Modernizacija kuvajtskih M-84

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Puch ::Može li se za T-90S reči, da je zbog jačeg oklopa sa prednje strane neprobojan za APFSDS?

ne moze. zastita sa explozivno reaktivnim oklopom (ero) je na papiru najefikasnija, ali jako varira, jer pokrivenost nije 100 %, a s druge strane, ni u okviru jedne kasete zastita nije ravnomerna. na nekim mestima je adekvatna, na nekim ni iz daleka.

druga stvar je sto ne znamo koliko je poslednja generacija apfsds projektila osetljiva na ero, mislim na m829a3, koji je posebno "ojacan" za ovakva dejstva vecim precnikom penetratora.

Dopuna: 21 Jan 2011 9:05

@Leonardo

t90 je t72bm sa novom oznakom. odnosno, t72b sa kontakt 5 ero. t90s je nesto drugo - ima novu varenu kupolu i sve sto s tim ide - pre svega bolji oklop. drugaciji je i oklop na trupu u odnosu na t72, pre svega rane verzije. t90 je najbolji primer kako se modernizacijom moze dobiti bolji tenk. doduse, masa jeste povecana, ali je oklop povecan nesrazmerno. stavise, vecina t90 ima motor 840 ks, m84ab 1000 ks, iako je laksi par tona od t90. otud veca pokretljivost, a uticaj ima i opterecenje na tlo. za pustinju bih pre uzeo t90, narocito s.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

sebab ::
@Leonardo

t90 je t72bm sa novom oznakom. odnosno, t72b sa kontakt 5 ero. t90s je nesto drugo - ima novu varenu kupolu i sve sto s tim ide - pre svega bolji oklop. drugaciji je i oklop na trupu u odnosu na t72, pre svega rane verzije. t90 je najbolji primer kako se modernizacijom moze dobiti bolji tenk. doduse, masa jeste povecana, ali je oklop povecan nesrazmerno. stavise, vecina t90 ima motor 840 ks, m84ab 1000 ks, iako je laksi par tona od t90. otud veca pokretljivost, a uticaj ima i opterecenje na tlo. za pustinju bih pre uzeo t90, narocito s.

T-90S je valjda eksportna dezignacija, a onaj sa varenom kupolom je T-90A, a najnoviji je T-90M. Samo prve verzije T-90 za Rusiju su imale stari motor od 840ks, verzije za Indiju i novije, teze, A modele su sa motorima od 1000ks, a M model ima motor od 1250ks.

miodrag2 ::Ako imas dva tenka sa istim motorima , gde jedan ima bolju oklopnu zastitu i tezi je , dok drugi ima slabiju oklopnu zastitu i laksi je , koji ce od ta dva biti pokretljiviji ?
Zakljucak donesite sami .

Samo sto za te teze T-90 verzije kao sto su A i M se nude i sa jacim motorima do 1250 ks. Inace, 3-5km/h manje ili vise ti ne pomaze nista i savremeni SUV ce te pogoditi bez razlike, jaci oklop ti dosta vise pomaze od te (teoretske, a realno ne postojece) minimalno bolje pokretljivosti. Bar je to moje misljenje, ja bi pre sedeo u T-90M (kod kojeg je kako izgleda municija koja nije u punjacu izmestena iz unutrasnjosti tenka u dodatni, oklopljeni deo iza kupole) nego u M-84AS.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Nemoj zaboraviti i samu kvalitetu gusjenica. M84 ih je dobijao iz njemacke. Bas se pitam zasto (bila neka vjezba sa abramsima po nekim krsnim krajevima, cini mi se lijepe nase, a gusjenice abramsa se "potrosile"). A one imaju sa ukupnom masom tenka i snagom motora (kwh po toni) najveci utjecaj na prohodnost. Neki od najvaznijih karakteristika je naravno masa po kvadratu opterecene povrsine. Znaci: sto sira gusjenica, manja opterecenost tla pri istoj masi tenka. Iako to ima svoje granice, naravno. Nemozes uzeti gusjenicu beskonacno siroku. Nigdje nisam naisao (ili sam previdio) na podatak na ovom forumu o uporedoj sirini gusjenice / gusjenica u odnosu na sveukupnu masu (recimo praznog) tenka i njen utjecaj na prohodnost istog. Pa jos kad bi bila koja usporedba - ih! Recimo zapadnjaci "protiv" istocnjaka. Takodjer zanimljiv pristup ovoj tematici su ruski tenkovi sa tri gusjenice.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

@mare

ovi tvrde da je 840 ks, a spominje se t-90 i t-90s. kasnije su rusi ponudili 1000 ks:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

konkretno koji tenk kog korisnika ima koji motor, tesko je reci. ja sam mislio i na prohodnost zbog vece mase, ali bih uvek pre uzeo tenk sa bolji oklopom i povoljnijim rapsoredom municije i tu se slazem s tobom.

