Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Firepower vs Protection vs Mobility

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Zhukov_2005, Aug 30, 2005.

  1. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Is it me, or does that look remarkably like the Abbot?

    [​IMG]

    What is it called? What gun does it have?

    btw - I will try and dig up some info on the Zulfiqar III tonight...

    Edit - no I won't. I checked at lunchtime, and my book don't include it! :angry: )
     
  2. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    That is quite surprising, I stand corrected. I always heard they relied heavily on foreign parts to maintain there forces, but may have been some years ago. This does make sense, as one of the major reasons Iran did not take Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was because of a shortage of spare parts for their foreign made tanks. They must have learned from that, more power to them.

    I am not one to underestimate the Iranians, they are a tough army, with or without a domestic war industry.

    Ricky, the gun on that Iranian piece is a 155mm, I believe anyways. It is a standard it seems for SP artillery.

    The Leclerc is definently the most beautiful MBT in service today, but I would say the T90 is a close runner up.
     
  3. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    I imagine that if a tank was built with out a turret ( like the Swedish Stridsvagn 103) the reduced weight of the absent turrent could be used towards adding more armor while keeping the mobility roughly the same.

    This could be a step towards mastering the 3 aspects, but I know how much people disagree with the design of a tank with no turret. The Stridsvagn 103 can turn faster than most tank turrets, but with only a 105mm gun its firepower is severly lacking.
     
  4. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    + it can't fire on the move, imo one of more reasons why it won't come even near mastering or have a good mix of the 3 main aspects :lol:
     
  5. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    plus it requires greater co-ordination between the commander, gunner & driver to simply fire at a target than is usual / practical.
     
  6. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The Iranian vehicles (and aircraft that they manufacture) are all based on existing equipment (as far as the available information shows).
    There is no evidence that they have an industry currently capable of developing a completely new design. Even their much touted new helicopter turned out to a rework of some old Huey Cobras.
    The idea that an S Tank-like vehicle cannot fire on the move is correct, I believe Sven Berge (the "Father of the S) had a "limited" capability designed in. The Germans, much later ,had a concept design which carried TWO main guns fixed in the hull, and somewhere on the net are photos of the test shoots, both guns are fired, within seconds of each other (both muzzle blasts can be seen in the photo), at different targets, after "jinking".
    Not only does making a design turretless reduce weight, it reduces height (hit probability on target is more dependant upon target height than width, ie a short wide target is harder to hit than a narrow tall one), it reduces costs (no turret bearings for one thing), it reduces structural weak points (no large circular hole in the hull top), and it makes it possible to mount a larger gun since the recoil force is carried directly into the hull, rather than through the turret ring, so that you can have a "same size vehicle with a larger gun" or "smaller vehicle with a same size gun".
    And AFAIK the S Tank's 105 had increased barrel length and muzzle velocity.
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    On the Zulfiqar:

    This site http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lfiqar.htm has the usual 'the Zulfiqar is cobbled together from M-60 & T-72 tanks' blurb, and then pictures of the Zulfiqar I, II & III tanks. (scroll down to the bottom of the page)

    There is a very clear design link between then all. Same (in external appearance, at least) suspension, and the II & III share the same hull profile, and most of the same turret shape.
    The Zulfiqar III appears to simply be an upgraded II, as the II was simply an upgraded I.

    As an amusing sidelight, on this forum there is an amusing discussion about whether the Zulfiqar III is actually a captured American M1! :grin:
     
  8. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    ''This site http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lfiqar.htm has the usual 'the Zulfiqar is cobbled together from M-60 & T-72 tanks' blurb, and then pictures of the Zulfiqar I, II & III tanks. (scroll down to the bottom of the page)''

    For the original design (I) they used some components from the T-72 and M60, but I think that they learned alot from the first 2 designs and finally came out with a good tank te Zulfiqar 3.

    ''There is a very clear design link between then all. Same (in external appearance, at least) suspension, and the II & III share the same hull profile, and most of the same turret shape.
    The Zulfiqar III appears to simply be an upgraded II, as the II was simply an upgraded I.''


    It doesn't look like the first 2 at all, it got 7 roadwheels instead of 6, so I guess the suspension is not the same either, the hull looks different and the turret looks different...
     
  9. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Just beacause it doesn't look like the first two:- the M60-120S doesn't look like an M60, add-on external armour changes appearance radically, but I'm not disputing -3 is different from -1 and -2, I'm disputing that it's a viable mass production independant (as opposed to 2 parts T-72, 1 part T-55 (apparently some of the Zolfiqars use T-55 paower packs) and 2 parts M60) design.
    Number of roadwheels doesn't alter the suspension, all you do is lengthen the hull (or use two hulls to make one :lol: ) and put the torsion bar in the required place.
    By your logic M60A2 was nothing to do with M60A1 beacuse the turret is radically different, M60-120S is nothing to do with either, because both turret and hull look different.
    Zolfiqar is said to use components of existing vehicles - if the supply line is cut or they run out of those older vehicles then the Zolfiqar series is (IMHO) dead. Does Iran have the industrial capacity to manufacture
    large armour components (not easy)
    large castings
    the required electronics (nope beacuse they couldn't even maintain the F-14 and its systems properly)
    and a gazillion and one other things - a tank is more than a box on tracks,
    a gun is more than a tube that's open at one end, they both require massive industrial and technological know-how and I don't think Iran has either. They couldn't (or wouldn't) do it under the Shah when they were spending money left right and centre and I assume (dangerously) that under a "religious dictatorship" they won't have the know-how now.
    But, honestly, thanks for the discussion/ argument I'm going to do some real digging, 'cos now I've had an idea that ties in with Danyel's (I think it was him) game on designing a new tank, and possibly another topic - what is required in a nation to design and produce a new tank, and how many nations are capable of it (as opposed to finding it cheaper to buy abroad)
     
  10. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Zulfiqar uses a 1000hp engine wich is more than enoug for a 40 ton tank.
     
  11. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    That was because the tank was designed for defensive purposes, hence the fixed gun and exteremly low profile. I'm sure it is possible to install a system that lets the tank fire and move at the same time.

    Sweden still uses the tank, and is proud of it might I say, so it most be alright.
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    ?? the hull looks exactly the same on the -2 and -3 (to me, anyways :wink: )

    Yes. A large tank factory was opened there in the 1950s to produce the M47 tank for the Iranian army. I'm fairly sure that they will not have forgotten about it...

    I thought they'd stopped using them?
     
  13. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Indeed, Sweden doesn't use it anymore, to old/useless concept for there current goals.

    That was because the tank was designed for defensive purposes, hence the fixed gun and exteremly low profile. I'm sure it is possible to install a system that lets the tank fire and move at the same time.

    Its possible, but this means you have to make a whole new tank.
    Its impossible to fire on the move and hit your target with this thing.

    ?? the hull looks exactly the same on the -2 and -3 (to me, anyways)

    Zulfiqar 3:
     
  14. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Zulfiqar 1... (if that ain't a difference...)

    You can clearly see the Zulfiqar one is an upgraded M60 (hull) and the Zulfiqar 3 looks like an M1, it doesn't look like the first 2 models at all, its a completely new design and much newer also.
     
  15. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    yes, it is different to -1. I said it was the same as the -2.

    Here is a -2

    [​IMG]

    the turret is traversed to rear, but you can clearly see the line of the hull.
     
  16. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah, that also looks like the 3th one without te side skirts, so than I think the story on globalsecurity only counts for Zulfiqar 1.

    yes, it is different to -1. I said it was the same as the -2.

    You said that the hull looks exactly the same as -2 and -3 LOL :grin:

    ?? the hull looks exactly the same on the -2 and -3 (to me, anyways )

    Or maybe I misunderstood, I see it as this: The hull looks exactly the same as on the -2 and -3, but you obviously meant that the -2 and -3th look the same... :oops: I blame my bad english though :roll: :wink:
     
  17. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Sorry, yes, I meant:

    The hull on the -2 looks exactly the same as the hull on the -3.
     
  18. CometFan

    CometFan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    3
    via TanksinWW2
    Well the S-tanks (and the Centurion tanks) has been replaced byLeopard 2 tanks in the Swedish army.

    The S-tank was only partly successfull, it has received a fair deal of criticism from Swedish officers, it didn't replace the Centyrion completly and finally, when the Swedes sent an armoured battalion to Bosnia they asked Denmark to send a compagny (10 + 1 ARV) Leopard 1 tanks.

    I think the S-tank was an excellent SP anti-tank gun for defensive purposes (shame Denmark didn't buy 50 ), but not a satisfactory tank in general..
     
  19. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    And the Chieftain (or any other tank you care to name) has been replaced (or will be in the case more modern ones) by XXX (fill in your own abswer here).
    The Strv 103 is being replaced because it's old, it requires too much maintainance, it no longer suits current military doctrine etc etc, take your pick.
    Being replaced does not mean it was a bad design (IIRC Strv 103 outshot more conventional tanks in some exercises, and in fact on one site there's an report that Swedish Centurions thoroughly beat Swedish Leopard 2s in one exercise -mainly due to familiarity with the vehicle). Does this mean that Leo 2 is worse as a tank than Cent?
    And I remember the criticisms of Chieftain when it entered service - all new equipment gets criticism. (Heck, I've heard that the E.E. Lightning was disliked when it entered service - there's a bunch of idiots for you :lol: )
    was it required to? Maybe the doctrine of the day had defined TOE structure.
    because Strv 103 would have been operating outside of its design limits - it was designed for a particular role.
    it was obviously satisfactory enough to go into production. It was designed to do job, as are all tanks, the fact that the particular tactical requirements it was built for don't fit everyone else's view in no way invalidates the S tank as a viable tank design.
    It was designed, like all tanks, like everything, for particular job at a particular time. There's always a better technical solution round the corner.
     
  20. CometFan

    CometFan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    3
    via TanksinWW2
    Well Oli
    I don't disagree with your, whart I meant was :

    1. It wasn't a bad design, it was a defensive vehicle built for a specific enviroment but was didn't replace.
    The Swedes did obviously see the need for a 'proper' tank (the Centurion).

    2. he S-tank has been critized in Sweden for its lack of ability to fire on the move, its three man crew and certain problems with mobility (I am looking for a translation)

    3. It was well armoured, a perfect weapon for ambushing other tanks, in many ways much superior to the old Cenrtuion tanks used by Denmark as 'tank-hunters' in the battle groups supporting the tank brigades defending Zealand.

    4. The S-tank would have been dead meat in Bosnia !

    I will still claim taht it was an excellent tank destroyer and a mediocre tank (even for its day) compared to Leopard 1+ Chieftain + M60A1
     

Share This Page