Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/07/2019 in Posts

  1. 14 points
    My Dad was in the Navy from 1965 to 1969. He's been dead since 2000, so there is no asking him for info on this stuff, my mom is around but won't knot much about the Navy details so I am putting this together from memory and whats in the photos. The slides were not in great shape, and the first set of scans were rough, and then the scanner broke. So, since Amazon didn't have the same model anymore, I spent a little more money and got a much nice scanner, with a better "technology" for film scanning, and it fixes the flaws when it scans them. The results are remarkable. As far as I know these images were taken with a Minolta 35mm Camera, I guess an SLR, since he had a bunch of lenses for it. I learned photography with it, and have a few pictures of my GTO I took with his Camera. This was the type of camera you focuses, and set the light settings, and had to hand wind. Considering how much harder a camera was to work back then, I think my old man was a reasonably talented photographer. As far as I can remember he went to boot camp in San Diego, then he went to schools for Ejection Seat Maintenance and Air Condition systems on the F4J Phantom. He got assigned to VF-33, part of CAG-6, with VF-102, VA-82, VA-86, VA-85, RVAH-13, VAW-122, VAW-13 Det. 66, and VAH-10 Det. 66. CAG-6 was assigned to the USS America, who was about three years old and about to go on a world cruise, that would include the Ships only Vietnam deployment in 1968. When the ship got back, it was stationed on the east coast, and VF-33 went to CAG-7, and ended up on the Independence. My dad was with them for at least one work up cruise, since there are a set of photos from that ship. By mid 69 he was back in San Diego, working with VF-121, the west coast RAG, waiting to get out . I do not have any photos yet from San Diego, at least Navy stuff. Here is a shot of the CVA-66 USS America, she displaced 61,174 tons empty, 83,500 full load. She was the second Kitty Hawk Class Carrier, she would spend the majority of her Career in the Med. (if the logo for the Sherman Tank Site seems like its in odd places, its usually covering a flaw the scanner could not fix) Here's a VF-33 Phantom. A VF-102 Phantom, an F-4J the same as VF-33. Here are some pretty cool shots from an underway replenishment. It could be anywhere on the World cruise in 68. I think this is also from an Unrep, maybe the same one. This photo is one of my favorite, you get an A-7 and Sea Night for the the price of one! Old shot with bad scanner as a place holder for a duplicate. This shot is of the flight deck, by the cats on the angle deck looking forward. Not the kill mark on the intake of the F-4J, 212 sitting there, pretty cool. These last three shots are all from the USS Independence, in early 69, I assume off the East Coast on work ups for their upcoming Med Cruise. This is my old Man, Rick T, I'm pretty sure that's a Martin Baker Ejection seat right next to him. Several VF-33 Phantoms got shot down, and the seats always worked, so he had that going for him. This image was scanned on the original scanner, note how cruddy it looks, when get to this slide again, I'll post the improved version. Compare the below image to the one above too. I'll posts more as I water mark them and host them. There was a crossing of the line ceremony, that my Dad took a ton of pics on, its pretty interesting. It was really nice to find these, I had thought hey got lost in a move.
  2. 10 points

    Britons are in trouble

    Vickers Valiant on a muddy track : Barr & Stroud LF 11 gunner sight and the Pilkington PE Condor commander day/night sight : Hull ammo rack (30x105 mm) and driver's compartment, the handlebar features a throttle twist grip : VR 1000 powerpack comprising the Rolls-Royce CV12TCA Condor 1000 hp engine and the TN 12-1000 automatic transmission : The pyramidal louvers above the transmission are typical of the Valiant.
  3. 9 points

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    Longer post in sevral parts. Rosomak wheeled IFV and APC in Afghanistan. Between 2006 and 2014 to Afhganistan where sent 181 "Rosomak's" so 1/3 of overal production between 2005 and 2014. Maksimum number vehicles in Afhganistan where 134. More then 20 where totall loses, and 40 was heavy damages. Couple of the pictures below (opspec ones anf whit fallen soilders will be not posted.) Famous blue on blue, 30mm APFSDS from other Rosomak, whole turret penetration, no KIA and what was mirracle no WIA o.O: After small AP mine (soviet green parrot propably) After 2x PG-7, no KIA sevral light WIA, home made bar amrour mostly faild: PG-7: No KIA light WIA Sevral diffrent APCs after light IED: Damage vehicle taking home, after exams - totall los (bent hull and frame structures): Damege gun station after PG-7 hit and others hits: (again - no KIA ) Side armour after hit: IED no KIA: IED no KIA, WIA: Massive IED, KIA and WIA: Massive IED KIA and WIA: Huge IED but no KIA, after that vehicle canibalizated and blow up in A-stan: Massive IED. Sevral heavy WIA no KIA:
  4. 9 points

    Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    Got to sneak a peak at this today:
  5. 9 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while. I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, while awesome and cool to get inside of, was nothing new. However, they had a cutaway of a M829A4 round, which was on public display so it's not breaking OPSEC. Thought it would interest you guys. Edit: I have no official measurements but I've looked at some photos of M829A3 and the penetrator definitely seems longer based on the sabot petals seeming to be longer at the top.
  6. 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
  7. 8 points
    [title image] Hollow charges and armor protection - their alternating progression The term "hollow charges", which is commonly used in German, is not very accurate for the explosives so called. The somewhat more general American term "shaped charge" is a better description of the measures necessary to achieve the desired effects with these charges. Apart from the explosives used by glider pilots at Fort Emeal, it is of great importance for the vast majority of the extensive and versatile range of applications of shaped charges developed since the Second World War that their suitably shaped surface is covered with a layer of inert materials, preferably metals. The individual elements of the liner are accelerated to velocities of several km/sec and, through special selection of the initial shape and dimensions, it is possible to transform these liner bodies into projectile-like structures which are best suited to combat the respective target. This possibility of adapting the effector to the structure of the target to be engaged is very important for the use of hollow charges, but the application potential of these charges, given their early and impulsive nature, is far from exhausted by what has been developed in this field so far. This is particularly true when it comes to combating targets whose design is already tailored to protect against the known hollow charges. This will be explained in more detail below; in addition, examples will be used to illustrate the many different ways in which explosives can be used to obtain targeted effects and counteractions. The effect of explosive devices attached to armour panels - the "spalling effect" In most cases of using detonating explosives, the energy released by the detonation is transferred to inert materials. In the case of armour plates on which explosives are detonated, the direct effect is relatively small. Although the detonation pressure exceeds the strength of the armour material many times over, the material goes into a state of fluidity and is slightly pressed in at the surface - something similar happens when damp clay is pressed. The depressions that occur are small because the time during which the detonation pressure is sustained and the material is in a flowing state is very short. This only lasts until the relaxation of the highly compressed explosive decomposition products towards the free surface of the detonator has taken place. If, for example, an explosive layer of 2 cm thickness is placed on an armour plate, the impact time on a surface element of the plate during detonation is about 2/800000 sec, i.e. 2.5 µsec. During this time only a slight displacement of the plate material can occur. The example of an explosive layer applied to the surface of an armour plate and detonated there is also suitable for explaining a phenomenon that is very important and is referred to several times in the context of the present comments: [Figure 1] Under certain conditions, material parts detach from the rear side of the armour plate and are propelled at quite high speed into the space behind the plate. This so-called " spalling effect " occurs whenever a limited area in a body, where the material is under very high pressure, reaches a free surface of the body (see figure 1). There, the material parts compressed under high pressure relax and advance perpendicular to the surface. The relaxation is thus associated with acceleration. While the relaxation spreads into the interior of the pressure area, all material parts that have been compressed by it are accelerated. If the relaxation wave reaches the rear end of the pressure area, i.e. the zone in which the material particles are not compressed and therefore remain at rest, the parts that have been set in motion by the relaxation break off at this point and continue their motion only outside, provided that the tensile stress that occurs exceeds the tensile strength of the material. In the case of the spalling effect, one observes a separation of disc-shaped plate parts on the back of an armour plate exactly opposite the surface covered by the explosive on the upper side (see also Figure 15). This surface must not be less than a certain size, because the accelerated, spalling parts must not only overcome the tensile strength of the detachment from the inner plate parts, which remain at rest, but also the shear stresses at the edge of the spalling plate. In general, this is only then the case when the diameter of the overlying explosive layer exceeds the thickness of the armour plate, otherwise a " bulge" appears on the underside of the plate. The effect of the " squash head " projectiles is based on this spalling effect. The explosive in the bullet cap is released when the projectiles impact on of the armour plate is spread and then detonated. 1) The effect of unshaped, uncontained explosive charges in the free atmosphere If an uninsulated explosive device is detonated in the open atmosphere without any special design or arrangement, its effect is relatively small at a distance from the source of detonation. Although the pressure behind the detonation front, which in modern explosives can reach speeds of is advancing at about 8 km/sec, is quite high. It is in the order of several hundred thousand atmospheres, but it rapidly decays as it spreads in all directions, distributing energy and momentum over areas that grow quadratically with distance. By contrast, special arrangements, which should be mentioned here because they are to a certain extent related to hollow charges, can be used to achieve a sufficient pressure effect even with unshaped, unchecked explosive charges at greater distances, for example against flying targets. If, for example explosive charges are arranged at the corners of a regular polygon and detonated simultaneously, a very effective superimposition of the pressure occurs on the axis of symmetry of the arrangement at distances of up to several diameters of the polygon - in the so-called Mach area. Towards the end of the Second World War, the possibility of using such charge arrangements from the ground against enemy aircraft flying in pulks had been considered. In model tests with 6 charges of 50 kg trinitrotoluene (TNT) each, regularly distributed on a circle of 100 m diameter, a pressure of about ~15 bar was measured 350 m above the ground in the vicinity of the axis of symmetry. Protective effect of multilayer armour In order to be protected against the spalling effect of squashing head projectiles and similarly acting warheads, it is advisable to provide armour which consists of at least two layers with a gap between them. For this reason alone, the development of anti-tank ammunition was therefore based on paying special attention to multilayered armour. The requirement for penetration of structured armour with air gaps is also indispensable in other respects. The same conditions apply, for example, when an armour is hit by a plate covering the running gear or by a "skirt" attached to the running gear. In the case of more or less abrupt impact, the point at which the ignition of a shaped charge warhead takes place can then be up to several metres away from the point at which its main effect should begin. In addition to standard single-layer targets, the testing of hollow-charge ammunition therefore includes targets consisting of several plates spaced at certain distances from each other (see Figure 2). [Figure 2] In principle, the mode of action of hollow charges meets the above-mentioned requirements very well, much better than is the case with conventional impact projectiles. When a kinetic projectile hits a armour surface, a high pressure is created in both the armour material and the projectile. Starting at the tip, a pressure condition is built up in the bullet, which leads to the phenomenon described earlier in the treatment of the spalling effect on the free surface of the bullet. Tensile stresses occur which begin to tear the bullet body before it has penetrated the target surface. They can cause the bullet to disintegrate into individual parts after penetrating the first plate, which are then stopped by a second plate of a multilayer target (see Figure 3 a and b). [Figure 3] If, on the other hand, hollow charges with a lined cavity are detonated on the target surface, the so-called hollow charge jet is generated, which is sometimes called a "spike" because it is initially coherent and usually occurs in a solid state. With the hollow charges commonly used today, the jet disintegrates as it advances into a series of small - often spindle-shaped - very fast projectiles, whose frontal velocities can reach about 10 km/sec; the last ones still achieve about 2 km/sec. When the first particle hits the surface of the shell, a pressure in the order of 1 million atmospheres is created there; the shell material begins to flow and an approximately tulip-shaped crater is formed, similar to the penetration of a body of high velocity into water. The volume occupied by the crater is released by displacing the armour material towards the free surface. When the second jet particle hits the bottom of the crater, repeat the process, as well as the impact of the following particles. Each particle continues the displacement of the target material where the previous one stopped until schliefilich creates a channel of penetration through the whole plate. The flow of the material particles associated with the displacement of the target material ends at the free surface. Partly at the upper side, partly at the lower side of the armour plate and partly also at the already created penetration channel, which is subsequently narrowed again slightly. The following jet particles not consumed during penetration continue their path after passing through the penetration channel and act on obstacles that are on their path. If they hit another armoured plate, they can continue the penetration process there undisturbed. In contrast to the behaviour of the compact kinetic projectile, the individual elements act on the armour one after the other, independently of each other, and it does not seem so important at first whether the armour is massive or in separate parts, because a disturbance at the tip of the projectile does not affect the following parts. Nevertheless, the so-called "bulkhead armour", in which a number of thinner armour plates are arranged with air gaps between them, also provides increased protection against hollow charges: The penetration channel created by the impact of the particles of the hollow-charge projectile is relatively narrow and is of the same order of magnitude as the plate thickness when using thinner plates of the bulkhead armour. When the hollow-charge particles strike these thin plates, the hole in the plate is created essentially by the fact that the material elements of the plate which are caught by the high dynamic pressure are forced away from the plate under the influence of the tensile stress acting perpendicularly to the free surface, both on the upper and the lower side of the plate. The penetration channel therefore runs almost perpendicular to the plate surface, regardless of whether the hollow charge particles generating the pressure impact obliquely or vertically. The tensile stresses induced at the plate surface as a result of the dynamic pressure are in any case perpendicular to the plate and also have an effect in this direction (see Figure 4). [Figure 4] If now diagonally incident subsequent particles reach the previously created penetration channel running approximately perpendicular to the surface, they find a much reduced cross-section for their passage compared to the vertical incidence (see Figure 5). There is thus an increased probability that they will come into contact with the wall as a result of path variations, as a result of which their contribution to the penetration performance is lost. The affected particle disintegrates explosively, since - as described above - the high pressure occurring during wall contact induces tensile stresses on the free surface of the particle, causing it to burst. In Figure 6, a TRW image converter camera is used to illustrate how a steel ball of 2 mm diameter is sprayed after it has penetrated a very thin plastic film at very high speed. Figure 7 shows the piece of a hollow charge jet in which a similar burst was triggered on a particle by touching the wall. As can be seen from the figure, the small debris of the disintegrated particle spreads sideways to the direction of the beam, apparently away from the wall that was touched. It is important that the propagation of these fragments into the free space behind the plate is possible. At massive targets this free space is not available, the particle splinters would be held together and their impulse could contribute to the penetration even if the particle had touched the wall before. That's why it's important, armoured plates and air gaps of certain thickness should follow each other. [Figure 5, figure 6 and figure 7] This leads to bulkhead arrangements which, when hitting the wall at an angle, cancel out the effects of a high portion of the hollow charge jet due to the increased probability of the jet particles touching the wall and their subsequent disintegration into the gap. The weight of the armour required for this, in relation to the unit area, is considerably less than in the case of solid armour. It is essential that this provides increased base protection against both balancing projectiles and shaped-charge ammunition, and it is noteworthy that this effect occurs in both cases by inducing the decay phenomenon on impact at high velocity. However, in the case of a balancing projectile, the entire mass of the energy carrier is captured by the destructive tension waves on first impact, whereas in the case of a hollow-charge jet only the mass portion corresponding to the respective impacting jet particles is captured. Measures to avoid disturbance of the shaped charge jet However, it is not clear why rear particles of the hollow charge jet must necessarily come into contact with wall elements of the penetration channel created by the previous ones. Should it not be much more possible to ensure that the particles aligned very cleanly and without "staggering" movement exactly on the cavity axis? However, this means that the slightest deviations from central symmetry must be avoided in the structure of the hollow charge. The whole rigor of this requirement is that it relates not only to the dimensions of the charge, but also includes the homogeneity of the materials used and that - as has already been shown - even differences in the size and orientation of the crystals in the explosive and in the copper of the liner have an influence. This requirement is even more stringent if one takes into account that the properties of the crystals mentioned above change over time, i.e. as they age, and that changes are also triggered during processing. A very sensitive influence can also be expected from the way the detonation is initiated. With the aforementioned and similar requirements with regard to precision, the production of hollow charges has set goals whose pursuit in the past has already brought about significant progress with regard to the generation of an undisturbed hollow charge jet during detonation, and in the future, through the tireless efforts of research and technology, even further perfection can be expected. In addition to this somewhat utopian-looking reference, however, it must be emphasized that the hollow charge principle is very flexible and includes a wealth of other possibilities for counteracting disturbances which oppose the effective targeted use of the explosive energy released during detonation. For example, it is not necessary for the hollow charge jet to dissolve into a number of particles as it progresses. Some of the irregularities in the behaviour of the particles will only develop during the tear-off process and can be avoided if the hollow charge jet is constructed in such a way that it does not tear. The reason for the dissolution of the hollow charge jet into a number of particles of different velocities is that the individual jet elements already have a different velocity when they are formed. In the case of the hollow charges currently in use, there is a velocity gradient in the beam from about 8-10 km at the tip to about 2 km at the end.The consequence is that the jet is constantly stretched as it progresses and eventually dissolves into more or less parts according to the strength properties of the material .2) The programmed shaped charge jet By special selection of the parameters of a hollow charge (type and density of the explosive, dimensions and shape of the cavity, wall thickness and material of the cavity lining, shape as well as wall thickness and material of the casing, position and extension of the ignition elements) it can be achieved that differences in the velocity of the individual elements of the jet are prevented at all. The relationship between the distribution of mass and velocity in the jet and the charge parameters was already known shortly after the discovery of the the lining of the cavity achievable effect by Thomanek quite detailed results. 3) This connection is achieved by following each individual sub-process during the detonation of the charge and the deformation of the liner by calculation. When the detonation front reaches the individual zones of the liner body, the material there enters a state of flow under the influence of the detonation pressure and is accelerated inwards. The speed at which the lining elements are accelerated depends on how long the pressure remains at the zone under consideration or, which comes to the same effect as how far the outer surface of the detonator is from this point. Thus, the influence of the width of the explosive coating on the velocity of a panel is obtained. For example, consider a cylindrical charge with a cone as a cavity and a diameter of 8 cm. The time required for the dilution wave to reach the top of the cone from the outer surface is then 4 cm/approx. 800000 cm/sec, i.e. approx. 5 microseconds; in the central zones of the cone with an explosive coating of 2 cm, this time is only half as long and the impulse transmitted to the lining elements by the detonation pressure in this time is therefore half as large. Of course, the speed also depends on the wall thickness of the lining body at this point and the density of the lining material. The initial velocity of the lining elements can be specifically influenced by a suitable choice of the wall thickness and it can change at will between the tip and base of the lining cone. One speaks of "progressive" or "degressive" liners, depending on whether the wall thickness increases or decreases towards the base. The influence of the liner's wall thickness/explosive coverage ratio then has a further effect on the jet elements that are emitted when the liner zone converges on the cavity axis. In addition, the mass and velocity of the jet elements formed depend on the angle at which the convergence takes place, i.e. the opening angle of the cavity. Peak angles result in high velocities for small masses, and the opposite is true for obtuse angles. The previous remarks should serve to explain, at least by way of indication, how it is possible to determine the dependence of the distribution of mass and velocity in the jet on the charge parameters. With the knowledge of these interrelationships, it now seems possible to create projectile-like structures from the cladding bodies, in which the initial length and the distribution of mass and velocity over this length are predetermined, i.e. the hollow charge jet can be programmed. Up to now, almost all attempts have been made to obtain a jet with the greatest possible penetration capacity. This led to the familiar design forms: cylindrical on the outside, cavity for example 60° cone with copper liner, initiation of the detonation now often by detonation wave deflection at the rear edge of the detonator, whereby better use of the explosive volume and higher beam tip velocities are achieved (compare also Figure 16). The resulting beam is then a constantly stretched structure with a velocity of up to 10 km/sec at the tip and about 2 km/sec at the end, which is followed more slowly by the rest of the cladding mass, the so-called "slug". 4) As already mentioned several times, the differences in the velocity of the individual beam elements cause the initially coherent structure to be broken up into a sequence of particles. Nevertheless, very good results have been achieved with the described type of charges, especially against massive targets. Penetration depths of up to 6 charge diameters have been achieved. In contrast, when using targets with air gaps, the distance travelled in the massive parts of the target is greatly reduced. In the future, requirements for the performance of hollow-charge ammunition should be geared to these reduced amounts; this would mean that modern hollow charges should be developed to penetrate structured targets rather than exaggerated penetration performance in massive targets. An attempt should be made to program the hollow-charge jet, i.e. to adapt it to the structure of the target. In the following we will try to explain by means of examples that there are many possibilities to modify the beam of the currently used hollow charge. A completely different motion sequence of the particles of the beam from this type of charge can be obtained by replacing the centrally symmetrical ignition by a (one-sided) eccentric one.The individual beam particles then no longer move one behind the other on the cavity axis, their paths point in a fan-like manner in different directions (compare Figures 8a and b) 5) The following example is intended to show how even a slight change in the cavity shape can noticeably influence the beam and its effect. Figure 9a shows a cladding body whose shape can be roughly described as a cone which ends at the base in a spherical zone. Figure 9b shows the penetration channel of an externally cylindrical charge produced using this liner. [Figure 8 and figure 9] The explanation for the peculiar shape results from the velocity distribution in the hollow jet. The front part of the jet comes from the cone-shaped part of the cavity and corresponds to the jet from a cone, which stretches as it advances. For the subsequent jet elements, which originate from the spherical zones at the base, it is decisive that the tangent at the cavity becomes steeper and steeper towards the base. The consequence is that the successive jet elements become faster and faster towards the rear, thus approaching each other and leading to a thickening of the jet in this rear area. On impact, the effect is increased in the form of a widening of the penetration channel. While with the hollow charge described above, a concentration of energy occurs in the rear jet section, it is also possible to achieve this in the front jet section. For this purpose, the cavity must be spherical at the apex and end in a cone at the base (see Figures 10a and b). The penetration channel is wide at the top and has the shape of a hemisphere followed by a narrow conical part. 6) If the cavity, which is essentially delimited by a cone, is spherical at both the apex and the base, the penetration channel will consist of a wide part at the armour surface, followed by a narrow conical part and a further widening at the end. Following these examples, it should be considered possible that the effectiveness of the individual sections of the hollow charge jet can be determined in quite a different way, especially if it is taken into account that other parameters of the hollow charges can also contribute to this by their specific choice. [Figure 10] As explained in the previous section, other velocity distributions are possible in addition to the velocity gradient in the jet of the commonly used hollow charges that leads to rupture. It is also possible to achieve that all beam elements have the same velocity, provided that the relevant charge parameters are adjusted to it in each zone of the cavity. If, for example, the wall thickness of the cladding is selected in such a way that it is in the same ratio to the corresponding width of the explosive coating for all zones, the cladding elements of all zones receive the same initial velocity on detonation and thus also all the beam elements that are separated from them when flowing together on the cavity axis. As a result, the jet is represented here by an "overlong projectile" with a rather high velocity. A sketch of the principle of such a charge is shown in Figure 11. The nozzle-shaped body attached to the base has the purpose of preventing the decomposition by-products from coming into direct contact with the free atmosphere when the base zone is accelerated, thus avoiding a premature drop in pressure. In a similar way, other causes of disturbance are to be avoided, whereby a number of experiments are always necessary before a principle path can be realized. [Figure 11] Instead of a single rod-like projectile, a sequence of several such rods can be obtained in which the individual elements have the same velocity, with the velocity of the rods differing from each other. In addition, from the special solution of the identical velocity of all beam elements, transitions to the common hollow charge with the large velocity gradient in the beam can also be developed. In particular, the case can also be realized in which the difference in the velocity of the following beam elements is so small that the beam is only broken when all obstacles of the target have been overcome. How such a continuous beam reacts to protective measures that disturb a particle-dissolved jet is still to be investigated. In any case, the disturbances caused by the rupture process are avoided here (compare Figure 12). [Figure 12] Also, the range of possible variations in the structure of the shaped charge jet is so wide that an adaptation to very different target compositions seems possible. Not insignificant is the fact that the energy of the effect carriers from a hollow charge can be distributed in a targeted manner to mass and velocity, i.e. the jet can obtain a greater mass at the expense of the velocity of its elements and vice versa. As investigations have shown, the protective effect of certain materials depends on the speed of the projectiles. 7) However, such measures need not refer to the entire jet, but can be limited to parts of it, for example to the front or rear parts of the target. A special group of shaped charges has not been mentioned so far, namely those with a flat, especially blunt conical cavity. ln contrast to the pointed conical cavity, the attainable velocities are lower here. The speed of the structure previously referred to as the jet is no longer very different from that of the so-called following slug. It can be achieved by methods which will not be discussed in detail here, that the jet and slug components - i.e. the entire mass of the liner - merge into an at least temporarily coherent structure. lf the difference in the speeds of the front and rear parts is sufficiently small, it is absorbed by internal expansion work, and a projectile with a uniform speed of about 2000 m/sec is created. Figure 13 shows a series of such projectiles from charges with a flat cavity, using X-ray flash images. Figure 14 shows a section through a captured specimen of cohesive projectiles. Such projectiles are particularly characterized by stable flight at long distances and have already found 'a versatile application today, especially as a replacement for natural fragments (see also cover picture and Figure 15). [Figure 13, figure 14 and figure15] In connection with the efforts to combat future targets, which may be unknown at present, it should be mentioned that it is possible and possibly very useful to arrange projectile-forming hollow charges in a special way one behind the other. If this is done taking into account all the side effects of the detonation, and if such an arrangement is ignited appropriately, one obtains a sequence of projectiles flying one behind the other at fairly high speed, the mass of which is considerably greater than that of particles of the hollow charge jet. It is also possible to combine a projectile-forming charge with a jet-forming charge with an acute-angled cavity. Figure 16 shows such a charge, also known as "tandem charge". It was designed to create a strong follow-on effect inside the tank. On detonation, the jet from the rear charge penetrates through an opening in the apex of the front flat-cone charge. Only after this has been done is this charge also detonated; the flat liner body is formed into a projectile which follows the jet from the rear charge through the channel created by it and comes into effect there depending on the intended purpose. [Figure 16] These examples are intended to show that there are almost no limits to the imagination when it comes to exploiting the potential inherent in the principle of forming effective projectiles by transferring explosive energy to inert materials. There are many ways to develop explosive charges that can be effective against complex targets and do not necessarily require a gun to reach the target, but can be used in warheads of missiles. Of course, there will always be possibilities to achieve sufficient protection by suitably constructed armour. What should be particularly emphasized here, however, is the view that there is hardly likely to be a miracle cure for all types of shaped charges and that, apart from a temporary predominance on one side or the other, there will probably continue to be mutual efforts to perfect shaped charges on the one hand and protective armour on the other.
  8. 8 points
    Looks like MPF & OMFV from GDLS:
  9. 8 points

