Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GARGEAN

  1. Type 15 is anything but light. Plus cannon is much weaker.
  2. They are pumped with hot air. Fin.
  3. It is shrouded. From the top and partially from sides. Relatively thin so won't hold any direct hits, but can help with spalling.
  4. "Effective range" for those types of rounds is not something set in stone, like with missiles or arty rounds. It is a combination of factors like mechanical dispersion of specific round from specific cannon, velocity drop and FCS solution, plus different evaluation methods in different countries (like 50% hit chance on tank sized target or 80% chance) So that 2000m is not concrete number and one can surely expect to hit targets at much greater ranges.

    Upgraded T-90

    By scarce info available it's still much cheaper than western proposals and cheaper than VT-4.As for exports - there were words about recent Indian contract on 464 T-90 being 90SM variant, but no hard confirmation yet.
  6. It's just BMPT. BMP-T is other spelling of more proper TBMP ("heavy IFV") name of T-15.
  7. Tho it's not specifically AS. Just after initial batch of 90S with cast turrets was delivered to India, all 90S have welded turrets (so since around 2000). There is also 90SA, but that's just specific model for Algeria.
  8. WDYM by mechanical? Cuz soviet HE-FRAG had fuze with two delay modes (fast and show), and with Ainet it added airburst.
  9. Having two separate vehicles is a waste of chassis and thus waste of money, fuel, strategic mobility ect. For that one can go with mixed APC/IFV formations.
  10. Because Israel MUST be first. Simple as.
  11. Same thing as with tanks: no "best" except best for specific requirements. And everyone has them different.
  12. I wouldn't go as far as APC armor (until something of literally cardboard level like M113 sides). But thinner building walls should be well penetrable. PS: as for Kornet - it is not an "option" but part of standart loadout for known Epoch, since they with Bulat doesn't share roles.
  13. Not quite right. Cannon in Epoch turret is not same as LShO-57. It has longer barrel and apparently different breech. Can use APFSDS surprisingly. Have airburst capability. Considering non-zero velocity and variable fuze - can penetrate moderate obstacles well (for bigger ones there is ATGM). And funniest thing - total HE load in Epoch 57mm ammorack is bigger than in 100mm+30mm.
  14. https://naukatehnika.com/files/journal/tehnika-vooruzhenie/flot/08.02.20-rossijskie-korabli-poluchat-kompleks-derivacziya-pvo/2%D0%A138-derivatcia-pvo.jpg
  15. Take the highest possible number. Multiply by 1.5. Voila!
  16. Imagine outcry about "unsafe and provocative behavior by russian troops" if vehicles were switched.
  17. I though it was concluded to be R-73.
  18. Not B3M, just plain B3 has it (Sosna-U has it to be more precise). And you're right, BMD-4M too.
  19. Quite a few tanks have autotrackers integrated into their sights. T-72B3, 90SM/M to name few. First one to use it was Type 90 btw, not Merk.
  20. It can be anything from non-mechanized ammorack to ZIP storage. I'm not gonna tell you what there specifically cuz I don't know. Just like anyone else on this forum. And this is beyond being just optimistic, considering noone here ever saw production version of tank. Hell, ever trial examples are not really known unlike for ex Kurg. All we seen is parade mockup. So... Want to properly model those?
  21. And I am still failing to see why is this not the case. If you hit mantlet - you will destroy breech. If you go farther to "cheeks" - you won't hit anything internal. How is that less protected than any other MBT turret face?Frontal arc protection can be argued, but even then people are too willing to forget that there is barely anything besides breech inside turret. And that presumed turret size is somewhat bigger than just box around breech supposed to be.
  22. Only on them? And on no other tanks? Let's say... T-14?
  • Create New...