Molota_477
-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Molota_477
-
-
19 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:
Biscuit №4 was 406mm thick(50mm of those 406 was RHA backing plate, so 356mm for special armour), whole assembly have weight similar to 5,3 inch steel plate(135mm)
Interesting that the No.4 array had been mentioned in a report of Chieftain mk5/2, would you mind share the source of this message? Title of report is ok.
-
-
On 5/2/2019 at 9:04 PM, Laviduce said:
The HL-70 CIV, HL-60 GPS and periscopes (bright green):
Gun elevation mechanism (blue) and turret traverse mechanism (salmon):
Do you have any photo of the gun elevation mech?
-
-
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:
I cant read chinese characters, but is it possible that at the end the "99C" means Type-99C? So can it be the real designation of this tank, and not 99A? Or is it a new upgraded model?
No, it's just a nick name of someone.
-
11 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Where you found this pic?
From this book I believe.
-
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:
Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.
Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong
-
1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
The only official info on the Merkava 4's armor is that it uses a "continuous (i.e high coverage) semi-reactive armor".
Can you share this original source?
-
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
KE PROTECTION IS OVER ONE THOUSAND!!!
No idea if it is ture or fake.
BUT, until now this claim by Jia Yuanyou in CCTV is the only opened official source related to 99A's protection.
There is little information about 99's real protection level because its top secret.
When I first heard such info, I also keep skeptic, but now IMO it is possible, according to other information implied by some official publishments (mainly China Ordnance Society), there might be some type of integrated ERA under the face plate of 99's modular composite armor(So there are 2 layers of heavy ERA if taking account the hinged ERA tiles), which can drastically increase the KE protection level..
- Stierlitz.Dango and Akula_941
-
1
-
1
-
5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
Can somebody translate if this 1000 mm in RHA is against HEAT or APFSDS?
He said that both KE and CE protection level have exceed 1000mm RHA.
-
10 minutes ago, heretic88 said:
4th prototype?
It should be the 5th prototype with wedge ERA in front of hull nose.
-
59 minutes ago, Liberator said:
540 mm Hull and turret or only turret? And what CE protection MBT-80?
Both hull(full protection, including front arc of 50°) and turret at 69 metric tonnes.
While combat weight at 64 tonnes——fully protected turret + hull protection without enough side armor(only front glacis).
The number of 540mm actually meams a specific KE threat which could penetrate up to 540mm RHA at 1km range(It was assumed as Soviet DU APFSDS M1980). MBT-80's Chobham armour was desired to defeat such threat after some meetings in 1978.
Besides these two heaviest schemes, there are also 2 correspondly intermedial schemes have 480mm protection level, but still too heavy, the full protection scheme weight 65 t, and the "only front protection on hull" version weight 62 t.
Note that all of these schemes are only on paper discussion.
And the level of 430mm RHA actually is the original requirement for MBT-80 before 1978. They thought it can be achieved within MLC60 which the turret is fully protected while the hull only has upper glacis.
As for CE threat, they specified the need of againsting 130mm caliber shape charge（also is front ±25° in azimuth）.
That's all I have seen.
-
2 hours ago, Liberator said:
However, apparently this has little to do with Challenger 1.
MBT-80 looks very promising, sad that the British could not start it in production.
Yes , the GSR 3572 only for MBT-80, so that's all I mean.
-
On 11/29/2018 at 12:59 AM, SH_MM said:
I don't think that it refers to mass of the special armor. Note that the following document seems to list the MBT-80 with "430 mm+" protection, while also listing the effective hull armor thickness of Centurion and Leopard 1 (implying that the figures for the other tanks might also be hull armor).
_a0ca159c91df0753e3e1e58518cc8697.png)
In documents from 1969 and 1970, it is already mentioned that Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of above 1.0, so 430 mm steel-equivalent mass should provide a noteworthy larger amount of armor protection. It also would be odd to mix figures in milimeters with tons (for the applique armor) without even specifying that the milimeters is meant to be steel-equivalent mass.
Finally I found the document of GSR3572, the data of 480 and 430 only refer to the KE protection, but not the mass equivalent thickness, and there is a heaviest protection level up to 540mm.(But it is so heavy and very hard to offer full protection on hull under MLC70, while MLC60 or 55 tonnes only is a basic model without full protection on hull, note "full protection" means including side protecion within a limited angle.
-
-
14 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
steel-equivalent mass
Yes, I misread it before, so it makes sense that the ''up armour'' Challenger 1's turret can obtain up to 500mm protection against some specific KE rounds while the thickness of steel-equivalent mass only 430mm.I think the same theory also is appropriate for the glacis.
-
-
3 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
I don't know, this is what I have read in another discussion on another website. As I said I don't own the book yet. I might have mistaken the values from a random discussion with a footnote from the book, which says that the Challenger 1 mounted armor providing "equivalent amounts" to 430 mm for the turret and 315 mm for the hull.
"Equivalent amount" might refer to the mass of special armor which mounted on MBT-80 and provide 480mm protection for turret and 430mm for front hull:
Note the endnote"6"
-
What page is the data of 480/340 on?
-
I just curious on one thing, where can enquire such documents?
-
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.
- skylancer-3441, LoooSeR, Alzoc and 3 others
-
6
-
1 hour ago, DarkLabor said:
Never heard or seen anything like this on the prototypes or the first batches...
Thanks, so it just a rumor.
-
And there is a livejournal post about AMX-30 test with Radar FCS(in Russian)
https://strangernn.dreamwidth.org/1786004.html
-
Hi,
Do you guys who know what's this equipment mounted on the MSC's turret?
There is someone claims that it was a surveillance radar and likely the same device also had been mounted on a Leclerc prototype , I would like to ask that if it is ture and is there any material related to such devices?
Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
The initial Equipment Requirment of GSR3574 defined that CR1's turret must retain the minimum protection requirement of MBT-80, which should withstand 600mm CE and revised 480mm KE within ± 25° front arc.
But as for hull front, because of the steel structure was too heavy, only required significant improvement against HEAT than Chieftain while KE resistance not less than Chieftain.( Only needed to against 85mm HEAT)