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    does type10 have any armour ? nice 21st century hatch lock btw
  10. 8 points
    A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED before the Dingo activated it. All passengers survived, two suffered minor wounds from unsecured objects sent flying inside the vehicle by the IED's detonation. The Marder 1 upgrade will be based around a ~ 563 kW engine from Liebherr, not MTU. It seems that this is the same engine Rheinmetall previously mounted on the Lynx KF31, which makes sense and also means that at least some of the money invested into the Lynx KF31 has managed to generate profit. I wonder if at some time the Lance turret also will end up on the Marder, if politicians decide to spend more/less on defence or delays with Puma's full readiness will continue... Despite the Marder 1 upgrade (which is partly introduced out of fear that the Puma might not be ready for the VJTF 2023 in high enough numbers with sufficient spare parts), Rheinmetall claims that the Puma S1 will be ready for the German lead of the VJTF in the Baltics. The second batch of Pumas (for which the budget has already been approved) hasn't ordered yet, as the original batch isn't finished. The Wiesel 1 upgrade contract has been signed with FFG. The upgrade encompasses improved protection incl. add-on armor and mine protection kit, new optics and an optimized drivetrain. The Rh 202 autocannon is kept, as apparently no worthy replacement option has been found. There were rumors of the Mauser BK 27 used by the German airforce and navy being considered, but I've never seen any official source. The anti-tank version with TOW missile launcher will however see an upgrade, as the old missile system will be replaced by MELLS (Spike-LR). Not all Wiesel 1s (only 196 out of more than 300) will be upgraded, these 196 vehicles will be distributed into the following variants: - 15 driving training vehicles, 16 Wiesel 1s in the reconnaissance variant, 110 Wiesel Mk 20 and 55 Wiesel 1 anti-tank missile. One of the main reasons for not upgrading all Wiesel 1s is the decision to adopt a version of the Boxer with autocannon (known as project "MaKaBo", Maschinenkanone Boxer). As reported by ESuT, after evaluating different existing options for the Boxer, the Bundeswehr has apparently decided that a manned turret is a mandatory requirement, which supposedly leads to Rheinmetall being the winner - at least an official article by the Bundeswehr claimed that the LANCE turret will be fitted. Btw. the weight of a LANCE 1 turret with full armor, missile launcher and 30 mm Mauser MK-30/2 ABM reaches 5,2 tonnes! Each heavy company of the Jäger battalions and the Gebirgsjäger battalion 231 will have twelve Boxers with autocannon (in three platoons of four vehicle) - at the moment there are twelve Wiesel 1s (six with 20 mm Rh 202 and six with TOW launchers) in the heavy companies. The LuWa program (next-generation air-droppable light weapon carrier; supposed up to twice as heavy as Wiesel 1) will provide a replacement for the rest of the Wiesel 1s by the mid/late-2020s. Rheinmetall has also developed the Fuchs 1A8 Plus variant in cooperation with the BAAINBw, which features an improved drivetrain and power pack able to keep up better with Boxer. in theory there also could be armor improvements, as IBD Deisenroth (now part of Rheinmetall Protection Systems) has developed a new armor kit for the Fuchs, which has been fully qualified. This armor meets the full STANAG 4569 level 4 ballistic requirements, whereas the original MEXAS armor kit only reached a reduced/loosened protection requirement. KMW's APVT - the amphibious vehicle based on Puma components with a boat-shaped rear end for reverse swimming - has been called Lurch (amphibian) by KMW recently, so that might become its proper name. One scenario for which KMW advertises the Lurch is river-crossing as part of pioneering (measuring depth of rivers, setting up bridges, etc.). Currently that is done via boat, historically (1970s) the German military had a lot of interest in the APE, but it didn't perform well in tests.
  11. 8 points
    Some information about BTR-90, from 2 articles posted on Warspot (First, Second, in Russian) BTR-90 next to a BTR-80A at the IDELF-2008. The first prototype BTR-90 at the exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. The first prototype BTR-90 at the exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. Second prototype during factory trails. Vehicle is "wearing" OI-25 tires. Third prototype of the Rostok/GAZ-5923 with some changes from 2nd prototype, on factory trails. Driver's position BTR-90A with BM B08Ya01 "Bakhcha-U" at the show in Kubinka. 2002 Export version of the two missile launcher for Konkurs ATGM BTR-90 No. 2B12LT1931 of December 2004 production with B05Ya01 “Berezhok” combat module. Alabino, 2008. BTR-90 with the Berezhok combat module at the 2nd Guards motorized infantry division training ground, 2008
  12. 8 points
    Photos of Tagil's mockup, developed in late 60s as a part of "topic 101" program aimed at developing next generation soviet tank for 1980s From Russian magazine Technika i Vooruzheniye (Technics and Armament) 2019-09
  13. 8 points

