2016 Russian tank contests start

[Leclan]

96B's hydraulic transmission gives it a better allocation of propulsion for each track, so its maneuerability should be better when making turn.

in fact hydraulic transmission is more complicated than gearbox and needs better crafts.Usually it faces higher failiure rate on harsh situations.We see Japanese Type10 lose its track even on real flat ground turning. sophisticated sometimes means fragile. Semi-final lasts more than 1h40min and 96B didnt face a problem,which mean it passed the severe test on Alabino at least.this is a real tank for massive production and for war.

 

[l0ngl0ng]

The T-72 was was on pavement, there was little traction. Most of its energy was lost when it lost traction. The T-72 does not slide like that on gravel.

Very simple.

That is not true and you are trying to find excuses.

Last year, it's 96A representing China which were gearbox transmission enabled. You can see the difference clearly.

Now, let us see what happened when they do have the same gravel.
T-72 drifted and flipped.

That's due to the break to turn mechanism. Driver has to break the inside belt to make a corner and it will cause the vehicle overturn easily.
Hydraulic transmission will rearrange the power output to the two side belts. It may speed up the outside belt to turn.
No energy waste, no overturn in most case.

 

[Beast]

That is not true and you are trying to find excuses.

Last year, it's 96A representing China which were gearbox transmission enabled. You can see the difference clearly.

Now, let us see what happened when they do have the same gravel.
T-72 drifted and flipped.

That's due to the break to turn mechanism. Driver has to break the inside belt to make a corner and it will cause the vehicle overturn easily.
Hydraulic transmission will rearrange the power output to the two side belts. It may speed up the outside belt to turn.
No energy waste, no overturn in most case.

Another technical marvel archive by Chinese.

 

[ptldM3]

Which T-72 that you means? The light green T-72 doing well

I'm talking about in general.

That is not true and you are trying to find excuses.

Last year, it's 96A representing China which were gearbox transmission enabled. You can see the difference clearly.

Now, let us see what happened when they do have the same gravel.
T-72 drifted and flipped.

That's due to the break to turn mechanism. Driver has to break the inside belt to make a corner and it will cause the vehicle overturn easily.
Hydraulic transmission will rearrange the power output to the two side belts. It may speed up the outside belt to turn.
No energy waste, no overturn in most case.

https://j.gifs.com/zpJzyY.gif



The giff above is of a T-72 taking that same turn atleast as well as the Type 96 and in my opinion better, based off my experience having raced cars he took the apex much cleaner. But notice what you did, you took the worste performing tank/crew, driven by Zimbabwe while it made a bad turn on pavement with loose gravel and no rubber block in the tracks for traction. The average T-72 made that turn just fine, it would be like me posting a video of a badly driven Ferrari spinning out In a corner and comparing it to a ford Torus that made the turn and then claiming the Ford had a superior transmission and suspension

I know how transmissions, traction control and cornering work, I have raced cars. I know it better than most on this forum.

What the transmission is doing is supposedly doing what traction control on a car does and that is simply regulate the amount of power to each wheel depending on the speed and power going to the wheels. This generally prevents sliding.


The newer Chinese tank obviously has an advantage on the older T-72 when it comes to transmission but what you posted is dishonest.


The T-72 in your giff took the apex too tight and aggressively while the type 96 took a wider turn, this makes a hudge difference. What the T-72 did was called oversteer (it's a real term in the automotive world) assentialy it drifted and I can guarantee you the type 96 will do the same thing if it is going fast enough and it turns tight enough.

Cars like Mclarens, Lamborghinis, Porsche, Ferraris and GTRs have the most sophisticated transmissions and traction control in the world, many are also all wheel drive making it difficult to slide yet they can slide if enough power is applied and I can guarantee the transmission and traction control on those million dollar cars is light years more advance than any tank transmission.

As for that tank flipping, people have also flipped Lamborghini's so there is not much to debate here on ther then the fact that you are being dishonest and cherry picking.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Who made the finals?

 

[Beast]

Who made the finals?

Definitely China and Russian included.

 

[ptldM3]

Definitely China and Russian included.

China had a slight lead over Russia last time I checked. It's a little boring though that all the tanks competing are T-72s, hopefully next year Russia uses the T-90A or even better the T-90AM I would hope that they bring the T-14 too but is probably never going to happen.

Maybe next year Egypt or Iraq brings Abrams and hopefully some NATO countries participle with Leopards.

 

[Beast]

China had a slight lead over Russia last time I checked. It's a little boring though that all the tanks competing are T-72s, hopefully next year Russia uses the T-90A or even better the T-90AM I would hope that they bring the T-14 too but is probably never going to happen.

Maybe next year Egypt or Iraq brings Abrams and hopefully some NATO countries participle with Leopards.

Americans or western will not allow. Both China and Russia will never send their best tank to reveal their secret.

 

[l0ngl0ng]

I'm talking about in general.


The giff above is of a T-72 taking that same turn atleast as well as the Type 96 and in my opinion better, based off my experience having raced cars he took the apex much cleaner. But notice what you did, you took the worste performing tank/crew, driven by Zimbabwe while it made a bad turn on pavement with loose gravel and no rubber block in the tracks for traction. The average T-72 made that turn just fine, it would be like me posting a video of a badly driven Ferrari spinning out In a corner and comparing it to a ford Torus that made the turn and then claiming the Ford had a superior transmission and suspension

I know how transmissions, traction control and cornering work, I have raced cars. I know it better than most on this forum.

What the transmission is doing is supposedly doing what traction control on a car does and that is simply regulate the amount of power to each wheel depending on the speed and power going to the wheels. This generally prevents sliding.


The newer Chinese tank obviously has an advantage on the older T-72 when it comes to transmission but what you posted is dishonest.


The T-72 in your giff took the apex too tight and aggressively while the type 96 took a wider turn, this makes a hudge difference. What the T-72 did was called oversteer (it's a real term in the automotive world) assentialy it drifted and I can guarantee you the type 96 will do the same thing if it is going fast enough and it turns tight enough.

Cars like Mclarens, Lamborghinis, Porsche, Ferraris and GTRs have the most sophisticated transmissions and traction control in the world, many are also all wheel drive making it difficult to slide yet they can slide if enough power is applied and I can guarantee the transmission and traction control on those million dollar cars is light years more advance than any tank transmission.

As for that tank flipping, people have also flipped Lamborghini's so there is not much to debate here on ther then the fact that you are being dishonest and cherry picking.

Impressive! Your idea could change from the mud to sports car anytime as you like in your mind favor.
A hi-speed vehicle is easily getting to trouble when it breaks at a sharp corner, sports car or a tractor.
A T-72 will slowdown whenever it steers since it breaks the inner tract to make the differential. The tank will have great chance to over steer (outer tract maybe in free) and driver will try to steer the head back to the right direction ----- the tank will break the outer track, at this moment, the giant kinetic energy will either drift the vehicle, over steer one more time, or just flip it over.
I would like to say, T-80, T-90, T-14 will perform the same until Russian introduce hydraulic transmission or a similar one.

 

[ptldM3]

Impressive! Your idea could change from the mud to sports car anytime as you like in your mind favor.

All I have to do is post this to destroy your entire argument but am enjoying this too much:

https://j.gifs.com/zpJzyY.gif




It's exactly the same concept. It's all about power transfer, breaking and knowing when to turn. Physics don't change. Fact is I posted a T-72 making that same turn better then the Type 96 but what you did was take a badly driven T-72 and concluded that all T-72s are incapable of making that turn.

A hi-speed vehicle is easily getting to trouble when it breaks at a sharp corner, sports car or a tractor.

The T-72 that you showed had zero traction. It turned sharp and breaked on a concrete surface with dirt which makes it even more slick, now factor in that the tracks were all metal without the rubber blocks for extra traction.

A T-72 will slowdown whenever it steers since it breaks the inner tract to make the differential. The tank will have great chance to over steer (outer tract maybe in free) and driver will try to steer the head back to the right direction ----- the tank will break the outer track, at this moment, the giant kinetic energy will either drift the vehicle, over steer one more time,

All tanks slow down when they turn. And no, the tank will not magically oversteer. 95% of T-72s in the biathlon made that same turn and many others turns and easily kept up with the Type 96, (something you conveniently ignore) which makes you dishonest, you keep judging all T-72s based on a badly driven T-72 driven by Zimbabwe (which came in last in every category).

The T-72 slid on the pavement because it breaked and turned while all the other tanks did not turn until they were on gravel. You obviously have a hard time understanding.

or just flip it over.

That T-72 that flipped had nothing to do with its handling or transmission. It was going too fast and turned too hard, it's tracks dug into the gravel and caused the tank to decelerate quickly which caused it too role. This happens to sports cars all the time esspecially if they go into the dirt.

Now you're going to argue that the most sophisticated sports cars in the world "lock up" or have poor transmission because of a bad driver?

I would like to say, T-80, T-90, T-14 will perform the same until Russian introduce hydraulic transmission or a similar one.

I don't care what you like to say. You are dishonest, again most T-72 made that turn as good as the Type 96 and some much better yet you keep comparing a badly driven T-72 that had no traction.


As for the T-14, it's transmission and suspension is completely different from the T-72, it even uses a hydro pneumatic suspension that elevates at least the two front inner wheels for quicker, smoother turns.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

As for the T-14, it's transmission and suspension is completely different from the T-72, it even uses a hydro pneumatic suspension that elevates at least the two front inner wheels for quicker, smoother turns.

