Mighty_Zuk

They call this new chick 'Lotus'.

I think it was a typo. It's a 52-cal gun, not 55. 

The standard are 39, 45, and 52.

http://defense-update.com/20170301_sarab-aps.html

Defense-Update.com brings a short article that highlights the existence of the Sarab-2 system, an improvement over the Sarab-1. Sarab-2 was fielded by the end of 2016 while Sarab-1 was fielded at the beginning of that year. 

An even improved version called Sarab-3 is now in the works by the SSRC (Syrian Scientific Research Center) and will feature a 360° coverage.

Sarab-1 on an 85mm gun:

Sarab-2:

Perhaps the more interesting detail is that its reported effectiveness is 80%. It includes SACLOS (2nd generation) missiles such as Metis and TOW.

In Hebrew, but it says the Trophy was tested.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/28700

And yet, I hold on to the personal opinion that designing a replacement in the form of a single turboprop engine low/mid size aircraft (e.g A-29) would be wrong. Too much of a 'what if' situation. Better spend a little more on fuel and development than risk being caught with your pants down.

Because you could as well argue the F-15 is obsolete since its original role of an air superiority fighter was replaced with a heavy bomb truck. 

F-16's were more survivable in the first gulf war, the gun and armour needlessly slow it down without helping it in strike missions. The niche it was designed for does not exist, and has not for many decades. Being slow, it's too vulnerable in a proper war; and for COIN you want something cheaper (because no aircraft can be in two places at once)

True. Speed is at least as important for survivability as physical armor plates. But going for a lightweight attack aircraft would be too limited to low-danger zones. Who knows what might happen within the next 5 years? Short range AA missiles (e.g Igla) might become as common for insurgents as ATGMs are. They are going through a sort of technological revolution recently after all.

It goes without saying that the A-10 was required to be highly survivable (physically well armored), fast enough (also improves survivability), and carry a high payload  to allow loadout diversification. Just because it didn't get the chance to fully perform to its envisioned potential, doesn't mean it was a bad decision to design it the way they did.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

T-90MS have autotracking, T-72B3 have it as well (IIRC it is done via thermal imager "locking" on hottest part of target). Well, if T-72 have it than I expect any modern MBT should have it.

Wasn't it part of the Kalina FCS standardization effort to bring all tanks to a certain level?

If Russia could bring this feature to the T-14 it could definitely copy it for the rest.

I didn't know the DM33 was the M413. Thanks!

Some more pictures I grabbed:

(Sorry I don't know how to keep them all in a collapsible collection, so I guess it'll just have to clutter the page until I find out how)

Now for the DM23. 

After the 1982 war, the Israeli M111 Hetz APFSDS gained fame for piercing the armor of T-72 tanks. Although there are many conflicting reports as to whether T-72 ever met APFSDS armed tanks (Magach, Sho't or Merkava) or were only engaged with TOW missiles (9 destroyed in single ambush IIRC), there is at least the reported and yet undenied (as far as I've seen) story of T-72 armor tests in Kubinka against the M111 Hetz that was obtained through a captured M48 tank. The discovery of that KEP shell was reportedly so surprising that the USSR decided to give Syria a large batch of its domestic version of T-72(AV) and not the usual downgrades.

The M111 may or may not have been developed in cooperation with German company Rheinmetall (they have managed to keep it a secret after all, so chances are slim), but we do know Germany acquired license for its production under the name DM23. I would also like to note at this point that IMI and Rheinmetall seem to have a very high level of cooperation at least in KEP development and production, as many of their products seem to be identical (entire 105mm family at least, and DM63 and M338 are allegedly the same). 

Here are again photos from the IAA forum: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/israeli-105mm-apfsds-projectile-made-for-germany-as-dm23/13534

I don't know if it was posted here before, but I found something interesting over the IAA (International Ammunition Association) forum: forum.cartridgecollectors.org

I highly recommend occasionally visiting as they post some very interesting and most often to the point findings.

This one is supposedly a 105mm APFSDS for smoothbore cannons (the experimental 105mm SB), made by IMI and has a very unusual marking. Some of the comments contain information about the markings, and although they conflict with each other, they're very interesting.

Note the AP/TP and DM33A2/MOD markings. 

I suggest reading their discussion in that forum post : https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/german-israeli-105mm-ap-tpfsds-t-sabot-petals-info-neede/14505

Thanks Zyklon

QUESTION:

What tanks possess an automatic target tracking capability in their FCS? I've known that the BAZ FCS on the Merkava 3 had it, and I know the T-14 recently got it, but so far I have heard that Abrams tanks lack it, and haven't heard anything about Leopards or other eastern tanks.

Can anyone, without even detailing much, give insight as to what tanks do have such capability? If it's a family of tanks, then please mention the first variant to have it.

Thanks in advance,

Zukboi.

But in the video it can be seen that it does perform some shallow top attack. Though it's not a very fuel efficient solution. 

Looks pretty advanced for the 14th century. Persia was a great civilization.

It would probably not fare well against tanks even at its maximum range where it is supposed to have the highest level of penetration, unless it can side shot. But it's probably really cheap compared to existing HEAT based ATGMs, which is something. 

Problem is, it's not dual purpose, which could definitely be the reason it was cancelled. Realistically, while ATGMs have very clearly the "Anti Tank" in their name, their by far most prolific use is against soft targets.

So yeah, just a waste of money here. Great for gaming purposes though.

coli your link is broken or not working. 

EDIT: Working now but slowly. Looks like a chubby fun little toy to have

What's the warhead's weight?

6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It's really ugly.

The engine is mounted at the left side of the mid section.

 

Now I can only wonder if they've managed to counter the weight imbalance caused by the left sided engine. 

Regarding aesthetics, well... each with their own taste. The view from the cabin must be excellent.

But that floor hatch (I suppose it's not supposed to be opened by the passengers) probably means there's no V-hull design.

That's new info. Thanks. 

I've been hearing about the effects of open hatches upon hits (primarily HEAT charges) but I've never quite understood the logic there. Always thought I've missed some parameter. Because either way, you're going to get your ears popped and a serious concussion.

This level of pressure shouldn't just be dangerous, but lethal in close proximity, as it's enough to have it applied to your neck and you're done for. But how consistent is that pressure across the tank and how effective are NBC systems against such sudden rise in overpressure?

Question here: Were the T-72A and T-72M1 given the same ammo? I've heard that T-72M1 users were given older ammo. If that is the case, can they be distinguished by their ammo selection in the FCS? Or was it the same for both?

On 2/23/2017 at 11:40 AM, LoooSeR said:

UAE army Nimr R35 MRAPs at IDEX 2017, probably saw some action in Yemen.

The R35 MRAP looks absolutely gorgeous. It's nice to see that engineers can very well combine functionality with aesthetics. 

Anyone knows what's that closed section in the middle? It lacks view ports and is noticeably larger. I assumed at first that it was dedicated for the squad's storage bins to allow them to carry increased amounts of ammunition/equipment into combat, but I can't confirm it anywhere.

On 2/23/2017 at 6:45 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

As far as I understand it, the role of the Pereh was to help repel large scale tank attacks on Israel.  Is that even a real concern for them anymore?  

As of 2011, no. Not anymore. But it didn't stop them from being extensively used in the 2014 operation in Gaza. 

According to the semi-official statement, one can infer that a replacement will be found and that there's still a void even with the M113 and Ford trucks equipped with the same missiles. 

I was informed over another forum by a person highly connected to the military who usually gets first hand information. I believe it didn't get any media coverage. 

And now I wonder; did anyone really do this in combat? Got no AT weapons? No nearby AT installations? At least piss them off.