Random Military documents and shit

File: 1444650147419.jpg (800KB, 1134x1594px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1134x1594px

>>34734566

File: The upshot.png (100KB, 934x277px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 934x277px

>>34734621

File: New Soviet Navy.png (177KB, 944x448px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 944x448px

>>34734652

>>34734528
Wait, did the M60 actually have better turret armour than a T-62, or is this bad intel?

File: German Synthetic Oil Production.png (893KB, 602x868px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 602x868px

I am pretty sure the M60A1 had better turret armour than the T-62 which had better armour than the M60, and then the T-62 got the BDD armour upgrade later at the time of the M60A3.

File: m60 turret ballistic test.jpg (221KB, 1600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1600x1081px

>>34734682
This statement was for you obviously
>>34734669

Picture related, in a sorta detailed unhelpful way.

File: M60 vs T-62 power and accuracy.png (268KB, 577x555px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 577x555px

Some more about the T-62 and M60

based infodumper does a service to us all, keep on keeping on

>>34734553

Damn, they must have really been confident in the M1.

File: T-72.png (97KB, 647x310px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 647x310px

>>34734758
They were expecting the M1 with 120mm gun vs the T-72M, worst case was M1 with a 105mm vs the T-72A. For a while the US thought that the T-72M and T-72A were the same tank but with contradicting Intel.

Post the M14 deficiencies page.

File: T-64 autoloader and storage.png (126KB, 382x534px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 382x534px

>>34734777
I have an M-14 discussion from 1968, I will see if there isn't something about it. They were a bit coy If i recall correctly.

File: T-72B special armour.png (502KB, 758x1216px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 758x1216px

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01720R000500090023-9.pdf

>>34734777
Haven't made an exert but this is not a long read.

>>34734849
>Special armour
I assume they mean ERA?

File: pak-40-3.jpg (355KB, 1600x776px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1600x776px

>>34734973
Special Armour means Chobham style armour, it used to be a codeword.

>>34734773
Oh how wrong they ended up being. The M111 ended up being capable of doing the job, and it had worse performance than the M735, let alone the M774

>>34734979
>Stay calm and cold blooded
That's pretty neat

>>34735120

Anon, these are great, I don't have anything myself to contribute otherwise I'd be bumping your thread more. If you have more please continue. Also, if you have anything related to the M16's first terminal ballistics in the field that would be cool

File: Competition and Selection figure rand technology comparison doc.png (60KB, 638x645px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 638x645px

>>34735196

Most of it i get from FOIA and it's pretty general stuff, however take a look at this document.

>>34734849

File: Force comparison 1960.png (127KB, 884x700px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 884x700px

Some force ratios coming up, first 1960s

File: Force comparison 1981 part 1.png (165KB, 913x1008px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 913x1008px

>>34735333
It doesn't say, but left column is USA, the middle column is Soviet, and the right is the difference.

File: Force comparison 1981 part 2.png (134KB, 899x806px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 899x806px

>>34735344
The observant reader will notice that the US had 4 "leg" infantry divisions in 1981, that means they had no APCs or any type of armoured vehicles, but they were of course motorised in trucks.

Soviet Cat. III Motor rifle divisions most likely were equipped with BTR-40 and MTLB types, for transport, while the Cat. I-II were equipped with BMPs or BTRs.

File: Force comparison 1981 part 3 navy.png (139KB, 913x1008px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 913x1008px

It's a shame that the tanks aren't broken down, but as far as I am aware around 400-500 of the US tanks at this point where M1 Abrams, while approximately 10,000 Soviet tanks were either T-64A, T-64B, T-80B or T-72A only 200 were T-72 Urals.

I have no idea how many were upgrade to the M60A3 standard by 1981.

File: Target Types ww2.png (175KB, 943x559px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 943x559px

On a completely different note, only 14% of targets for tanks were other tanks for the western force in world war 2.

(I secretly like the 75mm sherman)

>>34735278

I suppose the falling number of entries in the US would be explained by companies merging and investing into one plane that smaller companies can't compete with? I know planes were simpler at one time for any company to build and there wasn't as much need for complex electronics for example, it was mostly mechanical differences. Also, generals giving clear obtainable goals for a plane's role might have lowered it. I don't know how it was in the 40s but until the mustang it didn't seem like they knew what they wanted. Look at the differences between a p38, p47, and p51 for example, all different niches.

I don't know how the Soviets handled their military aviation development but it looks like it might have been a slower process.

File: division strength comparison.png (291KB, 2560x3936px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2560x3936px

This is kinda an interesting one, this is from a US document, which is supposed to be a translation of a Soviet document which is supposed to be the Soviet perception of how strong different types of divisions were.

I don't know if it's accurate, but it's interesting so see how highly the valued some NATO members, and how little they thought of others.

1 = 100% strength of a standard motorised rifle division.

>>34735424

I've been saving all these

File: Western WW2 Range Tables 2.jpg (172KB, 536x873px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 536x873px

>>34735456
Have some more ww2 then.

>>34735438
I think a possibly simpler explanation for the decreasing number is that Jet technology went from being very experimental to being pretty established, in 1945-49 everything was on the table, by the 1960s there were some pretty firmly held beliefs about jet aviation and only a few companies able to deliver prototypes.

>>34735448
What does FRG stand for?

>>34735496
Nevermind, probably Federal Republic of Germany. Also, lmfao at French Infantry Division.

File: US tank casualties.png (79KB, 393x425px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 393x425px

>>34735496
Federal Republic of Germany, West Germany. The Soviets had a very high opinion of the Leopard 2 and Marder combination. They had a very low opinion of the 900,000 or so German home guard infantry though.

>>34734799
>>34734849
Kek It's cool there CH, I meant the rifle was a shitpost, didn't realize this was a tankie info tread.

File: US UK Soviet lend lease.jpg (34KB, 461x369px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x369px

>>34735531
You must have missed the Artillery, Navy, Airforce, RPG and General power comparison posts.

>>34734849
>https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01720R000500090023-9.pdf

still cool thanks

File: DDR Helmet Design.jpg (98KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 768x1024px

for those that didn't know.

File: Recog-Training.jpg (174KB, 1181x886px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1181x886px

I also have this entire thing.

File: 1441369040281.jpg (28KB, 500x245px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x245px

I like this thread.

File: T-64 deployment.png (27KB, 659x236px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 659x236px

T-64 problems pt1

File: T-64 deployment2.png (27KB, 531x288px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 531x288px

>>34737300
2

File: 1461893257386.png (144KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1000x668px

Fun extrapolation of the SDI program showing full 50 state coverage against Soviet MX Peacekeeper analogs.

File: 1468778509221.jpg (90KB, 800x548px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x548px

XM578 diagram, the APFSDS round for the long 152mm cannon on the MBT-70. Performance wasn't duplicated until the M829 120mm rounds in the 80s were introduced.

File: m68 l7 t254.png (177KB, 1100x1506px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1100x1506px

Reminder that the 105mm cannons the US used were not L7s, but the barrels were interchangeable as both the US and UK came to the same conclusions on length and twist.

>>34734799
>Thereby increasing survivability
*Jack in the box tank intensifies*

File: Panther02.jpg (703KB, 836x1156px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 836x1156px

>Hey, we got these new Leopard 2 tanks! But what should we do with all the old Leopard 1 hulls?
>I got you senpai

File: LCAC Peacekeeper.jpg (282KB, 864x721px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 864x721px

this was actually seriously considered, thank you midgetman

File: full rate production effect.jpg (42KB, 836x628px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 836x628px

>>34737467
Why thank the midgetman? Because of it showing that the USAF could do road and rail mobile, the Navy wanted in, and they didn't want 1 warhead like the midgetman had, they wanted to go balls deep

File: Wasp-Cutaway-S.jpg (62KB, 640x706px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x706px

when you need a lot of anti-armor missiles on a single pylon and you really want to fire and forget

File: Western fire control.png (125KB, 411x361px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 411x361px

>>34737411
Turret is the most likely place to be hit in real combat when you aren't using tanks in urban environment or a single pieces with no infantry support.

File: T-90s vs all02.jpg (420KB, 1501x1136px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1501x1136px

>>34737582

>>34734749
with armor upgrades the Leopard 1 wasn't really any worse than the M-60

>>34737313
>>34737300
What book?

>>34737555
And yet Russian tanks have absurdly horrible post penetration survivability anyway.

http://lostarmour.info/armour/

>>34737646
I can't read moonspeak.

File: 1449350561682.png (517KB, 640x904px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 640x904px

The 80s were the best

File: t64 turret armor.jpg (120KB, 1171x440px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1171x440px

>>34737651

File: thumper turret.jpg (176KB, 912x921px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 912x921px

>bigger cannon, autoloader.. what else do we need?
>... Fuck it Just add another meter of armor to the front of the turret and call it a day

File: MiG-23M weapon config.jpg (184KB, 1153x794px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1153x794px

>>34737875
>>34737938
A quick comment regarding Rb04, while Viggen could carry one on the centre pylon, from what I've understood it couldn't launch them from there, it would be purely for ferrying them around.

File: Neat.png (748KB, 718x670px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 718x670px

>>34737605
Got any more pictures of the FMBT?
Also
>High energy stabilized laser cannon

File: F-15 IF loadout2.gif (69KB, 710x525px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 710x525px

>>34738195
I wish.

>>34738214
Damn shame, though I really must question the design of the turret, inwards sloping side sounds like a bad idea.

File: FMBT RALS.png (140KB, 916x752px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 916x752px

>>34738317
It had something to do with proposed blowout panel methods

File: fcs-line.gif (11KB, 727x465px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 727x465px

>>34738373
That's IIRC, it's been a long time since I've really looked into it really. That gun depression is sickening though.

The entire FCS program was extremely ambitious

>>34738398
>>34738373
Any idea how they planned to power the electrical weapons of the FCS? Can conventional engines provide enough juice with an alternator system?
Also any reason to not use an EM gun on the FMBT? I would have expected a larger chassis to be more ideal as it could fit a larger power plant and have more space for capacitors.

File: wymiarwkakadubgrawieyt7.png (1MB, 743x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 743x800px

>>34738486
>Any idea how they planned to power the electrical weapons of the FCS? Can conventional engines provide enough juice with an alternator system?

Of course. Power generation isn't an issue in the slightest. The big issue is that the capacitors for it right now are just stupidly large.

>Also any reason to not use an EM gun on the FMBT?

Needed an interim solution for when HEL and EM were ready. The original 120mm on the 2010 variant was meant to be a version of the XM-291 ETC cannon, but it wasn't ready and the thinking was that it'd be better to pump funds into railguns. What I think was interesting was that the 2030 version was meant to have either an EM cannon that accepted two different size rounds or two barrels. The thinking being that it could engage heavy vehicles and light armor/infantry with the smaller rounds.

File: 1475279106233.jpg (381KB, 800x562px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 800x562px

>>34737383
Forgot about this gem

>>34735576
>rolled homo
hehehe

>>34738549
>accepted two different size rounds or two barrels
>two barrels

These guys have been playing too much Command and Conquer. Wouldn't it be far more elegant (not to mention mechanically simple) to mount a HMG for use against infantry and light armor + canister rounds if you really want to engage them with the main gun?
Also is there anywhere one can read about these projects? Future concepts that incorporate electrical weapons tinkle my winkle.

>>34737513
I'm kinda of surprised there aren't more frigates running around bristling with short and self defense modules, quad pack ESSM is crazy powerful for the footprint.

>>34737785
>Sao Paulo (None)

File: AGDS01.jpg (94KB, 567x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 567x800px

>>34738731
The two barrels thing was a lot like one being a coax, but it's larger than a .50 so it's considered a cannon.

>Wouldn't it be far more elegant (not to mention mechanically simple) to mount a HMG for use against infantry and light armor + canister rounds if you really want to engage them with the main gun?

No clue to be honest. I don't know what kind of performance they were expecting from its armaments. I know that the HEL was thought to be viable for infantry and thin skinned vehicles (trucks, etc) while the cannon pulled the anti-armor and structure roles.

>Also is there anywhere one can read about these projects?

It's actually kinda hard to find as the stuff where they were talking about an EM cannon and mounting a HEL was all from before the chassis was selected for the FCS family, but I'll see what I can do.

File: AGDS turret.png (402KB, 1024x717px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1024x717px

>>34738950

File: US Nuclear weapons.png (37KB, 391x746px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 391x746px

>>34739071

>>34735448
Get fucked Canada.

Although to be fair it was only a brigade sized formation.

>>34735664
And this is why we need the F35

>>34735448
The Germans sure left their footprint in Soviet minds. Look at those numbers for the frg divisions.

But then again: the rooskies sure kept in mind that those divisions would be fighting for their own soil

>>34739082
>>34739071
The R-7 was the first ICBM and every other source i've seen claims the Soviet had more nuclear weapons by the end of the cold war. But this picture claims the R-7 from 1959 did not exist.

File: CpEmRe6VYAAhRrK.jpg (98KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x739px

>>34738574
>MBT-70 ploughing over the German plain lobbing tac nukes.

Oh my.

>>34742263
thats classified...dont worry about it.

File: t-15-image2.jpg (73KB, 800x405px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x405px

November class designed with single 1550mm torpedo tube for firing 100 megatonne T-15
torpedo.

>>34742263
The first R7 test was in Dec 1959

>>34738195
That tank is from a tank design contest back in the 1990s. You can check the Armor Magazine back issues Jul-Aug 1993, Jul-Aug 1997, Sep-Oct 1997 and Jan-Feb 1998 for more info.

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/

>>34742732
That's a funny way of writing 21st of August 1957

>>34735844
Now everyone can have it.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=usarmytrain