Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk

  1. 4 hours ago, Scav said:

    Small size from the front, yes, from the side it's not that small.

    Mantlet on some tanks is weak, but others like the 2A5 isn't, though that's mostly an exception to the rule.

    The mantlet being reinforced with composite armor, perhaps to the point of being nearly as strong or as strong as the rest of the turret front, is neither unique to the Leopard 2A5-7, nor is it very uncommon.


    Other tanks like the Abrams, Merkava, and perhaps the T-tanks (barring the T-14), plus maybe the Challengers (though not too sure) have well protected mantlets.


    Leclerc, K2, T-14 etc are perhaps closer to being the exception.

  2. 4 hours ago, rob89 said:

    Hello everyone


    I have a question for the armour experts of this forum

    Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.


    Thank you in advance


    best regards



    Yes, it is.

    All the listed IFVs are made either by countries that are members of NATO, or companies whose home markets are NATO members. 

    NATO has a protection standard called STANAG 4569 to which the IFVs listed must conform. 

    This standard lists anything from protection against 5.56mm ball ammunition, to 30mm APFSDS. 


    The list exists here in a neat fashion.


    NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6).

    The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown.


    Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE.


    KF31 and KF41 have yet unknown levels of protection. However, due to their weight, especially with the KF41's weight being in the mid 40's and up to 50 tons, it is estimated to have ballistic protection somewhat above normal NATO levels.


    Those that have additional ERA over the sides, may well have level 6 protection at the sides, as most ERA manufacturers claim level 6 protection for their armor blocks (when laid over some minimal base armor). This includes the Puma, as well as the ASCOD/Ajax and Bradley.


    Heavy IFVs such as the Namer and T-15, are expected to have levels of protection closer to those of an MBT, with the Namer being said to be more protected than the Merkava it's based on, and no known claims of the T-15.

  3. 6 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

    So it is confirmed that the "Barak" upgrade is mainly (and only?)  an FCS upgrade?

    It always was just that. The FCS of course includes everything related to sensory, which means sensor fusion, helmet mounted visors, VR training, additional sensors etc.

    If you fantasized about a new gun, a new engine (which was speculated at one time but confirmed to be untrue), or generally anything that would require a very serious change to the logistical requirements for the tank, or an expensive structural change, then you're all out of luck. 

  4. Some NEWS my Bois:

    • 847th brigade (reserve) has completed the induction of one Merkava 4 battalion and is preparing to induct 2 more battalions.
    • 401st brigade (active) is preparing to receive tanks with improved FCS, and will be the first to acquire the Barak.

  5. 2 hours ago, Serge said:

    First appeared on BreakingDefense, written by (notoriously sensationalist) Arie Egozi, so credit goes to him. It does not offer any new information here, but it's interesting that they claim (in ArmyRecognition) that the Eitan will only be made available for export when local production ends. No citation was provided, and it seems to have been merely inferred while rewriting from the original.

  6. 3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:


    What size is Turkey's tank fleet currently?  Is that enough to, say, completely replace all their M60s?

    Most likely not. Turkey's plans were for 1,000 units of Altay tanks, spread across 4 tranches of 250 each. 

    The M60 tanks are the core of their armored strength, so a single lot will not be enough. 


    Only their elite force of Sabra tanks is about 170. 


    They have a lot more tanks than just one thousand, but these new tanks should allow Turkey to maintain a cheaper, leaner, more technologically saturated, and more effective force.

  7. 1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:


    A 2013 study by Uhlig and Hummer showed that the outer part of a modern copper-based HEAT jet, in-flight, had a measurable temperature of ~800°C, though more dated experiments at getting temp readings in-flight showed lower numbers (~550°C). 800°C is still far from the melting point of copper (~1100°C) and given the short amount of time a HEAT jet stays in the air before striking its target, it's even more worthless against steel (for reference - depending on their respective grades, stainless steel alloys melt somewhere between 1,375°C and 1,530°C) . As Bronezhilet said, heat (the HEAT acronym really caused a lot of misunderstandings here) has nothing to do with the armor-penetration mechanism of a shaped charge.


    The HEAT jet simply a semi-liquid spike made from a very dense material (copper, lanthanum or any other alloy thereof), violently compressed by a chemical explosion and made to travel at hypersonic speeds in one very specific, narrow direction. The rest is just pure physical pressure.


    EDIT: the only part where heat (lowercase) matters is maybe post-penetration, because it means that whatever is on the other side will be hit by a spray of very dense, fast-moving material...and a hot one at that.

    When I said what I said, I really should have rephrased better because now I can see how it can sound very wrong. 

    Temperature indeed is a non-factor on the penetration power. It's purely kinetic. Unfortunately, my local ammo 'expert' (knows a lot of history, but not a whole lot about how it actually works) claims the HEAT's defeat mechanism is entirely non-kinetic.

  8. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/israel-rolls-out-8x8-eitan-with-eye-on-exports/


    MANTAK chief Brig. Gen. Guy Paglin talks a bit about the Eitan and says the following:

    1. Weighs 33 tons (w/APS and armor, probably without turret).

    2. Eyeing future turret models, probably hinting at the next gen APS and whatever gun the US's OMFV gets.

    3. They want a mortar carrier, but unfortunately open top instead of turreted.

    4. Eyeing export but not talking directly about it.

  9. Not a very old one. The IDF has made several moves to upgrade its D9 fleet.


    First is getting unmanned and autonomous versions of them (Panda), and having them equipped with a hard kill APS. Elbit's Iron Fist is the key candidate at the moment.

  10. 4 hours ago, Serge said:

    What good points !

    Nobody knows the tiniest thing about the Griffin ou the Lynx and everybody is clapping the Griffin ?

    The most important : nobody knows about what the US-Army want. 

    This is ridiculous 

    It's not uncommon to be instantly biased for a certain AFV just by how fitting it looks, or aesthetically pleasing it is.

    Seems the Griffin just gave a stronger more positive first impression on the relevant observers.

    Despite the rigorous tests and evaluations expected for each contender, this is still an important aspect.


    Personally, I'm also most impressed with the Griffin. 

    Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).


    The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.


    I've expressed several times my disappointment in Rheinmetall not installing their ADS (now RAP) on even vehicles they co-developed or fully developed. I stand  by this sentiment again here. Rheinmetall could have made a better impression with their KF41.

  11. The Soviet tradition of buying similar but logistically incompatible vehicles from multiple companies just to appease everyone has been inherited by the Russian Federation, as Russia now buys UVZ's Typhoon trucks, after already putting into service Kamaz's trucks (that were used by Russian MP in Syria).




    UVZ's Typhoon:



    Kamaz's Typhoon:


  12. 2 hours ago, 2805662 said:


    Apparently a “volume discount” of Lance turrets was discussed, to no avail. Without that discount, there was no way that the DoD could reasonably mandate the Lance 1.0 turret as GFE  for Phase 3. 


    Wouldn’t be surprised if the Lance 2.0 turret was negotiated into the Phase 2, Block 2 vehicles prior to contract signature. 

    And why would the Lancelot 2 point 0 be any cheaper?