Molota_477

From UKBTM article - 
Эффективно решают задачу стрельбы с настильной траекторией снаряды с дистанци­онным подрывом. Для пушек типа Д-81 такие снаряды разработаны в рамках ОКР «Айнет».
Разработанные снаряды превосходят снаряды 3ОФ26 по зоне поражения открыто расположенной живой силы, соответственно, в 4–13 раз!
Эффективность выстрелов с дистанционным подрывом на в 5−7 раз выше, чем у се­рийных осколочно-фугасных снарядов 3ОФ26.
Все Т-90 и Т-90А оснащены комплексом «Айнет», позволяющим работать указанными выстрелами.
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/uvz.htm
They say it's up to 4-13 more effective vs troops
From Oplot manual - more mmodest nimbers 
 
Выстрелы с осколочно-фугасным снарядом типа "Р" и "С" по устройству аналогичны штатному выстрелу с осколочно-фугасным снарядом, но эффективная зона поражения выше чем штатных ОФС снарядов при стрельбе:
снарядом типа "Р" по открыто расположенной живой силе и легкобронированной технике в два раза;
снарядом типа "С" по открыто расположенной живой силе в четыре раза.
 

Soviet study of weekened zones of tanks...
http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1974_06_oslablennie_zoni.htm
 
and research of a new combined armor (later used in T-80U and T-80UD protection)
'

 

 
+  60% effectivness on CE vs steel with a same LOS
(on serial models it was increased)
 
http://btvt.info/5library/vot_yacheiki.htm

A new article from "Ynet News" adds new info on the Barak and other programs.
Just a reminder, Barak is an upgraded Merkava 4M. 
 
https://www.yediot.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5043863,00.html
 
It's in Hebrew, but I have taken upon myself to translate the important bits here (some new, some old, I will mark it):
 
1)The Barak weighs 70 tons. (new)
 
Ex: In Israel, exact figures are almost never given. It's not because it's OPSEC, but because that's the sort of mentality here. Only the engineers will handle that, and the plebs get rounded numbers. So it could mean about 69, or it could be 73. 
However up until now it's always been 60-65 tons, so we could see some solid amount of equipment added to the tank, which will be interesting. On the downside, it means weight reduction measures probably weren't taken and I shouldn't explain why excessive weight is bad.
 
2)Utilizes an AI-managed "mission computer". (new/old)
 
Ex: Okay so we've heard plenty of times that many actions will be automated, and that means AI. It was said however mostly in the context of the firing loop. Now they say the mission computer, otherwise known as BMS, will automatically manage certain comms with other assets that will also include the Namers and Eitans among others. Info that was previously manually input by the TC (commander). 
The AI will be able to make various decisions based on the targets it identifies, whether based on the optics or the APS, and advise the crew on certain actions, and make terrain-mapping related decisions such as pointing optimal firing positions or dangerous areas.
 
3)Female voice selected to alert crews via BMS. (new)
 
Ex: Easy to distinguish from a male voice, so it won't blend in with the crew's voices, and the crew will not ignore it (they tend to ignore messages from crewmen). Among the alerts it will give are "Missiles", "Short range ATGM", and "Turning over" which means it will not only alert the crew of the type of threat and thus approximate time to impact, but also of terrain related issues to minimize accidents.
 
4)It was tested as a fully autonomous vehicle. (new)
 
Ex: But there is no operational requirement, for obvious reasons, so it's merely a test. 
 
5)Hybrid powerplant. (new)
 
Ex: To cope with the higher weight and to save on fuel, hybrid is the way to go. This could also give it an amazing torque and make it a "little" speed demon. And as an environmentalist it really gives me some relief.
 
6)IronVision helmet system tested last month (October). (old)
 
Ex: I thought it was scheduled to be tested in April, but nonetheless it's good news it happened. The date for operational fielding has remained unchanged, and even rounded down to 2020, so there's no delay but a re-scheduling. 
 
7)IronVision to be tested soon on Company-sized force. (new)
 
Ex: Means less time required for full operational testing, if they segment the operational testing phases to do in parallel with the program.
 
8)Starting next year, 3 times as many Trophy-equipped vehicles will be manufactured as this year. (new)
 
Ex: While the production rate is still minimal, to keep the work stable and allow to double the output when needed urgently, the front-line units will benefit greatly and at a quick rate from this decision. It also comes in light of the recent contract for 1,000 Trophy systems, and the decision to not only equip the Namers and Eitans with it, but also the Merkava 3.
 
9)USA is purchasing 100 Trophy systems (brigade-sized). (new/old)
 
Ex: Some speculated on either possibility. Either the contract was merely for the support of the installation of systems, or for the purchase of a brigade-worth of systems. Now it's confirmed that they are indeed equipping an entire brigade.
 
 
 
Big wall of text, I know, so I give you here Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach holding Israel's big stick's big stick:
 

Great model！

No, the figure is misleading. Only 36 (16 Leopard 2A6 and 20 Leopard 2A7 tanks) will be upgraded to the 2A7V configuration, but also 62 Leopard 2A4 tanks. The number used in the report (57 tanks) includes the parallel upgrade of Leopard 2A6M tanks to the Leopard 2A6M+ configuration. Of the 36 2A6 & 2A7 tanks to be upgraded to the Leopard 2A7V, the majority remains still in service and will be upgraded later (in fact 18 of the 20 Leopard 2A7 tanks will be the last tanks to receive the upgrade!). At the same time 68 Leopard 2A4 tanks are also being upgraded, the upgrade of these tanks takes longer (because more work has to be done), but AFAIK at least some of them have already been sent to the industry.
 
 
France ordered the upgrade of 200 Leclerc tanks in 2015 as part of SCORPION programme. The number of active tanks is probably be greater. The United Kingdom has only 227 Challenger 2 tanks left in inventory, of which 168 tanks are belonging to active units; probably a few of these are in need of repair. After the introduction of the Ajax, the British Army might downsize from three active tank battalions to only two. Belgium has given up on tanks. They never bought a modern tank (only Leopard 1s) and decided against modernizing them in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Instead Belgium operates a handful of Piranha IIIC 8x8 vehicles, of which 40 are armed with a 90 mm gun, while 32 are armed with a 30 mm ATK Mk44 gun.
Poland has one of the largest tank fleets in Europe, consisting of 247 Leopard 2 tanks (of which half are supposed to be modernized by Rheinmetall & Obrum to the new Leopard 2PL variant), some 230-240 PT-91 tanks and more than 150 operational T-72 tanks. The The US military has some ~2,000 M1A1/M1A2 Abrams tanks in active units with a similar amount of modern tanks in reserve/storage. I haven't kept up with the latest US Army plans, but supposedly they want to have something between 10 and 17 armored brigade combat teams (ABCT). Latest informations suggests that there were 14 ABCTs in 2016 with a new (15th) ABCT being set up in October 2017. Each ABCT has 90 M1A1/M1A2 Abrams tanks, hence there should be 1,350 Abrams tanks operated by the Army. The National Guard has either 5 or 6 ABCTs (there were originally six, but one was deactivated in 2016), adding 450-540 M1A1/M1A2 Abrams tanks over the Army's operational tank fleet. Supposedly the USMC bought a total of 403 M1A1 tanks, but it appears that not all are operational.
 
 
Incomplete list:
Germany (50 Leopard 2A6M+, 104 Leopard 2A7V), Poland (128 Leopard 2PL, PT-91M2 amount TBD),  Denmark (38 tanks to Leopard 2A7/V), France (200 Leclerc Scorpion XLR), UK (Challenger 2 LEP bidding under way, amount TBD), Russia (T-90M), US Army (90 M1A2 SEP v2 to be fitted with Trophy, M1A2 SEP v3), Indonesia (Leopard 2RI) etc.
In factory are German tanks for conversion to Leopard 2A6M+/2A7V tanks, Leclerc tanks,Polish 2A4 tanks to become Leopard 2PLs and probably the M1A2 SEP v2 aswell as maybe the Danish tanks. Rheinmetall has been upgrading 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2RI configuration for Indonesia, I don't know if they finished this contract already. Also Russia might have already started upgrading the T-90A to the T-90M variant.
 
