Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Sheffield

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sheffield

  1. It should be possible for the 2A7 "NO" to achieve that by removing the belly plate which should weight about ~2 tons. If we take the page of 2A7 NO at face value, it should come at about 62.3 tons after removing the belly plate or making it optional, fx, to be fixed onto the tank if the mission requires it.
  2. Right, sorry for tagging but, @SH_MM do you have the source for where DM53 and M829A2 faced off against one another in Denmark?
  3. I know that the Polish sources for when 2PL was being scheduled for production widely propagated information such as the turret protection surpasses that of the 2A5 and that even 2PL cannot reach it, they suggested that the hull protection is also much greater than 2A5s. As you say, in theory 2A7 could have received new armour, but my question is here whether the weight increase is really representive of it, as far as I know IBD has shown off ceramics that weight 1/5th of RHA but offer twice the protection. Hull add-on could in theory nowdays be much lighter than 1 ton (i'm assuming that's the weight of 122s add-on) due to material improvements, same with the internal package. As far as i know, SEPv3 weights only 1.6 tons more than SEPv2 yet it greatly improves on protection of the hull and turret (and also extends the turret by some +/- 15cm). Also, aren't the hull of Leopard 2A7V's newly produced? I think i've read somewhere that they are.
  4. Interesting, thanks for the info. Is there any difference in their main armour array though? Is the 2A7 NO based on older C/D-technology armours or does it use the same armour as 2A7V and the weight difference comes mostly from non-armour related stuff?
  5. Interesting. Another thing that i got surprised by is that E-technologie is no the name of the main armour array but instead the name of side add-on armour, I presume the main hull and turret armours then have to be something completely new as well because D-technologie was used in the turrets of 2A5s back in the 90s and i doubt they resorted to adopt it for the hull when it is quite likely outdated or at least not up to par today. This also puts a wedge in my theory about Leopard 2A7, as, because of 2A7 NO site, i had assumed the standard German 2A7s had to use Panzerug E-technologie main array armour that provided high protection without a really significant (~3 tons) weight increase since 2A6M to 2A7 is 1.5 tons of difference and 2A7 to 2A7 NO is 400kg difference. Since we're on the topic of Leopard 2s anyways, can you give me your opinion on whether 2A7 has had received a newer armour array than previous variants. I know that Militarysta claims it did and so does Janes from 2013 and 2014.
  6. How is the weight 66.5 tons when the (supposedely) identical Leopard 2A7 NO weights only 64.3 tons, am I not aware of something?
  7. Pictures of the new Leopard 2A7V's;
  8. Got another question for all of you; Is anyone is possesion of this but in a bigger format/better resolution?
  9. Hi, wanted to ask if anyone has got any details on weight distribution of the Leopard 2A4; i.e how much turret shell/empty turret, hull shell/empty hull and if possible composite armour weight. Thanks.
  10. From this article, it appears that the Army had little to no say in this and that it was wholly orchestrated by the PiS party leader Jarosław Kaczyński, even the Prime Minister is opposed to it, so, the deal appears to be entirely political. https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,114884,27334615,abramsy.html#s=BoxOpMT
  11. Don't hold me on this but as far as I know, there was a picture of a brochure of DM53 posted sometime in the past on the net where it said the penetrator body was 685mm though I don't remember if it also said anything about the diameter; Regardless of this, i think comparing DM53 to Type 10 AFPSDS is a bit of a moot point and it would do us better to compare DM53 to M829A1/2 which both have 680x22mm and 690x22mm penetrators respectively in a projectile body roughly ~760mm long (though it's 779mm long in total). There's also the case of yet another, I believe Rheinmetall brochure from 2014 or so stating that the projectile body of DM53 is 745mm long (i'm assuming that they excluded the fins that extend beyond the body of the main body of the projectile. I've done my own share of estimates on DM53 and 63 in my free time and this is what I had got: DM53: DM63: Did an estimate for DM53 once again just a moment ago; In regards to the DM63 estimate, since i already had numbers for diamater and the stuff, i just did a comparison of how long fins on the 53 and 63 are, substracted the difference and that's how i got to ~770mm total length and 745mm "effective projectile length" (or perhaps it could be called in-flight length?). edit: just found this, i don't know where this comes from but the penetrator length matches what was said in the Brochure, diameter is a bit too high though it also matches if you count in the ribs which in my estimates were roughly 25.8mm And overall i think this graphic is legit; DM13 estimate: DM23: DM33: They all roughly fit with penetrator length, diameter is a bit iffy cause I dunno what kind of criteria they used for diameter there.
  12. I created my account only some time ago as I did not feel the need to really engage in discussions here but, I absolutely adore how our beloved friend Delete stated he was only "trolling" and about 2 posts later went back to being completely serious about everything he says. This is pure gold, a flawless comedy, i'm on the verge of tears from reading and laughing at every piece of turd his mouth shits out and i'm sure there's more to come.
×
×
  • Create New...