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Interesting, from when is this document? Seems to be a very early array. It doesn't matter how a layman, an enthusiasts or even a member of a tank crew rates the survivability of tanks on purely subjective impressions. We know that a part of designing a modern MBT is a survivability analysis, both in terms of simulation and real life-firing tests and we know that every tank aside of the Abrams and Armata has opted for a "wine-rack stowage". This is not an inexcusable flaw, but a intentional design decision, as every tank design is a trade-off between negatives and posivites. As it turns out, every tank design team bar Chrysler's one for the Abrams program has ended up with "wine-rack stowage" in the hull, even on new tanks like the K2 Black Panther and the Type 10, which were designed decades after the Abrams. Using combat experience to access crew survivability is not bad, but given that only a dozen or so Leopard 2 MBTs have been hit by ATGMs and these were fitted with an outdated armor package from 1979, this is hardly a proof of limited/lower crew survivability, not to mention that crew survivability also can be higher/lower for each tank depending on what enemy it faces. Seeing the videos from Yemen where a Saudi M1A2S Abrams tank's turret is hit by an ATGM, penetrated by the warhead, yet the crew is saved by the isolated ammo storage and the blow-out panels doesn't actually tell us much about crew survivability (not to mention that these videos are usually cut before anybody can see what happened to the crew) in comparison to a Leclerc, Leopard 2 or K2 Black Panther. As it stands there has been not one example that clearly shows a tank being destroyed due to its "wine-rack stowage" for the hull ammunition. There is no case of a M1A2S Abrams hit in Yemen at an angle, where the "wine-rack" would cause trouble, but the isolated hull ammo of the Abrams is safe. There is no video of a Leopard 2 being hit and penetrated by an ATGM at the hull front or in such a way that one can say the crew would have survived in an Abrams. There are videos showing singular incidents that are not comparable, yet people are pretending they can serve as a valid base for a comparison. Just two weeks ago a video of a Turkish Leopard 2 tank surfaced, which is hit at the turret front; the missile penetrates the armor and despite the isolated turret ammunition, the tank turns into a big ol' fireball, because 20-30 mm steel were not sufficient to keep the ammunition isolated against the penetrating shaped charge jet. Documents from the British-German tank design cooperation as part of the FMBT program suggest that according to a British analysis, wet-stowage was considered to be better for crew survivability than isolated ammo stowage in the hull. Either all tank engineers bar Chrysler's team are dumb or crew survivability isn't as one-dimensional as you seem to pretend. I don't know what your experience with the thermal imagers from European manufacturers are, but this might just be up to US military/manufacturer just utilizing better screens for displaying the output. Technologically, there is no lead on either side. But okay, lets talk thermal imagers and MBTs. When the Leopard 2A5 upgrade was developed, there were two second-generation thermal imaging sensors available in Germany, both designed as part of the tri-national TRIGAT (third generation anti-tank) missile program that lead to the failure that is PARS 3 LR. A small, low-cost IRCCD sensor using a 40 x 4 detector array for the short-range variant of TRIGAT meant to replace MILAN and a large sensor utilizing a 288 x 4 detector array meant for the long-range version (which ended up being PARS 3 LR). At the time, the latter sensor was considered unreasonable expensive, specifically given that the change in the political landscape had a negative impact on the military budgets in Germany and other LEOBEN countries, while the smaller sensor array was considered to provide insufficient resolution. As a result using the US-German Common Modules for the Leopard 2A5's commander periscope or developing a new IRCCD with lower cost than TRIGAT's larger option, but better resolution than TRIGAT's small model, was considered. Both these systems were tested on the Leopard 2 prototypes (TVM min with the US-German Common Modules, TVM max with a new sensor). The new sensors was developed by AEG and uses a 96 x 4 IRCCD detector array and was installed into the new Optischer Passiver Hoch-Empfindlicher Leichter Infrarot-Optischer Sensor (OPHELIOS) thermal imaging system developed by a cooperation between Carl-Zeiss, Atlas Elektronik, AEG, TEMIC EZIS and Eltro. This rather low sensor resultion was somewhat negated by a using a special sensor layout, where the detector array was split into two blocks, slightly shifted in alignment, apparently for better image quality. The software of the OPHELIOS thermal imager was already designed to accept the larger sensor developed for TRIGAT with 288 x 4 detector elements, but this upgrade was never made for Germany's tanks at least following the improved relations with Russia and later the focus on assymetrical warfare. An upgrade of the Leopard 2's thermal imager would likely have occured with the KWS III originally planned for 2008, as this would have required a new FCS and new optics. The US Army settled for a much larger detector array with 480 x 4 detector elements, which was partly possible due to adopting second-generation thermal imagers at a later point of time; this means that more mature manufacturing techniques and smaller process nodes could be used for manufacturing, which are some of the main drivers of the costs of electronics. This detector array is clearly better than the one utilized on OPHELIOS in terms of resolution per scan. In terms of the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. the most important factor for image quality besides sharpness/resolution), these sensors are all on equal terms, as they all have a TDI of 4 (they rely on scanning each position four times). This allows reducing the noise compared to a first generation thermal imager by half (the square root of the TDI). It must be noted that there are further fators that need to be accounted for such as the aperature, the quality of the lenses and prisms, the scan rate, thermal sensitivity, etc. These factors for example allowed the EMES 15 with WBG-X to provide better results (according to the US evaluation of the Leopard 2AV) than the Abrams' TIS despite both relying on Common Modules with a 120 x 1 detector array. Nased on what I've read, both Raytheon's second gen FLIR aswell as the AEG-designed IRCCD array for the OPHELIOS rely on CMT with similiar thermal sensititvity (7.5 to 10.5 µm); in theory using a smaller detector in combination with a higher scan rate and larger scan amplitude could provide the same output resolution as a larger detector array scanning slower/less. The larger detector array of Raytheon's second-gen FLIR is nothing special and not related to the Americans "just being better at making thermals". I.e. in 2000 - one year after the US adopted second generation FLIR - a new thermal imager made by the German industry around Carl-Zeiss was tested on the Leopard 2 called the HDIR. This was designed around a 576 x n detector array (n being 4 for the model tested on the Leopard 2) and provided an output resolution of 1,920 x 1,152 without using inter-lacing. In a comparison with WBG-X and OPHELIOS, it was found that HDIR allowed to detect (persuambly NATO standard) targets at up to 60% further distances. They made a thermal imager with 20% more detector elements one year after Raytheon's second generation FLIR entered service, but hey, "the Europeans are always a generation behind in thermals". However component discussions make little sense when talking about a tank like the Leopard 2 which has proven to be very adaptable to the customer's needs and has been adopted in countless different configurations, specifically when talking about thermal imagers: the Spanish Leopardo 2E and the Greek Leopard 2A6HEL both utilize the same second-generation FLIR detector from Raytheon as the current M1 Abrams models, which has been integrated by the Spanish company Indra into the Leopard 2's FCS. The idea that European thermal imagers are in terms of performance one generation behind US systems is laughable. All these systems are following the same laws of physics. Hendoldt's ATTICA thermal imager was designed as a modular family, coming in different shapes and sizes (i.e. small, medium and large detector arrays), which is the standard approach on the market today. Even the "small version" of ATTICA as fitted to the Puma IFV has 57 times as many detector elements as the Abrams' second generation FLIR. The medium versions use a 640 x 512 detector array, while the large one offers a 1,280 x 1,024 detector array, i.e. up to 682 times as many detector elements. As common with third generation thermal imagers, they are available either based on CMT or InSb, i.e. in different wave-lengths. For the Puma an upgrade to a larger detector has been proposed (as the Puma A1 configuration already will upgrade daylight cameras and flatscreen displays, so Hensoldt thinks that upping the thermals is the next step), while the Leopard 2A7V's new thermal imager for the gunner's sight has been adopted for its "long range", implying that they maybe didn't reuse the Puma's system. For the third generation thermal imagers, Raytheon has developed two variants of the 3rd-Generation FLIR Sensor Engine; one with a 640 x 480 detector array and a 1,280 x 720 elements detector array, as the US military favors the 16:9 wide-screen format, so I don't see how this should enable them to stay a generation ahead of Europe. Safran, Thales, Leonardo, Hensoldt, etc. are all making similar-sized detector arrays. Leopard 2A6MA3 new ATTICA thermal imager for the gunner's sight, new eye-safe laser rangefinder add-on armor on the hull new SPECTUS driver's sight (including rear-facing night vision/thermal imager) some tanks receive the L/55A1 tank gun changes to the final drive to regain some mobility that was lost when the tank got heavier (however this reduces top speed a bit) stronger torsion-bars and optimized tracks, so the tank is qualified for a combat weight of 70 tonnes more powerful APU replacing the air-conditioning unit that was first adopted with the Leopard 2A7 (it worked fine, but a new system was developed that also double-acts as NBC protection system). The old NBC protection system is retained and acts as additional air-conditioning unit for the driver changes to the ammunition racks, so the DM11 round can be stored in all places modifications to the SAAB Barracuda kit new digital flatscreen display for the commander digital control unit for the electric turret drives fully refurbished engines that are prepared for up-rating
  14. 8 points
  15. 8 points

