Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/06/2020 in Posts

  1. 8 points
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    Rheinmetall – MBT 130 mm Gun fitted to Challenger 2 LEP Also shows a larger armour array fitted to the turret. Not sure if this is for LEP or RBSL looking to export or to increase scope of LEP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Challenger 2 ATDU - Early 90's --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- British Companies to Manufacture Military Vehicles in Algeria? An editorial in a Spanish newspaper mentions that British companies are setting up to manufacture military vehicles in Algeria. I haven't heard anything about this is British news and Algeria seems focused on buying German (Fuchs-2, Boxer, Lynx 41? Gladius kit). I wonder if this is Rheinmetall/KMW working through RBSL/WFEL/others to avoid German/EU regulations? https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20200719/mohamed-vi-reino-unido-desafia-espana-marroqui/506199908_0.html
  2. 7 points
    https://livepictureevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/08-MS2-Industry-Day-2020_v2.pdf
  3. 7 points
    http://www.usarmygvsc.com/soldier-innovation-workshop-considers-abrams-replacement/ Roshindow's take on fixing distortion: scalemodel on second photo shows design known for couple of years:
  4. 7 points
    Aforementioned video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYimCkt4Zo I've made some 50 screenshots, all uploaded to twitter - all could be seen on one page there: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1287353695789776897.html (Though this website used downscaled 1200pix version of those 1920x1080 screenshots, so in case one wants 1920pix images, it's easier to download them by opening my posts directly at Twitter. Or one could manually add ":large" after ".png"/".jpg" to every image link) And there is another video, released 12 hours later: https://youtu.be/MtIEs961xuY and some 20 screenshots were also posted on Twitter, starting from this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/skylancer7441/status/1287406394103271425 Another video, unfortunately w/ Korean hardsubs: dozen of screenshots were posted there: https://mobile.twitter.com/skylancer7441/status/1287436177381916672 ... Half a dozen screenshots from Arirang video were posted there: https://mobile.twitter.com/skylancer7441/status/1287448166518919169 Two more interior pics from elsewhere:
  5. 7 points
    Okay, as promised: First some boring, uninteresting text, wont translate. There is some noteworthy fact: we exported 50 T-34/85s to Norway for use as mobile hard targets... Anyway... Tanks in test were in fully operational condition, all ammo rack filled with dummy rounds, crews were simulated by wooden trunks. Fuel tanks filled with water though to prevent fire. RPG-7, PG-7V (7 shots, 6 hits, 200m) 1, miss 2, hull front hit, on the joining of upper and lower plates, on KMT mount. Jet penetrated the armor, but the exit hole was only about 3-5mm, and damaged a fuel line. It could have started a fire, (driver - light wounds) but the PPO system would easily deal with it. Overall, damage was minor. 3, Rear external fuel cell hit, cell destroyed, jet penetrated side hull and damaged the water radiator. Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light. 4, side turret hit. Penetration, ABV unit ventilator destroyed, jet stopped by gun breech. Loader dead, tank needs small to medium repairs (dont know if its the correct term in english. On the other hand, I know the russian term: Средний ремонт) 5, hit on rim of 4th road wheel. Tire separated, other wheels received damage. No side hull penetration. Crew wouldnt even notice the hit. Damage very light 6, rearh hull hit, on right upper corner. Water radiator damaged. Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light. 