Hakka

I'd like to contribute an observation that if the French army wanted it, their metalworking industry could have made 2-man turrets very easily. A riveted plate turret like the AMR 35 turret could easily be scaled up. A combination of cast and plate sections could be riveted together like the APX-2 on the AMC 35. A fully cast turret like the APX-1 could be made from multiple pieces bolted together, which would have even made it cheaper and better quality. Casting a turret with walls, base and roof as a single piece, it would have been difficult to suppress hairline fractures and keep the thicknesses within spec. Whereas, casting larger pieces was not difficult in and of itself. The Somua S35 hull was made from top and bottom halves, both cast in one go, and both much larger than the APX-1 turret, but both halves were much simpler in shape. However, as far as the manufacturer was concerned, the customer is always right, and the customer wanted a 1-man turret. So ultimately, the blame belongs to the French military leadership first and foremost.

And the "S" suffix also refers to guns for a casemate mount such as D-10S.

Does the SU-122-54 have a stabilizer? Why would it get a modified version of the D-25TS?

In the BTR-60 and BTR-70, the firing ports are not designed to maintain an air seal. They're just portholes in the armour.

Yeah it's the same for the Soviet tanks. For the T-62, the maximum effective range of the HEAT round was 950 meters (50% probability of hit). Original 115mm HE-Frag rounds were ballistically matched with the HEAT rounds according to Interlinked's blog.

If nothing else, that extra long bustle really solves the weight distribution issue of the old turrets.

I'm not sure where to find such a comprehensive report that's also available in English, but you could try looking for articles in the Soviet Military Review journal. There's definitely a few articles in those.

Speaking of acceleration, does anyone know the time to 32 km/h for the T-72?

I wonder which one was called the "Euro panzer"

The smoke dischargers look remarkably pristine despite having just been blasted with several kilograms of high explosives. From that alone, I'd say that the warhead didn't detonate. All of the remaining rocket fuel in the missile blew up on impact, but the warhead did not go off.

As I understand it, the dispersion of 115mm APFSDS was a bit more than 115mm HEAT, but the actual accuracy of APFSDS was better than HEAT against both static and moving targets in real world conditions because APFSDS was much faster, was less affected by wind, did not need an accurate range estimate, etc.

Interesting to see how little smoke comes out of the cannon and how much comes from the ejected casings. Looks like the casing ejection mechanism in the T-62 may have been quite sensible.

I wonder why blogs aren't accepted as secondary sources in academia? Still, the blog seems alright 95% of the time, IMO, and the guy who runs it seems to be very willing to correct the other 5% when someone points them out. In fact, he already replied to bojan in the comments under that article XD

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The closest thing I could find about "20mm HHS vs 16mm HHS" was this: So knowing that the Soviets did capture M111 Hetz in some quantities, then evidently the hull upper glacis of the T-72 (as well as other autoloading T-tanks) was vulnerable to these new acquisitions, thus necessitating the installation of the appliqué plate. As the appliqué plate is only 16mm thick, the boost in armour protection is really quite minor. It is known that the Soviet revelation prompted the application of appliqué armour on the T-64 and T-80 as well, but both received 20mm plates rather than 16mm plates. The reason for this is not that the T-64 and T-80 were more valuable than the T-72 and deserved better armour. Rather, it was because the vast majority of T-72 tanks at the time had already upgraded to the 60-105-50 hull glacis armour scheme while the T-64A and T-64B were still reliant on the older 80-105-20 armour scheme. As it had the newer armour scheme, the T-80B received a 16mm appliqué armour plate in 1983 like the T-72, whereas the T-80 received a 20mm plate in 1979 as part of an unrelated modernization effort to increase its protection to the same level as the T-80B. Which seems reasonable, and actually says the opposite of "T-72 = dirt cheap"...

Wow. Fast conclusion. Somehow never saw such about, let's say, destroyed T-90 in Syria. Looks like you've never been to the russiadefence.net forum