Valryon

1

1

This issue seems to be blown out of proportions. 
 
I have a friend who is doing his service time as a conscript in Panserbataljonen.  He has not heard anything about this issue. They also train with kampeskadronen. 
 
It does seem that some CV90s have a manufacturing fault, with welds causing the leak apparently. It is also rumored that one affect CV90 has had leaks since it was adopted.  Though it would not really be surprising, Forsvaret is a mess from what I have been told. 
 
This is at least what I have heard. I can translate the articles from Teknisk Ukemagasin if anyone is interested. 

The USMC has their first JLTV now.

It's add-on armor.

Apparently that’s the turret being offered by Hanwha on the AS21.

New turret from EOS and Elbit Systems.

Brochure

New turret from EOS and Elbit Systems.

Brochure

New turret from EOS and Elbit Systems.

Brochure

New turret from EOS and Elbit Systems.

Brochure

https://www.facebook.com/USAYPG/posts/2452964074731423
 

https://www.facebook.com/USAYPG/posts/2452964074731423
 

https://www.facebook.com/USAYPG/posts/2452964074731423
 

@Andrei_bt just for this shitfit you decided to throw, I am making @LoooSeR moderator as well.

When Purges are starting? I need to hide all those capitalist-made goods somewhere.

British L27 CHARM 3 APFSDS
 

Drummond is an idiot and hack, we probably should have a rule about unironically posting links to his tweets. 

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances.
 
As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct.
 
Also interessting is the fact that they had a 32 mm projectile; is that a DM23 prototype? It retains its muzzle velocity for a longer period of time and penetrates more armor.
Btw: According to Krapke, the 105 mm smoothbore gun was abandoned, after a "performance-improved M735 round" fired from the L7 tank gun matched its lethality. That is the reason why some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were retro-fitted with rifled L7A3 guns in the last stages of Leopard 2 development.
 
 
That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules?
 

 
 
The planned features for the Leopard 2AX are:
new engine with 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) output hardkill active protection system remotely operated weapon station 360° vision systems improved KE ammunition (KE2020) automated target tracking If all these features will be adopted (if there is budget) and what exact parts will be chosen remains unknown. I'd say that the Rheinmetall ADS, KMW's FLW 200+ RWS and the Rheinmetall's SAS are some of the likely options.

Achates/Cummins ACE engine in a Bradley.
 

M110A1
 

@Collimatrix look what I found!
 
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-mark-i.9558/page-309#post-1378368

Well, not just T-72s... We had similar experiences with T-55s too. On the other hand, polish built T-34s were excellent, probably the best...
We usually sent air defense stuff (ZSU-23-4, 2K12 Kub, 2K11 Krug, etc) for capital repair to poland, and the quality of maintenance works was always excellent. Strange that Bumar Labedy was an exception,  when other polish manufacturing/maintenance plants were capable of first class work...