Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
Why would they demonstrate the Leo 2PL? It's more of a show of compromise.
-
It is still true that the IDF in 1948 had to provide quick Hebrew courses for a very large amount of jewish soldiers as they were mostly unfamiliar with Hebrew to a sufficient extent.
-
Yes that's a fuel tank of the Leopard 2AV.
-
-
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:
Bro... that's a T-72.
No that's clearly a BMP-2.
-
I don't think that's really an argument. Soviet tanks were designed with the principle of being smaller to minimize chances of being hit (though largely also because of bad infrastructure), and look where that got them - it cost the users a great deal of lives, cost them capabilities, and eventually they abandoned it. All that anyone ever had to do to counter this design feature was make a digital FCS (not those funky Chally stuff) that is reliable enough. Surely even a narrow turret isn't much of a problem nowadays.
I know there's a whole debate surrounding this, about whether the T-14 (or any future MBT) is going to sacrifice mobility to get better protection, or sacrifice protection for better mobility (current state). Doctrine-heavy.
Russia could have gotten that sweet spot in between by at least making a turret that is ready to accept various configurations, including a modular armor on short notice, but it didn't. They went instead with having a wholly modular turret, which means they can still change it (and it's a very good future-proofing decision) but they will not be ready on short notice.
-
He's called "The Incredible Hulk" for a reason.
-
21 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
Also, you can see from that image that the hull protection on the Abrams, even accounting for the fuel cells, is not spectacular.
This is a flaw shared by many Western MBTs, sadly.
edit: and most Soviet ones, come to think of it.
Hull armor was never more, or even, as important as turret armor, because the turret is exposed far more frequently, thus more susceptible to being hit. Explaining why turrets have traditionally better armor than tanks' hulls.
The exception would be the T-14, which chooses to rely solely on an APS for its turret's protection. A bad call I believe. While the turret is no longer manned, it is definitely just as much exposed to hostile fire.
20 hours ago, Collimatrix said:Not on the upper glacis it isn't.
We're getting off topic, but basically all MBTs have a weak spot around the driver's position. The Challenger 2 is the worst offender,
I wouldn't say "all". At least the Leclerc and Merkava, who share a rather similar protection scheme, don't have that weak spot.
20 hours ago, Damian said:That's your problem, first I never seen a hit in the M1's upper glacis, because it's so small target, second thing is, there is still big chance of a bounce due to angle. You don't like it, well, find a better design... oh wait, there isn't a better 3rd generation designs. So yeah, this is a pointless discussion.
Pretty sure that somewhere in the AW forums, in one of the threads that I cannot recall its name, there were pictures of an M1A1/2 (don't remember which) pierced in its UFP by an ATGM which IIRC was a Konkurs.
-
On 2/15/2017 at 6:01 PM, Damian said:
It does not matter where the tank is hit, if the projectile gets inside, if there is no ammo inside crew compartment, there is no ignition of ammo, and crew members are only injured but alive in worst case scenario.
In case of direct hit in to ammo storage, well ammo storage blows up, but again crew is safe, and probably tank can be repaired.
Now let's take a tank with ammo storage in crew compartment that is not isolated, if the crew compartment is penetrated by the projectile, there is a big chance of catastrophic ammo cook off, and crew death.
So in all cases, isolated ammo storage is better, as it increases survivability of both the crew and the tank.
And honestly only a fool believes that armor will always protect him.
Another example, destroyed Merkava Mk2, with the catastrophic ammo cook off, when primary ammo storage was hit.
Another two catastrophic ammo cook offs.
There's no hard confirmation yet as to what exactly happened to the Leopards. While it is evident that at least one suffered ammo detonation at the hull, causing catastrophic kill, it may not have been caused immediately in combat. I do however think that its ammo storage is flawed.
And that Merkava 2 pic... bro... an IED hit. When several hundred kilograms of explosives detonate below you, and don't turn a tank to dust, give me a call.
-
Shots resulting in penetration of both the ammo compartment and the separating door are quite likely in side or rear shots, but the crew manning the turret would be pretty much screwed regardless of detonating ammunition.
-
It's all equipment that Russia intends to get rid of either in the short term or mid term. Even the T-90A. It would not be in Russia's best interest to overburden Syria further with more expenses. Eventually, Russia will be the big winner by racking up all the construction deals, or at least a good portion of them, amounting to billions of dollars worth of work.
-
On 2/10/2017 at 10:13 AM, Toxn said:
A few NERA-related patets:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=7360479B2&KC=B2&FT=D
And a bit of ERA stuff as well:
Reading between the lines a bit, it seems that ERA developed in the 1970s (which matches the historical accounts), with NERA developing from earlier sandwich plate designs in the early 80s.
The mechanism given for how early NERA designs worked was that the flyer plate was acted upon by an incompressible intermediate plate - the impact creating a shockwave which pushed the flyer plate back up into the path of the penetrator.
My my... it seems you've found a pretty recent RAFAEL patent on the NxRA. Could be Merkava-related. I'll be sure to save it.
-
Almost forgot to mention over the AW forums - most such info is never OPSEC. It's just that the IDF doesn't really feel the need to release technical documents of its equipment unless specifically asked for. Same goes for the defense industries. I guess it's a mentality kind of thing. Don't boast about it if it doesn't interest the wide public.
-
6 hours ago, lemd said:
Better my ass, I am an inventor, enterpreneur, what did you do your whole life on my caliber?
I don't know napkin calculation, english is not my first language so my expression is not that good.
Being an inventor alone is far greater than anything an engineer like you can be, in both technology and financial achievement. Being a great inventor, who can influence the world, change how battlefield is fought, is not even in your dream, loser
Well somebody needs to take a big dose of "shut the fuck up!".
Inventor and Enterpreneur my ass! If you lack even the manners of a 5 year old child, you need to get your priorities straight.
-
-
1 hour ago, Xlucine said:
I'm convinced they're the same rounds. Back in 2013 there was lots of discussion about how great the XM1069 AMP round is, and now we get the same claims made about the XM1147 AMP. Maybe someone finally noticed the innuendo?
1) this isn't just about penetrating reinforced targets, this round is replacing M908 - it has to turn large blocks of concrete into rubble. A more rigid nose is only a good thing against concrete, and 8" is not very much for an actual bunker.
2) 5 modes because it has the additional complexity of when to release the submunitions - not a degree of freedom that the AMP has to control
3) AMP = HEMP, it's right there in the janes article. They don't have 6 modes, they have 6 different capabilities - there's a difference. Point detonate (SQ or with delay) and airburst are the only options for the fuse, with those you can engage "ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles" (https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round)
1)As I said, if there's a bunker, that would usually require a HEAT-MP round. I doubt the AMP can pierce a meter of concrete.
2)The FCS determines when to release the submunitions, not the crew. The crew only has to set the right mode and range.
3)Then I might have understood the article wrong.
-
9 hours ago, Xlucine said:
HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.
1)Nose fuze doesn't impact the round's performance much. If at all. For anti-LAV and anti-bunker modes, there is a special delay.
APAM and M339 are both said to pierce 200mm of reinforced concrete, which is plenty enough against all sorts of urban or non-armored threats. Now if there's a meter thick concrete walled bunker that needs to be destroyed but is too much for HE-MP rounds, one can always use HEAT-MP rounds.
2)The submunitions are not what raises the cost. The 5-mode fuze is what does it.
3)We're not talking about the HEMP here, but the AMP with its 6 modes.
4)The mistake of APAM, as I've said above, is to give a single round too many operation modes which, even if didn't confuse gunners (more often than not, some modes overlap in certain scenarios, creating confusion as to which one to pick), it was enough to slow down the operation for even the more skilled, more experienced and more familiar gunners with the APAM over the M339 which offered pretty much the same capabilities in much more comfortable package. The AMP seems to ignore it and even add a 6th mode.
This is why the IDF is phasing out the APAM in favor of the M339.
-
The AMP repeats all the mistakes IMI did with the APAM. It was quickly realized to be too complicated (5 or 6 modes IIRC) and simultaneously too expensive. So expensive that special permission had to be granted to fire APAM.
During the 2014 conflict in Gaza, another round called M339 "Hatzav" with only 3 modes entered service alongside the APAM and it was reported by tank crews to have significantly decreased engagement times, resulting in far higher efficiency due to simplification (all the capabilities actually exist in it, but inside fewer modes), and same lethality which they claimed as surgical (would aid in preventing collapse of buildings and lowered harm to different floors).
Seems that they didn't learn from the Israeli experience and decided to repeat the same mistake.
-
Don't they already have the Ur anus -9? Seems that they're developing too many families of UGVs.
-
Doesn't seem like he contradicted himself or implied Puma was never built.
What I understood is that NGP in its original envisioned form wasn't built as a prototype. Rather, a single specialized variant of it was further developed, changed to an uncertain extent, which then formed the basis for the Puma.
You could argue both ways (whether it was the NGP or wasn't), but can't dismiss either one that easily.
-
Can we just change the name of the thread please? There's quite enough tanks that I can call "Armata's daddy" simply by listing common features.
As a side note; I've heard the story of stealing French ships (exciting stuff!), but not German submarines. If it's true, I want the story behind this.
-
It is funny how much they mentioned Merkava and bullshit in this patent about Merkava is kind of funny.
If they plan on going reverse with the T-Rex, then maybe they could get something similar.
-
Eitan and Namer set to receive 30mm cannon soon. Turret still in development.
https://zuk-armor-il.blogspot.co.il/2017/01/new-eitan-info.html
-
General AFV Thread
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
Pereh ATGM carrier was finally laid to rest yesterday (21/02/17) in a ceremony held by both active duty servicemen and reservists.
Proper replacement will be found.