7, rear hull hit, center. Cooling fan damaged, water radiator damaged, jet stopped by exhaust collector of the engine, but other than this, engine is undamaged and fully operational.Tank able to go for 4-5 kilometers before overheating. Crew unharmed. Damage is light. SPG-9, PG-9V (7 shots, 5 hits, 430m) (2A28 Grom not tested, because ammunition is practically the same) 1, hit on right mudguard, jet passed above track, and destroyed rear mudguard. Tank fully operational, crew unharmed. 2, hit on turret side, on handrail. Rail torn off, no further damage. Tank needs no repairs, fully operational, crew unharmed. 3, hit on left rim of turret. Jet penetrated the turret, but went through the turret wall, did not enter fighting compartment. After exiting, it damaged the exhaust, and external oil tank on fender. Tank fully operational, crew unharmed, damage light. Possibility of fire due to oil tank hit, but this wouldnt affect the tank. 4, miss 5, turret side hit, near commander's hatch. Penetration, jet destroyed the radio, and hit the rear turret rack. OU-3 searchlight also damaged. Crew dead due to ammo explosion, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 6, miss 7, target side hull, but track was hit instead. Jet still penetrated side hull, but caused no damage. Gunner and Commander received heavy wounds, loader and driver minor wounds at worst. Tank needs only light repair work. MT-12 anti tank gun, UBK2 (??? probably they mean 3UBK2, with 3BK3 shell) Also, no tests for APFSDS! Damn... (7 shots, 7 hits, 800m) 1, Front turret hit, 30cm from coax MG. Penetration, MG mount damaged, rear turret rack hit. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. L2 searchlight also destroyed. In case of empty rear ammo rack, loader dead, commander & gunner seriously wounded. 2, Front hull hit, almost center, 10cm to right side. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 3, Side upper hull hit, frontal part. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 4, Side upper hull hit, frontal part, 50cm to trh rear. Results as 3rd hit. 5, Side turret hit. Results exaclty like RPG-7 4th hit. 6, Hit on rear turret, right side. Rear turret rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rack empty, turret crew dead, driver alive. ABV unit ventilator and coax MG mount damaged. Tank needs medium repairs. 7, Rear hull hit, center. Cooling fan and water radiator damaged, jet stopped by right cylinder head of engine. Crew unharmed, but mobility kill, engine seriously damaged. 9M111 Fagot (2 shots, 2 hits, 1830m) 1, Front hull hit, on headlights. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 2, Hit on commander's cupola, right side. Penetration, jet left on hatch. Searchlight destroyed, TPN-1 sight head mirror damaged, crew compartment covered by molten metal. Commander and gunner dead, loader and driver seriously wounded. Damage is light tank easily repaired. 9M14P1 Maljutka (2 shots, 2 hits, 2000m) 1, Front hull hit, on right tow hook. Penetration, jet hit the driver, and stopped by engine components. Only the loader survives, with serious wounds. Damage is light tank easily repaired. 2, Front turret hit, 30cm left to the coax MG. Penetration, MG damaged, rear rack hit, jet even penetrated rear turret. Explosion also destroyed L2 searchlight, extermal fuel cells and loaders periscope. Crew dead due to ammo explosion, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rear rack empty, loader dead, commander, gunner seriously wounded, driver lightly wounded. Tank needs medium repairs. 9M113 Konkurs (3 shots, 2 hits, 2400m) 1, missile malfunction, hit the ground far from target 2, Front hull hit, 5cm below driver's periscope. Penetration, jet hit the driver, gunner, commander, stopped by left cylinder head of engine. Only loader survives, with serious wounds. Tank lightly damaged. 