Militarysta
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Militarysta
-
-
16 hours ago, Laviduce said:
BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.
I show You a magic trick:
2) tags: Leopard 2 armour EMES 15
3) WOOOHA:
all what You ask!
Magic!
-
2 hours ago, Laviduce said:
The orange and blue areas vary between 360 and 320 mm RHA KE resistance. The EMES 15, gunners periscope, and EMES 15 optical channel contribute primarily to these inconsistent values. I considered the left turret cheek the most heavily armored part of the turret. The 500 mm area covers only a relatively small area on the right turret front. I do not think they would consider such a small area necessarily the "toughest part of the turret" because it covers a relatively small area of the turret front.
Yyyy BS?
Armour block behind EMES-15 optic is 660mm thick. It's more then T-64B, T-72M1, T-80B turret armour (for 30.degree from longitiudal axis) - so it's hard do name it as "weak spot".
Place under EMES-15 optic is the same thic as right side - but whit just "space" for EMES-15. And i mesured it by myself. So rally - amrour protection for left snd right turret side is the same.
Gun mantled mask is far far understimated - it 420mm thick + "weige" after it. An only mask weight 630kg(!) (without gun, coaxial MG, itp -just only shield):
And when we compare this gun mantled mask dimensions and weight (ca 630kg) and known special armour features in compare to simple RHA weight
then gun mantled mask have protection between 230-270mm RHA vs KE and circa up to 460-540 vs CE...
+
steel plate after it of course
-
50 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
In fact @Militarysta estimated the protection as 410 mm RHA for the turret side when hit at 30°. The frontal armor is 570 mm according to his older estimate (510 mm when hit at 30°). His later estimate is at least 450 mm, but possibly 500 to 540 mm from the front.
The Leopard 2 has thicker armor than the M1 Abrams, it has heavier armor than the M1 Abrams, it is a smaller tank while weighing overall more. Still the M1 Abrams is confirmed to have 400 mm steel equivalent protection against KE (declassified US document). It is pretty much physically impossible that the Leopard 2 has less than that.
My offcial statsment is this:
"Całość powyższych szacunków można zawrzeć w wartościach odporności między 450 a 500 mm stali przeciw amunicji kinetycznej oraz prawdopodobnie aż do około 850 mm stali przeciw amunicji kumulacyjnej dla wersji Leoparda 2 od 2A0 do „wczesnego” 2A4"
translate:
All possible estimatous based on sevral facts can be put in to armour values between 450 and 500mm RHA vs APFSDS and propably up to 850mm RHA vs HEAT - for Leopard 2 version between 2A0 and erly 2A4.
-
On 19.09.2017 at 11:51 AM, SH_MM said:
Interessting that they still work on anti-KE performance, given that the ADS managed to defeat certain types of (simulated) APFSDS during tests already in 2007 according to German and Swedish sources.
Germans few yers ago had shown poles (and not only) abilities AMAP-ADS to stop DM63 from <200m distance.
The target was empty Leopard-2A4 hull and turret (only whit armour + ADS). There was sevral shoots from 120mm DM-63.
No perforation, the deepest mark from rebound long-rod have circa 50-80mm deep (mesured by hand for one polish officer there so inacurrate).
Anyway - ADS is able to stop long-rod even whit Vmuzzel = 1700m/s
-
-
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 exploatationYes, T-72 is crap.
yes, PT-91 is crap too
- Collimatrix, Molota_477 and SH_MM
-
3
-
http://witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2017/141/87.pdf
NALYSIS OF ENERGETIC PARAMETERS FOR ANTITANK KINETICAMMUNITION OF CONTEMPORARY BATTLEFIELDMariusz MAGIERWojskowy Instytut Techniczny UzbrojeniaMilitary Institute of Armament TechnologyThere is sevral mistakes in this pdf - for example last penetrator in Fig.2 is definetly NOT DM53... -
Polish simple NERA armour= better cut-viev:
the same descibe here:
W ramach sfinansowanego przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego pro-jektu rozwojowego nr 0019/T00/2008/06 zrealizowano w WITPiS program badań ekspe-rymentalnych z użyciem granatów PG-7M, o przebijalności stali RHA 300330 mm.
Przeprowadzono badania modelowych rozwiązań ekranów prętowych (rys. 1) i kaset typu NERA. Uzyskano rezultaty, dla których nie następuje przebicie pancerza
(...)
