For Operation Ivy II

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

HI Operation Ivy and everyone. Here are a few of my pics of the T-80 and it's different models. The rest of my pics will be on the website.

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/T-80UK_RU_1.jpg

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/T-80UK_Russie_02.jpg

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80b_004.jpg

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80bv_022vsv.jpg

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80u00.jpg
T-80U

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80u01.jpg
T-80U

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80ud.jpg
T-80UD

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/t80ud_002.jpg
T-80UD

:D :D :D :D

[Operation Ivy]

:hug: woot woot :hug: woot ....Awsome Pics again!, i gotta question why is that Russian tanks always have a small turrent?, the rest of the world seems have huge turrents like the Abrams, Challenger, Leo, LeClerc exc exc,why the Russians like those smaller ones from the T-34 to the T-90

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

Well from my understanding is, that they have small turrets to be smaller targets. That has always been the main thing. Up until the T-80 really, the Russian tanks werent made with good technology at mind. The Russian Tank philosophy has always been to outnumber the enemy 3-4 to one. Now with the T-80 and the T-90 and the Cherniy Orel the philosophy is slowly changing, but as in the T-90 and T-80 the turret is still very small. The Cherniy Orel has more of a western style turret. The main point seems to be why make it bigger then it's needed to be.

[Javehn]

Ivy wrote :


....Awsome Pics again!, i gotta question why is that Russian tanks always have a small turrent?, the rest of the world seems have huge turrents like the Abrams, Challenger, Leo, LeClerc exc exc,why the Russians like those smaller ones from the T-34 to the T-90


Well , acctually that is much better - less lower siluet , harder to spot , harder to aim and hit . This comes at expence of convinionce of the crue - they sit inside like damn sardins, and the number of shells available.
Good pictures , by the way ! Does Russian Tankers have special anti flame combinezons and glouves , or just regular uniforms ?

http://www.ukraineonline.net/images/RussianMilitary/tanks/t-80/T-80UK_RU_1.jpg

What is the story with guns pointing into the sky ? It's becose automatic loader ?

[Miles Teg]

For automatic loaders I only know that for the Leclerc the main gun need to be lowered straight forward several seconds.
So for me the position in the pic looks normal.

[Kingpin]

:hug: woot woot :hug: woot ....Awsome Pics again!, i gotta question why is that Russian tanks always have a small turrent?, the rest of the world seems have huge turrents like the Abrams, Challenger, Leo, LeClerc exc exc,why the Russians like those smaller ones from the T-34 to the T-90

Not only smaller but also lower. Because "it's for combat not for barbecue"
To be more difficult to hit. Abrams is shells magnet. Fortunately it is very good armored. New russian tanks will have bigger turret because amunition will be placed like in Abrams in special compartment but again turrent will be lower than on Abrams (and even lower than on T-90)

Also crew consist one man fewer than on Abrams because they do not needs gun loader.

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

Well alot of times the gun is pointed upwards for a parade, it just looks cool that way. When I see the parades in kiev the tanks always have the gun pointed upwards.

Yeah I dont like the idea of the Cherniy Orel going to the western style turret.

Im not sure what kind of uniform they have.

Have you all looked at my section on Tanks in Chechnya?
Visit it (http://www.ukraineonline.net/chechnya/russian_tanks.htm)

[Operation Ivy]

Nice site there woot ......but dont tanks with auto loaders fire much slower?

[Kingpin]

Nice site there woot ......but dont tanks with auto loaders fire much slower?

No. Approximately the same rate of fire. New autoloader possibly will provide even better rate of fire.

[lekomin]

well western to eastern tank comparsions can be as long as a few rolls of toilet paper... the basic argument is that the western tanks were evolving as "defence" tanks whereas the eastern (meaning soviet/russian) as "offence" tanks. If you are on offence you would like to be lighter, more agile, easier to manuvre. With that comes smaller size. Size is relatively more important in case of moving target in comparsion to a stationary one. If a rabbit is stationary it is easy to hit, when it is moving fast it is not.

To sum up.. if you want to attack you want to be small and fast, i.e. hard to hit. As a result you got the T series tank. Automatic loader allows to delete the fourth tank crew position, that of the loader of course. Size determines the number of spare rounds you are carrying, therefore you don't need the large amunition storage in the back of the turret. You have also a limited volume for an engine, armour etc. And you end up with a small tank with the smallest possible front side profile.
In case of the western tank you wanted something like the Tower of London on tracks. Your advantage lies in quality and not quantity. Speed is important, both forward gears and reverse gears speed actually. (Russian tanks have usually only one or two reverse gears, the western sometimes have the same number of forward and reverse gears; retreat down the fulda gap was well planned :) If you want to defend you want to retreat quickly. You want massive armour, you want more spare amunition. You dont want to have an automatic loader (at least the old - technology auto loader) as it may break down. As a result you get a +60 ton vehicle, with a lot of armour, a big turret overhang in the back where you can store extra amunition. there is also a difference in the amunition type, the soviets and the russians used a two-piece amunition: a round and a propelant, whereas the west uses one-piece amuniotio. One piece is longer, it is harder to build an autoloader for it, and it is hardly possible to use one-piece ammo in a cramped T72. The advantage of one piece, is that the penetrating rod (nowadays made of tungusten, depleted uranium is not Greenpeace compatibile) can be longer and thinner (imagine an arrow of 1 cm diameter vs. a 5cm diameter, the former, given they have the same weight would cause more air friction and loose speed faster in flight). Because they "fly better" you can shoot further, again an advantage on the defence not offence (if you are driving a tank at 40 km/h you won't shoot at a target 4km away). Another advantage of western tanks, because of their size, is their "upgradability".. there is simply more room for aditional digital radios, moving maps indicators, Land IFF systems, FLIR cameras, Laser range finders and all the modern gizmos, that allowed M1A2 and Challenger 2 tanks to rule the battlefield in iraq.

Therefore, shapes of the modern eastern and western tanks are more a result of tactical prorities then of anything else.
hope I helped
take care
lekomin inc

[Kingpin]

well western to eastern tank comparsions can be as long as a few rolls of toilet paper... the basic argument is that the western tanks were evolving as "defence" tanks whereas the eastern (meaning soviet/russian) as "offence" tanks. If you are on offence you would like to be lighter, more agile, easier to manuvre. With that comes smaller size. Size is relatively more important in case of moving target in comparsion to a stationary one. If a rabbit is stationary it is easy to hit, when it is moving fast it is not.

To sum up.. if you want to attack you want to be small and fast, i.e. hard to hit. As a result you got the T series tank. Automatic loader allows to delete the fourth tank crew position, that of the loader of course. Size determines the number of spare rounds you are carrying, therefore you don't need the large amunition storage in the back of the turret. You have also a limited volume for an engine, armour etc. And you end up with a small tank with the smallest possible front side profile.
In case of the western tank you wanted something like the Tower of London on tracks. Your advantage lies in quality and not quantity. Speed is important, both forward gears and reverse gears speed actually. (Russian tanks have usually only one or two reverse gears, the western sometimes have the same number of forward and reverse gears; retreat down the fulda gap was well planned :) If you want to defend you want to retreat quickly. You want massive armour, you want more spare amunition. You dont want to have an automatic loader (at least the old - technology auto loader) as it may break down. As a result you get a +60 ton vehicle, with a lot of armour, a big turret overhang in the back where you can store extra amunition. there is also a difference in the amunition type, the soviets and the russians used a two-piece amunition: a round and a propelant, whereas the west uses one-piece amuniotio. One piece is longer, it is harder to build an autoloader for it, and it is hardly possible to use one-piece ammo in a cramped T72. The advantage of one piece, is that the penetrating rod (nowadays made of tungusten, depleted uranium is not Greenpeace compatibile) can be longer and thinner (imagine an arrow of 1 cm diameter vs. a 5cm diameter, the former, given they have the same weight would cause more air friction and loose speed faster in flight). Because they "fly better" you can shoot further, again an advantage on the defence not offence (if you are driving a tank at 40 km/h you won't shoot at a target 4km away). Another advantage of western tanks, because of their size, is their "upgradability".. there is simply more room for aditional digital radios, moving maps indicators, Land IFF systems, FLIR cameras, Laser range finders and all the modern gizmos, that allowed M1A2 and Challenger 2 tanks to rule the battlefield in iraq.

Therefore, shapes of the modern eastern and western tanks are more a result of tactical prorities then of anything else.
hope I helped
take care
lekomin inc

Agree

[Javehn]

Hmm.
Kingpin , have you read Viktor Suvorov's book : " Ice breaker" , and "Osvoboditel" ? The dude was Co of Tank battalion , and he is writing the exact readiness of Red Army to offencive operations.

[Kingpin]

Hmm.
Kingpin , have you read Viktor Suvorov's book : " Ice breaker" , and "Osvoboditel" ? The dude was Co of Tank battalion , and he is writing the exact readiness of Red Army to offencive operations.

Suvorov (Rezun real last name) is a traitor. He just earning money for his life on west writing those books. His books are not very helpful when studying soviet history because they full of fantasies.

And he never been commander of tank batallion. He's from intel.

[Operation Ivy]

well western to eastern tank comparsions can be as long as a few rolls of toilet paper... the basic argument is that the western tanks were evolving as "defence" tanks whereas the eastern (meaning soviet/russian) as "offence" tanks. If you are on offence you would like to be lighter, more agile, easier to manuvre. With that comes smaller size. Size is relatively more important in case of moving target in comparsion to a stationary one. If a rabbit is stationary it is easy to hit, when it is moving fast it is not.

To sum up.. if you want to attack you want to be small and fast, i.e. hard to hit. As a result you got the T series tank. Automatic loader allows to delete the fourth tank crew position, that of the loader of course. Size determines the number of spare rounds you are carrying, therefore you don't need the large amunition storage in the back of the turret. You have also a limited volume for an engine, armour etc. And you end up with a small tank with the smallest possible front side profile.
In case of the western tank you wanted something like the Tower of London on tracks. Your advantage lies in quality and not quantity. Speed is important, both forward gears and reverse gears speed actually. (Russian tanks have usually only one or two reverse gears, the western sometimes have the same number of forward and reverse gears; retreat down the fulda gap was well planned :) If you want to defend you want to retreat quickly. You want massive armour, you want more spare amunition. You dont want to have an automatic loader (at least the old - technology auto loader) as it may break down. As a result you get a +60 ton vehicle, with a lot of armour, a big turret overhang in the back where you can store extra amunition. there is also a difference in the amunition type, the soviets and the russians used a two-piece amunition: a round and a propelant, whereas the west uses one-piece amuniotio. One piece is longer, it is harder to build an autoloader for it, and it is hardly possible to use one-piece ammo in a cramped T72. The advantage of one piece, is that the penetrating rod (nowadays made of tungusten, depleted uranium is not Greenpeace compatibile) can be longer and thinner (imagine an arrow of 1 cm diameter vs. a 5cm diameter, the former, given they have the same weight would cause more air friction and loose speed faster in flight). Because they "fly better" you can shoot further, again an advantage on the defence not offence (if you are driving a tank at 40 km/h you won't shoot at a target 4km away). Another advantage of western tanks, because of their size, is their "upgradability".. there is simply more room for aditional digital radios, moving maps indicators, Land IFF systems, FLIR cameras, Laser range finders and all the modern gizmos, that allowed M1A2 and Challenger 2 tanks to rule the battlefield in iraq.

Therefore, shapes of the modern eastern and western tanks are more a result of tactical prorities then of anything else.
hope I helped
take care
lekomin inc

woot woot woot woot

[Javehn]

I bet the difference , my dear KingPin !
He was the commander of tank battalion in red Army , before he joined the intellegence. Read his books . And they not fool of **** , he acctually very intellegent , and have nice thoughts in his books ( about the ww2 ) ...
By the way , who is the dude on you aviatar ? It's not some battalion commander in Afgan or not , just regular guy ?For some reason i just want to call him "Shurik" , if you know what i mean ...

[Kingpin]

I bet the difference , my dear KingPin !
He was the commander of tank battalion in red Army , before he joined the intellegence. Read his books . And they not fool of **** , he acctually very intellegent , and have nice thoughts in his books ( about the ww2 ) ...
By the way , who is the dude on you aviatar ? It's not some battalion commander in Afgan or not , just regular guy ?For some reason i just want to call him "Shurik" , if you know what i mean ...

http://www.battlefield.ru/shame/rezun/rezun_r.html

He was commander of tank platoon in 1968-1970. How can this help to know about tanks in 1941? He is liar.

Shurik... Watched Gaiday's comedies? Speaking Russian? About man in avatar... Search through www.afgan.ru - he was translator from farsi in Afganistan.

[Javehn]

Hahaha , ok
Yes , i speak Russian , and remind me about Gaidai commedies , please , i don't know them . Maybe becose i am too young. One look at this guy , and i just want to call him Shurik , even don't know why ...

[Kingpin]

Hahaha , ok
Yes , i speak Russian , and remind me about Gaidai commedies , please , i don't know them . Maybe becose i am too young. One look at this guy , and i just want to call him Shurik , even don't know why ...

Шурик из "Операции Ы" очень похож на этого товарища.

[Javehn]

Да ну , точно !
Так вот почему он был похожим на "Шурика" !

[Kingpin]

Ну ка быстро, пока Hood не начал шуметь: кто таков и откуда?