3, Front hull hit, center, 5cm below the roof plate. Penetration, jet hit the front fuel cell, destroyed the electrical equipment of the stabilizator, stopped by gun breech. tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 2S1 Gvozdika, 3VBK9 with 3BK13 shell (6 shots, 6 hits, 600m) 1, hit on left mudguard, track lightly damaged, but tank still mobile. Damage minor, tank fully operational, crew well and alive. 2, hit on turret front 15cm above main gun sight. Penetration, jet hit both gunner and commander, stopped by gun breech. Radio damaged, rear turret rack hit. Explosion was so powerful that it dislodged the turret, balls from turret ring fell out. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rear rack empty, turret crew dead, driver survives with wounds. Damage is severe, tank needs industrial rebuild. 3, side turret hit, center. Penetration, jet hit the loader, stopped by breech, which was seriously damaged. Gun jammed. Rest of crew seriously wounded. Tank needs medium repairs. 4, side hull hit, above 2nd road wheel. Fender totally destroyed, 2nd road wheel seriously damaged. Jet penetrated the hull, stopped by pre-heater. Mobility kill. Crew suffers negligible injuries, and if road wheel arm remains intact, tank needs light repairs only. 5, rear turret hit, center. Penetration, rear rack hit. Jet stopped by gun breech, which was dislodged. Hull roof warped. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rear rack empty, only driver survives, tank repairable, but needs new turret. 6, rear hull hit, center. Water radiator destroyed, jet stopped by gun breech. Only driver survives, tank needs medium repairs. 2S3 Akatsiya, 3VBP2 with BP540 shell (6 shots, 6 hits, 600m) 1, Turret front hit, near coax MG. Penetration, coax MG mount torn off, rear rack hit. Explosion was so powerful that it lifted the turret, turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls fell out. Fragments carved 8-10mm deep grooves in barrel. Damage is massive, both in and outside. If rear rack empty, only driver survives, but tank needs industrial level rebuild. 2, Hull front hit, 30cm below gun barrel. Penetration, front hull rack hit, ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 3, Turret side hit, frontal part of side. Penetration, jet hit loader, stopped by gun breech. Massive damage, gun torn off its mounting. No ammo detonation, but still, everyone dead. Tank needs at least medium repairs. 4, Hit on 4th road wheel, fender totally destroyed, track broke, huge damage on wheels. No penetration, but hit left a 2cm deep, 10cm wide mark on side hull. Mobility kill, crew alive, suffers only minor wounds. Tank needs light repairs. 5, Rear hull hit, 20cm below top. Water radiator torn off, roof plate opened. Engine also torn off its mountings, dislodged towards crew compartment, about 5-10cm. Crew suffers only minor wounds, but the damage in engine compartment is so severe that even industrial rebuild is questionable, due to warped hull and engine mounts. 6, Target was rear turret, but the previous shot opened the roof plate, and the shell detonated on it. Even more damage on engine compartment. Rear turret not penetrated but 2-3cm deep grooves in a 15cm diameter circle. T-72, 3BK14 (3 shots, 3 hits, 800m) (again, no APFSDS... sad) 1, hull front hit, above headlights. Penetration, jet hit hull fuel cell/rack, then the loader, and dissipated in turret ring. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. 2, Hit exactly between gun sight and the gun. Penetration, jet torn off the sight, and thrown out along with the commander's hatch which was locked. Jet penetrated rear turret too. ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. If rear rack empty, driver maybe survives, tank needs medium repairs. 3, lower hull front hit, on KMT mount. Jet penetrated the hull, through the batteries, and stopped by the engine. Loader may survive. Tank needs medium repairs, unless hit causes fire. I'll translate the rest tomorrow.
  6. 7 points
  7. 6 points
    M1A2 SEPv3 ranks from Battle Company, 3-8 CAV
  8. 6 points
    SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

  9. 6 points
    VPZ

    Israeli AFVs

  10. 5 points
    other pics from this pdf: ... https://livepictureevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/04-GVPM-Industry-Day-2020.pdf turns out, NGCV-OMT was renamed (a-la MPF) into NGCV-FDL
  11. 5 points
    Sadly nothing... Second part. T-55AM, BR-412M (actually, BR-412B. It was also known as 3UBR3, no idea where this "BR-412M" comes from...) 7 shots, 7 hits, 800m 1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 45mm deep gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights) 2, Front lower hull hit, at the lower edge. Shell torn out a chunk of metal, 50mm deep, and flew below the tank. Damage is only cosmetic, requires no repair. Tank fully operationa, crew unharmed. 3-4, Turret side hit, right side, center. Both shots landed about the same place. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 5, Side hull hit, right side, in front of 3rd road wheel. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 6-7, Rear turret hit, one on lower, one on upper part. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret. T-55AM, BR-412B 9 shots, 9 hits, 1200m 1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 30mm deep, 22cm long gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights) 2, Target front turret, but gun barrel hit instead. The shell torn out an 50x200m long chunk of metal from the barrel, bending it, then hit the gun mantlet and exploding on it. The force of the impact was such that the turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls from the ring fell out. Damage requires medium repairs, but actually no penetration, so the crew is unharmed. 3, Hit on upper edge of front hull, near driver's periscopes. Shell left a 35mm deep gouge, no penetration. Driver's hatch opened, so large amounts of fragments entered the compartment. Driver received serious wounds. Rest of crew unharmed. Tank requires light repairs. 4, Side hull hit, right side, between 3rd and 4th road wheels. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 5, Right side hull hit, on the rim of 4th road wheel. Wheel damaged, then penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 6, Left side hull "hit" (actually, I would consider this a miss), between 3rd and 4th wheels, on tracks on ground. Slight damage to wheels, track broke. Mobility kill, but otherwise tank and crew unharmed. Damage is so slight that even the crew can repair it quickly. 7-8, Rear turret hits. 8th was actually aimed at rear hull. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret. 9, Rear hull hit, center. Penetration, shell explodes inside engine compartment. Gearbox, water and oil radiators completely destroyed. Massive damage in other equipment. Engine rear cylinder bank also destroyed, and whole engine torn off its mountings, tilted towards firewall. No damage in crew compartment, crew may receive negliglible injuries. Mobility kill. Devastation in engine compartment is so massive that even industrial rebuild is questionable due to warped hull and torn out engine mountings. T-55AM, BR-412B 8 shots, 8 hits, 1600m 1, Front hull hit, right side. Shell left a 40mm deep, 25cm long gouge. Mudguard broke off. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (mudguard) 2, Hit on joining of turret and commander cupola. Cupola rim broke off, but no serious damage. Crew unharmed, maybe except commander with insignificant injuries. Tank operational, and needs only minor repairs. 3, Front turret hit, left side, in the level of gun barrel. Shell left a 45-50mm wide, 18cm long, 35mm deep gouge. No damage. Tank requires no repairs, crew unharmed. 4, Side hull hit, right side, above 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated at the firewall between crew and engine compartment. Shell fragments hit a rear ammo rack, damaged the transfer case, and stopped in the engine. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 5, Hit at almost the same place as 4. Results same. 6, Hit on right 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated the wheel, flew below the tank, penetrated the wheel on other side, and exploded 20 meters away from the tank. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (wheels). 7, Turret side hit, on joining of loader's cupola and turret. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild. 8, Turret side hit, 15cm above lower rim. No penetration. Shell left a 70mm deep crater of 200mm diameter. Crew unharmed, tank operational. Minor damage to outside equipment, nothing serious. GYATA-64 anti-personnel mine. (4 explosions) This type of mine is infamous for containing huge (in fact, record) amount of explosives for an anti personnel mine. (300g) It was actually designed to damage wheeled vehicles too. 1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Caused absolutely no damage. 2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion lifted the plow, but caused absolutely no damage. 3, mine placed below track, between two roadwheels. Explosion blew off a small part of the track, and bent the track pin. This damage does not affect the tank's mobility, and can be repaired by the crew. 4, mine placed below the 4th road wheel. Explosion lifted the wheel, and caused totally insignificant damage on tire. Requires no repairs, mobility unaffected. UKA-63 anti tank mine. UKA means universal cumulative mine. Can be fitted with conventional or tilt rod fuse. Explosive mass is 6kg. 1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Explosion threw up the arm of the trawl up to hard stops. Some components broke off. Of the 3 segments on the roller, the middle suffered damage. Tank also suffered a bit, left mudguard and the ZIP case broke off. Tank operational, but the trawl requires light repairs. 2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off the plow, totally deforming it. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing. 3, mine placed below the 3rd road wheel. Explosion dislodged 3rd and 4th wheel, tire destroyed, track broke. Fender above is seriously damaged. Belly plate slightly warped, so tank requires industrial level rebuild. Crew suffers light injuries. 