Kasety typu NERA mogą być obecnie stosowane dla cięższych pojazdów lub tylko fragmentami dla lżejszych (np. tylko do ochrony przestrzeni załogowej). Ze względu na ich budowę gęstość powierzchniowa tych rozwiązań wynosiła w trakcie badań od 220 do 390 kg/m2. Skuteczność kaset NERA jest znacznie wyższa od skutecz-ności ochronnej ekranów prętowych.
Porównując gęstości powierzchniowe opracowanych konstrukcji, uzyskano roz-wiązania o dużej efektywności masowej w stosunku do stali RHA. Przebijalność tej sta-li dla granatu PG-7M wynosi 300÷330 mm tj. 2340÷2570 kg/m2. Dla kaset typu NERA, licząc gęstość powierzchniową osłony razem z pancerzem kompozytowym i spall-linerem, można uzyskać ochronę o efektywności masowej ok. 4÷4,5. Zastosowane wy-kładziny wewnętrzne (spall-linery) skutecznie redukują kąt rozlotu odłamków, zmniej-szając tym samym poziom zagrożenia zranieniem dla większej liczby osób znajdują-cych się wewnątrz pojazdu.
TRANSLATE:As part financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education pro-development project No. 0019 / T00 / 2008/06 was carried out in WITPiS research program experimental with grenade PG-7M whit steel penetration - 300-330mm RHA.Conducted studies of model solutions screens pannels (Fig. 1) and the armour type NERA. The results obtained, for which there is no armor penetration
(...)
NERA cassette type can now be used for heavier vehicles or just for lighter fragments (eg. Only to protect the crew). Due to the construction of the density of the solution during the tests was between 220 and 390 kg / m2. The effectiveness of cassettes NERA is much higher than the effective-ness of the protective screens rod.
Comparing the density of developed surface structures obtained spread-linked with high efficiency mass relative to the RHA steel. Penetration of fixed-li for the grenade PG-7M is 300 ÷ 330 mm, ie. 2340 ÷ 2570 kg / m2. For cartridge type NERA, counting the density of the surface cover with composite armor and Spallliner, you can get the protection of the effectiveness of mass approx. 4 ÷ 4.5. O-used interior of the veil (Spall-liners) effectively reduce the angle rozlotu debris, reduce-stirring the same level of risk of injury to more people-smokers are inside the vehicle. -
Very very good video from polish SPH Krab:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07EVig2xQ8FdDZSWWVoeXdhVFk/view
(this video will be removed soon IMHO couse it is inner Polish Army video for artilery unit and there is to mucht shown in term C3 and BMS...)
so enjoy it or copy to another serwer ;-) -
On 19.08.2017 at 7:33 PM, Bronezhilet said:
No. The Panzerfaust 3IT-600 most definitely has a precursor designed to set ERA off since it A) has a copper liner and B) has a highly angled liner. As can be seen in a photo I took a while ago:
The Spike has a high-angle copper liner too:
And as we all (should) know, the Javelin has a precursor charge that isnt concentric with the main charge, thus it cannot be a non-initiating charge.
Have You consider fact that very offten models and cut-viev for exibitons are diffretn then "normal" or "regullar" weapons?
Pz3-IT600 have NIP (non initiating precursor) -what is known form manufacurer pdf....
Or it was changed and now it's slow-streeching-jet but cone angle is IMHO wrong fors sucht soltuion (presnt in JAGM and other)
-
@UP
Yes it's fdifficult couse tehere are diffrent linear inert whit difrent weight, size, and material - linear an HE:
ChSCzKW-34, ChSCzKW-34A, ChSCzKW-34N, ChSCzKW-19, ChSCzKW-19A, ChSCzKW-19N
number is size of linear and letter (or its lack) - type of linerar.
More or less -two size and 3 diffrent linear types. Not mentionet explosive.
-
-
New SPH Krab (Crab) in short videoclip.
Crews says that they are wery wery suprise ho god is K9 chassis whit hydropneumatic torsion - it's really good ant stabilisatin time after shoot is very short.
First 24 SPH's will be in service until december.
-
On 30.08.2017 at 3:05 PM, SH_MM said:
The PT-92M2 is supposed to be a modernization of the T-72M1 tanks operated in Polish Army, its a budget modernization only - this means adding new ERAWA ERA (some people talk about ERAWA-3, some mention currently existing ERAWA-2 ERA), new thermal sights and a laser warning system. That would mean it's actually worse than the PT-91M despite the name.
