranteed to be able to hit your system, in its weekest point with >=95% accuracy. The accuracy, is measured as percentage of systems hit.

This means, a tanks is obsolete in modern combat.
  • 0

#5 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 10:43 PM

uhm?
  • 0

#6 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 11:55 AM

New Jordan MBTs' TURRET a new way in the design and plan of the turret.
All the crew under the chassis border.
The ammo in the rear of the turret and if hit the magazine in the rear of the turret blows to the external and not inside of the MBT's chassis.
It's a ten year old design and drawning.
The New Jordan Turret for MBTs is a very good device.
:P
With a little of imagination it's similar to this turret with a wide and high ammos magazine in the rear of the gun and of the two little turret of the chief (12.7 machine gun S-S/S-A) and of the gunner (7.62 S-S). The new Jordan Turret for MBTs is without the two secondary turrets and with a very wide ammos magazine in the rear.
http://www.homestead...es/T92apg02.jpg
:P

http://www.kaddb.com...w.asp?ItemID=64

http://www.kaddb.com/
The Jordan turret
  • 0

#7 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 03:41 PM

The Jordan Turret needs only a western or eastern chassis.
:P
http://www.kaddb.com...w.asp?ItemID=64

http://www.kaddb.com/
  • 0

#8 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 03:54 PM

The Ammos Magazine Blows Outside of the Turret and of the Tank.

The Gun is over between the gunner and the chief.

It's a very simple solution with a lot of benefit for the crew.

http://www.kaddb.com...w.asp?ItemID=64

http://www.kaddb.com/


:D
  • 0

#9 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 04:26 PM

The most important thing in a tank is how to save the crew.:P
  • 0

#10 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 06:53 PM

Obs stuermt oder schneit
OB die Sonne uns lacht
Der Tag gluehend hei?
oder eiskalt die Nacht

Es braust unser Panzer
im Sturmwind dahin

:P Song for the next BLITZ :rolleyes:
  • 0

#11 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:08 PM

:( Way back from the BLITZ :eek:

Es zog ein Regiment vom Ungarland herauf
Ein Regiment zu Fu? Ein Regiment zu Pferd

Ein Batailion Soldaten

Bei einer Frau Wirtin da kehrten sie ein
Bei einer Frau Wirtin da kehrten sie ein
Bei Bier und bei Wein da kehrten sie ein
Bei Bier und bei Wein da kehrten sie ein

Ein schwarz braunes Maedel schenkte ein
Ach schwarzbraunes Maedel warum weinest du so sehr
  • 0

#12 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:39 PM

Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams
05/07/2003 12:41
The 21st century has brought fifth generation weapons to the planet. Are we ready to meet the challenge?
This is not a fantasy or a Hollywood movie where space aliens take out their super-powerful guns and wipe entire cities and villages off the face of the earth without establishing direct contact with the poor aborigines. This pseudo-aesthetic horror has become our everyday reality.

Even in the early 1990s, when, during the Desert Storm operation, the Americans made attempts to test new military tactics and use new high-tech weapons, many analytical centers just shrugged their shoulders: they still considered the Kalashnikov gun to be superior to computers and laser-guided weapons. However, already during the US aggression against Yugoslavia, when the Americans used optically guidance missiles and bombs with carbonic threads to deactivate power lines without destroying the nuclear power plants, analysts realized that a new era of non-contact wars had begun. And this fact was proven by the Americans in Iraq once again when it took three weeks to dissolve Saddam's army of 400,000 soldiers in the Mesopotamian desert. The US's cold silicon chips and noiseless laser beams were fighting against Iraq's hot hearts and Kalashnikov guns. The 21st century has brought fifth generation weapons to the planet. Are we ready to meet the challenge?

When, in the 1980s, the Soviet military opened another large-scale construction site near the city of Nurek in the Soviet republic of Tadjikistan, US authorities became seriously alarmed and made a protest against the USSR. They thought our country had started construction of a military-purpose laser complex. Soviet diplomats had to reassure the scared Americans and explained that the complex was meant for optoelectronic surveillance, analogous to US's GBEODSS (Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance).

