Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Serge said:

And, we must quote those armored logistic box :

xl_azur.jpg?fit=800,533&ssl=1&w=640

Considered, but not purchase (like all good ideas we have)

 

To me, it still looks good. I don’t think a whole lot can really make the Leclerc look ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type 10 of Nippon

sS8ip.jpg

 

dJeOq.jpg

 

Spoiler

r3QnF.jpg

Otvaga forum member found 3D models made by Japanese armor ethusiast showing Type 10 without armor modules

 

Rz64N.jpg

 

Spoiler

Uvjne.jpg

 

4c3bP.jpg

 

U7MCb.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UGVs at UMEX-2018 (UAE, Abu Dabi)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3116735.html

 

5279656_original.jpg

 

Quote

   Serbian military-industrial association "Jugoimport-SDPR" showed robotic tracked platform. The weight of the device is 400 kg. In addition to optoelectronic equipment, it is equipped with weapons in the form of a 7.62 mm machine gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher. Controlled remotely, the duration of work from the batteries is at least two hours. Abu Dhabi (UAE), February 2018 (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a2

 

Quote

   At the stand of the emirate group International Golden Group (IGG) was shown an updated version of the robot Fantom, created by Ukrainian developers. The device weighing about 650 kg on a chassis with a wheel formula 6x6 and uses a hybrid engine. Can travel up to 20 km. Controlled by a radio channel at distances up to 10 km, or by fiber-optic cable at distances up to 5 km. As reported, the system is intended for transport tasks, including the delivery of weapons, ammunition, food and evacuation of wounded, as well as some combat missions, for which the "Phantom" is equipped with a 12.7 mm caliber machine gun, as well as anti-tank missile system "Barrier" (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a3

 

Quote

   Next to the first "Phantom" was shown a more recent development of Ukrainian engineers - Phantom 2. This is a heavier device weighing about 2600 kg also on a wheeled chassis with four-wheel drive with the formula 8x8. UGV is equipped with an installation B8V20-A, which is a 20-barrel unit for unguided 80 mm caliber rockets. In addition, it can also be equipped with a twin 23 mm automatic cannon. It is planned that this machine will be able to hit various targets, including armored vehicles, fortified points, the enemy infantry, etc., and also will be able to deliver the goods. The device is controlled remotely with ranges similar to the first version (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a7

MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System), already covered it in robotics thread.

 

a6

 

Quote

   The E-stonian company Milrem Robotics showed at the exhibition a new modification of its famous robotic vehicle THeMIS. The new version has been refined from the point of view of application in conditions of desert and hot climate. As a result, the size of the platform was increased to accommodate various equipment or combat loads, cooling systems, etc. (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a5

Quote

   Australian company Marathon Targets showed their products - ground-based robotic target systems T30 and T40. According to the company's representatives, they provide more realism in carrying out various trainings in comparison with traditional stationary targets (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Ejder Yalcin

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T-4ifjzMJrg/WpZoxJgqrAI/AAAAAAAAPs0/qGuI0qsWjZ8cDAJMi_CHKX-b_MPV2NRqACLcBGAs/s1600/Nurol_Makina_Ejder_Yalcin_and_Ejder_Toma_armoured_vehicles_for_Senegal.jpg

 

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Seems rather chaotic. How do I find the grand total of destroyed tanks and AFVs there? 

General stats are on the right part of that page.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I am pretty sure this is the right thread - but @Waffentrager has managed to put this diagram of the various material sections of the Type 90 together. The blanked-out APFSDS in the RED description is JM-33, which (as I am sure most everyone here knows) is their variant of the DM-33.

 

nknf9jb7xyk01.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

compared to:

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

 

 

- I also belive the mantlet to be rather "thin". 380-400 might be a rather optimistic estimate. 350 mm might be closer to reality.

 

-I also believe that the composite armor does not extend all the way to the bottom. It might jut follow the Leopard 2 example shown in red:

 

strv122_hull.jpg.a273a315a831c6ca73fc884

(lower front hull could be spaced armor)

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

1421877579-puwno.jpg

in both cases the lower front hull could be spaced armor.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

What I find most interesting is this seems to confirm that the Type 90, at least for the hull, doesn't have a 60 degree frontal arc of protection. Odd decision, really.

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model.

 

 

Yes - this was the intent. I was not expecting the small diagram to gather much attention outside of a General WT community who did not understand specifics. I highlighted only general areas of protection outside of RHA. Not specific area's of the protection and thickness composure.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all.

 

 

The actual composite blocks are covering the middle and top of the hull (Yes to later mentioning if Type10 and Type90 share general block placements). The bottom flooring is spaced steel - not the same level of protection. But of that to protect against explosive discharge.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

 

 

Not the same. The tests were conducted at the primary composite blocks at the turret sides frontally. This is the primary defense against JM33. Mantlet is not protected by ceramic and other materials, basic lining only.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

Without fabric covering , revels external block shell. I will be happy to aid if you have questions or needed context - I will give what I can without breaking privacy agreement.

 

D0CMBL3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

Because of BREXIT, it can be longer. The MIV program is an advantage during talks. They can keep pressure on both Germany and France. 

Share this post


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

 

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

 

Inside talk is that the flat top version of this will (eventually) replace the Bushmaster PMV. 

 

The Phase 2 contenders were also asked to price up their 8x8 trucks for Phase 3 (IFV, previously notionally tracked). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.03.2018 at 10:30 PM, Laviduce said:

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doubt.

 

Wiedźmin's job:

XoryQlu.jpg

 

And I fully agree whit this above. No special armour in corner - just turret roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And I fully agree whit this above. No special armour in corner - just turret roof.

 

It is nothing but an opinion, better to find some internal photos or drawings. If so it is rather "strange" design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 Abrams' TUSK belly plate is made of spaced aluminium plates and mainly works thanks to its massive thickness, reducing ground clearance by up to 11.5 inches (292 mm). AFAIK there is no other material, at least a photo of the belly plate in the TB 9-2350-264-12&P-1 shows no other materials.

 

The Leopard 2A6M, Boxer, Puma and other German AFVs use mine protection kits from RUAG, which are made of composite plates. The outermost layer is a steel plate, but it also includes on or more layers of plastic fibre to absorb the energy. In case of the Leopard 2A6M, the belly plate reduces ground clearance only by 50-100 mm, but is supposed to provide the same level of protection as the TUSK's much thicker spaced aluminium solution... however the Leopard 2A6M's plate is heavier. In case of the Puma IFV, the mine protection consists of two sandwich plates with more than 100 mm empty space between them.

0V6iZuI.png

RUAG's mine protection system. In theory it might also include ceramic materials against EFP mines, at least IBD Deisenroth is offering this as part of its AMAP-M anti-mine armor.

Share this post


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

 

It is nothing but an opinion, better to find some internal photos or drawings. If so it is rather "strange" design.

The K2 and Type 10 seem to follow a similar turret protection design philosophy:

 

c2qKz67.jpg

 

main-qimg-ebb6b07903af2296e264cb38faa8c9

 

 

 

 

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 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×