    General AFV Thread

    Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix in the meantime
  16. 7 points
  17. 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:
  18. 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:
  19. 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.
  20. 7 points
  21. 7 points

    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
  22. 7 points
    Technical analysis/evaluation of the VJTF 2023 configuration of the Puma has been finished at the WTD 81. Note the hull mounted cameras/thermal imagers for 360° coverage, mounted at the corners of the hull.
  23. 7 points

    French flair

  24. 7 points
    Interesting article about T-64 turrets by Andrey https://warspot.ru/5447-probnye-shary-sovetskogo-tankostroeniya Turret with with ultraforcelain inserts (cylinders) from the technical project of “Izdelie 432”, 1961. They returned to this idea in 1968, but the final version was corundum balls KVP-98, which were produced by a ceramic factory in Slavyansk (assembly of inserts with balls). The very development of the turret from the project to the adoption in 1973 took 12 years. T-64 production model turret with aluminum filler T-64 production model turret with aluminum filler, overall sections. When fired, the turret with combined armor provided full protection against 85-mm and 100-mm HEAT shells (similar to 105-mm cumulative shells of NATO countries), 100-mm armor-piercing blunt-headed shells with in arc of ± 35 ° The T-64 tank with a turret with aluminum filler and a upper frontal hull plate with "cheekbones". T-64 tank with a turret with aluminum filler and a straight upper frontal part of the hull, 1967 Ceramic ball with diameter of 70 mm T-64A turret with ceramics Serial T-64A turret, sections View of IVth belt of the serial-production turret
  25. 7 points

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    The Leopard 1A3's fire control system and optics were derived from the contemporary Leopard 2 development; in particular the EMES 12 steoroscopic rangefinder, the PERI R12 commander's sight and the FLER-H are based on early Leopard 2 components. But on the Leopard 2 prototypes the EMES 12 was not just an optical rangefinder. Paul-Werner Krapke in his book essentially calls it an optical rangefinder with integrated laser rangefinder, which leaves tonnes of room for imagination. The Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik from 1974 explains some details regarding this arrangement. Basically the laser rangefinder used the same lenses as the optical rangefinder, but was reflected at a semi-translucent mirror, while visible light could pass it. As the Bundeswehr considered laser rangefinders to be too inaccurate during the early 1970s (apparently they often picked up incorrect or multiple laser echos), the gunner had the task to double-check the laser rangefinder's measurements. For this purpose the result of the laser rangefinding was displayed in the gunner's eyepieces, so that he could quickly set the optical rangefinder to that range - if the measurement was correct, then the target would appear correctly ranged (sharp) in the optical rangefinder aswell. For the Leopard 1A3 the laser rangefinder was removed - probably as cost-saving measure. I wonder what this means regarding the reliability of the Tank Laser Sight adopted on the Chieftain already in 1970... On a side note, the FERO Z12 auxiliary sight on the early Leopard 2 prototypes also included a night vision option (of unknown quality - IR or image intensifier?) - the later FERO Z18 of the Leopard 2 and corresponding devices found on other modern tanks like the Abrams and Challenger 2 only work as daysights. But the really interesting aspect of the early Leopard 2 prototypes are the night vision devices. Basically two different designs were tested: the PZNG and NZG 200. The PZNG (this probably stands for "passives Ziel- und Nachtsichtgerät" - passive targeting and night vision device) was made by AEG. It consists of a fully-stabilized periscope incorporating a low light level television system with a 200 mm lens opening and basically the same second-generation image intensifier as used in the PZB 200 LLTV camera. The whole PZNG had a weight of circa 70 kilograms and was mounted on a retractable mast at the back of the turret. Full 360° traverse and elevation ranging from -10° to +20° allowed detection targets at all directions. PZNG with captions pointing towards the LLTV camera lens ("TV-KANAL"), thermal imager lens ("WB-KANAL"), as well as drives for elevation and azimuth A special feature of the PZNG was the so-called Wärmebildortung or Wärmebildpeilung (basically: thermal image detection/scanning). Thermal imagers at the early 1970s didn't offer sufficient resolution and contrast to be used as night vision devices in armored vehicles; yet they clearly offered a massive advantage in terms of detection capability. So AEG decided to add a thermal imaging system to the PZNG to be purely used for target detection, which projected the image onto the photocathode of the camera tube. Essentially by activating the Wärmebildortung the thermal imager produced images at a very slow rate (just one frame per minute, probably in order to reduce the required cooling system). These were laid over the image provided by the LLLTV system, essentially acting as a very early type of sensor fusion. Compared to thermal rangefinders, LLLTV systems at the time provided clearer images and longer ranges (up to 3,000 meters according to the optimistic values from the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik 1974). The modular design of the PZNG allowed to completely replace it with a newer thermal imager in the future. The NZG 200 was developed by Zeiss and Eltro. I believe that NZG might stand for "Nachtsichtzielgerät" - night vision targeting device. In terms of overall specs, it is largely similar to the PZNG - a 70 kg heavy, fully stabilized periscope with 360° travese and -10° to +20° elevation that sits on an elevatable mast which can be retracted into the turret. The main difference between both systems is the image intensifier - another type of video camera tube was used - and the íntegration of the still early thermal imaging technology. Instead of a small thermal sensor with a low framerate being used, the NZG 200 included a proper thermal imager. A mirror in the "dead" zone of the LLLTV's mirror lens directed the incoming light to it. As the resolution was still rather limited, the thermal imager also was to be only used for target detection - identification of the target aswell as aiming was to be done using the image intensifier instead. The NZG 200 didn't allow overlying the thermal imager's output onto the LLLTV image, instead the operator had to switch between switch between both modes. Alternatively one operator (gunner or commander) could view the thermal channel, while the other could view the LLLTV channel. The NZG 200 was designed in such a way, that the thermal imaging module could be easily replaced with newer ones in the future. The PZNG was fitted to the Leopard 2 prototype turrets T12 and T17, while the NZG 200 was fitted to the turrets T11 and T16. Leopard 2 prototype with turret T11 (the only one with 20 mm autocannon). The NZG 200 is visible at the center-left side of the photo. Next to it is the pulse spotlight, which could be used with the LLLTV system in the oimnous "gated viewing mode".
  26. 7 points
    https://warspot.ru/17005-teoriya-bronetankovyh-zabluzhdeniy-tanki-v-chistom-pole-i-amerikanskie-stanki Yuri Pasholok's article about some of myths about Soviet armor (1943-1944). 1. Turret ring diamter increase problems Translation of text: Is there an ability to increase turret ring of T-34 tank? Yes, they are. According to preliminary assesment ring can be made wider by 200mm. Is it possible for production to make it? Yes, Mariupol factory doesn't have any problems with it, factory N183 also have necessary machinery T-34-85 with 1600mm turret ring instead of 1430 during testing. 2. SU-76M is bad Manual river crossing of the ZIS-3 cannon. Those wishing to tell that the SU-76M was a bad self-propelled gun can mentally send themselves to the place of one of the numbers of this crew 3. About ISU-122 existance: myth and reality. The main reason for the appearance of the A-19 as a weapon for tanks and self-propelled guns. The demolished Tiger turret is the result of an A-19 armor-piercing shell hit from a 1.5 km Thanks to the ISU-122s, it was possible to reduce the requirements for the production of A-19 for self-propelled guns to 100 pieces per month. Nevertheless, the cases when the plant No. 172 did not keep up with the orders are not rare. 4. About IS tanks To the question of when the D-25 was created. The middle of July 1943, and there is already a project of Object 240. The fighting on the Kursk Bulge is still ongoing Distance - 2000m. R50 (half of shots) - 72sm, R100 - 130 sm. "+" is point of aim, central part of the group is 10 sm above and 100sm to the right from point of aim. To the question of the accuracy of the D-25T. And such accuracy was achieved during standard warranty tests. One of the tanks that participated in the battle of Ternopol. The vehicle was hit, but, as you can see, served in the Red and Soviet armies for more than a decade In August 1944, the mass production of the IS-2 began with a straightened frontal part of the hull, which was significantly stronger than the original design /..../ 6. Optics Visibility from T-34-85. During the war years, Soviet observation devices and sights made a big step forward For comparison, the visibility from the Panther. Loader is blind, the gunner looks only forward, only the commander can look on the sides. For this reason, defeats on the sides were a frequent result of the combat use of new generation of German tanks.
  27. 7 points
    Greetings all, I've been pulled on as a judge for this one, so none of the following should be construed as competition so much as... encouragement. This is the Mogcat: It's designed to exactly nail the minimum specs, while being relatively easy to produce and long-legged. It sports a 3"/76mm main gun, a bunch of machineguns and the sort of conveniences you'd expect from a late-40s design (gunner's panoramic sight, wet ammo racks, internal firefighting equipment and smoke launchers). It's otherwise very bare-bones, and comes in at all of 10.3st/9.3mt. I'll add further specs as this goes along, but for the moment all you have to know is that this is the minimum, lowest bar that I can think of. This thing is intended to be the product of unimaginative minds working at what passes for the ordinance department in the Lone Free State - men who spent their lives designing incremental improvements on machineguns and recoilless guns, and think that their lightweight 3" gun is a world-beating novelty. For what it's worth; what I would like to see is something that grabs the requirements by the balls and works out a way to wring something that can beat @N-L-M's Norman design in a reasonably fair fight out of the thin gruel that the Provisional Government has put out. Remember that the Texans don't know what they don't know - their official line is that the arrival of Deseret light tanks is some sort of shocking revelation. But they aren't stupid - the smarter engineers will already be looking at what they could do with their given automotive and gun tech, and what was achieved in the pre-war era, and are probably staying up late at night worrying about their conclusions. Update 1: I had a think last night, and decided to swap out the turret crew to a commander-loader and gunner configuration instead of the T-34-esque commander-gunner and loader configuration (now included with the rest of the pictures). Here's a bonus picture of the vehicle in travel configuration - turret rearward and gun in cradle: Update 2: Here's some more stats on the vehicle, in the prescribed units... Description The Mogcat is a 6x6 armoured scout car designed for mobility and extended operations. The design boasts an innovative engine, drivetrain, suspension package and gun, all built with an eye to ruggedness and light weight. The Mogcat's 3-inch cannon is able to provide useful anti-armour (APHE and HEAT-FS) and anti-infantry (HE, canister and shrapnel shell) firepower, while the plethora of machineguns it sports allows it to tackle dismounted infantry and light vehicles with confidence. The combination of purpose-built drivetrain components, long operational range and firepower makes the Mogcat a strong contender for the present production contract. Major dimensions and mass Crew: 3 (driver, commander-loader, gunner) Length: 16'/9" (hull), 19"/4' (gun forward) Width: 6'/7"m Height: 9'/6"m (top of commander’s cupola) Unloaded weight: 8.7 ton Loaded weight: 10.3 ton Ground pressure: 4900lb/ft2 (unloaded, muddy ground) to 5785lb/ft2 (loaded, muddy ground) Axle loading: 3.4t/axle loaded Mobility Engine: 4-cylinder turbodiesel, 732cu displacement, 200-280HP PWR: 19.4HP/t loaded, detuned Ground clearance: 17.7" Max road speed: 60mph Max offroad speed: 20mph Operational range (on road/offroad): 850mi/500mi Protection Armour: 2" LOS on hull front (1" RHA @ 60°) 0.8" LOS on hull sides with 30° angle (0.8" RHA @ 90°, 0.5"mm @ 45°) 0.6" RHA on hull rear 0.5" LOS on hull bottom (0.4" RHA @ 45°) 2" LOS on turret front (1.8" RHA @ 30°) 2" CHA mantlet 0.8" LOS on turret sides with 30° angle (0.6" RHA @ 25°) 0.6" RHA on turret rear 0.4" RHA on roof 0.4" RHA on turret floor 2" RHA turret neck ring and splash guard 0.4" Aluminium turret basket, skeletonised 3.2" smoke dischargers (2 reloads). Fuel tanks on driver’s sides improve protection against threats from the front. Ammunition stowage in wet racks in turret bustle, turret floor and driver’s compartment. Internal fire control system (BCF canisters in engine compartment and fighting compartment, driver has access to removable CO2 extinguisher). Firepower Turret ring diameter: 4'/5" Main gun: 3" L/40 medium-pressure gun, 12" recoil travel Ammunition stowage: 50 rounds main gun ammunition stowage +30/-10 degree elevation. Ammunition: 3"x15.2" cartridge (3.7" base, 19lb max all-up weight) APHE: 13.9lb, 2425ft/s, 3.5" RHA penetration at 1000m HEAT-FS: 15.4lb, 2295ft/s, 9.8" penetration HE: 13.7lb (1.35lb fill), 2460ft/s, 0.4" RHA penetration APFSDS (spindle-type, 15L/D ratio, maraging steel penetrator): 1.5lb, 5900ft/s, 6.5" RHA penetration at 1000 yards. Secondary weapons: .30 cal coaxial MG (600 rnds) .30 cal gunner's MG (600 rnds) .50 cal commander’s MG (500 rnds) Additional features Long-range transistor radio. Vehicle intercom system. Ancillaries (fire tables, gunner’s quadrant, traverse markings etc) for indirect fire missions. Commander has access to panoramic sight (x1) and telescopic sight (x4) for target acquisition and lay-on. Turret traverse is electric (30 degrees per second rotation). Fume extractor on main gun Large hatches in hull rear allow easy servicing of engine and gearbox. Storage lockers in hull rear flanking the engine for personal/supplies stowage. Hydraulic jacks on the hull bottom between the first and second wheels and at the rear make changing tires easier. Update 3: I reworked all the images.
  28. 7 points

