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

    1,630

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    155

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
    Not really good according to trials conducted in Sweden during the 1950s. The possible weight reduction was judged to be some 25%; up to 50% was achieved in tests with non-practical armor. So a lot of granite is needed to provide protection even against small shaped charges. The performance is worse than that of glass armor.
  2. SH_MM
    My understanding is that the first number stands for the weight class (i.e. the KF31 is a vehicle in the "30 tons class") while the second number might be for the vehicle generation (i.e. the KF31 is the first "KF" vehicle offered in the 30 tons class). However I don't think that Rheinmetall has ever confirmed this. Also note that the KF41 Lynx has an official GVW of 50 metric tons and I wouldn't be surprised if the Lynx 120 is actually exceeding that.
  3. SH_MM
    Tthe 4S20 or 4S22 elements in the mesh cage on the hull front are "ERA".
  4. SH_MM
    Takes a bit longer than expected. @Wiedzmin, here is the first part. I started with the oldest report, which comes third in the document. At the moment I have only translated the first chapter, further articles will follow for the other chapters and then for the other reports. https://below-the-turret-ring.com/history/german-experimental-armor-development-part-i-target-arrays-for-trial-program-16-21-and-22/ This is also the only report containing performance data (though it is still limited), the other reports only mention that the performance data can be found at other places. In general the report "Bericht über die Erprobungspogramme 16, 21 und 22, durchgeführt in der Zeit vom 9.05 bis 13.05.1977 und vom 14.11 bis 18.11.1977 bei der Erprobungsstelle 91 der Bundeswehr in Meppen; B – TU 1911/00" covers three different test arrays. Two of them were used for tests against 105 mm KE/38 APFSDS rounds. This version of German ERA relied on an external ignition system, as the used explosive material (Dottikon) did not detonate by itself when hit.
  5. SH_MM
    Such a suggestion makes no sense. Spain only wants to give 10-15 Leopard 2A4 tanks away, while Germany has cited issues with ammunition supply (Israel blocks the export of 105 mm DM63 APFSDS ammunition to Ukraine & Germany doesn't have any leftover stocks of 105 mm ammo). Aside of that, the German government claims that there is an agreement with certain NATO/EU partners not to send Western tanks to Ukraine as long as the possibility of "Ringtausch" deals with operators of former Soviet tanks exist. Well, there is a NATO center for the coordination of arms deliveries to Ukraine. Before arms are sent to Ukraine, the partners discuss potential deliveries and options for cooperation. This is why Germany and the Netherlands both send a small amount of PzH 2000 SPGs (each individual delivery would be insufficient, but together it is enough for one battery). Also the announced delivery of MARS/HIMARS was seemingly coordinated.
  6. SH_MM
    Newer reports from German Der Spiegel suggest that Spain considers sending only 10-15 tanks to Ukraine, but the whole deal is still discussed internally within the Spanish government.
  7. SH_MM
    Yes, but that will take time - depending on how much other stuff I have to do (and how much motiviation I have). Might take a few weeks, so I'll probably upload it in several parts.
  8. SH_MM
    Thanks for sharing @Wiedzmin. The document is a great find! Most of it is about ERA, but there are also tests of NERA and of passive armor using ceramics (boron carbide). But IMO the biggest reveal is the usage of UHU Plus glue
  9. SH_MM
    Rheinmetall's new MBT is called "Panther". Spicy name.
  10. SH_MM
    Yes, you can read a bit about that here: https://below-the-turret-ring.com/armored-vehicles/slovakia-announces-the-cv90-mk-iv-as-its-preferred-ifv/
  11. SH_MM
    In the second photo the hull from PT20 is used for the T21 turret (after trials with the PT20 were largely finished). When this was done, the T20 turret was apparently mounted on an older hull.
  12. SH_MM
    This should be PT19, assuming all photos show the same tank. It has the license number "Y-04 002" and was the Leopard 2AV prototype sent to the United States for evaluation in 1976. PT19 featured the Hughes-designed FCS and could be configured to be used with the 105 mm L7A3 and the Rh 120 guns. The Leopard 2AV PT20 was only fitted with the 105 mm L7 gun, but featured the EMES 13 sight and an FCS made by AEG. The EMES 13 allows to identify it from most angles. PT20 also had the license plate "Y-04 003". Aside of the two prototypes PT19 and PT20, West-Germany also created the turret T21 as part of the Leopard 2AV project, which was later fitted to the PT20 hull for trials, featuring the 120 mm Rh 120 gun and the Hughes FCS
  13. SH_MM
    The 70 mm laser-guided missile is made by Forges de Zeebrugge (FZ), a Belgian company 100% owned by Thales. It is designated FZ275 LGR (laser guided rocket). https://fz.be/laser-guided-rocket?lang=en Rheinmetall partnered with FZ to market the system to the German Army, they developed a new "smart" launcher for the Tiger. The Bundeswehr has issued (or planned to issue) a requirement for 70 mm guided rockets, but given the current status of the UHT Tiger, it may not end up being adopted.
  14. SH_MM
    MBDA has shown a graphic of its new Sky Warden system on an Enok 9.5, which will be offered for the German NNbS system. It is available with a laser effector, Mistral missiles or the SADM (shown in graphic).
  15. SH_MM
    According to an article published by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, Poland also was offered a "circular exchange" deal (Poland sending tanks to Ukraine, then Germany sending tanks to Poland as replacement), but the deal did not go through. Germany offered older Leopard 2 tanks that would be upgraded at a later point of time (not clear to what configuration), but Poland insisted on receiving "the latest model" (i.e. the Leopard 2A7V). Currently Germany has received some 49 Leopard 2A7V tanks of which some 30 have been promised to take part in the VJTF 2023, hence only about 19 would have been available. But the Bundeswehr needs these tanks for itself. Even though Poland did not pick up Germany's offer, the Polish vice foreign minister complains about "Germans breaking their words" because Germany publicly stated that it would replace ex-Soviet gear send to Ukraine "with modern weapons". From the German perspective, Poland and also Slovenia are trying to use the current Russo-Ukrainian war to modernize their military for free. The Polish MiG-29 offer (demanding free F-16 from the United States as replacement) is seen as a similar example.
  16. SH_MM
    Sorry, I originally wrote "... mass * v²", then deleted it and wrote "muzzle velocity" as I was talking about the muzzle velocity specifically. I must have accidentally deleted the "²" as well. Yes, obviously the reduction in kinetic energy while be greater when a 5 kilogram projectile moving at 2,000 m/s is reduced by 50 m/s than for a 10 kilogram projectile having its velocity reduced from 1,650 to 1,600 m/s... but there is no indication that the difference will be as pronounced and as relevant. I.e. let me give you an example for which I have data. According to the Swiss firing tables, the Pfeil Pat 87 Lsp (Cart flèche 87 lum) aka the DM23 APFSDS has an in-flight weight of 4.6 kilograms and a muzzle velocity of 1,640 m/s. At 2,000 metres distance, a velocity of 1,529 m/s is reached. The M829A1 in-flight projectile has a weight of 4.88 kilograms and a muzzle velocity of 1,575 m/s. After travelling 2,000 metres, the velocity is only 1,440 m/s. So in this specific case, the total energy loss is greater for the heavier, slower projectile. Why? Because of the higher drag and higher weight of the M829A1 APFSDS. Only after a longer distance, the DM23 will loose more kinetic energy than the M829A1. How big is the weight/velocity difference between ASCALON and Rheinmetall's 130 mm APFSDS (if there is any)? When the heavier projectile ends up being better after 4-8 kilometers, then it is irrelevant. Regarding your original statement, I can only assume that it is speculation. Apparently Nexter's ASCALON concept as originally announced in April 2021, had a total catridge size of at most 130 cm. Rheinmetall has not revealed the dimensions of its projectile yet, but it seems to be more than 130 cm. So the ASCALON's ammunition - if Nexter did not change the dimensions - is smaller and would rely on Rheinmetall using a smaller projectile/penetrator than physically possible despite potentially having a larger propellant charge in their catridge. The Nexter article also mentions that the ASCALON round will start with a muzzle energy of 10 MJ, suggesting that this is either the in-flight projectile or the penetrator. For the sake of comparison, the OFL F1 should have some 6.3 MJ (penetrator only) and the German DM53 fired from the L/55 should have slightly more than 7 MJ muzzle energy (penetrator only). So ASCALON would be a significant step-up in terms of lethality, but the new KE2020 Neo (in development for the L/55A1) with 20% more muzzle energy and a new composite sabot than DM53/DM63 could come rather close. The 13 MJ are projected growth potential.
  17. SH_MM
    No, this isn't as simple. The muzzle energy is 1/2 * projectile mass * muzzle velocity. If a projectile/catridge design already has a lower total muzzle energy, then it would have a lower muzzle velocity for a constant penetrator mass. Increasing the penetrator length (and thus the mass) will then result in an even lower muzzle velocity when keeping the muzzle energy constant. The issue is that it is not possible to simply reduce penetrator diameter without potential drawbacks (making the easier to defeat by reactive armor or having issues with bending of penetrator during flight). Obviously air friction will be different for different projectiles moving at different speeds, but the biggest factor for drag/friction are the fins. A faster moving, shorter longrod projectile might require less obstrusive fins than a slower moving rod. Last but not least the trajectory for a slower, heavier rod will be worse. It will have to be fired with an ever so slightly higher elevation to hit the same target, thus it will travel for a longer period of time, being affected by air resistance longer. There is a reason why most APFSDS designs tend to aim to improve velocity and projectile length at the same time, rather than adopting a long, slow spear-like projectile. Obviously there are a lot more factors regarding any final decision between Nexter's and Rheinmetall's guns. Is 13 MJ the muzzle energy of the total projectile (incl. sabot) or is it the weight of the in-flight projectile only? Is the 130 mm APFSDS projectile developed by Rheinmetall actually shorter than the 140 mm version of ASCALON or not?
  18. SH_MM
    One cannot compensate lower muzzle energy with a longer penetrator, as the penetrator mass directly affects the muzzle energy.
  19. SH_MM
    Great find. Yes, the photo in the borchure seems to be a photoshopped DM63. I guess Defence Munition International's spirit lives on. Even the nametags are simple paper glued to the sabot... (enlarge image to see the color difference).
  20. SH_MM
    This is not a DM33 - length, weight, shape and muzzle velocity do not match.
  21. SH_MM
    I wasn't aware that the KE-T round actually had a longer penetrator and higher muzzle velocity than the M829 APFSDS.
  22. SH_MM
    In addition to that:
  23. SH_MM
    Yes, I found that slide in the USAHEC's digital library.
  24. SH_MM
    It appears to be a version of the Lynx 120's turret.
  25. SH_MM
×
×
  • Create New...