Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    1,227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

SH_MM last won the day on November 24

SH_MM had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About SH_MM

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

6,214 profile views
  1. This was a proposal to up-armor the Chieftain using Burlingon (Chobham) armor in the late 1960s. The shape of the turret resulted in really poor armor coverage, hence the idea was abandoned in favor of developing a new variant of the Chieftain with built-in Burlington armor.
  2. Same performance at +15°C... https://web.archive.org/web/20101220161356/http://rheinmetall-defence.com/pdfengine/product.php?fid=1465&lang=3 You can use the web.archive.org for Rheinmetall's website to verify this. This exact screenshot is taken from a pdf generated using the 2010 version of the website. As the internet wayback machine of web.archive.org is a little bit unstable, the link might not work on the first try. The additional 80 m/s velocity is possible when raising the chamber pressure; the DM63A1 is designed to also work with weaker gun systems
  3. No, this never was the original premise behind the development of the L/55A1 gun. As written in Military Technology (Wehrtechnik) issue 2/2017: "Minor changes include an improved L55A1 gun, which will give 20% higher penetration capabilities with next-generation APFSDS projectiles, known as KE2020 (DM73)." The 20% figure from Rheinmetall always has been based on the KE2020 round, even before the Leopard 2A7V variant with the L/55A1 tank gun was ordered for the Bundeswehr. The KE2020 prototypes feature longer, heavier rods (for example as reported by a Polish magazine in 2017 t
  4. The source you referenced spoke about 2,200 m/s rather than 2,000 m/s though... Performance as in penetration scales linearly with KE, if the shape of the penetrator is designed to optimize it. As Rheinmetall doesn't measure penetration using steel, but rather focuses on complex armor arrays only (customers have to pay extra, if they want a test campaign against pure steel targets), it would be easier to achieve a 20% increase in penetration than actually achieving a 20% higher muzzle energy. As stated in the presentation (which was not a press release, but a
  5. Penetration doesn't scale linear to muzzle velocity - just look at the equation from Lanz & Odermatt. For the DM53, the increase in muzzle velocity when fired from the L/55 rather than the L/44 barrel is less than 5%; the improvement in armor penetration is quite a bit greater than 5%...
  6. Switzerland has decided to fund a lifetime extension program for the SPz 2000 (CV9030 Mk. 2): Source: https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/7792-life-extension-programme-for-swiss-cv90.html
  7. I post my question here, because it probably doesn't apply to man-portable ATGMs: How are the warheads of missiles like Hellfire, Spike-LR/ER and MMP (and potential similar Asian systems) fuzed? Just wondering because HOT-3 and PARS-3LR utilized an interesting system to gain optimum stand-off (determining the distance using optical sensors i.e. lasers and then fuzing at most ideal point).
  8. When was this confirmed? Two years ago, Rheinmetall still spoke only about the possibility to adapt the L/55A1's improved technology to the shorter gun. Are you sure that you don't confuse the L/44A1 with the L/55A1? There aren't many mentions of the DM63+ (sometimes written DM63Plus). It was announced during a conference IDEX 2017 with an expected service readiness of 2019 while KE2020 (DM73) was expected to be ready for service by 2022. Several news outlets from that time including Jane's IHS, picked up on the story. Since then it has been rarely mentioned.
  9. Negative. The DM53A1 was introduced after the DM63. It is a modification of the original DM53 using the new SCDB propellant first introduced with the DM63. All DM53A1 were created by converting existing rounds. The DM63A1 is a new version of the DM63 designed to be compatible with all 120 mm smoothbore guns without modifications, whereas the DM63 only worked with the L/55 and modified L/44 guns as per old Rheinmetall press releases: "Dank eines neuen Antriebs kann die DM63A1-Wuchtmunition – im Gegensatz zu allen bisher weltweit verfügbaren Munitionstypen – nicht nur in der jün
  10. The DM63A1 is in service since 2014 (in Greece, since 2015 in Germany). It is not a very new round. It also can be fired by the L/44 gun of the Leopard 2A5/Leopard 2PL and modified Leopard 2A4 tanks. The DM63+ will take advantage of the higher pressure limit of the L/55A1, the DM63A1 does not.
  11. I don't think the camera angle can explain the difference. In the photograph I posted, the hollow space occupies about 30% of the total thickness along the line of sight... that is despite the fact that most of the armor is closer to the camera and hence perspective distortion enlarges it a bit. In your image, the hollow space accounts for 22% of the total line of sight. Your protection "ideas" are way to optimistic and not based on any real life incidents. They read like the old and massively over-exaggerated protection estimates of the past. Based on the Ch
  12. It is not an autoloader, but a semi-automatic ammo rack. The ammunition is stored in a separate compartment, the gunner or loader selects the desired type of round, then the mechanism pushed the round into the crew compartment, where the loader takes it. Similar system is also used on Merkava 4.
  13. Note that in this image, there is a steel coverplate at the side of the module. If this is identical in size to the actual armor (or a bit larger) is hard to tell. Subjectively the empty space seems to be quite a bit smaller compared to the image I posted where no coverplate is fitted. The point is that the Merkava 4 has been described - by media and in articles written by IDF officers - as a new generation of tank with significantly higher level of all-round protection, basically matching what earlier generations achieved along the frontal arc onl
×
×
  • Create New...