T-72, T-80, T-90, T-95 Black Eagle family of vehicles

[rickshaw]

I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.

Temsah has its chassis adjusted for a layout more traditional of a Western APC...... actually, I found it almost like a Merkava without the tank turret.

Of course it has been "adjusted".  What do you expect it do, have a tank turret as well as carry infantry?  Its better to have a properly designed tank and a properly designed HAPC than something that is neither Arthur or Martha and does neither job properly.

Now, if you want a really badly designed APC like vehicle, I don't think you can go past the BMP-3.

[apophenia]

Remember, the requirements have changed.  Originally an APC was merely a battlefield taxi, designed to move infantry around and offer light protection against small arms and shell fragments. The infantry dismounted before the objective and were supported onto it by the APC's (usually) MMG/HMG and other armour.  Then the Soviets decided to introduce the MICV with the BMP-1 which was designed to carry the infantry onto and if necessary past the objective and they were to fight mounted, protected against NBC environments.  Neither was intended to be able to survive an MBT or ATGM.  Then came the need for a HAPC - something that could keep up with the tanks (afterall, they were suddenly more mobile than the MICVs) and offer similar levels of protection.   So, it really is a bit much to try and compare an early APC to a HAPC or even an MICV.

The infantry weren't an afterthought, they were the purpose and each and every design though was a compromise like all AFVs.  The BMP-1 was small and cramped but it was a revolutionary leap over the APC which preceded it.  The HAPC similarly is a revolutionary leap over the MICV.

Where does that leave modern IFVs like the CV90 or Puma which seem able to keep up with the tanks? Are IFVs simply rebranded MICVs without the rifle firing ports? Are IFVs the new non-heavy APC? Or are they just passé?

[rickshaw]

The CV90/Puma and other heavy MICVs/IFVs are a bit under-armoured to be considered HAPCs.  They're at the top end of the traditional APC/MICV/IFV scale.  Real HAPCs are converted or purpose built MBT hulls and offer both the increased agility of the newer MBTs and their armoured protection.

[apophenia]

Agreed. The Puma is the heavier end of IFVs but no one would confuse it for an HAPC. My question was more as to the current theoretical status of MICV/IFVs. In other words, does the conventional wisdom that IFVs can accompany tanks stand (despite their armour being lighter than HAPCs)? [Sorry if this is straying too far from the topic at hand.]

[rickshaw]

Agreed. The Puma is the heavier end of IFVs but no one would confuse it for an HAPC. My question was more as to the current theoretical status of MICV/IFVs. In other words, does the conventional wisdom that IFVs can accompany tanks stand (despite their armour being lighter than HAPCs)? [Sorry if this is straying too far from the topic at hand.]

They'll be able to accompany them but as to whether or not they'll survive the experience is another thing entirely.  A HAPC has a much better chance of doing both.

[dy031101]

Back to the topic of MBT applications:

Wikipedia states that a prototype of T-64 was built with heavier armours (160mm at their thickest) and a 122mm cannon to demonstrate the tank's firepower and protection potential to be brought to heavy tank class.  I think I've found a picture here.

I wonder if the 130mm gun M-65 tested on Object 279 and Object 770 heavy tanks would have been a better choice (I couldn't find info on that 130mm gun except for a Wikipedia entry stating that it fires APDS rounds at a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s) though before the advent of the 125mm gun......

(I'd also assume that the autoloader would likely be designed to accommodate this calibre instead if the M-65 was utilized......)

For a more-recent example, the T-80 formed the basis of a 152mm-gun-armed tank.

[dy031101]

Browsing over the internet a couple of hours ago, I ran across an archived discussion about Merkava.  It was said that, while the superior protection afforded to the Merkava's fighting compartment is a quality appreciated by many countries, the tank also contains a lot of features optimised for Israel's tactical-strategic and industrial realities, features Israel is unwilling to and cannot change without diverting industrial resources from maintaining her own frontline troops.  And that meant no export of Merkava tanks so far.

So what if Ukraine incorporates some of the concepts behind Merkava into their export T-72 and T-84: take both tanks' chassis and reverse them, in effect adding the engine to the frontal protection of the fighting compartment?

Also since we mentioned BMT-72 and BTMP-84, make part of the onboard useable space re-configurable like the Merkava, so instead of seperate infantry-carrying tank escort variants, we have the evolved T-72 and T-84 that can be configured to accommodate infantry escort when such a need arises but normally are 100% MBT.  And then add a high-elevation automatic grenade launcher to the turret if one wants to give the tanks a further measure of fighting back in urban combat environment......

[rickshaw]

Possibility.  T-72/80 are a bit cramped for most western armies.  Hull is a bit low.  I refer you to this discussion:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,29707.msg453631.html#msg453631

[ysi_maniac]

What if Morocco in MLU proces for their ageing T-72, decides to modify M60s -equally ageing- turrets in order to accept 125 mm gun?

[ysi_maniac]

T-90 and Merkava crossing



Israel could do a new Tiran option aimed for export. I would buy the bottom one.