The creators of the new complex called it a "window." The complex could survey objects in space at a height of 40,000 kilometers, define their trajectories precisely and find out to what country the objects belonged and for what purpose they were meant.

This "window to space" was developed at a design bureau of a plant in Krasnogorks in the Moscow region under the direction of chief designer Chernov. First, an experimental model of the complex was built right on the premises of the enterprise. But when construction was started not far from the hydroelectric power station in Nurek, a civil war broke out in Tadjikistan. Specialists could recommence construction work only after 1996. In November 1999, the complex was finally put into operation.

In addition to surveillance over military objects, the complex can perform civilian service as well. It can survey not only objects of terrestrial, but also of extraterrestrial, origin, such as asteroids, comets, meteors, meteorites, etc.

In October 1984, the USA launched its Challenger shuttle for the 13th time. When the shuttle flew over Lake Balkhash (in Soviet territory at that time), it suddenly lost contact with the Earth, devices on board the shuttle were lost and the astronauts themselves felt ill. The Americans held a thorough investigation of the incident and learned that the crew and the space vessel had suffered from something arising from the USSR. An official protest followed. After that, American space objects never suffered such faults over Soviet territory.

Our prospective friends calmed down, but it was only in 1989 that a US delegation was shown a part of the laser complex meant for aiming at remote objects. The apparatus was called Terra-3, and it had been aimed at the space shuttle.

Development of a space gun started in the 1970s; Nobel Prize laureates Prokhorov and Basov and Academicians Khariton and Velikhov worked on the problem. The whole of the world was on the threshold of Star Wars at that time, and the Soviet complex was (and is still now) the most advanced example of such a thing at that time. The fact was proved by the "innocent trick" played when Soviet Marshall Dmitry Ustinov issued an order to direct a laser beam at the US space shuttle, which was flying at a height of 365 kilometers.

The Russian tank Black Eagle (object 640) can be seen at military exhibitions from a distance only; its shape is disguised under camouflage net. The tank is very powerful: it weighs 50 tons and the turbine engine is of 1,500 horse-powers. The Black Eagle is 80 centimeters lower than the new T-80 tank.

The tank's main 125-caliber gun can fire regular shells and guided anti-tank missiles. They are developed by skilled specialists in the Russian city of Tula and can break through armor 1,000 millimeters thick. This means that even the most powerful tank in the West, the Abrams, with front armor of 800 millimeters, won't stand up to Russia's Black Eagle.

The turret of the Russian tank resembles turrets of Western last-generation tanks in size and configuration. It is equipped with built-in dynamic protection covering a sector of 120 degrees, approximately. Dynamic protection units are installed in the front of the roof as well. There are 12 tube-guided arms on each side of the turret (which means the Black Eagle is equipped with a Drozd active protection system). Laser emission receivers are placed on the top of the turret, which shows that the tank may be equipped with a radio countermeasures system.

The tank has a combined sight with a built-in laser ranger that can operate in the daytime, as well as at night. The commander of the tank is provided with a thermal imaging surveillance device. It is not ruled out that information obtained by both devices can further appear on the displays of a commander or a gunner. The on-board information complex of the Black Eagle tank controls all the basic systems of the machine. It can also perform automated information exchange with other tanks and higher commanders. This is the first time that a Russian tank has been turned into a powerful analytical computerized center. The designers also focused on better safety for the tank crew. Tank ammunition was traditionally placed under the floor in a battle compartment; when it blew up or was hit with a missile, the whole of the crew was consequently killed. In the new tank, ammunition is transferred to the after-part of the turret and separated from the battle compartment with an armored partition. This measure makes the tank crew feel safer.

This smart machine, which aims not only at liquidation of enemies but also cares about the safety of its crew, was developed by Russian designers. What the Russian government has to do now is buy the machine for the army. It promises to do so regularly.


