Iraqis testing out top secret Russian Turret Ejection System
Posted: 2003-04-06 07:16am
This is intended to increase the survivability of their T-series tanks.
This is intended to increase the survivability of their T-series tanks.
StarDestroyer.Net BBS
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Iraqis testing out top secret Russian Turret Ejection System
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16946
Page 1 of 1
This is intended to increase the survivability of their T-series tanks.
Posted: 2003-04-06 07:35am
I saw a T-55 (at least I think it was) get hit today and the turret must've flown 20-30ft into the air 
Posted: 2003-04-06 07:58am
Shep, while a cool pic, it doesn't have much to do with Politics, so I'm putting it in Off-Topic. Or perhaps it belongs in A&P. Anyways. 
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:36am
I bet they'll sell them cheap after the war is over.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:46am
I don't think there'll be any left to sellCpt_Frank wrote:I bet they'll sell them cheap after the war is over.
- besides, Iraq wouldn't be able to afford anything else, and quite frankly, the quality of the equipment isn't Iraq's problem. Their troop quality sucks more than their equipment ever will. Iraqi tankers are incredibly inaccurate. Put Iraqi tankers in an M1A1 and US tankers in a T-72M, and I think you wouldn't see the Iraqis doing that much better.The Iraqis would be living longer and inflicting more losses on the enemy if they had bought this T-72 upgrade package though:
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/uploads/Jim+War ... 003_02.jpg
Because right now Iraq's T-72s suck. Mechanical, 1960s era fire control, the very earliest 125mm main gun models that just plain suck compared to the modern versions, thin armor, and awful ammunition.
So even the export versions of the T-72 (T-72M and T-72M1) still have a lot of life left in them- and it's cheaper than buying a new tank park. A lot of Iraqi T-72s are T-72M (the export version of the very first T-72) rather than T-72M1 (export version of T-72A)- but I don't see why this upgrade couldn't apply to the T-72M.New upgrade package for Russian tank
By Christopher F Foss
The Russian T-72M1 main battle tank is deployed by a large number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, but many of these were supplied more than 20 years ago and are in need of a major upgrade.
The Ural Design Office of Transport Mechanical Engineering is the original design authority for the T-72M1 and, in association with the Uralvagonzavod production facility, has developed a major upgrade package for the T-72M1.
This upgraded T-72M1 is the only tank taking part in the mobility exhibition at IDEX 2003. So far, two company funded prototypes of the upgraded T-72M1 have been completed. The one retained in Russia has been fitted with the advanced Arena active defensive aids system.
The T-72M1 tank has been upgraded in three key areas - armour, mobility and firepower. For improved battlefield survivability, the vehicle has been fitted with the latest explosive reactive armour system over the frontal arc. The new smoke grenade launcher system is coupled to laser detectors situated around the turret.
An electromagnetic protection system has been installed to activate magnetic mines before they come into contact with the vehicle. The T-72M1 also has a new NBC system and a new fire detection and suppression system.
The original engine has been replaced by a B-92C2 V-12 diesel developing 1,000hp, which improves top speed and acceleration. A new automatic gear shifting system has been installed to reduce driver fatigue.
Firepower is enhanced by the installation of the latest 125mm 2A46M gun, which can fire the newest family of ammunition as well as a laser-guided projectile with a maximum range of 5km. A new fire control system is fitted. The commander and gunner have stabilised sights and the gunner's sight has a thermal channel. A thermal automatic target tracking system is also fitted.
The roof-mounted 12.7mm machine gun can now be fired by remote control by the commander from within the turret. A satellite navigation system has been installed, as have a new communications system and tank interphone.
The design of the upgrade is modular so that the customer can select only the part of the upgrade package that meets his operational requirements, or more likely, funding constraints.
A number of other countries around the world offer upgrades for the T-72 tank, but Russia is determined to capture a major slice of this lucrative market.
But their crews would still suck ass.
Posted: 2003-04-06 10:53am
Ah well I guess I'll have to settle with our local NVA-T-54s thenVympel wrote:I don't think there'll be any left to sellCpt_Frank wrote:I bet they'll sell them cheap after the war is over.
Hmm ERA.....The Iraqis would be living longer and inflicting more losses on the enemy if they had bought this T-72 upgrade package though:
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/uploads/Jim+War ... 003_02.jpg
Because right now Iraq's T-72s suck. Mechanical, 1960s era fire control, the very earliest 125mm main gun models that just plain suck compared to the modern versions, thin armor, and awful ammunition.
(It's good that the Iraqis don't have the upgrades though.)
Posted: 2003-04-06 08:25pm
From what I understand, many Russian tanks of that time period were woefully underpowered and sluggish due to lack of a decent engine.The original engine has been replaced by a B-92C2 V-12 diesel developing 1,000hp, which improves top speed and acceleration. A new automatic gear shifting system has been installed to reduce driver fatigue
Posted: 2003-04-06 08:37pm
This was just ASKING for something like this to happen:
Posted: 2003-04-06 08:44pm
Those civilians look scared.
Posted: 2003-04-06 08:45pm
Nice one, Nathan.
Posted: 2003-04-06 08:52pm
If they had the money for those upgrades, then they'd probably have the money for decent training.Vympel wrote: But their crews would still suck ass.
