Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Well, Andriej - consider the fact that there is slighty diffrence between trying to keep some way of opspec due to our countries law resons and delibery mayking fake news based on language barrier. This last think makes me angry.

And in term this user it's not the first time -but on other forums (WoT gamers itp)

 

Anyway and back to the topic:

 

Photoshoped or not?

654e80a0b3e61.jpg

 

If not (Im doubt to be honest) we can se IMHO at least 3 NERA plates:

 

c3f8f5d4956f0.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Andriej 

 

I also had with drawing measuments, and well the idea of asymetric turret is not typical.

 

Looks realistic, but some small details suggests it is PSed - different sharpness of elements, colour, shadows etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Guys, it's not over yet. 

080251p0mw55mznh2hglg0.png

And yes, I do have the original file, but for some obvious reasons I add some watermarks. 

 

Waffentrager is doing the same thing as he did on Warthunder forum. 

He is just bluffing with unknown source screenshots or photoshopped fake “documents”.

He deleted every post arguing the pictures' authenticity to make himself “invulnurable”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Welcome to SH. We look forward to your fact based clubbing of one of our older members. That's just how we roll. And if you don't back your attitude with facts?  That generally doesn't work out so well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys do think this diagram  is still a  legitimate estimate of the location of the turret composite modules of the Type 90 MBT:

 

nknf9jb7xyk01.png

 

I made these based on diagram and other references:

 

Type90turret_module_volumes2.jpg.182e6ed

Type90turret_modules2.jpg.6cc3ba42186c55

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.03.2018 at 10:46 AM, SH_MM said:

 

 

Methos, can You confirm (or not) is this really 2AV armour (hull)?

 

(right - polish smile NERA, left - pretend to be some german erly NERA armour)

a05792aac974c.png

 

 

Thickness added by some otvaga user:
eeb12663390c5.jpg

 

Well firstly I was tniking it have no sense, but if we assume that 2AV indeed have max 300mm RHA at front then this layout have sense -

circa 190mm RHA + NERA + fuel tank (as I understand) after front armour.

 

 

 

 

Hull 2AV:
5e6ca8bc3b4f9.jpg


194bcaf75ead5.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and one more think - I have heard that M1IP and M1A1 armour could be just NERA like in M1 but after that placed SiC bricks whit steel sheets - just to incarase protection mostly against KE. Meybye stupid rumors, meybe not.

This cermics-steel armour pretend to be only in turret and hull front placed AFTER NERA layers. AL something something tiles or corundium bricks.

Somethink like this:

rR7CLI4.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Welcome to SH. We look forward to your fact based clubbing of one of our older members. That's just how we roll. And if you don't back your attitude with facts?  That generally doesn't work out so well.

 

Thank you for your warm-hearted welcome! I am actually planning to post some articles regarding some older (IJA) Japanese tanks on the forum, I will always use the original and official archives. I hate cheaters and liars as much as you do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Guys do think this diagram  is still a  legitimate estimate of the location of the turret composite modules of the Type 90 MBT:

 

Talk about Type90, i got some information from Chinese document which mention about the armor composite used on Type88 which is the prototype for Type90 recently. Not sure the exact truth but i would like to share.

fULE9sy.png

“Japanese Type88 tank's turret and hull composite armor were trying to use different ceramic material (Alumina、Silicon oxide or Silicon carbide ceramic cut in rectangle or hexagon),each layer using binder to bonded together. The protection of this armor can reach up equal to 400mm thick of armour steel (BK) and is capable of defeat 120mm high density KE projectile (muzzle velocity>1600m/s) fired from 200meters at 0 degree, and also capable to protect against the 120mm HEAT shell which capable of penetrating 600mm of armor.  Besides, there are many of different type of armor plate, the use of ceramic material and it's ability of protection giving the armor research development a new direction”

 

IZULarS.jpg

image10  Type88 tank's spaced (composite) armor structure.

