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

    1,637

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    157

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. SH_MM
    Their articles are really, really horrendous. I am ashamed that they sometimes use my blog as source for their articles.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. SH_MM
    The Oplot-M has only three pairs of shock absorbers? That's not very much.
  12. SH_MM
    Leopard 1 tank assembly in 1970.
  13. SH_MM
    Premium sports cars are never built in "proper mass production", although Porsche arguably doesn't belong to this group.+ The Beetle was mass produced already in the 1940s.
  14. SH_MM
    The PlasTiger (plastic Tiger copy), video in German. Previously from 2013 to 2016 the German tank museum had loaned/borrowed a tank, but the owner took it back in order to restore it to running condition. It was created in several years of work by nine men of the German Army's special branch for decoys, camouflaging and deceiving. The weight of the PlasTiger is 2.7 metric tons.
  15. SH_MM
    Piranha 5 hull in Denmark:
  16. SH_MM
    The problem with the Nordic Tank Challenge is that it's based too much on work with the simulators. I don't know about the current version, but a few years ago no real tank firing was part of the challenge. Denmark doesn't use "proper" simulators, but instead is using the cheaper professional version of SteelBeasts from eSim Games with special hardware controlls to represent a real tank. That the Norwegian tank crews scored second highest is probably related to Norway also using SteelBeasts rather than using the more professional (and more expensive) simulators from KMW and Rheinmetall. This also sucks a lot for the US tank crews, because they have to use a simulator for the Leopard 2 in several events. However for other challenges (such as driving, maintenance) of the Nordic Tank Challenge, there is a modified grading system to account for the Abrams' own design. IIRC the maintenance takes longer on the Abrams, so they get more points when reaching the same time as Leopard 2 crews.
  17. SH_MM
    Well, then France would be last? Ukrainian tankmen come fifth in NATO tank biathlon - http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/421180.html
  18. SH_MM
    Leopard 2A4 > M1A2 SEP v2
  19. SH_MM
    Because they don't think it's necessary. According to older Polish articles, they assumed that the Leopard 2A4 is as well protected as the PT-91 with ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ERA.
  20. SH_MM
    "The amount of finished challenges can alter..." So it doesn't tell us anything :/
  21. SH_MM
    No, they aren't new. They are usually employed when it comes to camouflaging the vehicle, because shadows have a much darker color and create hard edges at the turret and hull front. There are several variations, but in general the lower edge of the frontal armor should be covered: Leopard 2 with rubber at the turret, cloth at the lower hull Leopard 2 camoulfaged using cloth SAAB Barracuda MCS
  22. SH_MM
  23. SH_MM
    It's the Rheinmetall DM78 training round also used in Germany. It's relatively new. ____ "When you are too lazy to google for photos of the T-80U"
  24. SH_MM
  25. SH_MM
    So apparently the Japanese Type 83 87 self-propelled air-defence vehicle is fitted with NERA along the frontal hull...
×
×
  • Create New...