Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Wiedzmin

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    623

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Wiedzmin

  1. Wiedzmin
    i'm interested only in hull front, so i think it's only PG-7V proof, but why the added only 36mm on UFP(6mm steel + 30mm "box") and 134mm to LFP... there is 3 main detail on hull front(no overlap), all of them 36mm thick, LFP 134mm thick, don't have turret modules at the moment the one you makred as a "EFP protection" is a toolbox(there is 2 toolbox, one on left and one on right side) "module F700 tool box Drawing No.: 564 570 000 0" maybe this is what inside of 30mm "box"
  2. Wiedzmin
    whole point of MEXAS addon on Leo1 is to completely avoid penetration of RPG-7, or just minimize residual penetration effects after armour penetration(in case of UFP armour it's unlikely to protect from anything) ?
  3. Wiedzmin
    it also contain hand drawn scheme, all in inches, and it's "steel intermediate plate" not "without...", but english cursive is even more insane than russian... it's very strange dock, i trying to get original source(report AR191 ) and with typed text, not handwritten...
  4. Wiedzmin
    1968, Burlington bisquit No. 4 tested by the British in the mid-late 60s, the type of combined armour, at an angle of inclination of 60deg, provided protection from 6 in (152 mm) HC with penetration of 643 mm (cone angle 60, copper), and also provided protection equivalent to 136 mm steel from 120 mm APDS L15A4 ( 1300-1500 yards), the assembly weighed the same way as a 135-136mm steel plate, with an inclination angle of 68 deg the entire assembly protection was achieved from 7 and 8 in HC (penetration unknown, cone angle 40, approximately penetration something around 800 and 900- 1000 mm) at the beginning of 1965, bisquit No. 1 was tested to provide protection against a 5-in HC; by May 65 they switched to No. 4. the presented scheme was compiled according to a handwritten report, in which only plate thicknesses and overall assembly dimensions are exactly given, the air-gaps could be a little different if more accurate data appear, I will correct the scheme.
  5. Wiedzmin
    Burlington bisquit no.4 (1968) 25mm steel -/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/50mm backplate whole block 16 inch thick and side modules is 1-2mm stainless steel 3,175-6,35mm plastic, whole block 8 inch thick 16" block when it's sloped at 60° gives protection from 6" HC(643mm pen) and from 120mm APDS is equivalent to 136mm of RHA(both by weight and by level of protection) i will add details later
  6. Wiedzmin
    thank you. there was shot with 100mm at hull side, i didn't undertand what hapend after hull side chunk ripped off(100x230mm), 100x230 is size of hole and "Mater.-Ausbruch 85x220mm" size of chunk ?
  7. Wiedzmin
    last part of firing trials, maybe someone could make good translation for 1st and last pats. 23.10.76
  8. Wiedzmin
    T-90A turret, it was posted earlier
  9. Wiedzmin
  10. Wiedzmin
    btw one more question Schuss Nr.30 Vers. Nr.30 Ziel : Linke Turm- Vorderseite Flankwinkel: 25 Munition: E 100mm AP Vz: 3128 ft/sec 953 m/s Trefferlage: Schuss ging 140mm zu weit nach links (immittelbar neben die Schweissnaht) 40 mm von links (schweissnaht) 200mm von unten Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM Gerissene Schweissnahte: Senkrechte Schweissnaht: von oben bis unten aufgerissen (max. 140mm breit) Schweissnaht zum Turmdach: 570mm nach vorn Schweissnaht zum Turmdach: 1580mm nach hinten Schweissnaht zum Turmdrehkranz: vollkommen gerissen Turmdrehring gebrochen Turm lasst sich nur gewaltsam drehen doest this mean that 100mm AP destroyed turret ring ? but turret can be turned with force or something like that ? and one more, turret front armour packs for 2AV - "Jalousiepanzerung", turret site - "Mehrfachschott"
  11. Wiedzmin
    addition to previous page, 1st part of firing trials Geschwindigkeitsmessungen Bestimmung der V2 durch Extraploation. Schussentfernungen 115 m fuer Typ D und E 2 kal. abstand fuer Typ A,B und C A - 5’’ brl precision shaped charge B - 4,2’’ brl precision shaped charge C - 3,2’’ brl precision shaped charge D - 105mm APFSDS xm579e4 at striking velocity of 4858 ft/sec E - apc-m.(br412d mod) at striking velocity 3150 ft/sec ^^^ US requirements, what was penetration for all SC at 2 cal. stand-off i don't know, i only have british 127mm S4 charge, which give 580-590 at 250-300mm stand-off. Deutmaterial 1’’ dicke PSt-Bleche (MIL-S-13812-B) mit Brinellhaerte 340 kp/mm2 ¼’’ dicke PSt-Bleche (nur bei Versuch 20) Deutbleche wurden nicht bei allen Versuchen verwendet. 2. Einzelprotokolle 12.10.76 p.s weird evaluation criteria "we accept /we don't accept it"
  12. Wiedzmin
    second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977. this is description for this draw but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank tank cut-away show fuel tank
  13. Wiedzmin
    this graph builded on trial data crater - how deep jet get in to the stack, so for Rd no 1222 crater is 725mm long, as "clean penetration" you can count 9x76mm plates = 684mm for example let's say it's not simplified, it shows another(later imho) type of armour, i will post it later just noticed, i messed up the marks for bolts and fasteners(handgrif)(need to swap makrs)
  14. Wiedzmin
    first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach" 25.04.75 it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? it can't HOT MILAN and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration
  15. Wiedzmin
    L2AV hull from a top, there is more problems with hull because there is not much detailed drawings of it + it changed during trials, side screen only drawed as a 3 spaced plate with total thickness of block 100mm(L2A4 have +- same side blocks) for example hull front 1,5mm bulging plate was drawed only for upper left side, but i think i similar for the right side because it's same structure https://i.imgur.com/njNSbRD. jpg just delete space before "jpg"
  16. Wiedzmin
    btw good pic of polish L2A5(or 6?) showing bottom part of turret(here you also can see how its differ from 2AV) and some old photo
  17. Wiedzmin
    and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this there is no any words about 105mm DM23 and P.B, and there is no initial requirement for +-30 arc as i posted real requirements earlier, Milan is not 103mm and there is no info about how tests was done, static or live fire with real ATGW etc
  18. Wiedzmin
    interesting, thank you and how about "x" ? https://i.imgur.com/Z6dUHdu. jpg turret of L2AV, i hope i managed to avoid mistakes(if there any i will later re-upload corrected version), too complicated scheme, packages A,B,C,D same 190mm packages with special armour, but there is no 12mm plates package.
  19. Wiedzmin
    i posted graph from real tests of Milan and HOT warheads(rig even simulate spin of warhead during flight IIRC), 2CD - real stand off, 4CD and other optimal and not-optimal stand-off's
  20. Wiedzmin
    maybe my misunderstanding there was many test rigs(mockups for firing trials) for L3 and L2/3 not all versions of 2AV has heavy ballistic skirts spaced armour doens't work like "a+b+c" it can give both higher and lower levels of protection comapring to RHA of similar thickness 530mm vs CE for 55 tonn tank is madness, this is almost level of object 172-2m (520mm vs CE for turret and hull), but again, i will post test firing on 2AV later, doesn't have much spare time brits wasn't allowed to examine all penetration, so some of this "80mm" etc, speculative conclusions based on inspection of tank after hits with sealed holes IIRC and ? you get deformed core, it can make hole any size you want bundeswehr doesn't have money at that time, but for trials you can insert diamonds inside tank if you want, because no one guarantees that someone will buy the offered options as for "misidentified" etc i would advise not to build theories about the fact that "in fact there was a death star, and the tank is just wonderful and endured everything" what was german body armour plates(bulletproof, not flakvest's) at the time ? or there is none ? never was that high, all report gives 700-720.
  21. Wiedzmin
    hm, so it's UK made plates ?
  22. Wiedzmin
    5,45x39 7N6 10 meters, author of "trials" claimed that this was ceramic plate, it was SK4 class with aramid screen IIRC, there was some other test with similar(i think) plates and this "pink filler" of course maybe he get it wrong(class etc?)?
  23. Wiedzmin
    1974 requirements -105mm KE -120mm KE -120mm HEAT 120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700 1977-78 requirements did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ? 1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88) -120mm DM23 - HOT and once again HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE. as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work. british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or... for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...
  24. Wiedzmin
    no, tank with EMES15 need to reduce it's weight by 1789kg to get in MLC @SH_MM thank you
  25. Wiedzmin
    yes it'soriginal page from report that @Molota_477 redraw.
×
×
  • Create New...