Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Militarysta

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    392

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Militarysta

  1. Militarysta
    Im not sure - some sources claim 6ths place but then polish 11 div. press info had claimed that polish team was "not the last one" and some other soilders from 34 tank bde claim 4th place. So Im a little confused...
  2. Militarysta
    Polish 11 Div. press info claims that Poles have 4th place - any confirmation? 1) Austria 2) Germany 3) USA 4) Poland 5) France 6) Ukraine
  3. Militarysta
    1st Place: Austria / Bundesheer 2nd Place: Germany / Bundeswehr 3rd Place: United States / 1st Battalion 66th Armor Regiment "Iron Knights", 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (Iron Brigade)
  4. Militarysta
    This? I would rather siting in Nota then this...
  5. Militarysta
    Well in theory it is possible but with composite sabot: (second row) If this frencht round have sucht sabot?
  6. Militarysta
    Yes, in what language? English, Polish or Russian?
  7. Militarysta
    Andriej -as I understand test was made in 1983/1984? Why there was no introduced sucht sight in CCCP tanks before 1991? ps.check PM please
  8. Militarysta
    @Methos It may be interesting - relatio between lenght and penetration in APFSDS: Im interesting if we can assume that in @60 RHA plate penetration shoud be equal to monoblock penetrator lenght whit Vdrop circa 1650-1700m/s? If it's some siple "thumb rulle" :-) (joke) then we can assume some german round penetration: So DM33A1 ca 510mm RHA at 60@ DM43 ca 600mm RHA at 60@ DM53 ca 680mm RHA at 60. And BTW - polish WITU is still count penetration whit 75% not NATO (50%+1) so digrense is circa 8%, ant this ca.8% form value above is: 470mm RHA, 560mm RHA, etc...
  9. Militarysta
    50th shades of the CL 3254M and M711/8 MK.2 Orginall IMI: Indian copy: Indian: 1st copy: (on left) PpSv97 VETRA (upper one) Serbian clone: Polish one (PRONIT) It's interesting how the same sabot and penetrator can give difrrent values in sevral manufacurer data Polish trials shown 520mm RHA on plate slopped at 60@ Slovakia shown >550mm RHA Czeh shown - "more then 500mm RHA" etc And next puzzle: "New Nexter 125mm munition APFSDS": Claimed to have up to 600mm RHA (lol, yeh, sure...) And "old" Pakistani POF 125mm APFSDS: Looks quite simmilar - is't it? POF round gave 460mm RAH at 0. so in 60. it will have slighty more then 520-530mm RHA
  10. Militarysta
    You have been writing: " An effective cellular type “special armor” installed in turret cavities. (...) Due to “special armor” functioning peculiarities there is an intermediate plate dividing “special armor” cavity into two pats. Into each of them plates with cells filled with polymer resin are installed" So more or less Oplot-M turret armour is no diffrent then Ob.219AS? Polymer cels in cast BTK-1? Some information sugest completly difrent "special armour" in Oplot ;-) Rather simillar to the on of the T-80UD version whit SiC in steel sheets oraz cermaics in steel sheets. And how about hull? Factory welding shown obviously Duplet module and...space and STEF and backplate -nothing more to be honest.
  11. Militarysta
    Yes, Ok, but is this in any way conencted whit Molot? Im still crusious how to hell was conencted hull autoloader (in both driver sides) whit turret basket autoloader (this beteen Tk and gunner? Couse all is OK until momnt when we had tried to put autoloaders whit dimension 152mm ammo and space for crew inside tank.
  12. Militarysta
    Molot and Nota autoloader layout?
  13. Militarysta
    Im not sure is some values above are corret. Some book form Russia give diffrent values: STEF:
  14. Militarysta
    OK, so I will take it as real info. btw: Possible - so sorry for reproduce myth in this topic. I didn't chceck it in sources (credible). Anyway - my grandmother as only left in Poland in 1949 while rest children from 30 people school class went to Israeli - so meaby it was the reson why I didn't chceck it... :/
  15. Militarysta
    From South Korea Pz-3IT600 testes: first four layouts represent T-80U hull and turret lauout. It's shematic, but rather good represent. And this is T-80U hull layout (it was relase on otvaga so I can put here it:) ) - values in red and colors are made by myself. This is factory hull layout for late T-80U or erly UD - relase on otvaga as I remember. As You can see - the same as in South Korea pdf form PzF-3IT600 '
  16. Militarysta
