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

    1,634

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    156

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
    The M8 AGS is also present at AUSA 2016: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2016-us-army-programme-highlights-video/ Between 0:05 and 0:13 the Griffin (still with cover) is visible. Following 0:38 there is the M8 AGS with cover.
  2. SH_MM
    Russia is mass producing APFSDS ammunition with longer penetrators (supposedly Svinets-1 or Svinets-2).
  3. SH_MM
    Some Puma photographs, mostly related to it's armor protection: Side armor without ERA, parts of it have been dismanteled. There are two layers of (passive) armor, most probably ceramic armor. It is possible that just one layer is required for protection against 14.5 mm AP ammunition and the second layer is part of the armor protection required against 30 mm APFSDS or larger. The engine vent is also having an additional armor module, made of sloped and spaced metal plates (presuambly armor steel is used). The normal hull side armor has gone through four or five iterations during the development. Originally it consisted of passive armor on the prototypes. When the production of the first pre-production vehicles was announced, the Puma instead used another type of passive armor (different thickness, different looks), but with slat armor extending further to the center of the roadwheels. Then there were two versions which seemed to be using ERA only. The final configuration utilizes ERA at the upper portions, passive armor in the center and slat armor in the lowest sections (i.e. to the roadwheels). The rear armor is also using slat armor. The ERA is supplied by Dynamit Nobel Defence and uses composite plates without metal. It provides 10 times the protection per weight as "conventional armor", but cannot defeat tandem warheads on it's own. There have been light and heavy versions of the ERA; apparently the Puma uses the heavy one (based on the thickness and weight), which also uses ultrax plates from Verseidag Indutex (which might be part of Rheinmetall Verseidag nowadays) to protect against 30 mm APFSDS and EFPs. Puma turret, made from aluminium. Composite armor not fitted yet. Puma glacis armor. It seems to consists of a highly sloped NERA layer, which is spaced above the main composite armor. According to Rheinmetall and IBD Deisenroth, the Puma utiilizes AMAP-SC composite armor, which provides between 8 and 10 times as much protection per weight against shaped charges than steel. Puma hull. It is made from steel. Welding and bending the steel plates together took four months on the initial models (pre-production or low-rate initial production). Parts of the hull are constrcuted with the "Dünnblech-Biegetechnologie" (thin metal bending technology), which also has been used on the Boxer. Instead of using multiple steel plates and welding them together, the plates are rather bend. This allows to use thinner steel plates (increasing the weight efficiency when fitted with composite armor) and creates less weak-spots and breaking points against AP ammunition and mines. The lower hull compartment houses some components for the drivetrain/transmission/etc., but based on some older CAD graphic, this only covers the uppermost part. The actual thickness of the Puma frontal hull armor (without slope) can be seen here. On the completed vehicles, the vision blocks of the driver extrude from the glacis, the steel edge in the photograph is not visible. I'd guesstimate that about half the thickness is empty space. The Puma turret can be fitted with additional armor to provide protection against 30 mm ammunition and bomblets. Except for the curved section behind the gun (which moves when the gun is elevating), the add-on armor for the roof consists of "Igelpanzerung" (hedgehog armor), which utilizes many rubber-spikes to damage the shaped charge warheads of artillery bomblets. Below the bomblets there is additional passive armor on same cases (supposedly ceramic armor), while the hedgehog armor above the ammunition compartment is spaced for some reason. Above the crew positions the roof armor appears to consists of thicker composite plates or two thinner ones. The Puma still needs to be fitted with the MELLS missile system for the Spike-LR ATGM, but there have been numerous delays with this (beginning with the original missile failing to meet the German requirements, then the launcher had issues and now the budget is used for other things). The TSWA secondary-armament still needs to be fitted, but it has been modified; the original design saw the usage of six 76 mm grenades (lethal and non-lethal) wiith a relatively short range; the system has been extended by a ring containing (iirc. 24) 40 mm low-velocity or medium-velocity grenades with air-burst capability. Furthermore there are other upgrade plans. There is a tender for replacing the 5.56 mm MG4 machine gun with a 7.62 mm MG; apparently Heckler & Koch (MG5) and Rheinmetall (with the three-barreled RMG 7.62) are interested in the contract. The Puma also should be fitted with a situational awareness system, probably Rheinmetall's SAS 360 system. Furthermore there are planned enhancements to the computer system, allowing to operate UGVs. Shephardmedia wrote "The aim is to have operation of UGVs integrated into the vehicles.", which for my poor understanding of the English language doesn't exactly specify wether the Puma's crew should operate other UGVs or the Puma should be convertable to a UGV.
