Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

It's not better at poking a hole in solid steel, but it should be way better at poking a hole in a NERA package.

 

Wouldn't that depend on how much spacing there is between the main jet and tertiary jet? If the head of the main jet were touching or nearly touching the tail of the tertiary jet, then I imagine that the bulging of the NERA when initiated by the tertiary jet could still catch the main jet. My impression is that this isn't a true triple charge design in terms of delay between the 3 charges, but that the the main and tertiary charges are used to create a single long jet by precise timing.

 

Also, something to keep in mind that having a hole in the middle of the main charge does decrease its efficiency. So perhaps a reason that this design hasn't caught on is that it's not the most mass efficient choice when designing a warhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DD000 said:

 

Wouldn't that depend on how much spacing there is between the main jet and tertiary jet? If the head of the main jet were touching or nearly touching the tail of the tertiary jet, then I imagine that the bulging of the NERA when initiated by the tertiary jet could still catch the main jet. 

Correct.

9 minutes ago, DD000 said:

My impression is that this isn't a true triple charge design in terms of delay between the 3 charges, but that the the main and tertiary charges are used to create a single long jet by precise timing.

Yeah the timing these charges have basically determines 'what it is'. 

But if your goal is to create one long jet, why not have a single low angle charge? They have more than enough length to do so.

 

18 minutes ago, DD000 said:

Also, something to keep in mind that having a hole in the middle of the main charge does decrease its efficiency. So perhaps a reason that this design hasn't caught on is that it's not the most mass efficient choice when designing a warhead.

It doesn't impact the penetration depth by that much though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of what the triple-charge design was supposed to do, apparently it didn't work that well, as the Russians haven't pursued such a design since, to my knowledge. Nor has any other nation even attempted to adopt such a design.

 

Seems like the tandem charge is here to stay for the forseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bronezhilet@DD000

 

http://proceedings.ndia.org/1590/11756.pdf

"HF IBFS is a tandem warhead system composed of an ø83mm precursor and a multipurpose ø143mm K-charge warhead. The tandem warhead system is capable of engaging and defeating heavy armor tanks, modern urban structures, light shipping vessels, and various soft targets. The ø83mm precursor is a shaped charge warhead containing a conical metallic liner and is capable of defeating the most advanced Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) encountered on modern tanks. The ø143mm K-Charge warhead employs a variable wall thickness metallic liner and is the primary kill mechanism when engaging heavy armor tanks, light armor personnel carriers, or shipping vessels. The ø143mm K-Charge is packaged in a hardened steel body and is capable of penetrating and defeating a suite of modern urban structures and bunkers. The hardened steel body provides exceptional lethality against soft targets via high velocity fragments and overpressure impulse. The HF IBFS warhead incorporates Insensitive Munition (IM) explosive as well as an inventive, thermally activated aft closure to comply with IM standards and protect the warfighter during hazardous battlefield environments."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

1984, Leopard 2 in soviet report:

nDwNyfG.png

 

 

pvKIKoe.png

 

As we can see - Soviet assume Leopard 2 armour in 1984 on 400-450mm vs KE and 550-600mm vs HEAT

 

 

Yes but they don't say where (it's almost universal that the turret gets better armor), and they don't base their findings on anything.

 

400mm vs KE and 550-600mm vs CE seems more like well considered speculations than the results of actual tests. 

 

There're plenty other, more credible and better-sourced sources of information that provide us with a much clearer picture of the approximate armor values of the Leo 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/900675.html#cutid1

1280549_1000.jpg

 

Chieftain: 250 mm vs KE on turret and hull

Challenger 1: 500 mm vs KE on turret and at least 275 mm vs KE on hull.

Challenger 2 (1980s project): at least 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull

 

More from same source (WT forums):

1281012_original.jpg

5_fc129367f80ae126395adf420a7699ab.png

7_8c8e201c016ed7cc7ed471183925cc67.png

6_65d56835cd96fa841afed59b3836f0e4.png

 

On 6/29/2018 at 10:23 PM, DD000 said:

Very late to the party, but in the swedish document where it describes the protection estimates for the Leopard 2 improved, it assumes a single charge for the CE protection value, right? I'm curious as to how tandem charges would affect those estimates, as pretty much all serious atgm threats these days are tandem charges.

 

According to British documents on the development of Chobham armor, tandem charges provide superior penetration against it (and other types of special armor). That means the protection levels in Sweden are exaggerated against modern ATGMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 1:54 PM, SH_MM said:

According to British documents on the development of Chobham armor, tandem charges provide superior penetration against it (and other types of special armor). That means the protection levels in Sweden are exaggerated against modern ATGMs.