4, mine exploded below the driver's seat. Seat along with driver completely destroyed, torsion bar bent upwards to compartment. Fragments also destroyed the batteries, and holed the fuel tank. Only loader survives. Chance of tank burning is high. Repair impossible due to seriously warped belly plate. 5, mine exploded below the engine compartment. Jet made a 6x8cm hole, cut the engine crankshaft in half, and stopped by a cylinder head. Engine was also torn off its mountings. Belly plate bent upwards by 5cm. This kind of damage is unrepairable, tank total loss. Crew suffers light to moderate injuries. 6, explosion under drive sprocket, imitating a tilt rod fuse. Track broke, sprocket and its shaft damaged. Crew unharmed, tank requires only light repairs. crazy experiment No1: mine placed on top turret, next to night sight. Explosion warped top plate, jet damaged gun breech. Crew seriously wounded. Tank needs new turret. crazy experiment No2: mine set up like a MON-200 directional mine, 20 meters away from the side of the tank. Jet almost completely dissipated, causing no damage. On some periscopes glass cracked. TM-62P3 shaped charge anti tank mine. Explosive mass 7.5kg. We acquired more than 70 thousand pieces from Bulgaria. 1, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off part of the plow. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing. 2, mine placed below 2nd road wheel. Explosion torn off the wheel along with the suspension arm. Track broke in many places. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible. Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration. 3, mine placed between 3rd and 4th wheels, below track. Track broke in many places, serious damage on wheels. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible. Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration. 4, mine placed below left drive sprocket. Track broke, some damage on sprocket. Damage is light, easily repairable. If explosion also damages the final drive casing, tank total loss, repair impossible. 5-6, one mine below front of tank, one in back. Front explosion split open the belly plate, torsion bars deformed. Front fuel cell/ammo rack hit, causing ammo detonation. Rear mine damaged the engine and water radiator, and also warped the hull. Damage is unrepairable in both cases. MON-200 directional mine. It was placed 30 meters away from the tank, at 150cm height. Warhead contains 12kg of explosives and 900 pieces of fragments. Stuff on left side suffers considerable damage, the worst is 3rd road wheel, where tire was separated, and bearing cap destroyed. Periscopes also suffered damage. Still, overall damage is light. Crew unharmed if buttoned, but if not, exposed members surely die. LPO-50 flamethrower. Tank was attacked by a team of 2 soldiers, each with flamers. They blasted the tank from the front, side and rear. Only the cover of the gun mantlet, and the rubber seal between turret and hull caught fire. Basically, the flamer was useless. The little fire on the turret seal was easily extinguished by the PPO system or by the crew. However, the crew would be forced to leave the tank to avoid breathing in the extinguisher agent. "Napalm field". 2 shallow trenches were dug in front of the tank, 100 meter long. Trenches were filled with plastic bags, containing napalm. Tank was controlled remotely without driver, in 1st gear. Tank was supplied with only 5 liters of fuel, for safety reasons, so it could drive for 100-150 meters. Crew was simulated by temperature sensors. When the tank rolled over the trenches, napalm was ignited. Absolutely nothing caught fire, tank survived the test without any damage. Temperature sensors detected no temp increase. "Napalm bomb". A hole was dug below the tank, and filled with 300 liters of incendiary. This time, there was a glitch in the test. Somebody forgot to close the escape hatch in the belly, so the tank totally burned out. Conclusions: Training: - RPG and SPG gunner training needs more emphasis on countering crosswind - Enemy tanks need to be studied more, to identify weak points. - Hits on fenders and stuff stored on them cause no damage that affect the capabilities of the tank Effects of AT weapons: - All AT weapon was able to destroy the T-54, even from the front. - Hull front, where the fuel cell/ammo rack is mounted, is very vulnerable. Penetration here is likely to cause ammo detonation. - Side hull of any type of tank is very vulnerable, surface to be attacked is much bigger, and also armor is weaker. - Most vulnerable part is rear of the tank. Rear turrt hits were always fatal, but hull hits arent, engine and other components absorbed most hits. - HEAT shells of MT-12, and especially of the 2S1 and 2S3 have a huge secondary effect of fragmentation. This is devastating for any external components. Also seriously damaging for running gear. Additionally, the results obtained on firing at T-54 tanks cannot be applied to NATO tanks in service (I think they mean Abrams and Leopard-2), but M-48A2 and M-60A3 may be similar, although ther was no data on the chemical composition and quality of their armor material. Compared to previous live firings on T-34 tanks, the behavior of shaped charge jet was different. On T-34, the penetration channel was conical, exit hole was larger. On T-54, the entry and exit holes were similar, thanks to its harder armor. Effects of mines: -GYATA-64 anti personnel mine is able to damage wheeled vehicles, and may able to damage tracks too. (WTF???) -UKA-63 and TM-62P2 mines met the expectations, very effective Incendiaries: - LPO-50 flamer is good vs infantry, and useless vs tanks, unless hatches are opened. - "napalm field" and "napalm bomb" are ineffective, but for crews is important to close all hatches. To be tested in future: - more tests for behind armor effects on crews, primarily shaped charges. - results of live firins should be shared (for tank crews?) - need a firing range where APFSDS can be tested. - existing tanks need uparmor kits - SPG-9 as "light artillery"
  12. 5 points
    SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    Supposedly Challenger 2 LEP will only have stowage for 31 rounds of main gun ammo:
  13. 5 points
    Slakrrrrrr

    French flair

    Some people know about the French ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie de Combat), not to be confused with Engin de Réaction Anti-Chars: It's an amphibious light tank from the early '60s, but apparently it didn't end with this vehicle. New photos have been added somewhat recently on chars-francais.net of a second, albeit similar vehicle: No additional information is revealed, but the mounted gun is quite obviously larger than on the first one. Both vehicles are labeled "ERAC 105mm", yet the website claims the gun to be the 90mm DEFA D 914.
  14. 5 points
    Slakrrrrrr

    Britons are in trouble

    Ed Francis has recently started a fantastic Youtube channel going over British vehicle design and development called Armoured Archives. He has plenty of unseen gems in his videos, including this bad boy: I'll let his work speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIgjPAYn253oyWLsYgiHDw
  15. 4 points
    LoooSeR

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Tankoff on otvaga found patent for T-14 and T-15 chassis and engine compartment. On pics they used 6 roller per side model of Armata chassis. Link And possibly fuel system for Armata, patent, PDF
  16. 4 points
    This website? That article was my first encounter with Sparks btw, and I think it's just perfect. Repeat misunderstandings of the way equipment was/is designed and employed, endless use of buzzwords only Sparky and his ilk know, insisting that failed shit from the past was actually great and should be replicated today, childish insults and aspersions about actual officers, ranting and raving about moron historians who he knows so much more than, and the inexplicable pictures of women's cleavage at the bottom. But probably my favorite part is when he praises a U.S. Army turretless light tank concept from the 1930s and its creator, only to trash the medium tanks the U.S. Army actually fought the war with in the same paragraph... apparently blissfully unaware that Gladeon M. Barnes, creator of the conceptual light tank, also was heavily involved in designing the M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Sherman, and others. Try reading that article and the other ones linked in it if you want a laugh. Or a brain aneurysm.
  17. 4 points
    heretic88

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    First 4 Leopards arrived in Hungary In army base:
  18. 4 points
  19. 3 points
    Boagrius

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them. At any rate, the issues with APA's "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information: The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar. - Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example, the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities. - The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s overall capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG81 only has ~1200 T/R modules. - In reality, the APG81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well. - It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a better sense of their dimensional similarity below: The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting its size and aperture. When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case. The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery “Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation. Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features - The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table. - In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft. - It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS FLIR) that are not adequately accounted for. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include: - The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere. - The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume - The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself - The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume. Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31 and Su-57. None of these aircraft feature a stealthy nozzle design in their current form though. - Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel. The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant. The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims. The ZOCT over-represents arbitrary aerodynamic features It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads . Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable. Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal". For example, APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker , especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should shine most. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed. Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent. The ZOCT is missing important data APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example - Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser rangefinding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not. - Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 in WVR provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its EODAS clone) has quite the same capability. - Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via; - An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for; - Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors. - Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming. - RF threat triangulation and geo-location - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft. - Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals. - Virtual arrays/cooperative, networked radar employment - eg. actively alternating and/or coordinating radar emissions from different members of a flight of aircraft to have both additive detection effects and further reduce the chance of emitter triangulation by hostiles.
  20. 3 points
    Boagrius

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    Oh it’s much worse than that. APA are a laughing stock in the Australian aviation community for good reason. When AIR6000 - the project to replace the RAAF legacy Hornet fleet - was first floated, APA advocated a mixed fleet of super-duper upgraded F111s and a buy of ~50 F22s. They then started a shell company called Australian Flight Test Services to submit this proposal for AIR6000 as the prime(!), with the intention of sub-contracting the work to Lockheed Martin (ha!). When their proposal was dismissed, they started trotting out bitter garbage like the flawed and arbitrary Zero-One Comparison Table (“ZOCT”) posted earlier. True to form, this table was submitted as part of their “contribution” to a Senate hearing on the F35 acquisition only to be laughed out of the room once again. From ASPI: From SRWF (RAAF Air Marshalls Eroll McCormack & Geoff Brown): From the ADF/RAAF themselves:
  21. 3 points
    Restored Ladoga armored vehicle in one of Patriot parks
  22. 3 points
    Gripen287

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    So in your clearly learned opinion how would you rate the F-14? Yeah, you might say sticking TF30s in the A-model birds was a "small problem." Only something like 375 or so TF30 A models made into the sky to try and kill their crews for staring at the throttle the wrong way. Every single Super Bug that will likely ever fly has gigantic, toed-out pylons because of unanticipated store separation issues. It's not even clear if your criticism is with issues due to specific engineering decisions that are liable to occur in any new aircraft program, let alone three as with the F35s, or with the general configuration of the aircraft. To the latter possibility, why is it even useful to compare the F-35 to the F-22, Su-57, or J-20? They all have very different design criteria, different missions, and fight in different organizations. I bet you're fun discussing WWII armor too. And like, dude, Kopp was trying get F-22s for Australia. Have you noticed that APA stopped trying to stir shit up after F-22 production ended in 2012?
  23. 3 points
    https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/two-men-a-bot-can-ai-help-command-a-tank/
  24. 3 points
    Alzoc

    The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread

    Talking about new design, a senate report came out last month on the successor of the CdG (PANG) following the design study that took place last year. The launch of the program was supposed to be the 8th of July but it was pushed back owing to the recent change of government. Thus the report is not the final version of the design but more of a summary of what has been confirmed so far. Full report Press summary In short: About 70 000t and 280-300 m lenght compared to the 42 000t and 261m of the CdG: CATOBAR configuration with two US bought EMALS hoping that the US will have worked out all the kinks by the time we start building it Nuclear propulsion Cost of 6 billions € for the first unit with an expected economy of scale of 30 to 40% for the second unit if there is one this time 10% less crew than the CdG (which is crewed by around 1800) with space for up to 2000 person Sea trials of the PANG expected to start from 2036 to be ready for the retirement of the CdG in 2038 The existing dry docks for maintenance most likely won't be big enough for a ship that size and will have to be modified
  25. 3 points
    Serge

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

  26. 3 points
    2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Some more pics of the AS21 Redback being readied for delivery in September for the Risk Mitigation Activity.
  27. 3 points
    Serge

    Britons are in trouble

    Yes. They are. A one piece ammo is so long, you can’t find tiny place to stow it. Not the least point : segregation of ammo from the crew is called to improve the whole tank survivability.
  28. 3 points
    Scolopax

    General AFV Thread

    Vehicle photos from the past few months from the US Army Armor and Calvary Collection: T5E1 T-34. This particular vehicle was captured from the Germans, who had been using it as a test vehicle after capturing it themselves from the Soviets. T30, IS-3, and M3 Grant T28 and Chieftain Bonus T28 historical pic
  29. 3 points
    MoritzPTK

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Leopard 2 at Allach KMW plant. Pretty good angle on the hull add-on.
  30. 3 points
    Sovngard

    French flair

    Development of a 8-tonne reconnaissance amphibious tracked vehicle (ERAC) was launched in 1960. The use of a fin-stabilized shaped charge projectile as main anti-tank round was deemed obvious given the performance achieved with the 90 mm shell. The project consists of a D 739 gun firing a 105 mm projectile with a steel body designed to be fired under higher pressure (2100 kg/cm²) with a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The static firing trials in 1962 and the ERAC prototype the following year fall short of expectations ; the accuracy is barely acceptable and the armor penetration is mediocre compared to the caliber. Meanwhile, the ERAC project is cancelled and its successor, the ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie : amphibious fighting machine) didn't have any more luck. The AMX-10 RC also used a fin-stabilized shaped charge projectile but with a superior ballistic performance (1100 m/s). - MAREST, M, TAUZIN, M, COMHART T9 ; L'armement de gros calibre, Centre des hautes études de l’armement Division Histoire, Paris, 2008.
  31. 3 points
    what was the reason to put 30mm perforated plates on front of Raketenjagdpanzer ?
  32. 3 points
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/652/pdf/ Army apparently wants CR2 to fire gun-launched ATGM and have significantly enhanced protection.
  33. 3 points
    Valryon

    Britons are in trouble

  34. 3 points
    Some local TBs took place in different military districts. Somebody won, some lost, etc. At least those things generated few not bad photos.
  35. 2 points
    Azerbaijan T-90S during their recent joint exercises with Turkish forces.
  36. 2 points
  37. 2 points
    Ramlaen

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Eurosatory 1996
  38. 2 points
    MoritzPTK

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    https://www.specialised-imaging.com/application/files/7215/6166/3538/SI_AP_Tracker2_Unexpected-events.pdf
  39. 2 points
    Clan_Ghost_Bear

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    It seems many people are forever stuck in 2012 when it comes to talking about the F-35.
  40. 2 points
    chandieka

    General AFV Thread

    Indept look on the interior for TYPE 10 tank, its in japanese though
  41. 2 points
    Stimpy75

    Turkish touch

    Altay during testing in Oman
  42. 2 points
    T-64MV, Uzbekistan modification of T-64 wth V-84 engine instead of Kharkovites lunacy-fueled opposing piston diesel. Upgrade also includes minor stuff like new radios. They are going to upgrade their fleet of T-64s to MV level.
  43. 2 points
    I can translate this for you, but you have to wait till weekend, now Im too busy with work.
  44. 2 points
    SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

  45. 2 points
    UK tech developed at QinetiQ is being used to convert a US Bradley Fighting Vehicle to hybrid-electric power https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-tech-being-used-to-trial-hybrid-electric-bradley-fighting-vehicle-in-us/
  46. 2 points
    Preps for Navy parade in St.Petersburg (will take olace on 26th). Saw most of those ships yesterday, they were parked between Liteiniy and Bolshoy Okhtinskiy bridges near Smolniy embankment
  47. 2 points
    alanch90

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    The stated length is the entire projectile, not just the penetrator. The rods width is about 19-20mm. Muzzle velocity is correct. My own estimations for the projectile´s dimensions corroborate those figures.
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    Pardus

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Brand new video on the Danish Leopard 2A7's:
  50. 2 points
    Quick update on the Argentina-Stryker thing: as i suspected from the beginning, its not gonna happen. Turns out that it was the previous, shitty M*cri administration (not gonna write his name, brings bad luck) which during literally its final hours requested the Strykers. The current Fernandez administration (which has not yet proven themselves to be any less shitty) stopped the whole thing. Word now is that the government wants to buy chinese VN-1 instead which are more modern than the Stryker while costing a fraction of its price. Perhaps there is a chance for some local manufacturing of parts. https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/agustin-rossi-frena-compra-vehiculos-armas-militares-nid2394387
×
×
  • Create New...