PT-91M2 is almoust exatcly ctrl+c/ctrl+v this what I suggest here:
(my article from 9/2015 for downloade for free - beta version so comenst under images are BS)
PT-91M2 is this what is needed by PolishArmy:
1) New gun from Konstrukta (2A46MS)
2) New sabilisation (EPS-97 Albatross or Ukrianian 2E42M -teh same as in Bulat's)
3) New or refresh FCS (new SAVAN or polish Drawa-TGA)
4) APU
5) Soft-kill Obra-3
6) SOD (system obserwacji dookrężnej) - double thermal/day cameras whit 360 degree around turret
7) slat/bar armour
8) maybe ERAWA-3 (so polonisated Knive/Duplet)
About prices - valuse form Malaysian contract from 2002-2004:
EPS stabilisation - 130k EURO
SKO SAVAN-15 + Vigy 821k EURO // or Drawa TGA - 1,2 mln PLN
125mm 2A46MS - 110k USD
turret non-retractile bearing - 60k Euro
ERAWA complet (142k PLN)
Obra-3 23,75k USD
etc -
-
On 29.07.2017 at 7:41 PM, Ramlaen said:
Did the 740mm penetration figure for CHARM 3 originate from a publication(?) called JCollins?
Oh no no no not Collins anymore.
This 740mm is from orginall Russian sources but there is "*" mark there in this CHARM3 value whit coment that it's really estimatous.
-
22 hours ago, chihab said:
thank you very much for the informations and sources
and i will ask you for your source about that Kornet and Metis-M have a non initiating precursor
and in your article in otvaga 2004 you said that RPG 28 and 29 have a non initiating precursor too i wish if you give me the source too
Yes, it was some polish military press article - when I finf it I will post here.
ps. Yes, Im still alive whit my broken english
-
It's very possibe that Poland will buy 53 spanish Leopard 2A4.
Those tank will be rebuild and upgrade to 2PL in 2021-2023.
Now there are negotiation between polish and spanish MoD aboit those tanks, tankers are rather opposide to thise plans - those spanish tanks are in very very bad condioton so facotry rebulid + upgrade to 2PL propably will be cost close to buy new Leos from Germans...
Anyway - as I said -it's very possible that Poland will buy this 53 Leos.
-
neither version,
In Polish MoD opinnion change gun is pointless for cost reson - in result this one change we have almoust new tank whit all bad features from T-72 layout.
IMHO - goood decisoon to stay whit 125mm. Maybe it's limitedy by patronen lenght but it's much't more cost effective to stay whit 125mm.
-
-
Yes, Poland is looking now strong partner to participated in his IV gen tank program. There are sevral options but nothing sure now.
-
So, small update of Polish Armoured Forces program:
1) IFV "Borsuk" (Badger program)
The most important polish armured program couse still using obsolate BWP-1 IFV. The whole program have big turn couse MoD accused swiming requirement and now "Badger" will not swim and have combat weight around 40 metric tons. Two prototypes has been made in HSW Facotry and one of them have now test trials. It will be shown on MSPO exebition in sebtember in Kielce city in Poland. In this program is conected new polish RCWS turret (ZSSW-30) whit 30mm ATK-44 and 2x Spike ATGM. More or less, despite 24 months delay, all is correct in this program now.
2. Leopard 2PL program.
And here are first problem. But not whit tank on RH themselfs but rather on typical polish-poles war between two polish factories. What worse - cost modernization was underestimated couse polish Bumar factory must bought mucht more equipment and...personell then have. Bumar is trying to fell all on german side what couse bigger cost per one tank and MoD is angry for that. So in "time axis" whole program is corret and german partner is doing his job wery well but polish facotry (as ussallly..) fucked up it's part. Propably wil, be big turn in this program soon. Now circa 80 Leopard 2A4 are dismounted in factory and waiting for...polish factory competition growth :/
3. Armoured MGS vehicle on chassis platform "Gepard" ( cheetah)
Thanks God it was canceled
4. PT-91 tank and T-72M1 modernisation program.
Yes, yes, cheetah program was canceled what forced T-72M1 and PT-91 modernisation
T-72M1 modernisation will be wery limited - only night vision for gunner and passive for Tc + new programable radio and new amunition. And thats all.
In case PT-91 - the scope of the modernization will be done in July. Now there are 3 possible proposition waiting for MoD decision:
1st - PT-91MZ variant (scania engine+ renk, new FCS, new gun, new most tank components to be honest)
2th - limited modernisation: New gun, turret drives, stabilisathion, partially new FCS, turret ring, radio etc - so only fire power growth + C3
3th - most limited only "refresh" - FCS modernisation, new thermal cameras, amunition and mostly that all
Result will be known in June.
- Bronezhilet, Zyklon and SH_MM
-
3
-
-
The Leopard 2 Thread
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted