TokyoMorose

3 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html

 

I also did this while talking with someone else:

  Hide contents

 

It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions)

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.

19 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I ain't clicking a rando pdf.

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.

15 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

Seeing as the tradeoff between the two is inverse linear, it evidently makes sense to maximize the linear one at the cost of the square root one, all else being equal. 

By god, the British were right all along, Churchill coming in with the best MMP suspension of all time.

17 hours ago, Toxn said:

Sadly no - I used the 1972 MMP equations and noodled around a bit with variables. From a gaming sums perspective, what they do is introduce a new term (tire deflection) which increases effective track contact area. Even a few centimetres makes a big difference here.

 

Realistically, of course, you're right - having soft, flexible bits on road wheels seems like a recipe for issues unless the vehicle is very light to begin with (at which point MMP more or less sorts itself out). 

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.

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

What ammunition does the M48A3Ks currently use?

The main limitation of the M48 is probably it's 90mm, which is fine against most AFV, but will struggle against even vanilla T-55 and T-62 in service in NK.

 

I know that AML 90 and ERC 90 Sagaie have been engaged against T-54/55 in Israel and in Africa and sometimes defeated their armor, if barely.

So a 90mm can probably pack enough punch to defeat a T-55 or a T-62 frontally, especially using modern ammo.

But since 90mm were replaced fairly quickly by a 105 mm amongst most NATO members, I don't know how much efforts were made to develop relevant ammunition for the M48's 90mm.

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.

12 hours ago, delete013 said:

Because they were designed 30 years later. If vehicles needed to exceed 70 tonnes then interleaved wheels would likely come back into play.

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.

13 hours ago, delete013 said:

It does. It is of secondary consideration though. I believe having that 8.8 and 100mm of steel justifies some freezing mud problems. Allies got these priorities all wrong and paid the high price.

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 maintenance demands, and they will all say yes. They'd also greatly appreciate the better operational range, lower fuel consumption, and ability to not shred eastern european bridges very highly.

7 hours ago, Beer said:

 

To be fair, none of the three vehicles had 50 mm gun. All producers promissed to have it "later". Škoda (T15) and ČKD (Pz.38(t) n.A.) wanted to use 47 mm A22 gun (prototypes had 37 mm A19). Maybe that was one of the reasons too because M.A.N. Promissed to use the KwK-39 L/60 in Daimler turret which was developed for the Sd.Kfz-234, there was just one issue that turret ring was larger than what could fit on the Luchs. 

 

There is also a point which shall be considered. Škoda and especially ČKD could have failed to meet  some of the requirements on purpose. It is known that Surin did some mistakes in designs for Germans intentionally (overweight front Axle or some weakspots in armor protection on Hetzer for example), it was also common to try to be late with everything. 

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.

12 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Yes, I read this article. I read also the book of Francev about Czechoslovak vehicles but neither source gives a definitive answer. Sure Luchs failed. That's the only thing we know for sure. 

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.

13 hours ago, barbaria said:

Nice display of hospital bombing you got there. Only in Russia I guess...

Doctors without borders says hello.

3 hours ago, Beer said:

 

There is not enough known to me about what was the decisive factor. From a book I read the Kummersdorf comission allegedly recommended Pz.38(t) n.A. but Waffenamt selected Luchs. There could have been a lot of reasons for that (performance, lobbing, planning of supplier workload, Kniekamp's preference of his suspension design etc. etc.). We will likely never know. We only know that Luchs as a program failed.

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 them to do that - more than a year at WW2 build pace!)... which resulted in the Sd.Kfz 140/1 being churned out for a few months before all Czech production was ordered to change to JgPz 38(t).

Always recommend the translated Pasholok piece here: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/07/reconnaissance-cats.html

It covers the sordid tale of Luchs and Leopard, and ends up discussing the 140/1 (Aufklärungspanzer 38(t)) at the end.

It's more of a goals/wish list than a true white paper.

Few concrete moves identified, lots of weasel wording. A lot better than no actual plan, but still lots of wiggle room.

Case in point, the future of Boxer. It's going to be increasingly relied on, for example replacing Warrior, but nothing on numbers or variants.

Just now, N-L-M said:

Well, if the system is being demonstated, presumably it must be on some platform. And for a demonstration, going to all the effort to integrate the system into a new platform seems excessive. So perhaps, a case of "ignore the tank focus on the system on the tank".

I would expect much the same to be the case with fire control demonstrations.

Yeah, I went into it thinking it would just be a demo rig on a truck or something but they could have hauled the full tank out to demo the system. Which would make the old crazy rumors of Merkava IVs in singapore not entirely false, one was there to show off.

19 minutes ago, Marsh said:

Perhaps. It could also be part of a sales pitch and demonstration in Singapore of Trophy, as part of a potential sale of the system for integration on their Leopards.

Very true, but they went quite out of their way in the vid to flash an image of a Merkava during this Singapore segment, and I cannot comprehend any reason to do so if they were merely doing a sales demonstration for the Trophy system.

(There is also the issues that other countries have had with slapping Trophy on their tanks, it weighs quite a lot and demands quite a lot of power. Since Singapore was already planning on a pretty hefty applique armor package, I would be very shocked if their old mid-batch 2A4s had the weight and power margins to even think about fitting Trophy. Would remind me of the issues that forced the 2A7A1 awkwardness in Germany.)

So Rafael put out this video to celebrate 10 years of Trophy covering the past of the system.

It's pretty standard fare, but at roughly 4:15 through 4:30 - you get what appears to be the first proof of the long-mythical Merkava work with the Singaporean armed forces. That is clearly blurred SAF personnel, and the jungles that the demonstration shot was done there are exactly the flora you see in Singapore. I cannot understand Hebrew, but they flash up an image of a Merkava during that sequence, so it wasn't *just* dev work for Trophy.

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

That guy is just making up numbers and it is easy to see that they are wrong.

They aren't even that impressive if he is just fabricating numbers, they pale in comparison to the almighty Mk. 75 Tigerwolf designed by Doctor Michael Sparks.

On 3/6/2021 at 9:31 AM, Jackvony said:

Does anyone have any information detailing the steel applique armor added on the M2/M3A2 upgrade? I know it's said its believed to stop 30mm fire in the frontal arc. 

I don't have my sources handy, but it's a simple thin plate of HHA spaced out by an inch or so. It mostly works on the same principles as Ye Olde Schurzen, with the high hardness steel tilting the round and forcing it to impact sideways on the base plate. And by 30mm fire, they mean the old 3UBR6 APBC, which is hardly a terrifying round.

Also, when it comes to "muh future plans"... these are well known.

Panther II was outright cancelled and never, ever ever considered for a revival. Even mentioning it is pointless, like the original "Tiger II" (an abhorrent Tiger/Panther hybrid) it was a complete dead end.

The E series, much beloved, were also a complete dead end for the Germans in that they didn't ever attempt to even guess when they might be built. In '45, in the Twilight of the Nazi Gods, all panzer production was to be on three chassis families - Panzer 38(d), Panther, and Tiger II. And even then, the Tiger II chassis was used for limited volume specialist production only as the Germans more or less finally admitted they couldn't support a dedicated heavyweight branch anymore. 

The only planned changeover for medium weight production was the introduction of the Ausf. F and its Schmalturm which has a marginal effect on combat ability. Other than that, it's literally Ausf F. Panthers until the end of the planning periods. If they were lucky they would get the new optics and HL234 at some undecided point in the future. Even if they got everything in research into production, the Panzerwaffe '46 is going to be building the Panther Ausf F. with only minor tweaks.

At which point of course, the Russians may well have decided to put T-54-1 or T-44-100 into mass production unlike real life... Centurion II or III is in full production, and the M46 has probably arrived carrying some form of the long 90mm. (The ditching of the long 90mm and the glacial pace at which M46 arrived more or less resulting from postwar budget issues that wouldn't happen in such a timeline.)

And the T-54-1 in particular puts such a 1946 Panther to shame.

7 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Interesting, thanks; what is this from? Ogorkiewicz differentiates between double-differentials and the Panther's steering system, and has a pretty high opinion of it:

...

 

Thing is, the benefits of compactness and short drivetrain runs apply to cletrac steering as well. All it really adds is multiple geared (non-brake) turning radii and neutral steering, for double the cost and space. It is admittedly probably the cheapest way to achieve multiple radii w/ neutral steer, but are those in practice so useful to spend double the effort on? Panther would have been just as effective with a single controlled diff, and it'd be much cheaper.

2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

- M48: generally good, and with the aforementioned sexy curves. The only complaints I've heard about it are that its 90mm gun was a bit long in the tooth by then (although kept up to date with HEAT-FS and the last of the APCR rounds) and that the commander's mini-turret wasn't great. 

7.5-8.5/10, would upgrade with 105mm L7, delete the mini-turret and up the model number by 12.

M48 always struck me as comically huge for how much armor and gun you get for it, (as might be reasonably expected from a literal cut-down heavy tank design) - and it is really quite a shame that they dragged their feet upgunning the things for so long despite the cavernous interior. So many upgrades designed and/or tested for the M48 that went nowhere in the rather chaotic 50s and 60s... and that mini-turret is one of the few things to go into production.

Even a great many tank enthusiasts out there don't seem to be aware the M48 originally came with a perfectly reasonable vision cupola with a remote MG mount, only for that to be ditched for that damned tumor.

On 3/1/2021 at 6:46 PM, DogDodger said:

You have high standards for ground clearance. The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes. I'm not sure it was quite as bad off-road as you make it seem, but I do find the T25 a tantalizing what-if.

 

Panther used a geared steering system and not a triple-differential, no? The nominal ground pressures were indeed similar (and even favored the Pershing, depending on the source), but the Panther's mean maximal pressure and other off-road performance characteristics would benefit from its maintenance-unfriendly road wheel setup. Wong has some interesting simulations in Terramechanics and Off-road Vehicle Engineering between a baseline M113-type vehicle with 5 road wheel stations, the same vehicle with 6 road wheel stations, and the same vehicle with 8 overlapping road wheel stations. The simulations are run on snow and clayey soil, and the machine with more road wheels shows better performance in everything from wheel sinkage to drawbar pull to tractive effort to trim angle, etc. Panther weighed 6.9-8.6% more than the M26, but its tracks were 2-3" wider and it had 2 more road wheel stations per track in the same ground contact length and essentially the same track pitch (5.9" for the Kgs 64/660/150 vs. 6" for the M26's tracks). Double torsion bars were probably needlessly complex, the interleaved wheels required inordinate effort and time for maintenance, and the final drive was never adequately strengthened, but credit where due: the thing should perform quite well off-road.

Panther has this very weird double diff system (not triple, sorry) that is sort of like two Clectrac units hulksmashed together operating in a compound fashion.

Ignoring the wherbwank for the "outgun anyone" (laffs in 122mm), this does do a good description of how it works. It is IMHO a lame system overall, being a *slight* improvement over the Controlled Diff system but at literally double the expense and space.

On 2/25/2021 at 4:23 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Who needs it in 2021?

 

  Hide contents

 

 

"We only have one product, please buy it we beg you!"

I'm very much impressed with the 205hp 6.5L & 4-speed transmission in particular, the finest of cheap early 1980s tech.

19 hours ago, delete013 said:

Who had better mobility, panther or pershing?

Panther, but only just - and primarily due to a better and more efficient steering mechanism (Triple Diff versus good ole Cletrac steering on the M26).

On most terrain, the ground pressure difference is so marginal that it matters not (Panther of course has a more notable advantage in deep mud and the like) and while people love to factor in the full "power" of the HL230 once you factor in the actual *governed* net power, the Panther and M26 have almost exactly the same net HP/Ton.

So yes, the Panther is marginally more mobile when working but I cannot stress how slim the margin is. They are for all intents and purposes equal outside of specific terrain (i.e. bad enough mud/snow the ground pressure difference adds up) and yet everyone calls the M26 a slow pig, and the Panther's mobility tends to get highlighted.

I think the reason for this distinction is that M26 saw lots of service and use with the much, much faster post-war designs that made it seem like a slow pig in comparison while Panther was mostly used alongside/against wartime and even prewar designs so it seems very mobile indeed. If you compared the Panther to the same set of machines M26 usually gets compared to (even if the comparison is subconscious by a unit that say, transitioned from M26 to M46 or M47), the Panther is just as much of a slow pig.

11 hours ago, Toxn said:

It seems the transmission was the real achilles heel of the DB design (the prototype broke on startup during trials). Although MAN calling the DB transmission complex and unreliable was an epic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

This article lays it out in some detail: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/08/panthers-ancestors.html?m=1

 

I'd say that, realistically, the DB design (if chosen) would have eventually been boxed into almost the same corner as the historical Panther - forced to accept a front transmission, interleaved suspension and pre-designed Henschel turret.

I know, I've read that piece. Just had DB been able to keep their design independence it was a lot more promising. Said independence is of course, the biggest obstacle to them winning in the first place.

11 hours ago, delete013 said:

Well, it was more cramped, had shorter range, poor suspension and the new turret didn't fit on it. Spielberger explains pretty well the circumstances and no, the party politics played little role beyond Hitler's hard limits of that 80mm front plate. It actually had interleaved road wheels. Leaf springs were considered cheap but bad in German opinion. They prefered MAN's suspension. When they were deciding over the prototypes Germany was not yet going downhill and plenty of feats remained in final model in an effort not to interrupt the production.

I know the new turret didn't fit, DB designed their own and the Rheinmetall-provided turret as used on production Panthers wasn't a terribly good design in any case. The late war efforts at a Schmalturm were actually *reviving* the general concepts DB was working on for their turret. More cramped is relative, as that would depend on how the internal arrangement is laid out - on paper Panther has lots of room, in practice the internal layout is a trainwreck and wastes this. Go watch Moran stumble around the various positions.

The cheap but bad leaf spring bogies carried the German army on their back on the endless Panzer IVs and derivations. Which were actually largely reliable, and simple to repair unlike the doubled-torsion-bar set up on Panther. But yes, I had forgotten that the DB did have a simple interleaved setup (only 2 layers, of single road wheels).

And you can hardly say that politics didn't play a role - Maybach aggressively pushed against diesels to maintain their AFV monopoly, MAN enthusiastically wooed Kniepkamp and crammed as many of his ideas as they could into their changing proposals. MAN did everything they could to please as many other major firms, while DB basically went it alone.

What really makes me laugh about Panther, was it wasn't even the best design the Germans cooked up. DB's incredible "I can't believe it's not a T-34!" entry into the Panther design contest was the superior vehicle in almost all regards, and lost because of corporate politics and violating sacred cows (an all-rear powerpack?! leaf springs supporting a non-interleaved running gear?!) of Wa Pruf 6.

It was actually reasonably sized, not over-engineered, and even had a diesel (which was an off-the-shelf powerplant to boot!). Sure the hull hatch arrangement was less than optimal (similar to Comet in this regard, lol corner hatches), and the turret may have been a wee bit cramped...

But I seriously doubt the turret would have been less cramped than the combination in MAN's proposal was.