Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

10 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:

 

nknf9jb7xyk01.png

 

I made these based on diagram and other references:

 

Type90turret_modules.jpg.80ac76e07500cb7

Type90turret_module_volumes.jpg.386c0115

 

Considering it turned out WaifuTrucker is a lying dick, I'm not trusting this one. Especially since it has some of that "oooh look at me typing text and blacking it out im so secret" stuff.

Share this post


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

Considering it turned out WaifuTrucker is a lying dick, I'm not trusting this one. Especially since it has some of that "oooh look at me typing text and blacking it out im so secret" stuff.

He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing.  This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin:

CIA_Abrams_protection_assessment_7.jpg.c

That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Registering and logging in worked for me. Also Google Translate doesn't work on pictures. :P

Don't worry, I am currently translating my article from Chinese/Japanese to English. I will start a new topic here when I'm done. It is a little hard for non-Chinese native speakers to understand that by only using the translator. (because it contains slang words) :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jagdika said:

Don't worry, I am currently translating my article from Chinese/Japanese to English. I will start a new topic here when I'm done. It is a little hard for non-Chinese native speakers to understand that by only using the translator. (because it contains slang words) :) 

We appreciate you taking the time and effort to translate stuff for us. TY!

 

Share this post


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

He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing.  This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin:

CIA_Abrams_protection_assessment_7.jpg.c

That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.

He knew what he was doing, and did it multiple times. Did you not read Jagdika's topic?

Share this post


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

We appreciate you taking the time and effort to translate stuff for us. TY!

 

 

13 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Registering and logging in worked for me. Also Google Translate doesn't work on pictures. :P

 

I have finished my translation and started a new topic, you can see it now:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

Share this post


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

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

I will look into this! I will also update my Type 90 volume model.

Share this post


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

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

 

630 kg of steel is only 0.08 m^3, so treating the mantlet as a prism with constant cross-sectional area and 420 mm thickness you get about 180 mm of steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

630 kg of steel is only 0.08 m^3, so treating the mantlet as a prism with constant cross-sectional area and 420 mm thickness you get about 180 mm of steel

Thanks!   The frontal cross section area of the mantlet is about 0,4 m2 .   I set the density of steel to around 8000 kg/m3. Knowing this, the steel block LOS thickness comes to about 197 mm of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

TybL0ixBZbc.jpg

translated by user North_Eleanor

 

turret special armor weight - 1381kg (690kg on each module)

hull special armor weight - 1249kg

Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

Share this post


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

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

This is very confusing. I used this diagram and other digrams to generate the front hull module volume. Here it is being described as a (fuel) tank ?  This is rather confusing

Share this post


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

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

This illustration probably came from Japanese magazine Maru special: Tanks of JGSDF(丸 別冊 陸上自衛隊の戦車), which seems to be convincing. 

Share this post


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

This illustration probably came from Japanese magazine Maru special: Tanks of JGSDF(丸 別冊 陸上自衛隊の戦車), which seems to be convincing. 

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

There is no way this isn't a fuel tank. Considering its odd shape.

Also, fuel tanks are usually placed in the front because they're a great extra layer of protection.

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 
       

×