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    so, my bad again, 81 no used against hull, 127 and 107 127mm-600-636mm pen 107mm-480mm pen as far as i understand, because of this hull front failure they later made this hull and only after this version get to 2A0/4 style hull, but i don't know is 2A0/4 a capable of stoping 127mm warhead or not... and there is a scheme of firings of 2AV in US, without any good details, only that tank have 39 hits, of which 16 germans consider to be "good", of which 3 actually was penetration in turret front and mantlet by 127mm warhead, remaining 23 hits, they didn't mention... penetration was hit 6, 5 and 13, which version of hull front was used in US trials i don't know p.s scheme of US trials seem to match trials i previosly posted here, so it's seems that they used improved hul, or germans repeat all hits that they recieved during US trials later at home with improved hull front
  29. 7 points
    Ikv 91 appreciation post. Vehicles and crew here are participating in training exercises, 1978. Photos from the Swedish Arsenalen museum archive. Link to a few more. The infantry rider photo is separate from the others in both setting and photo collection
  30. 7 points
    Few more shots. I have some new shots to put up. It's a little funny to think a pair of Officers, who are now in their 70s look young. More young men who are now in their 70s! I found this great site that has all kinds of info on US Navy ships and has the Cruise book for the America World Cruise, a long with others for ships dating back to pre-WWII in some cases. https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv66-68/000.htm Sadly, my dad must have somehow missed making it into the VF-33 personnel roster in the book. It's ok Lt Wiest above didn't make the cruise book either. I've spent hours reading through various cruise books, in particular the WWII carrier and battleship ones. I find this image really fascinating, I've always wondered how they kept track of the birds, and now I know. I bet its all in a computer now. Back to aircraft. A nice VA-85 Intruder. I'm curious what the weird looking spike looking things on the Island are. Some kind of sensor or ECM device maybe? I think this one is from the world cruise, but you can't see any markings that tell us what ship for sure. It's also weird, some slides are dated, others not. Maybe they were in batches at one point but nearly 50 years bouncing around in boxes has mixed them all up. This one is from the world cruise. A pair of shots of a VA-64 A-4 about to be started, I think that's what the red hose is for. One thing I noticed, the planes are much cleaner in all the slides than I thought they would be. These are from east coast workups in 69. And old Vigilante about to get a cat shot. I read somewhere these planes were all G limited and really old by this point. Wish I could remember the book. A nice shot of a Phantom cat shot. These images all seem like they got taken on the same day, maybe within minutes of each other. Maybe from up on the Island? Skywarrior going for a flight. The Samuel N. Moore, DD-747 a Sumner class destroyer commissioned June of 44, and only had about a year of service with the US Navy left. I'm pretty sure this is from an UNREP on the world cruise, because DD-747 was struck on 24 October of 69 and given to the Taiwan Navy on 10 December 69. She served with them until 1995.
  31. 7 points
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    Marder-like early experimental Warrior with Chobham. 750hp engine. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/british-chobham-armour-micv.13467/
  32. 7 points
  33. 7 points
  34. 7 points
    Drozd APS on T-55AD, scans of manual. Source. Drozd system detection zone (D0), tracking zone (Ds) and interception zone(Dp). D0 - 130 m, Ds - 40m and Dp - 6.6m. Each 20 degress sector is covered by 2 APS rockets, so 2 projectiles can be intercepted in that zone. Whole sector that APS is covering is 80 degrees in front of the turret.
  35. 7 points
    On this day, 15 years ago. Leonid Rashal (very well known doctor) in Beslan, Sept 1st/2nd. Ruslan Aushev walking to school Gym - in the middle, workshops - on the left, Acting hall - left, near corner of building, library - right side. FSB unit "White coal" from Essentuki NSFW After operation. Soldiers that died during those events: 1. Dmitry Razumovsky ("Major") - lieutenant colonel, head of the Directorate "V" of the TsSN of the FSB of Russia. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). During assault killed 2 terrorists that were shooting at fleeing hostages. Was killed during room-to-room combat inside of the school. 2. Alexander Perov (“Pooh”) - Major, Head of the Task Force of the 1st Division of the Directorate “A” of the TsN FSB of Russia. When the brutal battle suddenly began on September 3, 2004, Alexander Perov, acting decisively and courageously, personally destroyed one of the four bandits who fired at the hostage children. During combat inside of the school, Major Perov was covering special forces group, but suddenly a terrorist appeared from the opposite side and opened fire in the back of the officers. He destroyed terrorist, but he himself was mortally wounded. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 3. Oleg Ilyin (“Skala”/ "Rock") - lieutenant colonel, head of 4th fireteam of 3rd department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Initially acting in the schoolyard, Oleg Ilyin with his subordinates diverted the fire of terrorists who shot at the escaping hostages. In this battle he was wounded, but remained in action. Then he burst into the school building, where he discovered another group of terrorists ready to break out of school. In a fierce battle with point-blank fire, he destroyed two militants. Distracting the attention of the bandits on himself, he saved the life of the soldiers following him and ensured by his actions the complete destruction of this group of terrorists. In this battle, Colonel Ilyin was killed. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 4. Andrey Turkin ("Cherkess") - lieutenant, operative of the 2nd department of the Directorate "V" of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Andrei Turkin, as part of his unit, burst into the school building under fire of militants. He was injured, but did not leave the battle. Covering the hostage rescue with fire, he personally destroyed one terrorist. When one of the terrorists, hiding in the pantry, threw a grenade at the hostages, the officer rushed and covered grenade with his body. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 5. Mikhail Kuznetsov ("Domovoy") - FSB major. During the special operation, he evacuated more than 20 wounded hostages, mainly children. Covering his group, Mikhail joined the battle with two terrorists and, having destroyed them, died. Order of Merit for the Fatherland, 4th class, with swords (posthumous). 6. Vyacheslav Malyarov (“Malyar”/"Painter") major, senior detective of Department 1 of Directorate “A” of the CTsSN FSB. During combat inside the building, he blocked the direction of the fire, which was carried out by four bandits in direction of room with the hostages. Having been mortally wounded, Vyacheslav continued to fight, wounded two terrorists and forced them to retreat. Cavalier of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree with swords (posthumous). 7. Andrey Velko - Major, employee of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of the Russian Federation. As part of the assault group, he entered the school building. Destroyed one of the Basayevites and ensured the actions of the group. Then he came into fire contact with another terrorist and destroyed him. The officer received multiple fatal injuries, covering hostages. Posthumously awarded the Order of Merit to the Fatherland, IV degree. 8. Roman Katasonov - major, senior operative of the 4th department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Major Roman Katasonov during the assault penetrated the building and destroyed two terrorists. In one of the rooms he found two hidden children. Rescuing them and covering up the assault group's employees, Roman was fighting with a terrorist's machine gun crew and was mortally wounded. Cavalier of the Order of Merit to the Fatherland, IV degree, with swords (posthumous). 9. Denis Pudovkin (“Gusar”) - ensign, senior instructor of the 3rd department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. He destroyed one of the bandits who was shooting at the children. He carried wounded schoolchildren under fire. Having received a shrapnel wound, he continued to save people. Cavalier of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree (posthumous) 10. Oleg Loskov - ensign, senior instructor of the 1st department of the Directorate “A” of the TsSN FSB. As part of an assault group, he encountered four bandits trying to escape from the school building under the cover of fleeing hostages. He wounded one of the terrorists and, obscuring the hostages, blocked the bandits from escaping. Having been mortally wounded, Oleg continued to support the actions of the assault group with fire. He was awarded the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree (posthumous). In Beslan
  36. 7 points
    That article mentions the COV. I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical. Knowing the name allowed me to find this: Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:
  37. 7 points
  38. 6 points
    M1A2 SEPv3 ranks from Battle Company, 3-8 CAV
  39. 6 points
    T-72B3, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-14, T-15 top view.
  40. 6 points

    Thermal signature of AFV

  41. 6 points
    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V I've concluded that with my current pace of "processing" my photos of pages from some military-related magazines and books from and usually on 1950s-2010s, stored at Russian State Library, it would take months or years until finally done, so I've decided instead to upload it asap, "as is", with most uploaded by now, and few (in subfolders which would be available via the same link) in following couple of days.
  42. 6 points
    One of the Kampfpanzer 3 proposals, this one is from Maschninenbau Kiel. IMO it was the best one: Three men crew, autoloaded gun in overhead installation (this concept was tested on the VTS1 testbed based on the Marder hull), frontal protection against 120 mm KE (DM13 prototype at the time) and 120 mm HEAT-FS rounds along a 60° arc. Like on the VTS1, the gun cannot be rotated by 360°, instead traverse is limited to 120° (-60° to +60° from the hull centerline). This was seen as sufficient by the West-German military, as this allowed a single tank to cover an area of 3,640 meters in 1,000 meters distance. As Burlington-type composite armor wasn't adopted at the time, the all three KPz 3 proposals relied on spaced armor. There were different exact configurations of the proposed vehicle with different crew and engine arrangements. But AFAIK all were designed with the same protectiion level and main gun (120 mm smoothbore gun prototype from Rheinmetall). Source: Object-477's weibo blog. The VTS1 ("Versuchsträger Scheitellafette 1" - testbed overhead gun mount 1): At the same time Sweden created a similar prototype based on a Marder leased from Germany as part of the UDES-19 project.
  43. 6 points
    MEXAS for L1 posted by Paul Fredenburg Hull Turret
  44. 6 points

    Britons are in trouble

    Prototype Warrior ADATS displayed at BAEE 1988,
  45. 6 points
  46. 6 points

    General AFV Thread

    Some of the indended updates to the Ariete, not all though, there are 7 slides that "leaked" -unchanged performance -replacement of Halon 1301 with FM200 -removal of ITAR/EAR/Dual use components -solving of obsolescence problems [duh] -maximum logistical compatibility with the new armored car Centauro II -all components are made in Italy with MIL-STD-1275D, MIL-STD-461F qualifications -programmable digital electronics -obscurable light warnings [I think?] -battery power with timer to preserve battery charge The general gist of it is modified engine with common rail tech to bring it up to 1600hp, new transmission, suspension and brakes to go with it (apparently even now the brakes could break "easily"), new optics for the commander, gunner and driver, replacement of the hydro system for the turret trasverse with an electric system, some other various systems.
  47. 6 points

    Israeli AFVs

  48. 6 points
    Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
  49. 6 points
  50. 6 points
    from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567119520996048896/ - 4 photos of slides from recent presentation on NGCV's RCVs and another one from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567111444783996928/
  • Create New...