 

Which british documents would those be?

 

Edit:  Also, if the Swedish CE protection estimates are exaggerated against tandem warheads, then could it also be said that their KE protection estimates are exaggerated against long rods with precursor tips like the M829A3 or those with special segmentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DD000 said:

 

Which british documents would those be?

 

Edit:  Also, if the Swedish CE protection estimates are exaggerated against tandem warheads, then could it also be said that their KE protection estimates are exaggerated against long rods with precursor tips like the M829A3 or those with special segmentation?

 

 

That is an interesting question.

Don't some long rods have a precursor section with a reduced diameter for poking a hole in K5 without setting it off?  That seems like it could plausibly poke a hole in NERA that lets the rest of the rod in with reduced resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DD000 said:

Which british documents would those be? 

 

tdrok3K.jpg

This is a page from Assessment of foreign armour developments, dated 9th April of 1970. Re-reading the snipplet, "double acting warhead" also could imply a HEAT warhead with enough KE performance to penetrate several NERA plates before detonating, but IIRC there are also some other doucments that talk in detail about several ways of countering Burlington/Chobham armor, one of them is increasing the number of shaped charge warheads per missile.

 

18 hours ago, DD000 said:

Edit:  Also, if the Swedish CE protection estimates are exaggerated against tandem warheads, then could it also be said that their KE protection estimates are exaggerated against long rods with precursor tips like the M829A3 or those with special segmentation? 

 

My understanding is that the Swedish 120 mm APFSDS used to test the armor apparently already included a special tip to improve performance against heavy ERA. At least the APFSDS projectile has a small notch in the tip and the Swedes found that Kontakt-5 doesn't work that well against modern APFSDS anymore.

 

3k7Yr6N.png

 

In general special tip constructions and segmented penetrators can improve the armor penetration against layered and composite armor arrays. The German company Rheinmetall announced that it doesn't want to test its ammunition against RHA targets anymore, because these won't reflect the behaviour/performance of the projectiles when used against special armor arrays. Patents and certain documents, that unfortunately aren't approved for public release, also suggest that the segmented penetrators developed in Germany were optimized to defeat next-generation main battle tanks making use of ERA and layered ceramic-steel-armor (i.e. the same type of armor as used on the T-80UD prototype and on the Object 477 prototype).

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

Don't some long rods have a precursor section with a reduced diameter for poking a hole in K5 without setting it off?  That seems like it could plausibly poke a hole in NERA that lets the rest of the rod in with reduced resistance.

 

It depends on how the NERA looks. Heavy ERA and heavy NERA seem to follow different design trends, i.e. Kontakt-5 is rather thin and only single layered (sometimes two reactive insert elements are used, but they would detonate at the same time). The wedge-shaped armor of the Leopard 2 meanwhile uses multiple NERA layers with much thicker steel plates that are also claimed to be made of high-hardness steel. Therefore the interactions between penetrator and armor could be quite a bit different.

 

Share this post


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

My understanding is that the Swedish 120 mm APFSDS used to test the armor apparently already included a special tip to improve performance against heavy ERA. At least the APFSDS projectile has a small notch in the tip and the Swedes found that Kontakt-5 doesn't work that well against modern APFSDS anymore.

 

 

I've seen the notched tip design before, such as on the charm 3, but the notched tip on the swedish 120mm apfsds seems exceptionally tiny. It seems to me like the tip would be designed to penetrate the ERA/NERA panel without setting it off, although I'm not sure how it does that exactly. If it does set it off though, then it probably doesn't do much of anything. It's easy to see how it could be completely worn away by penetrating the outer plate and front NERA plate, especially if it was a thicker NERA plate of high hardness steel. So while it does technically have a special tip, it's so tiny that I don't think it would perform much differently than a "standard" rod without any special tip in this instance, at least for the test shots on the front wedge and high obliquity shots where it would have needed to penetrated a lot of steel before getting to the NERA filler material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DD000 said:

 

I've seen the notched tip design before, such as on the charm 3, but the notched tip on the swedish 120mm apfsds seems exceptionally tiny. It seems to me like the tip would be designed to penetrate the ERA/NERA panel without setting it off, although I'm not sure how it does that exactly.

 

The explosives in ERA have to be quite insensitive, both so they don't get triggered by small-arms fire or artillery fragments, and also for safe handling.  If they get jabbed by a fairly small-diameter penetrator, there's a good chance they won't go off.

Share this post


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

 

The explosives in ERA have to be quite insensitive, both so they don't get triggered by small-arms fire or artillery fragments, and also for safe handling.  If they get jabbed by a fairly small-diameter penetrator, there's a good chance they won't go off.

But the explosives are still pressure-initiated, so wouldn't focussing all the energy of a long rod on a small diameter actually initiate an ERA earlier than a larger diameter? (Yeah I'm ignoring the fact that ERA is always angled but that doesn't change the point)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial thought was that the tip was designed specifically to defeat K5, but according to the Swedish document, Kontakt-5 features an angled 17mm front cover plate. The tip looks to be about 20-25mm in length, but since the entire tip is a cone, the actual working length might be about half that. So the entire tip might be defeated by the cover plate alone. Furthermore, if a tiny thing like that stuck to the front of a long rod could defeat K5, then there would be no need for the much larger steel tip of the M829A3.

 

Its purpose is rather perplexing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 9:12 AM, DD000 said:

Furthermore, if a tiny thing like that stuck to the front of a long rod could defeat K5, then there would be no need for the much larger steel tip of the M829A3. 

 

As far as I know, the M829A3's tip is designed to work against more than just Kontakt-5 ERA. It is meant to also deal with other types of ERA, i.e. improved types that Russia, China and other countries could've adopted (Kontakt-5 is very old, even the Soviets worked on replacement systems).

 

The German APFSDS ammo (which is believed to have a segmented rod) is designed to defeat double-layered heavy ERA, a type of ERA that Germany believed might be fielded on future Russian tanks (but apparently they were wrong). In 2003, the US Army bought a number of T-84/T-80UD tanks from the Ukraine, maybe these were fitted with Nozh or some other ERA, which might have affected the M829A3's design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 12:33 AM, Bronezhilet said:

But the explosives are still pressure-initiated, so wouldn't focussing all the energy of a long rod on a small diameter actually initiate an ERA earlier than a larger diameter? (Yeah I'm ignoring the fact that ERA is always angled but that doesn't change the point)

 

No.  To initiate an explosive there needs to be a certain energy density in order to get a high enough percentage of the molecules within a given volume to release their energy.  Hitting the explosive with a smaller diameter rod doesn't mean that the area being impacted is being hit any harder, it just means less of it is being hit.  A reduced-diameter long rod tip isn't moving any faster than the rest of the long rod.

Share this post


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

 

No.  To initiate an explosive there needs to be a certain energy density in order to get a high enough percentage of the molecules within a given volume to release their energy.  Hitting the explosive with a smaller diameter rod doesn't mean that the area being impacted is being hit any harder, it just means less of it is being hit.  A reduced-diameter long rod tip isn't moving any faster than the rest of the long rod.

Doesn't it still make diameter very important? 

It's why for the same energy a bullet will pierce your skin but a truck won't even yeet you across the street.

It can't just be the sum of the energy, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Doesn't it still make diameter very important? 

It's why for the same energy a bullet will pierce your skin but a truck won't even yeet you across the street.

It can't just be the sum of the energy, right?

 

Small arms bullets are about half the striking velocity of long rod penetrators, different rules apply.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1vGsblp.png

 

BTW - Im not sure DM-13. In green book (Bauman 2006 Moscow) is 220mm/60@ but IMHO it could be overestimated. From the other side - some other polish Autors found  in british archves that "unkown" german 120mm KE was able to penetrate 450mm steel from 1km in late 70's... so maybe..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 5:52 PM, Militarysta said:

My resume that what we known (or not) on one picture:

 

 

Spoiler

srpB1pX.png

 

 

imho

Spoiler

3d5e98359298bb234ce212e987241e9e.png

1280549_1000.jpg

minimum protection equivalent to 275 mm RHA on the glacis and 500 mm on the turret front.

Lfkm_AawtPk.jpg

funny, but here they also talk about 500 mm vs KE

and 800 mm vs CE 

q-uQbEUz-QY.jpg

which in general coincides with the data of the British. It remains only to understand what the minimum protection means...

PS imho M1 350 mm vs KE, 400 mm vs KE M1A1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just asking, isnt the 500mm penetration of M833 is a little bit overestimated? I find it suspicious that it is more powerful than even contemporary 120mm and 125mm APFSDS. Yes, DU, and also the rod is longer, but its still a huge leap compared to M774.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
×
×
  • Create New...