chebuRUSHka

On 26.2.2017 at 3:13 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Why is that? 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/02/accuracy.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/05/accuracy-revisited.html

First he begins with a strawman argument in order to make everyone with a different opinion look like a clueless fan boy. Then he shows some documents, like all slavaboos do, in order to demonstrate his intellectual superiority. Too bad he doesn't know Germans used the 50% criterion, where as Soviet union used standard deviation or срединные отклонение. He lacks the formal education to understand his sources, but he talks down on people who don't share his opinion. It's really pathetic.

On 2/22/2017 at 8:47 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

Close enough http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/05/unconventional-anti-tank-warfare.html

This is a terrible source my friend.

So some Russian designer doesn't know this is a South Korean tank and not a Russian one.

52 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

23rd February is a day of South Korea Defenders, apparently

What?

35 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

This is all the formula anyone could ever need for APFSDS against homogeneous materials:

http://www.longrods.ch/

All you need is the length and diameter, as the muzzle velocity is given in the chart sovngard posted

Hello, thanks for your reply.

I know that site, but unfortunately there is no formula I'm aware of, which works for all penetrators. There are some formulas which work for modern sabots, but not for sabots from the 60s. Are you sure longrods.ch can handle 60s/early-70s sabots?

Fair enough. For me the Leopard 2K is just a rebrand. I fail to see any substantial difference besides the gun.

Back to topic now:

Does anyone have more penetration values or a formula, for 30° and 0°?

1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

It was armed with a 105 mm smoothbore gun and it was powered by the MB 872 Ka-500 engine developping up to 1250 horsepower, the Keiler weighed likely as much as the Leopard 2K prototypes ; between 46 800 kg and 50 500 kg.

Like i wrote there were different versions:

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

That's this gun, right?  The super thick walled 105mm smoothbore mounted on the Leo 1.5:

 

Yes. That tank was called Keiler. There was also a version with the 120mm L44. The interesting characteristic about the Keiler was its power-to-weight ratio. At only 40 tonnes this tank was  carrying the mighty 1500hp engine from the Leo2, resulting in 37.5 hp/t.

19 minutes ago, Sovngard said:

R. P. Hunnicutt, Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Vol. 2

Thanks. So am I right assuming this M1A1+ had better frontal protection than the M1A1HC?

Just now, Khand-e said:

It was first produced in 1986, I don't know if it was "mass" produced per say but yes the M1A2 first entered service in 1992.

It did have a "second generation armor package" installed on it, though I'm not sure at what point that happened in the design or production stages.

What did have a "second generation armor package"? The 1986 prototype or the 1992 version? Isn't the "second generation armor package" is what's on the M1A1?

1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I didn't save the original, but searching through the CIA dump with various substrings should bring it up. It's kinda sorta OCR'd.

Sorry which CIA dump? Please provide a link.

1 minute ago, Sovngard said:

You mean M1A1 ?

According to many websites the first M1A2 was built in 1986, although it's not clear if they are talking about a prototype or not. The mass production happened somewhere between 1986 and 1992, if they are correct.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

Was the armour of the M1A2 improved between 1986 and 1992?

On 19.2.2017 at 11:21 AM, Sovngard said:

Quantified data about this 105 mm smoothbore gun and its APFSDS are shown in the following table summarising the trilateral trials :

What's a MBT 78?

On 13.2.2017 at 2:23 PM, SH_MM said:

This is not the case. This is a presentation from Rheinmetall, that's why it most likely doesn't include any M829 variant in the penetration graph. However Rheinmetall has mentioned in numerous other occasions, that the current APFSDS are optimized against special armor. You shouldn't read it as "can penetrate X amount of steel armor", but "can penetrate composite armor, that provides protection equal to X mm steel against conventional APFSDS ammo". According to German sources, the DM53 + L/55 can penetrate special targets that are equivalent to 1,000 mm RHA, but it cannot penetrate 1,000 mm RHA. How this armor target exactly looks is unknown, but another presentation mentions that Germany/Rheinmetall expected tanks with 1,000 mm RHA equivalent armor, consisting of ~220 mm protection provided by ERA, ~380 mm protection provided by steel and ~400 mm by ceramic and composite materials.

This or it was fired from a ETC gun. I remember there was a test with a type B or C ETC gun by 2002.

On 31.1.2017 at 10:14 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Goddamn pubbies and their derp guns

 

Which year?

Hello,

I was wondering what were the Rh-105 penetration capabilities with 60s and 70s ammo?

This is the only information i found thus far:

Thank you sovngard! 

130mm @ 60° @ 2000m

150mm @ 60° @ 800m

What about 100m and 1000m? What about 0°?

Hello guys, I have some questions about the Leopard 2A5 prototypes.

How do the TVMs and the KVT compare to the Leopard 2A5, when it come to armour?

The KVT was build using a Leo2A4 fromt the 5th batch(1985), so it should have less armour than the 2A5, because those used the 1988 or 1991 armour package, right?

The TVMs were build using a Leo2A4 fromt the 8th batch, so it should have the same frontal armour as the 2A5, right? The TVMs had improved roof armour, but i mostly care about the front and side protection.

Did they all share the same FCS? I know that the TVM-Max had a different PERI and a different thermal imager, but what about the rest? Same ballistics computer and sensors?