Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Militarysta last won the day on December 23 2018

Militarysta had the most liked content!

About Militarysta

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

2,419 profile views
  1. Yes, it was a problem in 1st gen. ERAWA armour. So it was improved very fast in second generation - where sevral ERAWA casettes where placed on one "rail" - so it was able to fast replace whole "rail" whit sevral ERA casettes: In last generation ERAWA (on Pendakar tank) idea was to build whole pannels whit ERAWA casettes -even whit slight worse cover. Polish Army wants IIgen montage. BTW - ERAWA 2 is cheap - whole set for PT-91M tank cost 180k PLN so circa 42k USD And on trials ERAWA-2 provide better protection then single Knive ERA.
  2. New FragOut! magazine in english: New FragOut! magazine in english. Two, may be, interesting articles (in english): page 32: Whiter now for the Anti-Tank defense in Poland? Written by myself. and page 48 Hybrid warfare written by my friend - Michał Piekarski apart this -many other articles - for exmaple about new polish rifle "GROT" (MSBS) in army etc.
  3. meanwhile in Poland... Im writing article about ZTZ-99 tanks family, I would be very glad for any link whit or direct interior of the tank photos. Or any good source. J.
  4. UP Not yet, but 2A5 will be modernisated in next decade
  5. Making it very very (to!) simple - yes. But whole think is mucht complicated - having some budget and 248 Leo-2 Poland will try to build it's own system of suply chain for Leopard 2. In theory mones for 2PL will be enought to replace main armour and improve suspension - even whit changing suspension points in hull lower part. But including buliding domestic poland abilities to service and suplly chain for polish leopard 2 - there was not enought money to support sevral military industry factories and replaced main armour in 2PL.
  6. under 60,5t combat weight so ammo, crew, fuel itp About armour: AMAP is very very good, as I wrote - the problem is "weak" (vs KE) old main armour 2A4. AMAP is of course not wundersondenpanzerung mady by elfs - it typical multi layered NxRA armour and thin ceramis-steel to protect NxRA again small arms and spalls fire. And it's seems to be indeed better solutions then "wedge" NERA armour from Leopard 2A5. Polish reqirments for 2PL where simple - stop Cornet and 3BM59/60. As I know nobody is anoying about first (CE) protection ;-) The problem is whit KE couse to weak (circa 350mm RHA) old main armour -and of course AMAP will not double this protection couse it's to light armour. But definetly 2PL is higly resistant vs old Mango, Vant, and old Swieniec - so AMAP give a lot but propably not enought against 3BM59/60 on typical Polisg fight distance (800m) whit old main armour.
  7. You are writing my claim about "weak" M829 or mythical polish-US test in 1999? In case some strange test - after polish join NATO in 1999 there were a lot of tests betwen RFN, GB and US and Poland -mostly in case equipment. Polish ERA vs germans Pz-3T and IT300, American MLRS + Ah-64A vs polish mod GECKO (while Victore Strike ind Drawko in 2001 polish Sa-8 anihilated whole Ah-64A regiment despite it was supported by MLRS) and other stuff. And in case half-mythical PT-91 vs M829 - I have heard it twice from two diffrent retired polish army offciers. In they claimed PT-91 whit aditional "mobilisation" 40mm HHS plate on hull frotn + ERAWA was shoot by 5x M829 whit no penetration and 1x M829A1 whit penetrtion. Of course I han't any hard proof (in sources) so for my it's half-mythical. BUT Knowing what was tested in 1999-2003 in Poland after joined NATO I can belive that sucht test was really possible, couse other strange tests are confirmed in "hard" sources.
  8. Well hard to wirte for patryotism resons but indeed - polish made T-72M1 alway was theriblle quality. Polish Army in 80's had the same problem - soviet made T-72M1 was quite OK, polish ones - Jusus fuckin Christ! - like in pdf linked in my previous post. All is depend on non-existinq quality controll in Bumar-Labędy. And big hurry whit running up T-72M1 production in Poland. BTW - funny quiz for you guys - how many producktion lines T-72M1 was in socjalyst Poland? And which components where banned by Soviets for productioon in Poland?
  9. No, they are correct. Dimensions for 30. degree for T-72M1 are checkt in 3 diffrent blueprints - Polish, russian and one other country-manufacurer. All 530-540mm LOS for 30.degre whit exatly those values.
  10. Ho ho ho Merry x-mas T-72M1 durability and relability All based on "CONSIDERATION OF WEAPON SYSTEMS AVAILABILITY IN EARLY OPERATION PhASE" Translate: PT-91 Twardy tank, during 3 yers and 2 months for 144 tanks. During trials period (1174 days) we had 510 PT-91 falitures whit avarage time to repair 27 days. Avarage faliture ratio was 3 per tank but during trials it was between 1 to 14 for eacht tank. Important: falitures under factory warranty was in number ca 364 so up to 71%. All was procedure due to factory production. Translation from english for normal users here: up to 71% falitures was cased by non-existin quality control in Bumar-łabędy and fucked up production process. Summary in one table: And compare old Leopard 2A4 and PT-91: (black - Leopard2A4 white - PT-91)
  11. x2 BTW - Leopard 2 was developed whit some "german specyfic" too - armour was only "addon" to whole rest and prioryty was firepower, mobility and relability. After IIWW trauma when Panthers and Tigers where mostly in repairs then on battlefields there was the same story since Leopard 1 - tank must be on battlefield not in garage during reperation and mobility and firepower haveprioryty then armour. And Leopard 2 would be mucht more sophisticated but US trials had shown that Leopard 2AV even castrated from autoloader, APU, better FCS etc outperform XM1 in this case. And finnaly we had Leopard 2A0-2A3 whit working FCS, whit panoramic comander sight, whit 120mm and whit gorgous mobility and relabity. And really easy to use and repair. Polish army have very very good compare between T-72M1 so pure low-cost soviet tank, PT-91M/MZ so deep modernisation whit western FCS, western stabilisation, turet ring, transmision, thermal cameras etc and...25 yers old leopard 2A4. And what? And this "old" Leo-2A4 outperform not even T-72M1 but mostly PT-91MZ (Pandakar) tank in olmoust all aspects -including fire power, not even mentioned about durbility and relability. And thats the reason why Bumar łabedy had butthurt and had tryied (sucesfully...) block any take nex Leo-2 batch between 2003-2012...They "new" child whit mostly western components suck in compare to old 2A4. Ironiccly not in armour area but in all others aspects importatnt for tankers. In some way taken in 2002 Leopard 2A4 for Germans had killed Bumar-Łabedy and PT-91. But MoD and Army didn't do anything between 2003-2012 not take next Leo-2 batch (and Germans had offered circa 500 tanks) nor developed and buy nex PT-91 or modernisated T-72M1/PT-91 to "Pendakar" level. Of course Iraq and A-stan mission, and cirisis in 2008 hurt a lot armu budget but whole problem is mucht deeper - pepole rosponsible for army modernisaton did nothing in those times... :-/ Only thanks to two Generals Polish Army had taken germans 2A5 - it was small miracle in polish shitholle named moD, and lucky shoot. But whole rest had problems - including Leopar' s 2A4 couse lack of spare parts and looooooooong procedure to choose who (KMW, RHM or Aselan lol) will modernisated polish leo-2A4. This procedure had taken from 2012 to...december 2015. So proud of my MoD... :/ And form limited budget army choose Rheinmetall and..choose wrong in some way Long story.
  12. As I said - old Leopard 2A4 have better armour in case vs CE - while T-72M1 is circa 500-550mm then in Leopard 2A4 is 700-750mm+. It's big difrence. From the other side - Leopard 2A4 have weaker armour vs KE. Against older Soviet ammo (3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22) it's 400mm+ but against longer rods (M111, DM23 etc) its "only" circa 330mm RHA. In this scenario, ironnicly T-72M1 have advantage over Leopard 2A4. And unfortunatly PT-91 whit ERAWA 2 (on test better then Knive/Nozh ERA) is better armoured then basic Leopard 2A4. And again -in all other aspects Leopard 2 outperform PT-91. And I will repet again - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too. There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments. Some rumors from MSPO'2018 are not trusted sources! Nope. And 390-400mm vs KE value is for 30 degree for longitiudal axis. So 530mm LOS. For 650-950mm it's 480-700(!)mm RHA. Thats reson why polish PT-91 was able to windstand DM33A1 and other mucht never APFSDS during trials for Peru They are some rumors that old PT-91 whit aditional 40mm plates windstand in 1999/2000 trials in Poland while M1 shoot 5x M829 in hull frotn :-) Back to the reality: Oh this in minnor problem - we can talk about "brilant" M1 and M1IP FCS lack PERI analogue, AGT1500 durability and fuel compsumption, to weak 105mm gun etc. In fact M1 have only onne god think - armour integrity and vs. CE protection. And really good protected tank was diffrent - Ob.219AS whit 4s22. Well -weight limits in Leopard 2A4 are unclear. They are obvious limits for suspension (60,5t), but they are questionable abilities to overcome this level. Acoding to people from polish industry they are neccesery "major changes" in "hull structure". Some peoples had said that means only suspenson anchor point (mounted points?) other said that it's indeed need diffrent bottom-hull sides plates. As I know Polish MOD had decide to choose Rhainmettal packed couse weigh limit related in limited budget. There was not enought money to improved chull suspension to overcome 60,5 tons limit. It's estimated cost for tank it's rebuild in Lima and modernisation + trening + ammo + spare parts. If this value it's true it's mean really good price. But I dont belive that M1A1PL will become real. Despite fact that is a good tank all factor supports buy new Leopard 2A7 for Polish Army. Exept one - this goverment present now in my country (PiS - Law and Justice party) is totally brownnose in relatio to USA and it's dislike EU structures including western industry. So all resonable arguments support buying nex Leopard 2 batch but polish goverment is not resonable ...
  13. @UP no, definetly not - late 2A4 haven't this problem as I know, but still suspension limited weight to circa 60,5t. The next problem that not exatly all Loeben users can had problem whit "old" 2A4 chassis - many depend on how is used tanks. And this polish ones have hard life couse they are used a lot - sevral are send to Germany between 2006-2015 to welded again the bottol of the hull sides couse it was cracing - but it's mostly cased by stupid-estern cowboys jumping whole tank style. But there where some problems whit cracking - old hulls, "tired", used a lot. And now whole problem blow up during Leopard 2PL program - weight limits, $ limits, etc. Intresting case are Indonesian and Singapour tanks - maybe they armour is mucht lighter then we think or they have upgreaded suspension. Or finall user doesnt care about microcracking chassis mounts. No idea. Oh, the last but not least - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too. There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments.
  • Create New...