Zadlo

On 3/21/2019 at 2:13 PM, Lord_James said:

This sounds like a very good precursor charge for tandem warheads. The Al/PTFE pre-charge doesn’t need to be very big to do large amounts of damage; I would think a 40mm (or even smaller) RLSC on a 120mm would literally blow up the first couple of layers of NERA /ceramics /whatever (and itself, so no remaining jet tip to penetrate as well) and leave a big hole for the main jet to pass through undisturbed.

If you want a thermobaric warhead to be a precursor for tandem...

Al/PTFE is not a classic explosive but a pirolant which is useful for thermobaric warheads or SLERA.

19 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

 

IMHO M829A4 can be thicker in diameter than M829A3 by around 2 milimeters. 

@Lord_James, I've recently read an article from early 90s about projecting 122mm round with enhanced range. 

And I'll give a small but important tip - use a hollow bottom in a round. In case of 122mm round it enhanced round's range for about 10 - 15%.

del

Old news.

Ukrainian has used Russian 30HNMA stainless steel, not Polish ARMSTAL 500 armor steel.

On 3/2/2019 at 8:57 PM, LoooSeR said:

Reactive liquid armor when?

This is Kinetic Energy Defeat Device (KEDD).

50 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

They don't develop a 3rd or 4th gen ATGM not because they can't.

So 9M133M is only an imagination? 

[*]

On 1/20/2019 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:

So is the mythical Kanchan armor just a copy of the T-72's hull armor array with increased thickness (3 x 50 mm layers of glass/phenolic-reinforced plastics vs two layers of 52.5 mm on the T-72M1)? Based on the following text, Kanchan might be only a substitute for the textolite material of the T-72:

 

It is but IMHO Kanchan may have thinner RHA layers instead of those used in T-72M1. 

But where Kanchan armor's compositions with 315mm and 350mm thickness really comes from? Because I may know exact thickness of all layers coming from these compositions of Kanchan and with their RHAe protection estimations vs KE. 

Of course.

Nope

For the new year I have an idea of my own competition

Let's go back to 1923.

In this fictional scenario Bolivia has decided to arm their army much earlier in purpose of regaining Antofagasta and Tarapaca from Chilean ascendancy. Due to that Bolivia wants to create their armored corps, in which the main vehicle will be the brand new armored car.

Criteria of the new AC:

- maximum weight: 3,5 metric tons

- crew: 2 or 3 people (driver, gunner and commander)

- armament: existing HMG using 7,65x53mm or heavier (at least 10mm) round or short-barrel cannon (with less than 200 lbs of own weight) in fully 360° enclosed turret; 20mm and 25mm autocannons are classified there as HMGs

- protection: against 7x57mm rounds (possible armor-piercing too), close concussion grenades' explosions and shrapnel bullets from 105mm rounds

- mobility: at least 20hp engine, at least 150km range on wheels, easy modification to armored rail car version (using 762mm gauge)

- construction: based on rolling chassis that could be easily converted for civilian purposes

- dimensions:

• maximum track width - 1920mm (recommended no more than 1700mm),
• maximum vehicle width - 2100mm,
• maximum vehicle height - 2100mm (on track wheels),
• minimum ground clearance - 200mm (recommended at least 300mm)
• minimum clearance between rail wheels and track wheels - 100mm (but this clearance + vehicle height = maximum 2200mm)

IIRC that's not original T-72M1 but T-72M modified to T-72M1 version.

On 1/3/2019 at 3:54 PM, LoooSeR said:

Yes, without Polish ideas Russians would never get to idea of putting higher caliber ACs on IFVs in enviroment of increasing frontal protection of IFVs... wait what?

If Russians went the same way as the Western Europe, we would see 37mm or 45mm autocannon at Russian IFVs.

Around 1995 Poles analyzed the most cost-effective autocannon's NATO caliber for BMP-1 replacement and they realized that the best solution is 35mm autocannon (30mm was unknown at that time) and it hasn't changed since that time. But they saw also that Oto Melara 60/70's ammunition had significantly better performance against armor than 35mm and 40mm AP rounds at that time. And the conclusion was that armament of new IFVs should be a mix of smaller (30mm or 35mm) autocannon and bigger (~60mm) (auto)cannon. And this mix should have appeared at the platoon level.

On 1/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Bronezhilet said:

This is a list of materials I've found in the papers I have about SLERA, NxRA and NERA. It is by no means complete or containing only materials that are actually fielded, it's just what I've found:

• Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) hardened with Desmodur N100
• GAP (hardened) with CaCO₃
• GAP (hardened) with Guanidinazotetrazolat
• GAP (hardened) with varying amounts of RDX
• "Rubber or GAP" with a layer of Dottikon
• Perbunan
• NBR
• PU
• FKM
• SI
• Dyneema HB26
• Carbon reinforced rubber
• Glass reinforced rubber
• Kevlar reinforced rubber
• PBO reinforced rubber

I've seen three more materials:

• Mica reinforced rubber
• Some mix with asphalt
• PTFE with magnesium / aluminium dust and acetone

19 hours ago, SH_MM said:

the overall special armor of the Leopard 2 seems to be have a mass efficiency 1.1 and 1.3 against APFSDS for the left turret cheek.

That sounds like the special armor in the turret is a simple multi-layered ceramic armor without heavy armor (f.e. tungsten) package.

11 hours ago, Scav said:

Their previous research like on the leopard 1A3, Keiler etc, used spaced armour, I don't consider it a stretch to think they saw what the UK did and simply were inspired by it, the depth of the armour package, mounting system, module design, things like that.

 

So, a copy of Chobham? 

I don't think so.

Seems more likely they only used some parts of it and still preferred spaced steel arrays with higher thickness instead of thin steel plates sandwiching plastic.

AFAIK using simple, not sloped steel-plastic-steel sandwich improves efectiveness of steel layers of armor

Whole 57mm idea

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Arming heavy IFVs with weapon that can't even pen enemy "classic" IFVs frontally is great idea? 57 mm autocannon allows for growth potential for round designs and firepower of vehicle in general, also it allows for HIFV to fit into "quasi BMPT" role. 

But do you know that Russians didn't invent this idea?  

They have stolen it from Polish concepts made in the mid-90s  

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How exactly one would change the APFSDS design to negate the APS's effect is beyond me. An APS would use a stupid amount of force against that rod to tilt it. I don't think making it even twice as heavy or twice as short would help in any meaningful way.

You know that EFA APS failed against 3BM15 round? APS was able to intercept the penetrator but it couldn't destroy. Because 3BM15 is thick and has more steel which has better durability against these threats than tungsten. Maybe telescopic penetrators would be more effective against APS countermeasures than homogenous or even segmented ones. 

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

My comment was about mythical tests, be they by Poland or India or whomever.

40 mm HHS plate in PT-91M in place of standard 16 mm in T-72M1 is a Polish invention. 

So... in this case it must be a coaxial autocannon. And it means that this autocannon should have a large ammo magazine, KETF rounds and be easy to install in unmanned turret. And it leads to autocannon / chain gun using 30 mm rounds (large amount of ammo and KETF) and which lacks dual feeding.

On 12/23/2018 at 9:14 PM, Militarysta said:

And 390-400mm vs KE value is for 30 degree for longitiudal axis. So 530mm LOS. For 650-950mm it's 480-700(!)mm RHA.  Thats reson why polish PT-91 was able to windstand DM33A1 and other mucht never APFSDS during trials for Peru

They are some rumors that old PT-91 whit aditional 40mm plates windstand in 1999/2000 trials in Poland while M1 shoot 5x M829 in hull frotn :-)

And additionally PT-91 model tested against DM33 and M829 (and all PT-91M built for Malaysia) had a bit different special armor layers.

In place of traditional (in export T-72) two layers of STEF this PT-91 received 10 thinner layers of STEF.

If I tried to put "APS neutralizer", I would mount M230 autocannon on RWS in place of MG. And I think that could be a cost-effective solution for current Western III generation tanks. 

And additionally - "APS neutralizer" can be also an "ERA neutralizer". 

On 3/18/2018 at 9:59 PM, Andrei_bt said:

ERA is another product.

> necroposting

CAWA is not ERA, it's classic non-metallic armor which was created for whole T-72 family.