    It's well describe in many sources - in Pz-3IT, Kornet, Metis-M, etc precursor is non initiating (not igniting ERA casette) - clou is to make a hole in ERA without igniting it. So linear is made not from Cu or Mo but teflon or other non-metalic linears. Whole "cumulative jet" made for such material have low densinity and in some way make big hole without igniting ERA. [img
  17. Militarysta
    440mm circa vs APFSDS. BTW - I have fun couse it seems that erly M1 was less protected (in term KE) then T-80B, T-72A, ect Of course CE (HEAT) protection was better but sitill - 90% of estimatous where so overboosted (to big) BTW - this only 30 degree taking acount are qutire misteken. For example - Your favorite T-64B - values given for 450-470mm LOS (psyhical thickenss) can be biger in 115 and 130% for 0.degree...
  18. Militarysta
    Well, spoken ukrainian is quite simmilar to polish so there is posiblle some mistake of course. What I'm sure - two "independent" sources (one from Russia and one from Ukraina) cofirmed that Ob.477A2 was not the end So there should be something more, or rather newest. BTW - cooperation break up between Russia and Ukraina in term IV gen tank was in circa 2001 so 16 yers ago...
  19. Militarysta
    @Methos What does this "R4/5/6/7" and "R12/13/14" mean? Are these two switches that need to be set on the corresponding value for firing? Yes. Where are they from and from what year are they? Rheinmettal internal presentaton from last decade Those photos where posted in some italian military press this year but it was known...slighty before it for tank oficers in Leoben. Now it is relased for public as we can see or someone in Rheinmettal Itally had very bad time in work The solid blue line is labeled "US-Schutz" (US protection), the solid red line is labeled "RU-Schutz" (Russian protection). If we take a look at the numbers, it appears that the German (?) estimates for US armor are much lower than the (IMO often overexaggerated) protection estimations from the internet. German (?) armor estimates vs KE: US tank pre-1980 (M60): 250 mm RHA US tank from 1980 (M1 Abrams): ~350 mm RHA equivalent US tank from 1985 (M1A1 Abrams): ~490 mm RHA equivalent US tank from 1992 (M1A2 Abrams): ~650 mm (!) RHA equivalent Soviet tank pre-1976 (T-64): 320 mm RHA equivalent Soviet tank from 1976 (T-80B?): 400 mm RHA equivalent Soviet tank from 1985 (T-72B): 520 mm RHA equivalent Soviet tank from 1987 (T-72B? T-80A/U?): 540 mm RHA equivalent Soviet/Russian tank from 1990 (T-80U with K5/T-90?): 720 mm RHA equivalent Interesting but it have no sense for my... First - we have that note: Ant turret armour is 400mm RHA ve KE. And we have 350mm in this presentation. It's really small value(!) It's really not conected even whot burlington files from UK and armour protected mentioned there... Russian protected can be true, but rather for hull then turret. T-64 have avarage 400mm RHA + for turret, but only 330mm for hull... 540mm is for T-72B turret, and slighty less for hull (520mm), 720 it was T-80U and T-80UD and Ob.187 whit Kontakt-5 ERA... This diagram is very inaccurate for me...or there is something which I don't known. Anyway - IMHO values for M1 are understimated... and not acoding to known relised CIA files in thema M1 Armour...
  20. Militarysta
    @UP Hull front, whit fuel tank inside. Rest of this document claimed that fuel tank inside was US idea and in Leo-2 and older - was replaced by armour block.
  21. Militarysta
    @UP Yes, IMHO it's explanation of this marks.
  22. Militarysta
    @UP Yes, it's possible, whole problem whit 2A4 mod to 2A6Ex and heavier variants it whit torsion bars and they mounted points in chassis - we have the same problem in Poland whit our 2A4. Turret is fine - you can place there even 140mm
  23. Militarysta
    @Methos T-72B3
  24. Militarysta
  25. Militarysta
    Your country Is made very clever think - it's refreshing reserve tanks. It's the same story like whit T-72B3 and B3M - for modernisation where takens tanks whit 0km resurs from army stock and those tanks where modernisated to T-72B3 and B3M, and present in active service tank are...rebuild and turned to "0km" resurs and sent to...reserve as mobilisation stock. More or less Russia have more then double tanks to mobilisated in compare to active tankt fleet. When we count central army mobilisation stocks then we have in Russian 3x more tanks then in active fleet + some "rubishied" tanks in deeper reserve - like T-64BW for Doniecks People Republic in 2014 oraz T-62M for SAA now. It's stiil more then 10k tanks.
×
×
  • Create New...