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

Sheffield

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
  2. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV   
    I would not trust the claims about the blast tests without any more detailed source. People somehow believe that Redback has good armor, because it uses armor provided by Plasan. The fact that Rheinmetall acquired IBD and IBD at its peak was a bigger player (in terms of total armor kits deliveried, locations around the globe and number of different vehicles types fitted with armor solutions) than Plasan in the armor market is often not known to those people. Plasan doesn't really have the same references, being not active on the global market for as long as IBD/Rheinmetall. They don't even provide the full armor kits for the Piranha series, only the mine protection kit. Just like with WCSP, where they only provided the turret armor.
     
    For the BAE Systems' ACV, IBD developed an armor kit capable to withstand the detonation of 10 (!) 155 mm artillery shells stacked ontop of each other... and that was ten years ago.
  3. Tank You
    Sheffield got a reaction from Laser Shark in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    KMW has been officially contracted to produce and supply 2A7s for Norway. Deliveries will start in 2026 and finish in/by 2028.
     
    https://www.spartanat.com/2023/02/leopard-a7-no-gekauft/
  4. Tank You
    Sheffield got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    KMW has been officially contracted to produce and supply 2A7s for Norway. Deliveries will start in 2026 and finish in/by 2028.
     
    https://www.spartanat.com/2023/02/leopard-a7-no-gekauft/
  5. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    I cannot provide an exact break-down of what went wrong with the Puma VJTF. Don't have data on that.
     
    But based on various news reports, the following happened:
    Puma VJTF completes three exercises with acceptable availability (two with more than 80%, one with just 67%) to the fourth exercise, the unit did not - maybe they could not, maybe they weren't allowed or wanted to simulate worst case - spare parts and most of the tools required for fixing the Puma VJTF priority for over night repairs was given to Leopard 2A7V (makes somewhat sense, if you don't have spares/technicians/tools for other vehicles...) fourth exercise results in no vehicle being left operational, a complaint e-mail is written by major general von Butler and leaked "by accident" to the press. A photograph showing error messages on a Puma VJTF IFV's screen was apparently also shared big media fall-out regarding "bad, broken Puma IFV" apparently ten of the 18 Puma VJTFs were just shy of their scheduled maintenance, while two already had missed it. Apparently the Puma VJTFs were passed from multiple times from one company to another, resulting in a loss of maintenance industry mentions that they have not been given access to the vehicles to fix them (even though specialists from industry were on-site); they complain that the German Army intentionally waited until all vehicles were broken down (maybe for the headlines?) an investigation is launched, eight vehicles are sent to Rheinmetall's facility in Unterlüß for further inspections, the other ten return to Regen in Bavaria (unit's garrison location) industry claims that all vehicles can be fixed within 2-3 weeks (in one statement, they even said until end of the year 2022)   Now German newspapers - based on industry sources - claim that only two Puma VJTF IFVs are seriously broken/"badly damaged":
    the heavily damaged vehicles are one vehicle as a result of a cable fire and one with damaged turret ring (previously incorrectly translated as "sprocket", because the newspapers use the wrong terminology) in one vehicle, a fuze was blown in another vehicle, a screen stopped working after being accidentally kicked in one case, the unit report that the auxiliary heating did not work... but the crew only forgot to turn it on in one case, a screw of a missile launcher was loose
    Most vehicles can be repaired until January 2023.
     
  6. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    "MEXAS" is a brand name, it does not reference a specific type of armor. Many different armor solutions made out of different materials (ceramics, NERA, only metal alloys, etc.) were marketed as "MEXAS". IBD developed its first add-on armor systems in 1983; I am not sure if the name "MEXAS" was used already back then. The development of the add-on armor for the Leopard 1 started in 1988.
     
