Zadlo

4 hours ago, Beer said:

According to what I read on our websites the ammo is compatible but the belts and feed mechanisms are not, i.e. it's not possible to take Bushmaster II ammo belts and use them in MK-30/2 equipped vehicles and vice versa. 

You have a bit bigger issue because you already use Bushmaster II. It depends on Rheinmetall if you'll use different links for MK 30-2 and Mk 44 or Lynx will be armed with WOTAN 30 which can use Mk 44 links.

But for Australians it's not an issue. Tbh they choose the first 30mm autocannon and no matter if they choose Bushmaster II, MK 30-2 or WOTAN 30 they'll not solve this problem because Americans use Bushmaster II only on Stryker Dragoon (81 pieces) meanwhile XM319 uses linkless 30mm ammunition.

19 hours ago, 2805662 said:

The Mk-30/2 cannot consume US DoD 30x173mm ammunition.

We need source about that.

Because Spaniards use US DoD 30x173mm ammunition in Pizarros which are armed with MK 30-2.

3 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

Has anybody any news on MGCS or EMBT???

It is sooo silent with this two project! Do they still exist or are they dead?

 

There are some rumours that EMBT will be shown on MSPO 2021 as a result of cancelled Eurosatory 2020.

On 11/26/2020 at 12:41 PM, Kal said:

point is, K21 is meant to swim, so it can't be that heavily protected.

K21 has very heavy turret. Fire support version with XC-8 105HP turret is 600 to 1000 kg lighter than basic IFV.

That's why they had to use composites in the structure.

I'm interested how good K21 would be as a torch in engagements against North Korean armour with such a lot composites in a structure.

15 hours ago, alanch90 said:

And i find plausible that those were indeed the requirements in terms of CE protection. By the time Mk.4 was in development the IDF was experiencing asymmetric warfare in the first Lebanon War and plenty of attacks by ATGMs to the tanks weakspots. If this is achieved or not is something we can´t know but as you well say the only instance a Mk4 was penetrated was by a Kornet, and lets be fare there are no infantry ATGMs capable of penetrating more than that. In addition we don't know where that missile hit the tank could have been the turret sides or even the hull side which is much weaker but certainly not the front of the turret as an impact of a Kornet there left only superficial damage to the armor module (that specific instance was captured and is available in youtube). After all even if the turret armor both for the front and the sides is of the same exact nature (which, given the angles, the triangular channels, the placements pattern of exterior bolts, is highly likely) there is up to around 250mm of RHA of difference in the turret front and side walls which points that there is a difference in protection requirement between the frontal and side aspects and in addition since the sloping is more pronounced in the front, the reactive layers become more effective than the sides. Perhaps its related to the need to be defended against APFSDS (my guess is that the reference threat weapon are the KEW series fired from Egyptian M1) from the front.

 

My best guess is that in terms of CE protection the plausible effectiveness given the dates and types of expected threat weapons is as follows:

 

                     152mm tandem  (Kornet)      130mm tandem  (Metis-M)     105mm tandem  (RPG 29)      85mm tandem (RPG 7) 

Turret front               Likely                                      Likely                                      Definitely                              Definitely

Turret side                 ???                                        Probable                                 Probable                               Definitely

Hull front                    ???                                        Probable                                 Definitely                               Definitely       

Hull side                    Unlikely                                  Unlikely                                  Probable                                Definitely      

It's easy to think what was the reference threat for Mk4.

Which ATGMs had Syria around 1995 - 1999?

If you answer that you'll know which protection levels the fourth Merk represents for sure.

Quote

By 2008 the Rafael patent describes armor types which are indeed hybrids of NERA and ERA, that is NxRA and SLERA.

Which patent?

Scheme of HITFIST-30p complete armour - WITU accidentally (or not) unveiled that during the certification.

Commander sits behind the driver.

2 hours ago, Eliz said:

Do you know where the fuel is located

Sensitive data. Borsuk is still under the development.

4 hours ago, Eliz said:

What engine it uses?

MTU 8V199 TE20 but it may be changed for production vehicles. HSW is looking for complete replacement for MTU engines because they're expensive in terms of both service and purchase.

Borsuk during the qualification tests in Drawsko.

This prototype received additional armour modules on external buoyancy modules and has removed trim vane.

That's 85mm gun from Type 82, not D-30.

Unfortunately GDELS asked for remove those photos.

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Rosomak-M has a 10 + 18 mm spaced array.

Only Rosomak-M1. 10mm steel plates in spaced array were the applique armour from Rafael. Meanwhile indigenous solution which was in Rosomak-M1M uses ceramic and polymer layers inside the array.

On 10/15/2018 at 5:43 PM, SH_MM said:

I understood this as "made in Italy and fitted with the Polish components by Bumar Łabędy", but maybe I was wrong. What alloy is it made of?

PA13 aka 5083.

K2PL from my perspective

And additionally K600.

Some my photos of L2PL

I'll put two things into perspective

1) K2PL will be 4 tons heavier than basic K2 but it has longer chassis due to additional pair of wheels. Where does the whole additional weight go? To armour? Or maybe to longer chassis and modified shape of turret?

2) We don't know from which distance K279 was shot (and if it even was K279), if it had full charge and what was the hardness of steel plate.

THICC

Updated tank destroyers

Yep

14 hours ago, Kal said:

Was there ever a stanag 4569 that had a level 6 but not explicitly APFSDS?

Always has been. Level 6 requires protection against 30mm NM225 APFSDS-T or Slovakian copy of 3UBR6.

2 hours ago, Beer said:

It's basically PR article not any sort of analysis (even though it tries to look like one).

Surprised?

2 hours ago, DIADES said:

Hungary will receive vehicles in 2022.

In 2024...

AMV XP during tests in Poland in the previous year. Polish APCs - just like Rosomak - will be amphibious.

Old-type protective cover of ZSSW-30's CITV:

1. armour scheme

2. ballistic tests to achieve Level 2 STANAG 4569