Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Mighty_Zuk

Excommunicated
  • Content Count

    1,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Marsh in Israeli AFVs   
    It's Hebrew, I know, but it does give a good view on how the Magach 7 looks like from the inside.
    This is a spare parts catalog for the Magach 7 electric systems, and it's 363 pages long:
    https://www.idf.il/media/12750/000908363-מגח-7-מערכת-חמשל-חדישה.pdf
  2. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Marsh in Israeli AFVs   
    I certainly can't do anything illegal to you if you post it there. 

     
  3. Metal
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Ramlaen in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    The Army has postponed a decision to purchase the Trophy active protection system for the Abrams tank, Inside the Army has learned.
    During an Aug. 25 meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council, senior leaders concluded the effects of the system on the tank, particularly on the performance of the Abrams turret, require further testing. The purchase decision was expected to be made at the AROC meeting.
    "The results of the live-fire testing have been very positive," Lt. Gen. Mike Murray, the service's deputy chief of staff (G-8), told ITA Sept. 6. "Everybody is convinced this is the capability that we want; we just have to overcome the impacts."
    The Army has to "make sure we fully understand the problems" that come with installing a nondevelopmental APS on an existing vehicle platform, he said. While the Israeli Defense Forces' Merkava tank "was built with Trophy in mind to be integrated onto the platform," Murray said, the U.S. Army "just installed it" on the Abrams. "So we have some weight-balance issues we've got to work through, and may have to play with placement."
    He emphasized that "nobody is walking away from Trophy." However, "we want to make sure we fully understand that the problems we have identified are fixable before we commit to a procurement decision."
    Maj. Gen. David Bassett, PEO GCS, last month alluded to some of the challenges encountered in the "installation and characterization" effort. "Turret balance and the performance of the turret is really important to us," he said. "We've done some initial testing so that we understand what impact that had on the turret itself, and I think we're just in the early phase of figuring out what we might be able to do to mitigate it. It's as much about balance as it is weight."
    Prior testing of Trophy, which involved a stationary tank, revealed "some impacts on the performance of the turret," Murray said. He declined to elaborate further.
    Forthcoming tests "would involve some actual crews running some actual engagement scenarios -- moving tank, stationary tank, et cetera," he said. The testing will include participation from the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Army Test and Evaluation Command, the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems and Army Forces Command.
    The goal is to have the testing complete and results synthesized "within 30 days" of the AROC, Murray said.
    Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has prioritized the need to boost the survivability and lethality of maneuver forces in Europe in the wake of Russian adventurism on the continent. The service aims to devote more than $1 billionin European Deterrence Initiative funding, via the Defense Department’s Overseas Contingency Operations account, to upgrading combat vehicles in Europe.
    At present, the plan is to procure a brigade set of Trophy APS using EDI funding, Murray said, "and then we'll have to go back to the chief and make a decision about how many more we go with."
    Representatives from General Dynamics Land Systems, the maker of the Abrams, and DRS Technologies, which has partnered with Israel's Rafael to bring Trophy to the United States, have discussed their efforts in separate interviews with ITA.
    Don Kotchman, vice president of tracked combat vehicles at GDLS, said Aug. 28 the company "worked in close partnership with [the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center], and the program office to support the design for installation of the Trophy kit onto the tank. And then the development of the installation kitting . . . so the system could be attached."
    Additionally, he said GDLS conducted a "parallel" effort using independent research and development funds to incorporate an "ability to use the data from the sensors associated with Trophy to give the vehicle commander improved situational awareness."
    Michael O’Leary, director of survivability and lethality for DRS Land Systems, said Aug. 25 the NDI effort has "migrated in a lot of people's minds from a focus on the capabilities of the system to a refocus on the true challenges of how you integrate a capability like this on a platform that already exists.
    "It's a totally different story if you're incorporating and integrating this on a clean-sheet design -- much easier process. But on a platform like an Abrams, where it's already had multiple technologies and add-on capabilities -- armor, sensors, equipment -- just trying to find the right places for the system's components, such that it can see all around the vehicle, such that the countermeasures can fire all around the vehicle and protect the entire platform, 360 degrees. Those are challenges."
    Citing a "consensus of opinion" that APS improves the survivability of a platform, O'Leary said, "if you take away or you degrade the tactical capability of the platform in the process, then you don't get a whole lot of supporters."
    Those challenges are "not insurmountable," and many have already been addressed, he maintained. The corollary, however, is to assess how "any changes you've made affect cost, schedule and performance."
     
