Molota_477

From this book I believe.
https://tankmuseumshop.org/collections/haynes-tank-owners-workshop-manuals/products/challenger-2-main-battle-tank-owners-workshop-manual

So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before?
My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures:
 
They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries).
Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances.
 
As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct.
 
Also interessting is the fact that they had a 32 mm projectile; is that a DM23 prototype? It retains its muzzle velocity for a longer period of time and penetrates more armor.
Btw: According to Krapke, the 105 mm smoothbore gun was abandoned, after a "performance-improved M735 round" fired from the L7 tank gun matched its lethality. That is the reason why some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were retro-fitted with rifled L7A3 guns in the last stages of Leopard 2 development.
 
 
That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules?
 

 
 
The planned features for the Leopard 2AX are:
new engine with 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) output hardkill active protection system remotely operated weapon station 360° vision systems improved KE ammunition (KE2020) automated target tracking If all these features will be adopted (if there is budget) and what exact parts will be chosen remains unknown. I'd say that the Rheinmetall ADS, KMW's FLW 200+ RWS and the Rheinmetall's SAS are some of the likely options.

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 

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1018&p=8#p1179911
Posted on Otvaga, original sources: http://oeps.ifmo.ru/uchebn/UP_TPV.pdf and https://museum.ifmo.ru/images/pages/615/Vestnik_144.pdf
 
Soviet (1987) thermal sight "Progress 2M", competitor for Agava thermal sight. 

   Stats:
 
Spectral range - 8-13 mcm
Number of elements - 500x384
Field of view - 40ox30o
Zoom - 10x and 3x
Temperature sensitivity - not less than 0.1K
 

   Picture from Progress 2 TI.
 

   Sight was tested on T-80U, satisfied all requirements for all-time sight (day and night) and range of detection of threats.

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 

https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_91.html

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 

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 

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29614

So, apparently the Swedes tested the Rheinmetall smoothbore 105:
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/
 
Quite interesting, I wonder how well it lines up with this:
I read on this forum that the picture above was user made from real data, anyone know more?

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..

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..

Ho ho ho Merry x-mas
 
T-72M1 durability and relability
 
All based on "CONSIDERATION OF WEAPON SYSTEMS AVAILABILITY IN EARLY OPERATION PhASE"


Translate: PT-91 Twardy tank, during 3 yers and 2 months for 144 tanks.
 


 
During trials period (1174 days) we had 510 PT-91 falitures whit avarage time to repair 27 days.  Avarage faliture ratio was 3 per tank but during trials it was between 1 to 14 for eacht tank.
Important: falitures under factory warranty  was in number ca 364 so up to 71%. All was procedure due to factory production. 
Translation from english for normal users here: up to 71% falitures was cased by non-existin quality control in Bumar-łabędy and fucked up production process.
 
Summary in one table:

 
And compare  old Leopard 2A4 and PT-91:
(black - Leopard2A4 white - PT-91)
 

 
 
 
 

Hard to tell this by words,  very simple tank, very easy autoloader, looks like "mamoth" in "red alert" game, but with engine in front, next year.

Real project of 80-s era, 2 X125 mm + 30 mm AP.
 

Well sometimes knowledge in silver but shut the fuck up is pure gold. That what I think about those on AW forum.
 
Point by point:
 
Yes, mostly true.
PT-91M/M1 have better vs KE armour then Leopard 2A4 and as base armour - mucht more weaker then L2A4 against HEAT. But PT-91M/M1 whit ERAWA-2 is mucht better protected then Leopard 2A4. Sad, but it's fact. But from the other hand - Leopard 2A4 outdated PT-91 in all other aspects and tank crews don't event want to lisen about T-72M1/PT-91/Pendakar tank. They just want's Leo-2.
 
 
yes, it's true in case old 2A4.
 
No, not true. AMAP-B is OK, "base armour" in Leopard 2A4 is shit -that's the problem.  Whole protection accoding to polish PGZ shoud be "over 2A5 level" but on test WITU dicover that is not even on this level. Rest is classify but definetly AMAP-B is not problem...in relatio to weight is very good. 
 
 
Part of polish MoD is working on G2G whit USA about take  300-400 M1A1 and upgrade it in Lima.  Estimated cost is ~3bln $ It's forced against polish industry (PGZ want's to deal whit Germans or mod.PT-91M) or Army (they want Leopard 2 tanks). It's just slowly doing by last year - IMHO chance are 50/50 couse nobody (despite part od MoD) want's M1A1PL in Poland. 
 
 
 

so M113A3-style external fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle were not good enough for them, and also they decided against putting fuel tanks into engine compartment
 
 
Igel (Hegehog), Panther, MMWS...
some pics from early 2000s magazines:

XM2001 Crusader rusting somewhere.