I do not have an opinion when it comes to the different type of transmission for both tank but I do have a question for you.

If the gearbox transmission is that good, why did Russia redesigned it T-14 Armata Tank using a more sophiscated system - the hydro-pneumatic suspension?

Isn't is true that the gearbox transmission is cheaper to produce as well as to maintain?

 

[ptldM3]

I do not have an opinion when it comes to the different type of transmission for both tank but I do have a question for you.

If the gearbox transmission is that good, why did Russia redesigned it T-14 Armata Tank using a more sophiscated system - the hydro-pneumatic suspension?

Isn't is true that the gearbox transmission is cheaper to produce as well as to maintain?

Why would the T-14 not have a new transmission and suspension? The T-72 is more then 40 years old obviously there has been improvements. The debate is not even about the T-14, it's about someone claiming that a T-72 can not make the same turns as a Type 96 and then claiming it will flip. The problem is that this person is generalizing all T-72s because of a bad driver that breaked and turned too hard on a concrete surface. All tanks will slide on concrete if they don't have rubber blocks for traction.

 

[l0ngl0ng]

Why would the T-14 not have a new transmission and suspension? The T-72 is more then 40 years old obviously there has been improvements. The debate is not even about the T-14, it's about someone claiming that a T-72 can not make the same turns as a Type 96 and then claiming it will flip. The problem is that this person is generalizing all T-72s because of a bad driver that breaked and turned too hard on a concrete surface. All tanks will slide on concrete if they don't have rubber blocks for traction.

There are no accidents.
You should not blame the driver. There have no bad driver, have only bad design.

Our most dangerous enemy is not the opposition, it's the arrogance.

 

[ptldM3]

There are no accidents.
You should not blame the driver. There have no bad driver, have only bad design.

Our most dangerous enemy is not the opposition, it's the arrogance.

Stop your nonsense, the tank you posted was driven by Zimbabwe, they came in last place in every event. I'm not going to keep repeating myself again because you are too stubborn or don't get it. You're argument has no substance and defies basic know physics.

Again, many T-72s made that same turn at least as well as the Type 96 yet you ignore this fact and instead you are shamelessly pointing out a badly driven T-72 and claiming all T-72 can't make that turn and their transmissions are terrible ect.


A T-72 with bare metal tracks (which have no traction on pavement) made a sharp turn while on pavement and spun out. None of the other tanks turned hard on the pavement but waited until they got in the gravel to make the turn. The Type 96 also had metal tracks so if it turned hard on the same pavement it would also slide (basic physics) here.

It's very evident you know jack about physics, handling, transmissions and turning.

 

[l0ngl0ng]

All I have to do is post this to destroy your entire argument but am enjoying this too much:

You need not to find a steering T-72 as an evidence.
All the tanks in the world can do that.

It's exactly the same concept. It's all about power transfer, breaking and knowing when to turn. Physics don't change. Fact is I posted a T-72 making that same turn better then the Type 96 but what you did was take a badly driven T-72 and concluded that all T-72s are incapable of making that turn.

Go to study some basic engineering about the tract vehicles.
You are a good talker but lack of tech.
The way of steering between 96B and T-72 is totally different.
Meaningless to argue too much. Nothing to be shame the bad performance of T-72 steering, it's just toooooo old.

The T-72 that you showed had zero traction. It turned sharp and breaked on a concrete surface with dirt which makes it even more slick, now factor in that the tracks were all metal without the rubber blocks for extra traction.
All tanks slow down when they turn. And no, the tank will not magically oversteer. 95% of T-72s in the biathlon made that same turn and many others turns and easily kept up with the Type 96, (something you conveniently ignore) which makes you dishonest, you keep judging all T-72s based on a badly driven T-72 driven by Zimbabwe (which came in last in every category).

The T-72 slid on the pavement because it breaked and turned while all the other tanks did not turn until they were on gravel. You obviously have a hard time understanding.

You should say all old generation gearbox transmission-ed tank slowdown when they turn.
Hydraulic transmission equipped tank, such as M1A1, Leopard, Japan 90, China 96B, 99 will not slowdown to turn unless the speed is too fast or when at a very sharp cornering, or on a slippery surface such as icy road.

That T-72 that flipped had nothing to do with its handling or transmission. It was going too fast and turned too hard, it's tracks dug into the gravel and caused the tank to decelerate quickly which caused it too role. This happens to sports cars all the time esspecially if they go into the dirt.

As what I say, there are no accidents. Can you show us any hydraulic transmission tank flip in the same way?
The tank break one of the tracts to make an opposite turning is the reason to flip over the tank, not the driver, he definitely didn't want to do so. He over turned, then he wanted to turn it back, the tank broke two times.

To flip an 40+ tons vehicle is not an easy job, something is wrong.

This is the end of my reply. Don't want to extend the meaningless arguments anymore.