Contacts

Feel free to contact the administrator of Tankograd.

Iron Drapes: irondrapes@gmail.com

12 comments:

  1. After seeing the picture of the Abrams glacis layout, are you ever planning on doing similar analysis of Western tanks and armor systems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid not. OPSEC really limits the amount of information available to the public, so I would be speculating more than analyzing.

      Delete
  2. Great work.

    One point of interest for the discussion on K5.. The M829A2 does indeed appear to have a special layout to deal with K5 ERA. You can see in cutaways that there is a stepped tip design as well as a structure on top which looks like a break away tip.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/120mm_M829A2_APFSDS-T.jpg

    If you look at images of the KEW-A3 you can see the same design much more clearly.

    http://i.imgur.com/TxRK8Lp.png

    Kind regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stepped tip was first used on the M111 "Hetz" and appears to be a design solution for the best compromise in performance on both sloped targets and perpendicular targets. From everything that I have been able to gather thus far, there is no indication that it would help reduce the damage from a flyer plate or prevent the activation of Kontakt-5. As for the "break away tip" seen in photos, it's just a ballistic tip for aerodynamics. The M774, M833, M829, and M829A1 all have a similar ballistic tip, labeled as a "windshield tip" in this drawing:

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/98/e7/bc98e7d9cf4c183643d06f52637bb8ae.jpg

      Delete
  3. I really appreciate your articles. Even for a tank enthusiast like me, they offer whole lot of new and interesting insights.

    My personal wish would be that hopefully you could at some time cover the Soviet equivalent of a 'starship; a tank so advanced it was almost ahead of its time: the T-64!

    But thanks again, and keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much! However, I have to say to you what I've said to many others: please try to help improve the articles by finding flaws! I would really appreciate it if outdated info or faulty logic was pointed out or if new and more reliable information were made available. Sometimes you'll see that some parts of my articles are "under renovation" like the T-72 Protection article, which means that I am currently editing some older claims and adding new content. Most of my time is currently spent doing such things and not on writing new articles. It's far too difficult to compile enough info to complete each article in the span of a few months while maintaining a normal life, and sometimes I lose interest if a very long article is required to cover all the aspects of the topic. If nothing else, I hope that you understand my erratic uploading patterns.

      About the T-64 stuff: I'm afraid that there is no real reason for me to devote precious time and effort on the T-64 when the T-72 is so similar in many respects, and there is plenty of information on the T-64 available at the btvt.info site owned by Andrei Tarasenko, who is a bona fide historian and a big T-64 enthusiast. If you are truly interested in learning about the T-64, I suggest going to his site (use Google Translate liberally). If you have specific questions and no other site can provide the answer, you can try the Tank-Net and Sturgeonshouse forms. Both are sometimes visited by knowledge folk from the Russian Otvaga forum and Polish Militarium forum. If all else fails, I could try to find something for you.

      Hope that helps, and thanks again for your pleasant comment.

      Delete
  4. Nice, clear informative blog!
    I wonder where you got the dimensions for the L23A1?

    I'm currently trying to find information on DM23/L23A1 (dimensions in specific) but I'm only finding numbers posted on websites with no actual sources that I can verify.

    Would you happen to have any kind of sources on these shells?
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dimensions of L23A1 are from Wiedzmin. You can find him on the Otvaga and Tank-Net forums. I don't know the dimensions for (120mm) DM23, but I have a handful of sources that describe its aspect ratio.

      If you need more specific information, I'd be happy to send it to you via email.

      Delete
  5. Great blog!!. This is the most in-depth analysis I was able to see in the internet. It would be great if you take a look on the North Korean tanks which are said to be the modifications of the T-62 and T-72. Most of the analysis on this topic is nothing but BS done by people who have only Wikipedia level knowledge. THANKS!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WILLIAM KREIZNER28 October 2018 at 21:37

      DEAR IRON DRAPES , I AM THE INVENTOR OF TACTICAL PHYSICS AND A FORMER ARMY TANK OFFICER FORMERLY COMMANDING 16 TANKS. I AM INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE HISTORY AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF TANK WARFARE, ALTHOUGH GRAND TACTICS AND TACTICAL PHYSICS IS MY PRINCIPAL THEORETICAL PROVINCE. I I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND YOUR EXCELLENT ANALYTICAL TREATMENT OF TANK TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHED WITH MERIT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU . THE BRITISH TANK GENERAL AND TANK THEORIST , BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD SIMPKIN , HER MAJESTYS ROYAL TANK REGIMENT, BRINGS TO OUR ATTENTION THE TANK WARFARE CONCEPT OF TANK TURRET FRONTAL ARCS, IN WHICH THE PREPONDERANT MAGNITUDE OF INIMICAL TANK BALLISTIC RADIATION ( ENEMY TANK FIRE )CONVERGES PREDOMINANTLY AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE TANK REAR HULL, AND ALSO AT A 2ND MIDPOINT SLIGHTLY TO THE REAR OF THE TANK AND IN WHICH BOTH TANK FIRING RAYS ARE TANGENT TO THE VERTICES OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT TANK HULL CORNERS. FURTHERMORE THE ARC ANGLES EQUATES APPROXIMATELY TO A TOTAL OF 60 DEGREES WITH A 30 DEGREE LEFT ANGLE AND A 30 DEGREE RIGHT ANGLE. I CHIEFLY UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THE TANK BALLISTIC RADIATION CONVERGING AT 60 DEGREES IS POTENTIALLY PREDICATED ON TWO FACTORS. THE FIRST TANK DETERMINANT IS THE PREDILECTION OF THE TWO ENEMY TANKS ENDEAVORING TO FIRE AT THE CENTER OF MASS OF THE TANK , BUT WITH ONLY IMPRECISE RESULTS. THE SECOND FACTOR CONJECTURED IS THAT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE TANK DESIGN ITSELF IS EXERTING A POTENTIALL GEOMETRICAL RESULTS OF THE INIMICAL CONVERGING TANK BALLISTIC RADIATION AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE TANK HULL REAR WHICH CONSTITUTES THE 60 DEGREE TANK ARC FRONTAGE ANGLE. I PERFORCE ADMIT I AM NOT PRIVY TO ANY EXTENSIVE ANALYTICAL ELABORATIONS ON THE TANK ON TANK BATTLE PHENOMENON OF TANK AND TURRET FRONTAL ARCS BEING EQUATED TO 60 DEGREE, ALTHOUGH I HAVE STUDIED THE HISTORY OF TANK WARFARE WITH AN ASSIDUOUS LEVEL OF INTENSITY, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF THE BRITISH TANK GENERAL RICHARD SIMPKIN,IN HIS BOOK TANK WARFARE. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO ANY INTELLECTUAL LIGHT OR TANK FIRE THAT YOU MR. IRON DRAPES CAN DIRECT ON THIS TARGETED SUBJECT, OR ANY OTHE TANK THEORISTS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SUBJECT. PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT TACTICALPHYSICS@BRIGHTHOUSE.COM IF YOU ARE SO DISPOSED WITH THIS REQUESTED LIBERTY. SIGNED WITH RESPECT YOUR WORK WILLIAM KREIZNER
      THE INVENTOR OF TACTICAL PHYSICS, AND THE AUTHOR OF THE HISTORY AND THE THEORY OF GRAND TACTICS

      Delete
  6. I love this site, can you please write about the T-64 Thanks!

    ReplyDelete