Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[HobbesHurlbut]

A KV-1 heavy tank shot to hell and back.  But not one of those rounds seems to have penetrated.

Not really, look at some of the "holes" if you can't see nothing but pitch black, it's a sure bet it went through.

[kato]

You seem to know what you're talking about. What do you say about hovercraft for that job? Would skirt get in the way in the urban environment?

There's a couple places that do use hovercraft, mostly when there's also swamp/mud/ice/intertidal areas to cover year-round. The British Red Cross has used their single rescue hovercraft effectively in flood rescue too, similar to some US local departments during hurricanes in recent years.

They're of course not ever gonna replace boats since a simple flat-bottomed aluminium rig that sits in a corner doesn't take any maintenance at all.

[Daryk]

The hull doesn't take any maintenance, but the outboard motors sure do.  They can be a pain.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

A KV-1 heavy tank shot to hell and back.  But not one of those rounds seems to have penetrated.

The 37mm anti-tank gun that was the standard used by Germany at the start of the war was quite useless against the KV-1's thick armor.

[Matti]

The 37mm anti-tank gun that was the standard used by Germany at the start of the war was quite useless against the KV-1's thick armor.

How that gun managed against T-28 and T-34?

[kato]

Just as badly against T-34. Against then-known heavy tanks T-28 and T-35 the 37mm could penetrate only at under 100m distance. The assumption at the beginning of Barbarossa was that the Soviets only had BTs, T-26 and such plus a handful T-28/T-35, with the already introduced T-34 and KV-1/2 completely unknown and unexpected (but encountered on Day 2, with devastating results in favour of the Soviets).

It's somewhat more interesting with the 50mm KwK39 on the Pz III, since this is always claimed to have been equally ineffective against current Soviet tanks - however, the 50mm KwK39 accounted for 54% of all T-34 losses within the first year, giving it some credit in that regard.

[glitterboy2098]

the T-34 and the KV-1 had comparable armor protection. the T-34 used sloped armor, making its lighter mass of armor more effective. (the first to use sloped armor as a production model), while the KV-1 was two boxes just loaded down with as much armor as they could fit. its sheer thickness made up for the lack of slope.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Actually it was the KV-1S variant that had comparable armor to the T-34, since it shed a great deal of its armor in an attempt to fix some of the tank's other problems.  The standard KV-1 had armor that was decidedly superior to any other tank that was in service when it first arrived.  The KV-1S was discontinued when Soviet command realized that it was effectively identical to the T-34 in speed, firepower, and protection but was heavier and more expensive to build.  After that, the stopgap upgrade to the KV-85 was used to give it more firepower (again proving to be nearly identical in effectiveness to the T-34-85) until the IS-2 was ready.

[Fat Guy]

Is the Armata in trouble?



http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme

[glitterboy2098]

just the usual issues facing nations today.. the cost of producing all new designs vs upgrading existing hardware, relative to how well a nation's economy and budget is looking.

[worktroll]

Soviet industry (and I use the phrase advisedly) is in trouble, yes.

[Kidd]

Is the Armata in trouble?



http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme

The much-touted plans from certain sources, notably Russia Today, have always been at odds with more sober Western assessments of Russia's economic capacity to carry out said plans in almost all areas, whether its RuAF Su-57s, the various Armatas, Project Lider-class destroyers, etc.

And that was before the unanticipated expense of fighting in the sandbox, Russia has basically had to recapitalise the majority of their ally's armed forces both monetarily and in kind.

[I am Belch II]

The Russians have made multi versions of tanks and can't seem to pick one.

[ColBosch]

See, the issue Russia is facing is... <RULE 4 VIOLATION! RULE 4 VIOLATION!> ...which is why the monkey had to be painted blue.

[glitterboy2098]

The Russians have made multi versions of tanks and can't seem to pick one.

well to be fair, most of them date to back when they were "the soviet union", and given how that one collapsed, and the condition russia was in in after it (and up to today), i'm not surprised they've just kept using what they had on hand, regardless of the logistics headaches it has to be causing. in many senses they are like the rest of the ex-soviet republics.. they inherited a logistical mess called "part of the soviet army", and have had to wing it since.

[PsihoKekec]

Article has it backwards. The beancounters realised that Armata won't be ready for mass production right away and will be much more expensive than originally thought, that is why they cut down orders and greenlit the T-90 and T-80 upgrade programs.

[Fat Guy]

Basically, the Russians repeated every mistake we made with the MBT-70. They wanted to make the best tank in the history of the world, which required them to make a buttload of advances simultaneously to get everything they wanted out of it - just like us! And much like us, they wound up with something hideously expensive and completely unreliable.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Over here, though, the MBT-70 led to the Abrams, because in the 70s and 80s the Americans had the budget to build umptythousand tanks of new high tech armor and capabilities anyway.  The Russians have been cutting back on their defense spending, and don't quite have the same scale of economy even if they'd been building their tank forces upwards like the Americans did. 

[Fat Guy]

Key difference: The MBT-70 was meant to be the best tank in the world, the M1 was meant to be the best tank that could be built for it's budget. The Army did not want a repeat of the MBT-70 debacle with the Abrams.

[Fat Guy]

Might as well post a picture of the piece of crap:

[Kidd]

Talk about the MBT-70, and I always think about its secondary cannon, and the much-later prototype T-72M2 and its secondary cannon(s)... so Battletech-y, ah what could have been...

MBT-70


T-72M2 Moderna, with two 20mm or one 30mm cannon

[Fat Guy]

Interestingly enough, early concept art of the Armata shows it with a completely different turret with a pair of mismatched light cannons.



Then again, I have yet to see any Russian concept art that winds up even remotely looking like the finished product.

[worktroll]

At 217cm, the T-64 is shorter than many cars ...

[chanman]

Players of any 4x or RTS with resource gathering know... It's about booming the economy.

China's military budget is twice as much as India's in absolute terms, but is still a smaller proportion of national GDP. One of the benefits of having an economy 4x the size.

[I am Belch II]

The Russians don't believe in "crew comforts" even in a little bit. The tanks have only a 3 person crew and that can keep a tank small.

[ANS Kamas P81]

The Russians don't believe in "crew comforts" even in a little bit. The tanks have only a 3 person crew and that can keep a tank small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp2y88nNCo
Makes you wonder how much time the tank crews were expected to be IN the tank versus just hanging around waiting for the Big Push.  Granted, the crews for T-72s were specifically capped at, IIRC, 5'8" so you've got less demand for interior room, but still the crew comfort leaves a huge amount to be desired.  At least the gunner has a little fan...

[DoctorMonkey]

Makes you wonder how much time the tank crews were expected to be IN the tank versus just hanging around waiting for the Big Push.  Granted, the crews for T-72s were specifically capped at, IIRC, 5'8" so you've got less demand for interior room, but still the crew comfort leaves a huge amount to be desired.  At least the gunner has a little fan...

I think an awful lot were expected to spend the rest of their lives in/around their tanks in the event of the Big Push

[marauder648]

How bad was the MBT-70?  I recall reading that the driver was in a independently rotating cupola which sounds....pointless and complex, and its gun was used on the M-60 'Starship' variant which was mad complex.

[Sabelkatten]

The Wiki article was quite informative. The driver's positioning was necessary - the hull was so low he had to go in the turret, and he needed to be able to look forward.

[marauder648]