 
Those are not all 2A7V tanks. This is a mixed value, most of the tanks are understood to be Leopard 2A6M tanks being upgraded to the 2A6M+ model (inofficial name).
The Leopard 2A7V deliveries are set to begin in 2019. The very first two of these tanks are taken from the 20 Leopard 2A7 tanks and will be used for testing if everything works as expected. After these two initial Leopard 2A7Vs, the next 16 will be created from Leopard 2A6 tanks, which will be ready for service in 2020. Directly after the conversions of the 2A6 tanks are finished, 68 Leopard 2A4 tanks will be converted to the Leopard 2A7V. The last remaining 18 Leopard 2A7 tanks are scheduled for the 2A7V upgrade after the Leopard 2A4 tanks.
 
 
68 Leopard 2A4 tanks will be converted to the 2A7V configuration. 32 tanks will remain in the Army's stock for conversion to support vehicles (recovery vehicles, engineering vehicles, bridgelayers), used as spare parts or upgraded at a later time (if there is a requirement for a larger tank fleet); AFAIK the final decision hasn't been made yet.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1732&p=3#p989780
Some modeller made a Nota 

 
No idea how accurate.

Nice model work.
Very very accurate

How to get fucken angry polish PT-91 manufactory and other T-72 lovers.
Polish army hard data about MTBF for polish 30 old yers Leopard 2A4 and 20-25 old yers PT-91:

 

 
EDIT:

data above are from ALL 128 polish Leopard 2A4 and for 144 PT-91 tanks (68% PT-91 fleet in army) during 2,5 yers exploatation
 
Yes, T-72 is crap.
yes, PT-91 is crap too
 

upgraded M60T

Found this on Militarium.net's facebook, they didn't say where the photographs were taken.
 


 

Ok, here is another monster post for this thread.  This is from a special supplement to Military Technology Vol XI Issue 4 from 1987.  It's all about Renk transmissions for tracked vehicles.
 

When browsing various papers and publications I usually stumble on quite interesting information every so often, but it's usually not enough to warrant a whole topic or linking the complete paper. 
So this is a topic where I'm going to dump all the things I find exciting or interesting. I'll post a small explanation on why it's interesting/exciting as well.
 
I usually save all the paper I read or skim through, so if you want the full paper just gimme a yell.
 
-------------------------------
 
So yesterday when I was checking papers for the sandbag topic I was also looking at shaped charge penetration in concrete, and I stumbled upon this:

If you ever wondered why anti-bunker shaped charges use aluminium liners, compare Test #1 with #2 and #3. While the aluminium liner has quite a bit less penetration than a steel or copper liner, it makes a much bigger hole. Which is handy if you want to drop a secondary charge through the hole you just punched. The after armour effect on tanks might be enough to disable it completely, but with a bunker you most likely need a secondary charge to effectively neutralise everyone inside the bunker. And bigger hole = bigger secondary charge.
 
-------------------------------
 
While thinking about @roguetechie's question about a focal point in shaped charges I remembered a paper which had some simulations about the penetration capabilities of a segmented HEAT jet. Sadly I can't find the paper anymore, but the advantages of segmented penetrators are fairly well known. So I was wondering whether you can control the breaking up of a HEAT jet, which should be possible by making weaker points in the jet on purpose. And when looking for a good introduction to shaped charges I found this:

Turns out you can totally make a jet that breaks up at predetermined points, and you can probably also engineer it in such a way it breaks up at predetermined times. Looking at this, it's totally possible to make a segmented HEAT jet, but it's probably very expensive to make.
 
