Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/24/2018 in Posts

  1. 7 points
    Molnibalage make several really good booklets about the air defence systems, here I try to cover them all: S-25 S-75 family S-200 family S-300 family IADS / GCI systems of the Cold War Nike family and BOMARC HAWK Patriot Air defense at the XXI. century S-125 vs. F-117 2K11 Krug 2K12 Kub 9K33 Osa 9K331 Tor 9K37M1 Buk 9K81 / 9K81M aka S-300V / VM 9K35 Strela-10 2K22M Tunguska ZU-23-4 Shilka Download directory: Download Directory @ Mediafire This is the translation of the long Hungarian book what Molnibalage made in cooperation with other guys for ex. with Hpaps, he is well known for the SamSim. This is the whole, in Hungarian: click here Because these chapters (booklets) just a part of a big book are some parts in the document which refer to content of the book in other chapters. Slowly the whole book will be translated, but it could take years to finish it. Have a good reading!
  2. 4 points
    Belesarius

    Merry Christmas to all.

    I'm stuck working, but Merry Christmas to all. May your day be non-stressful and your family be at least entertainingly crazy. I hope we can all overindulge in good food of your choice. (Roast Striploin on the menu for us.)
  3. 4 points
  4. 4 points
  5. 4 points
    SH_MM

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    The modular Evolution armor package from IBD Deisenroth is designed to provide a similar level of frontal protection as the armor arrays used on the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7, while also including add-on armor on the sides of turret and hull, an additional module for the hull front, a mine protection plate and a layer of lightweight armor for the roof. The whole upgrade package was designed to stay within a weight of 60 metric tons, when all modules are adopted but nothing else is changed with the tank. That means it offers a cheap upgrade path for even the oldest Leopard 2 tanks without the need for modifying the suspension. The Polish army wanted more changes for the Leopard 2PL (like for example adding an APU), so certain armor elements had to be dropped in favor of staying within the weight limit. There are different configurations of the Evolution package (based on photographs of various prototypes and series production versions), so it is hard to make any definitive statements about how much each armor modules weighs and what level of protection it provides. Some versions include composite armor at the turret bustles, others have slat armor covering the complete rear section of turret and hull, while a third version lacks any sort of armor at the bustle section. Some versions have a flat & box-shaped turret front (like the Leopard 2SG and the proposed variant for Indonesia), while others have a slightly sloped & egdy turret front (Leopard 2PL, series production variant for Indonesia). An explanation could be that the former variant might lack some parts of the frontal armor array. According to marketing material from IBD Deisenroth, the frontal arc of the tank is protected against current 120 and 125 mm APFSDS rounds and large caliber ATGMs without specifying any range or types. Rheinmetall stated in different interviews/advertorials, that the Leopard 2PL's turret would provide a higher level of protection than the Leopard 2A5's turret or the same protection as the Leopard 2A7's turret. Again no statements were made about range, threats and other conditions. The side armor modules for the sideskirts have resists penetration by the PG-7VLT (Bulgarian tandem-warhead ammunition for the RPG-7 with 550-600 mm penetration) in tests. A similar shaped armor module with large empty space and a steel plate (claimed to simulate the side hull armor of an unspecified tank) managed to resist penetration by a German-made tandem warhead with 800 mm penetration (simulating the PG-7VR warhead for the RPG-7). Given that the turret add-on armor is thicker (both at the front and sides) than the hull's side armor modules, one could expect a comparable level of protection, unless the armor optimizitations against APFSDS rounds had negative effects on it. It is worth noting that AMAP is extremely weight-efficient (if Rheinmetall's marketing claims are correct, the Leopard 2 Evolution has a higher protection level than the Stridsvagn 122B with mine protection kit, while weighing some 4-6 metric tons less - but who knows, marketing people have a tendency to exaggerate), but only because it lowered volume efficiency, is rather expensive and - being a lightweight composite armor - has likely a limited multi-hit capability, which might have been a problem in certain tests based on statements from other forum members. The Leopard 2A7+ weighs a lot more than 64 metric tons. The first batch of German Leopard 2A7s has a combat weight of 63.9 metric tons - without the hull add-on modules and without the enhanced roof protection, that all newly built Leopard 2s feature. The weight of these components can be roughly estimated by comparing the Swedish Stridsvagn 122 (62.5 metric tons), which features both these components, to the German (nowadays Polish) Leopard 2A5 at 59.5 metric tons. The Hungarian Leopard 2A7+ likely will weigh 67 metric tons, unless the weight of the armor has been reduced by either modifying its composition or by excluding it from the Hungarian variant. The Leopard 2A6 of Germany seems to feature turret armor in "D" technology and hull armor in either "C" or "D" technology (depending on what armor array was mounted on each specific converted tank). Export customers might have purchased tanks with newer armor packages (unless KMW decided to not continue improving the armor technology and kept selling 1990s armor to Spain and Greece - the latter country received its first series production 2A6 tank in 2006 or 11 years after Germany adopted the Leopard 2A5). According to Jane's IHS, the Leopard 2A7 features a new generation of passive armor, rumors/speculations say that this would be called "E" or "F" technology. The wedge armor of the Leopard 2 is actually made by the same company as AMAP and even called AMAP in some of their more recent brochures. Originally it was called MEXAS-H ("H" for heavy), but when MEXAS was replaced by AMAP, a lot of old products were renamed. So it is an older version of AMAP (unless IBD has decided to rename all AMAP products as part of their new ProTech and NanoTech product lines). The Swedish office of IBD Deisenroth actually has created a demonstrator for the Swedish army, which replaces the old add-on modules with newer ones; this frees up weight while staying at the same protection level, so that more weight can be invested in side armor against RPGs and in a mine protection kit. It has been called the Stridsvagn 122B Evolution.
  6. 4 points
    These are the magazines of the same author - Vladimir Kamzolov. The first one has a plastic case, and the second one is made of steel. They are from the same project "Poplin"(1971), and have the same index - "M100" (100 rounds 5.45x39). On the RPK-16, this magazine is installed to draw attention to modern developments in this direction. And a little more history:
  7. 4 points
  8. 3 points
    Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    M113 as armed UGV:
  9. 3 points
    Bronezhilet

