Militarysta

OK, so Poland is sending LOR for 60 Javelin FGM-147F/G CLU and 180 missailes as first bath.

Javeli will go to Terytorial Forces not Armed Forces. Whole need is ca.255 Javelin CLU and 1,5k missailes + other ATGM.

All is based here:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojska_Obrony_Terytorialnej

Right now Terytorial Forces had 17 brigades till december 2019.

In eacht brigade we have: 5 infanty bde, and independent support company. In theory finall modell will look like this:

Terytorial Forces Infanty Bde: all :18 ATGM's

1st inf reg in support platoon - 3x ATGM Javelin

2th inf reg in support platoon - 3x ATGM Javelin

3th inf reg in support platoon - 3x ATGM Javelin

4th inf reg in support platoon - 3x ATGM Javelin

5th  inf reg in support platoon - 3x ATGM Javelin 

1st independent support platoon - 3x Spike ATGM

So whole terytorial forces need at least 255 Javelin ATGM and 51 Spike LR ATGM. Till now this 60 CLU and 180 missiles will be placed "temporary" on level "independent support platoon" but finall modell is like above.

======================================================

Other news in case ATGM in Poland:

Polish WITU is developing "Mosqito" ATGM system - it will be ready in 2022 whit unit cost (ATGM) ca 75k $. 80% components is producet in Poland.

And from the other side - Telesystem-Mesko is ending "The Pirate" system so laser guided ATGM:

Whit very interesting "APSproof" laser guidence system.

47 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

 Do they really have a chance to get 2A6 from Finland or Portugal and are they able to pay for?

No idea There was a some talks on rather low level industry-industry and army-industry  but whole talk was rather "if we then you can..". More or les low level claimed that 2A7V will be more cost effective solution then upgrade 2A6 and possible both countries will sell their tanks if they will buy new Leopard 2A7. As I know they are some aditional law resons why both countries may be forced to sell 2A6 and buy new 2A7 but I don't know details.

My all dear friends,

first of all - polish MoD mr Błaszczak is lying when he only open his mounth. The same PiS (Law and Justice party) goverment. This is faritails propose only by parlement election this outum in Poland. They will be no new tank in possible to recoginze future in Poland - 2PL, 2A5 after small upgrade and just refresh T-72M1 and thats all. Poland will take Finish 2A6 and Protugaleese if those countres will sell those tanks. And thats all. You must understand that this goverment is lying whole time and sucht "declaracton of interest" is only bubble talks to deluge all around - german partenrs, EU industry, polish soliders and...people before parlament election. Whole goverment narration is about "building strong army" whit 4th division, unit deploy to est, taking US forcet to Poland and tehnical modernisation of the Polish Army. Inn all aspect is low-cost shit. Sorry for talk this straight. In case tanks - all buble talk about "super duper IVgen German-French=Polish tank"  is only to deluge that will be done more then...to small refresh 230 T-72M1 and 148 Leopard 2PL (and this program is totall disaster right now). 

#bottlecapchallange w #21BSP

18 hours ago, TWMSR said:

Left to right:

125 mm 3BM-15, 120 mm DM 13, 125 mm 3BM-22, 120 mm DM 23, 125 mm 3BM-32, 125 mm 3BM-42, 120 mm DM 33, 120 mm DM 53, 125 mm 3BM-59.

bold - not 3BM29? DOI1985?

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Possible layout of T-14 frontal armor

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2159&p=2#p1244215

 

Im seriously doutbt if this layout is true:

1) Russian tank developers are definetly not idiot and sucht layout is pure stupidyty

2) Modern ERA like Relikt and newer solution need space after it's module to end "dezintegration" of long rods - in upper part in sucht layout we haven't space for this

3) it's seems that LOS of hull front is smaller 800mm IMHO it's close to 650mm.

@Cheburashka

Soory my mistake:

T-80UD:  4.8 km/h.

T-80U:  11 km/h.

T-80UD:  4.8 km/h.

T-80U:  11 km/h.

Polish "Telesystem Mesko Company" is now offcial Rafael cooperator-factory in supply chain for IDF. 

https://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=28640&fbclid=IwAR0uD-6FlZBySRSdfzm1u5ze8gEmT9hE4HTfCAgD92JeqU-N-gFuoznLacE

Produced is part of seeker for air defens in DFI.

