Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[worktroll]

Caption: "A Swedish tank crew discovers that the Centurion, is not in fact, buoyant."

[Sabelkatten]

We do have some lovely terrain around here... ;)

[truetanker]

Caption should have said: Muppet's Swedish Chef learns how to drive.

TT

[glitterboy2098]

wow that must be a pretty old photo.. the swedes haven't used Centurions since (IIRC) the early 90's (having obtained them in the 50's)

[kato]

Denmark just got their first Leo 2A7DK prototype:



They're planning to modify 16 of their 38 Leo 2A5DK to A7 standard, with the remaining 22 getting only minor modifications.

[Feenix74]

Interesting how they are taking the bullet trap route with the extra armour on the turret.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Interesting how they are taking the bullet trap route with the extra armour on the turret.

It's not a trap.  What you see there is just a spaced off piece of (heavy duty) sheet steel; the real armor is vertical behind it.  It's a system primarily designed to defeat sabot, where the armor's microscopic structure is actually strongest in a perpendicular strike.  You see the shape of the turret better on the earlier Leos, see below.  The spaced stuff is just a HEAT standoff, really.  Any incoming fire, even lighter caliber stuff, will just tear through the outer steeply angled layer and impact the turret face rather than bounce downwards into the turret ring.

[Fat Guy]

Russia's latest attempt to polish a turd: the T-90MS



I'll take my chances on foot, thank you.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What's with the tower on the turret?

[Empyrus]

What's with the tower on the turret?

Looks like remote controlled machine gun.

[Kidd]

So, like... how do Russia's legacy upgrades rank again?

T-72B3, T-80U, now this T-90MS... is that the best of their respective lines?

[Fat Guy]

Seeing how the T-90 is just a renamed 72, why even count them separately?

[glitterboy2098]

Seeing how the T-90 is just a renamed 72, why even count them separately?

it has enough physical changes to quantify for a new designation. plus export marketing concerns. this is not unusual.. the M-48 Patton was originally just a variant of the M-47 Patton, but got a new designation. the M-60 tank was itself a heavily modified M-48. the designation changes were made for simplification of record keeping. the F-20 Tigershark was originally the F-5G, but was granted the F-20 designation to make it more attractive to potential buyers (to seperate it from the less capable twin engine F-5's many of those would already have)

[Matti]

it has enough physical changes to quantify for a new designation.

So it isn't just a change of cover plating and hoping nobody notices?

[glitterboy2098]

uprated engine. more advanced gun. more advanced fire control. more advanced optics. more advanced communications. upgraded armor. active protection system standard. and yes some hull and turret shaping changes. it is definitely a different beast than a T-72.

[Fat Guy]

Yes, it's a highly modified and updated T-72 - but it's not a completely new tank.

That would be like calling the F-15E (highly modified and updated over the C/D) the F-24.

Curiously, the Russians like doing this. The latest version of the MiG-29 is the MiG-35, and the newest Hind is the Mi-35.

Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...

[Empyrus]

Well, Americans did do similar things occasionally (though fortunately their system is mostly consistent).
F-5 Tiger to F-20 Tigershark for example, though in this case the designation was a marketing trick really, and the plane ended up staying mostly on drawing boards with no buyers.
And then there's the Super Hornet, though it is is more like a new plane with old designation.

Keeping track of Russian designations is difficult for sure. I assume it is marketing ultimately, higher number is usually more advanced so...
Like, the PAK-FA got Su-57 designation. Though i guess part of the reason could be that the first number is "generation".
For example Su-27 updated to more capable Su-33/35 (or whatever it was), then there's the more advanced but never produced Su-47 from 90s, and PAK-FA/Su-57 represents another entirely new generation.

[glitterboy2098]

Yes, it's a highly modified and updated T-72 - but it's not a completely new tank.

That would be like calling the F-15E (highly modified and updated over the C/D) the F-24.