陶瓷板=Ceramic plate    毫米=mm

 

Other than this,japan seems are developing some kind of Kevlar composite

tD2JKM2.png

It says:"Japan is currently develop a Kevlar fiber with Titanium alloy or aluminum structured multi-layer composite armor "

 

Of course those are just for the prototype of type90, but we can try guessing the armor from this 

 

source:

<<间隔(复合)装甲——现代坦克的主要装甲结构>>(1982)      (Composite armor--the main structure of the armor for modern MBT) (1982)

<<国外复合装甲中非金属材料的应用和研究概况>>(1983)      (Summarize of the use and research of non-metallic material in foreign composite armor)(1983)

 

ft. Akula_941

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.3.2018 at 4:30 PM, Militarysta said:

Thanks to Paweł Przeździecki (Przebzdziello on  TnakNet)

 

a few pages later on the same report:

gXAIUVr.jpg

 

pasted%20image%200%20(1)_245dae4de9cdb8c

 

pasted%20image%200%20(3)_fa17bc45fbcd767

 

The British had some odd ideas about main battle tanks, although they wanted their MBT-80 to be more advanced in some aspects than the Challenger 2 currently operated by the British army...

  1. The lack of an indendepent sight for the commander was disliked
  2. The laser rangefinder of the M1 Abrams was incompatible with the thermal imager (?)
  3. For some reason the British military thought it was a bad idea to integrate daysight and thermal imager into a unitary optic
  4. The M1's fire control system resulted in a low hit probability (confirmed by statemens from US and German sources regarding the comparative trials of XM1 & Leopard 2AV)
  5. The armor of the M1 Abrams could be penetrated at ranges of 4,000 m by the 125 mm gun according to British estimates
  6. Storing ammo below the turret ring is/was seen as better than having a separated ammunition compartment at the rear of the turret because some US test proved that it might not always work with 105 mm ammo and wasn't tested with 120 mm; also the blast door needs to be open for reloading (silly complaint)
  7. Leopard 2's protection was "imbalanced" (sounds like the same complaint of the US military - too little side armor) and insufficient to stop a 125 mm APFSDS round (est. penetration 445 to 460 mm steel at 1,000 m according to the document)
  8. Shir 2 (that became the Challenger 1) was too heavy and also underpowered
  9. British believed it was impossible to modify XM1 Abrams' armor to stop 125 mm APFSDS ammo

 

10 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

Methos, can You confirm (or not) is this really 2AV armour (hull)?

 

(right - polish smile NERA, left - pretend to be some german erly NERA armour)

a05792aac974c.png

 

 

Thickness added by some otvaga user:
eeb12663390c5.jpg

 

Well firstly I was tniking it have no sense, but if we assume that 2AV indeed have max 300mm RHA at front then this layout have sense -

circa 190mm RHA + NERA + fuel tank (as I understand) after front armour.

 

Hull 2AV:
5e6ca8bc3b4f9.jpg


194bcaf75ead5.jpg

 

 

The drawing is from a 1975 patent by Krauss-Maffei. At this time the Leopard 2AV was being designeed. The patent topic are different ways to mount special armor in a main battle tank in order to allow replacing damaged armor modules, allow easier upgrading and allowing to completely remove the armor modules (which Krauss-Maffei suggested for traveling during peace time).

 

The patent suggest three ways of mounting armor:

  1. mounting armor plates using screws (as done on the M1 Abrams)
  2. using armor elements that fit into a cavity and together (like the Z-shaped ones) without any sort of additional attachment
  3. putting the armor elements into "cages" or "boxes" with rubber-lined edges. The rubber-lined "cages" then are inserted with pressure into the cavities

T3rjrsV.png

The patent menions that the Z-shaped layout would provide most protection but also requires most space. It is not mentioned what the armor elements are made of (only that they ideally use metal to allow easier mounting). As far as I understand all these drawings are placeholders and do not represent actual tanks or actual armor arrays.

 

We know that all fully-assembled Leopard 2AV prototypes in the United States did not include special armor, only weight demonstrators. The special armor was send as armor modules for ballistic testing, which were only connected to a mock-up hull and turret. If they had already decided how this special armor would be mounted or not is unknown to me.

 

IMO the most likely variant is the upper one (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), i.e. the armor is mounted in boxes or cages. This would explain the box-shaped turret, makes replacing armor easier and fits to the drawings from Sweden. However I think that the actual armor might look closer to the Z-shaped arrangement form Fig. 5 (there is no reason why it should be impossible to mount the Z-shaped armor elements at different angles in a cage/box). The method using bolts seems to be the least likely, because the bolts would be visible from the outside, but only the smaller bolts holding the cover plate are visible on the Leopard 2AV and early batch Leopard 2 tanks - if the bolts were used, the coverplate would look like this:

JT8xdpr.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 cents from a few months ago:

 

Leo2AV_fronthull_2.jpg.ff9943ab2ab52631d

 

I was told that this is the front hull arrangment of the Leopard 2AV just to find out that it is rather unlikely. Then a short while later i was told that it was a patent, just like SH_MM said.

