Militarysta

2S18 Pat-S, an experimental precursor to the 2S31.  Armament was a SA61 152mm howitzer.
 

 

T-62 with Schotte Nr.1 and Nr.2 vs 64mm HL(Standsprengung) 
 
Standsprengung some test SC ? 
 
Hull front have Schotte Nr.1 spaced at 80mm from it
Hull side have  Schotte Nr.2 spaced at 580mm from it
 
https://imgur.com/a/UyHWKWm
 
maybe somebody have info about 64mm SC penetration ?  based on Panzerfaust Lanze grenade ?
 
T-62 with Schotte Nr.1  vs 96mm HL(Standsprengung Milan) 
Hull side have  Schotte Nr.1 spaced at 580mm from it
https://imgur.com/a/7K6OFoh
 
T-62 with Schotte Nr.1  vs 84mm HL DM32(Carl Gustav) 
https://imgur.com/a/iUe7WDK
 
T-62    vs 44mm HL DM22(Panzerfaust Lanze) 
 
https://imgur.com/a/TN35EdR

It's even more complicated. Upgrade of polish 2A4 and 2A5 is forced by lack of spare parts in Leoben stocks. That's the true reson of forced 2PL program and now "quiet" mod our 2A5.
In case PT-91/T-72M1 is simmilar problem.
Look: it's detailed description which main components of the T-72M1 where produced during WarPac times:
 
Turret:
 

 
 
Hull:

 
 
 
PRL = Poland
CSRS = Chechoslovakia (now Chech Republic and Slovakia) 
NRD = DDR
ZSRR = CCCP (Soviet Union)
WRL = Hungarian Poples Respublic
"zespoły produkcji niezależnej" - "free production parts (open on market?)"
 
 

It's even more complicated. Upgrade of polish 2A4 and 2A5 is forced by lack of spare parts in Leoben stocks. That's the true reson of forced 2PL program and now "quiet" mod our 2A5.
In case PT-91/T-72M1 is simmilar problem.
Look: it's detailed description which main components of the T-72M1 where produced during WarPac times:
 
Turret:
 

 
 
Hull:

 
 
 
PRL = Poland
CSRS = Chechoslovakia (now Chech Republic and Slovakia) 
NRD = DDR
ZSRR = CCCP (Soviet Union)
WRL = Hungarian Poples Respublic
"zespoły produkcji niezależnej" - "free production parts (open on market?)"
 
 

Two countries, it's from Leoben info so I don't want to precise it public. Sorry, not yet.
More or les two 2A6 users "discover" that in LCC  is better idea to buy new 2A7V+ then upgrade old Leos. IMHO it's possbible that 2A7V+ have some major armour changes and it's not possible to upgrade old hull and turret structure to this level - I have no evidence, it's just my thought.

Reuploaded pics from Wiedzmin post above to imgur, for those who have problems with display of pictures from VK.

 
 

New FragOut! magazine in english:
 
 
New FragOut! magazine in english.
 
Two, may be, interesting articles (in english):
 
page 32:
Whiter now for the Anti-Tank defense in Poland? Written by myself.
 

 
 
and
page 48
Hybrid warfare written by my friend - Michał Piekarski
 
apart this -many other articles - for exmaple about new polish rifle "GROT" (MSBS) in army etc.
 
 

Polish Armoured Forces:
 
now:

 
 
 
in 2026:

 
DZ- Mechanizated Division
DKPanc - armoured cavalery division
 
BZ - mechanizated brigad
BOW - brigade of costal defense
pa - artilery regiment
pplot - airdefense regiment
plog - logistic
BKPanc - armoured cavalery brigade
BSP - montain infanty brigade (whit BWP-1 and T-72M1 and Rosomak)
 
EDIT- on soecond draw - brigades "BZ" whit numbers:
12 and 17 and15 and  21 are  wheeld on APC Rosomak   

A few absolutly astonishing photos made by Rafał Mniedło  - press officer form 11 Lubuska Dywizja Kawalerii Pancernej
 


 
 

A few absolutly astonishing photos made by Rafał Mniedło  - press officer form 11 Lubuska Dywizja Kawalerii Pancernej
 


 
 

Polish Armoured Forces:
 
now:

 
 
 
in 2026:

 
DZ- Mechanizated Division
DKPanc - armoured cavalery division
 
BZ - mechanizated brigad
BOW - brigade of costal defense
pa - artilery regiment
pplot - airdefense regiment
plog - logistic
BKPanc - armoured cavalery brigade
BSP - montain infanty brigade (whit BWP-1 and T-72M1 and Rosomak)
 
EDIT- on soecond draw - brigades "BZ" whit numbers:
12 and 17 and15 and  21 are  wheeld on APC Rosomak   

