Mighty_Zuk

T-90MS, several years ago, with Nakidka

well I guess synthetic grass is a sort of effective and cheap camo.

It's confusing when you give estimates. On what part of the tank? Turret or hull?

Also, I can't seem to find confirmation anywhere, but does the Leo 2 have stronger frontal hull armor on the right side, or is thickness consistent along the entirety of the hull front?

Why is an Iranian MRAP showcased with NATO protection standards?

Like the beefed up side skirts .....

 

Now I know what this beast was intended for (Casualty evacuation apparently)., I must say it' a bloody silly design. Surely converting one of the many mothballed Merkava IIs, would have made more sense. Rear hatch etc for bringing in stretchers.

The project was cancelled. It started in 2014 when the ground forces needed cheap, armored evacuation vehicles.

Enjoy:

Can someone explain to me how that dual cannon turret works?

I've seen it has a separate elevation mechanism for each cannon.

I don't understand the twisted logic here.

More height difference between a wheeled APC and a tracked one than a tracked APC and a tracked MBT.

 

This shows pretty well how unrealistic the idea that APCs could be made as survivable as tanks and still have a reasonable weight is.

I don't think anyone ever intended to create a wheeled APC as armored as a tank. Nor ever claimed to.

Wheeled APCs are rather tall because of their focus on belly protection, which is superior to that of tracked platforms. And because they're not expected to fight in the same places as tracked vehicles, they can be made larger and thus more spacious. 

This system was unveiled in Eurosatory a few months ago.

While it's not yet mentioned if the Merkava 4 will get it, the Eitan is confirmed to have it, and Namer will MAYBE get it.

Didn't quite understand. Is the DM73 the new ammunition for the L55A1, or the 130mm gun?

Upgrades of Israeli Centurions to the 105mm L7 started in February of 1963.  

Isn't 1963 before 1973?

Shot Kals were upgraded to 105mm before 1973, meaning they had those before the US first started sending aid and selling arms. UK was still the major supplier at the time, so it wouldn't make much sense to try and buy an M68 when L7 are readily available with similar performance.

IIRC Grads are meant to be aerodynamically unstable to cover a large area in several volleys.

Could be wrong though.

Well, it looks a lot like Soviet mine roller.

Most likely based on one.

We (in Israel) use KMT-4/5 mine rollers based on a Soviet design.

Then you have never heard of the Battle Wadi Saluki or 'Operation Change of Direction'. 20 immobilized Israeli tanks and armored vehicles were initially abandoned and were returned only after the ceasefire came in effect. But this is not the forum to discuss Israeli military losses.

These numbers are overblown, as only 24 tanks received some form of penetration throughout the course of the entire war (IEDs mostly), and only 2 destroyed by ATGMs. Battle of Saluki was fought with mainly ATGMs and I haven't heard of forces running into IEDs.

I've heard plenty enough about the Battle of Saluki. Completely unnecessary operation ordered by an idiotic minister of defense who should have just resigned and kept working in his farm. 

Jealous of the Zveroboy, the SU-100 gets its own nickname.

 

 

"Pizdets Vsemu" roughly translates as "you're all fucked"

Pizdets vsemu? 

I'm literally dying!

Except for a few very specific spots, a bullet hitting the armour will never hit a completely symmetrical spot, so the bullet will always rotate, lowering the penetration capabilities if it hits a plate behind the perforated armour.

bullets constantly rotate. I think the more appropriate term would be "yaw". 

a kinetic energy projectile loses much of its energy as a result, and the impact surface grows substantially.

Merkava 4 armor is not perforated, damaged Merks shows NERA being used as armor for turret.

Not perforated in the same way, but they still are. in the early production models at least.

The armor consists of many hard-pressed layers but there are certain air gaps in between plates (each plate = multiple layers) that result in what you see in the image above. 

Mark 4B lost these small gaps in favor of new, more efficient and lighter armor.

. This happened to the Israelis in 2006 where scores of damaged but not necessarily destroyed Merkava tanks were abandoned just over the border with Lebanon. At the very least a damaged Armata could offer resistance. 

abandoned? scores?

Every damaged tank was fixed and returned to combat within hours.

The only tank I know was abandoned was a Merkava 2 that was partially destroyed by heavy IED and later finished by the IDF and dumped somewhere.

scores mean there were many. 1 is not many.

Perforated armor is not a new concept, but it does help save considerable amounts of weight without losing much protection.

Turret of Mark 4A tanks; 

Note: the Mark 4B uses a different armor which is non-perforated.

Interesting to note the chain and ball skirt around the turret.  This was not present on the first few pictures either.

*Merkava intensifies!*

http://dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Australian-Armoured-Vehicle-Programs-to-2030-Special-Supplement.pdf

Okay then I stand corrected. 

HEAT penetrates due to chemical energy. It doesn't. It penetrates due to kinetic energy.

 

While HEAT does use chemical energy to propel the kinetic energy penetrator, so does every single AP cartridge. A HEAT round just has it at two points, to propel the shell and to propel the kinetic energy penetrator. Whereas with almost all AP shells the shell and penetrator are one and the same.

It uses a combination of both chemical and kinetic energy actually.

HEAT shells use a copper liner, which is a cheap but extremely effective conductor.

Combine the copper jet's extreme heat and extreme speed and you get the perfect weapon to cut through steel. 

But then of course people take it the other way and say it 'melts' the armor, which is also not true.

The Zuk approves this message

With the introduction of unmanned turrets on MBTs I have been wondering:

 

 

What protection levels do a unmanned turret need?

 

Do we give  them them the same protection as ordinary turrets? Do we just make them Auto cannon proof from the front and from handheld AT weapons?

 

ops, quoted someone xD

The unmanned turret on the T-14 for example, features light and thin armor capable of withstanding autocannon fire at best, but it does come equipped with an APS.

I can't say the APS design is ideal. It lacks in many cases, but it will provide the necessary protection against a few KEPs. 

On the other hand, an unmanned turret in which every component is tightly placed and with thin armor, is more likely to suffer a catastrophic kill than a "normal" tank unless the ammo rack can be completely sealed after reloading. 

And the damage will be more extensive, always resulting in a mission kill. 

Overall it's a more survivable and lighter design, but it is vulnerable to counter-APS solutions. Personally I think the T-14 should have had more armor on the turret. After all, an unmanned turret has a lot less surface to protect.