Wiedzmin

13 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

you don't have cuts for turret, and trying to comapre later turret overall view( let me guess 077 sb ?) with my mid turret cut 073 sb ? 

and even here it soooo "wrong", lol

16 hours ago, Scav said:

So, the numbers and the exact position of the "kvarts" core are incorrect?

nope, just art critic from ukraine have low iq and can't understand such thing as geometry(and many other things), especially considering the fact that the sections are redraw according to the real drawing

but if you don't belive  you can take 541mm part(section) and incline it up to 37-38 degree for example

and i posted corrected version if you didn't notice

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

There are massive differences in probability comparing a 25 mm to a 120 mm APFSDS..

and ? there is no tank that can survive even 105mm APDS at 100% of frontal area, at the moment when 78degree roof was accepted there was only a requirement of protecting tank vs 105mm APDS and this requirement was met

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Tanks and other AFVs are designed to resist certain reference threats

and often when it comes to real war/test tank can't resist most of this threats , there is a tons of methods to make you new tank shiny and  glorious in the eyes of future customer(government or any export), but when you start to use this tanks in battles, well all this " shiny and  glorious " became rusted remain

for example take T-64A/B,T-72A/M1,T-80B and M111, soviet test their tanks at this moment only against theirs shitty ammo, and when they encountered not so shitty ammo, here is where the fun begins... 

or you can take Leo2AV which have fuel cell as main frontal hull armor, and germans trying  to deceive the americans about the real weight of the tank during trials(tank for mobility trials did not have armor package for example )

as for war, when it comes to T-72 "battle history" we often blame arabs etc users because they can't use it properly, but what with the rest part of the world ? maybe turks good users of Leo2 ? or saudi of M1A2 ? or iraqi of M1A1 ? 

all weak part of eastern tanks well known only because it used in many wars and often with unqualified crews and almost all soviet tanks after USSR collapse gone to NATO countries for trials, only western tank that have more or less same long "battle history" is Abrams.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Measures can be made to minimize them. A cupola like on the T-72 doesn't seem to be optimized for protection, but rather for providing a good overview on the battlefield, trading higher vulnerability for that.

CR2 have even greater weak spot, is there any hits in this area ?

CR1 and CR2 lowermost edges of turret

Leo2 lowermost edges of turret(photo from bellow, but you can find good frontal pics, zone will be not much smaller)

all i try  to say - all modern tanks have huge weakspots, but some tanks use in combat almost any day in any theatre of war and taking hits in any part of tank , and some mostly used in military exercises, and of course if your tank never been in real long term combat(rpg, atgm, artillery, other tanks etc), you will never know it's real weaknesses and strong points. 

and of course all tanks  design is based on the probability of hitting of some elements(what will be probability of hitting mantlet during tank vs tank combat on move when you aiming in tank center, and shell have some dispersion, stabilizer has errors etc, or what is better - to have almost all ammo in turret with blow off panels and make it safe for crew but increasing the chance of hitting the ammo, crew allive - good, you don't have tank platoon from first hit - not good, or you have all round/charges in hull which is supposedly constantly covered by the landscape, if you hit ammo crew and tank dead, but whole platoon can have success because tanks doesn't get hit in ammo, etc, it's not that easy to say, when you watching youtube and some guy with rpg destroying tank with 1 grenade in city you think oh that tank is crap, but in real war with other country this tank can have other "destiny", ooor can be same pice of shit tank lol ) have some  as well as the tactics of their use(you don't have side protection vs PRG and ATGM, but there is no infantry around you, because you just nuke them all lol, etc) 

the main problem with tanks is that they are designed on the basis of some(any) statistics, and if the statistics are incorrect(or analyzed wrong) , then a tank built with this statistic in mind may be a mistake

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

You already claimed once that the 420 mm LOS thickness figure would be incorrect, but your proof was proven wrong back then

by who ? i saw that people can't understand what is 420mm part, thats all.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Obviously

you trying to protect Leo2 as Damian protects M1, thats obviously 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

British tests

what british test have to Leo2 armor ? nothing, you just trying to get and "good" for expected level(expected  by you)

29 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Nope.

 

btw, my bad, on this pic 900+mm area will be further from the point i marked, sorry for this

1 minute ago, SH_MM said:

n the frontal projection of the crew compartment?

and T-72 ? 

turret designed to protect in +-30° arc

2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

ndrei's blog

it was posted by Khlopotov

3 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It doesn't mention an exact round and it is obivously

it does mention exact round and distances, and it's problem not for T-72B itself, but for all soviet tanks with 78degree roof.

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

  so depending on range DM13 will still pose a threat to a T-72B.

depending on point of hit, 25-30mm APFSDS can disable any tank from the front, so ?

7 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Soviet tanks were bad

i'm not trying to say that soviet or any other tank "good/bad" most of tanks - shitty steel boxes designed in a way to get profit for factory which is making this junk, not for "saving crew lives" or something like this.

9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

of the reduced thickness near the gun mount - ~370 mm instead of ~700-800 mm for the T-72M1, while the Leopard 2 has 420 mm mantlet armor + 230-280 mm steel at the edge

and what protection does it gives? mantlet itself can't stop anything, it's 650kg box with speical armor insert in it,(and it's not 420mm los btw), so even it it gives 150-200 mm vs APFSDS(or you think mantlet itself gives 400 vs APFSDS?) and you add this to 230-280mm(which is have thinner parts) you will have what ? 380-480mm vs APFDS vs 370 ?  is "not so weakened" or ? all this statements about "oh this mantlet is 100% better than this solution on Tseries/Mseries) based on what ? 

17 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

wasn't talking about the highly sloped roof of the tank, but the uppermost and lowermost edges of the turret front.

look at uppermost and lowermost edges of any tank, western or eastern...

my main point that there is a tons of myths about any tank, but no one wants to get the truth about them because truth can be very dangerous for mental health of arguing people lol(take M60A1 for example) 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The T-72 has a cast turret with up to 500 mm thickness at the thickest points, the T-72M1 has roughly the same amount of steel armor,

like "850mm" for Leo2A4 turret is a LOS thickness of left(loader side) "cheek" only (physical will be something like 680-700mm, right will be even less ) "500" is  a physical thickness of T-72A turret, which became 650-950 LOS depending of how far from center line of turret you measure it.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

However the cast-turrets of the Soviet tanks had rather heterogenous thickness, in some places the T-72M1 is only ~370 mm thick

in some places Leo2 turret have protection only against HMG 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

was vulnerable to the 120 mm DM13 and

and the source of this claim ?

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

analysis due to the cast turret being thinner at the upper and lower edges and around the gun mount.

guess what, if turret RHA roof 45mm/78° is vulnerable  for old soviet APFSDS, what will be if you hit hull roof of Leo2 which is 30mm/79-80° ?

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

According to Frank Haun, the CEO of KMW, micro-cracking of the Leopard 2's welded steel armor would occur after about 50 to 60 years when the tank

Leo AS1 as far as i remember started to cracking without "50-60 years" ? 

i'm not trying to defend someone or start hollywar, but all this "we have better tank A, and ugly tank B" is a waste of time and words if you/or someone doesn't have reports(and preferably from different sides of "conflict", to get the least biased assessment) proving some sentences 

it's czechoslovakian made T-34-85

is there any real report proving that german WW2 tank sights were better(which model) that any other ?

because early optics seems to be not very good, and later models with blooming of optical lenses was there only to resolve the problem with 20% light transmission(sights with flexible "head" have less transmission  ), but no because it was "super cool sights" 

8 hours ago, Scav said:

Cast or rolled?
Rolled that would still be quite high.... especially for an early T-34.

cast and rolled. it's not very high,before you ask high hardness not always means super brittle

 german panzer IV front plate(30mm) has 600 on outer surface(face hadened) and 418 rest part(core) of front plate, 50mm plate on G model was 500-520HB but these plates often was brittle  indeed

T-34 and JS-2 have 440-450 if US metallurgical test correct 

5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Oh. Yes. Thanks for reminding me. It appears the velocity discrepancy is due to barrel length. The 895 m/s figure is for the 45in barrel of the M2 ground variant, while the 865 m/s figure is for the 36in barrel of the aircraft variant (AN/M2 and AN/M3).

FT.50-H-2 3  - infantry firing table for 45in + i have US specs on AP M2 cartridge which gives 853m/s IIRC 

On 11/18/2018 at 2:55 PM, Sturgeon said:

I'll look into it.

any progress ?:)

8 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Well, that's not in 100% true.

 

The worst quality cast steel used in Soviet tanks has had this range of hardness. The exact type of cast steel used in turrets (in this example - T-72M1 turrets) offers the hardness between 275 and 455 HB.

don't know where you get 455HB for serial postwar casted soviet turret, but T-62, T-72 and T-64 uses SBL-2 steel which has hardness up to 277HB(Impression Diameter - 3,65mm) and tensile strength up to 882MPa 

made pic for better understanding 

5 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Too big a difference to be instrumental vs. muzzle velocity. Likely 895 m/s is a misprint. I am not sure any M2 AP has been made since WWII.

pic from some forum, and it gives 2935 f/s for AP M2 

FT.50-H-2 3 Cartridge, AP, M2 Muzzle Velocity, 853.4 M/S  

Remaining Velocity

0 Meters -  853 M/S  

100 Meters - 813 M/S  

1000 Meters - 482 M/S

is there any FT on .50 AP M2 that gives 895m/s and remaining velocity on range ? I found only WWII era  schedule but...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a317929.pdf

Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle Barrels

have question about 12.7x99 AP M2 cartridge  WWII time books gives muzzle velocity for AP M2 - 895 m/s for 45in barrel, modern days firing tables and manuals gives 856 m/s for 45in barrel, which is correct, or both correct but 1st for WWII and 2nd for modern dayes cartridges ?

maybe someone have info about addon sight on 61 Mech Ratels? 

8 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Credits owed to Damian90 on the AW forums. Since there is some uncertainty as to what this truly is, I haven't posted it in the vismods thread (yet).

it's posted by Jon Bernstein

Armor Modeling and Preservation Society Social Group on FB

Quote

Two similar, but ultimately different projects. The M60-2000 used a modified M60 turret, which I was inside when I took these photos as part of my job. The 120S mounted an M1A1 Abrams turret on an M60 hull. Similar concepts, different execution.

On 11/2/2018 at 4:38 PM, SH_MM said:

 

 

 

australian armor museum? 

3 in hull creating new huge weakspot, 2 in turret 

and higher res without watermark from Alexey Khlopotov blog 

thank you, interesting