Iran turns its back on Russia and China with own battle tank

[Dazzler]

Neither are we interested in your irrational rants which have done nothing but waste thread space. But we have no choice but debunk your flawed logic.

I am all for learning and sharing. what I shared was with evidence. You don't like it, then don't respond.

 

[Rukarl]

I am all for learning and sharing. what I shared was with evidence. You don't like it, then don't respond.

Your "evidence" has been debunked multiple times already. But you are either unwilling or unable to see that.

 

[PeeD]

As for independent 360° panoramic sight:

RWS is on 360° turntable --> commanders sight is on a 270° turntable on the RWS.

The effect is that the commanders sight has a effective 360° coverage.

As simple as that.

 

[Dazzler]

Your "evidence" has been debunked multiple times already. But you are either unwilling or unable to see that.

Debunked where?

 

[Rukarl]

Debunked where?

Well done for proving my point.

 

[Dazzler]

See here, notice something?

the turret CAD image on the right has composite inserts exposed. they are all stacked up straight. No angle no tilt. Thats straight from the t-72s.

 

[Rukarl]

See here, notice something?

the turret CAD image on the right has composite inserts exposed. they are all stacked up straight. No angle no tilt. Thats straight from the t-72s.

It seems this guy is really losing it.

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

There is no need to keep responding to Dazzler. If he was really interested in a discussion he would not be repeating the same mindless banter. If he wants to think that he is right let him.

 

[Fafnir]

You call this panoramic sight??

Man, you are damn hilarious.
You should've atleast seen the pics I shared on the previous page .
Anyway, this is by no means a panoramic sight, rather an attempt to develop one but the design is a sheer let down. I mean the commander can barely see 180 degrees let alone 360.

As for your other point, you've been calling Gunner sight as EFCS-3.

Pal, a Gunner sight is a component of the entire fire control system, not the fire control system itself.

Actually not only can the rws gun platform clearly rotate a full 360 degrees on its own thus giving the sight a full 360 degrees rotation just by this feature,but its also very clear that the panoramic sight can rotate independently of the gun platform itself thus giving you a sight that has the option of either being locked with the rws gun platform and rotating with it or rotating independently of it,so either way you have a sight that is quite capable of 360 degrees rotation,now if you dont believe me then check out this video [2:04-2:07],also many of the pics you posted of panoramic sights dont appear to be the most modern examples,you can clearly see that by how big and bulky they are which would strictly limit where you could mount them in the turret,by comparison the iranian one is very compact,you can tell this by its position right at the very rear of the turret fighting compartment and behind the commander,its likely that the only turret penetrations would be for the fibre optic and electrical connectors that attach it to its flat panel display and controller[you can also see this display/controller repeatedly in the video]

Lastly I really dont know what you think you`re going to prove or achieve by attempting,rather unsuccessfully I might add,to try and split hairs over an argument that you have already clearly lost,if I were in your shoes I would probably try to have the good grace to admit I was wrong,not always an easy thing to do I know but certainly far preferable than to just keep on digging oneself in even deeper as you have done/are still doing .

 

[cabatli_53]

Commanders independent panoramic sight is essentially a bulkhead with LRF and optics. Having an independent sight and sensors, the commander is in a much better position to decide which target to take out first.
This facility must be supplemented by a powerful fire control system with an override facility. If the FCS lacks processing capability or override or both, it renders the mbt vulnerable.

Now for hunter killer. Again, it allows commander and Gunners to coordinate with eachother for taking out targets. Again, to have this capability, both must have their separate sensor bulkheads for better situation awareness.

The so called rotating head is actually remote weapon station which serves an entirely different purpose, I.e. engaging low flying choppers or pillboxes etc.If used for multiple purposes, the Gunner will be busy doing more on two stations. Wasting precious seconds when every one counts is not what any tank crew would ever want.

Hope that clears some smoke.



Read above.

Visual explanation to get the actual point about new generation tank fire control system and sensors.

 

[Dazzler]

There is no need to keep responding to Dazzler. If he was really interested in a discussion he would not be repeating the same mindless banter. If he wants to think that he is right let him.

It's just a glorified t-72 that's all there is to Karrar and that's what I said in my very first post. is it that difficult to swallow?

Well done for proving my point.

what did you prove?

also many of the pics you posted of panoramic sights dont appear to be the most modern examples,you can clearly see that by how big and bulky they are which would strictly limit where you could mount them in the turret,by comparison the iranian one is very compact,you can tell this by its position right at the very rear of the turret fighting compartment and behind the commander,its likely that the only turret penetrations would be for the fibre optic and electrical connectors that attach it to its flat panel display and controller[you can also see this display/controller repeatedly in the video]

As I said, you have no clue what you are talking about. I mean, how much do you know about panoramic sights, their designs and role?
You literally embarrassed every mbt manufacturer with this statement of yours. Hell, they should take heed from Iran on designing panoramic sights now.

Ukrainians must be curiously looking into your state of the art panoramic sight as all they could come up with until now was this big fat bulky babe.

 

[SOHEIL]

There is no need to keep responding to Dazzler. If he was really interested in a discussion he would not be repeating the same mindless banter. If he wants to think that he is right let him.

This boy suffering from not a rare disorder which is butthurt !

Let's look at this:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...er-guided-missile.364287/page-36#post-6903200

The "airframe" part really touched my feelings!

 

[PeeD]

The video of cabatli_53 shows the advantage of the Russian and Iranian commanders sight solutions.

First you got two different turntables with two different rotating speeds, so that a fast and precise rotation can be combined.

The biggest advantage of the Russian/Iranian design is that its at the highest point of the MBT, only the slim wind sensor for the FCS is in the line of sight of the commanders sight. The other designs such as that Leo2 upgrade in the video will have the large RWS in front of the line of sight that blocks 40-60° in the rear hemisphere.

For the Russian/Iranian design, the RWS will be always behind the commanders sight due to the design.

 

[cabatli_53]

The video of cabatli_53 shows the advantage of the Russian and Iranian commanders sight solutions.

First you got two different turntables with two different rotating speeds, so that a fast and precise rotation can be combined.

The biggest advantage of the Russian/Iranian design is that its at the highest point of the MBT, only the slim wind sensor for the FCS is in the line of sight of the commanders sight. The other designs such as that Leo2 upgrade in the video will have the large RWS in front of the line of sight that blocks 40-60° in the rear hemisphere.

For the Russian/Iranian design, the RWS will be always behind the commanders sight due to the design.

Russian

German

Turkish

French

Americans

Czech t-72m4

Turkish/Israel M-60T upgrade

 

[PeeD]

There are two problems with RWS. They get easier damaged than hand operated guns and if no design solution like on the Armata/T-90SM/Karrar are used they block the view for the commanders sight as they are bulky.

Leclerc has no RWS and a high positioned commanders sight = no problem

Czech T-72 upgrade has just a hand operated gun and hence a smaller portion of view is blocked.

M1A2 war retrofitted later on with RWS and has the same view blocking issues as Leo2 and Altay.

M60T has no real commanders sight and uses RWS for that purpose, with clear 360° view but probably lower performance than a dedicated commanders sight like on Armata/T-90SM/Karrar.