Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    1,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    150

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. A few Boxer models proposed by KMW for the German medium forces: Anti-tank variant Anti-drone system (already ordered for the VJTF 2023) Two different mortar options: Fire support "Not-IFV" that is an IFV
  2. No, Hetz did not defeat the Soviet glacis armor array at 2,000 metres and specifically not the improved armor array (with 60 mm front plate and 50 mm back plate) of the T-72A. It could defeat the original array (80 mm steel, 105 mm STEF, 20 mm steel backplate) at shorter ranges.
  3. The issue here is that the documents do not use the same definition of mass efficiency as we do. The mass efficiency of silicon carbide is not 0.34, it is much higher. The documents use weight coefficients based on a different criteria (probably something that was established back in the Warsaw Pact). You are interpreting the table wrong; otherwise every tank would be made out of polyethylene - providing 7 times as much protection as steel per weight and having a "TE" of 1. A lot of things are possible, without any more detailed information we can only randomly speculate.
  4. No, this isn't correct. The mass efficiency (ME) doesn't say anything about the plate thickness; keeping the plate thickness constant will lead to an incorrect representation of ME. Mass efficiency just shows the efficiency of an armor material/array compared to a reference armor material/array (typically by definition RHA). So if you have an armor material with a ME of 2, then at a constant mass it will provide twice as much protection as the reference material, i.e. even though you only have 100 kilograms of the material, you would need 200 kilograms of steel armor to reach the same level of protection. As the density of the materials can be different, the thickness of these two materials needed to reach the same protection level can be quite different. E.g. lets assume that the first material (with a ME of 2) is some kind of low-density reinforced plastic with only a fourth of the density of steel. This would not change the ME, but it would mean that you'd need 200 milimetres of this material to reach the same level of protection as provided by a 100 mm thick steel plate (as 200 mm of the material will have the same weight as 50 mm of steel while having a ME of 2, i.e. being twice as effective per weight). So the thickness is completely irrelevant for the ME. However the above example also shows us the thickness efficiency (TE) of the materials, i.e. the protection provided by an armor material/array for a given thickness compared to a reference material/array (which again by definition is typically RHA). Given that 200 mm of the hypothetical material (something reinforced plastic) provide the same level of protection as 100 mm steel, the TE is 0.5 (half as much protection is provided per thickness). I am not sure what these excerpts from Russian and Polish documents say, as I can only use a translator to understand them. But it seems that these are not directly ME and TE, but rather coefficients showing how much mass/thickness compared to steel is needed to provide the same level of protection. It is clearly not TE/ME in case of the Polish document, as this lists polyethylene (i.e. simple plastic) in an array with steel plates with a "thickness cofficient" of 7.1 against APFSDS rounds. As steel + polyethylene does not provide ~7 times the protection for a given thickness (nor does it allow reducing armor thickness significantly compared to pure steel), I would rather assume that this means something along the line of "a polyethylene array with preceeding steel plates need to have 7.1 times the thickness to provide the same protection as a simple steel plate". The mass efficiency of simple Al2O3 armor with relatively low purity (95%) is in the area 2-2.5 against small arms when place atop of to an aluminium baseplate. This allows a massive weight reduction compared to steel armor. The efficiency of the armor (and the multi-hit capability) can be further increased by using a higher purity ceramic, a higher strength backplate, an elastic backing in the deformation zone behind the ceramic tile (preferably something like Kevlar/Twaron/Dyneema or UHMWPE) and a cover plate/splinter foil. This means that the ME of Al2O3 can likely exceed 3. For high-performance "nano-ceramics", it can reach up to 5 against small arms. Against APFSDS ammo, the ME will be lower but still decent compared to steel. It will significantly improve the protection provided by ceramics, yes. It is also a necessity to ensure that the ceramics don't disintegrate after one hit.
  5. "MEXAS" is a brand name, it does not reference a specific type of armor. Many different armor solutions made out of different materials (ceramics, NERA, only metal alloys, etc.) were marketed as "MEXAS". IBD developed its first add-on armor systems in 1983; I am not sure if the name "MEXAS" was used already back then. The development of the add-on armor for the Leopard 1 started in 1988. "MEXAS" is a brand for products purely developed by IBD, though IBD cooperated with various other companies (mainly as provider of technology/licenses). It was made under license in Canada, the US and Sweden. In Canada, DEW Engineering was responsible for production, in Sweden it was Åkers Krutbruk (later acquired by IBD). In case of the US, MEXAS - or rather armor technology from IBD - was at first tested during the 1990s as part of a government-to-government deal between Germany and the United States (with FMC representing the US side and leading parts of the test program). This apparently was a positive campaign, as MEXAS was selected for the Stryker ICV and a license for production was acquired by Simula. Miscommunications between the US side (primarily General Dynamics) and IBD lead to a replacement of the armor supplier, so that DEW Engineering provided the armor for the later Stryker production.
  6. According to a German defence journalists, the autoloader holds only 19 rounds.
  7. Roll-out of the first CV9035NL after MLU:
  8. Leopard 2A6MA3 via Ralph Zwilling (tank-masters.de) Fitted with anti-RPG add-on armor developed by KMW at the glacis plate.
  9. ELAWS laser warning receiver made by Elbit Systems, 360° camera system (day/night) and IAI EL/M-2133 radar panels.
  10. GDELS is developing/offering a whole family of vehicles based on the Pandur EVO. IFV, anti-tank, SHORAD and mortar carrier variants. More details here: https://esut.de/2022/08/fachbeitraege/ruestung/36452/pandur-evolution-6x6-taktische-und-strategische-mobilitaet-der-extraklasse/ Internal construction details. The basic Pandur EVO doesn't feature fuel tanks under armor, but it is an option (seen on the lower right). Pandur EVO configured as APC for 3 + 8 men. Demonstrators for a possible SHORAD system based on Pandur EVO. The SAAB G1X radar is carried on a Pandur EVO production model, the improved design (with integrated headlights) is fitted with an MISTRAL ATLAS RC turret. https://www.militaeraktuell.at/gdels-zeigt-neue-versionen-des-pandur-6x6-evo/
  11. An "exit full screen" button as found on YouTube and various other video platforms.
  12. To be fair, Leclerc has "proper" side armor (even more than Leopard 2A4) at a similar weight. The K2 simply was not build with that requirement.
  13. Honestly they could just as well revive Anders. They apparently don't want to buy the AS21 Redback, but the Redback hull and fit it with the ZSSW-30 turret of the Borsuk & latest Rosomak. The same turret could also be integrated into Anders with ease. Polish procurement is interesting... strongly driven by politics and somewhat erratic. Parts of the Polish defence industry are suing the government for the apparently cancellation of the Wilk program in favor of government-to-government deals.
  14. Last year the Swiss Festungsmuseum received two Panzer 87 prototoypes: RUAG's Leopard 2 MLU with full add-on armor kit and a variant with partial add-on armor kit.
  15. Well, in case of the K21 they mention protection against "00.0 x 000 mm API / B32"... so "14.5 mm" would likely be replaced with "00.0 mm". The 4x4 vehicle is protected against "0.00 × 00 mm AK00 0N00" which is likely some kind of 7.62 mm (x 39 mm?) round.
  16. More on Samyang's website http://samyangct.com/lab/ Seems that the side armor of the K2 is designed to stop 30 mm APDS (or "00 mm" APDS) along the crew compartment and 20 or 30 mm AP ("00 mm" AP) at the rest of the hull/turret.
  17. The chamber volume of a 120 x 570 mm smoothbore gun is 10.2 litres. So ASCALON's would be ~20 litre-ish (while basically the whole sabot of APFSDS rounds would be included in that).
  18. It is a screenshot from Nexter's ASCALON testing video (available on YouTube and the earlier posted tweet).
  19. No, the size of both guns is pretty much comparable. Also both of them have the same quoted weight (3,000 kilograms). The breech block of the current ASCALON prototype is bigger than Rheinmetall's, but it is supposedly to be changed in the future. I guess the polygonal shape of the thermal sleeve make the barrel appear thicker, so the gun might seem shorter/smaller in relation to that. However the overall length of the ASCALON gun (including muzzle brake) is greater. Not entirely for scale, just estimated based on the rough figures given for barrel lenght.
  20. They didn't pay any attention to hide the signature of the exhaust? Seriously? Even the original ASCOD has that fixed.
  21. Supposedly the first buyer is Indonesia for the Leopard 2RI.
  22. Rheinmetall is not trying to get the MGCS cancelled. The MGCS means much more money for Rheinmetall (and more capabilities for the German and French Armies) than the Panther. The KF51 has been specifically described as "export tank" by Rheinmetall staff with the goal of maturing new Rheinmetall-made components to gain a competitive advantage over KDNS in the MGCS program. I.e. if the 130 mm L/51 gun already has a number of users, it is more likely to be selected than Nexter's 140 mm ASCALON. The same applies to APS, electronic architecture, control panels, armor package, etc.
  23. Not sure if it was stated here already, but C. G. Haenel's lawsuit was dismissed, thus the planned purchase of the HK416A8 as part of German Army's G36 replacement program can move forward.
  24. I don't think the turret has "chuncked up", that is mostly the Trophy APS. There likely is no wasted space in the hull. The turret seemigly lacks the volume to integrate many components found on the current Leopard 2A7 and Leclerc XLR turrets (air-conditioning unit, comm server, computers, etc.). Furthermore the autoloader holds only 22 rounds of main gun ammunition, which is not sufficient for a modern MBT. As the frontal hull is now fully occupied by the crew (the fourth crew member takes up the space to the left of the driver, i.e. where the hull ammo rack in a Leopard 2 is located), the hull still needs to hold: a rack/container for main gun ammunition secondary ammunition for the coaxial machine gun, the 30 x 103 mm RWS and the normal RWS most likely computer and communication systems an air-conditioning system Granted, the EMBT is a technology demonstrator, so they might have ignored that. The sale has not gone through yet. Only a memorandum of understanding signaling Poland's intention to buy the K2 was signed; the actual contract is still being negotiated. KMW already mentioned last years that they are considering/planning to incorporate various weight reduction measures (including a new, lighter turret and ERA).
×
×
  • Create New...