  4. SH_MM
    If anything, it would be based on the ASCOD 2. Ajax is only a specialized sub-version with Lockheed-Martin-modified Lance turret.
  5. SH_MM
    According to google, the crane on Panther chassis was French, which seems to match with the description on the sign. Probably based on some of the Panthers used by the French Army post-war.
  6. SH_MM
    You can see it in the first photograph, on the others the vehicle is mounted on steel bars for production or maintenance.
  7. SH_MM
    This doesn't actually say much about the quality of the optics, because the Javelin is fire-and-forget missile with it's own integrated thermal sight. In the end you don't need superior to hit something at a range, in World War 2 the optics of tanks and anti-tank guns were horrendous compared to modern standards. Better sights - specifically when including an integrated fire control system designed for longer ranges - however provide a greater accuracy. The optics are not made by Kongsberg, but instead consists of separate modules supplied by different companies. My understanding is that Kongsberg choose the WAO (apparently renamed EOTS?) instead of using the older system used on the RWS models consisting of multiple parts from different suppliers. All original prototypes of vehicles equipped with Kongsberg's MCT-30 turret use the WAO optronics instead of the other system. Only for the US Army's Stryker (and only one some of the more recent prototypes), the older system has been installed. Why would Kongsberg market the MCT-30 turret exclusively with the WAO/EOTS sight with integrated fire control system, when the older FCU system was just as capable & cheaper? The WAO utilizes a third generation ATTICA thermal imager with a medium-wave CMT or InSb detector, which has a resolution of up to 1,280 x 1,024 pixels. The older fire control unit (FCU) of the CROWS II used the Thermal Imaging Module (TIM) 1500 from BAE Systems, which has a detector resolution of 640 x 480 (and given the age, it might be a second generation device). The long-range version of the ATTICA thermal imager can provide a continous optical zoom to 50 times magnification, while the TIM1500 provides up to 4 times digital magnifications (means the image will get blurry and loose detail). The WAO of the German Puma IFV uses the medium range version of ATTICA with an effective detector resolution of 768 x 576 (so 20% higher) using a micro scanner. The ATTICA series of thermal imagers also uses new post-processing methods combining multiple (sub-)frames for more details and higher constrast. Maybe BAE System has similar technologies integrated into it's current thermal imager systems, but I have never heard of that. Lastly the FCU of the older Kongsberg RWS models offers only electronic zoom, while the WAO offers both optical and digital zoom for day and thermal channels. I guess some of this is based on the subjective opinion while reading, but the following passages on the MCT-30 don't sound like praise for me. "... the reduced mass of the MCT-30 (brought about by reduced protection levels in the turret itself) is also one of the principle drivers of the LAV(CRV)'s lesser GVM, shaving an estimated 2,000kg compared too a two-man medium calibre turret featuring STANAG Level 4, 5, or 6 ballistic protection." ...implying that the MCT-30 was offered only at STANAG 4569 level 3 at most, failing the Australian requirements. "To be clear, the Commonwealth has not specified a manned or unmanned turret for Phase 2. Only one stated requirement points explicitly to a manned turret but none of the requirements are mandatory. In principle, an unmanned turret should reduce the overall height of the vehicle and reduce the weight of the passive armour in exchange for reduced situational awareness. This trade-off between weight, size and situaional awareness is highly subjective." ...indirectly mentioning the drawbacks of not having (non-electronical) optical sights, fewer/poor placed vision blocks and no proper hatches/cupolas at the turret. "The higher available payload of Piranha 5 compared to LAV(CRV) may also have opened up the turret options available to GDLS-A including those for heavier and perhaps decidely MOTS manned turrets." ...criticizing the fact that the MCT-30 is not MOTS and implying that manned turrets were found to be superior by the Australian evaluation.
  8. SH_MM
    It makes sense to some extend; how much sense it makes depends on a multitude of different factors. The same optics are utilized on the different Kongsberg RWS versions used by the US Army, but are these optics designed for the longer ranges required for utilizing the full range of a 30 mm gun (not to mention the Super 40 calibre)? The maximum effective combat range of a normal Kongsberg RWS is somewhere between 600 and 1,500 metres depending on what weapon is fitted to the RWS. The maximum effective range of a 30 x 173 mm autocannon is above 3,000 metres according to the German Army - the slightly larger Super 40 round might have an even greater range. Then there is the question about the costs. How much work was required to integrate the US sighting system into the turret and how much did that cost? The WAO sight on the other hand has already been integrated by the manufacuterer (in fact the first Kongsberg MCT-30 turret that was unveiled was fitted with the WAO) and the optronics are designed for longer combat ranges (aside of being utilized on the Puma, the WAO has been tested/proposed on the Gepard self-propelled anti-air gun, the Anders light tank and the MCT-30 turret. So I wonder if the US sight is so much cheaper (including logisitics), that it is prefered over an already integrated option. Could you elaborate that. I had contact with two Australians who claimed to be member of the military. Both claimed that the MCT-30 turret was the least liked option, because it was an unproven and completely unmanned turret (whereas the MT 30 turret from Elbit could be operated either manned or unmanned). The ergonomics of the MCT-30 turret in the LAV (CRV) were said to be the worst of all. After it was announced that Boxer and AMV-35 were downselected, the Australian Defence Technology Review magazine claimed that the LAV 6.0 would have had a better chance with a MOTS manned turret. In an earlier issue the magazine criticized the turret for providing the lowest protection and providing the lowest situational awareness of all contenders.
  9. SH_MM
    They were used for advertisment in the past. Firing tables for older ammunition is available online btw.
  10. SH_MM
    I would not consider this document as valid for estimating the performance difference between DM13 and M827. The values for penetration are estimations from a document from 1980... at this time NATO didn't know how to manufacture monoblock tungsten penetrators. Instead the M735 and DM13 were used as reference to estimate the penetration, which both utilized steel-sheated tungsten penetrators instead of a monoblock design. These sheated penetrators were found to perform in general worse than monoblock penetrators (due to the larger parasitic weight of the steel sheating) and speficially worse against complex targets (such as spaced armor). Meanwhile the (X)M833 and (X)M829 are both utilizing monoblock penetrators. The XM827 APFSDS was a 120 mm DM13 APFSDS with DU instead of tungsten penetrator, it still had a steel sheating and the same internal design as DM13. It would still be less efficient than either the M833 APFSDS or the M829. While the other studies posted by you are certainly interesting, they are not very well suited for comparing the actual penetration of tungsten and DU penetrators. The US utilize the limit velocity and striking velocity for the comparisons; this however is not valid for real tank ammunition for the following reason: tungsten alloys tend to have a lower denisty than DU and according to W. Odermatt tungsten penetrators have a three times higher Young's modulus, requiring less sabot coverage/weight. As you can see in the chart from "The development of a tungsten heavy alloy that fails by an adiabtic shear mechanism Phase I - SBIR", page 13, a L/D 20 scale penetrator out of DU will perforate some 96 mm of steel at a striking velocity of ~1,400 metres per second. The tungsten penetrator (same dimensions) will penetrate only some ~82 mm at the same velocity. However the tungsten alloy has a density of 17.6 g/cm³ instead of 18.6 g/cm³ - so it should reach a higher velocity when fired with the same gun and the same powder charge! In so far, we should not compare the penetration at the same impact velocity, but the penetration at the same impact energy. So we should compare the penetration value of DU at 1,400 metres per second to that of WHA 93% at ~1450 mps. This will again lead to some ~10% penetration difference. The document "High velocity performance of a uranium alloy long rod penetrator" does show that the difference between DU and WHA at 1,400 metres per second impact velocity or more is equal or less than 10% - again this confirms the findings of L.S. Magness (with 8-10% difference in penetration between tungsten and DU for L/D 20 penetrators, the greater the L/D ratio the smaller the difference in penetration). The 97% tungsten content of the alloy was chosen to provide the same density (and thus essentially the same impact energy) as DU. We don't know the real penetrator length of any recent APFSDS. It is all estimations. For me, the question is not "is it possible to have a penetrator of length X?", but rather "is ir reasonable?" In theory the M829A3 also might have only a 500 mm long penetrator... we cannot say until somebody actually post photos from a cut-through M829A3 projectile. Against a 800 mm long penetrator however speaks the weight; this is why I don't consider it to be a reasonable option. At 25 mm diameter and 800 mm length, the volume of the new penetrator would be 52% larger than the volume of the M829A2 penetrator (for which we actually have data and cut-through projectiles). The M829A2's DU penetrator supposedly weighs 4.81 kilograms. This would mean that the M829A3's penetrator weighs 7.31 kg... leaving only 2.69 kg for sabot, tip, fins and tracer. The weight allocated in sabot, fins, tracer and tip of the M829A2 is 3.09 kilograms (with a smaller tip and a lot smaller sabot). The weight of the DM53's sabot, tip, fins and tracer is supposedly ~3.35 kg. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that this is possible. I know that the M829A3 uses an improved composite sabot with lower density, but it is also a lot larger (~30%?) in terms of volume compared to the M829A2's sabot. As for the rest of this discussion: I think that the M829A3 APFSDS follows the scheme from the patent. I can believe that it does penetrate some amount of armor, when there is no ERA; however the frontal segment has to be made of a lower density material - it cannot be DU, tungsten or tantalum without leaving too little weight for the sabot, fins, tracer and tip. The patent itself speaks of steel, which I consider reasonable to assume. How much armor can a 100 to 150 mm steel rod penetrate at 1,450 mps impact velocity? Something about 50-70 mm probably. The M829A3 won't have a velocity of 1,500 metres per second at 2,000 m. The M829A2 supposedly looses 61 m/s per kilometre travel distance. The DM53 APFSDS looses 55 m/s per kilometre travel distance. The M829A3, being larger and heavier, should loose a slightly larger amount. With it's muzzle velocity of 1,555 m/s, it would loose only 27.5 m/s per kilometre to reach an impact velocity of 1,500 m/s. In the end talking about penetration vs RHA is senseless, given that different penetrators reach different penetration against different types of special armor.
  11. SH_MM
    The US Army seems to favor a different configuration of the Kongsberg MCT-30 turret with US optics instead of the German WAO sight mounted on this older prototype... at least the Stryker will use other optics. Also I hope the US Army won't put the Kongsberg turret onto a Bradley, it cannot be armored to more than STANAG 4569 level 4 and was found to be quite lackluster by the Australian military (as tested on the LAV 6.0 (CRV) for the LAND 400 Phase 2 project).
  12. SH_MM
    The Polish values are all very odd. Specifically the first table: The DM13 penetrates 440 mm and the M827 (DM13 with DU instead of tungsten) penetrates 520 mm? That's 18% more, while US sources claim that DU offers 8 to 10% more penetration than tungsten. The German DM43 APFSDS penetrates 640 to 700 mm armor steel and the CHARM-3 APFSDS penetrates even 740 mm? It is also hard to believe that the M829A3 should penetrate 800 mm of steel, when the same forum page suggests that it has only a 625 mm long penetrator... then the M829A1 (with 680 mm long penetrator and higher muzzle velocity) would penetrate something like 880 mm of RHA. Also, did the Polish magazine write that the penetration was downgraded to adjust for the different gun or was it downgraded because of other factors (different metholodogy for armor penetration, different penetration criteria)?
  13. SH_MM
    I think your values are wrong and considerably understating the protective capabilities of high-hardness steel - at least against small calibre weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns. The M193 might have it's problems, but not all sources claiming a higher thickness efficiency than 1.15 are based on testing with the M193 ammunition. The MARS steel was tested against French 7.62 mm Ball ammunition. IBD Deisenroth, German armor designer, tested ARMOX 500 high-hardness steel and their own high strength nitrogen steel P-900N3 against the Russian 7.62×54mm B-32 armor-piercing round: ARMOX 500 required 16 mm at 0° to stop the AP ammunition, while the P-900 steel from IBD required only 11.5 mm - that's a 39% better protection per thickness compared to SSAB's high-hardness steel (which already is a lot better than RHA). Your values might have been valid at some point of time (1970s, 1980s?) to reflect the protective performance of steel, but hardness and strength of modern alloys has increased steadily. As noted by Showater et Aal. in 2008, modern high-hardness steel with a hardness of over 650 BHN and a tensile strength of 2.0 to 2.25 GPa provides 10-20% higher values for V50 (velocity required when fired at 50 metres distance to penetrate the armor) against 0.3 and 0.5 cal armor-piercing ammunition compared to normal high-hardness steel (~500-550 BHN). According to R.M. Ogorkiewicz "Advances in armour materials" published in 1991, high-hardness steel with a hardness of 550 BHN provides 17% better protection against 7.62 mm AP ammunition than RHA with 380 BHN (which is a bit harder than usually cited and a lot more harder the cast armor of Leopard 1, M60, Chieftain and T-62). That was 25 years ago, hardness, elongation and strength of the alloys has been improved since then. Interestingly Dr. Manfred Held proved in 1993 that high-hardness steel also provides more protection against shaped charges. Didn't know that before researching this topic a bit more. On the Leopard 1 (and on the MBT-70), high-hardness steel as part of the spaced armor was designed against the brittle tungsten-carbide and steel penetrators of anti-tank ammunition in the first place, which had a lot of issues with breaking and shattering against complex targets and high hardness plates.
  14. SH_MM
    Well, you can see the graphic from SSAB (Swedish steel manufacturer) above. The ARMOX Advance steel provides twice as much protection as ARMOX 500T (hardness: 480-540 HBW) steel against 5.56 mm AP ammunition. It is probably not very applicable for tank armor, given the requirements for plate thickness (ARMOX Advanced can only be manufactured to a maximum thickness of 20 mm) and the different threats. SSAB supplies armor steel for vehicles such as the CV90, the Sisu Pasi, the Piranha III, the Boxer and the Leopard 2 (although the later two vehicles also utilize Thyssen-Krupp Secure steel). The US found ARMOX Advance and 600T to outerperform MIL-DTL-46100E steel (hardness 477-534 BHN) and MIL-A46099C dual hardness armor (hardness 601-712 BHN for the front plate and 461-534 BHN back plate). French company Arcelor Mittal claims that the latest MARS 600 high-hardness steel provides twice as much protection as MARS 190 (hardness about 400 BHN) against 7.62 mm Ball ammunition. Jane's reported that the Leclerc uses a three-layer steel, which can provide up to 1.8 times the protection of normal RHS. Supposedly similar two/three layer steel combinations have been utilized on the AMX-32/40, the Leopard 1A3/1A4, the Osorio tank and the Leopard 2 aswell... probably also on the Challenger tanks. The difference between the Leclerc's steel arrangment, Armox Advance and the old Leopard 1's applique armor, is that the more modern steels are designed for welding, while the Leopard 1's applique armor is designed to utilize non-weldable steel alloys.
  15. SH_MM
    The protection should depend on location, type of ammunition and angle of impact. Most of the Leopard 1 turret's frontal profile is covered by the gun mantlet. This has a thickness of something about 150-160 mm and is reinforced by a spaced steel add-on (not covered in rubber) in the Leopard 1A1A1 upgrade and follow-up versions. I don't know the exact thickness, but it appears to be some 40-50 mm thick. Afaik it still uses a similar rubber-padded bolt design as the rest of the applique armor. Together with the slope, this should lead to more than 220-250 mm steel along the line of sight. Above the gun mantlet, the frontal roof area is sloped at 23° and has a thickness of 45 mm. This equals 115 mm along the line of sight. The add-on armor includes the installation of five rolled steel plates here, which have a thickness of 25 to 28 mm and are backed by a 3 mm layer of rubber (so it's 25-28 mm rolled steel + 3 mm rubber + 45 mm cast steel; all at 23°)... together this should equal 179 to 186 mm of steel. It's not very much, but the corresponding sections of other tanks like the M60 and Chieftain are not much better armored, as it is too sloped for APDS and early APFSDS to penetrate. The frontal turret armor has a thickness of 65 mm sloped at 30°, which leads to 130 mm along the line of sight. Here the rubberized high-hardness plates have an actual thickness of 45 mm - if we account the vertical and horizontal slope however, the thickness along the line of sight should increased to 100 - 120 mm... so the Leopard 1A1A1 has some 200 to 250 mm thick frontal armor (+ some empty space). We however don't know how thick the rubber padding is, how hard the steel is and how effective the space array is (and if the bolt design does actually affect protection)... The US Army found that cast steel armor provides about 15% less protection than rolled steel armor; Soviet cast steel armor was supposedly 5 to 15% less effective than rolled steel armor according to "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery design practices". So if it wasn't for the rubber coating, we could clearly say that the spaced armor provides more protection per thickness (if we exclude the empty space) than cast steel armor - but unfortunately there is an unknown amount of rubber. High hardness steel can in theory increase the protection by factor 2 with modern alloys and manufacturing techniques: For the steel used on the Leopard 1 applique armor, there unfortunately is no data. The idea from Blohm & Voss described in the patent was that using the "rubberized plates mounted on bolts" design, steel alloys that cannot be welded or cast could be utilized. Paul Lakowski claimed in his armor basics document, that high hardness steel with 400 to 550 brinell hardness can provide 12 to 25% more protection per thickness. So in theory a 45 mm rubberized steel plate can provide protection equivalent to anything between 30-32 mm (assuming there is ~15 mm thick rubber coating) and 50 mm (assuming there is only 5 mm rubber and the steel is 25% more resistant than normal RHA) or more. Last but not least, the armor is spaced; this can also affect actual protection. The Chieftian's 120 mm L15 APDS can penetrate 150 mm at 30° (300 mm) at 1,000 yards, but at the same range it defeats only a three layer spaced armor array with a combined plate thickness of only 115 mm (i.e. penetration is ~24% lower). If we combine all of this, the Leopard 1A1A1's frontal armor might provide only 200 mm (or slightly less) steel-equivalent protection against APDS/HEAT or it might provide protection up to 300 mm (or slightly more) at the area's covered by the spaced applique armor. It all depends on too many unkown factors. According to German literature, the Leopard 1A1A1 is supposedly protected against smaller shaped charges like the RPG-7 or BMP-1 ammunition. The further the applique armor is located away from the front, the thinner it gets. The rear section of the turret sides is only covered by some 20 mm of armor. In general the Leopard 1A1A1 turret is quite ambivalent; it might be extremely well protected for it's time or just below average.
  16. SH_MM
    Steel covered by rubber.
  17. SH_MM
    There is only one single steel layer covered by rubber. I don't know if the rubber padding can affect penetration, but the M1A1HA does feature coil springs in it's turret side armor at least (holding an array of multi-layered plates).
  18. SH_MM
    It's not resin, the add-on plates are made of steel, but covered with rubber. Supposedly this has something to do with hardness and shattering (it is supposed to be very high-hardness steel according to the patent from the manufacturer). The only reference to ERA I can think of is the mounting mechanism. The steel bolts can be recessed a bit and has a thick rubber block at the base. This is claimed to work like a coil-spring, but is indepent of impact angle (whereas a coil spring will fail to work at certain angles). If this actually provides any noteworthy amount of protection needs to be debated though, I have seen different opinions on this.
  19. SH_MM
    There have been numerous design and development programs for ramjet artillery shells in the past decades. There is at least dozen different patents from the 1970s and 1980s on this matter - some from indivudials, others made by defense companies/organizations such as Rheinmetall, United Technologies, Daimler-Benz Aerospace and even the United States Army. The US military did test ramjets in the 1930s and 1940s. Professor W. Trommsdorf developed a ramjet engine in 1935 and was subsequently funded by Nazi-Germany to develop artillery ammunition and rockets using his engines. This is the first piece of ramjet artillery ammunition that I can say for sure was developed further than just paper designs. The artillery ammunition supposedly had a calibre of 150 to 280 mm and (sometimes?) used a sabot. Muzzle velocity was 1,000 to 1,200 m/s and maximum range 180 to 400 kilometres. Some sources suggest that after the war the Soviets kept using Trommsdorf's designs for their own research program (in the 280 or 283 mm calibre for ultra-heavy artillery). Russian sources claim that the local development of ramjet artillery ammunition was initiated in 1933, the first successful test was in 1942. Using ramjets or scramjets for artillery is nothing new, but to this day everyone has found a cheaper or better alternative instead of extremely reducing the projectile payload to fit in a ramjet engine. But then again, people insist to pretend that active protection systems are "the latest shits" despite the first successfull tests against RPGs and ATGMs (that I am aware of) happening in 1967... Btw: after the war, W. Trommsdorf kept working for Rheinmetall and patented a further ramjet artillery projectile (for Rheinmetall) in the 1970s.
  20. SH_MM
    It has been done, they just never entered service... just as the South-African ramjet artillery shell has not been adopted in military service. In fact old, early patents from 1915 (see Albert Fonó) were focused on the application of ramjets for artillery shells.
  21. SH_MM
    Ramjets have been fitted to artillery shells since the 1930s, it's nothing new.
  22. SH_MM
    That's the Terrex 1. The Terrex 2 is according to the official factsheet 9.03 feet (2.75 metres) tall; this might include the RWS. The Terrex 3 is based on the Terrex 2 hull with stronger suspension.
  23. SH_MM
    It is not the PT-54 mine clearing system, but the MCRS (mine clearing roller system) developed for the US Army between 1983 and 1986 (first US units received the MCRS in 1990). It won't always rotate, specifically when using much samller holes. But the high-hardness of the steel together with the different stress at the bullet's tip can make the round shatter.
  24. SH_MM
    The Merkava has no perforated armor, but the Israeli TOGA armor package for the M113 includes it: In general there are a lot of M113 upgrades with perforated armor (Swiss M113 received it during KAWEST, Danish M113A1's used it for KFOR, KMW's upgrade propsal for Brazil included it, etc.)
  25. SH_MM
×
×
  • Create New...