Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Scav

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    167

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Scav

  1. Scav
    Cast or rolled? Rolled that would still be quite high.... especially for an early T-34.
  2. Scav
    To be fair, I was a bit skeptical at first and I'm not entirely convinced yet. BUT. I don't have a counter argument and I've not seen anyone use anything but that document (A & B) to disprove it, from personal experience I definitely don't put all my faith in documents alone. Atleast documents that seem to be estimations and theoretical.
  3. Scav
    Depends, some can be found readily on the web, some you need to ask people who have copies of them, DTIC is a quite interesting platform that has a lot of research on it.
  4. Scav
    Not sure if you guys have seen more of the document: https://imgur.com/a/vz1AA Seems to me that the turret was simplified somewhat, they also used an estimated BR-412B and a 50% penetration metric. If you have questions, I'll ask the person that gave this to me, he knows a lot more about this than I do and has spent a long time on figuring it out, needless to say that the M60A1 is a very complex tank in terms of armour protection and it doesn't help that the penetration/protection standards vary depending on the source. Not to say I'm convinced either way, but I think generalising the turret as equivalent to the Leo 1A3 turret isn't entirely correct.
  5. Scav
    I was in-fact talking about the mantlet yes, and there's been measurements made in a pretty professional manner: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/371226-id-0059205-16jul2017-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet/ Even if it's normal cast steel (which it probably is) that's a lot of steel and a lot of LOS. As for the trunnion of the leo 2, I know the leo 2K had a hollow one and the leo 1 before it, but I find the difference in weight for the gun assembly with and without mantlet too much for the mantlet alone. Going from 4290kg with mantlet to 3100kg without..... unlikely it was just the mantlet. Don't know about the cheeks, they're cast and go lower the further up you go so it really depends on where you measure. I don't think that's going to reach 350mm across the entire fron though. Oh, I was talking about the entire weight, sorry. Yeah, though there's other differences that might account for a lower weight too, the leo 1 engine is quite heavy, not sure what the M60s one is like. Oh I know. Most as in? BR-412D doesn't even seem capable of 240mm so there's no way it could penetrate 108mm at 64-66°, both will lack severely against angles even compared to APDS (2nd gen). That's PB though, so only at PB could they penetrate the M48 hull, M60A1 hull is significantly better. Yes, there is the question of how they got this estimate, according to the guy I'm talking to they guessed the performance of 100mm AP at 250-260mm without taking into account the shells would degrade in performance at increasing angles, they also had a simplified model. I've asked him for the source, hope he'll respond today. Yeah, there is a significant difference, though the LOS is still quite high, even if you take 15% off that, it should still stop 100mm AP on a lot of the surface area for the turret. In what manner did they consider it a weakspot though? Obviously a hit here would disable the cannon anyway.
  6. Scav
    Well, it is like 10t lighter than those and has substantially thinner armour plates. Still OK for what it was designed.
  7. Scav
    OK, so looking further at that document, I don't really get how they come to the conclusion that the hull is vulnerable to 100mm AP at 750m for the M60A1, same with the figure for the normal M60. To me they seem practically immune to 100mm AP even at PB, not even taking into account the poor performance of AP(CBC) against slopes compared to APDS or APFSDS. Seems to me they overestimated the USSR AP, or they were talking about APDS, but that doesn't seem likely. As for the hardness, IIRC the early M60s had that, but the later ones had better steel in the ~260BHN region. I'm by no means knowledgeable on these tanks though, it just seems odd to me and doesn't quite line up with other things I've seen.
  8. Scav
    I've seen that and the one other document, but I've seen good counter arguments backed up with measurements on the real thing, I'm still mostly on the fence, though I think it's hard to argue with physical thickness measurements. I was actually talking to several people that were "working" on trying to figure out what the M60A1 turret's protection really is, I'll ask them for some more specifics. Still, it would seem odd to me that the M60A1 with it's ~10t higher weight would only achieve the same (rough) protection as the leo 1 on t he turret....
  9. Scav
    How exactly? I don't think it provides 350mm or thereabouts against KE. That's what a lot of the M60A1 turret has, atleast from a frontal attack.
  10. Scav
    Guess I'll assume 40mm for the UFP then, atleast it's somewhat confirmed.
  11. Scav
    Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page. Though, I'll see if I can adjust it. Yeah... I know, the problem is that the LOS goes down the further up you go, guess I can estimate just how far up it goes. Still, that means it'll have less protection than the flatter part, so I'll have to calculate that as it's own section and I'm not sure wether it would be more effective (due to the initial slope) or less effective. Coupled with the question of inert spots (turret sides as pointed out by someone else), this would raise the protection value even more, making it even less likely that it represents C tech. I mean.... 850kg is not enough added weight for such a massive increase in armour.
  12. Scav
    So, based on the Swedish documents, I made a quick "rough" visual of what the red graph is supposed to represent (if it was a theoretical C tech leopard). Graph: The red graph in the middle is rumoured to be C tech. From that graph I made this: Couple of notes: I made the roof 350 though I don't have "sources" for this, I assumed ~45mm roof thickness (not exact ofcourse). I doubt the LFP was changed, same with the hull roof and the area under the mantlet. The rest is fairly self explanatory, I neglected the 550+ values because frankly, I don't fully know where to put them and as we can see from the leo 2 improved turret model, the swedes considered the area directly around the mantlet weak, so I'm not sure if thats an artifact of their modelling or.... One of my friends has also pointed out the relatively minor weight difference between the variants, 55.15t for B and 56t for C, so I consider it very much possible that graph doesn't even represent C tech. I'm open for suggestions and input. @Laviduce I'm not sure how you made your model, maybe you could help me out with this?
  13. Scav
    Yeah, in that paper where they discuss the advantages of DU vs tungsten they include performance of DU and WHA XM774 and XM833 IIRC. https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.pdf Pg22 Thanks! I was hoping for some penetration or atleast % numbers of efficiency but I guess that was asking too much :/. Still, good find! Huh, interesting, though such a thing is stated in the document I mentioned above, I just haven't seen any alloy specifics on the more modern penetrators. Would a jacketed tungsten rod not partially solve the issue by using a steel jacket?
  14. Scav
    Interesting, I was assuming that they managed to improve on the M735 since the tests from that table, guess not much or not at all? IIRC XM827 was supposed to be DU which at this point was probably superior due to alloys being better, might explain the difference? Well, I didn't mean that they took those aspects from other rounds, but that they used similar design features as present on other rounds (later ones). A bit similar to how 3BM32 has the same general exterior shape as DM13. I do wonder what the purpose of these features was. That explains a few things I found curious. It seemed quite thick at the front end to me, I guess most pictures or renders of APFSDS don't quite do justice to the thickness of the windshield. Intriguing how they left a small section hollow at the front, I realised that the attachment area to the actual penetrator was probably just that, but the empty space there seems out of place. Yeah, I just figured the penetrator seemed segmented and had a weirdly shaped front section, almost as if it was supposed to penetrate the first couple of layers and then leave a rather large hole for the second segment to follow up on. Purely speculation ofcourse. Yeah, though they also used some kind of tungsten tip in combination with the tungsten core in some of the later versions (3BM22 IIRC). Could you potentially give a link or something? I've been scouring the internet for any kind of info on this round and what it's supposed to be capable of, but to no avail, I was just left with more questions in the end. 95% tungsten seems on the low end, would explain why they thought a more complex shape was necessary... Thanks for the info though, that's very interesting and in line with some of my suspicions!
  15. Scav
    Thanks great general of Justinius .
  16. Scav
    Yes, from what I know that's true, but the values don't match the ones I've been able to find: And it's more than just sheathed, it's also segmented with a weirdly designed ballistic cap and the first actual "penetrator" part seems to be similar in function to the ones found in 3BM15 etc (though substantially larger and with a tip reminiscent of L23A1).
  17. Scav
    Hello, first time posting here (long time lurker), I'd like to continue the discussion on the leo 2 etc. I know of the Bauman book, though most of those seem to be estimates at best, the only other source I know of that could depict DM13 is this slide: Though this is from January 1974, atleast 5 years before the introduction of DM13, though it might be an experimental version of DM13, it does seem quite different (not to mention 5 years of ammo development could mean quite a sizeable difference example: DM23 -> DM33). The diameter and the diameter of the penetrator don't seem to line up either, which is very weird.... It seems that it can defeat a HS (Heavy Single, 150mm at 60°) at 2500m, with a vΔ of 105m/s per 1000m this would mean an impact velocity of around 1490m/s, so extrapolating that data to PB would give us around 178mm at 60° (rough estimation). This seems quite similar to M735 (forgive me, using WarThunder value for 60° here, I think it's largely correct) though XM735 in this picture only seems to defeat HS plate at around 800-1200m..... Not quite sure what to think of this. Could you provide me a link or a picture to the British document mentioning that "120mm KE" round? DM13 overall seems like a very odd design, taking mutiple other designs and combining them...
×
×
  • Create New...