Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe it is a matter of being prototype - but turrets on both vehicles that were shown are a bit different. Not only armament (gun itself, it`s craddle, mask) but look also at lower edge of turret. Looks like different masking of "core" turret. We need more better pictures, not just stills from video. Leo 2 turret would need some rework to not only look like Altays, but to be functional (f.e. reposition of sights, slight in case of gunner's, bigger in case of commander's). Sit and wait.
  2. Modified Leopard 2 turret. Applique modules, new fire control, RWS, IFF, but all on orginal turret.
  3. So Turkish bought IMI's M325 and Poongsan K277 HEAT-T ammo for their tanks. And the latter type works so-so.
  4. RH guy, when asked, stated that A1 got new primer, that meet more strict requirements on electromagnetic radiation hazards.
  5. Indeed. But if you look at pictures of Turkish "60s" you can see that it is not uncommon to put spare track links or wheel discs on turret walls. Those parts could be blown off when hit by warhead. In this case there coul be seen splash marks on yellow paint on the left.
  6. Hard to tell. L28 used WC core with WHA cap/nose and steel cup in-between. The cup would not be seen without disassembly, but core and cap material should differ in look. At this picture WC cores of older APDS looks darker than supposed WHA cores of newer APDS. Probably L52, not L28.
  7. 90 mm M36/M41, L/50, HEAT-T M431 (5,8 kg), mv =1219 m/s 90 mm JPz BK, L/40,5, unknown shell type (5,74 kg), mv=1181 m/s It could be expected in case of AP-T M318 (11 kg) mv would be circa 800/m/s when fired from 90 mm JPz BK.
  8. The last statement does not stand for itself. Firstly, AFAIK term "shouldn`t be" is not used commonly in research papers on shaped charge vs ERA. Secondly, ERA bricks of ERAWA family already proved to work vs cumulative jet, and it`s efficiency was not a matter of doubts. From what is known about ERA-jet interactions, rear flyer plate (that one that is chasing the jet) is more important than forward flyer plate. It is good when rear flyer plate is thick, because that means more material get into jet trajectory. It is good when ERA is sloped at last 60 degrees, because it gives more effici
  9. That 3-T precursor liner is circa 140-145 degree cone. SCs with so wide angle cones lay in transition area between EFPs and classic jets.
  10. WH 98 seems to be triple warhead. The second charge is smaller, because the jet must fit into cavity made in armour array by the first charge. If the second one is of greater diameter, there is probability, that jet would hit outside crater digged by smaller precursor and it`s distruptive power would be wasted.
  11. Wiedzmin, in case of ERAWA-1 both upper and lower metal parts of case are flyer plates. Mounting beams are not sturdy enough to stop lower part (base) of case movement and are being smashed in the process. So, even if only upper part looks like flyer plate, both are flyer plates. And in ERAWA-2 there is one more plate between H.E. layers.
  12. Because it is copy of 2A46 gun, not 2A46M. Design is old, with single recoil buffer, short cradle, no fast barrel change feature. But materials, some details, finishing touches could be sinicized. One example is barrel, made with more modern technology than orginal, another one are gun trunnions, that fit in vintage, T-54-style frame mounting, not T-62+ sockets integral to turret front casting. It is a bit of steampunk in it, mix of old and new developments.
  13. alanch90, note that "only 100 m/s" lower velocity means about 1800 meters difference in anti-armour performance between faster and slower projectiles versus same, specified target. Militarysta, there is general agreement on obsolescence of RHA equivalent as a way to define projectile performance, from many various reasons. On the other hand there is nothing better we have. Commonly accepted standard, namely NATO targets, are even more archaic, since those arrays today can be pierced probably from 20+ kms. RHA equivalent remains a bit more useful, because it gives some nu
  • Create New...