Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SH_MM last won the day on July 17

SH_MM had the most liked content!


Recent Profile Visitors

4,483 profile views
  1. Mine protection plate of the Puma. It is either the upside down or the iimage is mirrored. It is also confirmed that the Puma uses NERA in the hull front and parts of the hull sides.
  2. Rheinmetall also confirmed that an unmanned turret for the Leopard 2 is being developed, mounting this gun.
  3. First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.
  4. "SmK" is Spitzgeschoss mit Kern (literally "pointy projectile with core"), i.e. a bullet with hardened steel core for enhanced performance against armor/body armor. "SS" is scharfes Spitzgeschoss, i.e. a conventional lead/ball bullet. The term is more commonly used for WW2 ammo, but the same applies for "SmK". "Stzpfr." should be Stanzpropfen (plug formed by projectile impact, i.e. a form of spall).
  5. I have no idea what the first two abbreviations are supposed to mean, I cannot figure it out without context. "o.W Randtreffer" means "ohne Wirkung, Randtreffer", i.e. no effect (no penetration/spall) due to hitting the edge (of a steel plate?). "Sprungsicher" means "safe of cracks", i.e. the steel plate won't form cracks (one translation for Sprung is crack or fissure). I agree with your interpretation regarding "DMA", it seems to mean "Durchschuss mit Ausbruch", i.e. "penetration with spall".
  6. I don't know the proper English translations for some of the more technical German terms - but basically it is about the performance of the T-54 and "the Patton" on two different tracks which are simulating off-road travel ("Wellenstrecke" is a track with uneven ground - i.e. (concrete) elements creating a wave pattern, while "Schwellenstrecke" is similar, but the elements are shaped a bit differently). The table lists speed, the amplitude (vertical movement of the tank), increase in amplitude compared to the normal value on even ground (aka ca. 100 mm according to the text above the first table), measured frequency (how often does the tank "shake" up and down) and some technical/mathematical value representing the behaviour. The last column in the tables lists the condition/state of health (i.e. the crew comfort) of the crew - this is polled by asking the crew (left section of the column in the first table) and by comparing it with data from a graph (right section of the column in the first table). As the results of polling the crews and looking at the graph were identical in the second and third table, there is only one section. The condition/state of health has four different values (maybe more are possible): eträglich (endurable - no effect on the crew's health on the long term) leichtes Unbehagen (slight discomfort) Unbehagen (discomfort) schweres Unbehagen (serious discomfort) I.e. the tables just say: The T-54 driving over the "Schwellenstrecke" type test track will create discomfort for the crew at speeds of 5, 10, 15 and 20 km/h. Due to the shape of the uneven ground, the situation is worse at low speeds, where the tank will move by up to 125 mm as part of the "shaking". When the tank drives fast, the effect decreases, as the tank will not "fall" as deep into the grooves inbetween the bumps of the ground. Still it always will result in discomfort, which means that crews cannot operate as effectively when spending a longer time driving under such conditions. The second table shows that the performance on the "Wellenstrecke" is a bit better when driving just 5, 10 or 15 km/h (endurable or only slight discomfort), but the situation gets worse when driving faster, as the tank "shakes" more. According to the third table, "the Patton" tank performs comparable to the T-54 at speeds of 10, 15 and 20 km/h, but is worse than the T-54 at 30 km/h - while the amplitude is still slightly lower, it "shakes" at a higher frequency. This can create "serious discomfort". Basically the T-54 has a shitty supsension, but "the Patton" has an even more shitty suspension. In attachments I and F are photos shot during night (although it might be a typo and supposed to say "Nahaufnahmen" - photos made from a close range) showing the movement behaviour of both tanks.
  7. Now? Why do you think was the KF41 presented for the first time to public painted in Czech Army camouflage?
  8. https://www.armadninoviny.cz/vyvoj-vozidla-ascod-42-pro-tendr-ceske-armady-na-nova-pasova-vozidla-pokracuje.html Ballistic protection apparently is just (above) STANAG 4569 level 5.
  9. I don't think one can judge the armor thickness just from one model. The artists from twitter is assuming that the underlying turret citadel is identical to that showed on the original Griffin prototype (which was based on a ASCOD 1 prototype hull), yet the new MPF vehicle design from GDLS uses a very different hull - the same might apply to the turret.
  10. ASCOD 42, note the new variant of the Iron-Fist LC active protection systems with three-round launchers: That turret is quite ugly.
  • Create New...