 

Also let us not forget this:

 

UwhplPOJyxA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Interesting. Are you talking about this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

I can't see the pictures in either of those links, but I did register at the forum, maybe that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Militarysta said:

This cermics-steel armour pretend to be only in turret and hull front placed AFTER NERA layers. AL something something tiles or corundium bricks.

Somethink like this:

rR7CLI4.gif

 

 

Looks like the ceramic T-80UD:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      Let's say you're developing a tank with a unique (AKA non-historical) gun for one of our competitions here on SH. It would be nice to have an idea of the size of the gun, its shells, and what their performance both in terms of shell weight and velocity but also penetration, wouldn't it? Well, fortunately there is a way to do this with reasonably accurate results using your solid modeling software and some free to use browser tools.

      First, you want to have a general idea of the size and performance of your gun. For this example, I decided I wanted an optimized, high velocity 85mm caliber gun with a case about as big as the 7.5cm KwK 42 (as it happened, I ended up with a case that had significantly greater volume, but that fact is unimportant for this example). The cartridge I decided on has a 130mm wide rim and a 640mm long case, of course in 85mm caliber. My first step was to model this case in SolidWorks:


       
      You will also need to model your projectile, in this case a tungsten-carbide cored APCR round:


       
      Next, we need a bit of freeware: A Powley computer. Originally developed by DuPont engineers for small arms ammunition, the Powley computer is an accurate enough tool to use for much larger tank rounds as well! When you click the link, you'll be greeted with this screen:
       

       
      You'll note the dimensions are in inches and this thing called "grains" (abbreviated "gn"). The grain is an archaic Imperial mass unit equal to 1/7000th of a pound which is still used in the small arms field, today. Another quirk of small arms has the case capacity - a volume measurement - listed in grains as well. This is in fact grains of water (gn H2O), or the weight of water that will fill the case to the top. To find this, simply multiply the volume in cubic centimeters by 15.43 - which is also the exchange rate between the metric gram and grains mass.
       
      Finding the volume of the case is easy with a solid modeling program; simply model the interior as a solid and find the volume of that solid:


       
      Filling in my Powley inputs gives me this:
       

       
      Note that I typically use the diameter of the projectile across the driving bands for "Bullet Diameter", but it really makes very little difference.
       
      So far, though, we haven't actually produced any results. That's because our gun is well outside the bounds of DuPont production IMR powders, hence the output "Much slower than (IMR) 4831" in the lower left. So, we need to override the computer by checking the box next to the blue "Pressure" function, and typing in a pressure value in CUP that is reflective of tank guns of whatever era we are trying to represent. My tank gun is trying to represent something from about the late 1940s/early 1950s, so I'm going to use 45500 CUP EDIT: USE 41000 CUP for APCBC and 42800 CUP FOR APCR (or better yet, do your own calibration!):
       

       
      This gives me an estimated muzzle velocity of 3,964 ft/s for my L/50 barrel. Not bad! Note the outputs on the left, which tell you a bunch of fun facts about your round but aren't terribly relevant to what we're doing here today. Next, we need to put this gun's performance in terms of penetration. The way I like to do this is through comparative analysis.
       
      The first thing we need is to know to find penetration the ballistic performance of our round. We can estimate this using JBM's ballistic calculator and a few rules of thumb. When opening the calculator, the first thing you'll see is this:
       

       
      We care about basically none of these settings except BC, velocity, and maximum range. Caliber, projectile weight, chronograph distance, etc are all pretty irrelevant to us. Keep the environmental settings (temperature, pressure, etc.) set to their defaults. First, change the ballistic coefficient type from G1 to G7 using the dropdown menu. Then, change the muzzle velocity from 3000 to whatever the muzzle velocity was that was calculated by the Powley computer. Finally, set the maximum range to your desired distance - in my case 2,000 yards.

      For my round, I now have inputs that look like this:
       


      We also need to get some idea of how fast our projectile loses velocity, something we can't know for certain without actually building a real gun and test firing it - or at least without some really sophisticated simulations. However, projectiles with the same shape tend to fly the same way, and that's something we can exploit here. To figure this out, we need a graph showing us the performance of a real-life gun. Fortunately, there is a handy one for an IRL gun similar to what I'm designing, the 90mm M3 from World War II, and its M304 HVAP-T, which is broadly similar in construction and shape to my 85mm APCR projectile:
       

       
      Based on this chart, we see that the M304 should drop from its 3,350 ft/s muzzle velocity to about 2,500 ft/s at 2,000 yards. Doing a little trial and error with JBM tells me that this means the M304 has a G7 ballistic coefficient of about 1.13.
       
      Now, our projectile will not have the same ballistic coefficient, due to it being a different size and mass. But, we can figure out what its ballistic coefficient would be by finding its sectional density and comparing that to the sectional density of M304. To find sectional density, take the projectile's weight in grains and divide it by the square of the projectile's diameter in inches, times 7000. So for M304, we get:
       

       


      And for my 85mm, we get:


       

       
      This means that the ballistic coefficient for an identical-shape projectile with our size and weight will be about 1.019/1.330 - or 76.6% as much - as that of the 90mm M304. That means a BC of 0.866 G7 should be approximately correct for my 85mm APCR round. Let's plug that in:


       
      And then scroll down to the bottom to click "calculate", which gives us a big ol' chart that goes out to 2,000 yards:
       

       
      O-Kay! Now we have some data. It looks like at 2,000 yards, my projectile holds about 2,800 ft/s striking velocity. It's important to note here that what we really care about isn't the striking velocity of the projectile per se, but the velocity and energy of the projectile's core. The core is what's actually doing a lot of work to the armor, so for now let's stop thinking in terms of the whole projectile, and take a look at these two cores, that of the M304 90mm HVAP, and that of my 85mm APCR round. The core of the 90mm M304 is an approximately 8 pound lump of tungsten-carbide that is about 45mm in width. My penetrator is also 8 pounds, but it's longer and thinner in proportion - just 40mm wide, rather than 45mm. This means my penetrator will penetrate more armor at a given striking velocity, and we can estimate how much more by taking the specific energy of the rounds and comparing them. That is, the energy in Joules of the penetrator alone, divided by the penetrator's diameter squared:
       

       


      So the specific energy at 2,000 yards is about 826J/mm^2. Now, we need to find out at what impact velocity the M304 penetrator produces this same specific energy. Do do that, we go backwards, using the figures for M304:
       

       

       
      Therefore, the equivalent impact velocity for my 85mm APCR round at 2,000 yards is 3,150 ft/s for the M304. That means, in theory, that the M304 would have to impact a target at 3,150 ft/s to produce equivalent penetration of RHA to my 85mm APCR striking at just 2,800 ft/s.

      Now, we head back to that chart:


       
      On the left side of the graph, we put our cursor on the line that corresponds to approximately 3,150 ft/s velocity, and follow it over until it hits the curved line that corresponds with the angle of plate we care about - arbitrarily, let's pick 20 degrees. Then, we follow that point straight down until it hits the x-axis:


       
      Therefore, we estimate that at 2,000 yards, my 85mm has just over 10 inches of RHA penetration - not bad at all for a lowly APCR round!
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Now that we know the Challenger 2's Life Extension Program won't include a new gun, there's news coming in that the Warrior's modernization program is highly likely to be cancelled:
      Axe Hangs Over UK Warrior Upgrade.
       
       
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since Xlucine suggested it in the general AFV thread, here is a new version of the old Tank ID thread that used to exist at the WoT forums, back before the great exodus to SH.
       
      The rules are simple.  Post a picture of some sort of AFV and everyone has to try to name what it is.  Try to avoid posting a new picture until the previous picture is identified.  Generally, the person who was first to correctly ID the picture in question gets to post the next picture, unless they want to pass.  If a picture is not ID'd in a day or two, the person that posted it should say what it is and bask in their own sense of superiority.   They should then post a new picture for the sake of keeping the thread moving.  Please, no fictional tanks, paper napkin drawings that never made it to prototype or pictures where the vehicle in question is obscured or particularly hard to see.  Also, if posting a picture of an unusual variant of a relatively common vehicle, be sure to note that you are looking for the specific variant name, not just the general family of vehicles it belongs to (for example, if I post a picture of a Panzer IV with the hydrostat drive, I would say in the post something like "What makes this Panzer IV unusual?" since everyone can ID a Panzer IV)
       
      It is perfectly ok to shame those that make spectacularly wrong guesses.  That's just how we roll around here.  
       
      I'll start 
       

×