     
    EDIT: I master the art of "hax".
  4. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from SH_MM in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    The Army has postponed a decision to purchase the Trophy active protection system for the Abrams tank, Inside the Army has learned.
    During an Aug. 25 meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council, senior leaders concluded the effects of the system on the tank, particularly on the performance of the Abrams turret, require further testing. The purchase decision was expected to be made at the AROC meeting.
    "The results of the live-fire testing have been very positive," Lt. Gen. Mike Murray, the service's deputy chief of staff (G-8), told ITA Sept. 6. "Everybody is convinced this is the capability that we want; we just have to overcome the impacts."
    The Army has to "make sure we fully understand the problems" that come with installing a nondevelopmental APS on an existing vehicle platform, he said. While the Israeli Defense Forces' Merkava tank "was built with Trophy in mind to be integrated onto the platform," Murray said, the U.S. Army "just installed it" on the Abrams. "So we have some weight-balance issues we've got to work through, and may have to play with placement."
    He emphasized that "nobody is walking away from Trophy." However, "we want to make sure we fully understand that the problems we have identified are fixable before we commit to a procurement decision."
    Maj. Gen. David Bassett, PEO GCS, last month alluded to some of the challenges encountered in the "installation and characterization" effort. "Turret balance and the performance of the turret is really important to us," he said. "We've done some initial testing so that we understand what impact that had on the turret itself, and I think we're just in the early phase of figuring out what we might be able to do to mitigate it. It's as much about balance as it is weight."
    Prior testing of Trophy, which involved a stationary tank, revealed "some impacts on the performance of the turret," Murray said. He declined to elaborate further.
    Forthcoming tests "would involve some actual crews running some actual engagement scenarios -- moving tank, stationary tank, et cetera," he said. The testing will include participation from the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Army Test and Evaluation Command, the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems and Army Forces Command.
    The goal is to have the testing complete and results synthesized "within 30 days" of the AROC, Murray said.
    Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has prioritized the need to boost the survivability and lethality of maneuver forces in Europe in the wake of Russian adventurism on the continent. The service aims to devote more than $1 billionin European Deterrence Initiative funding, via the Defense Department’s Overseas Contingency Operations account, to upgrading combat vehicles in Europe.
    At present, the plan is to procure a brigade set of Trophy APS using EDI funding, Murray said, "and then we'll have to go back to the chief and make a decision about how many more we go with."
    Representatives from General Dynamics Land Systems, the maker of the Abrams, and DRS Technologies, which has partnered with Israel's Rafael to bring Trophy to the United States, have discussed their efforts in separate interviews with ITA.
    Don Kotchman, vice president of tracked combat vehicles at GDLS, said Aug. 28 the company "worked in close partnership with [the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center], and the program office to support the design for installation of the Trophy kit onto the tank. And then the development of the installation kitting . . . so the system could be attached."
    Additionally, he said GDLS conducted a "parallel" effort using independent research and development funds to incorporate an "ability to use the data from the sensors associated with Trophy to give the vehicle commander improved situational awareness."
    Michael O’Leary, director of survivability and lethality for DRS Land Systems, said Aug. 25 the NDI effort has "migrated in a lot of people's minds from a focus on the capabilities of the system to a refocus on the true challenges of how you integrate a capability like this on a platform that already exists.
    "It's a totally different story if you're incorporating and integrating this on a clean-sheet design -- much easier process. But on a platform like an Abrams, where it's already had multiple technologies and add-on capabilities -- armor, sensors, equipment -- just trying to find the right places for the system's components, such that it can see all around the vehicle, such that the countermeasures can fire all around the vehicle and protect the entire platform, 360 degrees. Those are challenges."
    Citing a "consensus of opinion" that APS improves the survivability of a platform, O'Leary said, "if you take away or you degrade the tactical capability of the platform in the process, then you don't get a whole lot of supporters."
    Those challenges are "not insurmountable," and many have already been addressed, he maintained. The corollary, however, is to assess how "any changes you've made affect cost, schedule and performance."
     
