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

SH_MM

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,626

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    154

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
  2. SH_MM
  3. SH_MM
    So they use some plastic wrap/cling foil to prevent dust and dirt getting in the gun barrel?
  4. SH_MM
    No, it's Elbit ALWACS' VIRCM (Vehicle Infrared Countermeasure). https://elbitsystems.com/media/ALWACS.pdf
  5. SH_MM
    Yes, my bad. That happens when someone quotes just a single picture where the optics are covered... the other ones from the previous page make it obvious that this wasn't the topic of the discussion.
  6. SH_MM
    Laser warning sensors from Elbit Systems. Also used on other Merkava variants, the British Ajax and the TAM 2C upgrade.
  7. SH_MM
    "The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is continuing to improve the combat effectiveness of its fleet of ex-Bundeswehr Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs) with new capabilities, with the most recent addition revealed to be a commander's panoramic sighting system. At least two upgraded Leopard 2A4 MBTs - which are operated by the Singapore Army under the designation of Leopard 2SG - featuring the new system, called the Commander's Open Architecture Panoramic Sight (COAPS) were exhibited in public at the Army Open House 2017 (AOH 2017) event from 27-29 May. "COAPS is part of the SAF's effort to upgrade the Leopard 2SG since 2010," the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) revealed to Jane's in an 18 June statement. "Other ongoing upgrades include [the installation] of battlefield management system (BMS), crew compartment cooling system, auxiliary power unit [APU], reverse camera, internal vehicle electronics, and fire-control system [FCS] modifications." Singapore Army personnel with whom Jane's spoke to at AOH 2017 said the new sighting system is supplied by STELOP. The company is a subsidiary of Singapore Technologies (ST) Electronics, which is the advanced electronics and communication development arm of local defence prime ST Engineering. However, industry sources told Jane's that STELOP is manufacturing COAPS under license from Israel's Elbit Systems Electro-optics (ELOP), which has been offering the system on the international market since it was launched in March 2010. According to Elbit's specifications, COAPS is a modular dual-axis stabilised sight aimed specifically at armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) and MBT applications. Based on an open architecture design, it can be configured with different sensors, including 3-5 µm or 8-12 µm thermal imagers, day and night charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras, and eye-safe laser rangefinders, to suit mission requirements." - Jane's IHS
  8. SH_MM
    Oh, that is Georgian? I didn't pay too much attention to this and assumed it was Greek. My mistake resulted from using Chrome (Chrome has a built-in translator, which I use for most languages other than English).
  9. SH_MM
  10. SH_MM
    So is the PT-16 being considered option (1) or (2)? Or does neither version feature a 120 mm gun + add-on composite armor?
  11. SH_MM
    Here is something for this topic: A Greek blog entry on their testing of the Challenger 2E, Leclerc, Leopard 2 Improved, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and T-84 tanks. The scores from the evaluation are the following: Leopard 2 Improved - 78.3 M1A2 Abrams - 72.95 Leclerc - 71.92 Challenger 2E - 69.89 Т-80U - 59.2 Т-84 - 56.3 The google translate output is quite interessting, if correct. Supposedly the Challenger 2E was found to be worse armored (!) than the M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2 Improved despite being heavier. So much about mighty "Chobham Mk. 2 Dorchester" being the best armor. Even the ten tons lighter Leclerc tank had nearly the same level of protection as the Challenger 2E. The use of the EuroPowerPack in the Challenger 2E is believed by the blog author to not have enhanced the mobility, because there have been issues with power delivery and despite switching the powerpack, nothing else was changed to properly optimize the tank for the different engine (?). The T-80U had issues with the semi-automatic transmission and general reliability, including the weapon systems (guided missiles) and FCS.The T-84 has a weird internal layout and bad controlls, essentially requiring the driver to have "three hands" to work with the steering wheel and operate his other controls. Operating the T-84 was so tiring, that the Greek crew had to be replaced by the Ukranian crew in some tests. Leclerc, Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams had no issues with driving up and down a 60% slope, the other tanks however had some problems. Btw: the Italian C1 Ariete and the Israeli Merkava III tanks were considered, but the manufacturing companies/officials didn't want them to participate in a competition (maybe because they were afraid of these relatively new vehicles underperforming and causing big political backlash). Note that the Leclerc is fitted with additional armor. The Challenger 2E lost most of it's track's pads when trying to climb a wall. Does anybody know if the Challenger 2E used the same tracks (by Cook Defence) as the British Army model? Did the greater powerpack cause these issues?
  12. SH_MM
    And medium calibre stuff:
  13. SH_MM
  14. SH_MM
    Rheinmetall calls the ammunition for the air-defence gun "Ahead munition" in several occasions, e.g. in most of their press releases and some presentations: https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/pressemitteilungen/2016/mspo/05_2016-09-06_Rheinmetall_MSPO_Medium_Calibre.pdf The term KETF is pretty much only used in case of ground vehicle ammunition.
  15. SH_MM
  16. SH_MM