    "MEXAS" is a brand for products purely developed by IBD, though IBD cooperated with various other companies (mainly as provider of technology/licenses). It was made under license in Canada, the US and Sweden. In Canada, DEW Engineering was responsible for production, in Sweden it was Åkers Krutbruk (later acquired by IBD). In case of the US, MEXAS - or rather armor technology from IBD - was at first tested during the 1990s as part of a government-to-government deal between Germany and the United States (with FMC representing the US side and leading parts of the test program). This apparently was a positive campaign, as MEXAS was selected for the Stryker ICV and a license for production was acquired by Simula. Miscommunications between the US side (primarily General Dynamics) and IBD lead to a replacement of the armor supplier, so that DEW Engineering provided the armor for the later Stryker production.
  7. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Leopard 2A6MA3 via Ralph Zwilling (tank-masters.de)
     



     
    Fitted with anti-RPG add-on armor developed by KMW at the glacis plate.
     
     
  8. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Last year the Swiss Festungsmuseum received two Panzer 87 prototoypes: RUAG's Leopard 2 MLU with full add-on armor kit and a variant with partial add-on armor kit.
     


  9. Controversial
    Sheffield reacted to mr.T in Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea   
    Given mass and one man less , you would be hard pressed to claim advantage at armor protection. Multi  fuel engine is basically any diesel engine its more of a marketing fad than practical application . I wouldn't be surprised if K2 would utterly outclass the Leopard2 at firing on the move due to hydropneumatic suspension. And Koreans are probably willing to offer more manufacturing and tech cooperation to sells theirs while Germans can barely built a leopard without sourcing mayor parts around Europe
  10. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to HAKI2019 in Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea   
    I thought maybe K2NO/PL have excellent armor protection,but the baseline version not.The distribution of special armor looks terrible and enemy fire will easily hit ammunition.
  11. Metal
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    First of all, the "emergency funds" are not unlocked yet. The approval of the parliament is still pending and the current government is dependent - at least if it wants its "ideal solution" for securing these funds (i.e. by adding it to the article 87a of the German consistution, so that the next government doesn't cut/abuse this funds) - on the support of the conservative Union parties. These parties (CDU and CSU) have in the past sixteen years done more harm to the state of the German military than all left-leaning/pacifist governments in all preceeding governments.
     
    Secondly: these program are long running and have been on-going for several years - or even decades - before the new Sondervermögen of €100 billions was approved. Early plans saw the Tornado replacement start in 2015 (meaning first aircraft being delivered then), though lack of funding and other issues lead to this program only being started somewhere in or before 2015. In 2015/2016 there were talks with multiple European governments for a cooperative effort, but no partner was found (due to different schedules and the JSF program - which included five European partners). Since 2017 it is clear that an American jet will be purchased, the only question was whether it is going to be the F-18 or the F-35 (and the head of the German airforce publicly announced his support for the F-35, which costed him his job).
     
     
    This is again the French view. If you take a look German view, things might look a bit different.
     
    MGCS was delayed because France is over-protective of its defence industry and does mostly cares about the ownership of defence companies. The reason for the German parliament delaying funding (for a phase) of the MGCS was France threatening to cancel its participation in the project in case Rheinmetall bought KDNS. Even though Nexter's plants would have remained active, support for French AFVs would still remain in France and the French part of the production and development of the MGCS could have remained in France, a Rheinmetall-owned Nexter would not be "French enough" to continue the MGCS development. As the German government cannot make arbitrary rules for specific companies, the German parliament made clear that it would delay all funding of the MGCS until Rheinmetall withdrew its offer (so that the MGCS project would continue with France).
     
    So why you see the German parliament delaying the MGCS, you actually mean "the German parliament represented French defence-industrial interests". Honestly the Bundestag should not have done that. They should have allowed Rheinmetall to buy KDNS, then we would have seen what kind of alternatives France would have had to buying products from an (indirectly) Rheinmetall-owned Nexter...
     
    As for FCAS, this is not Airbus randomly trying to get IP "for free". It has been contractucally agreed by Germany and France that the results of the development - which are also funded with German money - would be shared. That is the understanding of the contract by German officials. Germany just wants to get what it is paying for; Airbus' developments are also being handed over the France. Dassault only wants to get a competitve advantage over Airbus for the future. The French senate (supporting Dassault) wants Germany and Spain to sacrifice their respective jet fighter industries for the sake of Dassault.
     