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    This is a list of materials I've found in the papers I have about SLERA, NxRA and NERA. It is by no means complete or containing only materials that are actually fielded, it's just what I've found: Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) hardened with Desmodur N100 GAP (hardened) with CaCO3 GAP (hardened) with Guanidinazotetrazolat GAP (hardened) with varying amounts of RDX "Rubber or GAP" with a layer of Dottikon Perbunan NBR PU FKM SI Dyneema HB26 Carbon reinforced rubber Glass reinforced rubber Kevlar reinforced rubber PBO reinforced rubber But there's probably more, this is all I could find in the grand total of three papers I have on this topic.
  10. 3 points
    LoooSeR

    French flair

    Re-posting from otvaga.
  11. 3 points
    N-L-M

    Future of AFVs

    And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve. Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts. Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go. Weight and volume better spent on electrical systems and 130mm ammo, not superfluous coax autocannon. No, a coax MG exists to provide suppressive firepower against enemy troops whose location is not known precisely and to offer a close in self defence option with a large ammo reserve. Anything larger than "jihadyota" is "worthy" of 120/130mm MPHE. At the cost of displacing 130mm MPHE, which is a price not worth paying. The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place? Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots. So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no. What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m? No it isn't. There are options that do not require sticking around after announcing your presence like that. What is leading the target Who let the target get within 3km Confirmed for not understanding how ballistics or time work. Protip-30/35mm fullbore rounds take a lot longer to reach 3km because the MV is low and the shells lose velocity quickly. And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts. Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter. Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance. The point of such shutters is that you close them for a very short amount of time to protect the soft portions from frag and then open them again. They dont have to be closed for any longer than 0.1 sec per fragmentation round sent the way of the protected vehicle. Servomechanisms powerful enough to move STANAG 3 level shutters at high velocity are established tech. Really fucking fast. Its a matter of how fast you want them to move, and building an appropriate servo mechanism. Servos are insanely fast. And yes these shutters could also protect the system from small arms fire. Protective covers are not shutters. If you need to manually remove them before action they aren't the kind of system I'm talking about. Shutters as their name implies *shut*. Watch the vid LooSeR linked. Yes, because you can carry 10k linked rounds for a machine gun as 7.62 rounds are tiny and because you want an emergency backup weapon that can prevent you from getting overrun by squishies and practically speaking eint run out of ammo. The MG is not however considered a primary weapon system substitute for any target. No. 120 or 130mm MPHE shits all over 35mm HEAB against all squishy targets. And to top it off the multiple smart fuzes on the multiple HEAB rounds you need to send downrange to provide a similar effect means the autocannon option is more expensive. And thats without getting into how at long ranges the 35mm just cant reack and suffers such poor dispersion that significantly more rounds are required. 35mm cannot compete in the big league with the big boys. M. P. H. E. If you dont want to bring down the building you set it to SQ or PROX. Will bring down part of the wall and anyone behind it but not the building. If you want the building to come down you use PDD. You don't need autocannon rounds for this. There are many upsides too. Most of them involve the multipurpose selectable destructive effect of MPHE rounds. And you're going to have autocannon equipped IFVs around anyway, in case you happen to run into a contrived situation which somehow only an autocannon can solve but a 120mm MPHE can't (or that a RCWS with a 40mm AGL with high elevation also won't solve). Still not a reason to install a coax autocannon on a tank. 100% of released future concept "tanks" with autocannon have no main gun to cut down weight and save cost, not because it provides complemetary firepower on the same platform. I like the way you ignored all the other targets I listed. But just to make the point clear- the autocannon does not provide any additional AP capability against them either, as they will be immune. So again it is redundant. This is just grasping at straws. 130mm ammo vs 120mm ammo requiring lengthened racks 'may cause problems' despite such work having already been done for the old 140mm systems? Last time I checked most countries are satisfied with current ammo capacites. And the shrinking of crews as you point out frees up volume, so what prevents you utilizing that volume for effective useful 130mm ammo? There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others. All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them. So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.
  12. 3 points
    Sovngard

    M8 Buford Is Back

    I'm nostalgic about the Teledyne Continental Motors armored gun system (it's the modified General Dynamics Land Systems-Teledyne Continental Motors AGS on the picture below)
  13. 3 points
    N-L-M

    Future of AFVs

    @LoooSeR and @Bronezhilet mentioned a lot of downsides, but there are even more. This idea is not a good one. For a start, you're willingly throwing away the ability to destroy the enemy at extreme ranges; There's a reason every MBT designed since the 1980s has a LRF with a range of at least 4 km, and that's because effective ranges increase with time, and the Gulf wars already had armor engagements at around 4-5km. limiting yourself by concept to 2km range is just flat out stupid. Secondly, properly crewed MBTs are fleeting targets. Sending a burst of autocannon ammo downrange and waiting until its almost arrived before firing your main gun greatly increases the exposure time needed to nail a target, and leaves you exposed for longer than is ideal, particularly as much of this exposure is after you've announced your presence in a less-than-subtle manner. Thirdly, 35mm KETF just isn't that impressive against armor. ~5mm dia tungsten fragments just don't go through all that much armor at all. so small motorized shutters tied in to the APS radar can effectively 100% counter both that and PROX artillery threats at very little additional cost. Such a shutter system could probably be retrofit on to existing tanks with APS within half a year of such a threat materializing. and protip- if your basic design concept can be subverted by an afterthought retrofit you should get better ideas and better taste. Another major point against such a layout is that the single greatest advance in tank ammunition in the past 30 years has been MP HE rounds, capable of reaching out to 5+km and destroying any target other than current-gen MBTs in one shot. small bore autocannon simply do not have the range with HE rounds, nor can they fully fill the MP role- 35mm HEAB will not bring down buildings or penetrate and wreck IFVs. Likewise, 35mm HEAB has a hard time reaching out to extended ranges to counterfire on ATGM teams- more rounds are required, dispersion is worse, and time to target is significantly worse. Displacing fullbore MP HE rounds for less capable autocannon rounds is a non-starter. And on a further note, future threat IFVs are likely to be immune to 35mm APFSDS, at least at extended ranges, as that is the current standard armament for many NATO IFVs. This means that the coax 35mm will be almost completely useless and redundant and therefore does not belong on future MBTs. (and for the ones that wont be immune to 35mm APFSDS, 120/130mm MPHE on PDD will destroy them more thoroughly and faster than a burst of autocannon APFSDS). And on a final note, why would a switch to the new 130mm mean lower ammo capacity? the base diameter is the same as the NATO 120, and most stowage is horizontal. Extend the bustle of an Abrams and it'll hold just as many 130mm rounds as it holds 120mm rounds today (seldom used hull rack excluded). So in conclusion, this seems like a bad idea all around.
  14. 3 points
    Bronezhilet

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Visible barrel length vs actual barrel length of a Leopard 2A6 barrel:
  15. 3 points
    Militarysta

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    Ho ho ho Merry x-mas T-72M1 durability and relability All based on "CONSIDERATION OF WEAPON SYSTEMS AVAILABILITY IN EARLY OPERATION PhASE" Translate: PT-91 Twardy tank, during 3 yers and 2 months for 144 tanks. During trials period (1174 days) we had 510 PT-91 falitures whit avarage time to repair 27 days. Avarage faliture ratio was 3 per tank but during trials it was between 1 to 14 for eacht tank. Important: falitures under factory warranty was in number ca 364 so up to 71%. All was procedure due to factory production. Translation from english for normal users here: up to 71% falitures was cased by non-existin quality control in Bumar-łabędy and fucked up production process. Summary in one table: And compare old Leopard 2A4 and PT-91: (black - Leopard2A4 white - PT-91)
  16. 3 points
    LoooSeR

    Merry Christmas to all.

    BREAKING: RUSSIANS ATTACKED SANTA in tried to HACK CHRISTMAS! PROOF: *artist impression
  17. 3 points
    Thank you very much Sovngard ! Here is the file (hopefully): https://docdro.id/zvIkXJz
  18. 2 points
    SH_MM

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    I wouldn't agree with that statement. The gun mantlet is always a weak spot, even on the Leopard 2A5. However the amount of armor seems to differ quite dramatically between tanks, with many designers focusing on reducing the overall size of the mantlet rather than trying to add lots of armor to that. For example on Abrams the special armor cavity at the front of the gun mantlet seems to be less than 300 mm thick, unless the soldiers in the following picture happen to be giants... The Merkava's design seems to also to be very much focused on reducing the size of the gun mantlet rather than focusing on providing it with thick armor. On the earlier models, there isn't much of a question. For the Merkava 4, the mantlet is extremely small (one of the smallest one in use), but it still seems to be fitted with rather limited protection only: The T-90A with welded turret seems to have a decent mantlet thickness based on drawings and exterior photographs, but the earlier Soviet-designed tanks didn't feature any special armor at the gun mantlet. Russian language articles have claimed a protection level of 900 mm RHS vs KE, but I doubt that this is based on official claims. It seems highly unlikely that the T-90A's turret armor array or a similar construction is used in the T-14 Armata. Any source for these claims? The T-90 and T-90A were made as cheap main battle tanks to keep the industry alive, the Soviets already had better armor in development and proposed for all of their next-generation desgisn (both Kontakt-5 and the "bulging plates" main armor was therefore outdated in certain aspects). They are totally not and that was some very weird and questionable napkin math. That is way too heavy to be a reliable estimate. The complete special armor of the Leopard 2 from 1979 supposedly weighs between 5.4 and 5.5 metric tons - for a total weight of 55.15 metric tons; putting the weight of the tank without special armor at 49.65 to 49.75 metric tons. With 9 to 12 metric tons of glacis main armor (and the tank is also featuring special armor at the sides of the hull and roof) and additional ERA - the Kontakt-1 kit for the T-80BV weighed 1.2 metric tons; the T-14's heavy ERA covering a larger area (hull flanks, roof and glacis) should weigh a lot more - the T-14 tank without any special armor would have a weight significantly lower than 40 metric tons, which I'd consider impossible given its size. The unmanned turreet allows shaving a few metric tons away, but not that much. Unless you are mixing short and metric tons, your claim is incorrect. Only a relatively small part of the weight is special armor, as the steel construction, ammunition, gun and internal components are quite heavy. For example the weight of non-armor (neither steel structure nor composite armor) of a Leopard 2A4 turret is more than 6.5 metric tons. The T-14 Armata's turret is likely heavier than 10 metric tons (as it features a heavier gun than the old Rh 120 L44, has a basic steel structure, roof armor and ERA, an APS, a RWS, etc.). The main problem I have with perforated DU armor plates in the Abrams is that there is no source suggesting anything like that. All speculation regarding such a design seems to be related to a statement regarding a "DU mesh" on Wikipedia - it was never provided with a reference to a source and hence removed quite a while ago; yet it seems to still hang around in the minds and memories of lots of people. Using DU as material for a NERA array was at least scientifically tested by the UK. It is the only known case of a DU armor array being tested (while Sweden did also test DU, we have no idea about what the specific armor arrays looked like). SLERA is trading some multi-hit capability for a higher overall performance; so to answer your question: the theoretical DU SLERA would outperform the other types, but would withstand less consecutive hits in the same area.
  19. 2 points
    Ramlaen

    Future of AFVs

    Seems like we need to revisit old ideas, but this time for APS defeat instead of increasing hit probability.
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    PLA officials during press event told that Type 15 light tank was adopted to service. Now name of this vehicle is officialy confirmed - Type 15. https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1425689.html
  22. 2 points
    LoooSeR

    Syrian conflict.

    So targets that were confirmed to be hit: And: Second target was a parking lot for military vehicles. So putting things together (thanks to discussion on otvaga) - Isreali forces tried to "catch" yet another shipping of weapons from Iranian Boeing that arrived to Damascus. Iranian plane was not directly attacked, so they were aiming at places where weapons could be. 4th Division storage was one of nearest to airport. Not sure about bombings of parking lot. Claims that AA position was nearby: Israel claimed that AA position was destroyed, but sat photos doesn't show any damage. AFAIK it is equipped with S-125s. Mezzeh AB on the other hand was claimed to have those systems:
  23. 2 points
    Found some Upper Cambrian trilobites for the folks for Christmas
  24. 2 points
  25. 2 points
×