Militarysta

Well forum filters cought link.

Edit (by collimatrix who is awesome):

http://www.wso.wroc.pl/cgi-bin/expertus/expertus.exe4?KAT=%2Fhome%2Fexpertus%2Fbazy%2Ftwoj%2Fpar%2F&FST=data.fst&FDT=data.fdt&ekran=ISO&lnkmsk=2&cond=AND&mask=2&F_00=02&V_00=Wolski+Jaros%B3aw+

9 minutes ago, MrCatKK said:

 

 

Stop writing only one line, and start showing your knowledge PLEASE.

 

(but I forgot that there's always unicellular organism online too)

You can find my "knowledge " in most then 40 publication about tank, and armour.

Enought?

13 minutes ago, MrCatKK said:

Hey guys!

 

When you guys said this web site is for information I find out what you guys meant! 

I can only agree with you guys! isn't that Communism? I wonder?

So we are here to talk about something a random Chinese guy photoshoping Chi-Ri's chassis into Ho-Ri' top and argue about a real historian checking out real data in a nation archive.

you guys should be more knowledgeable than a piece of shit lying on a computer.

Also there might be multiple different Ho-Ri prototypes around like the one with angled armor and the one that's not.

If so all of you xthetenth Xlucine Belesarius Jeeps_Guns_Tanks should all eat shit and be shit.

WTF men?

Whole think starts here:

where user Waffentrager post fake shit based on langugae barier.

And thats the point - delibery making fake news and photoshoped "leaked documents" by Waffentrager

I had wrote to him/his/it what I think about sucht beheviors:

Quote

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

 

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

GTFO!!!

And Im still keep this opinion.

On 12.03.2018 at 10:30 PM, Laviduce said:

 

My 5 cent:

 

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m³ and 0.35 m³ respectively.

 

This image does not tell us enough:

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

 

 

 

 

Doubt.

Wiedźmin's job:

And I fully agree whit this above. No special armour in corner - just turret roof.

Oh, sucht way... o.O

Why may I ask?

Sorry, is here somebody from https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/ ?

I like this blog but whit some statsment hard to agree -but Im not pretend to have absosolut knowledge so I just wanto to discus some thesis about the soviet armour put there.

For example this:

Quote

Circular markings are visible in the photo below.

These are filler plugs. Evidently, "Kvartz" is poured into the armour cavity after the cheeks are cast. This is another good foundation to rule out sand as the filler substance, as there would be no need to pour sand into the cavity because sand is used in chill casting molds and it would not be necessary to remove the sand used in the casting process. The filler plugs may hint that a liquid was injected into the cavity where it takes the shape of the cavity and cools, but the injection of thermoplastics or some other molten substance is ruled out by the fact that the filler appears flaky or granulated when a cross section of the turret cheek was cut.

No, it's not.

Kvartz in T-72A and T-72M1 turrets pretend to be not solid, sand, or liquid but somethink known as sintered quartz. And it's definetly not put AFTER casting but before.

Firstly  sintered quartz ( quartz sinter) is formed - but whit 3 thick reinforcing bars  -then both "kvartz insert" are put to cast form and mounted there by this reinforcing bars  -then cast is formed and after taking whole turret those bars are just cut above turret roof line. And thats all.

It's look like this (sory for my amateur draw)

After very havey shelling sometimes this reinforcing bars are "jumping" above roof line -like in Meppen T-72M1 or other hit many times whit penetration in to "kvartz special armour". :

23 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

well there are well known photos showing the same STB hull as T-72A

Yes, and we don't know WHAT batch of  PT-91 is showing this photo:

And this:

Cluou: Polish PT-91 was menufacured in sevral batched whit diffrent armour filter acoding to multiple polish sources:

www.obrum.gliwice.pl/upload/downloads/spg/204/14-CHODKIEWICZ.pdf (2004)

(notice mr Karol Chodkiewicz was general enginer of PT-91 tank):

Older source (phd Wiśniewski) mantioned about CAWA2 armour (ceramics-steel) for hull and new turret.

And manufacurer polish matrial claims:

Quote

W celu zwiększenia zdolności obronnej czołgu zastosowano pancerz kompozytowy w wieży i płycie czołowej kadłuba oraz

pancerz reaktywny(...) W ściankach części odlewu wieży znajdują się wkładki kompozytowe zwiększające odporność pancerza na
przebicie pociskami pancernymi

What literally means: To incarase tank protection in takn was used composite armour in turret and hull front plate and aditional reactive armour (...) In parto of turret cast are placed composite inserts to incarease armour protection against penetration by AP rounds

PT-91 was introduced to Polish Army in 1993 and produced in sucht batch:

58 tanks between 1994 and 1996

58 tanks in 1997

7 tanks in 1998

33 tanks in 1999

50 tanks in 2000

20 tanks in 2001

7 tanks in 2002

48 malaysian tank in 2005-2009

And minor and major changes was:

1st batch - PT-91 -  92 tanks (new tanks)

2th btach  was PT-91M  introduced in half 1997 - 27 tanks: (new tanks)

3th bath after 1998 to PT-91M1 - 113 tanks (rebuild T-72M1)

4th "export" bath between 2004-2009 48 tanks  - but whit turret produced erlyer

So back to the point - PT-91 had 4 production bathes when one (3th after 1998 - 113 tanks) where just rebuild T-72M1 for cost resons,  part of the  1st bath (1994-1996) was like T-72M1 (and this bath photos we have) bath 4th (Malaysian) have definetly changed to ceramic inserts turret and hull armour (confirm in manufacurer sources) but...turret for this part where produced before 2000 So basicly -there was some armour change in 90's. based on CAWA2 armour 

ps. turret:

Again wery old photo from erly 1990s.

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

Well mamy people here  propably had remember trials when 4x shoot DM33A1 fails against PT-91M armour (Whit ERAWA-2) armour from 600m distance:

Some trials in pdf:

WSTĘPNA ANALIZA ZJAWISKA RYKOSZETOWANIA WYDŁUŻONYCH PENETRATORÓW POCISKÓW KINETYCZNYCH

Well it's seems that at leat 91-94 polish PT-91 (build in 90s) and all Malaysian PT-91M have new armour in turret and in hull. 

Accoding to manufacurer PT-91M have 500mm RHA vs KE on turret at 30. Hull the same.

Oh and one more think - I have heard that M1IP and M1A1 armour could be just NERA like in M1 but after that placed SiC bricks whit steel sheets - just to incarase protection mostly against KE. Meybye stupid rumors, meybe not.

This cermics-steel armour pretend to be only in turret and hull front placed AFTER NERA layers. AL something something tiles or corundium bricks.

Somethink like this:

On 9.03.2018 at 10:46 AM, SH_MM said:

 

Methos, can You confirm (or not) is this really 2AV armour (hull)?

(right - polish smile NERA, left - pretend to be some german erly NERA armour)

Thickness added by some otvaga user:

Well firstly I was tniking it have no sense, but if we assume that 2AV indeed have max 300mm RHA at front then this layout have sense -

circa 190mm RHA + NERA + fuel tank (as I understand) after front armour.

Hull 2AV:

Well, Andriej - consider the fact that there is slighty diffrence between trying to keep some way of opspec due to our countries law resons and delibery mayking fake news based on language barrier. This last think makes me angry.

And in term this user it's not the first time -but on other forums (WoT gamers itp)

Anyway and back to the topic:

Photoshoped or not?

If not (Im doubt to be honest) we can se IMHO at least 3 NERA plates:

On 13.03.2018 at 5:52 PM, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

You are unlucky - in Wroclaw city where I live there is big LG corp factory whit many Korean Managers. And preatty close there is TAKATA and Toyota big factories.

Funny I know people who know both - Korean and Japaneese language. And I had ask them about this whit kindly ask for translate.

It cost me a lunch. 

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

GTFO!!!

1 hour ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

Sure but it's not consist whit values from Lindstorm and FMV:

Leopard 2A0-A4 ( till 1988) for +/- 30. from longitiudal axis:

20% front area more then 400mm RHA

30% front area circa 380mm RHA

ca 50% 300-350mm RHA

1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

 

BTW - IMHO Your draw rather should have sucht values:

44 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Great but i used the Leopard 2 plans provided by Rolf Hilmes and  measurements.

Yes, i had tried to do the same using all posible plans. And finnaly - it was nacessery to go and masured it by myself couse mesure made on draw was really inacurrate.

IMHO real measure tape on real tank is final in therm of the LOS thickness...

Unfotunatly I haven't opportunity to measured  other crew station despite driver  -slopped inner backplate is starting 3cm from edge of the hatch. 

BTW - it wasnt the one Leopard 2A4 measured by myself:

1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

This diagram above is not totally consistent with what i have here:

 

 

 

 

Sweet but I had mesured it on REAL Leopard 2A4:

https://zapodaj.net/fb111a0b1d0fa.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/30762558935f5.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/f5c200b6c64e1.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/716460c5d1b8c.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/2271c871df3f8.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/a606e3d00f632.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/f221e10d35d07.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/d892de33beacf.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/2e430aeaacc5e.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/cb414c13f107e.jpg.html

etc itp

BTW - front hull was 600-620mm thick but I have not photo couse pissed off sergant (military woman...) almoust shoot me down for making sucht photos whit measure tape

And text  "back to the kitchen" wasn't the best idea to be honest...

btw2 -inner masuremend to find where is backplate and how thick it is:

https://zapodaj.net/f6cb1974e3b75.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/c68bdfea955af.jpg.html

https://zapodaj.net/fff0d8b7c7f67.jpg.html

@UP

Value for L2A4 is not consist whit LOS thickness:

So @

Laviduce

- hull upper glastic is at least 320mm RHA, turret roof - no less then 320mm RHA too (my 580mm could be overestimeted - there is no more then 50mm RHA on this part of the roof -not 70mm *my mistake).

-  left and right turret side are equal - only weaker point is armour block behind EMES-15 sight -650-  660mm LOS

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

@skylancer-3441 Seems like R. Lindström (accidentally?) uploaded some (formerly?) claissified documents in his original presentation. That confirms that the diagram is real, @Militarysta

 

Yes, and Im happy that it's indeed not fake. On the other said - sombady who I know was so pretty sure that it is fake... As we can see - no, it's not, it's real and to be honest - it's now the most reible source about western armour...

And it's amazing to be honest. Really amezing.

@UP,

Yes, im in 99,5% sure it's fake.

On 6.03.2018 at 6:26 PM, Sovngard said:

Where did this come from ?

 

Guys, this draw is FUCKEN FAKE

Photoshoped by WoT gamers from Russia.

Ok, respect for sucht fake but anyway -it's fake and bullshit.

So sad, but no -we know nothing sure still.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

So it seems the side armor has a thickness of about 300 mm at the crew compartment, while the thickness at the bustle is about 400 mm. The armor seems to have different composition depending on location:
 

Yes, it's true: