>Today I had to bury the 6th dead bird this year.

Random bird ir your bird?

>I think it has the Sherman looks.

Sherman is tall and has different hull. Although it is just a toy, it looks like something in spirit of T-34-85.

Also I don't think that Hungary made toys from non-Soviet-like tech from 1950 to 1990.

>>18202
>and maybe a bit rotten so they might have been dead for a while

In hot condition body can decompose pretty fast, especially in garden, because there are plenty of insects and bacteria around.

>The T-34's front is more sloped and the turret hangs over it. The front is moar Sherman-like but the Sherman's side slopes down toward the back.

But Sherman looks much more tall, and back side (engine section cover) looks very T-34-like. Turret is also looks more like 34s than Sherman's. Although you are right, front is strange and not from T-34. I guess it isn't really based on any model.

Btw, when everyone hear about T-34 they remember T-34/85 exterior, but T-34/76 was more numerous at war.

>The side of German tanks however are not but the turret is all wrong for that.

German tanks are too square-like. I also don't think that someone would make German tank toy in post-war Europe except for scale modeling.

Uh, also as it is tank an weapons thread, here is the training tank from university military training department (don't know how to translate this thing properly).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officer_Training_in_Russia

Photos are shitty because it is Siemens C65 and it is 2005.

>>18206
>I also don't think that someone would make German tank toy in post-war Europe
Then what were defeated by the toy Soviet tanks?
I watch that Stalingrad movie Taiwanbernd wrote about btw. It feels like American war movies such as Kelly's Heroes or Dirty Dozen. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan - for example so I dunno how it compares.

>>18207
Bretty gud.
Found a blogpost about an abandoned Hangarian air-defense base and the blog itself seems to be dedicated such topics, started in 2011 and still goes on. Maybe I'll find something there to cherrypick from and post it here.

Picrel is a tank graveyard maybe in the Ukraine.

>>18258
>> our plot
>your what?
On our plot of land where our house stands.

>I think they brought a working Panther once.
obligatory picrel

I'd post Object 279 just because I like how crazy it looks.

I'm not sure how the history of tanks went but Hungary could have one right before WWI. The designer basically covered a Holt-Caterpillar tractor with steel plates and put a machine gun above in a turret. The second version got a flamethrower instead and was more box like. This was in 1912/13. During a military exercise - as the story goes - the tank approached His Majesty, the Kaiser und König - two in one - but his horse got scared so he judged: enough of this silliness, the K.u.K. Armee doesn't need such reckless faggotry. Next thing we know the Serbs kicking our buttocks. Great job, Your Majesty!
Depending on who tells you the story the victim of the shortsightedness of the Emperor can be an armored car of the same military inventor.

Pic #1: the tractor itself

Bout a year previously to Lipták's tank patent, in 1912 an Austrian engineer, Oberleutnant Burstyn, too designed a tank for the Austro-Hungarian Army (pic #2, #3 and #4). He was also refused, then he turned to Berlin but found no luck there either. Supposedly his plans were stolen by British spies and were sent to Britain where Swinton used them to create his own version of a tank (patented in November 1914). However his tank was based on the Holt Caterpillar Tractor like Lipták's but Burstyn's doesn't look like it was.

>>18425
That forward wheel looks poorly defended and vulnerable.

Pre-1914 tanks were fun though. There were no proper testing in real life conditions, so people invented real crazy things (not only for tanks, but all military strategy was flawed and war proved it).

Look at that tricycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank

>>18462
>Supposedly his plans were stolen by British spies and were sent to Britain where Swinton used them to create his own version of a tank

There is also a conspiracy theory that British lobby in government damaged construction of Russian tanks and even stole design of one of them to make Mark I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vezdekhod

Some other fun designs. I dunno how many was manufactured, I've data only on the third one, they built 7.

We also developed helicopter(s). The K.u.K. Fliegerarsenal assigned the task to Hungarian factories and engineers to build a helicopter to replace observer balloons during the summer of 1917. The PKZ-1 was a dead end as there wasn't enough manufacturing capacity to build the electric engines for that one. The PKZ-2 was more successful, it had 36 experimental flights but at the end of June 1918 it crashed and with the end of the war the project was abandoned.
Both model have several "the world's first..." titles but I'm not sure how to translate them, but for example the PZK-2 held the record of flight height and period of time, which remained unofficial as wartime achievements weren't recorded by Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.

More examples: a dozen models of this kind of vehicle were designed in São Paulo when the state briefly waged war against Vargas in 1932.

>>18661
>Why are they shooting at tank with the AK?

Because they can.

I guess, it is part of training because tanks rarely go without any infantry support (it we don't talk about Arabs of course). It also allows to shoot on evacuating crew. And it is also a psychological thing, person feels better if he has a weapon and uses it, even if it is useless.

I've read some articles about actions of modern mechanized infantry with statistics from WW2 and local wars: personal weapons (autorifles etc) and individual skills rarely matter in large "real" (not anti-partisan) battles at all. Everything is about armored vehicles, artillery, aviation, machineguns and positioning, individual weapons are rarely effective in killing and mostly good for moral of troops. People don't want to be unarmed even if their weapons do only small part of real damage.

Also this training with grenades is mostly useless - modern tanks are ok with any anti-tank hand grenade. It is also pretty hard to get to hand throwing distance. So, in most armies anti-tank hand grenades are replaced with single-use rocket launchers. They really a hand grenades of modern times (don't confuse them with large multiple-use anti-tank weapons).

Pic #1 Different arrangements of K.u.K armoured trains.
Pic #2 The four remaining armoured trains in 1940.
Pic #3 Rába armourder car in 1927, that particular one was used by the police at that time.
Pic #4 Now this is a real armoured car for front line applications, for recon and such, the 1940M Csaba. I might write about this later.

>>18749
>Armored train

They became meme weapons of October Revolution and Civil War (because it wasn't positional war like WW1).

>>18838
Railroad was (and sometimes is) the main method of transportation for large distances. It allows to transport large amount of people, vehicles and cargo very quickly, it gives quick reaction response.

So, it is like "why fight in cities, you can avoid them, they are big and immobile". But: 1) how you will control territory when there are hostile city 2) why even occupy something if not cities?

People also underestimate mobility problems, especially until mass mechanization. Large group of troops without vehicles couldn't easily move more than 30-50km in day. Railroad allows you to push troops at same distance in few hours (considering loading and unloading). So, while your forces slowly march through forests and swamps, enemy would move his troops to prepare defense or to strike you in back. Large regiment of troops that want to cross railroad couldn't easily avoid these trains: while they slowly gather near some point, train could easily move there.

Most of these arguments may be applied to common roads too, but until mass automobilization (~1930-1950 for armies) roads weren't so good as railroads for transportation. Transporting heavy artillery also was problematic task: even now naval artillery, for example, are much more sophisticated and effective that land-based because ships allow guns to be much heavier.

So, armored trains were a thing. Of course they weren't a superweapon, and in large scale wars (WW1, WW2) they were required, but not main part of forces. In low-intensity civil wars and anti-partisan operation they were much better because both sides didn't want to ruin rails and cities, but only to control them. And these trains provided fast response to threats and good protection against partisan forces who try to hijack trains. That is why armored train cult was formed in Russian Civil war, not in WW1 or WW2.

1. Hungarian built fighter plane, based on the Italian Reggiane Re.2000. Different engine and longer fuselage. It was also equipped with the:
2. Gebauer machinegun which was a synchronized, engine operated machine gun and was developed for airplanes at the end of WWI.

Pic #1 Batmobile. As you, Bernd, surely know even in the WWII horses were widely used to move around artillery pieces. Everyone developed towing vehicles tho so did we. This is one masterpiece.
Pic #2 Another tractor.
Pic #3 Tried to use Italian stuff as well. Between the two WW's we only had access to Italian war material.

Due to lack of sea access the Hungarian military shipping was limited to riverine warfare and the developments were mostly limited to continuous upgrades of the old Austro-Hungarian units up until the end of WWII.

Different types of gunboats were used, some were heavier, equipped with the turrets of tanks, some were lighter and faster like pic #1 and #2.
The boats were used in reconnaissance, reconnaissance by force, mine laying and sweeping, and air defense.
Pic #3 Because the lack of water surface some boats patrolled on roads and rails. These two mine layers deployed anti-tank mines.
Pic #4 From Italy we got back many torpedoes of the late Monarchy. They were also used in anti-tank roles. In the picture a battery is ready to take out a T-34 approaching in the corn field.

>>19068
Lol.

It is also pretty interesting to see that it is uncommon Mi-24A. A helicopter that rarely depicted anywhere.

>>19074
Looks like someone put armament on a MI-8 or something. Is it even tandem?

>>19078
It is actually a true Mi-24, only front side is different. Both pilots sit like in later versions, one beside other.

Versions A and B had this type of cabin, unofficially called "veranda" (terrace) or even "stakan" (drinking glass). On next versions designers decided to do some modifications, like making pilot seats isolated with different position to make better view and do some balance tricks. They also moved tail rotor to other side and changed armament.

Also people rarely know that Mi-24 has small troop compartment, mostly for emergency reasons.

>>19078
>put armament on a MI-8

Military Mi-8 are often armed, there even a special versions for this. Soviet/Russian aviation had no direct analogue of American "air cavalry" tech with light support helis, so they had no choice but to arm relatively heavy transport Mi-8.

Here come the panzers.
Austria-Hungary didn't build much armoured vehicles and after WWI and Trianon the little Hungary didn't have any capacity nor for developing neither for building them.
Pic #1 So to help the situation we chose to buy foreign war material, options were extremely limited. Ofc out military followed the Spanish Civil War and really wanted to acquire some German Panzers as they saw what those were capable of but at that time the Reich protected their assets tightly so we ended up buying a bunch from the Italian L3/35 tankettes. They were utter shit so they got some facelift but that didn't help. They were rebranded as CV35 or 1935 but usually is called Ansaldo which is the name of the Italian company they were built by. They saw some action here and there, participated in the invasion of the Soviet Union where they suffered 100% casualties by the end of the first campaign: not by the enemy but by mechanical failures. Oh well.
But before all this events took and unexpected turn. A Hungarian born engineer, Straussler Miklós (Nicholas Straussler) worked in Britain in the car industry was charged by the British military to return to Hungary and build experimental armored vehicles for them in cooperation with the Weiss Manfred company. He got his British citizenship in February 1930 and not long after he could start his work. They created 22 designs for the Alvis-Straussler Mechanisation Ltd. The Hungarian military kept back 4 built vehicles from the V-3 and V-4 series, 2 for each. I think in Britain they got AV markings (insted the V).
Pic #3 The V-3 was an amphibious armored car, pontoons could be attached for river crossing manouvers.
Pic #2 The V-3 during river crossing. In fact this particular one was the first ever river crossing in Europe by an armoured vehicle.
Pic #4 The V-4 got a Hungarian 40 mm gun and a version of the Gebauer machine gun which was especially redesigned for tanks.

From the Batmobil here >>18928 - which proved to be a failure as an artillery truck - they developed the 1939M Csaba armoured car/recon vehicle, I posted the later version of it here: >>18749
It was a neat little car and was used in the fights but needed an upgrade soon. By 1943 the plans were ready, they named the six-wheeled replacement Hunor. The lack of producing capacity meant another unrealized project. Just after the war the plans got to Alvis via Straussler, where some (few?, many?) points of the concept were used in the making of the Saladin and later the Saracen.

More Csaba.

>>19211
English sources say that Csaba had crew of 3, but Russian say it was 4. What is true?

Some site says that there were 2 (!) drivers, front and back. Pic 1 shows that it has steering wheel on back too.

So the Csaba was a neet little toy with as strong armament as the PzII had. At the beginning of the war it wasn't bad however this led to overconfidence in it's abilities on the long run and the Hunor's development started too late so the troops had to use equipment which was outgunned by the enemy's. This was also true all the Hungarian build tanks as well.
The first real tank in the Defense Force's service had Swedish origin. They bought the license of the Landsverk L-60 tank and the L-62 tank destroyer/self-propelled AA gun. Modifications were made and they named them Toldi and Nimród. The Toldi I got a 20 mm heavy rifle and a Gebauer machine gun (btw that was 8 mm).

Pic #1 #2 The Toldi II got stronger springs but not weaponry until 1942-43 when they got a 40 mm gun finally and thicker armor (Toldi II/A). The Toldi III was never finished, I'm not sure how it would differed it was an obsolete light tank as well.
Pic #3 Another version of L-62 was turned into an ambulance tank and called Lehel.
Pic #4 They also designed a tank destroyed on the basis of the Toldi.

>>19284
I could fly that. I grew up on The Dam Busters.

More tanks.
In 1940 we bought the license of the Skoda T-21. With that one prototype came and found to be immature. Bunch of things were redesigned and the 47 mm gun was downgraded to the 40 mm which was the standard AT gun of the Defence Force with abundant supply of ammo. The 40M Turán (I) tank was born. At that time that 40 was far from enough and they knew it. So they started to develop plans for the incorporation of a modified 75mm Böhler gun with the help of the Swedish Bofors. I think they made a short, low-velocity and a long, high velocity version of that gun. Nevertheless we produced some 41M Turán (II) with the short barrel gun and built one prototype of the 43M Turán (III).

Our military engineers planned a heavy tank as well based on their observations of the Panther and Tiger tanks. It was the 44M Tas. The main gun would have been the 29/38M 80 mm AA gun at first, but the prototype got the 1943M 75mm (long, high-velocity) gun.
The categories of medium and heavy tanks in the Hungarian army was used by the size of the gun and not by the weight of the tank. So the Turáns with the 75 guns were graded as heavy tanks, just like the Pz IV's we obtained from the Germs while those were medium tanks in the Wehrmacht.
And now that we are talking about German armament... After we moved the 2nd Hungarian Army to the Eastern Front the German high command started to give material gradually to help alleviate the urgent need of modern weapons. This way during the course of the war we got:
Pz II
Pz III M
Pz IV F1, F2, G, H
Pz V
Pz 38t
Marder II
Hetzer

>>19290

That feel when missed that game. But played B-17 and other DOS sims of early 90s.