-------------------------------
 
A while ago we were having a discussion about whether or not a long rod can ricochet. Today I went looking for data on it and lo and behold I found a whole bunch of data on it. I haven't found a formula to use (that I can understand), but as it turns out the minimum ricochet angle is about 3-4 degrees for steel penetrators with an L/D of 10.7 (modern long rods have an L/D of over 35), depending on target strength:

 
 
If you look at different L/D numbers, the ricochet angle should change, according to Tate:

 
However Tate's formula seems to be inaccurate when you compare it with real data:

 
Rosenberg's formula is more accurate, but it doesn't include neither L/D ratio nor target thickness, which is probably why Rosenberg's model is shifted up compared to real life data. What the relation between the real life data and Rosenberg's formula is, is unknown to me at the moment.
 
-------------------------------
 
...speaking of L/D and segmented long rods...
 
This is why segmented long rods work:

 
The higher the L/D ratio, the lower the penetration efficiency. When you check the actual penetration values of different constant diameter (0.3 cm) L/D ratios, you'll see this:

 
The L/D 6 has a penetration of about 1.8 cm, which is exactly right for a 1.8 cm long rod. Remember, an L/D ratio of 6 has an efficiency of close to 1.
If the L/D effect wasn't a thing, the L/D 30 should have a penetration of 1.8 cm * 5 = 9 cm. But it only has a penetration of ~6.2 cm. Which is due to it's lower efficiency of only 0.69 (9 cm * 0.69 = 6.21 cm).
 
So the point of segmented long rods is to create multiple shorter penetrators instead of one long one. This means you're basically stacking multiple high efficiency penetrators instead of using one long inefficient penetrator. With the above numbers, a long rod with 5 L/D 6 ratio rods will have 9 cm penetration while a single L/D 30 rod (which is the same length) has only 6.2 cm of penetration.
 
-------------------------------
 
More to come.

Excalibur army upgraded T-72:

 
Here specs, and ERA version used.

 

 
More photos:
 

CV90CZ:
 
 

He can(Oplot-M) for new BKP with GOP-900 Hydraulic transmission
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/gop900.php

a few more










 
 
p.s i will share my pics tomorrow evening

Altay 


 
FNSS

a little spoiler of incoming İDEF



 
 
Altay modified after the experience in syria

Though, I found these fresh photos of T-72 Ural scrapped in China. Someone have uploaded them into public networks. (Also,there is someone said that there are still available T-72M and T-72B collected in Plant 617, but have no more photo infos can prove that we have the second T-72. BTW, The T-80U might be located in Beijing Tank museum but do not show to public )

The depression of both Type 59 （100mm gun）and  59-2(105mm) is  -5°. 
Here is a data sheet：

 

The depression of both Type 59 （100mm gun）and  59-2(105mm) is  -5°. 
Here is a data sheet：

 

The depression of both Type 59 （100mm gun）and  59-2(105mm) is  -5°. 
Here is a data sheet：

 

The depression of both Type 59 （100mm gun）and  59-2(105mm) is  -5°. 
Here is a data sheet：

 

Object 640 “Black Eagle” and it’s successors

The “Object 640” also known as a “Black Eagle” was created in 1990-s by the designers of Omsk KBTM (transport machine building bureau). The tank belongs to a new generation and realizes a lot of innovative constructional decisions and arrangement which differs it from all classical Russian and western tanks. The tank uses the new design turret with low frontal profile and detachable transport and loading module. The armor protection of front hull and turret is modular design. The crew is stationed in the hull below the turret ring and completely separated from ammunition and fuel.

We all know, that it was created in 90s without state financing and led to creation of 2 testing vehicles, than the idea of a whole new tank was abandoned as very complex and budget-unfriendly. But this development continued up to end of 2000-s. Several projects were realized like a T-55M6 upgrade with “black Eagle” components (turret bustle autoloader, reactive armor and so on). But state financed “Burlak” project is more interesting project. The only tank with 2 separately functioning autoloader. T-90 tank was upgraded under this project and experimental tank on T-90 chassis was created.


 

 

 


Well, maybe it’s bad translation but give an idea about this design  - http://btvt.info/7english/640a/640.htm