Igor Savin
  • 0

#13 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:44 PM

Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams
05/07/2003 12:41
The 21st century has brought fifth generation weapons to the planet. Are we ready to meet the challenge?
This is not a fantasy or a Hollywood movie where space aliens take out their super-powerful guns and wipe entire cities and villages off the face of the earth without establishing direct contact with the poor aborigines. This pseudo-aesthetic horror has become our everyday reality.

Even in the early 1990s, when, during the Desert Storm operation, the Americans made attempts to test new military tactics and use new high-tech weapons, many analytical centers just shrugged their shoulders: they still considered the Kalashnikov gun to be superior to computers and laser-guided weapons. However, already during the US aggression against Yugoslavia, when the Americans used optically guidance missiles and bombs with carbonic threads to deactivate power lines without destroying the nuclear power plants, analysts realized that a new era of non-contact wars had begun. And this fact was proven by the Americans in Iraq once again when it took three weeks to dissolve Saddam's army of 400,000 soldiers in the Mesopotamian desert. The US's cold silicon chips and noiseless laser beams were fighting against Iraq's hot hearts and Kalashnikov guns. The 21st century has brought fifth generation weapons to the planet. Are we ready to meet the challenge?

When, in the 1980s, the Soviet military opened another large-scale construction site near the city of Nurek in the Soviet republic of Tadjikistan, US authorities became seriously alarmed and made a protest against the USSR. They thought our country had started construction of a military-purpose laser complex. Soviet diplomats had to reassure the scared Americans and explained that the complex was meant for optoelectronic surveillance, analogous to US's GBEODSS (Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance).

The creators of the new complex called it a "window." The complex could survey objects in space at a height of 40,000 kilometers, define their trajectories precisely and find out to what country the objects belonged and for what purpose they were meant.

This "window to space" was developed at a design bureau of a plant in Krasnogorks in the Moscow region under the direction of chief designer Chernov. First, an experimental model of the complex was built right on the premises of the enterprise. But when construction was started not far from the hydroelectric power station in Nurek, a civil war broke out in Tadjikistan. Specialists could recommence construction work only after 1996. In November 1999, the complex was finally put into operation.

In addition to surveillance over military objects, the complex can perform civilian service as well. It can survey not only objects of terrestrial, but also of extraterrestrial, origin, such as asteroids, comets, meteors, meteorites, etc.

In October 1984, the USA launched its Challenger shuttle for the 13th time. When the shuttle flew over Lake Balkhash (in Soviet territory at that time), it suddenly lost contact with the Earth, devices on board the shuttle were lost and the astronauts themselves felt ill. The Americans held a thorough investigation of the incident and learned that the crew and the space vessel had suffered from something arising from the USSR. An official protest followed. After that, American space objects never suffered such faults over Soviet territory.

Our prospective friends calmed down, but it was only in 1989 that a US delegation was shown a part of the laser complex meant for aiming at remote objects. The apparatus was called Terra-3, and it had been aimed at the space shuttle.

Development of a space gun started in the 1970s; Nobel Prize laureates Prokhorov and Basov and Academicians Khariton and Velikhov worked on the problem. The whole of the world was on the threshold of Star Wars at that time, and the Soviet complex was (and is still now) the most advanced example of such a thing at that time. The fact was proved by the "innocent trick" played when Soviet Marshall Dmitry Ustinov issued an order to direct a laser beam at the US space shuttle, which was flying at a height of 365 kilometers.

The Russian tank Black Eagle (object 640) can be seen at military exhibitions from a distance only; its shape is disguised under camouflage net. The tank is very powerful: it weighs 50 tons and the turbine engine is of 1,500 horse-powers. The Black Eagle is 80 centimeters lower than the new T-80 tank.

The tank's main 125-caliber gun can fire regular shells and guided anti-tank missiles. They are developed by skilled specialists in the Russian city of Tula and can break through armor 1,000 millimeters thick. This means that even the most powerful tank in the West, the Abrams, with front armor of 800 millimeters, won't stand up to Russia's Black Eagle.