Its not as if an Iraqi tankist is inheritly worse than an American or British tankist.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:02pm
!!! What happened to the crew? And I know it is unlikely for the bodies to be removed if it was shot by DU shells. Don't see any remains.Did this model have an autoloader? I heard this happens when the round in the autoloader goes off.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:06pm
Reminds me of an old story. A grandfather asks his grandson who's returned from the war in Chechnya what he's learned. The Grandson replies he learned a tank turret can fly ten meters.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:11pm
If your going to fight a modern enemy, its questionable if upgrading and early T-72 with more then light ERA has a point.Vympel wrote:
So even the export versions of the T-72 (T-72M and T-72M1) still have a lot of life left in them- and it's cheaper than buying a new tank park. A lot of Iraqi T-72s are T-72M (the export version of the very first T-72) rather than T-72M1 (export version of T-72A)- but I don't see why this upgrade couldn't apply to the T-72M.
But their crews would still suck ass.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:15pm
Are they conscripts? Conscripts are generally not as dedicated.Howedar wrote:Its not as if an Iraqi tankist is inheritly worse than an American or British tankist.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:16pm
Dead in many small pieces no doubt. It was more likely blown up with a missile or HEAT shell, a sabot would go through the tank, out the back into go on to destroy one behind it, or morel likely hit a house full of civilians.Pu-239 wrote:
Did this model have an autoloader? I heard this happens when the round in the autoloader goes off.
I can't tell the exact model, T-55 or T-62. No auto loader, but the ammo is very exposed anyway. Russian tanks have tended to have there turrets blown off in combat since the 1960's, but only with there more recent designs has Russia done anything about it by adding a seperate ammo compartment.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:23pm
Almost the whole Iraqi army is conscripts.Darth Wong wrote:Are they conscripts? Conscripts are generally not as dedicated.Howedar wrote:Its not as if an Iraqi tankist is inheritly worse than an American or British tankist.
But you can have dedicated well trained conscripts, the Israel Army for example in peace time has 16000 regulars and 88,000 conscripts yet is one of the worlds best. In wartime the disparity is even greater. I the troops have something to fight for, as they generally do in a democracy, there reason for being in service doesn't do that much to there performance. Germany, the ROK and many other armies including just about all of NATO have all produced effective troops from conscription.
However regulars are generally better for a great many reasons.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:26pm
It's a T-72 IMO. Look at the main gun. The 100/115mm don't look like that- thermal sleeve gives it away.Sea Skimmer wrote:Dead in many small pieces no doubt. It was more likely blown up with a missile or HEAT shell, a sabot would go through the tank, out the back into go on to destroy one behind it, or morel likely hit a house full of civilians.Pu-239 wrote:
Did this model have an autoloader? I heard this happens when the round in the autoloader goes off.
I can't tell the exact model, T-55 or T-62. No auto loader, but the ammo is very exposed anyway. Russian tanks have tended to have there turrets blown off in combat since the 1960's, but only with there more recent designs has Russia done anything about it by adding a seperate ammo compartment.
Why not? The heavy ERA can still defeat penetrators, and the modern fire control actually allows them to fire backIf your going to fight a modern enemy, its questionable if upgrading and early T-72 with more then light ERA has a point.
Not really. A T-72 has an 840hp engine and weighs around 47 tons. An M1A1 has a 1,500hp engine, but weighs nearly 70 tons. The M1A1 still has a greater power-to-weight ratio, but not by any significant margin. Of course, the 1,000hp engine gives the T-72 (and T-90, which the engine is also mounted on) virtually the same power-to-weight ratio over the M1. The T-80U has the M1 beat though, because it weighs less and has a 1,250hp gas turbine engine. Now however, you have supercharged diesels that can put out the same hp for less fuel consumption. The next Russian tank will probably have a 1,200hp diesel.From what I understand, many Russian tanks of that time period were woefully underpowered and sluggish due to lack of a decent engine.
Posted: 2003-04-06 09:34pm
I thought Iraq upgraded a bunch of its T-55's and T-62's with thermal sleeves? The turret mantel is probably the best spot to make an ID on. Right now it can't tell. I'm almost thinking it’s a Chieftain but I doubt itVympel wrote:
It's a T-72 IMO. Look at the main gun. The 100/115mm don't look like that- thermal sleeve gives it away.
Money. Modern fire control and heavy ERA are very expensive, while anyone can build there own light ERA easily. I'd buy some nice modern misiles to shoot back with, much better to kill the target then be happy to see my T-72 get a first round hit and have the shell bounce off.Why not? The heavy ERA can still defeat penetrators, and the modern fire control actually allows them to fire back
Posted: 2003-04-07 12:14am
It is highly possible there weren't any crew in it. They have found multiple tanks abandoned, so they simply stuck some C4 on them and blew them to kingdom come.
Posted: 2003-04-07 03:37pm
IIRC, most of Iraq's army are conscripts. The Republican guard has more volunteers. It explains their greater loyalty to the regime, even when you ignore all the perks and preferential treatment they get.Darth Wong wrote:Are they conscripts? Conscripts are generally not as dedicated.Howedar wrote:Its not as if an Iraqi tankist is inheritly worse than an American or British tankist.
Posted: 2003-04-07 07:23pm
Reminds me of a flip-top coke...
The Flip-Top Tank!!
Or something...
The Flip-Top Tank!!
Or something...