HOME | DD
MrAverage β T90PG Main Battle Tank
Published: 2013-06-03 06:39:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 20581; Favourites: 285; Downloads: 326
Redirect to original
Description
Yet another vehicle from the universe of my webcomic 6-Commando . This one is a "commie" main battle tank, which is actually in most ways superior to the equivalent used by the United Nations. Its main gun is a gauss cannon with enormous destructive potential, and although its electrical systems are more finicky than the Federated Socialist Republic is typically known for, it is overall an excellent combat vehicle, and is being distributed throughout the Eastern Bloc "Odessa Compact" nations, from China to Austro-Hungary, and even to the newer revolutionary republics in places like France and Britain.Related content
Comments: 28
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
why didn't the armata turn out this cool?
π: 0 β©: 0
Excellent design.
I too use the triangular "Guass/Rail-cannon" type barrel for my futuristic tank designs.
Kudos on a job well done.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's really cool. I really dig your vehicle and armor designs. It may be because of all the Military Madness I've played, but I think it's great.
π: 0 β©: 0
Soviet Union couldn't produce better tanks than West.
In fact real T90 quite outdated design. Can't see how in any universe it could be otherwise.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, from about 1952 on the US had a definite advantage in tank design, and the real world T90 is based on obsolescent performance statistics, probably falling well above the AMX30B2 or Leopard 1, but not really comparable to, say, the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Merkava 4. However, there's no functional reason the Russians couldn't out-design the West if they devoted full resources to it. And during the War, the T34/85 was by far a superior weapon, except maybe compared to German late war heavies like the Panther and King Tiger. The comic I designed it for is a World War II analogue, and so I wanted to put the antagonists on a reasonably comparable technological footing with the West, in order to make them a real person-to-person threat and not just a faceless horde of paper tigers lining up to be gunned down.
π: 0 β©: 2
Actually there is a reason - for example USSR could not produce engines and optics comparable to Western (and in fact modern Russia can't produce either).
There is problems with engineers, qualified workers and overall industrial capability. Technologically backward Russia, whether it was back then or today simply not on pair with the West.
In fact T-34 was inferior to Pz-IV with long 75mm cannon.
Armor, cannon, optics and engine with transmission - all of this wasn't nearly as good as on Pz-IV.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've been reading about the T34 lately, and actually it outclassed the PzKpfW IV in all ways except its road suspension - German Torsion suspensions were superior. That and the Soviets didn't have enough modern FM radios to go around. The problem was that Russian tactics in the war didn't play up their advantage and the shot ratio was something like three to one in favor of the Germans because of poor command and unit coordination doctrines in the Red Army. But the armor was considerably stronger due to its sloping, and the high velocity guns were able to defeat any armor then in production in Germany.
The backwardness of the Communist economy is a good point though - there's where e real advantage lay with the west. By not attempting to control capital the West managed to concentrate money and intellectual resources far better than a command economy could, since shortages could be overcome by increased capital expenditure in a way that requisition systems couldn't match. Still, I hold that Russia, like any other country, has as much human capital as any other industrial nation, and it's mainly a matter of centralized attempts to control the direction of the labor economy that led to a decline in the quality of military technology, rather than any innate weakness in the country as such.
π: 0 β©: 1
If we are talking about majority of T-34 - with 76mm cannon - they were weaker. Even if sloped, Russian armor wasn't thick enough, so wasn't a problem for a German long 75mm cannon, while Russian 76mm with shorter barrel and actually pretty bad armor piercing rounds couldn't penetrate strong German armor in many situations. In fact even German long 50mm cannon on Pz-III penetrated Russian armor better, than Russian 76mm could do to German armor.
And German tank commander had better view from his turret, Soviet tanks got this only on T-34 with 85mm - in the end of war.
Russian 85 mm was barely equivalent to German 88mm, but Soviet tanks with such armament got into action only in 1944, and Russian armor still wasn't improved. German Panthers and Tigers had very strong protection. Pz-IV become vulnerable, but still could kill T-34 easily.
And gun sights as well as all other optics on Russian tanks simply worse.
Again- German engines and transmission (and which is very important - easer control) were superior.
I can't see any real advantages, except Soviet ability to mass product very rough design, besides - quality of Russian tanks and weapons seriously degraded due to massive use of women and children on military factories (since men were conscripted).
So to say - in case of capitalist economy Russian industry simply would not develop to Soviet level, and what could be - would die in the beginning of the war (there is real example of incapability of Russian business to provide military production - WWI, when Russian army faced Germans having no ammo for artillery). Russian business today is the same.
Generally Russians not good warriors, non impressive commanders, unqualified workers, poor businessmen, mediocre managers and worst organizers. Such is our human capital, that is our country.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's remarkable how ignorant You are... the Soviets did have better guns that the 85mm, but they were not for a use in a tank... and there were attempts to improve the T-34 that later resulted in the T-44 which became the T-54/55... that was superior to most western designs until the west started chuking out 60-ton monsters... even then they needed a long time to match it.
And You forgot that the Soviets sent the first man in space.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually those tanks came to play only after the war. And no, Soviet post war tanks haven't been any better than contemporary Western.
Soviet tanks had worse engines, transmissions and tracks. Engines were weak and all of the mentioned been unreliable and lasted less then Western, with controls still hard to operate on top of that, besides Soviet tanks long after the war still kept levers, instead of a steering wheel, which many Western tanks had in WWII already. TΠΎ make it worse T-55 was equipped with new internal fuel tanks COMBINED WITH AMMO RACKS, see the picture warspot-asset.s3.amazonaws.comβ¦
To explain the picture simply - Soviet engineers made cells for ammo inside of internal fuel tanks which they put inside of a habitable space.
This deadly (for the crew) innovation ever since reappeared in every new Soviet design including T-72 and T-90. The reason behind suicidal attempt to combine fuel tanks with ammo racks and to place it right next to a crew without any additional protection was lack of space inside. Soviets tried to make tanks smaller, as a result tanks turned out to be too cramped and barely habitable, in the end Soviet tanks still lacked necessary range (hence they even added barrels outside) and carried limited ammo in comparison to Western tanks of the same era.
To make it even worse additional ammo stored AROUND crewmen in turret, right behind and to the side of tank commander and gunner ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUTβ¦
This is the reason behind high mortality among tank crews operating Soviet tanks. If tank penetrated from any angle probability of detonation of its own ammo and fuel deadly high.
And yes, optics on newer Soviet tanks after the war still haven't improved much. Same could be said about radio. In the end, it turned out that Israelis won almost every engagement against them.
Ah yes, Soviets indeed sent man into space. On a rocket built by German engineers (Soviets captured many of them at the end of the war). Soviets actually started their space program with tests of German V-2s.
π: 0 β©: 1
I meant the armour kind-of way superior lolz... but yeah...the ammo stacking place was a bad idea when next to the fuel tanks lol
Like the Americans didn't sent a dude with a German rocket to the moon lol... Soviets did have German engineers working on their rockets alongside Soviet engineers... so it's 50-50, 50 Soviet - 50 German... unlike the Americans, 100 German - 0 American.
The first T-44 first appeared in late 1944, then it evolved to the T-54 in mid-1945.
Yugoslavia saw the problem with the fuel-tank/ammo combo,so they designed their own tank, the M-90 Vihor which stored most of the ammo in the rear of the turret with a much simpler auto-loader that was in fact faster lol... the additional space was divided... the fuel tanks redesigned to have the same capacity, but take less space and the space the fuel tank gave away made the crew compartment less cramped. Not to mention that it was superior to the M1A1 Abrams in every arena, but horsepower and side armour lol
π: 0 β©: 0
Incidentally, by "Russians" here I mean in the generic, "the Soviet," as in, "the other side in the Cold War, from the Western perspective." It's easy to fall into those kinds of nationalistic clichΓ©s.
π: 0 β©: 0
A 120mm etc cannon could be it easy at least that what was the case for the Chinese Type 102 which is very similar to this.
π: 0 β©: 2
Did You just compare the T-90 to a Chinese tank!?
Chinese tanks are far inferior to Russian tanks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Heavy armor and composites technology is more advanced in the 6-Commando universe. The FSR has spent a lot of energy learning ways to defeat it. The United Nations actually use "boosted" weapons that are hybrid conventional and magnetic cannons, but the EKR weapon (electrokinetic rifle) that the T90 uses is the best on the battlefield at the time the story is set.
--M
π: 0 β©: 1
You're darned right!
And let me tell you, anyone who says women aren't as tough as men, well, I can tell you, I have known some TOUGH women in the Service, man. Every bit as capable as men when it comes to soldiery.
--M
π: 0 β©: 1
Some of them are. In general however trained men stronger than trained women, thats why sports competition divided for men and women.
π: 0 β©: 0