The turret of the Russian tank resembles turrets of Western last-generation tanks in size and configuration. It is equipped with built-in dynamic protection covering a sector of 120 degrees, approximately. Dynamic protection units are installed in the front of the roof as well. There are 12 tube-guided arms on each side of the turret (which means the Black Eagle is equipped with a Drozd active protection system). Laser emission receivers are placed on the top of the turret, which shows that the tank may be equipped with a radio countermeasures system.

The tank has a combined sight with a built-in laser ranger that can operate in the daytime, as well as at night. The commander of the tank is provided with a thermal imaging surveillance device. It is not ruled out that information obtained by both devices can further appear on the displays of a commander or a gunner. The on-board information complex of the Black Eagle tank controls all the basic systems of the machine. It can also perform automated information exchange with other tanks and higher commanders. This is the first time that a Russian tank has been turned into a powerful analytical computerized center. The designers also focused on better safety for the tank crew. Tank ammunition was traditionally placed under the floor in a battle compartment; when it blew up or was hit with a missile, the whole of the crew was consequently killed. In the new tank, ammunition is transferred to the after-part of the turret and separated from the battle compartment with an armored partition. This measure makes the tank crew feel safer.

This smart machine, which aims not only at liquidation of enemies but also cares about the safety of its crew, was developed by Russian designers. What the Russian government has to do now is buy the machine for the army. It promises to do so regularly.


Igor Savin
The Rossia online newspaper
  • 0

#14 AnotherEuropean

AnotherEuropean

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1611 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:46 PM

I think a part of a modern warfare, is not merely the weapon you use ... but also the defence against these weapons. Make note of old warriors, like the Romans and the Greeks ... anybody can advance, any moron ... these two had defence, both in armour and military tactics. It takes a good mind to come up with ideas like the radar which saved the British during WWII and turned the battle of britain around ... it takes no real genius to throw a rock or drop a bomb.
  • 0

#15 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:50 PM

AnotherEuropean

You haven't
read Guderian.
  • 0

#16 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:21 PM

What was the Battle of England?
It wasn't only the radar, It was the short range of the Messerschmit BF-109, It was the Luftwaffe Bombardiers (JU-88, HE-111, DO-17) without fighters escort, It was the JU-87 Stuka to bomb England, It was the Messerschmit BF-109 to defend the BF-110 long range fighters, It was a lot of strategics errors of the Luftwaffe. It was also the Hurricanes and the Spitfires.
The Radar is not the explanation of a defeat over the England territories, It is one good excuse behind which hiding the truth of the facts and one defeat.
It is a good excuse behind which hiding the truth of the facts and a defeat that is from debiting to the fools that they seated over great seats.
To say has been all for guilt of the radar is reductive and saves from many technical responsibilities. :P
The Panzerwaffe was better than Luftwaffe.
The Army and the Navy were better conducted than the Air Force (Luftwaffe).
First of all the Battle of England was a technical defeat of the Luftwaffe not the Radar.
  • 0

#17 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:25 PM

pacific

did you know Caproni?


:) Panzern :D / :cool: PANZER :cool:
  • 0

#18 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:33 PM

WWI long range bombardiers

The Royal Italian Army was short of artillery and Mashine guns in the WWI.

One WWI heavy long range bombardier was less important and more cheap than artillery guns and mashine guns and it was more dangerous.
  • 0

#19 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:44 PM

I do agree, but they where responisble for air polution in Vienna. And the papers D'anunzio dumped were ugly.
  • 0

#20 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:47 PM

The Luftwaffe was a tactical force not a strategic air force.
The Luftwaffe was constructed with the main precise task to support the army and not to lead independent strategic campaigns.
This the heads of the luftwaffe did not understand ever.:P
This was the main defeat of the Battle of England, a technical defeat.:P
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru