Tank Designs
- Thread starter Manticore
- Start date
The Speaker
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Object 640 based on the lengthen a T80 hull
alimobin memon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,502
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I have a question since tanks in formation are not close to more than 10 meters due to risk of explosion of one tank during its knockout could cause friendly tank in side to sustain a damage. So is it always 10 meters gap or varies ? Does that mean that if invading single armored battalion could cover upto 500 meters of areas if exact 50 tanks in one exists ?
G'day mate,
It varies with the formation your unit travel with. The 10 meters gap in between is for protection from ricochet AT round bounce off from one tank and hit the others, also it preserve the Line-Of-Sight of the command tank, so the other tank know where to go and follow the leader.
In a combat assault, tank will separate to a gap which they can be mutually supporting with each other, it could be 10 meters if they move abreast or 50 meters, for example, when you have 2 tanks taking up overwatch position while the other two were moving. The gap between each tank is not fixed, however, the gap between unit do. They were fixed at 100 yards or meters.
When one unit move with another unit, for example, second platoon move behind first platoon, regardless of what formation they are travelling with, they have to travel no closer than 100 yards of each other. Both for field clearance, so the second line's vision would not be impaired by the first line, but it also because of the enemy AT. Where the enemy AT guns or unit have to consider the depth of a formation, if we have 2 line of tank travelling in a zigzag formation with one line 100 meters behind the other, the enemy would have to change their gun setting before changing target.
In all, if you have 50 tanks moving abreast with each other, you can cover a 500 meters front or 5km front depending on the formation the unit is travelling with.
Davo
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Very informative replies.
Can you also shred some light on why on earth Aussie only bought 59 M1 Abrams for the whole country?
Australia is about the same size with the US, I don't quite understand why US army have 4000+ tanks to defend the whole nation, while the Aussie think 59 is the magic number??
Mate
One word, Money, we got screw pretty good during Rudd/Gillard government and they have reduce all the budget they can to finance their handout. We have had about 100 Leopard 1 tank in service prior to the replacement, we only order 59 to fill the gap. That is a single battalion.
But then we don't even have 59 Abrams to service under the Army, we have 41. 6 of the Abrams is reserved for Training and the other is for cannibalize for urgent parts replacement.
Our Abrams, is not exactly for offensive operation, they were deployed in Robinson Barrack as the 1st Australian Armoured Regiment, and they are for a pure defensive purpose, in case we were under attack. And since there are no neighbour to our immediate left, right and south, only Indonesia to our North, that is why our only armoured regiment stationed in NT.
However, recent governmental report suggesting that the Armoured Regiment would be broke down into 3 squadron attached to Cavalry unit, and stationed in NT, QLD and NSW. It would be quite useless if we were to split the 41 operational Abrams. So I am hoping they will get more Abrams from the US.
Davo
ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Jaguar Prototype Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com
The Jaguar was a joint Chinese-US main battle tank project carried-out in the 1980s, with the intent of modernizing the Type 59 tank and it's variants. From a political standpoint, such an undertaking would have been virtually unimaginable, if not for the Chinese-US "Detente" policy established in the 1970s. The objective of this policy was to better-stabilize the global balance of power, by enhancing China's status into a sort of a "buffer state" between the US and the USSR. Among other things, this involved the transfer of US military technology to China; the Jaguar was part of this legacy.
Development of the Jaguar began at some time in the mid-1980s, and was formally announced in late 1988. The two main contributors were Cadillac Gage in USA, and the China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation in China. Though the Jaguar was already fully planned-out by mid-1989, the political fallout of the Tiananmen Square Massacre forced the US and Chinese teams to part company, and China apparently lost interest in the project. Undaunted, Cadillac Gage continued development of the Jaguar alone, finally combining the hull and turret in October 1989.
Though it's development had been a complete success (despite the political turmoil that rocked it) no orders for Jaguars were ever placed. The glutted market of used tanks after the Cold War, frequently seeing fully-operational tanks sold at scrap value, effectively doomed the project.
In it's assembly, the Jaguar was every bit as perplexing as the project that spawned it, being a Chinese tank upgraded with US technology, based on a tank designed in the Soviet Union (the T-55, which the Type 59 was a licensed copy of), and armed with a main gun originally developed in Britain.
The V12 diesel engine normally associated with T-55 variants was replaced with a Detroit Diesel 8V-92TA V8, generating 750 hp (which is the same engine used in Cadillac Gage's Stingray light tank, but with a new hydraulic cooling system). The powerpack is coupled to an Allison XTG-411 automatic transmission, with 4 forward and 2 reverse speeds. The suspension of the Jaguar is the same torsion bar system from the T-55/Type 59, though Cadillac Gage also offered a hydropneumatic torsion bar suspension upgrade. It's steel tracks are also the standard for Type 59s, but the running gear has several different components, notably drum-style rubber-padded roadwheels.
Armament consists of an M68 rifled 105mm gun, with a 7.62-mm coaxial machine gun, and a 12.7-mm M2HB machine gun on the roof. The main gun and coaxial gun are fully-stabilized, and as with most T-55 variants, 34 rounds are carried.
The exact qualities of the Jaguar's armor are classified, though it is easily much better-protected than most T-55 variants. Other noteworthy protection features include an automatic carbon dioxide fire suppression system, spall liners, an armored ammunition compartment, provisions for ERA, and several optional NBC systems (including overpressure systems).
The optics and electronics on the Jaguar were all substantial improvements over the Type 59 as well, with passive thermal sights, a digital fire control computer, The Jaguar's fire control system is the same model used on the Cadillac Gage Stingray.
The offered price for a Jaguar was $2.4 Million.
There were two distinct prototype models of the Jaguar, but no other variants are known.
Manticore
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 114
- Country
- Location
G'day
In my opinion, Armata is a mark for make or break to the Russian arms industry. The concept of putting all the role in one chassis would meant the log pack be put to the minimum and the decrease the need to the log train pipeline. Currently a US Abrams would require 2 scheduled log packs a day, that is before emergency log pack require for extended operation. Which mean most of the effort of log train would go on to satisfy the need of Abrams
But at the same time, putting a multi-role chassis is a big gamble, little is known about Armata, but the role of different type of vehicle would require a different type of chassis, unless the chassis of Armata could be well adapted to the different need, most likely solution would be a modular chassis, otherwise what suited a MBT does not always goes hand in hand with the other function, such as IFV or SPG.
Exciting time ahead indeed
Davos
In my opinion, Armata is a mark for make or break to the Russian arms industry. The concept of putting all the role in one chassis would meant the log pack be put to the minimum and the decrease the need to the log train pipeline. Currently a US Abrams would require 2 scheduled log packs a day, that is before emergency log pack require for extended operation. Which mean most of the effort of log train would go on to satisfy the need of Abrams
But at the same time, putting a multi-role chassis is a big gamble, little is known about Armata, but the role of different type of vehicle would require a different type of chassis, unless the chassis of Armata could be well adapted to the different need, most likely solution would be a modular chassis, otherwise what suited a MBT does not always goes hand in hand with the other function, such as IFV or SPG.
Exciting time ahead indeed
Davos
Similar threads
