Militarysta
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Militarysta
-
-
A few absolutly astonishing photos made by Rafał Mniedło - press officer form 11 Lubuska Dywizja Kawalerii Pancernej
Spoiler
-
Some news about polish Leo:
1) Leopard 2A5 have small upgrade during F6 in Poznań (Posen) WZM.5 factory rebuild:
Yesterday it was open new and big repair plant for Leopard 2A5 - what funny - we have two copetitor factory in Poland:
Higt quality standard WZM.5 in Poznanń city who is repair all MTU and only Leo 2A5 and shitty Bumar - Labędy who's tryin to sucesfull complate 2PL program...
Both factories hate eacht other and try to "cut" cumpetitor on DoD level.
"Small modyfication" polish 2A5 includes:
- 2x new thermal cameras (polish Asteria)
- 2x new machine gunes instetd MG3 without spare parts
- new digital programed radio whit fast hoping
- abilities to use new amo
- other minor hanges - replaced crew evirnoments in case come pulpits (consoles?)
2) Leopard 2PL is slowly moving on - whole program have serious deley couse two problem:
- shitty quality of Bumar job and other polish factories problems
- unexeptable problem whit Rheinmettal special armour modules - not in armour protection but in case module build and mounted on tank...
but
It is achive protection level requirment by army - so turret is able to stop 150mm.... SC warhed and modern long rods like KEW A2...DM63..M338...etc
More or lest army want's to have armour able to stop Kornet's Chriznatiema's and Swiniec1/2 and 2PL achive this protection level - and accoding to army "mucht beyond 2A5 level".
-
-
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:
if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different.
Well, acually it was higly immune against 3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22, etc couse multi partial penetrator whit tungsten sub-rod (or rather tungsten slug) behave in special armour very diffrent then monoblock tungsten rod. So if some sources claimed that DM23 overpas 420mm RHA it's "diffrent" RHA eqivalent then 410 mm RHA for 60 deg and 450 mm RHA for 0 deg. achivale for BM26 whit lon steel penetrator whit tungsten slug before fins.
The game changer where 3BM32 and 3BM42 - but both where intoroduced in to serial production in 1987 and 1988 and before SU colapse there where not produced in really huge numbers.
And remember that in your country the special armour where replaced during F6 in all Leos no less then twice...
-
-
3 hours ago, heretic88 said:
Interesting! Thanks!
Just one more question: What do you think about the metal-polymer blocks found on T-55M/AM and T-62M? I know they were designed to defeat APDS, and surely made the tank immune to them. But what about APFSDS? Im thinking about the earlier models, like M735 and M774.
In case DM33 (again - tested in Poland vs T-55AM Merida) - no doubt 2km penetration. The same Spike (700mm RHA warhed).
But in case older rods - interesting question! I will conisder German DM23 and DM13.
BDD Armour have layout:
60mm HHS and then 4 to 5 (dependet on angle) 5mm HHS palte spaced by 23mm melt in polymer. For most typical angle those plates wher sloped whit effective thickens (LOS) ca 10mm so we had space layout 60+ 10 + 10 +10 + 10 + possible another 10 mm - more or less 100-110mm RHA maybe 120 on some anagle. BDD module is mounted 40mm from turret front.
This You know:
So for T-62 we have at least 100-120mm RHA in spaced alyout + 40mm air gap + 200 -157mm cast steel.
DM23 have
DM23 have circa 360mm long rod from tungsten alooys and DM13 had main part whit lenght only 230mm. How mucht RHA both can overpas?
Finally I have hard data that at point blank whit V=1650m/s DM23 overpas 420mm RHA. [end hard data]
In 2km it was circa 380mm in 60 degree slopped plate(this is assumption)
DM13? Still no hard data - we just can assume it should be circa 300-310mm in 60 degre plate but no evidence still. As I remember M774 should overpas ca 320-340mm in the same condition but it's estimatous not "hard data".
So DM23 should on typical Fulda Gap range 800m-1km overpas BDD armour on T-55AD/AM or T-62 whit BDD. But if DM13 was able to do this? Interesting question cose RHA penetration on 2km for this round should be equal to thicknes of BDD+Main armour on T-62. But spaced layout always will be mucht powerfull then RHA plates whit the same number of mm bot in one stack. On the other hand - on 800m Dm13 should overpass more then 320mm RHA...
-
17 minutes ago, heretic88 said:
And the 3BM22? It should penetrate around 380mm @ 2km, but would it be enough against early M1 or Leo-2A0? While I doubt it would penetrate them at 2km, but what about shorter ranges, like 1km?
Also the 115mm 3BM28 with DU core?
BM15 and BM22 was tested in Germany and Poland and definetly no - this round fails completly against spaced and spaced + NERA targets. About this I have no single doubt. -NERA just cracked whole penetrator and set tungsten subrod in non linear way - so it hit backplate mostly its no front but side way. But im not so sure about BM26 - this roudnd was developerd to overpas I gen western special armour and completly diffrent build (whit stungsten subrod (od slug) in tail not in nose like in Bm15/22 was made to burst all NERA layers and made situation "tungsten sub rod vs backplat only". God idea and IMHO against erly Leporad 2A4 ot CR1 hull - enought.
From some polish doc I just now that Germans in 1988 just...forgot about NERA layers and start to use ceramic tiles in sevral layers and shapes to incarase protection against long rod monolitic WHA and DU rods - it was thread more dengour then estern partial rods. From other side - BM42 and BM32 was very heavy enemy and IMHO since KWS Leopard 2 was not protected agianst them.
-
@UP
The second option.
More or less values confirmed in sevral documents give us sucht picture:
NATO:
Leopard 2A0-2A4:
350mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (hull and turret)
Challenger 1:
435mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (turret)
300mm vs APFDS i 500mm vs HEAT (hull)
M1:
400mm vs APFSDS i 750mm vs HEAT (turret)
350mm vs APFSDS i 750mm vs HEAT (hull from FMV files - to validation)
Leopard 2A4 late + all older 2A0-A4 after factory F6
420mm vs APFSDS and 800mm vs HEAT (hull and turret )
And Soviet muniotion it those days:
APFSDS-T (all for 2km)
3BM9 1969 240 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM15 1972 310 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM26 1985 410 mm RHA for 60 deg. 450 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM32 1987 (serial prod.) 500mm RHA for 60 deg.
3BM42 1988 (serial prod) 440mm stali for 60 deg. - but this round was developed to overpas NERA armour so RHA eqivalent give us nothing.
ATGM:
9M113 1974 ~600 mm RHA
9M114 1976 650 mm RHA
9M112 1977 600 mm RHA
9M111M 1980 600 mm RHA
And really funny is when we put in compare T-64B, T-72A, T-80B and...T-80U and T-72B. More or less soviet tanks where mucht more better armoured vs KE but main armour where circa 30% less vs CE then in western tanks...up to T-80U and T-72B where CE protection was on par whit western ones.
-
Hehj I had the same discusion whit John Lipiecki.
1- BROACH and MEPHISTO warhed are able to go trought Iowa armour. Precursor is not typical HEAT bud mid form between EFP and HEAT - slow streahing jet. It will penetrate more armour then it's diameter but making guite big hole in armour. Second and main charge should went trought hole. And it's mean catastropihc kill for top turret any battleship...
2- due to ability to form blast wave in propper way
3 - doubt
But Soviet Ch-22N and P500-P700 had quite tricky warhed whit both - HEAT and blast warhed.And dimension was close to Mistele from IIWW...
-
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Rheinmetall claims that the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution reaches a higher level of frontal armor protection than the Leopard 2A5 and would be on par with the Leopard 2A7 (at least this is what they told to Poland when competing against KMW for the Leopard 2PL program) - nobody knows if that is true.
Many military in Poland acually know that it's not true. Polish Leopard 2PL armour suck in compare to the "old" 2A5. The problem is not quality of Rheinmettal aditional armour but very waek basic Leopard 2A4 main armour -it's less armoured vs KE then T-72M1 and against CE as PT-91 whit ERAWA-1 Of course there is ability to incarese protection level - but whit NEW main special armour and whit weight in circa 65 tones.
-
On 5/15/2019 at 2:13 PM, pack leader said:
the article is great very informative the carl gustav is a great system
although as an israeli i favor the german israeli joint venture matador rocket (rgw-90 for europeans )
what i fundamentally disagree about is the part about polish army needs
carl gustav is an equal competitor to the rgw-90 (pick whoever gives the best terms)
but poland is a major spike user it can easily acquire and participate in the manufacture of spike-sr
if the need for close in anti tank system is there (in the idf spike sr is not in service)
it is cheap one use has no clu and has a 1.5 km max range and 100 meter minimum range
and lots of commonality with other spike systems in training and parts
for poland nlaw is an idiotic waste of money and logistics nightmare
1) Greate, couse in next FragOut you will read about Panzerfaust 3 and RGW family
But it will by in june or july...
2) In case Spike (and compare to Javelin) you can read this:
English version FragOut! whit article Javelin vs Spike:
https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1064315-frag-out-magazine-22/0?
page 48.
3) Yes and no. Of course that SPike is better as normal ATGM. But Poland can't afford so mucht number of the ATGM, and we urgent must replace 2,7k rgppanc-7 (RPG-7).
And recoiless guns are not so stupid in many cases...
-
My article in english about Carl Gustaf and NLAW - hope it will be interesting:
https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1115818-frag-out-magazine-24/47?
In the end of the article is interesting part about polish RPG-7 uses, stock nubers and...mobilisation numbers
- Marsh, pack leader, LoooSeR and 1 other
-
4
-
7 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:
presumably the first authentic photo of 115mm new APFSDS(maybe for export)
I don't see pict
Any external link pls?
-
BTW - Nexter F1B-NG have datalink too :-)
-
On 5/5/2019 at 11:07 AM, LoooSeR said:
Does anbody know why M829E4 APFSDS round have datalink ring on it? I thought that those are for AMP.
Yes, tehere is my theory (february 2016 from here: http://forum.militarium.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5520&start=720) present by Damian on tank net, and it was posted on this topic in first post:
My theory or rather hypothesis:
Ok so it have data link to be programmed, it is said to be capable to defeat 3rd generation heavy ERA (Relikt, Knife, etc.) and active protection systems (hard kill). It seems that focus is primary on defeating heavy ERA. But then again, why do you need to program just a long rod fired by a big gun?
There are few options:
- Gudining the round,
- Precursor,
- "Intelligent" control over propelant charge ignition (dependant on propelant temperature, environment temperature, gun service life, range to target etc.)
And truth to be told hypothesis that there is some sort of precursor in the rod is the only hypothesis that makes sense. Control over propelant charge ignition is not needed and probably not possible at all with current technology, besides the M829A4 (and all newer US ammo types for 120mm smoothbore) use insensitive propelant charges. And it is nowhere mentioned in any document avaiable for public. Guiding the rod to target? Perhaps possible from technical point of view, but why? Again it was nowhere said that FCS for M1A2SEPv3 have ability to guide any type of rounds. And manouvering of the rod during flight means loss of a lot of energy, even if this manouvering would be done to "cheat" the APS for example.
So perhaps the option is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.
So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.
The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.
How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.
Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.of course this data link coud be placed only for security resons, as one person on TankNet had wrote:
Quotehe ammunition is telling the computer what type of round it is thus reducing the bad things which can occur when the gunner thinks he's firing one type of ammunition and the loader has loaded something different.:-)
-
Hi,
I have a question - couse K2 looks like Leclerc without it's flaws - there is posibility that hull K2 have separate ammo whit blow-plate under ERA tiles?
I'm crusious if K2 have separate ammo in hull. And I can't find photos or video whit answer.
Any idea?
-
Czech Republic:
- Knock, knock
- who's there?
- definetly not SPz Puma!
Is it true that Czechs requirments turns in to manned turret so SPz Puma was rejected in this country?
-
https://zeszyty-naukowe.awl.edu.pl/resources/html/article/details?id=187233
Using tanks for idirect fire - an attempt to reactivate training
1. The armored battalion, the Zawisza Czarny 15th Mechanized Brigade -
-
5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
@Militarysta; @Willy Brandt and I were looking at some diagrams of ERAWA reactive armor:
This is all well and good, but how on earth do you replace damaged modules? Having to get around to the side of each module to get at those mounting bolts looks like a complete pain in the ass.
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.
- Lord_James and Collimatrix
-
2
-
8 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:
I guess some Russian-speaking viewers watch it only with sound muted.
x2
This TV guy should building second Bialomorski channell by himself -he so hard dumb that he could be used as hammer to replace pins in tracks. So - niece videos and fotos whit mute
-
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.
- Belesarius, Marsh and alanch90
-
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.
-
UP
Not yet, but 2A5 will be modernisated in next decade
But it will by in june or july... 
Britons are in trouble
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
You'r writing about this:
?