Telesystem Mesko is produced combat proven ( ) MANPADS  "Grom" (Thunderbolt)  and "Piorun" (Lightning)  - all was based on Igla-1 but whole electronic and seekr is polish since 1998 and mechanics is new in "Piorun" now. The system was exported to Georgia, (30 luncher/100 missailes), Indonesia (140) , Lithuania (20/240), Japan (1), USA (ca 12 / 120).  Now Telesystem-Mesko is upgrading all ukrianian Igla-1 (couse they seeker is usles now), and Indian Navy P-22 seeker for 33 missailes.

My article in english version Frag Out! Magazine:

https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1150145-frag-out-magazine-25/69?

This time about Panzerfaust 3 and RGW90 familiy. For user here may be interesting part about PzF-3T/IT test in Poland vs ERA.

Heh, guys life is funny...

Some user here meybe remeber DFI and 2012 or 2013 when one user from russia had describe "erly leopard 2 armour". I had draw (very inperfect :/) armour scheme of this armour based on his description:

Most peoples there ignored this descripsion as fake etc.  And now the funny part - it's almoust exatly B&V armour choosen finnaly  for Leopard 2A0. The changes area minimal - and armour in above layout is suitable for hull. 

30 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

(...)

there is no any words about 105mm DM23 and P.B, and there is no initial requirement for +-30 arc as i posted real requirements earlier, Milan is not 103mm and there is no info about how tests was done, static or live fire with real ATGW etc

x2

I don't understand why is reson to make sucht draws based on data not avaible in this specyfic sources. IMHO better idea will be ad "based on multiple sources" itp No there is risk  that somebody will take this picture as orginally report draw.

@Gun Ready

It's mucht more complicated. First - this goverment in Poland now have dogma about building 4th division (The 18th "Iron" division) and still having in army 12 mech and mot bde (+ 2 areomobile). While we haven't enught soilders and money. To be honest - money level cover at least 6-8 briades on "NATO level" wile they want to have double of that. Impossible.

And now we have typical improvisation. Polish Army whit 4 div need at least 840 tanks.

IMHO Rheinmetall  will have difficult times in Poland couse 2PL program is very far from good cooperation term. Of course at least half is couse polish industry sins but in overal shape - KMW proposal in 2015 where mucht better and accurately calculated. In common opinion here choose RHM was mistake for multiple reson but it was caused by polish PGZ group who chose a partner in the program. PGZ told RHM fairytails about polish competition and RHM told PGZ fairytails about cost and posibilitiest to improve Leo 2A4. Result as known - whole 2PL program for 128 Leopard 2A4 will cost 3,4 bln PLN and finall tanks capabilities are questionable in some areas. 

Now this whole bubble talko about "polish nex gen tank" is just smooke scren before parliamentary elections (this autum) and easy PR explanation why T-72M1 are upgraded in so limited way. 

This time, photo taken by myself.

APC Rosomak firing single 81mm camouflage granate GAK-81

single 81mm in 1st salvo:

and single 81mm in 2th salvo:

And this one was mucht difficult due to weather conditions.

Six 120mm motar round on one picture:

And twins:

And the result:

In summary - 120mm SMK Rak is very good weapons, very powerfull modern and now the best serial produce in the world. Nice that at least one type of weapons producing in my country can be on top lvl... 

*double post*

3 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

     So this is basically taking old T-72s and putting thermal imager inside? Reminds me some other T-72 modernization... can we call it T-72PL3?

 

Not only - most important is full factory rebuild and new digital and fast hoping radio RRC 9310AP able to work in C3 and BMS. Thermal camera and new passive nocto for driver is next.

But more or less -the same poor shit as first T-72B3 bath...

Today our PM signiture contract for upgrade up to 318 T-72M1.

https://www.premier.gov.pl/wydarzenia/aktualnosci/premier-mateusz-morawiecki-odbudowujemy-potencjal-polskiej-armii.html

Firstly, it will be upgraded between 250 and 318 tanks. It depends on how much money from this PLN 1.75 billion will be spent during program.
Secondly, the range of work on tanks will be different - some T-72M1 wil get more mork other less,. It's  due to fact that some of them have been rebuild since 2014 so it's not neccary to rebuild all tanks.
Thirdly, "small modernization"  includes: 

-  PNK-55/72 „Radomka” for driver

- Liswarta (or TKN-3Z) for Tc

- new fast hoping ECCM radio  RRC 9310AP "Radmor" (in comander tank - two radios)

 - full seto of PCT-72 thermal sight for T-72 tanks  including KLW-1 thermal cameras and two monitors - one for Tk and one for gunner.

