Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
  1. Bronezhilet

    Bronezhilet

  2. Belesarius

    Belesarius

  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 
       
      What we know now is that we don’t know so much.
       
      What is sure, the US Army :
      - wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;
      - doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;
      - is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.
       
      Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :
      Griffin III from General Dynamic

       
      CV90 from BAE

       
      Lynx from Rheinmetall

       
      Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?
       
       
      My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 
      During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 
       
      The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?
      CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 
      The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 
       
      I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.
      What about monolithic forged hull ?
      What about decoupled running gear ?
      Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?
       
      I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
    • By DD000
      First off, hello everyone. First time posting here.
       
       
      At one point in time, shaped charges were said to make armour irrelevant, as they could penetrate large amounts of steel armour -- more armour than could be practically applied to tanks. But then came complex composite armours, which greatly diminished the penetrative power of shaped charges and spurred the development of APFSDS rounds utilizing long rods of dense metals at high velocities to perforate the armour.
       
      Since then, it has been conventional wisdom that APFSDS munitions were the most efficient anti-weapons, at least for penetrating the thick frontal armour of MBTs. The HEAT rounds of MBTs nowadays being designed more for multi-purpose use than to maximize penetration.
       
      However, since their introduction onto the battlefield, shaped charge rounds have enjoyed a steadily increasing efficiency, defined as the amount of calibers of RHA it can penetrate per charge diameter. Early shaped charges could only penetrate 1 or 2 times its charge diameter, but that number has continually increased over time. Top end ATGMs in service can currently penetrate 7 or 8 times its diameter, while experimental shaped charges have been developed that can penetrate 10 times its diameter (http://www.vif2ne.org/forum/0/arhprint/1028580).
       
      Current APFSDS rounds, on the other hand, cannot achieve the same degree of penetration (into RHA). APFSDS rounds such as the DM63 or M829A3 are often estimated as having around 6 calibers of penetration. However, these estimations are usually achieved using the Odermatt equation, which is a perforation equation, and often against an oblique plate. Shaped charges on the other hand, are often tested for their penetration into a vertical plate of semi-infinite RHA. So not only is high end shaped charge penetration higher than for a given caliber than long rods, but the estimates for long rods are perforation estimates, which serves to inflate their numbers a bit compared to a 'fair' comparison. So it could be said that current APFSDS rounds only penetrate 5 calibers into semi-infinite RHA.
       
      It is commonly known that modern composite armours are much more efficient against shaped charges than they are against long rods... but aren't shaped charges capable of penetrating much more armour in the first place? Shaped charges are expected to be able to penetrate atleast 10 times their own caliber. For long rods to be more efficient, the shaped charge RHA equivalent protection must be over twice that of the KE protection. Is that expected to be the case?
       
       
      The purpose of my creation of this thread was to hopefully get some thoughts as to whether shaped charges may become comparable to long rods in efficiency in terms of frontal penetration of MBTs (where they have the most advanced armour) in the future. Of course, given the classified nature of much of this information I'm not expecting definitive answer. But the users here seem rather knowledgeable, so I'd like to hear their thoughts none-the-less.
    • By Xoon
      I am not sure if you folks noticed:


       
      We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
      From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
       
      What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
       
      If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
       
       
      Mvh
      Xoon.
×
×
  • Create New...