>>19293
>Skoda

I hate these dirty Czechoslovaks because I've pushed a broken Octavia at 40C for hour few years ago. Looks like they continue to work for nazis and plan to holocaust the Russian people.

>At that time that 40 was far from enough and they knew it

In 40 and maybe until 42 it was ok, not because it was actually good, but because pre-war concept of light infantry-support tank was a thing, until war brought military designers to reality and showed that it is nothing. For example, Soviet army had large amount of light tanks, and they were designed even when war was going (T-70 was created in late 41 and produced until 43 for example).

>>19294
>based on their observations of the Panther and Tiger tanks. It was the 44M Tas.
>German high command started to give material gradually to help alleviate the urgent need of modern weapon

Couldn't Germans supply Hungarian industry with plans to produce clones Pz IV or Panther? How Germans and Hungarians actually cooperated in WW2? It looks strange that allied country needs to invent something on it's own when global war rages on.

There is pretty good and large article about Turan 2 on Russian wiki. It is strange that Hungarian version is much shorter. We also have one tank in Kubinka museum.

So German-Hungarian relations.
Not sure where to start because there are things reaching back to the late 19th century but I don't want to ramble too much. It is also really hard to get to some kind of "truth" in this question as the post-war communist propaganda and history writing did lot to muddle the picture by demonizing the Germans and making pathetic bootlickers of the Hungarians, but the interwar and wartime propaganda of both sides did the same from the other end by painting the situation overly jovial and comradely.

Maybe I should start with the mood of the officers.
Because of the historical background there was some camaraderie and the war propaganda played this card as well. Most of the Hungarian officers were pro-Germany and very anti-communist, they very much admired the German war machine and it's efficiency so that helped oiling the wheels. However some interactions put some sands in there as well
I believe five types of German officers existed: 1. indifferent towards us, 2. hated us for previous experience, 3. loved us for previous experience, 4. hated us without previous experience, 5. loved us without previous experience.
Hungarian units were subordinated to German ones, either to a higher command in an army group or one of the neighbouring army HQ was in charge of the Hungarian army next to it (kinda). How they functioned together was largely depended upon the predisposition and the character of the German commander in charge. With zealous hardasses who frowned upon everyone cooperation was poor (I think in the case of the 2nd Hungarian Army at the Don and in the aftermath), those who had friendlier attitude things went much better (1st Hungarian Army in the Carpathians).
The lackluster equipment and underpoweredness of our units didn't make good first impression and generally the Hungarian soldiers and officers didn't find attractive the idea of dying for Herr Hitler on the say so of the OKW/OKH far from Hungarian border after the Barbarossa turned into assorabraB I mean when the front started to move toward west. In Russia some German officers labeled our troops cowards when they rather chose retreat instead of holding pointlessly ground "to the last breath". Some German officers for their own shortcomings tried to shift the blame onto the Hungarians, sometimes with success. It was quite different when the fights happened at home and the opinion of German officers changed accordingly, tho they themselves lost much from their haughtiness as well by then.

>>19324
>The stigma of being fascist/nazi/anit-semite in that period is still very strong so it's kind of a taboo to show interest to these stuff

It is pretty interesting. In USSR nazis were the biggest devil in the world, and Victory slowly became a religious cult (nowadays it is truly religious). Even modern anti-Ukrainian propaganda often uses terminology from WW2 ("we only want peace and already saved world from fascism but yet again fascists going to..." etc).

But, surprisingly, studies of German war participation was common, many historians and amateur history lovers were pretty good specialists about Nazi Germany. Of course you'll need to say that "nazis were very bad", but there were even people who built only nazi scale models for example. Latent hidden German-wannabees aren't rare in war history circles.

And, now not so surprisingly, anti-nazi propaganda created a counter action, even we jokingly "threw hands to the sun" in school (and it was 90s with Soviet atmosphere in mind). Modern schoolkids often do this too, and even older average Russians, who officially hate Hitler, become less angry about him when when it is talk about refugees or roads ("at least he built good roads, not like our government!"). Although real nazis here are small minority of course, and being open nazi is no-no (I've seen guy with big swastika tattoo few months again though). I guess average German will be truly shocked if he'll visit Russia because, as far as I know, even talking about nazis could trigger guilty circle for the modern German.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why Hungarian tech has good representation in Russian internet. Especially because Hungarians aren't demonized at all.

With a little break today I complete the topic of the Hungarian armored vehicles in WWII as you guys posted a lot and I wanna read those and can't if I write long.
Let me introduce you the Zrínyi II assault gun (105 mm howitzer) and Zrínyi I tank destroyer (75 mm AT). The Zrínyi II is earlier and I believe they only realized a prototype of Zrínyi I. Both were built on the chassis of the Turán.

Back to weapons.
In WWI they built two gun factories. Gun as in artillery piece and not rifle or pistol. An actual one in Győr in Western Hungary, and one producing only spare parts in Diósgyőr in Eastern Hungary where they established a repair workshop as well. After WWI and the Hungarian Soviet the Romanians ransacked the factory in Győr and the site remained empty until 1942.
We wanted to buy the license of the German 10,5 cm leFH 18 but the they didn't sell it only ready made pieces. Also they only sold their Pak 40 in Dec. '42. and by the time we could produce anything out of that we didn't have the capacity anymore.

Here's a list, maybe left out some.
In WWI mainly 8, 10,5 and 15 cm guns. These were developed by Skoda.
Examples:
- 1905/8M 8 cm light gun
- 1905/8M. 8 cm AA gun
- 14M./a,b,c 10 cm howitzers
In the 20's they mainly repaired, maintained the old ones, after that the development started:
31M. towed 15 cm howitzer - Swedish license
31M. towed 10,5 cm gun - Swedish license
from the 1915M. mountain gun they created the 1915/31M. horse towed gun
1929M. 8 cm Bofors AA gun
1936M. 4 cm AA autocannon
40M. 10,5 cm howitzer
40M. 21 cm heavy howitzer
39M. originally Italian -> 40M.
42M. 10.5 cm howitzer - no series produced
43M. towed 15 cm howitzer - no series produced
Tank cannons: 40 mm, 75 mm short and long, 80 mm, I'm not sure all of their model number, the long 75 was 43M.
36/39M. 81 mm mortar
43M. 120 mm mortar
43M. 15 cm multiple rocket launcher

>>19320
>they continue to work for nazis and plan to holocaust the Russian people.
By forcing them to drive in a heatwave. Flawless plan.

Let's dial back the size of weapons to submachine gun size. Umm. To the XL category of the submachine gun size. This is the Király smg which was named after it's constructor Király Pál, the model numbers: 1939M (basic), 1939/A M (folding stock), 1943M (folding stock and tilted magazine), K SMG (commie version from '50s).
What can be told this guy tells it:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JWQFtRId85U [Embed]
Some stuff he misses out tho. For example the Hungarian military didn't adapted smgs because it was thought to be a weapon of policing force. Even for them they ordered some Bergmann and that's it.
In Hungarian it is sometimes referred as a machine carbine and not submachine gun.
I've different numbers on how many of these were manufactured: 8652 piece from the 1939M and 13176 from the 1943M (the army ordered 61350 piece).

>>19695
>For example the Hungarian military didn't adapted smgs because it was thought to be a weapon of policing force.

Same reason was used in post-war USSR, so there were no SMG development until 1990s. Official position was "police is the western opressive capitalist thing, we have people's militia and no big crime". For exceptional cases police used army weapons (i.e. AK, SKS, old SMGs from war etc).

When confronted with crime wave of late 80s, police used short AKS-74U as SMG replacement because there were no other choice. They use it even today, although some local made SMGs started to appear. It is pretty bad weapon for this role, because 5.45 bullets known for ricochet when used at short distance, and overall it is army weapon (designed for vehicle crews), not police.

But, if we'll go back to WW2 theme again: SMG wasn't really good weapon for mass army. For real army operation it has short range and not so good power, so it is ok only in close combat, but field battle isn't close combat for most time. Burst fire also isn't an option, it gives bad precision and uses ammo very fast. So, main weapon of infantry in WW2 was large and powerful rifle (and machineguns of course, but this is another story), although movies and folk stories give image of SMG as main weapon. Hungarian army didn't lose much.

The Panzerschreck impressed Hungarian officers and soldiers alike but the Germans didn't gave a license we could only use what they manufactured. So after studying it our engineers drew up our own version with several modifications which made the manufacturing process easier and gave a somewhat ballistically superior rocket.
The caliber was reduced to 60 mm, the maximum range was 150 m, the efficient range was somewhere between 60 and 70 meters.
It was adapted in 1944, I don't know more precise date only that it arrived too late and we could produce only a small amount and that was nowhere close to the actual demand.

>>19898
>>19902

Ukrainian automotive manufacturer KRaZ (former USSR truck plant, it was giant factory whose trucks could be found everywhere) with cooperation with some Canadians made two MRAPs and called them literally Shrek and Fiona.

Strangely but Fiona is slightly larger than Shrek.

>>19909
That is strange, becauze KRAZ is pretty common even today in Russia, although new KRAZes are rare because other local manufacturers (Ural, KAMAZ) replaced it.

By the way, ZIL is completely dead, sadly. Plant is fully destroyed and replaced by shitty offices and hipster flats. Government even destroyed their car museum.

Now this is a curiousity.
At first the Germans didn't delivered Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks but in '43 they gave a pair for making studies. As I said the letter inspired the 44M 60 mm handheld rocket launcher but the Panzerfaust also gave ideas to Hungarian military engineers. Luckily we could buy the Nebelwerfer's license and they used the gunpowder of it in several explosives (like in the 60 mm rocket).
The novelty was the detonation which was based on a mechanism that they later called Misnay-Schardin effect. The two researcher discovered it independently, probably the German was the first. Here you can read more about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misznay%E2%80%93Schardin_effect
The operation of the 44M 60 mm rocket, the 40 mm AT projectile, 43M AT mine and the 44M. "Macelauncher" was based on this effect.

Today's topic the the 44M. "Macelauncher" (Buzogányvető) or "Szálasi-rocket" which was a three person crew operated AT rocket launcher.
Ofc this also came late. The tests began in '44, the production went on from the summer till late December when the factory was took by the Red Army. All in all they produced maybe 6-700 pieces, two exists with the serial number of 441 and 448.
For the first test they used tripod as a mount - the soldier who fired the first shots was a convict with death penalty who got pardoned and forced to do the tests instead - then they used the Goryunov machine gun's wheeled mount as they not just find it very suitable but the army obtained many hundreds of it as spoils of war. A few was also placed on some Krupp Protze trucks and on Toldi tanks.
The rocket itself is 27-30 kg, 970 mm long and 215 mm wide at the fattest part, two was loaded into 700 mm long launcher tubes. It was capable of penetrating 300 mm armor and had a range of 500-1200 m but could fly about 2000. Ofc the effective range was much shorter, maybe about 200 m.
It only saw action around Budapest during her siege.

Oh I almost forget it, it had a fragmentation version against soft targets. It was called "Downpour".

44M Lidérc (ghost, wisp) AA rocket. Second AA rocket in the world but the first one which used an igniter activated by the target itself as German AA rockets were activated by impact or a timer. The carrier aircraft would have been the Me 210 Ca-1 - only one could be fitted on one plane - and the target would have been the carpet bombing Allied bombers flying in close formation, the planned objective was to disrupt their missions by breaking up their formations and not the destruction of individual planes.
The designer of the igniter was Pulváry Károly (in esperanto: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1roly_Pulv%C3%A1ry) physicist, mechanical engineer, sound engineer who made his invention to be activated by the sound of motor of the bombers.
50 pieces were made but - as far as I know - none had the igniter as there was no capacity to manufacture them. They were used as anti-personnel rocket propelled explosives against the Red Army around Budapest.
No American bomber was harmed in the making of this rocket.

Radars.
Pic #1 Sas (Eagle) general long distance radar
Pic #2 Borbála (female name, variation of Barbara), for AA artillery, they made another one for fighter plane guidance, they name this Bagoly (Owl), these two had the same electronics, they differed in their mechanical structure
Pix #3 Turul on the built in a Me 210 Ca-1, they could create only one piece of this, it was manufactured by Philips
Pic #4 vacuum tube, well, you know before transistors these were the bread and butter of electronics, radio and such, this particular one was a 2,5 kW triode.

Similar case to the others. First we wanted to buy German stuff (the Freya), they denied it. Then we started the research and just then they were willing to give/sell radars. Ofc by late 1943 -early 1944 it was a necessity to deploy some as American strategic bombers started their campaings against Hungarian targets as well.

From April to October in 1944 the Danube was the target of the RAF's Gardening operiation which ment of laying mines in the river to disrupt the most important oil supply route from the Romanian fields to the refineries of Wien and Pozsony. The missions were executed by the 205. Group (they flew Wellingtons and Liberators) and were scheduled in between the usual bombing runs against Italian, Balkanite and Hungarian targets.

>>20398
The success of this Gardening varied. On the lower part of the Danube where the river is flowing slow in wide bed and where maritime de-mining methods can be used it wasn't a great problem, but on the Hungarian section with the narrower, rocky, somewhat sinuous bed both general shipping and de-mining had lots of troubles. It is estimated that over 1200 mines were deployed and I believe beside the usual explosives (bombs, shells, etc.) they still find some up to this day.
My source material gives the following markings to the mines:
A-102 and A-180
B-202 and B-208
C-303 and C-306
But the British classification doesn't seem to comply to this:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_Mines.php
I'm not entirely sure the identification of these devices. Supposedly the Germans layed mines at the mouth of the Thames, Brits gathered, studied and perfected them. Then used it as well.

>>20399
Our riverine forces was ofc nowhere near to deal with the situation so the Germans were notified who arrived a little late. They used magnetic detonating devices towed by de-magnetized ships, and a few airplanes. After a while Hungarians also pitched in with wooden rowboats and magnets attached to towed wooden beams. For some reason Germans behaved the way how such cunts they are and transported every piece of mine they could get in whole to Kiel. Despite of this an "expert" group was formed and started to pick up some in secret and kept hidden from the Germans so our own studies and development could start.
This group had minimal material backing so they used what they could acquire or make. As most of these mines were triggered by magnetic anomalies in their own field wooden and bronze tools had to be used. There were some lucky catch, when the British bombers missed or mixed up targets our boys could get their hands on. By the end of the war, in the chaos and destructions almost all documents were lost and everything had to be started from the beginning in the post-war years.

>>20400
Pic #1 The Virgin Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician
Pic #2 & #3 The Chad Minehunter
Pic #4 The Chad Minehunters

After the posting fiasco I committed last time here: >>20561 , let's continue.
So in the '60's the infantry needed an armoured transport vehicle which could support them the fights as well. They had the FUG, so they built upon it and developed it. Got a tower with a machine gun, it could transport 9 soldier (a "rifle" squad), it was still amphibious and ensured some protection against gas attacks and radiation. They called it Páncélozott Szállító Harcjármű (PSZH, = Armoured Transport Fighting Vehicle).
It was quite a success they could sell a few hundred to DDR. These were later dumped into Yemen.

During the 60's another task came up, the old lorry fleet of the Army needed a rejuvenation. They acquired MAN diesel engines which became the core of the project. The government ordered the automobile factory of Csepel to realize the project which passed it on to another company, called Rába, where these MAN engines were already produced, and was a good choice for the new lorry.
The govt. ordered almost 8000 pieces, but the economical situation didn't allow to produce that much. Then it turned out the whole mechanism was too difficult for the untrained conscripts to maintain, and frankly it was more expensive than foreign trucks. So in the end all in all they produced 3006-3008 pieces.
The construction had a not small fault. The brakes were prone to break. Personally I think this shouldn't be a problem. Why would our glorious army even want to stop during steamrolling Western Europe? It's a mystery.
Then the production of parts stopped, this caused shortages and inability to repair the lorries.
Pic #1 No idea why is that red. However this has a different cabin.
Pic #2 At the entrance of the Csepel Automobile Factory. That particular piece was sent to an expedition in Africa to the Kilimanjaro and had some modifications.
Pic #3 The plate says: Test (=Próba). Also modified for the expedition.
Pic #4 Second prototype with unique cabin.

>>20815

Yes, shape is pretty common, like on french VAB or Cadillac Commando. But it is somewhat strange that BRDM-1 looks different.

>Culture of truck manufacturing

How looks truck or bus manufacturing in modern Hungary?

I rarely see Ikaruses nowadays, and they are very old, while until early 2000s it was the most common bus I've ever seen (I guess many Russians don't even know that it was foreign bus).

>>20767
About the Soviet trucks here's a little piece of information, in 1951 the SU delivered these three. From later years I've not uncovered anything yet.

>>20984

I've read some about Soviet truck import/export and discovered that USSR was mostly an importer of trucks, especially in 70-80s. Local trucks couldn't fulfill economic demands.

Maybe biggest truck import contract in the world was made by USSR, it ordered 10000 Magirus trucks from evil capitalistic West Germany to build the BAM (Baikal-Amur mainline).

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-Projekt (no English version, sorry)

This one I wanted to present for a while now. An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle project in Czechoslovakian and Hungarian co-production.
In the Warsaw Pact this kinda research happened on entirely Soviet field and no publication was released by them. Similar secrecy goes for the opposing NATO and related powers. But these stuffs were around from the end of the '70s, first news of them came from the Arab-Israeli wars. Officers of the engineering corps were very much interested in it and the army also had the need to have them but while we had the electronic background we lacked in aeronautics. So a neighbour was approached - the only neighbour who was approachable, frankly -, Czechoslovakia, who judged they can complement us with their aviation experience (they even had a few radio controlled planes for target practice, which could fly only in visual range due lack of on-board devices), but the electronics R&D would be too much for them. The initiative started in the late '80s.

Pics: the first modifications of the Czechoslovak target drone. One notable thing is the 4 cylinder engine.

The goal was the development a multi-purpose vehicle with modular equipment to make available for task on a wide spectrum, from visual recon to nuclear radiation measurement.
The plans drew up a fixed wing plane with pusher propeller configuration, with 145 kg maximum weight, from which 20 kg was reserved for the payload. Max speed was 150 km/h. Was launched from guide rails - 12 m in length, foldable, fixed onto a truck - with auxiliary rockets. They proposed two types of landing possibilities: to a proper field with skis, otherwise with parachute.
First thing was to create the control system with on-board navigational devices - namely: they put a cam in there (black and white, with zoom, rotatable), solved the live feed, radio connection, distance and heading measurement, also they put a GPS in there too. And ofc they built the land control devices and all the stuff that was needed to navigation.
First flights began in 1991-92 many faults in the design were revealed, motor was too heavy, the wings short, etc. By 1995 it was ready for real field trial by the troops in Czechia. But the contract expired (which was renewed previously twice) and the partners continued the development separately by then.

Pics: basically what filenames say. Not much to add.

For us the real problem was the plane itself. We had a few test-vehicles made by the Czechs but we had to be capable of building our own. Some attempts were made, among them a bigger one with 80 kg of payload, this was also tested by a real pilot. But by the end we had to revert back to the Czech design.
When my source material was written, about 2005, the tests and development were still going on, with modern electrical equipment and all kinds of gadgets on board I can't bothered to research what are them in English. Also new motor was obtained since the old Czech one was retired, new, lighter materials were used for the skeleton, fuselage and wings too.

Just the land control containers from the inside.

A Brazilian main battle tank once stood toe to toe with the Abrams. For its designers, it meant the high point in their fantastic ascension aswell as their doom and oblivion. The company behind it is long forgotten and only a few prototypes still exist.

In 1958, a group of young engineers led by José Luiz Whitaker Ribeiro founded Engesa - Specialized Engineers S.A. -in São Paulo. The entire firm only had 8 people at first. It produced equipment for the oil industry, initially just for refineries. As a large part of the industry was on shore and equipment had to be sent to faraway locations in the North and Northeast of the country through poor highways and even roadless areas, Engesa sought to fill a logistical gap and drew closer to the vehicle sector. Its first invention of note was Tração Total in 1966, a 4x4 transmission system for Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge trucks and pickups. 6x4 and 6x6 versions soon followed. They offered the highest off-road performance in the national market, and were declared "of interest to National Security" in the following year.
The military government had set its eyes on the young firm. At the time there was both a greater investment in the military and an attempt to nurture national defense companies, with manpower flowing from public to private employment in the sector. This was not just a consequence of the new regime's greater focus on defense but also a reaction to the USA's decision in the 60s to reduce exportation of high-level military technology to Latin America. As the Armed Forces were technologically backwards and greatly dependent on America, which until then had traded generously, they sought European providers and fomented a homegrown arms industry, of which Engesa become one of the big three, along with Avibras and Embraer, large enough to even export defense material. Automobile and aerospace efforts, including all of the big three, were centered in São Paulo, and naval, in Rio de Janeiro. Within the former, the city of São José dos Campos alone housed the Avibras and Embraer HQs, an Engesa plant and the Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA).
Engesa now tended to the Army and Navy's fleet of trucks.
It continued to produce innovations: the company was molded and centered on the personality of José Luiz, who approved research projects even at great cost, and invested on R&D more than the norm for national business. A few hundred employees were already on its rolls and it offered a "Y carrier" in which the best technical personnel rose to management-level wages rather than jusy being promoted to management. In 1969 it patented the "boomerang" suspension which allowed each of a truck's two sets of rear wheels to be at a different height, keeping all wheels in contact with the ground even while crossing holes.

From trucks, Engesa made a leap to armored recon vehicles. The Army's fleet of vintage WWII M8 Greyhounds were growing obsolete and the 2nd Military Region (covering São Paulo) partnered with firms such as Engesa and Bernardini to find a solution. The development process included a failed 4x4 version and a successful modernization package. Engesa went beyond it and devised a whole new vehicle heavily inspired by the M8, using its same 37mm cannon but with a better engine and Engesa’s boomerang system. It was called the EE-9 Cascavel (14-ton) and entered production in 1974. A very similar design with an APC role, the 13-ton EE-11 Urutu, was launched in the same year. It had a stronger engine placed in the front-right rather than rear and could haul 12-14 men. The Urutu’s main armament was just a M2 Browning, but an IFV variant sported a 25 mm gun and an ATGM launcher.
A third 70s design, the 6-ton EE-3 Jararaca, was an armored alternative for the jeep’s niche. It was not accepted by the Army and only sold abroad.
A fourth was the EE-17 Sucuri tank destroyer, whose development proceeded late into the 80s. More on it later.
All of these were wheeled.

At the same time the Army sought a cheap light tank sourced mostly from national parts and reused frames from its aging M3 Stuarts. The result was Bernardini’s and Biselli’s X1 Carcará, the first national treaded armored vehicle. Mismanagement, corruption and import restrictions meant only a few dozen were made, finding their place just as training vehicles. At the end of the decade Bernardini derived a rocket launcher from it, the XLF-40, which did not go beyond prototype stage. Engesa had a secondary role in this, as it would originally provide the turrets for the X1 line.
Outside of armor, the company also designed and designed vehicles in the jeep, tractor and truck sectors. The latter also found their way into foreign militaries.

By the turn of the 80s Engesa had thousands of employees and two factories. The national arms industry was reaching new heights and both Engesa and Avibras were growing ambitious. The former was expanding its workforce, forming subsidiaries and delving into new fields. Newfound interest in tanks would seal its fate.
At the time the Army was interested in a new tank model, but not a main battle tank. This reflects its attitude to motorization in general: it took until 1973 to retire the last horse-moved units, and the central argument for their preservation was the country’s vast, difficult terrain lacking road coverage, its lack of an industrial base and the need to import fuel. By now the Army was fully motorized and those points were no longer true, but Petrobras couldn’t achive oil self-sufficiency and neither the roads nor industry were stellar. Hence, it wanted cheap and lightweight tanks.

The first wave of tanks in national service were American-provided M3 Stuarts and M3 Lees. In 1960 M41 Bulldogs were acquired, and a fleet of about 350 were kept. The Stuarts were to be reused in the failed Carcará program, while the Bulldogs were successfully modernized by Bernardini and the Army Technological Center (CTex) into the M41 Caxias version, which wasn’t much better but had 5 times the operational range. Even then it was already obsolete by the 80s. Now the military wanted the arms industry to develop a M41 successor. Its requirements took into account the country’s highways, railways and bridges: a maximum of 30 (or in some sources, 36) tons and 3,2 m of width. It also wanted something simple, compatible with existing equipment and without a great reliance on foreign parts. Bernardini took on the challenge, and, together with CTex, developed the Tamoyo. It weighed 31 tons and was 3,2 m wide and 2,5 m high – a low silloutte. It had three versions. The Tamoyo I had a nationally produced 550 hp Scania DSI 14 engine, the M41’s 90 mm gun and transmission and light armor. The Tamoyo II considered reaching foreign markets and had the M2 Bradley’s transmission. The Tamoyo III was designed with recommendations from a foreign armor specialist. Its engine was the then-incomplete Detroit Diesel 8V92TA, which had 750 hp but could in the future reach 900-1000 hp. To sustain it, the M60’s transmission was adopted. A 105 mm gun, steel-ceramic armor and modern electronics and fire stabilization systems were installed.
During tests one Tamoyo drove over a VW Brasília and killed two people in 16 January 1985.
Loss of interest, budget cuts and competition led to the project’s failure.

But what about Engesa's competitor to the Abrams? I'll write more later.

>>32866

Fifth generation (although all these generations are debatable) requires not only best engines and aerodynamics, but also a trade off between aerodynamics-stealth and engines-stealth. In terms of complexity, that is much harder overall. Americans could achieve everything in their F-22 (it is stealthy, fast and highly maneuverable), but looking on F-117 you may imagine long way they took. Although the later you start, the easier it will be. Creating F-22 20 years ago is much more complex task than creating this today, just because technology slowly flows into common military and civilian market.

>and even those how many of them in service, one?

One if you are strict (F-22), two if F-35 counts. Personally I think that F-35 is a great and unique plane that people hate for silly reasons, although it isn't "pure" 5th gen.

As the Army wanted a competing design to Bernardini’s, Engesa drafted its own plans, but it soon began to eye the overseas market. Saudi Arabia needed replacements for its 800 M-60s and AMX-30s, offering to pay several billion dollars for around 700 tanks. The UAE wanted 300 tanks. Greece, Turkey and Oman also had a demand in this area. The Saudis sought the Leopard II but as Germany would not sell to non-NATO countries they instead opened an international competition which Engesa entered with its ‘’”Osório”’’, named after the Marquess of Herval and patron of national cavalry. The Saudis called it Al Fahd after their king. From its outset the Osório broke the Army’s weight, simplicity and nationalization requirements. Nonetheless, it received official support and there was still some level of interest, to the point that two versions were made, one for export and one for internal demand.
This was now the most complex and ambitious project Engesa ever took, and it had no prior experience in the MBT field.
Its commitment now absorbed most of its financial resources and prime manpower, to the detriment of other projects, stability and ultimately its survival. Porsche was approached at first for a joint design, but the German government blocked this move. The military provided technicians and made its property available for tests. CAD-CAM was used to speed up the design process.
Engesa knew national industry couldn’t provide all of a MBT’s components and so had to resort to foreign technology. Only the chassis and the armor were Brazilian. The latter was originally discussed with Chobham but after their refusal it was made nationally (with some British help) among Engesa, CTex, Usiminas and Eletrometal; it was multi-layered and had good defensive angles at the front. The designer’s aim was to make it survivable to a direct 120 mm hit. It was tested with simulated 105 mm and 120 mm fire. Reactive armor was considered but not implemented. There was also NBC protection.

The engine was MWM GmbH’s TBD 234 V12, with an output of 1.014 hp; others from MTU or Rolls-Royce were also considered. The transmission was ZF Friederichschafen AG’s LSG3000, which was later used in the C1 Ariete. Both of these components were built within the country by subsidiaries of their foreign owners. Others were imported: Diehl BGT provided the treads and Dunlop, the same suspension used in the Challenger 1.
The most important foreign component was the turret provided by Vickers. Its design process took as its starting point previous Vickers prototypes, particularly the Mark 7/2, but had the Osório in mind and was followed closely by Engesa engineers Ricardo Schiesser and Mário Santiago. It had a French 120mm GIAT smoothbore gun and SFIM VS580 VICAS periscopes, one with a laser telemeter for the gunner and another with panoramic view for the commander. Also present were Dutch Philips UA9090 night vision views with thermal imaging for both commander and gunner. The modern fire control system included a 16-bit Marconi AFCS ballistic computer and sensors for atmospheric conditions, vehicle and projectile speed and so on. The gun was stabilized; altogether this meant the Osório could, as the newest and best tanks of its age, accurately fire at night while moving.
Another British component was Racal’s Savior radar and laser warning system, which could detect the direction and distance of enemy radiation and display it in screens for the commander and driver; complementing it were four 66mm smoke grenade launchers.
This was the EE-T2 model for export. For the Brazilian army, a simpler and cheaper alternative ($3,242 mil in 1993 dollars, compared to the T1’s $3,404, though in the Saudi contract it was sold for a third of that) was offered, the T1. Its main difference was its Royal Ordnance 105mm L7 rifled gun, more in line with what was common in tanks at the time. It also lacked thermal imaging and had overall weaker fire control.

All of this added up to 41 (T1) to 43 (T2) tons, at the extreme lower end of MBT weights of the period; this is why a smoothbore gun was preferred over rifled, as it’d generate less recoil on an already lightweight vehicle. It was 10,1 m long, 3,26 m wide and 2,37 m high -like the Tamoyo, an advantageous low silhouette.
There were several proposed variants, such as a 155 mm howitzer, AA vehicle with two 35 mm guns and an armored recovery vehicle. The howitzer would require cooperation with Voest-Alpine.

The first chassis was finished in September 1984. It received a fake turret and was tested for movement, resistance and so on with some changes being made. Vickers delivered a 105 mm turret in May 1985, which was immediately equipped, and the prototype was flown to Saudi Arabia in JUly for pre-tests. There it met its formidable competitors: the M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and AMX-40.
The Challenger suffered an engine meltdown during tests. This inspired a new system in the Osório: if its water and oil temperatures got too high it automatically lowered engine power.
Performance was overall reasonable, though Saudis complained about the 105 mm gun and engine deficiencies were shown, and later solved at home.

The 120 mm turret arrived in early 1986. For the Brazilian army, tests with the 105 mm turret were conducted in December – April with 3269 km of movement, among them 750 in irregular terrain, and the gun was fired 50 times. It fulfilled all of the military’s requirements.
Next came the crowning moment of Engesa’s existence, which would give the Osório an everlasting reputation and has since been the object of hearsay and controversy. The four competing tanks were once again taken to Saudi Arabia for the final batch of tests from July 8th to September 12th 1987. As Engesa’s engineers were working until the last moment there wasn’t enough time to ship by sea and the Osório was flown by Air France.
Each participant was given one month to train a team of randomly selected Saudi personnel which then had to operate their platform in:
-2350 km of movement: 200 km for training, 400 km in highways and 1750 km in the desert, with a maximum fuel consumption of 2,1 km/l on the desert and 3,4 km/l on roads.
-Overcoming 3 m wide trenches, starting up movement on a ramp with 65% inclination and other tests on an inclined plane.
-40 minute tread removal and replacement, 6 hours of engine operation with the vehicle standing still, 6 km of backwards movement and towing a 35 ton vehicle for 15 km.
-82 shots with both vehicle and target stationary and a 4000 m distance and 67 with a 1500 m distance and target/both vehicle and target in movement.
Testing grounds included Sharouah and Khamis Mushait, the former in high temperature conditions.
The Challenger suffered an engine meltdown again.
On the final gunnery test the Osório achieved the highest hit rate, followed by the Abrams, Challenger and AMX-40. It did, however, suffer some damage in the rubber of some ball bearings in the treads. It also managed to tow the Abrams which was much heavier than itself.
As the legend goes, the Osório beat all three of its competitors, proving itself as the best tank in the world. In reality, the Saudi conclusion was that both the Abrams and Osório passed all of their demands. The other two were indeed outperformed, and French and British officers praised the Osório, but for the Abrams it was more of a lighter equal.
Engesa was euphoric at the results and immediately prepared a contract. A plant would be opened in Saudi Arabia and 702 Al-Fahds delivered for U$ 7,2 billion, with a 10% increase on the price used to build one T-1 for the Brazilian army for every 10 T-2s delivered to the Saudis. One pre-series T-2 entered production. However, negotiations would take years.

Iraq and the UAE also expressed interest, and the latter held a lesser-known competition in July 1988. The Ariete, Challenger, AMX-40, Osório and a Chinese tank were present. The Osório was only tested for movement, with turret results from Saudi Arabia taken for granted. It did better than the Ariete. Ultimately the UAE settled for the Leclerc rather than any of those.

There were other projects pursued at the same time. The Cascavel/Urutu platform was used as a base for the Sucuri, a tank destroyer meant to carry on wheeled platform development, conduct reconnaissance and follow armor on the flanks. Like the Osório, CAD was used by designers. Many parts were from commercial trucks, making maintenance easy. Initially designated EE-17, the later model was named EE-18 or Sucuri II.
The 384 hp Scania DS 11 Diesel engine could speed its 18 tons to 110 km/h. Conversely, the armor couldn’t stand much more than shrapnel and small arms fire. The turret was designed by Engesa with experience from the Osório project and its rotation was stabilized. It sported an Oto Melara 105 mm L7 rifled gun capable of firing HEAT and sabot rounds. It could knock out older tanks, though by the late 80s it lacked the firepower to take on the most recent designs. Like the Osório, there was an advanced fire control system with an onboard computer and night vision aswell as laser telemetry on the periscopes.
The earlier EE-17 had a weaker engine -the 300 hp Detroit Diesel 6V53T- and an overall worse French-made turret, with a higher profile, half an extra ton of weight and no ability to use sabot rounds.
The Brazilian Army was uninterested in the Sucuri and as there wasn’t a dramatic interest in its concept it found no buyers abroad. A single prototype was built and was later scrapped, with the gun given back to Oto Melara. However, its suspension is now used in the Mercedes Benz L 1519 truck used to haul artillery pieces.

A very unusual project was the EE-T4 Ogum. A compact, ultra lightweight and air-mobile platform, its only counterpart is the Wiesel. Its name stands out: it’s an African pagan spirit of metallurgy and war, unlike the Osório, a historical figure, and the Cascavel, Urutu, Jararaca and Sucuri, which are venomous snakes. Studies began in November 1985 to fill an Iraqi demand for a 4-ton weapons carrier.
Ultimately it had a weight of 4,4 tons, much higher than the lighter Wiesel versions, a sticking point in a platform specifically designed to be light. Length and width were also greater than the Wiesel’s, though height was comparable. Later prototypes used a 130 hp BMW MD1D24WA-LLK engine, allowing speeds of up to 75 km/h. The transmission was ZF 4HP 22. Diehl treads put little pressure on the soil. The armor was all-metal and similar to the Cascavel and Urutu’s. It could resist 7,62 mm AP fire.
Weaponry and other aspects could change depending on the Ogum’s many possible roles: four-passenger APC, command vehicle, ambulance, recon, anti-tank and so on. For that it could mount one 7,62 mm machine gun or two of them in a turret, a 20 mm gun, an ATGM, a .50 cal machine gun in a rotating turret or a 120 mm mortar.
In Abu Dhabi on 1988, as the last Osório competition was being held, the Ogum and Wiesel were both tested and apparently the former performed better.
Engesa displayed the Ogum to foreign delegations in Brazil and in 1989 it was even shown to the world at the First International Military Products exposition in Baghdad. But as it filled a tiny niche it failed to find a buyer -even the Iraqis were not that interested in it.
Four prototypes were built. The last and most advanced, which was previously in the Exposition, was in Tikrit upon the outbreak of the Gulf War and has not been heard from since. The second is kept by the Second Tank Regiment and the other two are presumably scrapped.

Afterwards, Iraq defaulted on an U$ 200 million debt to Engesa. The Brazilian government gave it a U$ 1,5 billion loan to cover this and the Osório’s loss, but it was too late. The company was already dying and with the burden of years of poor management it defaulted on this debt. Engesa closed its doors in 1993.

The pre-series Osório had its foreign components sent back to pay debts and the rest sold for scrap. Two surviving prototypes were put on auction in 2002 but are now under military custody by judicial decision.
José Luiz Whitaker Ribeiro died in 30 November 2018 at the age of 88.
The Army’s last M41s left service in 2010. It currently fields Leopard 1s and M60s, old but true MBTs.
The Cascavel and Urutu are still in service. The latter has found a successor this decade: Iveco’s Guarani.
Rumors of an Osório comeback circulated years ago but were spurious. Technical documents have been lost long ago and any new production would require extensive reverse engineering and modernization of systems.

>>33016
>this is why a smoothbore gun was preferred over rifled, as it’d generate less recoil on an already lightweight vehicle

Smoothbores also are some kind of "modern trend" in MBTs, everyone used it from 70-80s. Only Brits still use rifled (but they also have special tea boiler in tank, so their opinion doesn't matter).

First reason is invention of APDS - thin and long projectile that looks like arrow and has best armor penetration. It needs to be very fast, but rifled barrel has some limitation about max speed of projectile. It also can be stabilized by arrow-like fins, so smoothbore is ideal for it.

Another reason is HEAT - projectile that forms hot jet on explosion, and penetrates armor by pressure. HEAT is less powerful than APDS in terms of penetration (mostly because it is easier to create specific anti-HEAT composite armor), but has better damage effect, so it is also widely used. But jets formed from fast rotating round work worse than jets from stabilized round. So, smoothbore gun is also better for this.

Third reason is barrel lifespan and complexity. High pressures require hard alloys, but even special materials couldn't prevent rifled barrel from faster degradation. It is also much easier to produce smoothbore barrel, so it is cheaper overall.

>>33724

Comparing Stryker to tanks isn't fair because it carries 8-9 people with equipment in addition to crew and gun.

Of course it is vulnerable, but nowadays APC/IFV tend to choose armor, not size. And even with this size Stryker is pretty badly armored compared to tank-based vehicles.

>>39669
>I would call it a medium tank but regardless it can still be an MBT.
>70mm of frontal armour and 52mm turret armour
>medium tank
it was paper tank tire and it was on the west germany. T-55 has much better armor with 120mm frontal armour and turret armour around 200mm. German kruppsteel is a shit compared to soviet union STALINIUM, which also got produced over 85,500 models and exported almost everywhere of the world.

Hungary is the first buyer of Rheinmetall's brand new APC, the Lynx (the fresher version KF41). It won't be a simple transaction, a German-Hungarian joint venture is gonna build a factory here. The whole thing will be an over 2 billion € investment.
The first batch of vehicles gonna be produced in Germany, about 40 of them, this will be an opportunity to train the Hungarian staff of the future factory. The rest, some 170 fighting vehicles will be manufactured here. A test field also will be established.
They will be put into service by 2026-27. For a while now we don't have any threaded infantry vehicles, since the BMP-1 was retired in the early 2000s. We also don't have armament industry since the privatization after the regime change liquidated the whole of it, this is an important step in rebuilding. That's how it goes, it was a good business to end it for some people, I'm pretty sure it's a good business for some other people to rebuild it. It is also important because it's a high-tech factory for high-tech armament, with robotics and shiet.
The article is in Hungarian, but the Wikipee page below writes the essentials too:
https://index.hu/belfold/2020/09/10/hadipari_high-tech_gigaberuhazas_lynx-gyar_epul_zalaban/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(Rheinmetall_armoured_fighting_vehicle)

Besides Rheinmetall, Dynamit Nobel Defence also opens a site here, chiefly for manufacturing but it will serve r&d purposes too. Or at least d.
First they gonna start producing Explosive Reactive Armors, then a couple years later with the second phase come the RGW parts. They're gonna develop a local version for the Hungarian Defense Forces, probably based on the RGW 110.
Judging by the looks RGW is a man-portable dildo launcher into the enemy's mom's vagina.
Will be glorious.

>>40784
>>40786

Yes, that video has pretty strange selection of tanks, including fictional.

And it misses real tanks designed and made by Edward Grotte, German who worked in USSR in 30s (and then worked in Germany again), like TG (Tank Grotte) and TG-5. First one was very real and made in metal, it was pretty modern medium tank, second one was crazy project of 1000 ton tank that, of course, wasn't made.

There also were projects for 200-400 ton tanks, live VL (Vladimir Lenin).

Idea of super-heavy tank was interesting in 20s (literally mobile fortress), it died in 30s but ressurected for small amount of time after Finnish war, where problem of defense breakthrough was pretty serious.

Some treats: Engesa promotional materials for the Jararaca, Cascavel and Urutu. Just a few pages long.

What is it with the nomenclature of AFV-using units? For instance, the Brazilian Army's battalion-level types are:
>Armored infantry, 100% tracked APC (M113)
>Armored cavalry, 50% tank (Leopard 1 or M60)/50% tracked APC (M113)
>Tank (part of the cavalry), 100% tank (Leopard 1)
>Mechanized cavalry, 50% armored car (Cascavel)/50% wheeled APC (Urutu, in the future Guarani)
>Mechanized infantry, 100% wheeled APC (Guarani)

A wealthier military would replace some of those APCs with IFVs.
Aside from the tank regiments the names aren't quite descriptive. All of them are mechanized in the sense that machines replace human labor in several tasks, more so than in motorized infantry. And all of their vehicles have armored protection, the tanks just have more of it. The clearer distinction is that armored = tracked vehicles and mechanized = wheeled vehicles. Even "tracked cavalry regiment" and "wheeled cavalry regiment" would be clearer. Perhaps those with tanks and/or IFVs could be called "heavy", APCs "medium" and trucks "light" (already the case sometimes).