     
    EDIT: I master the art of "hax".
  5. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That_Baka in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    And there I thought they actually moved on to unitary ammunition. 
     
    Also stolen from Otvaga:
     
    Test footage of on-target firing from 100m distance.
    After 3 shots:

     
    The 4th shot hits the wooden beam:

     
    GIF form. Notice the target also gets another piece off. Some speculated it to be shockwave-related.

  6. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Militarysta in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    Very very good video from polish SPH Krab:
     
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07EVig2xQ8FdDZSWWVoeXdhVFk/view
     
    (this video will be removed soon IMHO couse it is inner Polish Army video for artilery unit and there is to mucht shown in term C3 and BMS...)
    so enjoy it or copy to another serwer  ;-)
  7. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Bronezhilet in Reactive Liner Shaped Charges - For when you really don't like something   
    So, recently I stumbled upon something fairly interesting. Most of the people here know about shaped charges and how they work, the principles behind it are fairly well known. Recently however, there has been research about a new 'class' of shaped charges: Reactive Liner Shaped Charges. As the name implies it's a shaped charge with a liner made out of a reactive material.
     
    Please note that I still do not fully understand the workings of Reactive Liner Shaped Charges, this post may be changed or updated depending on new information and/or discussions.
     
    What is a reactive material, you say? One of the papers explains it like this:
    (Demolition Mechanism and Behavior of Shaped Chargewith Reactive Liner, Jianguang Xiao et al., 2016)
     
    In simple terms, it's a material that only explodes when you hit it really really really really hard with a hammer. Or when you fire it into a solid material at several kilometers per second. I dunno. It's one of the two.
     
    What this amounts to is a shaped charge which forms an exploding jet. Neato.
     
    But... why should you care? We already don't fire explosives at an armoured target because it's not very efficient, so why suddenly care now? To answer that I have to compare it to normal shaped charges and explain a few things about explosives. The most important thing to understand is that no explosive detonates instantly, there is always a slight delay. This delay is (almost) negligible at normal projectile velocities, but become important at high velocities. Think hypersonic velocities, like with... shaped charge jets!
    The main thing I am not completely sure about is whether the detonation of the shaped charge initiates the liner, or the impact with the target. The self-delay of the reactive material used in most of the tests is ~0.85 and depending on the liner angle the jet can move 2.8 to 5.2 meters before actually exploding. Of course this distance will be a lot less when penetrating because the material slows down. A reactive material with a too low self-delay might detonate during the formation of the jet, or before it actually managed to penetrate the armour (but this only applies in the situation where the reactive liner is initiated by the shaped charge). This is of course not something you want, you want the liner to detonate inside the target to do the maximum amount of damage.
     
    And that's the main reason you should care about shaped charges with reactive liners. They do a fuckton of damage.
     
    This is your brain: This is the result of a shaped charge with an aluminium liner:

     
    This is your brain on drugs: This is the result of a shaped charge with a reactive liner:

    To give a sense of scale, that's a 1520 by 1520 mm concrete cylinder. The shaped charge had a diameter of... 81 mm.
     
    As you can see the reactive liner does a fuckton more damage compared to a normal liner, this is because the jet literally detonates when it's inside the armour. Concrete is one of the materials that cannot deal with certain forces, which makes it weak versus explosives detonating inside of it. Steel for example cares a lot less about it, but even steel will suffer more damage from a reactive liner than a normal copper liner. The entry hole for a reactive liner is around 0.65 CD whereas for a copper liner it is 0.5 CD. A paper also states the following:
    The paper however does not show or describe the "tremendous increase in steel target damage". It does however give some basic information and show photos of the entry holes:
     

     

     
    The penetration capabilities of reactive liners in steel targets were "sacrificed slightly" compared to copper liners, but the paper does not elaborate any further.
     
