Tank Designs

[Glavcom]

 

[UkroTurk]

Bro do you think all dpk members can speak Russian?
Could you please translate to English?

 

[Penguin]

Bro do you think all dpk members can speak Russian?
Could you please translate to English?

http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td/

compare

MT 883 Ka-500 specific fuel consumption
https://archive.org/stream/Collecti...g MTU 830 870 and 880 series engines_djvu.txt

MT 883 engines:
The first ran in 1967 and developed 880 kW (1,200 metric hp), using a turbo-charger for each bank of six cylinders and a charge-air cooler. Since then, the output of the MT 883 has been raised to 1,100 kW (1,500 metric hp) without sacrificing the engine's thermal efficiency, which is demonstrated by the fact that the minimum specific fuel consumption is 215 g/kW/h (158 g/metric hp/h). Eventually, the MT 883 is expected to develop 1,400 kW (1,850 metric hp}.

 

[Glavcom]

 

[Glavcom]

 

[Glavcom]

 

[Glavcom]

Ukrainian T-84 BM Oplot-Т is among the ten most powerful tanks in the world.
In more detail coefficients of military-technical level of main battle tanks to watch here

http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_69.html?m=0

 

[Cossack25A1]

I have a question.

Is there a main battle tank that is under 40 tonnes (to be specific around 37 tonnes), and can that tracked vehicle be classified as a "main battle tank", or would it be classified as a "light tank".

 

[Glavcom]

I have a question.

Is there a main battle tank that is under 40 tonnes (to be specific around 37 tonnes), and can that tracked vehicle be classified as a "main battle tank", or would it be classified as a "light tank".

As Soviet tanks classification tank classified as a medium tank

 

[Cossack25A1]

As Soviet tanks classification tank classified as a medium tank

But tanks that are below 40 tonnes, can those be considered "main battle tanks"?

 

[Glavcom]

But tanks that are below 40 tonnes, can those be considered "main battle tanks"?

Tanks and below and above 40 tonnes can now be considered as main battle tanks. Now we are armed with several types and kinds of tanks even very rich countries considered to be a huge waste.

 

[Davos]

I have a question.

Is there a main battle tank that is under 40 tonnes (to be specific around 37 tonnes), and can that tracked vehicle be classified as a "main battle tank", or would it be classified as a "light tank".

G'day Mate

A tank is classified by it functions, not by weight or any parameter

Technically, if we have a new type of armour or composite that are weightless, that thing could be an MBT even if it weighted 0 tonnes, as long as it is focused on the MBT role.

Most cold war era Soviet MBT are below 40 tonnes and most US MBT are just above 40 tonnes and some country (such as Japan) would have a lower weighted tanks, like the Japanese Type-61. The reason why MBT today getting bigger and heavier is due to the fact that you pack more stuff in it, such as thermal vision, firing control computer, engine, gearbox and etc, the heavier it goes, the more durable it gets.

According to OSCE, the official definition of tanks defined 21 key designing aspect that defined a tank

1. Periscope
2. Gun mantlet
3. Coaxial gun
4. Bore evacuator
5. Main gun
6. Driver's optics
7. Driver's hatch
8. Glacis plate
9. Continuous track
10. Machine gun ammunition
11. Commander's machine gun
12. Hatch or cupola
13. Gun turret
14. Turret ring
15. Hull
16. Engine air intake
17. Engine compartment
18. Side skirt
19. Drive sprocket
20. Linkage
21. Road wheel

Different service have a different definition of MBT, but generally the OSCE one is universally accepted and almost all MBT definition in use in the world is of its variation.
Today, since the advancement of material science, today's alloy are more compact, durable and light weight, so we may be able to see MBT going back down to 40 tonnes -ish level in the near future

Hope that's help you

Davo

 

[Cossack25A1]

G'day Mate

A tank is classified by it functions, not by weight or any parameter

Technically, if we have a new type of armour or composite that are weightless, that thing could be an MBT even if it weighted 0 tonnes, as long as it is focused on the MBT role.

Most cold war era Soviet MBT are below 40 tonnes and most US MBT are just above 40 tonnes and some country (such as Japan) would have a lower weighted tanks, like the Japanese Type-61. The reason why MBT today getting bigger and heavier is due to the fact that you pack more stuff in it, such as thermal vision, firing control computer, engine, gearbox and etc, the heavier it goes, the more durable it gets.

According to OSCE, the official definition of tanks defined 21 key designing aspect that defined a tank

1. Periscope
2. Gun mantlet
3. Coaxial gun
4. Bore evacuator
5. Main gun
6. Driver's optics
7. Driver's hatch
8. Glacis plate
9. Continuous track
10. Machine gun ammunition
11. Commander's machine gun
12. Hatch or cupola
13. Gun turret
14. Turret ring
15. Hull
16. Engine air intake
17. Engine compartment
18. Side skirt
19. Drive sprocket
20. Linkage
21. Road wheel

Different service have a different definition of MBT, but generally the OSCE one is universally accepted and almost all MBT definition in use in the world is of its variation.
Today, since the advancement of material science, today's alloy are more compact, durable and light weight, so we may be able to see MBT going back down to 40 tonnes -ish level in the near future

Hope that's help you

Davo

Thanks for the info.

 

[Penguin]

 

[UkroTurk]

Have you ever driven automobile made in Ukraine? Do you own car made by ZAZ ?

I have a rich experience
No thanks.