    It is the same issue with Spains admission in the FCAS project. Germany did not invite Spain on its own into the program, it was an agreement made together with the French government. However after Spain joined, Dassault and French newspapers (supporting Dassault) started complaining that Dassault should have a greater workshare and remain program lead. The fact that France and Germany both own the same amount of Airbus shares doesn't matter, the company is not "French enough".
     
    Germany's take on the FCAS and MGCS can be summarized with one sentence: "France wants our money to fund its own arms industry."
     
    Then there is the issue that a classified report from the BAAINBw was leaked (whole or in parts) to the press, which states that the preliminary design for FCAS falls short of meeting expectations or being a next-generation fighter. It is described as a "Rafale Plus", lacking essential technologies (in the earlier stages), using weaker designs (on the demonstrator, because Dassault didn't want to use German engines) and "misses the aim" of being a sixth generation fighter. France acting regarding FCAS has been described as "emotional blackmail".
     
    Whom to believe? Probably both sides want to get the best out of the deal. However I don't like how Dassault openly worsens the situation of the FCAS and actively approaches newspapers to gain public support in France. Airbus is a lot quieter, the German government seems to be in charge of things on the German side. Dassault meanwhile doesn't seem to be under control of the French government.
     
     
    The availability issues are not consistent and not limited to Germany. Depending on which year you pick, either France or Germany is worse - but both of them are bad. E.g. in 2016 Germany's Tiger fleet had an availability of 48% while France's had an availability of 25.6% (21.4% before 2016).
     
    Currently the availability of Germany's Tigers is to be raised by a special contract with Airbus, but it has yet to reach a desirable rate. Part of the problem is that the Tiger just requires too much maintenance, so that the hangar slots are a limiting factor.
     
     
    No, because the F-35 is no alternative to the FCAS. The FCAS is meant to be a sixth generation fighter jet, the F-35 is a fifth generation one. The F-35 is replacing the Tornado, Germany already has committed to further developing its Eurofighter to bridge the gap to FCAS. The only alternative to FCAS is joining the Tempest project, which is something that Italy proposed should Germany do, if troubles with France continue.
     
     
    We have seen that Russia's air defence systems are not sufficient to even prevent Hinds and MiG-29s from operating, but surely they would stop F-35s...
     
     
    The plans to certify/qualify the F-18 for the B61 were dropped after the new German government already had shelved the planned F-18 purchase. Before the elections the members of the now ruling coalition already announced their desire to re-evalute the option to buy the F-35 given the perceived short-comings of the F-18 (and given that the only reason why the F-35 was not selected were external factors, i.e. the fear that France would withdraw from FCAS if Germany spend too much money on the Tornado replacement).
     
     
    This is however a view on the matter that is nearly exclusive to the French. Germans are very happy about the decision of the government to not reduce its military purchases solely to a tool to appease France, but rather focusing on the capabilities of the German Army (and EU/NATO) to defend itself against attacks. When French sources claim that these choices are bad for "Europe", they usually mean "the French defense industry".
    CH-47 is supposedly favored for interoperability with EU partners such as the Netherlands, with which a new air-mobile vehicle platform (4x4) will be jointly procured. F-35 provides options for cooperation with the Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway Italy, Poland and Switzerland - all relatively close partners of Germany. Italy already wants to discuss/discusses options for industrial cooperation with Germany regarding the F-35, while Boeing's offer in the STH program might see Germany becoming a hub nation forthe support and deep maintenance of many European CH-47s.
     
    There are no equally capable European alternatives to the purchase of the F-35, the CH-47 and the P-8. They don't exist. So the only option to appease France would be to sacrifice capabilities (by delaying procurements by a decade or more).
     
    When purchasing the C-130J for the Franco-German transport squadron, there were no issues with "European interests", because France didn't want to sacrifice capabilities until an European alternative would have been developed.
     
     
    ... and in case of Airbus the reason will be Dassault withholding construction details regardless of agreements.
  12. Funny
    Sheffield got a reaction from Lord_James in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Wow, a confirmation that D-technology is an internal armour package. Years of debates can finally be put to rest.
  13. Metal
    Sheffield got a reaction from Volke in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Wow, a confirmation that D-technology is an internal armour package. Years of debates can finally be put to rest.
  14. Metal
    Sheffield got a reaction from Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Wow, a confirmation that D-technology is an internal armour package. Years of debates can finally be put to rest.
  15. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    Rheinmetall is offering a the widest range of 120 mm smoothbore gun of all manufacturers, including completely redesigned cannon. Aside of the standard L/44 and L/55 guns, the L/44A1, the L/55A1, the L/47LR and the L/47LLR are currently offered. The latter two provide more performance than the original L/44 gun (both by having slightly longer barrels and by supporting higher pressures), while being lighter and having a reduced recoil impulse.
     
    However for Leopard 2 users, there is little gain in adopting the L/47LR or L/47LLR over something like the L/44A1 or L/55A1. The weight difference isn't really worth redesigning the turret, while improved performance can already be achieved with a change to the L/44A1 or L/55A1 gun at a lower cost.
     
    Assuming that Japan's domestic 120 mm gun meets equals the performance of a L/55 or even a L/55A1 is a bit of stretch; them changing plans to adopt the L/55 might be solely related to their reference targets against which their gun might have already provided satisfactory results.
  16. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to TWMSR in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Sheffield, max speed is for rapid traverse, f.e. when you need to turn turret from 2'oclock to 6 o'clock or TC align turret position with his Peri. Aiming speeds are minis and maxes for responsive aiming, slow for precision 'sensing', fast for target tracking and FCS solution commands (you do not want do wait too long until gun elevates for shooting far-far away targets).
  17. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    Local production of Leopard 2 was/is being offered to Poland, but they decided to buy the M1A2 SEP v3 instead. KMW even offered license-production of the Leopard 2A6 to Turkey (they chose Hyundai's offer to help them create the Altay instead...), which is a lot less liked than Poland by all German politicians. Poland however insisted on a 60 tonnes weight limit and trying to develop their own tank (Gepard, Wilk, etc.) before the current government decided to ignore all of that and opt for the Abrams instead.
  18. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS?
     
    The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK.
     
     
    In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS.
     
    Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s.
     
     
    Two things would need to happen before that:
    KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished.
     
    In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round.
     
     
    That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation.
     
    Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that.
     
    In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter.
     
     
    A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2.
     
    Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system.
     
    The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686.
     
    Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel.
     
    The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw.
     
     
    That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production.
     
     
    Because Trophy is mature and cheap.
     
     
    You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc.
     
    The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts.
     
    Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway.
     
     
    Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R).
     
    The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.
  19. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Regretfully, I have not done a full CAD model on the Leo 2 (yet), so I can not tackle the volume/mass distribution from that angle in any meaningful way.
     
    Here are numbers coming from German and Swiss sources/publications (some of them are somewhat contradictory):
     
    This is for a Leopard 2 with B-Technology special armor, as far as i know:
     
    Total Combat Weight: 55,15 t / max: 55,55 t
    Hull without ammunition, equipment and crew: 37,80 t / max: 38,16 t
    Hull Shell: 12,1 t
    Turret with armament but without ammunition, equipment and crew: 16,0 t / max: 16,99 t
    Turret Shell: 8,91 t
    Main gun with breech: 1,97 t (1,995 t is also given)
    Main gun without gun mantlet: 3,10 t
    Main Gun Tube: 1,20 t
    Engine (dry): 2,71 t (with air filters)
    Transmission with cooling unit (wet): 2,97 t
    Powerpack including cooling unit (wet/dry):  6,05 / 5,61 t
    Tracks: 2,70 t
    Mass of fuel: 1,03 t
     
    Mass distribution in %:
     
    Electronic Equipment, Equipment, etc: 7% --> 3,86 t
    Armament and ammunition: 8% --> 4,41 t
    Powerpack with fuel:15,5 % --> 8,55 t
    Running gear/Suspension System/ tracks: 21, 5% --> 11,86 t
    Turret and Hull Shell: 48% -->26,47 t   (this is odd)
     