On November 27, 1984, the MBT T-80U tank was officially accepted for service in Soviet army by order № 1184-301 of Central committee of Communist party of USSR and council of ministers.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80u.htm
 
Also this day by the order № №П83-300сс of Central committee of Communist party of USSR and council of ministers T-72B was officially accepted for service in Soviet army.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-72B.htm

https://m.blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221397823921
 
Original blog.

https://m.blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221397823921
 
Original blog.

According to different German authors (Rolf Hilmes, W. Spielberger, Frank Lobitz) the base armor used on the last batches of the Leopard 2A4 and on the Leopard 2A5 is based on "D" technology. The original armor package for the Leopard 2 (in "B" technology) remained in production until the 96th vehicle of the sixth production batch; starting with the 97th vehicle of the sixth batch, the new armor kit in "C" technology was used. The original Leopard 2A5 prototype (the KVT) was based on a hull made in 1987 as part of the fifth production batch, hence it was  made with the original base armor package, only the add-on parts made use of newer technology.

 
Beginning in January 1991, the tanks of the eight production batch with new armor in "D" technology were manufactured. These tanks were manufactured at the after the late Leopard 2A5 prototypes (TVM 1&2 Max., IVT) were manufactured, for which the new generation of armor has been developed ("D" technology), hence they used this type of base armor. The Leopard 2A5 KVT was send to Sweden, because the newer Leopard 2A5 prototypes were still being tested in Germany, this is the reason for the "German model" using inferior armor compared to the configuration ordered by Sweden (which apparently used "D" technology base armor + add-on parts). The Leopard 2A4 tanks with "D" technology can be identified by the side skirts - they are identical to the ones used on the later versions including the Leopard 2A5, 2A6 and 2A7.
 

(Leopard 2A4 with "D" type armor)
 
The production model of the Leopard 2A5 tanks for the German army was created by mating Leopard 2A4 hulls from the last production batches (with armor in "C" or "D" technology) with turrets from the earliest production batches. The old turrets are used, because they require extensive rework during which the base armor is replaced with new modules in "D" technology. This actually means that some Leopard 2A5 hulls might be better protected than other. There are no add-on armor modules on the German Leopard 2A5 hulls, because it was scheduled for adoption at a later time, it would have been added simultaneously with a new turret with the 140 mm L/48 NPzK smoothbore gun, as this would already require a more extensive rework of the hull (for example modifying the ammo racks to be suitable for 140 mm two-piece ammunition). The Leopard 2A7V will be the first German version too feature hull add-on armor modules, although this might be "E" or "F" type armor.
 
 
I haven't seen any texts, but a set of photographs of an armor array being tested. It consists of a thick steel plate, a large box labeled "Sonderpanzerung" (special armor), two further thick steel plates followed by a number of several other plates, some of which appear to be non-metallic. I was told that the thick steel plates have a relatively low hardness, but are used to simulate thinner plates of very high-quality (and very expensive) ballistic steel. There is no external armor module.
In front of the armor array is a sign from the German WTD saying that this array is being tested against the LKE1 APFSDS at a range of 2,000 meters.
 
The other photos show the three thick steel plates after the armor array was hit: one shows the exterior of all three plates, each showing the marks of the APFSDS penetrator. Another photograph shows the inner side of the three thick steel plates: two of them have been completely penetrated, while the other one has only a dent of the APFSDS penetrator. There is also a ruler/measurement rod, which suggest that the "Sonderpanzerung" is about 500 mm thick only. The steel plates are about 100 mm thick, but supposedly they are made of mild steel; the actual ballistic steel would be some fancy type of high hardness/triple hardness steel providing a much higher level of protection per weigth and thickness.
 
I actually haven't seen any proof that this armor belongs to the late Leopard 2A4 tank, but I consider the source very trustworthy. This armor was supposedly offered during the early 1990s as a cheap upgrade option to several Leopard 2 users, who didn't want to pay for the more expensive Leopard 2A5 upgrade, which is why I believe this is the "D" technology armor. According to different authors, there are (unconfirmed) rumors about the late Leopard 2A4 armor featuring titanium and tungsten, which might be broadly similar in to the DU armor of the M1A1 HA (at least the M1A2 SEP uses titanium to allow improving the armor protection without increasing the mass of the armor considerably). It is worth noting that AFAIK only the Leopard 2A4 with "D" technology is actually heavier than the Leopard 2A4 with "B" technology, apparently by 1.45 tonnes (at least the weight 56.6 tonnes has been quoted for the late Leopard 2A4). The M1A1 HA upgrade is heavier, but might cover more surface area and might have initially lacked the titanium weight saving measure.
 
I know that the "I have access to secret sources" argument is very weak, but the details about this armor come from a source that is located in one of the countries to which the Leopard 2A4 armor upgrade was offered during the 1990s. As it was never purchased by this country, the documents have only a low level of classification (IIRC every tank commander can access them).
 
 
As far as I know it should be hollow, at least for the early version of the Leopard 2.