Wiedzmin
-
Posts
623 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
97
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Wiedzmin
-
i can find exact "kg" but it will take some time this is only description what i seen in reports about chobham biscuits, few spaced armor plates which is protects agains KE, and package of mild steel on plastic(NERA) to protect from CE
-
presumably the first authentic photo of 115mm 3BM21M APFSDS(maybe for export)
-
for soviet tanks whole UFP(as i wrote - UFP( in case of soviet tanks UFP structure is special armour basically,because only whole structure gives protection, but not 2/3/4/any number sheets of FPR from whole structure ) + LFP + some other in case of oplot) + LFP in case of CR1 weight of special armour module(spaced armour plates, mild steel plates on plastic, fasteners etc) one more example Biscuit №4 was 406mm thick(50mm of those 406 was RHA backing plate, so 356mm for special armour), whole assembly have weight similar to 5,3 inch steel plate(135mm)
-
gettyimages now have much higher res previews
-
-
it's funny to read about all this "weights!11" for example T-72A hull front (UFP + LFP) 3+ tons IIRC oplot-m hull front(UFP + LFP+"ERA cassette(without ERA blocks inside)" which is part of UFP) 4966kg CR1 UFP special armour - 1.4 tons (1427 kg) (hull itself with special armour, fuel,ammo,engine etc isnide - 41700kg)
-
no, there is many pages, part - front with add-on armour, part about hull side which is 80mm thick and have side screens far from it (spaced at distance of track etc), part about comparing with rh105 etc... it's not about posted image i think you can find some reports about M392 APDS IIRC which was tested on 240 bhn plate in US, usual practice at the time 220-250bhn, and many others in archives
-
it's describes only as auxilary armour, distance of spacing showed only for target represent tank side, quality of german plates similar to soviets tank armour(i think a talked about it earlier), not US/UK junk test plates (220-240bhn) one mark - 200 meters so it's 1250-1290 and 4310, and my mistake about 3057 which is only showing difference, to much work lol...
-
i'm talking about other images about hull front i think your model is correct(as swedish report showed), but side "flaps" imho looks very strange
-
thank you about you schemes with special armour, turret right "cheek" seems to have some sort of weakspot in bottom part(protection of left and right asymmetrical by height? or maybe it's not that obvious on early turrets) can you share this/those scan/scans ? such an arrangement of special armour is very doubtful due to uneven LOS imho, it can be spaced armor, but not special
-
btw maybe someone remember, from which magazine this pictures ?
- 581 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- leclerc mbt
- vbci
- (and 18 more)
-
it’s impossible to calculate rounds like DM13, BM42, BM15, M735 etc with L-O
-
100mm/70deg - 3057meters 15mm-100mm/70deg - 1250-1290 meters so "good against spaced armour" not good enough, but maybe better than nothing...
-
strange shape of detail
-
at first you can see two turrets (one on top of other) two version of turrets ?
-
mk4 turret front plates?
-
- 1,043 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
it's not mistake, just old method(one of) of protection assessment
-
yes CE 143mm - 1000mm RHA, CE 84mm - 420mm RHA, and KE - 700mm, but all this doesn't have any sense because if tank doesnt penetrated with 1000mm level threat and you have 200mm of "unpenetrated LOS" it doesn't mean that you have 1200mm vs CE, which is seems to be the method used in swedish presentation
-
doesn't mean that is significantly better in penetration i will find report , there was test agains 70degree 100mm RHA + 15 or 30mm HHA IIRC, which round coudn't penetrate
-
and if you set SC charge on unoptimal focal distance you can stop jet pretty much by anything, yes, but real firing are main interest, not this "we can protect it from deathstar, but we have one smaaaal condition..."
-
DM13 same shitty round, have some report about it i think. need a lot of time to find it...
-
US also used DU XM774 28mm diam(serial M774 has 26), so it's really unknow how well M1 withstood this level of threat
-
- 1,043 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
it can have, but basic requirements for 2AV after 1977 and first 2A0, is 105mm 38mm APFSDS (https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/ this one), and 120mm DM13 from 1km IIIRC(which is rather poor perfomance round) + protection against Milan ATGM all early tanks have "good" protection not because it's have "super-duper-chobham-ceramic-magic-unicorn-armour" but because of shitty APFSDS and APDS used in trials against it at the moment(soviets did it(probably the worst in quality APFSDS and APDS ), americans did it, germans, brits etc), and only after receiving some "emergency calls" like M111 for T-72 etc, "very skilled smart engineers" starts making some improvements over theirs "great inventions" and if tank "A" give protection against round "B" in country "C", it doesnt guarantee you that it will protect from round "D" in country "E", and so on...
