Zach9889

18 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

hull front special armor pack destroyed somehow

 

Looks like it could be exploitation, if it's far enough behind lines.

On 1/9/2024 at 8:42 AM, jojoisgood said:

https://iiil.io/w3PJ

M829A3?

saw this on a Chinese website,they said 36 is a WC penetrater 

KE-T

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

 

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.

23 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

MaxxPro use fiberglass as addon ?

Looks like aramid fiber set in resin.

16 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Another pic of Burlak surfaced.

On a T-80 chassis this time. I've only seen them on T-72s before.

Allegedly the same T-90A spotted in Louisiana:

T-90A spotted in Louisiana. 

On 1/19/2023 at 1:22 AM, Pardus said:

Not sure why Germany went with TROPHY for the Leopard, when Rheinmetalls Strikeshield APS seems so much sleeker. 

Simple answer is that Trophy meets requirements at the lowest cost. 

35 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Ah yes, the most credible source for top secret and complex armor details, wart chunder. 

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.

14 hours ago, Kal said:

That new USA light tank is reminiscent of the American /Thai Stingray.  But with a forward engine?

If nothing else, it becomes a market competitor to Chinese VT4.

VT-4 is a different class of vehicle compared to MPF, there'd be little market overlap.

The turret shape/size suggests a turret basket autoloader, similar to that of the XM8.

36 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Pepperpot muzzle brake with a pseudo cleft turret. Looks like this concept from a little while back:

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a licensed DM33. 

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.

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

Does this imply that the applique turret face Trophy counterweight is required for the SEPv3 as well?

On 4/18/2021 at 11:39 AM, SH_MM said:

The M829A3 sabot mass is 3 kilograms.

Total Parasitic mass is ~3kg (Sabot, Fins, tracer, and nosecone). 

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.

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Note changes in positioning of nose section between 2 pictures.

Both photos are of the same projectile, stills taken at different points of the video linked below: 

https://youtu.be/zW7A98atUn0

6 hours ago, STGN said:

No see you are trying to argue that it is imposible for the Americans to have changed their mind about what protections level even a little bit and you are just so arrogant and condecending that I love pokeing at you becasue your manners are so bad.

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.

44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Not according to the British evaluation.

Would you be able to provide this source you are quoting from? 

Perhaps it was an effort in increasing protection against 152mm/155mm fragments at closer impact ranges?

Quote

Just eyeballing it compared to the photos of in-flight M829A3, it does appear longer as well.

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. 

Quote

Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:

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.

Quote

This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.

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.