Zadlo

From same event in Singapore, Leo2SG

 
 

   Imagine Chieftain here with his "oh my god, the tank is on fire!"

1

The influence of casette's material density on ERA effective protection. The effect has been obtained in research work made by Rafael Ltd.
Source: https://docdro.id/9C6cCya
 

This time, photo taken by myself.
APC Rosomak firing single 81mm camouflage granate GAK-81
 
single 81mm in 1st salvo:

 
 
and single 81mm in 2th salvo:

 
 
And this one was mucht difficult due to weather conditions.
 
Six 120mm motar round on one picture:

 
And twins:

 
 
And the result:

 
 
 
 
In summary - 120mm SMK Rak is very good weapons, very powerfull modern and now the best serial produce in the world. Nice that at least one type of weapons producing in my country can be on top lvl... 

I don't think you're going to get a neat, single answer for all of this.  Penetration is very complicated even when you focus only on rigid OR eroding regimes.   APFSDS occupy a transitional region between those two, meaning it is likely to be even more complex. 
 
For example I did more digging by changing search parameters.  One thing I turned up came from army-guide and this interesting point:
 


 
Completely unsourced but it shows a the potential for multiple factors at work.    I've found sources that allude to nose shape influencing interface defeat, transitions from rigid to eroding penetration and velocity thresholds, and so on.  I'll share the various things I ran across in the hopes it will prove useful.  In no particular order:
 
CTH hydrocode predictions on the effect of rod nose-shape on the velocity at which tungsten alloy rods transition from rigid body to eroding penetrators when impacting thick aluminium targets
 
Abstract:


Design of hard-target penetrator nose geometry in the presence of high-speed, velocity-dependent friction, including the effects of mass loss and blunting
 
Abstract


 
INTERIOR AND TERMINAL BALLISTICS OF 25g LONG ROD PENETRATORS
 
Introduction:



Investigation of Oblique Penetration I: The Effects of Penetrator Leading End Shapes on Unyawed and Yawed Impacts
Abstract



TERMINAL BALLISTICS TEST AND ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR THE PENETRATION MECHANICS BRANCH
 
Introduction:


 
Penetration of 6061-T6511 aluminum targets by ogive-nosed VAR 4340 steel projectiles at oblique angles: experiments and simulations
Abstract



The Effect of Nose Shape in Long Rod Penetration
(link to free PDF download)
Abstract:


 
This one seems related to the one below, so I included it more for completion's sake and informative purposes. 
 
Comparative Study of Nose Profile Role in Long-Rod Penetration
Abstract:


 
Honestly I'm not sure this is very relevant.  It seems more about eroding-penetrator processes and mushrooming vs non-mushrooming.  But it's also about EM guns specifically, so it was worth mentioning.
 
Interface Defeat of Long-Rod Projectiles by Ceramic Armor
Abstract:


 
This is mostly about interface defeat in general vs ceramics, but there is a bit in there about nose shape.  So nose shape may be a factor here.
 
Interface defeat studies of long-rod projectile impacting on ceramic targets
 
Abstract:


 
Analysis of the Noneroding Penetration of Tungsten Alloy Long Rods Into Aluminum Targets
Abstract



 
This one seems to be more about rigid penetration, but its also about about LRPs. Worth noting for that 'transitional' aspect I mentioned and the fact nose shape has a huge impact in rigid penetration.
 
Modeling Threshold Velocity of Hemispherical and Ogival-Nose Tungsten-Alloy Penetrators Perforating Finite Aluminum Targets
Abstract

1

Was posted on otvaga - diploma work on ramjet APFSDS design (in russian). PDF

 
 

i am really exhausted
my feet are killin me
first i will try google pics
if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur
feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/hSSBM66MUsiYTteC8

From my friend who is working with American defence industry from the business side. I would call him a 'lobbyist' as well.
 
But on the other it has said Lynx was still a very good IFV. So RLS probably has to slim it down to fit air mobility requirement (two base vehicles in one C-17)

Check the operational requirements. IIRC about 80mm KE.

My base so far - I'm thinking about enhancing fuel tanks but it may look ok.

Imagine a BV206, only that everything can rotate 360 degrees.  Like a excavator. 
Because I am sure our superior drivers can cope with the sudden rotation of his workstation and sometimes complete lack of vision while guiding his vehicle through narrow mountain roads. No less should be expected. 
 
In a way, the vehicle would be a turret on tracks. Kinda like this:

 
Also, welcome Zadlo to the forum and this GLORIES competition, I am looking forward to your great contribution to the greater good. 

AMX Leclerc Series 1 Special Armor distribution in the hull and turret (not including the spaced heavy side skirts). Once the model is complete i will use it to do some vulnerability modelling along the lines the data presented in the Swedish Tank Trial diagrams:
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Stefan Kotsch has published the following excerpts from East-German documents regarding the reliability of the T-72 on Tank-Net.
 


 

On the other hand, what you were trying to say, also applies to this model, 172.10.100sb turret was also used by T-72B in the beginning. It is very similar to the final 172.10.113sb variant. (what are the differences btw?)

Yes, but:
And also:
 

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

Oh, and this is finally the heavy version from Rheinmetall
 

Oh, and this is finally the heavy version from Rheinmetall
 

I would say something but it's a classified thing.