Curiously, the Russians like doing this. The latest version of the MiG-29 is the MiG-35, and the newest Hind is the Mi-35.

Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...

considering the prototype T-90 was the T-72BU, that would mean the current production versions would probably be something like the T-72BU2A4, or something.. after awhile just tacking on more letters and numbers is counter productive.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Unsure about the veracity of the identification, but it's supposedly an M-60 that survived a Kornet missile and was still mission-capable.  Interesting to see how much damage it took to the soft bits, how much of that is the ERA versus the warhead?

Proof an old warhorse still has a place on the battlefield, as well!

[grimlock1]

Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...

::facepalm::

I hear ya on that one.

[Fat Guy]

::facepalm::

I hear ya on that one.

There was a running joke around the turn of the century that Suhkoi was producing more designations than actual airframes!

Back on topic:

[Sabelkatten]

Back on topic:

Use Battlearmor, then it actually works! ;D

[PsihoKekec]

Unsure about the veracity of the identification, but it's supposedly an M-60 that survived a Kornet missile and was still mission-capable.  Interesting to see how much damage it took to the soft bits, how much of that is the ERA versus the warhead?

Proof an old warhorse still has a place on the battlefield, as well!

It was a glancing hit, if it was direct it would go through armor despite ERA.

[DoctorMonkey]

Back on topic:

It was a glancing hit, if it was direct it would go through armor despite ERA.

It isn't nice to refer to the infantry as ERA even if they are carrying a lot of grenades

[Cannonshop]

It isn't nice to refer to the infantry as ERA even if they are carrying a lot of grenades

esp. since the primary purpose of Armored vehicles is to get so hopelessly mired and boxed in that it triggers a "rescue" reaction from the infantry...

[DoctorMonkey]

esp. since the primary purpose of Armored vehicles is to get so hopelessly mired and boxed in that it triggers a "rescue" reaction from the infantry...

I thought everyone was one big friendly team these days. Except the Air Force. Screw those guys*.


*except RAF Chinook crews, they seem to be universally loved by the Army and RN types I know.

[CDAT]

Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?

[DoctorMonkey]

Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?

My understanding is that the British Army organises heavy armour (Challenger 2s) into 3 tank troops (ie 3 tanks in each troop) with 4 of these making up a squadron of 12 tanks plus a 2 tank squadron command section for a total of 14


For light armour (CVR(T)) in armoured units the organisation was reportedly 4 tank troops (ie 4 tanks in each troop) with 3 or 4 of these making up a squadron but I am not sure whether they had a separate squadron command section and I think there was a different organisation for the light armour units of armoured infantry and heavy armour units for recce

[Kidd]

Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?

British Type 56 armoured regiment as below



Elsewhere I've seen a very straightforward 48-tank regiment - 4 companies of 12 tanks each.

The French tank regiments used to have 2 "squadron groups" of 40 tanks each totalling 80 tanks per regiment. Each squadron-group had 3 squadrons and 40 tanks so probably 3 squadrons x 12 tanks each plus a 4-tank command element.

After the 2009 reorg the French now have 60 tanks per regiment. Since there are now 4 combat squadrons I'd hazard a guess that is 4 squadrons of 12 tanks each, and another 12 tanks dotted around in command and support elements.

[DoctorMonkey]

British Type 56 armoured regiment as below



Elsewhere I've seen a very straightforward 48-tank regiment - 4 companies of 12 tanks each.

The French tank regiments used to have 2 "squadron groups" of 40 tanks each totalling 80 tanks per regiment. Each squadron-group had 3 squadrons and 40 tanks so probably 3 squadrons x 12 tanks each plus a 4-tank command element.

After the 2009 reorg the French now have 60 tanks per regiment. Since there are now 4 combat squadrons I'd hazard a guess that is 4 squadrons of 12 tanks each, and another 12 tanks dotted around in command and support elements.

Kidd has given you a far better answer than mine