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

Zach9889

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    24

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Zach9889

  1. Zach9889
    Looks like it could be exploitation, if it's far enough behind lines.
  2. Zach9889
    KE-T
  3. Zach9889
    Penetration figures correspond to: CR1, 430-530mm - L23A1/L26A1 T-72, 480mm - BM-42 T-80, 530mm - BM-32 M1A1, 690mm - M829A1 Leo 2A4, 605mm - DM43(?) Why was there a distinction between T-72 and T-80? I'm not clear on which projectile for the Leo 2A4 was assessed. The performance seems too high for DM33, and AFAIK DM43 was never fielded by Germany.
  4. Zach9889
    Looks like aramid fiber set in resin.
  5. Zach9889
    On a T-80 chassis this time. I've only seen them on T-72s before.
  6. Zach9889
    Allegedly the same T-90A spotted in Louisiana:
  7. Zach9889
    T-90A spotted in Louisiana.
  8. Zach9889
    Simple answer is that Trophy meets requirements at the lowest cost.
  9. Zach9889
    While it is silly to use Wart chunder as a reference, it's not to farfetched to state that the ZTZ-96/99 series are protected over a smaller frontal arc than their Western and Russian counterparts, based on geometry.
  10. Zach9889
    VT-4 is a different class of vehicle compared to MPF, there'd be little market overlap.
  11. Zach9889
    The turret shape/size suggests a turret basket autoloader, similar to that of the XM8.
  12. Zach9889
    Pepperpot muzzle brake with a pseudo cleft turret. Looks like this concept from a little while back:
  13. Zach9889
    Wouldn't surprise me if it was a licensed DM33.
  14. Zach9889
    Thanks, more curious as to if there are any clues as to what the projectile is. AFAIK the A1 is a licenced DM43. From Ramlaen's excerpt, the details regarding the temperature insensitive propellant is reminiscent of the DM63.
  15. Zach9889
    Does anyone have an idea of what the KE-W A4 is, referenced in the press release linked below? https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/egypt-120mm-tank-rounds
  16. Zach9889
    Does this imply that the applique turret face Trophy counterweight is required for the SEPv3 as well?
  17. Zach9889
    Total Parasitic mass is ~3kg (Sabot, Fins, tracer, and nosecone).
  18. Zach9889
    https://www.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/34366/332230/file/WP-200805-FR.pdf Demonstration of Tungsten Nanocomposite Alternatives to Depleted Uranium in Anti-Armor Penetrators A more recent comparison of DU and WA penetrator performance.
  19. Zach9889
    Both photos are of the same projectile, stills taken at different points of the video linked below: https://youtu.be/zW7A98atUn0
  20. Zach9889
    My dude, as soon as you start framing your arguments with insults you lose regardless of the actual content of your post. I come to this site for discussion not insults. Please stop polluting this forum.
  21. Zach9889
    Would you be able to provide this source you are quoting from?
  22. Zach9889
    Perhaps it was an effort in increasing protection against 152mm/155mm fragments at closer impact ranges?
  23. Zach9889
    I don't think the projectile could get any longer based on the limitations of the cartridge. It may appear longer though if the rod diameter was reduced from the A3 to the A4. The tip protruding from the sabot petals appears to have retained the same diameter though.
  24. Zach9889
    Perhaps the 161mm @60°/320mm-340mm figures are for protection along the frontal arc of the turret (+30°). This would put the those figures roughly in line (~393mm) with the 400mm cited by the CIA if they were only considering 0° impact obliquity. This is kind of obvious. I believe there was a underestimation of Soviet KE projectiles by NATO going into the 80's that snared both M1 and Leo 2 protection development. You can see both designs upgrade their inadequate armor through the 80's to compensate for those deficiencies.
×
×
  • Create New...