Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pardus

  1. Well TIPS is SDCB based according to RhM, so not sure I follow? Is there any documentation which describes exactly what the difference between DM63 and DM63A1 is?
  2. Well I did find this: Seems to say that DM63 has the same performance as the max of the DM53? The possible 80 m/s increase in MV is also interesting, and makes you wonder wether this is what has been achieved with the DM63A1.
  3. If the penetrator is modified to take advantage of it, yes. But the original premise was that the penetrator remained the same, and that it was only the propellant that was "hotter". Anyway that the tanker might have been alluding to performance with the L55A1 was just a theory, one which you obviously don't agree with. Fair enough. It certainly seems like it: This difference in finish makes me wonder wether a new alloy could've been introduced from the DM63 onward to maintain performance similar to the DM53 at common european su
  4. I am well aware that penetration doesn't scale linearly with MV, hence why I said a 14.2% increase in MV jives well with a 20% increase in penetration. The point is that RhM is talking about penetration when they refer to the percentage wise increase in performance with the Rh120 L55A1 & the Rh130 L51, and not KE. I think they made that clear in their press release: I had a feeling you would pull out those presentation pictures, problem is the actual in service DM63 doesn't seem to look like that, but rather like this:
  5. Yet when RhM wrote of the Rh 130 and it's 50% increase in performance, they specified that increase as being in "penetration & effectiveness". Well there are changes between the DM53 & DM63 projectiles, wether they are just superficial or new materials are used in the construction is unclear to me. But they are visibly different atleast in appearance, with the DM53's tip being all black whilst the in service DM63's I've seen are metallic with a black stripe. Also I wonder why DM53A1 & DM63 wouldn't be usable in the L/44, whilst DM63A1 is? What mod
  6. As far as I recall they advertized a 20% increase in penetration performance, not kinetic energy, and going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s (+14.2%) seems likely to increase penetration by about that much (+20%). Also where have you heard of DM63+ ? So designation discussion aside, I am fairly convinced the tanker could've refered to the MV achieved by the new L55A1 gun. Getting MV off by more than 200 m/s as a gunner in the type just doesn't sound right.
  7. Well consider the following: DM53A1 was a DM53 using a new less temperature sensitive propellant, DM63 later followed also using temp independant propellant, as I understood it merely being a redesignation of the DM53A1. Later DM63A1 appears, around the same time L55A1 is first announced (2014-2016), and is described as the most advanced and capable tungsten APFSDS-T round in the world. So it's either that or DM63 is completely seperate from DM53, which is not how I've understood it. In short I suspect the German tanker was alluding to performance of the L/55A1, a
  8. I know what it means, but since the tanker quoted 2000 m/s, there's a chance this is actually the performance of what's in service with the new gun. Remember the DM63A1 is a new round different from the DM53A1 & DM63, likely using a higher pressure propellant charge infront of the same penetrator to take advantage of the L55A1's added capability. The future DM73 is going to add a new penetrator to boot. Going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s is a 14.2% increase in velocity, which jives well with a 20% increase in penetration. In short the tanker might very well have been ref
  9. Small recap, the German tanker who in a previous video was talking about a MV of 2000+ m/s might have been refering to performance of the L55A1 with the DM63A1 round. According to RhM the higher chamber pressure results in a 20% increase in performance over the L55 with the DM53/53A1/63.
  10. Brand new video on the Danish Leopard 2A7's:
  11. Ok, using those measurements I get 698 kg for a solid block, no holes, using a density of 8 g/mm3. With the holes 595 kg sounds about right, so RHA does make sense based on that. 420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.
  12. What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)
  13. I don't think titanium actually shatters, it's fairly ductile eventhough its very hard.
  14. True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight.
  15. Brand new video I'm sure you will all enjoy:
  16. It is indeed the drivers hatch, but not sure where you seeing the 30mm plate? If you're talking about the UFP, it's 45mm. The hatch itself though is 30mm on the 2A4, and over twice as thick on the 2A5 forward.
  17. Anyone wanna guess where on the tank this is:
  18. Recieved a notification from METKA to remove pictures of Leopard 2 manufacturing pictures for OPSEC reasons, just a heads up.
  19. It is very thick indeed, ~65mm as you can see, and the add on armour on the UFP is 45mm, which if I'm not mistaken is also the thickness of the base armour here (45mm), atleast that's what it was on the 2AV.
  20. Something I just came to think of, the drivers hatch on the 2A5 onwards looks a lot thicker than the 30mm of the 2A4's: 50-60mm maybe?
  21. Well to be fair he hasn't really been holding back on the rigorous statements himself has he?
  • Create New...