    Here's some more information and pictures about the effectiveness of reactive liners against concrete targets, just for shits and giggles:

    A 'Bam Bam' is the same warhead as the 81mm one (1.8 kg) from the first photos, except scaled to 18.1 kg. The 81mm charge is called Barnie, by the way. The target is the same ~1500 mm too.
     

    As you can see the Bam Bam charge is capable of fucking up massive parts of asphalt roads/runways. A 21.6 cm shaped charge completely destroying around 42 square meters of asphalt.
     

     
    But hey, a 21.6 cm charge is fucking massive, lets tone it down slightly.
     
    Charges:

     
    Test setup:

     
    Results:

    Sadly there's a bunch of information missing in the tables. It is highly likely that different liner thicknesses were used, but these aren't given in the tables.
    Results can be found in the full version of Table 1:

    ...that's around 9-10 square meters of concrete fucked up by a ~1 kg warhead. That's fucking insane.
     
     
    Some other things to note is that due to the materials used in these tests (an aluminium-polymer mix) the jet velocity is significantly higher and the jet length longer than comparable copper liners:

     
    So the reactive liner used (26% Al, 74% Teflon) has a jet tip velocity that's around twice as high for shallow charges, but drops to around 1.6 at higher angles. The difference in jet tip velocity is most likely due to the lower density of the reactive liner. This is what Wang et al. said about this:
    This poor ductility also increases the probability of fragmentation (jet break-up), which can be seen here:


     
    So because the reactive liner has a lower density, it forms a jet quicker, but because of its poor ductility it starts to break up very quickly. Tests have shown that a stand-off that's longer than 2 CD is undesirable, whereas normal liners do not really care about a longer stand-off.
     
    However! The research done to make the Barnie warhead show that it is undesirable to have cavitation during the formation of the jet. This cavitation is visible in the above simulations, but can better be seen in this one:

    It is very well possible that Wang et al. had a sub-optimal liner design, since the final Barnie jet looks like this compared to a comparable aluminium liner jet:

    They are quite similar and the Barnie jet does not have the 'blobs' visible in the simulations from Wang et al..
     
     
     
    And last but certainly not least, Xiao et al. calculated the TNT equivalence (RE factor) of the reactive liner:

     
    In simple terms, the kaboom-effectiveness of this reactive material is 3.4 to 7.7 times as high as TNT. But since these values on their own are kind of meaningless, lets compare them to other RE factors!
    The RE factor of C4 is 1.34.
    The RE factor of RDX is 1.6.
    PETN? 1.66. 
    Torpex? 1.3.
    Amatol? 1.1.
    ANFO? 0.74.
    The explosive with the highest detonation velocity (Octanitrocubane)? 2.38.
    THIS FUCKING ALUMINIUM/TEFLON MIX!? MOTHERFUCKING 7.77.
     
    Interestingly the theoretical energy contained in the aluminium/teflon mix is only about 4 times as high as TNT. The higher values are most likely due to the addition of kinetic effects.
     
     
    So yeah... huzzah for reactive liners. 
     
    I might add some stuff to this post later, depending on whether or not I forgot something.
  8. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That_Baka in DRDO; India's Porsche   
    Although I'm not the one who said that, but @SH_MM you have to agree that the Arjun's turret looks like a Leopard 2A1-4's turret mated with the Leclerc's horrid mantlet, but worse.
     
    I guess it's time I register to DFI. The shit flinging will be fun. Maybe we can assemble a whole squad.
  9. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That_Baka in DRDO; India's Porsche   
    So I understand Indians themselves defend this creation?
    Also, you forgot my lovely Merky 4. That's the entire family of prominent models within just the lifetime of a single Arjun.
    Though you gotta admit it, it's pretty advanced for a mid-70's development.
  10. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from MrMartin in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    BMP-3 with an Epoch turret, and a K-17 with a Berezhok turret. What the actual fuck?
     
    Back on topic:
     
    T-16 BREM scale model:
     
    T-72B3 ERA (I hope they didn't actually call it that way):
     
     
    First time I'm hearing the Bumerang is rated at 14.5mm protection:
    https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2017_show_daily_news_coverage_report/bumerang_k-17_new_russian_8x8_ifv_live_firing_demonstration_12308171.html
     
     
  11. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from SH_MM in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    Then the problem is deeper than I thought.
    Sorry Ramlaen my dear boy, but Go Team North Korea!
  12. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Bronezhilet in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    Then the problem is deeper than I thought.
    Sorry Ramlaen my dear boy, but Go Team North Korea!
  13. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Belesarius in The interesting ship photos/art thread.   
    Sa'ar 4.5 ship with EL/M 2258 ALPHA radar by Elta. 
     

     
     
    Another Sa'ar 4.5 with 2 fixed hives of Spike NLOS missiles. There is clearly room for a total of 4 hives (4 mounts, only 2 are used, probably training), which gives the total of 24 Spike NLOS missiles per ship.
     

     

     
     
    I think it goes without saying that the Israeli navy is a world champion at stacking as much weaponry as humanly possible on the smallest possible surface.
  14. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from roguetechie in General AFV Thread   
    It's not seen as an issue. 
    These Bradleys, along with the T-72 battalion of Hezbollah, will be among the first targets when the next war erupts.
  15. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Bronezhilet in Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!   
    Norinco GL-5 Active Protection System.
    Tested against 120mm munition, and has a unique feature of firing off 2 intercepting rounds, not 1.
  16. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That_Baka in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    Ahhh yes. The famous European "We don't face this kind of threat yet" approach - when you are only prompted to act when the body bags start running out.
    It's a good thing though that 80% of NATO is the US of A.
  17. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Ramlaen in General AFV Thread   
  18. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Bronezhilet in General AFV Thread   
  19. Tank You
  20. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Bronezhilet in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    I never even took the words "depleted", "spent" or "bleed energy" in my mouth. Maybe you should read carefully?
     
    Kobylkin also says this (in the same paper):
     
    Mickovic:
     
    Hazell:
     
    Hazell, again in a different publication:
     
    Kobylkin, again:
     
    Held:
     
     
    Eehhh... hello? Eroding a penetrator is a basic hydrodynamic interaction principle? Unsupported by any research? Fuck me sideways, hydrodynamic interaction between a penetrator and armour is where any decent researcher will start. If someone doesn't understand hydrodynamic interactions it's nearly impossible to understand the penetration mechanics behind APFSDS and HEAT.
     
    The penetration formula for a HEAT jet is basically the same fucking formula as the one used for hydrodynamic penetration:

    ^ HEAT jet penetration formula
     

    ^ Hydrodynamic penetration formula
     
    Both formulas are from Hazell's excellent book called "Armour; Materials, Design, and Theory".
     
    Hello again, are you even reading what you type? You're literally giving the answer to your own question: vectors
     
    Do you understand how those work?
     
    Evidently not.
     
    Hey here's a hint: THE JET IS MOVING TOO
     
    LIKE
     
    REALLY REALLY FAST
     
    Maybe you shouldn't base your rambling on a single source you apparently do not even have access to which is also fully focussed on figuring out a single aspect of HEAT vs ERA interaction. Shit, if you actually properly read the conclusion of the paper you linked you'd have noticed that it starts with "It is proposed that [...]". For some reason you read that as "IT ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IS THIS".
     
    Since we're apparently going to sling journals and papers around, here's a thing for you to read (well, multiple things actually): Everything a fellow called Manfred Held has ever written on ERA, since he was one of the people who invented the fucking thing.
     
    But anyway, you just stay you and keep claiming that ERA works by magically interfering with the jet. You correctly said that an impact will create a larger crater than the diameter of the penetrator. Which means that if the plates aren't moving into the path of the jet, ERA/NERA will have no effect. As can be seen in the picture I've posted before:

    See? No effect on the penetrator what-so-ever. 
     
    But guess what, if you angle the ERA/NERA so that the plates will actually intersect the jet, things happen!

     
    So no, ERA/NERA does not fucking work if you don't feed material into the jet.
  21. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Bronezhilet in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    The bit I quoted from Kobylkin was directed at your question about why the FMP has a different effect than the BMP, not at whether or not feeding material into the jet lowers penetration.
     
    Anyway, yes, the main reason why ERA/NERA works is due to feeding material into the jet. Since a penetrator can only penetrate a finite amount of armour, you can lower the thickness of main armour it can penetrate by feeding material (armour) into its path.
     
    The faster a plate moves, the more material it can feed into the jet before the jet has passed the plate. A plate basically looks like this after the jet has gone through it:

    And the faster the plate goes, the longer Lslit will be. To be specific, it can be calculated with this formula:
     
    The jet will also pass through more material if the angle of the ERA/NERA is increased:

     
    And what happens when you increase the thickness of the FMP and BMP?


    (Note that the BMP in the FMP test is 8 mm thick while the FMP in the BMP test is 1 mm)
     
    Anyway, there's lots more I want to say, but I'm a bit ill at the moment so staring at journals and papers isn't the smartest thing to do, I'm already getting a headache and yet I only have a few journals open:

     
    I'll get back to this when I'm feeling better, I'm sorry for not being able to give a concise answer at the moment. Or maybe @Collimatrix can take over, he knows about as much as I do on this subject.
     
  22. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Bronezhilet in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    The explosive compound in ERA (well, any military explosive compound) will only detonate when a certain pressure is reached. If the impact does not reach that pressure, the explosive will not detonate. As long as the pressure doesn't go above a certain threshold it doesn't matter what's hitting the explosive, it simply won't explode. I suppose there's a way to poke a hole through ERA without setting it off, but I haven't yet figured out how exactly.
     
    It is. 
     
    If you look at various tests with actual ERA, you'll see that the jet isn't noticeably being yawed/deflected, no matter the ERA angle:

    You can however see that the higher the angle of the ERA compared to the jet, the more disturbed the jet is. This is simply because the ERA is capable of feeding more material into the jet, degrading it.
     
    Actually, here are a bunch of photos of a shaped charge jets versus NERA at different angles:

     
    And again, the more material is fed into the jet, the worse it becomes. 
     
     
    However, ERA and NERA do actually deflect the jet, but only very slightly. I'm talking about ~50 m/s down for a 55 degree angle ERA sandwich. 50 m/s might sound a lot, until you realise that these jets move forward at a few thousand meters per second. So the downward velocity is negligible.

     
     
    The reason the forwards moving flyer plate caused more damage to the jet is because of... vectors, basically..
     
    Or as Kobylkin and Dorokhov put it:
     
    Also, this is what the paper says about the pictures you linked:

     
    Here are the pictures in higher res by the way, for future use:

  23. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That_Baka in Israeli AFVs   
    New images.
    Turret details:

     
    Clockwise from the top:
    1) Commander's sight.
    2) Dual missile launcher.
    3) 4x Trophy radar.
    4) 60mm mortar.
    5) Gunner's sight.
    6) 30-40mm cannon with dual feed, 400 bullets.
    7) Smoke grenades.
    8) Coaxial machine gun 7.62mm, 700 bullets.
     
    Illustration on the Eitan. Presentation had low res unfortunately:

  24. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to SH_MM in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    This is the prototype of the 120 mm L/44 tank gun from Rheinmetall fitted with a Ladehilfe (loading assistant) as used on the early Leopard 2 prototypes (i.e. made before the Leopard 2AV).
  25. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Belesarius in Israeli AFVs   
    New images.
    Turret details:

     
    Clockwise from the top:
    1) Commander's sight.
    2) Dual missile launcher.
    3) 4x Trophy radar.
    4) 60mm mortar.
    5) Gunner's sight.
    6) 30-40mm cannon with dual feed, 400 bullets.
    7) Smoke grenades.
    8) Coaxial machine gun 7.62mm, 700 bullets.
     
    Illustration on the Eitan. Presentation had low res unfortunately:

×
×
  • Create New...