Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Militarysta

  1. ATGM Spike LR fire from ZSSW-30 turret based on Rosomak APC.
  2. Yes, turret frotn is rather like this: Turret sides - definetly:
  3. 1) In table are mixed values form estern and western block - but in fact the only one big diffrence is slighty overestimated soviet turrets vs KE due to using as referencial non-monoblock APFSDS-T in Soviet Union. Rest is showing just some general level of the frontal protection. What is more important - those table data are based on RADE, CIA, and Soviets orginal data. Have You have something better? I don't. 2) and 4): Indeed - "safe angle" in Mk.1 is smaller and in article it's mentioned very clearly: 3) IMHO nope, those thickenss have fluent value :-) It's mucht bigger in lower past of the cast (ca 80mm) and the thinnest in upper part, again - it was noticed: IMHO it wil be easier if you just read whole article not only tables. And those Mk.1 part:
  4. It's my old work from circa 2016 and it's not very accurate IMHO. It's based on NTW magazine draw and my own estimatous but mostly based on otvaga topic about israeli armour.
  5. Hi, My point of wiev (in english) about Merkava Mk.I Hope that without bigger mistakes Here: The myth of Merkava - FragOut! magazine.
  6. IMHO you are looking to far. South Korea have (without doubt) two armour technology: 1) K1 and K1A1 so basicly america NERA, and looking at thickenss im preatty sure that is well known NERA from M1 in general shape or style: 2) T-80U from SU or it's late variant. So basily second or experimental third lyout: For me it's sure that in worst scenario A+B armour type will give quide good protection and in K2 we have two nice chamber: IMHO NERA in 1st chamber + layout form 30 degree from T-80U/UD in second one (special armour only) and voila - we have resonable vs KE and CE armour whit no tehnical risk. And cheap.
  7. https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1281650-frag-out-magazine-30/5? My article about 17 years Wolverine in service. So all about difficult APC Rosomak in Poland. Enjoy!
  8. Longer post in sevral parts. Rosomak wheeled IFV and APC in Afghanistan. Between 2006 and 2014 to Afhganistan where sent 181 "Rosomak's" so 1/3 of overal production between 2005 and 2014. Maksimum number vehicles in Afhganistan where 134. More then 20 where totall loses, and 40 was heavy damages. Couple of the pictures below (opspec ones anf whit fallen soilders will be not posted.) Famous blue on blue, 30mm APFSDS from other Rosomak, whole turret penetration, no KIA and what was mirracle no WIA o.O: After small AP mine (soviet green parrot propably) After 2x PG-7, no KIA sevral light WIA, home made bar amrour mostly faild: PG-7: No KIA light WIA Sevral diffrent APCs after light IED: Damage vehicle taking home, after exams - totall los (bent hull and frame structures): Damege gun station after PG-7 hit and others hits: (again - no KIA ) Side armour after hit: IED no KIA: IED no KIA, WIA: Massive IED, KIA and WIA: Massive IED KIA and WIA: Huge IED but no KIA, after that vehicle canibalizated and blow up in A-stan: Massive IED. Sevral heavy WIA no KIA:
  9. IMHO only 35deg couse the overall LOS is too small for 0 deg.
  10. IMHO the point it's diffrent - those younger test station it's only new ERA (or diffrent slopped) before a lot of the RHA. This older test station (T-80U "turmfront") have some special armour inside this box after ERA. So it's completly diffrent target...IMHO more relevant in compare to tank
  11. It's test target from Germany (RHM) pretend to be russian tank , a lot of RHA...in compare to turret front of the T-80U test station here: (RHM erly 1990s)
  12. Next part part of poor quality photos:
  13. My old photos of the polish Leopard 2A4
  14. Part two ;-) Vehicles during trials before army had take them - so they are without camouflage yet.
  15. Sevral of my photos - Command RAK-SMK vehicle shooting GAk-81 camouflage granade: GAk--81 empty case:
  16. As I know it's the main way in modern SC warhed. Typical explosive fill and HHS plates in ERA are to sow to disturb jet tip. And jet tip is responsible for most penetration posibilities... IMHO the reson was diffrent in case german PzF-3. Thay had started developed PzF-3 in 1978(!) and first prototypes went in1982-1983 and trials in 1985. But first production series where from 1989 but it take to service in german army in 1992. All dalay was due to 2s21 tests and abilities. And this precursor based on EFP style SC was developed to overcome thin ERA Kontakt 1 casette and reactive plates inside. And it works fine. The "zonk" was after T-80U tests in Germany and Swedish trials in 1992. So they changed precursor and it didn't work well against 4s22 and ERAWA-2. Co they changed againt to non-initiating SC (low granulate) and in 2005 serial Pz-3IT600 had new abilities and defeted ERAWA-2 without problem.
  17. No details, usally "super fast SC" is more then 10,5km/s No, this ERAWA-2 from your post is lightweigt version based on aluminium alloy casette and HHS throwable plates. Normal ERAWA-2 is based on HHS casette.
  18. Well from my article in FO! :https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1150145-frag-out-magazine-25/79? There is description. Generally - prototypes of Pzf-3T and IT600 has faild vs ERAWA in 2000 (losing 50% penetrating power) but finall PzF-3IT600 whit new main "super fast" SC perforated in 2007 ERAWA-2 without any problem (lost only ca 100-150mm RHA).
  19. http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2020/151/97.pdf The reduction of the armour system mass was estimated to 32-37%due to the use of the innovative grade of steel.
  20. Posted by myself before polish made "new" 120mm Pz."xx" round: Ca 620-640mm RHA at 2km slopped 60@ plate , but there are some news -it's two segmented as Pz.541 but this time eacht segment is made from slighty diffrent WHA alloy whit diffrent abilities to overcome diffrent type of armour: In 0. degree RHA plate this round shoud achive at least 530mm RHA: It's correct whit statsment about 600mm RHA + (and rummors about up to 640mm RHA) in @60 degree plate couse difrence between infinity 0. plate and ended slopped 60 degree plate is ca 17-20% in achived penetration.
  • Create New...