    From a patent by Diehl BGT Defence: anti-EFP-IED & anti-KE armor, that can be fiitted with additional NERA plates (number 11) to also work against shaped charges: For those believing in perforated DU/DU rod armor inside the Abrams, this might be a possible explanation of how the armor looks like. It is claimed that such a layout can be rather weight efficient against EFPs, the metal rods with quadrangular cross-section can be hollow and made of conventional sturcural steel (rather than armor steel) to save costs. Alternatively they can be made of armor steel and/or filled with another material if desired. According to rumors, this was a Chinese-made Type 56 (RPG-2 copy) and it still managed to penetrate the base armor, wounding at least one crew member.
  17. SH_MM
    The 35 mm KETF is a very odd round developed for the Royal Netherlands Army. The decision to develop a round with more payload (of smaller tungsten pellets) compared to the already existing 35 mm AHEAD round was the Dutch requirement to have a high probability of knocking out every optic of a T-80U MBT with a single salvo. However in Swiss testing, two 35 mm AHEAD rounds (each with 152 pellets) already were capable of knocking out all relevant optics of a Pz-68 (upgrade prototype), including the gunner's sight, the two openings of the optical rangefinder, the laser rangefinder, aswell as vision blocks of the commander's cupola and the driver. So one has to wonder, if there really is an advantage over the 30 mm KETF round in this regard... But the one thing that I think is odd in the DTR magazine's article is that they ignore that the Boxer CRV is offered with both options; they speak about possible protection gained by the greater standoff capbility of the 35 mm gun of the Patria AMV, which could equalize the lower armor protection (level 4 vs level 6), but completely forget that one of the two Boxer CRV prototypes has a 35 mm gun, while the other also has Spike-LR launchers... Btw. unprogrammed the 35 mm KETF and AHEAD can penetrate a 55 mm steel plate.
  18. SH_MM
    No, the flyer says "11.5 /5.1/2.3 (DRI)". DRI stands for detection, recogntion and identification. The detection range ("There is something!") is 11.5 kilometres. The recognition range ("This is a vehicle!") is 5.1 kilometres and the identification range ("This is a T-72!") is 2.3 kilometres.
  19. SH_MM
    The ADS active protection system has been successfully tested again. This time it was tested against three PG-7VLT rounds fired by a RPG-7 from a distance between 25 and 50 metres, after 9 mm and 7.62 mm bullets were fired against the simulated vehicle in order to demonstrate threat rejection (supposedly the sensors are capable of recognizing and tracking bullets). The test was a full success.
  20. SH_MM
    Their articles are really, really horrendous. I am ashamed that they sometimes use my blog as source for their articles.
  21. SH_MM
    Except for the original validation prototypes, all manufactured XM1 prototypes either featured Burlington ("Chobham") armor or weight simulators representing Chobham armor. The armor technology was given to the United States by the UK in 1973. The photo you posted shows an XM1 validation prototype from Chrysler with Chobham armor, which was made after Chrysler completed a redesign of their tank to adopt the new type of armor in 1974. In 1976, after both designs from Chrysler and General Motors were trialed (including ballistic tests), the tanks were redesigned for the FSED (full scale engineering development) stage. The photo below shows a model of the Chrysler FSED prototype, which is pretty much identical (except for a few minor modifications) to the initial production M1 Abrams tank. The two excerpts posted earlier are taken from a 1978 report (WO 194/2767) from the British military (afaik FVRDE). Obviously the MBT-80 tanks were pure paper designs, given that there are no prototypes/testrigs (known to the public), which have been fitted with a V16 engine or a gas turbine. However I don't see a reason to assume that the British report used the old 1974 design of the XM1 Abrams (rather than the improved design from 1976) as reference. I also don't see much reason to dispute the credibility of the report, given that the XM1 is fitted with a type of Chobham armor and the UK had started researching Chobham armor two decades before this report. There wasn't a MBT-80 production design, the program was canceled before it lead to any results. However the XM1 FSED prototype from Chrysler is the same design that went into LRIP and final production, aside of fixing a few errors and improving reliability.
  22. SH_MM
    I was wondering if this is a Pandur (A2) after the RUAG-made SidePro-KE/IED armor has been fitted; RUAG was contracted in 2015 to develop and produce armor kits for the Austrian and Belgian Pandur vehicles. I've yet to see a Pandur 1 with additional armor; but the different spacing of the wheels suggest this is a EVO (or just another prototype). Btw. is the WS4 Panther RWS a cooperation between ESL and Elbit Systems or is it made under licence? Because it is also marketed by Elbit.
  23. SH_MM
    From Otvaga: Looks like the MBT-80 designs were better protected than the XM1, at least when it comes to protection against APFSDS ammunition. The XM1 has better protection against HEAT ammunition, but that doesn't really matter. The MBT-80 had much better turret armor than the XM1, so it was much less likely to be destroyed in hull down configuration (11 to 28% chance on the MBT-80, 17 to 58% (!) chance on the XM1).
  24. SH_MM
    Is this the new Pandur EVO or an upgraded Pandur A2 without RWS? The flat side walls, bolt-on armor and the assymetric wheel spacing make it look like the new EVO variant.
  25. SH_MM
    The Oplot-M has only three pairs of shock absorbers? That's not very much.
×
×
  • Create New...