No.3079
It's been some time since this got talked about but active protection may be an actually fielded thing in Russia. They used captured NATO munitions as well as their own to perfect the Arena-M APS. Maybe we'll see it in action.
https://southfront.org/russia-to-equip-main-battle-tanks-with-arena-m-active-protection-system/ Previous prototype Арена-Э
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXQm3dpr9Q Максимальная скорость боеприпаса от которого может защитить КАЗ «Арена» - 70-700 м/с
Начальная скорость подкалиберного снаряда ——– 1715 м/с,
Начальная скорость кумулятивного снаряда ЗБК-14 - 905 м/с.
ПТУР «Атака» имеет скорость ——————————–550 м/с.
РПГ-29 «Вампир» скорость ракеты ————————-255 м/с
9М113 «Конкурс» - скорость ракеты ————————208 м/с
ПТРК «Фагот» (Ракета 9М111) средняя ——————- 183 м/с
———————————-Максимальная —————– 240 м/с
ПТРК «Метис» ———————средняя —————-180-200 м/с
———————————-Максимальная —————– 223 м/с
"Арена-Э" - ….Время реакции системы составляло 0,07 секунд.
- опасная зона комплекса для пехоты, состояла 20-30 м и была относительно мала, при срабатывании защитных снарядов не образовывались побочные убойные осколки. Помимо этого, КАЗ предусматривал внешнюю световую сигнализацию, предупреждающую пехотинцев, находящихся позади боевой машины, о включении комплекса.
- стоимость КАЗ на 2006 год составляет 300 000 долларов.
- Масса «Арены» достигает 1300 килограмм
No.3089
>>2842I dunno about that, I suspect it will go more the way of the Armata where the armour is concentrated around a uniform crew compartment, protecting them from penetrations and ammo rack explosions, while the rest of the tank is relatively less armoured and then eventually tanks will just be drones and armour will be light for cost saving and to make more tank drones out of the same amount of steel.
There's some problems with putting a lot of armour on the turret roof
>Makes the tank more top heavy and less stable>Thicker armour reduces volume inside the tank meaning the tank needs to be either taller, or have less space for gun depression, or both>A heavier turret is going to be slower at turning, harder to stabilise on the move and takes away from the weight allowance for the gunUltimately, you're just not going to be able to fit the kind of armour you'd have on the turret/hull front on the turret roof, the amount you might actually be able to fit on the turret is quite likely to not be enough to prevent a penetration anyway, while at the same time both Javelin teams and helicopters are extremely vulnerable in their own way and are only useful either defensively or when the enemy is making a mistake. A tank getting knocked out by a Javelin or helicopter is therefore a strategic problem IMO rather than the tank being too vulnerable. Earlier in the Ukraine war, Russia overextended not anticipating much resistance from Ukraine so they were prone to ambushes and presumably wasn't going to the length required to provide solid air support to the advancing tanks from helicopters.
No.3090
>>3089>eventually tanks will just be drones <armour will be light for cost savingAt that point it stops being a tank
>it will go more the way of the Armata where the armour is concentrated around a uniform crew compartment, protecting them from penetrations and ammo rack explosions, while the rest of the tank is relatively less armoured Based on the lessons of the war that's a terrible idea. Tanks are going to get mobility killed constantly & even if the crew survives getting knocked out, they still need to escape the enemy lines. It's a huge waste of resources.
>Makes the tank more top heavy and less stable That's not really an issue. A couple ERA blocks & some thickening of Roof armor isn't going to increase weight significantly & the wide, squat positioning of tanks means they have a low center. The proof of this is in Western tanks & their immense turrets.
>Thicker armour reduces volume inside the tank meaning the tank needs to be either taller, or have less space for gun depression, or boththat's actually a valid argument, BUT this can be mitigated by slight widening of the hull/ turret, not to mention modern electronics making everything more compact (such as current thermals, that mean the gunner can sit back to look at targets in a more relaxed position & there's plenty of space in front of them. As for gun-depression, making the gun mantlet larger & higher up on the turret by a little & having it stick out from the turret slightly.
>A heavier turret is going to be slower at turning, harder to stabilise on the move and takes away from the weight allowance for the gunModern hydraulics & other systems negate this, not to mention that the proof of that is in Western tanks that turn their massive turrets rather fast. The heavier turrt i actualy easier to stabilize in some regard since the higher weight mean its less vulnerable to being moved by the motions of driving & firing. As to gun weight, 152mm guns of massive size have been tested, so there is a large margin for weight.
Basically my point is that since Western tanks have huge turrets easily having the weight & size considerations relative to the issue at hand. They're oversized IMO, but are a good demonstration of practical upper limits in tank turret size. Something closer to the T-90M turret but a little taller (like the Armata turret) is a good compromise.
>the amount you might actually be able to fit on the turret is quite likely to not be enough to prevent a penetrationNot alone yes, that's the reason I'm not saying make Roof armor as thick as the frontal glacis or something, but alongside ERA? It can reduce penetrations from top attacks.
No.3092
>>3091 I mean China operates some lighter MBTs for operations in the Himalayas & some assault tanks for beach landings, but its pretty much the same armor as any other tank on their mainline MBTs. Technically the Abrams has heavier armor because of DU but that's not any guarantee.
No.3093
>>3090>At that point it stops being a tank I don't see why you'd come to that conclusion, light tanks have existed since WW1.
>Tanks are going to get mobility killed constantly & even if the crew survives getting knocked out, they still need to escape the enemy lines. It's a huge waste of resources. Isn't that true of all armour then? No amount of armour is going to stop a track from getting shot off and engine/transmission compartments tend to be the least armoured parts of a tank anyway, since the logic is that it would *only* be a mobility kill and the engine block should absorb the shell and save the crew. The Merkava even has its engine and transmission in the front of the tank for this purpose.
>BUT this can be mitigated by slight widening of the hull/ turretThe internal volume of the tank isn't agnostic towards which dimension you're giving space to, the IS-3 had an extremely wide turret but it was still very cramped due to how low the turret roof was.
>As for gun-depression, making the gun mantlet larger & higher up on the turret by a little & having it stick out from the turret slightly. That's still going to involve making the tank taller, like if the armour is growing downwards with its increase of volume, I don't understand how placing the gun higher up in the turret is possible.
>Modern hydraulics & other systems negate thisWell not really because modern tank turrets are already as big and as heavy as modern hydraulics will allow for that turret speed armies want. If you sacrifice speed for still-not-enough-armour on the roof, you're just making the tank less responsive and more vulnerable to threats.
>Not alone yes, that's the reason I'm not saying make Roof armor as thick as the frontal glacis or something, but alongside ERA? It can reduce penetrations from top attacks.It still wouldn't be enough, a Javelin still penetrates hundreds of millimetres of steel, even with the ERA, that's not going to prevent a penetration unless the armour underneath it has significant thickness either with steel or composite armour.
As I said, it's a tactical issue because the Javelin is flawed and isn't necessarily a silver bullet that invalidates the concept of a tank, there's also atypical ways of dealing with Javelin missiles, for example there already is hard-kill active protective systems that shoot missiles out of the sky that are approaching level to the ground, no doubt this will be developed to work in the vertical to counter missiles approaching from above and also the Javelin doesn't work by magic, there is radios and sensors and navigation systems all involved in firing and guiding that missile to its target, each a potential vector for an exploit that will interfere with the missile and cause it to miss or detonate prematurely, it's just a matter of time to reverse engineer captured examples to see how they work and Russia surely has many of them now.
No.3094
>>3093 It's not about light armor, it's about it being a drone. At that point it's not really a tank, just an armored autonomous fighting vehicle. It's like making a BMP completely automated.
>Isn't that true of all armour then? No, armor & its placement is meant to be balanced against mobility & resource viability, that's the reason 3rd generation NATO tanks have fairly low numbers compared to Soviet counterparts, they're far too resource heavy. This is also the reason that starting from mid WW2 & after the main, thickest armor on tanks sat in the frontal 30-45 degrees on the hull front & turret front. Roof, sides & rear are less targeted in direct combat, & no amount of armor is going to protect the top from an aviation bomb (BUT improved upper armor can fight off top-attack HEAT & suicide drones). Point is armor placement reflects the main threats to an AFV & the expected requirements. That's the reason heavy APCs like the Puma are retarded, they're still no match for a tank or ATGM, so uparmoring them for anything past 30mm/155mm airburst is moronic. A tank should be able to take a hit & even a penetration yet keep going as long as the armor manages to protect the key features. You're never going to ensure crew protection at 100% because that's just not possible, placing them all in a capsule isn't removing the problem of the electronics & hydraulics in their place being open for damage & needing protection too, thus up-armoring there occurs, negating the entire point. The point of improving roof armor in current combat is because a slightly thicker roof + ERA is going to be able to help dissipate HEAT warheads even if they penetrate so internal impacts are minimized. That's the reason the Abrams ought to uparmore its bustle, because it is easy to penetrate & even if it leaves the crew alive, the tank is nigh-unarmed & open to consecutive attacks. This happened in the Gulf, a Type 69 (Chinese T-62) penetrated an M1A2 in the bustle, leaving it ammunitionless, if it hadn't been for the constant air support, allied tanks & god's luck that they had one shell in the barrel, that Abrams would have been taken out utterly. Hell this has happened to many Saudi Abrams.
>That's still going to involve making the tank taller Not if you shift the gun mantlet up in the turret, but not the actual turret itself. Essentially the gun is a bit higher in the front of the turret, there's plenty of space left over & turret dimensions aren't even necessary to change much. The height increase is going to be at most 10 centimeters, insignificant in todays combat environment. I'm going to try an Oekaki this if I can.
>a track from getting shot off Ah but a track is an easy field repair, even a single man can jury-rig a fix, unlike internal components. The Engine block being used as armor in the Merkava is because it's armor is trash & the tank is a glorified, heavy IFV, almost no other tank in the world uses this set up for a reason. Getting your engine taken out is a death sentence for any tank not surrounded by friendlies & so condemning the crew too. The reason BMP-1s & 2s had frontal engines (besides the need to let troops come out the back) is the fact that a more thinly armored AFV can afford to be taken out, because unless it has a tank level of armor, the penetration can kill the crew otherwise so you can either bail or die. A tank isn't permitted that.
>The internal volume of the tank isn't agnostic towards which dimension you're giving space True, but in a tank you forget THE HULL. You can lean back, forward, to the side etc. & you must be able to push the hatch up using your head in cases of emergency. The IS-3 also isn't that cramped. The T-72 early versions are a bit cramped (although not by much even compared to the Leo-II) because of the electronics/sights/fire-controls, that sit on the horizontal axis to the sides & front of tanker. Height isn't a big issue, that's just an old wives tale from anti-Soviet Cold Warriors, the same morons that said that T-72 autoloaders rip the arm off the gunner.
>Javelin still penetrates hundreds of millimetres of steel Good thing modern COMPOSITE armor isn't just steel, & can be thinner yet equate to much thicker steel. That's the reason the T-64 was so groundbreaking - the composite armor permitted it to have the protection of a heavy tank, yet far less weight & actual armor thickness. The same can be applied to Roof armor. Moreover the Javelin's penetration is overrated. The overfly HEAT is limited because the 2 modes of attack mean that a tandem charge (necessary against ERA) is impossible to utilize in a large enough calibre to properly hurt the vehicle. Most Javelin kills have been against softer targets. Against tanks using ERA it's notably failed to induce catastrophic penetration (i.e. hitting ammunition or key components. A notable incident from early 2022 had a javelin hit a T-72B3. The attack penetrated but because it lacked the ability to go through, only caused a fire. The tank continued to keep going, still battle-capable. Improving the roof armor a bit already makes it even more survivable against such attacks.
>hard-kill active protective systemsYes that is also true, but those have a risk of harming nearby troops, making it impossible to use on a 360 angle unless they seek to operate alone.
TL;Dr: I'm not saying slap on a ton of armor, but improving its thickness by about half + ERA is going to improve survivability against top-attacks & the increase in height is going to be negligible.
No.3403
https://topwar.ru/218805-obstrel-tanka-t-55-kumuljativnymi-snarjadami-iz-granatometov-raketnyh-kompleksov-i-sau.html http://real.mtak.hu/81246/1/HT_2018_3_Book_cikk_02_u.pdf A T-54 being test-fired on by various weapons by the Hungarians to test its armor against modern anti-tank weapons. The conclusion is that the T-54 base model is unable to successfully resist common modern anti-tank weapons. Whether the T-55M, with its increased armor and modernized systems is similarly vulnerable is unknown but likely. Kontakt-1 ERA likely increases survivability by a high margin however. This makes sense as in 1988, the Americans conducted similar tests, only they simulated a fire raid with 155 mm high-explosive shells on a tank column*.
*Source: Article from Field Artillery Journal, USArmy, Nov/Dec 2002.
https://pdfcoffee.com/who-says-dumb-artillery-rounds-canx27t-kill-armor-pdf-free.html https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo No.3449
>>2842On the topic of the T-90M, I noticed very quickly that the distinct Shtora "eyes" featured on the T-90 are not present on the T-90M, I looked into it recently.
First, what is the Shtora system? The "Shtora" complex is a means of active protection of armored vehicles from the defeat of the WTO, in which a laser is used to aim at the target. These are Dragon, TOW, Milan, Maverick, Helfire guided missiles, Copperhead artillery guided missiles, and other ground-based and air-based missiles. The complex was put into service in 1989.
Sensitive sensors "Shtora" detect the source of laser radiation, warn the crew of the vehicle and at the same time issue a command to automatically use means of jamming the enemy's weapon control systems - aerosol grenades and infrared searchlights. After three seconds, the grenades create an aerosol screen 55–70 meters from the tank to counteract laser radiation and “cover” the target from the gunners of enemy artillery systems. An infrared searchlight from a range of 2.5 kilometers "blinds" the rocket and changes its flight path.
The complex provides all-round protection against several guided missiles in the vertical sector from -5 to +25 degrees. The high (0.54‒0.9) probability of Shtora disrupting guided missiles and guided projectiles at the target reduces the probability of hitting it by 3‒5 and 1.5 times, respectively. The reaction time of the complex after detecting an attacking target does not exceed 20 seconds. Along with the protection "Shtora" can be used to detect enemy firing points.
The answer to the lack of the "Eyes" on the T-90M boils down to a simple fact that the Shtora system no longer works against more modern ATGMs or much older, analog RPG systems like the RPG-7 in terms of causing visual cover against them. The principle of the Shtora's functionality lies in it turning on a bright IR light that blinds 2nd and early 3rd generation ПТУР systems, causing the ATGM crew to be unable to accurately target the tank and so miss or hit a non-vital area. Modern systems no longer function like this, although blinding IR systems are still useful in areas like the Middle-East, where newer ATGMs are more rare.
https://archive.is/tzoC0 https://archive.is/z75Lw https://archive.is/JbTsd http://btvt.narod.ru/4/shtora1/shtora1.htm No.3588
First AMX-10RC's taken out from a month back or so
https://archive.ph/OyMsC No.3657
I find Soviet artillery systems fascinating, especially how well organized their system of SPAGs are in a variety of calibers and purposes, with immense throw-weight and distance along with staggering accuracy for artillery systems. American M-109s, Panzerhaubitz-2000s, M-110As and AS-90s pale in comparison in almost every regard, making it obvious why Russian artillerymen primarily dominate artillery duels against such systems in Ukraine
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A17?useskin=vectorIt's interesting to notice that unlike the usual 122, 125 and 152 millimeter guns typical to Soviet production, a lot of light artillery platforms typically used by the desant utilize 120mm guns, in part because it permits them to utilize Western 120mm ammunition as part of long-term deep-strike capability, when cut off from their own resources, thus systems like the Nona, Vena, Lotus etc.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A19?useskin=vector https://war-book.ru/samohodnaya-artillerijskaya-ustanovka-2s42-lotos/ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A131?useskin=vector No.3665
>>3664Link to the yootube in case anybody wants to watch it there for some reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMw6FANEno No.3889
>>3403Continuation of the tests
Partial translation of a four part article series titled «Kísérleti lövészet T54-es harckocsikra 1989-ben, a «0» ponti gyakorlótéren» published in the Hungarian military’s Haditechnika magazine, written by Colonel István Ocskay of the Hungarian MoD Defense Technology Research Centre (ORCID: 0000-0003-0279-8215).
https://topwar.ru/226676-poroj-bjut-navylet-obstrel-t-54-kumuljativnymi-snarjadami-gvozdiki-maljutki-i-tanka-t-72.html No.3952
>S.Korea is planning a next gen MBT >it looks like the conceptual light tank the Polish military demo'd a few years back>its supposed to have Hydrogen Cell propulsion >it's supposed to have an AIFucking overpriced garbage just asking for an ATGM or mine to blow it sky-high.
>designed by Hyndai Gives me Porsche Tiger tank vibes too.
https://topwar.ru/229372-iskusstvennyj-intellekt-i-vodorodnyj-dvigatel-proekt-juzhnokorejskoj-armaty-ot-hyundai.html No.3966
>>3785What makes you think that Soviet tanks would have performed better?
No.3967
>>3965Regular american forces did not use ERA. Blazer was created by the Israelis and used primarily by countries that bought Pattons from the USA and even then it wasn't widespread. The US military did not regularly use it, because the M1 was being phased into service by that point, and was supposed to not need the protection (even though the upper front armor plate and the sides are thinner than even a T-62's). The USMC did use Blazer somewhat because they preferred the M-60 back then and needed to up armor it, but otherwise the usage is limited in NATO today.
>>3966 You missed the point entirely. Nafo-fags love to claim that the optics on Western tanks were miles better than those on Soviet ones (even though that wasn't true) and yet despite the Abrams and Bradley looking much different to a T-72M or BMP-1 they still had incidents of friendly fire, this is just the official numbers the actual ones were even higher. This is because the optics on Abrams tanks and night-vision especially was good at finding targets but very poor at making them discernible to the crew, a problem pretty much universal at the time and even today is common.
So the point is that not only was the Operation rife with fuck ups, but that they didn't do any better than Soviet contemporaries could have, so their bragging about it was retarded.
No.3969
>>3967>even though that wasn't trueHow so?
>even though the upper front armor plate and the sides are thinner than even a T-62'sSource?
No.3975
>>3969>How soThe range on the most modern night-systems in the USSR at the time were comparable to those on NATO tanks. Saddam's forces had diddly squat, using much older systems or lacking them entirely, so the comparison in media was lopsided. The proof of this lies in the sheer number of friendly fire casualties among 'superior' Abrams tanks, even though other forces in the Gulf War coalition, which used Soviet tanks of various models of their own against Iraqi tanks, did not suffer NEARLY the number of friendly casualties, even though the usage of Soviet-model tanks on both sides would make it much easier to make a mistake as compared to confusing an Abrams with a T-72M which had vastly different profiles and a 2x size difference.
>Source? You can look it up; Abrams armor schematics. The upper plate of the M1 Abrams is 38mm of RHA, which is why it's so heavily sloped at about 80 degrees (making the effective thickness 111mm) and why the lower frontal plate is the primary method of frontal hull defense. Prior to the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) the frontal combined armor of the Abrams weren't anything special either. A heavier target (50 mm plate) could be defeated by a 105 mm APFSDS prototype made by Rheinmetall in 1976, when the slope was 80.8°. At 81° slope, the APFSDS round failed to penetrate, but it caused spalling on the inner side of the plate. Modern 120 and 125mm APFSDS aren't even going to have a problem, and if by some miracle the frontal armor deflects the projectile, it's going to ram straight into the massive gap exposing the turret ring, which will not only take out the tank but likely lead to catastrophic fires due to the fluid used in the turret turning mechanism being very flammable. There are claims that the upper frontal armor was upgraded to 60 or even 80mm thickness (however I've personally measured M1A1s and M1A2s and found the thickest plate to be 2 inches or roughly 60mm or RHA steel, with older ones being 38mm, but when even the oldest soviet APFSDS can penetrate several hundred millimeters from over a kilometer at a 60 degree angle…
Much of the data for the M1A2 comes from 1993 Swedish tests of the M1A2, T-80U and Leopard 2A4 and Leclerc tanks wherein Sweden noted significant problems with the Abrams, rating it at the same level as the export T-80U. And before you say older model. The M1A2 modernizations are mostly centered around the TUSK program and increasing defense with ERA and other things… mounted primarily on the sides of the hull and turret. The M1A2 still uses the same UO-100 DU-composite armor layout which was introduced in 1990, with the only modernization since then, being a light graphite filler to act as protection from the radioactive properties of DU after taking a hit and titanium sandwich plates. This was a change from the UO-87 first generation DU armor (introduced in 1988), which was found to have a shattering problem, wherein the impact of repeated hits would cause spalling on both sides of the armor, creating radioactive shrapnel out to 5m from the tank and the possibility of the Uranium to catch fire in the Chemical reaction 3U + 4O^2 = U^3O^8
Abrams side hull armor is 70mm at its thickest and less near the bottom.
The hull sides of a T-62 at the frontal areas is 80mm thick and towards the rear (engine compartment) it's 45mm. The T-72, T-64 is 80mm across the entire side. The top and bottom front armor plates for a T-62 is 100 mm thick Rolled Homogenous Steel, set at a steep angle of 60 degrees for the upper and 55 degrees for the lower, which is an effective thickness of roughly 200mm for upper and lower front plates. This is higher than the Abrams glacis and side armor, even though the side-armor got upgraded (see pic 1's weldlines).
T-62 sources:
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#prot T-72 side armor:
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#commonchar Swedish 1993-94 tests:
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/armor_sweeden.htm Swedish 105mm tests:
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/ Armor types:
https://topwar.ru/23416-analiz-bronirovaniya-tanka-m1a2-sep-abrams.html No.3981
>>3975> even though other forces in the Gulf War coalition, which used Soviet tanks of various models of their ownwhat countries are you talking about?
No.3982
>>3981Kuwait had several M-84s during the war (A T-72 modification) which took part in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield. It also had a large park of BMP-2s
Egypt has Ramses II (T-55 modernization), T-62 and BMP-1 which were involved in operations. The Egyptian army was the second-largest contingent of the allied forces.
Syria was also involved and had massive numbers of various types of T-72s, T-55s and T-62s. The 9th armored division was part of the Northern reserve.
Also UNIKOM (United Nations military enforcement) has a large park of Soviet military vehicles and was present in Iraq.
No.3986
>What do you think about the potential of hybrid or electric engines in tanks? I think it could significantly reduce noise and thermal signatures and you could also potentially generate the power in the field.
Diesel engines are probably the way to go. Hybrid engines are prone to breaking down over time because of the switch system constantly going on and off when starting/stopping. That said, a separate electric motor assembly that can be activated and run on accumulators would be a good third redundancy in case the main diesel engine and auxiliary diesel engine was knocked out or ran out of fuel and would be a good option for stealth ops at night, similar to how some DE submarines have separate electric motors to 'creep' under water and remain nearly soundless. Alternatively a multi-fuel turbine like the T-80s paired with a diesel alt and an electric-motor redundancy would be very useful, fast and economic.
Regardless, electric motors are definitely something to think about, even if hybrid ones would be a bad idea on an AFV.
Also before someone mentions Hydrogen fuel cells - they're violently explosive and unlike gas tanks which can be armored and filled with a "honeycomb" that reduces damage and likeliness of explosion, we currently lack good internalized protection of these cells. It would be useful, not needing to refuel for much longer, but then there's power-concerns and again reliance on the armor to protect such a weak point.
>inb4 Increasing complexity of technology used for war is inevitable
This always was balanced with logistics and education. When it wasn't what we got were the Tiger-tank and Panther, chock-full of technology yet breaking down constantly, being overweight and lacking a proper engine (instead using aviation engines) resulting in constant problems. The inability to repair in the field meant that most breakdowns or damages to the internals would force the tank to be sent back to the factory. The complexity also forced longer training times compared to the Panzer IV or T-34, so the human factor cannot be discounted as well.
People often misunderstand the meaning of Stalin's quote, "Quantity has a quality all its own" to mean "cheap massproduced shit can equal single craftsmanship" which in fact misses the point. Yes, Mass produced, simpler items that are available overshadow singular high-quality items, but more importantly, the ability to produce large quantities will lead to improvement in quality, as material development for technologies cannot be rushed, or it will remain singular, almost hand-crafted examples rather than something that can be manufactured en masse and be available.
>wired vs. wireless in an era of electronic jamming.
Having redundancies is important. I don't care how fancily defended your systems may be, if they fail for any reason without redundancies, you're good as dead. That's the reason that tanks even to this day can hand-crank turrets, even if its hard, because the option at least provides a slightly higher chance of survival in defending oneself.
No.3991
>>3986Tank transmissions are complex, so replacing with two electric motors makes sense. Gas turbine electric is the way to go because you can creep around on battery power and then turn on the turbine for long range.
No.4044
The Пластун-СН is a small Russian all-terrain transport vehicle converted from a civilian vehicle. Recently popped onto the news because one of them was photographed destroyed and recently circulated the internet. From what I read and observed on its capabilities and role it appears similar, smaller version of the roofless MT-LB from the early 50s or the K-75 and GT-LB. However because its roughly half the size of the MT-LB I think its not the replacement that some news sources purport it to be.
-
https://topwar.ru/231000-zarubezhnaja-pressa-zafiksirovana-pervaja-poterja-vs-rf-novoj-bronemashiny-plastun-sn.html-
https://www1.ru/news/2023/10/30/vezdexod-razvedcik-ili-ognevaia-platforma-cto-mozet-armeiskii-plastun-sn.html -
https://dzen.ru/a/ZULL7p_ZBlk3XUlq -
http://parm.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=498 No.4094
The T-90M has found a way of improving the range of the Refleks Cannon launched Guided Missile. The base missile has a maximum range of 5km or so, however by having the rocket activate after the shell has already flown a distance using the velocity of it being fired - rather than immediately - the distance has been increased to roughly 7km, which means that in a direct fire role, the T-90M currently has the longest reach of any tank at the moment,
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/09/02/t-90-shell-reached-a-distance-of-7-km-with-a-late-engine-start/ No.4172
>>4168What are the the strengths and weaknesses of an Abrams tank? I hear they have a special (depleted uranium) armor array and are pretty fast, but they're also very heavy, drink lots of fuel (because of its turbine engine) and the turret is quite vulnerable when turned at a certain angle due to its shape and size.
No.4173
>>4172>What are the the strengths and weaknesses of an Abrams tank?Advantages: Mobile fast, good electronics, good gas turbine
Disadvantages: too heavy, no ERA, not enough of them for Ukraine
Armor does not matter too much really after a certain level, as most tanks are defeated from angles that aren't well defensible, roof armor, sides, fire, track and engine mobility kills.
No.4175
>>3094>Moreover the Javelin's penetration is overrated. The overfly HEAT is limited because the 2 modes of attack mean that a tandem charge (necessary against ERA) is impossible to utilize in a large enough calibre to properly hurt the vehicle. Most Javelin kills have been against softer targets. Against tanks using ERA it's notably failed to induce catastrophic penetration (i.e. hitting ammunition or key components. A notable incident from early 2022 had a javelin hit a T-72B3. The attack penetrated but because it lacked the ability to go through, only caused a fire. The tank continued to keep going, still battle-capable. Improving the roof armor a bit already makes it even more survivable against such attacks. Javelins always arouse the weirdest and wrongest fantasies. It's not a flyover missile and both attack modes use the same warhead in the same orientation. The Javelin warhead is large and oriented in the flight direction, which is always identical with the attack direction. It reliably defeats 600 mm of RHA, which is six charge diameters. That's about OK for an ATGM of that age and more than enough to defeat even the thickest turret roof armor. Tanks surviving ATGM hits is common and you even named why, by not hitting anything vital. Circumstantial evidence of surviving one hit would mean that every ATGM sucks because none kill with every hit.
No.4176
>>4172Strengths: Electronics, Heavy front armor, high speed for its size
Weaknesses: Very high maintenance, requiring a massive logistics system in any long term deployment, eats fuel like nothing else, extreme weight making passage in muddy ground and over smaller bridges nearly impossible as well as the gas-turbine having a shit filtration system that sucks in sand. very lightly armored on the sides and back, even by tank standards. Also lacks HE-Frag ammunition and has a relatively short gun, is not autoloaded or even assist-loaded.
The Abrams is more of a tank-destroyer then a real tank, as its prime design purpose was to blunt a Soviet tank offensive and make rapid counterpunches, it isn't fit for long-term conventional warfare.
No.4177
>>4176If the USSR still existed I'm sure we would have seen a totally new tank generation by now. Then again, maybe the rate of technological advance has slowed down to the point that it's not really worth it.
No.4178
>>4177Warfare has changed quite a bit since then. It's possible they would have come up with something that makes tanks obsolete. Drone warfare probably would have been advanced further by now, for example. The ability to rapidly move in and out for recon or strikes is more useful than heavy armor in many cases now. Small-scale drones that can zip over a tank and drop precise munitions on it without being noticed makes tanks not so effective.
No.4179
>>4177The Armata is basically just the T-95 and other late-Soviet next generation tank design… only worse in my opinion. It's still a powerful tank and all, but suffers from tech-bloat related weaknesses, which is why the Russian Army has not put it in mass production.
>>4178 People have been 'burying' the concept of tanks since the days of the RPG-7, and the same thing happened when ATGMs came along and so on and so forth… and repeatedly battle experience found that tanks are absolutely necessary. The myth that tanks used to be immune or some shit is just that, a myth. Even in WW-1 the Germans found methods to deal with the first tanks and tanks are always vulnerable to anti-tank methods… which is why they are operated as part of combined arms, or as strike groups and no longer operate in massive tank battles anymore; the last of those were in the Middle East, when Iranian T-62s and T-72 export models faced Chieftian's and M-60s in massive tank battles with limited troop and air-support relative to Soviet and American combat doctrine.
- HEAT and APFSDS was countered by laminated armor and ERA
- ATGM guidance is countered by active soft-kill methods like laser-triggered smoke grenades and IR reduction methods
- Top-attack munitions are being countered by improved roof-ERA and the roof cages, which are effective against drones as well
- Electronic Warfare is effective against drones
The role of tanks will continue to exist, and new defense measures will continue to evolve as new threats come.
No.4190
>>4176>very lightly armored on the sides and back, even by tank standardsnot really
No.4385
>>1376First vid is kinda mid this is an entry level school
No.4404
Information on the Chally-3 is starting to come out.
https://topwar.ru/234823-britanskij-tank-obretaet-formu-raskryty-harakteristiki-prototipa-challenger-3.html Other than finally switching to a smoothbore cannon instead of a rifled one, there are some armor upgrades and reformatting of internals. Frankly speaking however, the Challenger is fundamentally flawed in terms of armor and design, and no modernization is going to make this over-hyped machine actually any good.
No.4506
First M-1150 taken out in Avdeevka. The M-1150 is a very heavily armored mine-clearing/recovery vehicle built on the Abrams but even more heavily armored, weighing in at 78 tons. It's overweight for soft-ground but in terms of technical ability its a very capable and multi-purpose vehicle and the cost of one is appropriately high at 3.7 Million. This comes after Russia captured an M-88A2 recovery vehicle earlier*
https://en.topwar.ru/230245-na-ukrainu-pribyli-shturmovye-m1150-abv-podrobnee-ob-jetih-mnogotonnyh-tjazhelovesah.htmlhttps://twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/1760738496803635504 https://archive.ph/BcBtL *
https://en.topwar.ru/236867-bmp-bradley-brjem-hercules-i-bpla-baba-jaga-vs-rf-zahvatili-v-avdeevke-broshennuju-pri-otstuplenii-vsu-voennuju-tehniku.html No.4540
>>4094Considering that the indirect fire mode of the 2A46M and its modernizations can go out to 12km with HE-Frag and considering how drone guidance has improved accuracy of ranged artillery multi-fold, I dare say the T-90M, T-72B3M and T-80BVM have the longest range of tanks today in general. Considering that a while back a T-80BVM landed a hit on an enemy IFV (apparently a Bradley) from 10km with a drone guided indirect fire shot, this is a significant range advantage.
https://yandex.ru/video/preview/3454898920936728986 https://aif.ru/politics/world/maestro_boya_russkiy_tank_podbil_bradley_na_predelnoy_dalnosti No.4551
Armata is kill. Russia abandons the Armata tank due to high cost.
No.4553
Tank divisions are good for their high stats breakthrough but demand a lot of micro. Also most terrain traits make tanks have even less organization stats and the supply can get pretty bad very fast. Better use super marine brigades to voluntary interventions
No.4554
>>4551Source?
>>4553Is this a video-game reference because you're in the wrong place bub.
>>>/games/ is that way.
No.4556
>>4554Head of Rostech, Sergei Chemezov.
They say it's better than any other tank, but the cost doesn't justify it over buying more T-90 instead.
I think another huge factor is that this tank, and western MBTs, were designed to fight each other head on, which is an absolute unicorn event in wars like this and doesn't justify basing the whole design around it. The majority of tank losses goes around driving on a mine, suicide drone into the engine, ATGM to the side. Thick line of sight frontal armor is just not doing much against threats from all sides.
No.4557
>>4556That's not what Rostech stated
>"Армата", она, в общем-то, дороговата. По своему функционалу, она, конечно, намного превосходит существующие танки, но слишком дорогая, поэтому ее сейчас армия вряд ли будет использовать. Проще им купить те же Т-90-е The Armata is accepted into service but it isn't being used because they're prioritizing the T-90. The T-14 actually has good protection against the threats you're talking about. The Crew Capsule is very well protected. However, as stated its far too costly an investment for a tank that will still be damaged or disabled in combat inevitably, as any AFV does, meaning that its not cost effective. The earlier T-95 and other Future MBT projects of the USSR were more balanced in that regard compared to the T14.
No.4558
I refuse to believe they don't field existing modern tanks for such idiotic reasons. The 70th brigade used fucking T-55 and T-62 base models at Robotyne.
No.4564
>>4556>>4557Existing Armatas go into service, there won't be any orders for new ones in the near future, but for the T-90 instead.
This doesn't end the Armata, but extends on the many delays it suffers since 2016.
Given that modernized older models are going to refill the losses during the war, it's now even more unlikely that the Armata will ever be used in significant numbers.
No.4591
Video of yet another Marder-1 destroyed by a Lancet drone -
https://topwar.ru/236826-opublikovany-kadry-unichtozhenija-lancetom-ocherednoj-nemeckoj-bmp-marder-vsu.html It's notable because the Marder-1 is over double the weight of a BMP 1 or 2 (14-15 tons), especially the up-armored variants which are around 32 tons, yet are taken down by drones just as easily, if not more so, yet Westerners love to talk shit about Soviet tech. I doubt the Puma will do better.
No.4641
Why tf are tanks still manned? An unmanned tank doesn't need armor and it can be a lot smaller and cheaper to build.
No.4642
>>4641Unmanned ground combat platforms tend to have problems with reliability and range.
https://ria.ru/20180619/1522957833.htmlhttps://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21602657/russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/Such electronic components are still relatively expensive to manufacture, so that nullifies the cost benefits. Plus, they have to deal with electronic warfare and jamming to an even more extensive capability. Armor isn't the key issue here, as lightly armored vehicles, both unmanned and manned do exist (light tanks, mobile gun platforms) but they don't quite fulfil the same battlefield roles as conventional tanks.
Lightly armored and formidably armed vehicles essentially exist in a variety of roles in every conventional armed force and remote control technology still isn't quite satisfactory for widespread military use.
No.4643
>>4642>>4641TL;DR: A human component is important to maintain. Until we have Star Wars level droids, this is the reality of automation inside and outside warfare.
No.4652
>>4642Nobody is getting out in combat to fix a tank, so the tank doesn't need to be manned or armored. It just needs a support vehicle nearby.
No.4653
>>4643Unmanned doesnt mean its not controlled by humans like with FPV drones.
No.4654
>>4653FPV drones work because aerial motion is easier to control from a distance than a terrestrial vehicle. The Soviet Union had been attempting it for literally decades, starting with the Teletanks of the 1930s and Russia has had several remote vehicles like that, but their combat use and capabilities are limited.
>>4652>Nobody is getting out in combat to fix a tankYes, yes they do - even if it's not as likely anymore - because an engineering vehicle or recovery vehicle or any other kind of support may not necessarily be around or be incapacitated itself.
No.4663
I feel like officers were unprared for static warfare like in Ukraine. All those hours wasted larping mobile warfare in exercises thinking you can apply Afghanistan experiences in a real war between developed nations.
No.4667
THOSE AMERICAN TANKS ARE SO FLAT THEY LOOK MORE LIKE SURFBOARDS…
HAVE FUN WITH YOUR BEST USA SOLDIERS ALL BEING MARRIED TO I.E.D.'S IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAK, WHILE VIETNAMESE CARRIED OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS…
No.4692
An anon recently stated that Russian tanks get stuck in mud just as easily as Western tanks and that it's barely any different. This comes after the PR disaster of the Challenger 2 in Ukraine getting stuck in mud during training.
The ORIGINAL T-72 had 18.8 hp/tonne compared to the original Chally 2's 18.7
The current Chally 2 modification has 16 HP/tonne.
The T-72Bs newer engine in 1985 gave it 19 Hp/ton outright and later 21 HP/ton as the engine was continually upgraded.
Moreover Ground Pressure matters. The T-72 and T-72B have 0,83—0,87 kg/cm2 while the Chally has a ground pressure of 0.98-1.12 kg/cm2.
The T-90 and T-80 are even funnier, going by the T-90MS (as the stats for the original T-90 in terms of mobility are roughly the same as the T-72B3M) the hp per ton is 24, and ground pressure 0.97 kg/cm2. Still less than the original Chally 2 and far less than the current one in use. The T-80BVM has a HP/ton currently of 27 hp/ton and with the new 1500HP Turbine currently being developed, it's going to go into the 30s. Its ground pressure is 0.84 kg/cm2. The older T-80s had a 1000HP turbine but they were also lighter than the BVM modification so their hp/ton and ground pressure was roughly the same.
Oh and of course weight matters. All of the Soviet tanks weigh 1/2 to 2/3 as much as the Challenger II and can quite easily ride through the mud. The heaviest is the T-90M and it's still far below any Western MBT in terms of weight
When this was brought up the following was part of the response
>they're heavily relying on fast IFV and even chinese desertcross buggies because tanks are too slow in mud and get targeted by suicide drones more often, even if they don't get stuck.
This is blatantly untrue, video 2 and 3 related demonstrate that Tank/IFV charges and maneuvers are actively used when it is tactically appropriate, even in open areas. Losses will obviously happen, but that's how war goes, and the overall results speak for themselves
No.4794
>>4783Good overall, but you oversold as you said the autoloader was hard to hit from any angle. It is rather easy to hit from the side, angled from above and through the turret roof, as countless times demonstrated in Ukraine and Syria before. The autoloader carousel covers a large area additional to the other ammo storages from a side view and sitting lower in the hull is relevant for direct fire, but not as much for loitering munitions and suicide drones.
No.4795
>>4794It's not easy to hit and all your examples are not of the autoloader being directly impacted, because that's an instant detonation, of which I've seen one example in Ukraine, when a T-90M was hit directly by a mine from beneath.
Everything else is an example of other, hull ammunition being hit (mostly earlier in the war when hull ammo was being carried) and in general demonstrated fires spreading to the ammunition compartment after penetration and detonation of the attacking warheads, which is equivalent to a house set on fire, detonating the natural gas lines after the fire reaches them, as compared to literally setting fire to the gas-line from the start.
So, again not easy to hit. Furthermore even accepting your statement its easy to hit; the point was that a manual loader is even EASIER to hit. And as the Leopard II, Abrams and Challenger have proven in this war, their method of ammunition storage is in no better, even the Abrams bustle failed to protect properly.
No.4819
>>4517Found an interview of the crew that killed the first Abrams.
>"Два года ехал, 20 минут воевал" <(the abrams) Was coming for 2 years, and fought for 20 minutes Roasted
The channel is Комсомольская Правда a communist group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dVeQxivtlc No.4821
Cute Russian girl talks about the BMP-3
>Эх, тебе бы детей рожать да борщи варить… Куда полезла на броню, рыжая?! #izmetro #изметро #бмп ИЗ МЕТРО
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxX8vQwrDSY No.4865
Recently a video appeared of a BMP-2M belonging to the Pskov Paratroopers crossing a field and taking a ton of hits; 2 FPV drone strikes, a hit from an RPG and a barrage of cluster munitions. More than likely some small-arms fire too. The only injuries was the commander getting concussed.
The BMP 1 and 2, despite obviously having units destroyed in combat due to the heavy combat environment and already old vehicles, have demonstrated themselves as survivable and good vehicles for their purpose despite armchair mockery. Another BMP-2M earlier in the war was hit by multiple RPGs of different types (AT-4, RPG-7, etc.) after being immobilized by an ATGM. This situation is seen from both Russian drone footage and from body-cam footage from an early Civ Div video, (the one where he and his unit commit war-crimes by killing a surrendering enemy after offering surrender).
https://topwar.ru/209965-pojavilos-arhivnoe-video-poslednego-boja-jekipazha-i-desanta-rossijskoj-bmp-2m-pri-othode-s-harkovskogo-napravlenija.htmlAnother BMP took a hit from a Javelin missile while evacuating the crew of another BMP. Despite the smoke, it continued to fired back and successfully evacuated, completing its mission. (vid 2)
No.4874
>>4506>>4517Honestly I think I've undersold the importance of the M1150 being taken out and now captured. Russia's Soviet mine-clearing vehicles are certainly effective, but the M1150 is actually a pretty damn good mine-clearer, with line-charges on top of having regular mine-rollers, dozers and EM-detonators installed. Very few were made relative to the USA's tank forces, and very few were used, so Ukraine's version were likely not too far from the current US standards. Russia not only took one out but captured it, which means they can actively study the vehicle and improve their own mine-clearing vehicles, which is important given just how impactful mine-fields have been in this war.
https://southfront.press/russian-army-captures-u-s-made-assault-breacher-vehicle-near-avdeevka-video-photos/ https://www.militarytoday.com/engineering/abv.htm Russia also captured an older mine clearer based on the M-60 Patton; the M88A1
https://southfront.press/russian-army-captures-another-american-engineering-vehicle-from-kiev-forces-photos/ No.4883
Spain is planning on sending its retired M60A3 TTS tanks to Ukraine. Even the Spanish media think the tanks are too old to be useful for Ukraine.
https://topwar.ru/240848-vsu-mogut-byt-peredany-ispanskie-tanki-m-60.html For some context the M-60 is the contemporary of the T-62 and fulfilled the same stop-gap role that the T-62 did for the Soviet Army, in providing a more modern tank to replace the M-48 (and T-55 in the T-62's case) until the next generation of tanks could be fully developed. While the T-62 was replaced by the T-72 and T-64 a few years later, the MBT-70 program was a resounding failure, and the M-60 remained the USA's primary tank into the 80s, with the Abrams only replacing it by the mid-late 80s.
The M-60 was upgraded several times (not always successfully, as seen in the M-60A2) but generally managed to improve itself. However the base tank remains mostly unchanged and it's honestly weak as fuck. Despite efforts, the M-60 lacks ANY composite armor, it's pure RHA steel and fairly thin and mediocrely angled, the Soviets, who actually captured a M60A1 found the mantlet (the thickest armor on the entire fucking tank) to be badly armored. In the same time-period, despite the T-72 completely replacing theM-60 very early, the USSR still upgraded the tanks as a reserve force into the T-62M and T-62AM variants and other upgrades. besides side-skirts, a large layer of composite armor was placed on the frontal glacis, creating an effective thickness of over 400mm for the T-62, over double the effective thickness prior and immune to the M60's 105mm ammunition, the same applied to the Turret, and on top of that Kontakt-1 ERA which made the T-62 upgrades have the effective protection level comparable to the T-72A.
The T-62s 115mm canon could penetrate almost every part of the M-60 from a larger distance than the M-60 could penetrate the T-62, in part due to the effective APFSDS and later the cannon-fired ATGMs which had no problem penetrating the M-60s RHA, and the T-55s later 100mm anti-tank ammunition managed to equalize damage output with the M-60, despite being older. The HESH ammo of the M68 gun was useless against any composite armor tanks and barely useful even against the T-55 since the thick internal CBRN lining of Soviet tanks acted as a spall liner too.
The only real upgrade to the M-60s armor was the mounting of ERA in later M-60A3s but that only came in the 80s and Blazer ERA wasn't effective against any 125mm round from the start. By the time it became widely used, the 115mm guns of the T-62 had received anti-tank rounds of much higher penetration than they had before, essentially negating progress made. In essence the tank, while a reliable work-horse and useful in a fire-support role against lightly-armed forces, it's weak in tank to tank battles, and even weaker against ATGMs, strike-aircraft and most certainly will be weak to drones.
So yeah the M-60 will be a death-trap in Ukraine.
No.4884
>>4179>People have been 'burying' the concept of tanks since the days of the RPG-7 To continue this relative to drones:
>it's no exaggeration to say MBT doctrine was killed by dronesThis untrue: Drones aren't very much different from CAS and artillery; raining explosives from above and tanks were still relevant even with them around since the beginning. This idea the MBT doctrine is killed comes from some strange concept that tanks only work when unbeatable or something, when a tank is essentially a jack of all trades AFV meant for several roles, at least Soviet MBTs, American ones today lack the ammunition types for it.
- Self-Propelled Artillery: 125mm HE-F flies up to 12km and new optics make it extremely accurate, a T-80BVM hit an AFV with indirect fire using guidance from a drone.
>>4540 - Anti-armor: 125mm HEAT, APFSDS and TGM's will take out any armor up to an equivalent tank opponent.
- Infantry Fire Support: Close range, mobile artillery, such as firing at enemy forces in a bunker or building.
And so on. It's not invincible but it can take more hits than anything else and has some of the hardest hitting weapons at the moment. We see a lot of footage of tanks getting blown up, but the fact is, most unsuccessful hits aren't published, it takes more than one hit to take out most tanks unless you get lucky or the tank is shit. The Leopard-II has garbage roof armor, which is how a non-HEAT drone fucking demolished one by caving in the turret's top. A T-72's turret getting the same impact would survive without significant damage.
Western MBTs are much less suited for this, they're too large and unmodular. More importantly they lack proper HE-Frag. HESH is only good against light armor and bunkers and as a much slower shell, is not the best for accurate hits at range, on the move, against a moving target like an APC. The canister rounds like the M1028 is a deadly anti-infantry round, but only at close ranges and is useless against targets hiding behind even a decently thick wall, or in a trench. The M-PT which is derived from HEAT warheads are not meant for HE-Frag use. The M908 and its equivalents are similarly ill-suited for the role.
>Drones are several orders of magnitude more accurate They're not more accurate than a helicopter launched ATGM or a guided air-strike, or a GPS-guided artillery-shell, and they don't have nearly the explosive power of any of those, not without growing in size to the point where they are miniature air-craft that are much easier to target.
>This is without even mentioning their ancillary benefits like how they improve battlefield situational awareness [Note: this is speaking relative to anti-tank operations]. Which includes the awareness of tanks too, as has already been done in Ukraine. Furthermore an automated roof-machine-gun with optic guidance to target drones isn't a large stretch either, the CROWS system is an attempt and the T-90M's 12.7mm Kord roof machine gun is projected to have this capability made automatic in the future.
No.4892
The T-55 gets slept on a lot because its so old by now and obviously not up to modern MBT standards. I think people forget just how groundbreakingly scary this tank was when it was introduced. Even in the T-54 variant that lacked CBRN protection and stabilizers, it was a formidable weapon capable of penetrating almost every Western tank at ranges far exceeding their own and having frontal armor specifically designed to be basically immune to 88mm Pak-43 guns even at close range, which meant that the 90mm tank guns of the Patton tanks and any caliber below it was useless. It's why the 105mm gun was introduced. That's just the T-54. The T-55 CBRN defended, had gun stabilizers and so on, and this is in spite of the fact that the T-55 is a Medium tank, not an Main Battle Tank. So it punched above its weight.
Even if it is no longer capable as a front-line tank, it still retains the roles of a tank, capable of smoking any other armored vehicle frontally and even being able to penetrate a more modern tank from the side with an ambush, as Iraqi export models did to American tanks. The 100mm gun has decent HE-Frag ammunition and it's high velocity means it has good range with it. The sturdy platform also makes it excellent for being a platform for just about anything else such as autocannon mounts.
The T-55M modifications in the 70s also boosted the protection and sight-systems of these tanks, resulting in a fairly well protected artillery vehicle. They're used as secondary attack forces by both sides, such as recently at Rabotyno
To this end, despite mockery in the media, even the Ukrainians are well aware of how useful it really is. It's why they accepted the M-55S and were trying to make modernizations of the T-55 prior to the war like the T-55ABM
https://topwar.ru/241286-jeto-kruto-ukrainskij-oficer-vysoko-ocenil-primenenie-vs-rf-sovetskih-tankov-t-55.html https://topcor.ru/33720-ukrainskie-analitiki-schitajut-chto-ne-stoit-nedoocenivat-tanki-t-55.htmlUnique IPs: 37