And thats all...very budget rebuild whit cosmetic "upgrade". 

About PNK-72, Liswarta and PCT72 you can find data here:

https://pcosa.com.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PCO_product_catalogue.pdf

pages 18 -21

About RRC 9310AP "Radmor" here:

http://www.radmor.com.pl/eng/Military-products/Radios/RRC-9310AP-tactical-VHF-ECCM-50W-vehicle-radio

13 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Rolf Hilmes gives a turret mass of around 19000 kg for the original M1 tank.

Interesting - if is only 15 500 vs 19 000kg so 18% then I seriouslyl doubt if there is mucht RHA layers in M1 then in Leo2A0-A4 turret. In sucht case bigger KE protection in M1 then in Leo2A0 look less possible for me...

Maybe You have right but the only quite good source is this single CIA raport about erly M1 protection. And FMV raport whit explanation in shape : M1A1HA turret mixed whit M1 hull.  Im really far for trusting Zaloga, Osprey publishing etc for obvious resons... 

Despit I have my own - Damian - sources about Abrams and despite his personality propably he known the best in CEE about M1 (of cource as civilian can not military).

Of course i know this problem:

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

3 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

It should be noted that the CE with 136 mm is the HOT1 and should not be confused with the HOT2 which has 150 mm in SC warhead caliber an therefore another penetration performance.

But more or less we known a lot about HOT1 performances in two independent sources:

Pardon - HOT 2 in Meppen test is present :/

Thanks, yes, it's seems resonable as explanation.

It's funny when we realize that all "big 3" NATO tanks have quite simmilar armour protection:

M1

turret:

400mm vs KE

750mm vs CE

Hull:

350mm v KE

750mm vs CE (+ hull fuel tanks protection) 

Leo 2A0-A4

Turret and hull:

350mm vs KE

700mm vs CE

CR1 Mk.1

turret:

435mmvs KE 

700mm vs KE

hull:

300mm vs KE

580mm vs CE

BUT - we must consider that NATO countries on trials hadused monoblock long WHA and DU rods not semi-partial steel whit tungsten slug (sub rods) like BM15 BM22 etc. So in reality 350mm for Leopard 2 was mucht more then performnce WarPac 125mm ammo -before 3BM32 and 3BM42 of course...

I would like to notice that there is some importnat misunderstand in draw whit Leo 2 shelling and table whit result.

In table shoot No. 11 and 12 are describe as "Vertical" and "Normal" but on draw whe have given angle of impact:

55 and 85 degree.  The only logical explanation "mirracle" that turret sides at 25 and 30. where resistant against DM23 and HOT and front not (in the strongest part in fornt of the loader)  is that in table is  mistake and indeed both hits in lef turret side where at anfgle placed on  draw - 55 and 85 degree. In sucht scenario penetration is absolutly normal due to extreem small LOS.

IMHO from this raport we can take quite good for Leopard 2A0 and 2A4 picture of the armour protection in middle 80s'. It was more then enought against WarPac ATGM's all types (including Sthurm-S)  and just enought to stop 3BM15, 3BM22, and meybe even 3BM26/29. But obviously against 3BM42 andd 3BM32 it was not enought. But both round had DOI in 1987 and 1988 as I remeber couse problem whit large scale production in CCCP.   

BTW - @Scav -  as You see - You get the realible source   whit some question marks of course :-)

@Scav

Quote

Same values.

Yes, now I see - the Author must use the same raport. Interesting couse mentioned in this raport parts where more optymistic for Leo 2 the author mentioned in article.

And on second thought - you have right and possible that Britons downgraded  Leo 2 protection. More or less all asumptions in this raport are based on fire trials in 1987 when DM23 was shooted from 200m and HOT CE was fired. And there was simple recognition:  penetrated (+ behind armour effect) / not penetraed and indeed whole protection levels and mass eficency where based only in this recognition and German claims about swicht to cermics.

So the crusial is answer about DM23 and HOT warhed in 1987 capabilities

Quote

Frankly, I don't trust the Brits when it comes to talking about tank armour of other nations, they've been wrong on many occasions and often downplaying armour of other nation's tanks.

propably you have right BUT british sources are now the youngest (ca middle 80's) avaible. Germans archive ar open up to 1979 circa. Many polish historican and armour warfare analyst went to UK  and DE and searcht - mostly in 2WW subjects, but sometimes discovers are suprising.

@SH_MM

Quote

 

I am under the impression, that the armor could be constructed out of three different "modules", which are then inserted into the cavity. Each module could be produced individually, potentially even by different companie - at least this is a rumor I've heard from former German Leopard 2 tank crews (i.e. each turret front holds three "Schutzpakete", which contain [potentially different types of] special armor).

 

Would be great to see the solution by Blohm & Voss, please post about it when you find time for it. Blohm & Voss made the armor for the Super M48 and Leopard 1A6, so regardless of wether their armor actually was used on the series production Leopard 2 tank, it should at least give us an idea about those tanks
 

 

My friend found another german special amrour (B&V) patnet in Polish instytute - this time better. Layout was simmilar to 2AV posted by Wiedzmin, but:

moving plate have from 3 to 5mm thickens, and air gap after it have no less then 10 thickenss of it. Mas reduction was up to 15% (no specify what  mas reduction)

In sucht way 2AV armour had (on flying path) about two slopped NERA modules less - so 2x30mm at 30. so 120mm.  Maybe sucht solution was used in 2A0?

It gives (roughtly counting) ca 320mm RHA + spaced + moving plates effect. Maybe all give mithical 350mm RHA?. I know, weak asumptions based on weak sources but for me abondend 2AV armour in turret don't look resonable at all.

Is there any more information about this? DId they receive the armor package with "C" technology, but retained the old side skirts? Or was it something different? [/qyote]

Well it's problem couse old Panzer book where replaced by new polish (and stored) but in all old 2A4 german book is mentioned about F6 between 1989-1994 and welding in hull and turret. Semms to be this...again - no hard evidence just asumptions. Why welding on almoust new tanks?
 

 

 

Propably You have right - and this is most resonable  explanation. Maybe british raport is just mistaken couse all talks about  "ceramics" is based on two sentences...

 

 

All other known western solution included NERA or NxRA layers still... so...

Quote

 

 

I don't believe they fully switched - but incorporated ceramics into the armor array. According to Frank Lobitz, the Leopard 2 from 1988 still uses

NERA, the same has been hinted by other writes, iirc. Rolf Hilmes. Already in 1978 optimal solution (according to Franco-German patents) was a combination of NERA + multi-layered backplate incorporating ceramics.

 

@Scav

Are these the values quoted by the Haynes CR2 manual?

?

If so, they didn't specify turret or hull, nor what arc.

In case Leopard 2 eacht single hit is describe whit angle and ressult - including behind armour effect... so IMHO it's rather accurate. Despit fact that DM23 and HOT warhed are mentioned in the same document.

I have to point out the similarity between those values (350 and 420mm) and the protection achieved on 50% of the profile for the leopard 2 leaks from Sweden:

(...)

It's possible but eacht shoot is describe whit angle of atack. But yes, there are very simmilar values 350 and 420

But as you can see, there's various ways in which the information could be interpretted, and seeing how there's absolutely no indication the frontal turret armour was touched or changed in those pictures @SH_MM posted earlier, I don't see why you think they all of a sudden decreased the frontal armour by ~100mm while also keeping the weight the same....

 

The hull was changed and some other small bits were made thinner or lighter by using aluminium, but there's simply no mention of the turret front being changed, so if this diagram from Wiedzmin is indeed talking about 2AV, that is most likely also the armour that ended up on series leopard 2.

There are only two option in sucht way:

a) Swedish and "some" raport whit Leo 2 1987 fire trials is mistaken and erly Leo2A0 protection was mucht higher - acoding to 2AV - exatly 420mm RHA so Britts are wrong couse 1979-1988 and 1988 Leopard 2 have the same mm RHA vs KE and it was up to 420mm RHA. But this source rejected sucht opportunity in three mentioned parts including weight efficency vs KE and CE. 

b) Leopard 2A0 had verry difrent then 2AV armour.