@IVAN

zaporeklo gusenica ne znam, niti za tu vezbu u hrvatskoj, nikad cuo.

vek gusenica je jako bitan, to je cinjenica, ali specifican pritisak na tlo nije presudan za prohodnost po losem terenu. veliku ulogu igra i korak gusenice, precnik i broj tockova.




obrati paznju na onu kolonu mmp i uporedi brojke. vidi se da je challenger ocajan, t55/72 i recimo leo 2 i abrams tu negde, samo sto je na m1a2 i leo2a5/6, kao i t90 masa otisla dosta gore.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

sebab ::
@IVAN

zaporeklo gusenica ne znam, niti za tu vezbu u hrvatskoj, nikad cuo.

vek gusenica je jako bitan, to je cinjenica, ali specifican pritisak na tlo nije presudan za prohodnost po losem terenu. veliku ulogu igra i korak gusenice, precnik i broj tockova.




obrati paznju na onu kolonu mmp i uporedi brojke. vidi se da je challenger ocajan, t55/72 i recimo leo 2 i abrams tu negde, samo sto je na m1a2 i leo2a5/6, kao i t90 masa otisla dosta gore.

A sta mislis na koju povrsinu se odnosi ono KN/m na kvadrat?

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Niti gusjenice m84 dolaze iz njemačke, niti su se gusjenice abramsa na slunjskom poligonu istrošile...

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

to je samo jedinica. procitaj text:

"On the whole, NGP has proved useful as a measure of the ability of tanks to move over soft soils and in particular for assessing their relative capabilities. Thus, tanks with a low NGP have generally performed better over soft soils than similar tanks with a high NGP. However, NGP is no more than a gross approximation to the pressure exerted by tanks on the ground and fails to take into account the fact that the pressure varies along the length of the track. In particular, it fails to take into account that peaks of the pressure, which occur under the road wheels, can be considerably higher than its average value.

The variation in pressure was relatively small in the case of the original tanks as their tracks were almost rigid but as tracks became more flexible and the small unsprung rollers were replaced by large, sprung road wheels the variation became considerable. NGP provided no indication of this and yet it is the peak values of the pressure rather than its average which governs sinkage and therefore the performance of tanks on soft soils. As a result, NGP failed to provide a correct measure of the relative performance capabilities of vehicles which had similar values of it but differed in the number of road wheels and in track pitch and which, because of this, had different peak pressures.

The fact that ground pressure varies along the track was recognised in Britain even before the Second World War, when it was suggested that its maxima under the road wheels might be equal to two to four times its average value and that NGP can be misleading (14.6). The truth of this was demonstrated a little later by experiments carried out in the Soviet Union in which the NGP was kept constant and the skinkage was shown to vary with the number of the road wheels, decreasing as their number increased (14.7).

Other experiments, carried out in Britain towards the end of the Second World War and afterwards, demonstrated further the shortcoming of NGP and the importance of the peak pressures. One of the most telling of them involved a Churchill tank which had the number of its road wheels reduced from eleven to seven per side. This increased the average of the peak pressures under its tracks by 80 per cent and more than doubled their sinkage, in spite of the fact that the NGP remained unchanged. In another experiment with a Cromwell tank the pitch of the track links was doubled and this reduced the average of the peak pressures by 29 per cent and the sinkage by 33 per cent although, once again, the NGP remained unchanged.

Physical reasoning leads to the conclusion that the maximum pressure under a track Pmax must be directly related to the weight acting on each of the road wheels and inversely related to the width of the track, the pitch of its links and the diameter of the road wheels, or that,




where

W = weight of vehicle, kN
n = number of road wheels per side
b = width of track, m
p = pitch of track links, m
d = diameter of road wheels, m

Such an expression was derived by D Rowland who correlated it with pressures recorded during the experiments carried out in Britain with some 21 different tanks and other tracked vehicles, mostly in cohesive soils. This produced the following equation for the mean maximum pressure, or MMP, the mean value of the maxima of the pressure under the tracks:




where c is the ratio of the actual plan area of a track link to the product of p and b (14..

Rowland proposed that MMP should replace NGP as a design parameter and be used as the basis of comparing the soft soil performance capabilities of vehicles. This has happened to some extent since the use of MMP was first proposed in 1972 and comparisons of the values of it calculated using equation 14.2 with known records of the performance of a number of tanks have shown that it is a far more accurate measure of their capabilities than NGP. For instance, the NGP of 84.9 kN/m2 of the German Panther of the Second World War and the 94.6 kN/m2 of the contemporary US M4 medium tanks did not reflect how superior the performance of the former was generally considered to be in relation to that of the latter. But their respective MMPs of 157 and 272 kN/m2 reflect this very clearly.

An even better example of the superiority of MMP over NGP as a measure of the capabilities of tanks is provided by the British Matilda infantry tank which had a higher NGP than any other tank used during the Second World War and which might have been expected therefore to perform badly on soft soils. In fact it was never seriously criticised on account of its soft soil performance, in spite of being used not only in Europe and East and North Africa but also, by the Australian Army, in New Guinea and other Pacific islands. The underlying reason for this apparent paradox was that, although the NGP of the Matilda was as high as 112.4 kN/m2, its MMP was only 252 kN/m2, according to equation 14.2, which was no higher than that of many other tanks. On the other hand, the contemporary British Covenanter tank was criticised for its performance over soft soils although its NGP of 102 kN/m2 was lower than that of the Matilda. But the criticism can be easily accounted for by its MMP, which was no less than 390 kN/m2 and as high therefore as that of some wheeled armoured vehicles.

To minimise their MMP, tanks should obviously have the maximum possible number of road wheels and, therefore, wheels of small rather than large diameter. They should also have long pitch tracks. But this clashes with other requirements, which makes compromises inevitable. The actual values of MMP of recently produced battle tanks range from 206 kN/m2 of the US M60A1 to 285 kN/m2 of the heaviest, the British Challenger, while those of light tanks and armoured carriers are generally below 200 kN/m2 and as low as 101 kN/m2 in the case of the Scorpion light tank.

MMP varies with the weight of tanks like their NGP. The MMP of wheeled armoured vehicles also varies with their weight like their NGP and the pattern of the difference between the MMP of tracked and wheeled vehicles is much the same as that of the NGP illustrated in Fig. 14.4. However, MMP allows the two types of vehicles to be compared more accurately than NGP.

On cohesive, clay soils, to which equation 14.2 applies, the MMP of recently built tanks is equal to between 2.3 and 3.0 times their NGP. This relatively fixed relationship between it and NGP indicates that there is generally little difference between the running gear of tanks and that NGP can be used to compare their soft soil capabilities with almost the same accuracy as MMP. However, MMP remains fundamentally the more accurate basis of comparisons and can bring out the influence of design details which NGP can not do.




On other soils the ratios of MMP to NGP are different from those on cohesive, clay soils because MMP varies with the strength of the soil and its values differ in consequence from those given by equation 14.2. In fact, on very firm soils MMP tends towards the pressure over the face of track pads when the load on a road wheel is transferred on to a single track link, while on exceptionally soft soils it tends in value towards the NGP. But the variation of MMP with the type of soil does not alter its usefulness as a measure of the relative soft soil capabilities of tanks.

As in the case of NGP, MMP can be used not only for comparing the capabilities of vehicles over a particular type of soil but also for assessing their ability to operate over different types of soils by associating the latter with particular values of it. Thus, an MMP of 200 kN/m2 based on equation 14.2 has been suggested by Rowland as the maximum that vehicles should have for satisfactory operation on wet, fine-grained, i.e. clay, soils in temperate zones and 140 kN/m2 for operation on similar soils in tropical zones (14.9).

Rowland also correlated MMP with the strength of soils, characterised by means of cone penetrometers, that will only just allow vehicles to pass over them and this is dealt with in the following section."

Dopuna: 21 Jan 2011 12:17

jos jedna slika:

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

sebab ::@mare

ovi tvrde da je 840 ks, a spominje se t-90 i t-90s. kasnije su rusi ponudili 1000 ks:

Pa kao sto rekoh, T-90S je samo eksportna dezignacija za obicni T-90, tj onaj nabudzeni T-72. Ja sam naisao na podatke da za indijske T-90 koriste motore od 1000ks. No, nebitno je to sad dali ovaj ili onaj ima ovaj ili onaj motor, stvar je da tezi T-90 imaju jace masine koje im osiguravaju isti nivo pokretljivosti i sa vecom masom, dok znatno uvecavaju oklop i sanse za prezivljavanje samog tenka i posade, dok kod M-84 vrednost pokretljivosti ispadne ista kao i da ubacis motor od 1500ks u T-55...i to ga nebi napravilo boljem tenkom na danasnjem bojistu.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

ne zavisi pokretljivost samo od odnosa snaga/masa. hodni deo je ostao isti,pa se ocekuje manja prohodnost na mekom terenu. parametar mmp je jako bitan, procitaj text koji sam poslao.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

mareCar ::T-90S je valjda eksportna dezignacija, a onaj sa varenom kupolom je T-90A, a najnoviji je T-90M. Samo prve verzije T-90 za Rusiju su imale stari motor od 840ks, verzije za Indiju i novije, teze, A modele su sa motorima od 1000ks, a M model ima motor od 1250ks.

Jel može oznaka ruskog tenkovskog dizel motora od 1250 KS?

Ono što rusi ugrađuju u tenk a ima 1250 KS je gasna turbina GTD-1250 na tenku T-80U. T-90 je opremljen dizel motorom V-92S2 koji ima 1000 KS.

http://chtz-uraltrac.ru/catalog/items/19.php

http://www.vkms.ru/production_ru.shtml#5