Yes.
The reson is simple - accuracy. Heavy gun mantled mask will couse some balnace problem - of course wy can weight good gun whit some countr-balance but whole solution weight a lot - like in Rh120. And this forced more powerfull stabilisation mehanism or a little bit slower in case micro -movment. In Leclerc ultra light gun mantled mask provide better gun ballance and ability to have very fast but very small in amplitude gun movments -so accuracy aspecially in move is better.
Second problem is gun vibration after shooting. Heavy gun mantled mask made some problem whit this - like in case L55 on Leo -wich is less accuracy then old L44... all is coused by vibration on ultra-long barrel after shooting. Agian - heavy gun mantled mask make some problem whit vibration reduction, light gun mantled mask + shorter gun in Leclerc = no sucht problem.
And third part of answer - Leclerc was highly redy for 140mm gun.

105mm APFSDS from smoothbore vs T-62
 
 
 
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/
 
for comparsion test of same APFSDS in Sweden

Thanks, very interesting. So multi-layered Schottpanzerung relied on using multiple of same type of Schotte armor arrays in the tests (not mixing different types). Also at 800 meters distance the 105 mm APFSDS penetrates 165 mm steel armor according to TL-2350-001 (i.e. 340 HBW) at 60° (330 mm thickness along line of sight).

A few absolutly astonishing photos made by Rafał Mniedło  - press officer form 11 Lubuska Dywizja Kawalerii Pancernej
 


 
 

@UP
The second option.
 
More or less values confirmed in sevral documents give us sucht picture:
 
NATO:
Leopard 2A0-2A4:
350mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (hull and turret)
Challenger 1:
435mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (turret)
300mm vs APFDS i 500mm vs HEAT (hull)
M1:
400mm vs APFSDS  i 750mm vs HEAT (turret)
350mm vs APFSDS i 750mm vs HEAT (hull from FMV files - to validation)
Leopard 2A4 late  + all older 2A0-A4 after factory F6 
420mm vs APFSDS and 800mm vs HEAT (hull and turret )
 
And Soviet muniotion it those days:
APFSDS-T (all for 2km)
3BM9 1969 240 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM15  1972 310 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM26 1985 410 mm RHA for 60 deg. 450 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM32  1987 (serial prod.) 500mm RHA for 60 deg.
3BM42  1988 (serial prod)  440mm stali for 60 deg. - but this round was developed to overpas NERA armour so RHA eqivalent give us nothing.
ATGM:
9M113  1974 ~600 mm RHA
9M114 1976 650 mm RHA
9M112  1977 600 mm RHA
9M111M  1980 600 mm RHA
 
And really funny is when we put in  compare T-64B, T-72A, T-80B and...T-80U and T-72B. More or less soviet tanks where mucht more better armoured vs KE but main armour where circa 30% less vs CE then in western tanks...up to T-80U and T-72B where CE protection was on par whit western ones.

In case DM33 (again - tested in Poland vs T-55AM Merida) - no doubt 2km penetration. The same Spike (700mm RHA warhed).
 
But in case older rods - interesting question! I will conisder German DM23 and DM13.
BDD Armour have layout:
60mm HHS and then 4 to 5 (dependet on angle) 5mm HHS palte spaced by 23mm melt in polymer. For most typical angle those plates wher sloped whit effective thickens (LOS) ca 10mm  so we had space layout 60+ 10 + 10 +10 + 10 + possible another 10 mm - more or less 100-110mm RHA maybe 120 on some anagle. BDD module is mounted 40mm from turret front. 
This You know:

 
So for T-62 we have at least 100-120mm RHA in spaced alyout + 40mm air gap  +  200 -157mm cast steel.
 
DM23 have
DM23 have circa 360mm long rod from tungsten alooys and DM13 had main part whit lenght only 230mm. How mucht RHA both can overpas? 
Finally I have hard data that at point blank whit V=1650m/s DM23 overpas 420mm RHA. [end hard data]
In 2km it was circa 380mm in 60 degree slopped plate(this is assumption)  
DM13? Still no hard data - we just can assume it should be circa 300-310mm in 60 degre plate but no evidence still. As I remember M774 should overpas ca 320-340mm in the same condition but it's estimatous not "hard data".
 
So DM23 should on typical Fulda Gap range 800m-1km overpas BDD armour on T-55AD/AM or T-62 whit BDD. But if DM13 was able to do this? Interesting question cose RHA penetration on 2km for this round should be equal to thicknes of BDD+Main armour on T-62. But spaced layout always will be mucht powerfull then RHA plates whit the same number of mm bot in one stack. On the other hand - on 800m Dm13 should overpass more then 320mm RHA... 
 
