Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

Quote

   Chechnya will host military trials of the Arlan 4x4 armored car, which is essentially a Marodeur armored car manufactured by the South African Paramount Group assembled at the Kazakhstan Paramount Engineering (KPE).

   If military tests give a positive result, then these armored vehicles will be purchased for the Chechen security forces.

xc18csy5nj8

 

Spoiler

ZKEiuo-A-kus

 

ei-JYx-Ue-Sgb4

   Not_bad.jpg

 

65-HO8-IXI6kg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 1:37 AM, SH_MM said:

a20dcd458b548.png

 

From the ballistic tests of the Type 90 tank. Claimed to the hte impact of an APFSDS round, but honestly it seems rather like damage caused by a  HEAT round (tiny hole, no fin marks, etc...).

Fin marks really only ever happen on thinner armor as well as softer metal such as cast steel. There is a reason why you only see fin marks being left on T-72s and M60 series tanks. It is also very likely that the Type 90 uses HHA on the outer layers meaning that the fins would just snap off when contacting the surface. That's just a guess though and from what I remember there were multiple shots from both HEAT and APFSDS, so we could just be seeing only the first shot of the test.

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

Fin marks really only ever happen on thinner armor as well as softer metal such as cast steel. There is a reason why you only see fin marks being left on T-72s and M60 series tanks.

 

This is not true.

Spoiler

kolpak.jpg

04903dd8616f.jpg

caisson-de-blindage-49d677.jpg

 

 

5 hours ago, Atokara said:

It is also very likely that the Type 90 uses HHA on the outer layers meaning that the fins would just snap off when contacting the surface

 

They would not snap off without leaving any sort of damage or trace material. The Type 90's most outer layer is fabric/plastic covering the armor module (torn apart in the photograph). Assuming that the plate behind that is thicker than the outer steel plates found on other tanks is questionable.

 

Also the small diameter of the hole cannot be explained with APFSDS ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Video from a media day in Tatra (Trucks and Defence). You can see some details from Titus and Pandur II production (and various special trucks) plus a media drive with Patriot II MRAP over part of the testing polygon (only "clean" part). Both Titus and Patriot II use typical Tatra tube chassis with independent suspension. 

 

One particularly interesting thing is what they mention about Titus. The Czech variants which are mostly various command and communication vehicles will be equiped with automatic position levelling system (I don't know how it shall be properly called in English, it means that when the vehisle stops the commander or driver can make it stand level in both axes by pressing a button).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it looks like the outer "Abramsish" turret panels are just made of thin sheets of steel - see the cutouts for smoke dispensers and APS (real?). The turret itself looks like a simple box inside them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Beer said:

APS (real?).

At least the intention seems to be real(possibly mock-up). 

4 Radar panels are readily apparent, and there is something what can be interpreted as UV optics on the rear set of antennas.

But... are there 3 or 4 crew members? Optics just don't match 3(strange periscope to the right of the forward sight) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   New NK armored car. 5 doors, appears to be not too much into this whole "MRAP" and mine-resistance thing.

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

image

 

   MGS, kek. Not sure about gun, but it looks to be umm.. mid-engined? 2 crewmembers in the front doesn't leave much space for engine.

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

f-c-Aua7m0l-A

 

KT5-Lhql-BAe4

 

   New tank

image

   Muzzle refer. system, probably smoke grenades sticking out of turret edges with what is possibly a mock up of a radar (so it could represent soft-kill APS similar to K2's, where radar actives smoke grenade launchers). Also it looks like gunner was possibly moved to the right of the gun, at least what appears to be a gunner sight is on the right. Not sure about 2nd sight (a big box closer to a hatch). New ATGM launcher that now is retractable.

 

Spoiler

image

   Camera-looking sight from this side of the tank is better visible. On turret sides you can also see more of grenade launchers with radar-box and possibly laser sensor moved to turret sides. Note how thick roof armor looks on this vehicle. Or at least i hope this is turret roof and not just roof extension to make shit fit inside.

 

image

   Armata-looking angle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Muzzle refer. system, probably smoke grenades sticking out of turret edges with what is possibly a mock up of a radar (so it could represent soft-kill APS similar to K2's, where radar actives smoke grenade launchers). Also it looks like gunner was possibly moved to the right of the gun, at least what appears to be a gunner sight is on the right. Not sure about 2nd sight (a big box closer to a hatch). New ATGM launcher that now is retractable.

 

1, elefant in the room. This new tank apparently again spots 115mm smoothbore gun(long time no see, 2a20), instead of 125mm one on Song'un-915. New, large ATGMs(152mm?) are probably intended to compensate for the obvious weakness of this gun in AT role.

2, there are old smoke mortars on the turret bustle. New ones are much larger, and the way they're installed literally cries hard kill aps.

3, as far as I can tell - yes, gunner in front of the commander. Forward sight is gunner's(this is supported by periscope next to it), rear one is apparently for commander.

4, somewhat unusually for "eastern" school, but NK clearly sticks to 4-man crew. Gunner is moved to the right.

 

1st point forced me to check, if it is yet another thoroughly upgraded tank in Popkung-Ho series, but no. Literally everything apart from the gun is different and new.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ainen said:

1, elefant in the room. This new tank apparently again spots 115mm smoothbore gun(long time no see, 2a20), instead of 125mm one on Song'un-915. New, large ATGMs(152mm?) are probably intended to compensate for the obvious weakness of this gun in AT role.

2, there are old smoke mortars on the turret bustle. New ones are much larger, and the way they're installed literally cries hard kill aps.

3, as far as I can tell - yes, gunner in front of the commander. Forward sight is gunner's(this is supported by periscope next to it), rear one is apparently for commander.

4, somewhat unusually for "eastern" school, but NK clearly sticks to 4-man crew. Gunner is moved to the right.

 

1st point forced me to check, if it is yet another thoroughly upgraded tank in Popkung-Ho series, but no. Literally everything apart from the gun is different and new.

 

1, yeah, i also feel like this is not 125 mm gun, although hard to measure for sure.

 

2. I'm pretty sure that what is shown on a tank can't be competent hard kill APS, those tubes stuck on turret "edges" are looking up, instead of how Shtandart, Afghanit, Drozd-1 and Drozd-2 had their launchers aimed - almost completely horizontally. Also, pay attention how "spread" aim of those tubes is, compared to Drozd-1 for example. 3 tubes cover what looks like 50arc, while on Drozd 2 tubes were covering just 20 degr. arc.

   

   So either: 

  A. This means that this "active protection system" launches counter-projectiles far above most likely trajectories of incoming projectiles and have big gaps in coverage

   B. To ofset gaps in coverage it intercepts them right next to a tank, where blast and fragments will have a real chance to mission kill vehicle by damaging sights and other external equipment (like ATGM launcher or missiles inside).

   Or C. - it ain't a hard kill APS and NK engineers are just aping their southern brothers.

 

3. So that big ass sight could be panoramic (in theory)? Oplot will approve proper sized panoramic buckets. 

 

4. Feels like inefficient design, cramping 4 dudes into this realively compact tank (at least looks so), it could managed better protection at least on saved weight if 4th guy was moved into a truck or APC behind, heh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Muzzle refer. system, probably smoke grenades sticking out of turret edges with what is possibly a mock up of a radar (so it could represent soft-kill APS similar to K2's, where radar actives smoke grenade launchers). Also it looks like gunner was possibly moved to the right of the gun, at least what appears to be a gunner sight is on the right. Not sure about 2nd sight (a big box closer to a hatch). New ATGM launcher that now is retractable.

 

You forgot the biggest news: no active IR searchlights, so the tank has either thermal imagers or LLTV/image intensifiers.

 

I believe the "smoke grenades" sticking out at the turret are meant to be launchers for a hardkill APS. I don't think the comparison with Afghanit or Drozd is necessarily valid, as these systems use rocket-propelled countermeasures. North Korea could use actual HE-FRAG grenades launched at this trajectory in order to hit threats in the horizontal plane. Basically something more comparable to Arena than Drozd.

 

It likely isn't a very competent APS given the capabilities of the North Korean industry, but it seems more likely than sticking extra large smoke grenade launchers into the turret front and sides and then adding radar panels just for fun.

 

There is ERA at the turret roof, the hull sides and the upper glacis, but not on the turret. Weird.

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

 

You forgot the biggest news: no active IR searchlights, so the tank has either thermal imagers or LLTV/image intensifiers.

 

I believe the "smoke grenades" sticking out at the turret are meant to be launchers for a hardkill APS. I don't think the comparison with Afghanit or Drozd is necessarily valid, as these systems use rocket-propelled countermeasures. North Korea could use actual HE-FRAG grenades launched at this trajectory in order to hit threats in the horizontal plane. Basically something more comparable to Arena than Drozd.

 

It likely isn't a very competent APS given the capabilities of the North Korean industry, but it seems more likely than sticking extra large smoke grenade launchers into the turret front and sides and then adding radar panels just for fun.

 

There is ERA at the turret roof, the hull sides and the upper glacis, but not on the turret. Weird.

 

At this point i would expect Norks to have some form of thermal imaging sights, even Syrians are making crappy "Viper" thermal sights from Chinese parts for their tanks.

 

Drozd comparison is valid, because Drozd launches a big ass 107 mm caliber HE-frag warhead to intercept incoming shell and yet each shot is covering very narrow arc. I doubt that this launchers can throw something significantly bigger. Look at angle between tubes in each "pack" - it looks like they have nearly 35-40 degrees between each other and at 20 meters range away from the tank that placement of launchers will produce big gaps in APS coverage. And tubes on the back of the turret look like have similar size to frontal ones, they look like usjal smoke grenade launchers.

 

Thats why i think that what we see is just North Korean version of soft kill APS on K2s.

 

Maybe @N-L-M could give his impression on that question.

 

It is possible that what we see is pretty rough mock up of planned system. 

 

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...