Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

stephen the barbarian said:
among other things, he's the guy who found the tonk,
here's the rant on lp's video. tl:dr- even if you agree with lp's final conclusions, he makes way too many leaps in logic to be credible. e.g. calling the t-14's A-85-3A engine a copy of the Porsche tigers' SA-16 is like saying that the GE J85 is a copy of the ME-262's Junkers Jumo 004
Click to expand...

Zachowon said:
I mean, even the Tank Museum says it is....
Click to expand...
Okay to put the "Sla.16 copy?" argument to rest, anyone who says it's a copy is frankly wrong, I'm not accepting argument from authority like the Tank Museum, and frankly anyone who says it's a copy is being deliberately obtuse and potentially spreading propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.

Lets compare the two engines shall we?

Sla.16/A-85-3A

Cylinders
16/12

Cooling
Air/Liquid

Bore size
Different

Crankshaft design
Different

Cylinder angles
Different

If the A-85-3A is a copy of anything, it would make practically EVERYTHING into a copy of everything else. It's nonsensical to call it a copy of an obscure German X-16 engine when it's a damned X-12 to begin with. You can't just lop 4 cylinders off and hope it works just fine. Engines do not work like that! Especially with the X layout.

The development of Russian X-engines are a bit difficult to find out about, but the abridged version is that the A-85-3A is a development of previous Russian X-engines designed for use in tanks (various Objekts), with the intention of minimizing engine volume without going to a gas turbine. If there was ever a 'Russian copy' of the Sla.16, it died along with some Projekt in the 50's.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Okay to put the "Sla.16 copy?" argument to rest, anyone who says it's a copy is frankly wrong, I'm not accepting argument from authority like the Tank Museum, and frankly anyone who says it's a copy is being deliberately obtuse and potentially spreading propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.

Lets compare the two engines shall we?

Sla.16/A-85-3A

Cylinders
16/12

Cooling
Air/Liquid

Bore size
Different

Crankshaft design
Different

Cylinder angles
Different

If the A-85-3A is a copy of anything, it would make practically EVERYTHING into a copy of everything else. It's nonsensical to call it a copy of an obscure German X-16 engine when it's a damned X-12 to begin with. You can't just lop 4 cylinders off and hope it works just fine. Engines do not work like that! Especially with the X layout.

The development of Russian X-engines are a bit difficult to find out about, but the abridged version is that the A-85-3A is a development of previous Russian X-engines designed for use in tanks (various Objekts), with the intention of minimizing engine volume without going to a gas turbine. If there was ever a 'Russian copy' of the Sla.16, it died along with some Projekt in the 50's.
Click to expand...
I was making more of a joke.
In the end all the channels but LP agreed that there is not enough info and the fact that we don't have enough but a horrible article is nit enough.
Chieftan says this, Cone goes on to say this. Red says this.
LP just doubled down
 
Zachowon said:
I was making more of a joke.
In the end all the channels but LP agreed that there is not enough info and the fact that we don't have enough but a horrible article is nit enough.
Chieftan says this, Cone goes on to say this. Red says this.
LP just doubled down
Click to expand...
That's not quite true though, Redeffect went into detail about the development of the engine, including it's predecessors.
What we do know is that it's lineage is a bunch of obscure Soviet tank engines from the cold war.
 
Zachowon said:
I was making more of a joke.
In the end all the channels but LP agreed that there is not enough info and the fact that we don't have enough but a horrible article is nit enough.
Chieftan says this, Cone goes on to say this. Red says this.
LP just doubled down
Click to expand...

I think there's a strong tendency to jump to conclusions because "X" type engines are so rare. On the other hand, there's a reason that engine configuration is so rare compared to Vs and radials, and the unreliability demonstrated by the Armata prototypes on parade definitely showcases that no, the Russians haven't solved it.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
I think there's a strong tendency to jump to conclusions because "X" type engines are so rare. On the other hand, there's a reason that engine configuration is so rare compared to Vs and radials, and the unreliability demonstrated by the Armata prototypes on parade definitely showcases that no, the Russians haven't solved it.
Click to expand...
The tank didn't breakdown though, if it suffered an engine breakage, it wouldn't have driven off under it's own power a few minutes later. And a damned tow-tank wouldn't have struggled to pull it.
The thing's brakes turned on because the sub-90 IQ Russian piloting it, pulled the handbrake and forgot how to turn it off.
 
First time hearing of an X type engine, but from what I read on the wiki it sounds like one of those pie in the sky projects.

It looks like the Vankel engine's mirror opposite, much more complex, but still not usable.
 
Holy Quran Support Vehicle

Mounted on a Kraz 6322, taking part in a Houthi Military Parade in Yemen... because apparently they can have a military parade there without any threat despite the ongoing civil war.



Buffs resolve and confers morale bonuses to nearby units.
 
Agent23 said:
First time hearing of an X type engine, but from what I read on the wiki it sounds like one of those pie in the sky projects.

It looks like the Vankel engine's mirror opposite, much more complex, but still not usable.
Click to expand...

X-engines have been done before. The U.S. Navy notably put great hope in an X-engine for the Tang-class diesel electric subs and the experimental USS Albacore, although they never worked right.

(The reason they wanted them were these marine X-engines were extremely compact for their power output, enabling four engines to be installed in less space than three "regular" sub diesels of equivalent output. Unfortunately, they had *severe* vibration and leaking issues, and leaking was extra bad because the engines were mounted standing on top of the transmissions. It was an elegantly compact setup, only...it turned out to be catastrophically unreliable on board the subs. It did work okay on surface sub-chasers, though.)
 
Last edited:
ShadowArxxy said:
X-engines have been done before. The U.S. Navy notably put great hope in an X-engine for the Tang-class diesel electric subs and the experimental USS Albacore, although they never worked right.

(The reason they wanted them were these marine X-engines were extremely compact for their power output, enabling four engines to be installed in less space than three "regular" sub diesels of equivalent output. Unfortunately, they had *severe* vibration and leaking issues, and leaking was extra bad because the engines were mounted standing on top of the transmissions. It was an elegantly compact setup, only...it turned out to be catastrophically unreliable on board the subs. It did work okay on surface sub-chasers, though.)
Click to expand...
As I said, the wiki article leaves me with the impression that it is an unreliable, overly-complicated piece of tech that has been around for 80+ years without seeing any mass adoption.
 
Agent23 said:
As I said, the wiki article leaves me with the impression that it is an unreliable, overly-complicated piece of tech that has been around for 80+ years without seeing any mass adoption.
Click to expand...

The version used on the sub-chasers was reported to be very reliable, although with a relatively short service life. As the design is so obscure, it's not entirely clear why the submarine version (essentially the same engine) was so unreliable other than the motor-generator stack making the consequences of oil leakage much more severe.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
The version used on the sub-chasers was reported to be very reliable, although with a relatively short service life. As the design is so obscure, it's not entirely clear why the submarine version (essentially the same engine) was so unreliable other than the motor-generator stack making the consequences of oil leakage much more severe.
Click to expand...
If a piece of equipment is somehow better than another the new one will push out the old one.

This thing failed to work well in everything from aircraft to formula one cars.

X engine - Wikipedia
 
South_Korea_unveils_design_concept_of_future_K3_MBT_Main_Batle_Tank_925_001.jpg





The K3 concept is looking kind of interesting apparently they are going for a fully unmanned turret and a crew capsule. It also appears to be going for a 130mm main gun rather than 140mm.
 
Carrot of Truth said:
South_Korea_unveils_design_concept_of_future_K3_MBT_Main_Batle_Tank_925_001.jpg





The K3 concept is looking kind of interesting apparently they are going for a fully unmanned turret and a crew capsule. It also appears to be going for a 130mm main gun rather than 140mm.
Click to expand...


Armata, Abrams X, This, and I think the new German tank design seem to be going for unmanned turrets.
 
Spartan303 said:
Armata, Abrams X, This, and I think the new German tank design seem to be going for unmanned turrets.
Click to expand...

The KF51 Panther still has a manned turret which makes it extremely oversized, IMO unmanned turrets are the way of the future for tanks. I'm not sold on using 140mm shells though, Those are just too damn big and the tanks using them will quickly have weight issues. There also hasn't been any serious breakthroughs in armor to justify the use of anything past 120mm.
 
Agent23 said:
If a piece of equipment is somehow better than another the new one will push out the old one.

This thing failed to work well in everything from aircraft to formula one cars.

X engine - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

In this case, development of advanced submarine diesels ceased entirely because the United States switched to nuclear power. Given that the surface version was quite reliable, it does appear that the severe issues with the submarine version arose almost entirely from it being a rushed development where the vibration was not properly buffered and was pretty much shaking it apart, and they probably should have reversed the stacks with the generator on top of the motor instead of the other way around.

So the evidence does suggest it wasn't fundamentally insoluble, and "better" is relative -- it's a better submarine engine, but probably not a better automobile and tank engine. Totally different use cases.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
In this case, development of advanced submarine diesels ceased entirely because the United States switched to nuclear power. Given that the surface version was quite reliable, it does appear that the severe issues with the submarine version arose almost entirely from it being a rushed development where the vibration was not properly buffered and was pretty much shaking it apart, and they probably should have reversed the stacks with the generator on top of the motor instead of the other way around.

So the evidence does suggest it wasn't fundamentally insoluble, and "better" is relative -- it's a better submarine engine, but probably not a better automobile and tank engine. Totally different use cases.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, then why didn't anyone develop the tech further.

For tanks, as is this case, but decades earlier.

For civilian naval needs and civilian aircraft.

Hell, for frigging minidozers and tractors.

And it is not like every single country on the planet switched to nuclear submarines.


Maybe it was just a dumb idea to try and use this X type engine.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
The tank didn't breakdown though, if it suffered an engine breakage, it wouldn't have driven off under it's own power a few minutes later. And a damned tow-tank wouldn't have struggled to pull it.
The thing's brakes turned on because the sub-90 IQ Russian piloting it, pulled the handbrake and forgot how to turn it off.
Click to expand...
It is still contested as both arguments have varying degree of truth.
 
Since we already started the topic of propulsion.
What is the benefit of using a turbine vs. a regular piston engine, exactly?

The Russians have allegedly started producing T-80s again, the Abrams already uses that thing.

Also, related question, was anyone dumb enough to try sticking a Vankel engine in a tank?
 
Agent23 said:
Since we already started the topic of propulsion.
What is the benefit of using a turbine vs. a regular piston engine, exactly?

The Russians have allegedly started producing T-80s again, the Abrams already uses that thing.

Also, related question, was anyone dumb enough to try sticking a Vankel engine in a tank?
Click to expand...

What’s a Vankel engine and why is it so bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top