 
 

BM15 and BM22 was tested in Germany and Poland and definetly no - this round fails completly against spaced and spaced + NERA targets. About this I have no single doubt. -NERA just cracked whole penetrator  and set tungsten subrod in non linear way - so it hit backplate mostly its no front but side way. But im not so sure about BM26 - this roudnd was developerd to overpas I gen western special armour and completly diffrent build (whit stungsten subrod (od slug) in tail not in nose like in Bm15/22 was made to burst all NERA layers and made situation "tungsten sub rod vs backplat only". God idea and IMHO against erly Leporad 2A4 ot CR1 hull - enought. 
From some polish doc I just now that Germans in 1988 just...forgot about NERA layers and start to use ceramic tiles in sevral layers and shapes to incarase protection against long rod monolitic WHA and DU rods  - it was thread more dengour then estern partial rods. From other side - BM42 and BM32 was very heavy enemy and IMHO since KWS Leopard 2 was not protected agianst them.

BM15 and BM22 was tested in Germany and Poland and definetly no - this round fails completly against spaced and spaced + NERA targets. About this I have no single doubt. -NERA just cracked whole penetrator  and set tungsten subrod in non linear way - so it hit backplate mostly its no front but side way. But im not so sure about BM26 - this roudnd was developerd to overpas I gen western special armour and completly diffrent build (whit stungsten subrod (od slug) in tail not in nose like in Bm15/22 was made to burst all NERA layers and made situation "tungsten sub rod vs backplat only". God idea and IMHO against erly Leporad 2A4 ot CR1 hull - enought. 
From some polish doc I just now that Germans in 1988 just...forgot about NERA layers and start to use ceramic tiles in sevral layers and shapes to incarase protection against long rod monolitic WHA and DU rods  - it was thread more dengour then estern partial rods. From other side - BM42 and BM32 was very heavy enemy and IMHO since KWS Leopard 2 was not protected agianst them.

@UP
The second option.
 
More or less values confirmed in sevral documents give us sucht picture:
 
NATO:
Leopard 2A0-2A4:
350mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (hull and turret)
Challenger 1:
435mm vs APFSDS i 700mm vs HEAT (turret)
300mm vs APFDS i 500mm vs HEAT (hull)
M1:
400mm vs APFSDS  i 750mm vs HEAT (turret)
350mm vs APFSDS i 750mm vs HEAT (hull from FMV files - to validation)
Leopard 2A4 late  + all older 2A0-A4 after factory F6 
420mm vs APFSDS and 800mm vs HEAT (hull and turret )
 
And Soviet muniotion it those days:
APFSDS-T (all for 2km)
3BM9 1969 240 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM15  1972 310 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM26 1985 410 mm RHA for 60 deg. 450 mm RHA for 0 deg.
3BM32  1987 (serial prod.) 500mm RHA for 60 deg.
3BM42  1988 (serial prod)  440mm stali for 60 deg. - but this round was developed to overpas NERA armour so RHA eqivalent give us nothing.
ATGM:
9M113  1974 ~600 mm RHA
9M114 1976 650 mm RHA
9M112  1977 600 mm RHA
9M111M  1980 600 mm RHA
 
And really funny is when we put in  compare T-64B, T-72A, T-80B and...T-80U and T-72B. More or less soviet tanks where mucht more better armoured vs KE but main armour where circa 30% less vs CE then in western tanks...up to T-80U and T-72B where CE protection was on par whit western ones.

yes there is several values, but it is better to give the real quotes and sources references , and not to draw it yourself so that it wouldn't raise questions and suspicions
 
and IIRC there no reports with 200mm for turret side from CE
 
i only seen this images on otvaga

@Molota_477

what is the poin to make fake/collages from real report which doens't contain such schemes ? real report contain only turret scheme and text description for CR1 turret, armour scheme was excluded from this report, only text and scheme of whole turret without protection levels, and report doesn't contain anything about "200mm at normal" and "480mm" IIRC
 

 
report also doens't give numbers for CR2 turret, only for CR1 MLI(yes it says that turret level more or less similar) but not for Cr2
 
 

My article in english about Carl Gustaf and NLAW - hope it will be interesting:
https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1115818-frag-out-magazine-24/47?

In the end of the article is interesting part about polish RPG-7 uses, stock nubers and...mobilisation numbers

My article in english about Carl Gustaf and NLAW - hope it will be interesting:
https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1115818-frag-out-magazine-24/47?

In the end of the article is interesting part about polish RPG-7 uses, stock nubers and...mobilisation numbers

My article in english about Carl Gustaf and NLAW - hope it will be interesting:
https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1115818-frag-out-magazine-24/47?

In the end of the article is interesting part about polish RPG-7 uses, stock nubers and...mobilisation numbers