Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

TokyoMorose last won the day on February 15

TokyoMorose had the most liked content!

About TokyoMorose

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh, I am aware of the limitations of soviet APFSDS and Sabot design - it's just that it beggars belief that ye olde soviet metal sabots had a better mass fraction despite the shorter rods and the fin situation. The Soviet ones were not made of a particularly weight-efficient material, having been primarily chosen for manufacturability and durability. I also didn't criticize the 130mm Sabot having such a high mass fraction as that thing is still in development, works at unprecedented pressures, and has a notably wider bore. I am not sure how to square that with the nu
  2. I know all about the issues of parasitic mass and the like, 35% just seems to be a very high mass fraction for a modern 120mm (obviously, bore size plays a huge role in 'proper' sabot mass fraction) sabot made using a composite material. Old Soviet 125mm metal sabots had a *superior* mass fraction (approx 30-31%), with a wider bore requiring a larger sabot. For what it is worth, the sabot mass fraction is ~20% of total projectile (Sabot + Rod) mass on 829A3. (Approx 2 kg sabot, calculated from the 4.4kg sabot of 829A1 plus AMPTIAC's numbers of Sabot weight savings generation over g
  3. If the DM53 wastes 35% of its total energy on the Sabot, the ammunition team needs to be rounded up and fired.
  4. That's possible, but according to Rheinmetall the Rh-M-120 L/55A1 is already a 15MJ muzzle energy gun (technically 14.95MJ, taken from the known 13MJ launch energy of DM-53 out of the L/55 and adding 15% to meet Rheinmetall's claimed 15% energy increase). You would have to lose over 15% of your muzzle energy to have a 13MJ impact energy with a 15MJ shot out of the L/55A1 - and in what circumstances is an APFSDS going to lose 15% of its energy mid flight? I would wager they don't lose 10% of their energy mid flight (other rounds are much draggier and lose more, but energy isn't rea
  5. It's also a similar pressure according to them, which explains the 10 MJ standard muzzle energy (which is actually inferior to the L/55A1 if I remember right), and scales to just 13MJ... which is barely superior if at all. They seem oddly confident that 13MJ will be enough for the next 50 years.
  6. It's a long, 180+ page thesis for a master's degree. It's pretty decent skimming it, but I'm not going to read all of it.
  7. By god, the British were right all along, Churchill coming in with the best MMP suspension of all time.
  8. Some of the French 40s and 50s prototypes had pneumatic roadwheels, and I wonder if that was influence from the German 'expertise' they agglomerated post war. They did after all, also build some interleaved suspensions at this time - as well as desperately tried to get the HL 230 family to work to spec.
  9. Poongsan produces the domestic K241 APFSDS in 90mm, as well as the licensed M431A2 HEAT and M71 HE (along with M353A2 training) - I assume these are the currently stocked rounds. The old IHS Jane's ammo handbook quotes 152mm @ 60 degrees @ 1km for its performance. Take that with a grain of salt, although it is a tungsten rod.
  10. Neither Merkava IV or Challenger 2 have interleaved wheels and at their heaviest substantially exceed 70 tonnes. Merkava IV doesn't even use torsion bars. It uses an advanced, high tech solution of... big springs.
  11. And yet, any 76mm armed Sherman has effectively 100mm of armor frontally (it's 93.1mm, but 7 mm ain't gonna make a difference) and a more effective gun than the short 88 in terms of pure vehicle-on-vehicle contests. Even the humble T-34 brings 90mm (and more on the turret face and mantlet on 85mm ones) of steel and with the 85mm a similar gun. And the T-34 was a maniacally cheap and simple vehicle, ask the German commanders if they would trade 10mm of armor in places and basically no gun performance in exchange for having a vehicle well less than half the cost and with far less mai
  12. I know that the n.A. was technically designed around the A22 - but to be honest, there shouldn't be any issue fitting the 5cm PaK in place of the A22. The differences in both gun and ammo size was marginal. As an aside, the turret planned for Luchs that did end up on Sd.Kfz 234/2 actually originated as part of the VK 16.02, and was then rejiggered to fit the wheeled death trap and luchs on paper.
  13. I just find it very amusing that MAN was able to submit a vehicle that did not meet the hard requirements (the 5cm gun), and still managed to win. That is some grade A favoritism.
  14. As far as I understand it, the rather key reason that the Luchs won over the n.A. (and the Luchs actually *failed* to meet requirements, the program required a 50mm gun and the best MAN could weasel out was they would have a new 50mm turret 'sometime' in the future for it) - was quite simple. MAN was both German and had lots of friends in the brass making decisions. The great irony is that they would basically have to beg for something to replace the nonexistent Luchs (as MAN was so overloaded with higher priority work, they never made more than the LRIP 100 tanks, and it was an epic feat for
×
×
  • Create New...