    For the Swiss Panzer 87:
     
    Combat Weight: 56,5 t
    Turret weight with gun: 16 t
    Powerpack (wet/dry): 6,12 / 5,57 t
    Engine: 2,86 t
    Transmission (wet/dry): 2,45 / 2,17 t
    Suspension arm with / without damper: 0,226 t / 0,182 t
    Torsion bar: 0,059 t
    Return Roller: 0,025 t
    Idler Wheel: 0,034 t
    Idler Wheel arm: 0,11 t
    Bump Stop: 0,012 t
    Track link mass: 0,033 t
    Tracks: 2,75 t
     
    More on the gun system:
     
    With mantlet: 3,655 t (max 3,8 t)
    Without mantlet: 3,015 t
    Mantlet: 0,640 t
    Gun, Total: 1,905 t
    Gun Tube: 1,150-1,175 t
    Gun breech: 0,683 t
    Gun breech block: 0,110 t
    Bore Evacuator: 0,0135 t
    Thermal Shroud Front: 0,0135 t
    Thermal Shroud Back: 0,0128 t
     
    I might find more, but this is it for now.
     
     
     
     
     
     
  20. Tank You
    Sheffield got a reaction from Atokara in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    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
  21. Tank You
    Sheffield got a reaction from Żółć in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    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
  22. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
  23. Metal
    Sheffield reacted to FORMATOSE in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Titanium was one of the components of the D-Technologie composite armor package, right ?
  24. Tank You
    Sheffield reacted to SH_MM in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    On SHARD:
    https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions
     
    Key points:
    there will be two SHARD rounds (SHARD Mk. 1 and SHARD Mk 2) SHARD Mk. 1 uses old double-base propellant, SHARD Mk 2 will utilize much higher pressure one SHARD has a longer penetrator than OFL F1 and F1B+ and is made of a new D10 tungsten carbide (this seems like a mistake from the author?) alloy from Plansee the sabot design and the fact that it is seated further down the barrel allows the SHARD catridge to contain more propellant (US did that already earlier...) accuracy is close to 0.2 mil at 1,500 m - much better than OFL F1 overall performance increase (for SHARD Mark 2 over OFL F1B+?) will be 20% SHARD Mk. 1 is to be fully qualified by 2022
  25. Metal
    Sheffield reacted to Atokara in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    My primary reason for this is the fact that its got a proper diagram with listed lengths which is pretty hard to come by past DM33. It acted as essentially a control group to make sure I was doing proper measurements. However after cross checking with your measurements I can't find any fault in your measurements either despite them being different from mine and I have a few guesses as to why.
     
    Here is the first one. When measuring I was measuring from tip to ends of the fins. I found a diagram of 105mm Type 93 to compare against the Type 10 as there was no indication for either method and saw that the fin tips weren't included in the measurement for the Type 93 meaning that you were right with the exclusion of fins. Now this is a big problem for my control. By all accounts my numbers appeared to line up despite this error, but I went back to check anyways and found that I mis-measured the sabot diameter at 56px instead of the actual 57px and this would've tipped me off immediately to the fact that my scale was wrong. Going and measuring the cartridge diameter also shows the scale was off in a much bigger way. As it turns out that somewhere in the process of the Type 10 diagram being passed around the internet, it got stretched in the vertical axis, and when correcting for this, the exclusion of the fins got me an actually accurate scale.
     
    Basically I went into it thinking my control group was accurate, but it ended up just throwing off my other measurements. That combined with the fact that the images are so blurry means that a few pixels can make a big difference. Just switching the sabot size on DM53 from 88px to 87px changes the overall length back up to 759mm alongside OPs original estimate. With the DM53 picture being so blurry compared to the M829A3 it's not surprising that one was accurate and 1 got messed up just from image clarity. Either way I found my mistake and also what just can't be helped with such an imprecise and subjective measurement system and this is exactly why I wanted other people doing their own measurements.
×
×
  • Create New...