Lord_James

XM1 assembly from USAHEC 
 

Both the provisional K9PL (K9A1) and K2PL have had their rollout ceremonies today at their respective plants in Changwon. These are the first 24 K9PLs and 10 K2PLs.
 
K2PL

 
K9PL

 
Video: 
 

No, this isn't correct. The mass efficiency (ME) doesn't say anything about the plate thickness; keeping the plate thickness constant will lead to an incorrect representation of ME. Mass efficiency just shows the efficiency of an armor material/array compared to a reference armor material/array (typically by definition RHA). So if you have an armor material with a ME of 2, then at a constant mass it will provide twice as much protection as the reference material, i.e. even though you only have 100 kilograms of the material, you would need 200 kilograms of steel armor to reach the same level of protection.
As the density of the materials can be different, the thickness of these two materials needed to reach the same protection level can be quite different. E.g. lets assume that the first material (with a ME of 2) is some kind of low-density reinforced plastic with only a fourth of the density of steel. This would not change the ME, but it would mean that you'd need 200 milimetres of this material to reach the same level of protection as provided by a 100 mm thick steel plate (as 200 mm of the material will have the same weight as 50 mm of steel while having a ME of 2, i.e. being twice as effective per weight). So the thickness is completely irrelevant for the ME.
 
However the above example also shows us the thickness efficiency (TE) of the materials, i.e. the protection provided by an armor material/array for a given thickness compared to a reference material/array (which again by definition is typically RHA). Given that 200 mm of the hypothetical material (something reinforced plastic) provide the same level of protection as 100 mm steel, the TE is 0.5 (half as much protection is provided per thickness).
 
 
I am not sure what these excerpts from Russian and Polish documents say, as I can only use a translator to understand them. But it seems that these are not directly ME and TE, but rather coefficients showing how much mass/thickness compared to steel is needed to provide the same level of protection. It is clearly not TE/ME in case of the Polish document, as this lists polyethylene (i.e. simple plastic) in an array with steel plates with a "thickness cofficient" of 7.1 against APFSDS rounds. As steel + polyethylene does not provide ~7 times the protection for a given thickness (nor does it allow reducing armor thickness significantly compared to pure steel), I would rather assume that this means something along the line of "a polyethylene array with preceeding steel plates need to have 7.1 times the thickness to provide the same protection as a simple steel plate".
 
 
The mass efficiency of simple Al2O3 armor with relatively low purity (95%) is in the area 2-2.5 against small arms when place atop of to an aluminium baseplate. This allows a massive weight reduction compared to steel armor. The efficiency of the armor (and the multi-hit capability) can be further increased by using a higher purity ceramic, a higher strength backplate, an elastic backing in the deformation zone behind the ceramic tile (preferably something like Kevlar/Twaron/Dyneema or UHMWPE) and a cover plate/splinter foil.
 
This means that the ME of Al2O3 can likely exceed 3. For high-performance "nano-ceramics", it can reach up to 5 against small arms. Against APFSDS ammo, the ME will be lower but still decent compared to steel.
 
 
It will significantly improve the protection provided by ceramics, yes. It is also a necessity to ensure that the ceramics don't disintegrate after one hit.

Concept art for Dune movie.

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/10/12/ausa-2022-general-dynamics-land-systems-debut-new-technology-demonstrators/

Not art official, it goes without saying. As for claims that the AbramsX's autoloader is smaller than Meggitt's CTA just based on pictures, I would take those with a grain of salt...unless you've been there in person with a measuring tape and came back with an interesting tale on how you bribed or blackmailed the GDLS guys into letting you climb onto the turret and engine deck.

I just asked the GD PM on the booth. He said it was the Meggitt auto loader. Make of that what you will.  

From recent joint Syrian-Russian exercises
 
 
 

Kind of sort of a Korean tank but also not really. The Chieftain posted a few pictures this past weekend of an interesting proposal by AAI to the South Koreans for the ROKIT program. As with everything AAI there's nothing online that I could find outside of what The Chieftain posted so I'm not sure of any details beyond what his Facebook post says. I'll keep looking for info but I'm doubtful I'll find anything online.
Facebook post text:
 

 

Javelin is shorter ranged when using the old CLU because it had a limit on being able to acquire targets, the new CLU or an RWS mount removes the limitation.

Umm.. LMUR? Tulyak? Whats that?

Some pictures from the Maneuver Warfighter Conference last month that caught my eye.
 

On September 27, the Seoul office of the Turkish Investment Agency said that a contract for a Korean power pack will be signed soon. (DV27K engine + EST15K transmission) Altay tank equipped with Korean power pack will be mass-produced from next year after several modifications.

The gavin will never fucking die… 
 
Also, what’s with all the direct vision ports; didn’t we learn that periscopes are best for armored vehicles? Or have the Turks had bad experiences with periscopes? 

The MCV based IFV has finally been spotted in the wild

I think this beats out that Ukrainian T-55 / T-64 hybrid for ugliest tank. 

New Eitan with 105mm turret

DX Korea 2022 is currently happening here are some photos.
 
K2 and variants
 
AS21 and variants
 
K808 and variant
 
KLTV with 120mm mortar system

The K9A2 has made it to the UK ready to be shown off for the upcoming UK DVD 2022 exhibition happening on the 21st and 22nd of September at UTAC Millbrook Proving Ground, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom.