Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese):

Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are come from this issue: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm

The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history)

233542eraxu33r3hhsu5iq.jpg

Photo of Mr.Zhang and General Tal.

235241q8mw8ifgtf0pgafq.png

The cast turret base and weld frame.

235244ecxckc8sxdxktwdz.png

Special armor covered, those colored parts most likely are heavy NERA or Built-in-ERA structure modules, while others are lighter module I guess.

235245w5f5ci8iel35apwj.png

T-3/4 module before shooting by a HEAT warhead of HOT missile. According to previous picture, it should be the side armor of the turret. So we can assume that the front arc of Merkava III's turret, looks likely ±30°,which can withstand more than 700mm even 800mm penetration from CE threat.

235247cnwneqtqq20t482q.jpg
Still the T-3/4 module,before hitting by a RPG warhead. 

I am confused this number as T-9/4 at my first look, but it is more likely a distorted "3". There are some reasons: (1) Its thickness doesn't seem to fit on top of the turret. (2) In this pic the threat is RPG warhead, moreover, its incidence normal angle is smaller than the previous HOT warhead, which can be used as a useful basis for judging.

154532gtkrmqekbk1bo2or.png

Built-in ERA structure, the left side is Israeli scheme, and Russian scheme at right side.

235712ab4sfybleuewu0py.png

235721qvlctalofrazom4j.png

213533i5erdypjjh4yyjrj.png

213533j9ocx4dr79rc42cl.png

The armor layout of tank Merkava Mk III. The solid line is base steel armor's equivalent thickness, including spaced armor array inside the hull( The table above shows the thickness and inclination of the base steel armor,  unfortunately many  notes are missing in the PDF) and the dotted line is the special armor's protection capability against KE ammunition, up to 450mm RHA on turret front and 350-400mm on the UFP.

 

 

Hope you guys will enjoy this post:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are

Couple more of the Mk.3-based Ofek    

So basically, vs KE:

 

LFP: 170mm.

UFP low section: 420mm.

UFP high section: 330mm.

Turret (uniform): 450mm.

 

Rear hull low section: 80mm.

Rear hull high section: 50mm.

 

Turret rear declined section: 90mm.

Turret rear flat section: 50mm.

 

What's interesting is that the UFP is not uniform in its protection, and the rear section of the tank.

The UFP is actually split into 2 areas, one is where the engine and transmission are located, and the other is where the driver is located. They have different angles, and the driver also has an additional protection in front of him, albeit very thin.

This diagram must refer to the UFP in front of the driver and not the engine bay because the section in front of the engine actually grows in thickness and effectiveness as you go up. 

 

 

Also: Despite the thickness there being odd on the T-9/4, it makes sense that it's a "9" and not a "3" because the roof armor was there to protect against RPG warheads, not ATGMs, whilst the turret sides at a certain angle were indeed supposed to provide protection against ATGMs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Molotav_DIGITANK said:

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese):

Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are come from this issue: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm

The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history)

 

Hope you guys will enjoy this post:D

Can you upload PDF to a site from which other mortals can download it, please? Our Hacking powers failed.

 :hacking:

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also: Despite the thickness there being odd on the T-9/4, it makes sense that it's a "9" and not a "3" because the roof armor was there to protect against RPG warheads, not ATGMs, whilst the turret sides at a certain angle were indeed supposed to provide protection against ATGMs. 

But its angle looks very strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Is this book (《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection)) availiable in PDF/electronic version?

Yes, it is a useful course book and very easy to be found in Chinese Internet, however its hardcover is very rare now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 2:07 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Israel's artillery-oriented magazine shared an interesting article by Lt Col Rafi Almagor that shares insights from the past development of the Sholef, that could be implemented in the development of the new, yet-unnamed howitzer in development.

Lt Col Rafi Almagor was one of the heads of the Sholef program.

 

The article is in Hebrew and translated to English by me:

  Reveal hidden contents

Development of the future self propelled howitzer of the artillery corps, one of the main projects of the ground arm, began last year in the company Elbit Systems. This isn't the first time Elbit's plant in Yokneam develops a howitzer for the IDF. In fact, in the days of Soltam, in the 80's of the last century, a new howitzer was developed under the name "Sholef". That project did not materialize to serial production, but the technology of the Sholef and its development technique were studied and implemented by German companies for the sake of the development and manufacturing of the Panzer 2000 howitzers, sold across the world.

The demand to develop the Sholef came after the Yom Kippur War, tells Lt Col Rafi Almagor, that served as the head of the development department.

At the time, there were only 2 battalions of the Rochev (M109A5), that was the best howitzer in the corp. All the other howitzers were either towed or self propelled, but even the self propelled ones were almost like towed ones, for example the M-50 (Sherman based L-33 cannon).

The requirement was for a cannon that was better propelled, with higher rate of fire, with longer ranges, and better protection. After a long round of debates it was decided that the Sholef project would be based on the Merkava and handled by MANTAK (Merkava Tank Administration).

The idea was to developed a turret that is all artillery, and on the other hand use an existing hull that was developed for the Merkava. The Merkava was suitable because its engine was in the front. At the time, the idea to put the M-50's engine at the front was revolutionary and allowed converting a tank hull to a howitzer's hull. In essence, it was the beginning of the conception of a universal platform for all corps.

The Sholef's characteristics included among other things a 52 caliber gun, a range of 40km and a high rate of fire of 9 rounds per minute. The cannon included a semi-robotic system, meaning the shells were moved by a robotic system, and the charges were moved manually, because at the time it wasn't known where the future of charges would go - liquid, modular, or electro-magnetic. Thus, the line of thought was that we need to be prepared for everything. Additionally, for the Sholef to be more available in all combat scenarios, improvements were made tot he protection, and means against bomblets, shrapnel, and small arms fire were added.

In his opinion, similarly, the development of the new howitzer requires creative thought that would provide a long term solution. 

In the framework of development you have to understand 2 things:

1)You never really know what they'll demand of you in the end.

2)When you have a good weapon that can move everywhere, outranges everything, and can fire in direct firing mode - you can do special things during combat that the enemy won't expect.

That's what accompanies me all the time when I think about the future howitzer.

During his time in the project, Almagor commanded on the team that did the field testing. In his opinion, if the Sholef was operational, it would still be a world leading howitzer. In the end, it didn't become operational, but its demonstrators have shown impressive capabilities in all parameters - firepower, mobility, and protection.

Now that he's aware of the development of the new howitzer, he asks the new development team to learn from his experience.

According to media releases, the demonstrator that Elbit develops will be based on the ATMOS, but will be better and more innovative, explains Almagor.

The ammunition handling system will be fully robotized; From the automatic loading of the fuze, the modular charges, the loaded shell, and the firing - all will be done without human intervention. The soldiers will be in the cabin, as is in the MLRS today. They will input all the data to the mission computer, and the howitzer will commence the loading and firing sequence automatically. This is an innovative approach that shows technological advancement. In comparison with the tools we have today, we understand that the new howitzer will bring an improvement in almost every parameter. What interests me is if the howitzer will provide a long term solution, or are we settling for what is trendy in today's market?

 

I learned about the importance of mobility only through the Sholef, and my insistence on the Merkava. In one of the exercises in the Golan we ran into a tactical problem when the Sholef was stationed in Katzrin, and the exercise itself was in Yosifon. About 6 hours before the drill, when the howitzer was ready in position, a safety directive was received, according to which, we couldn't conduct the firing as planned, and they were about to cancel the artillery support. The section commander received a path, and through the inertial navigation system, the Sholef 'cut' through the Golan Heights with the Merkava's treads, and arrived at peak speed in the staging zone of the assault forces.

Meaning, the Sholef's mobility allowed it to conduct this unexpected move and managed to prevent the abortion of its participation in an exercise.

During my work with the Sholef, I ran into many cases where the Rochev (M109A5) had trouble going through certain terrain, whereas the Sholef wasn't bothered by it.

During my days as an instructor in a battalion commanders' course, I witnessed how better the mobility of the Merkava was compared to the other AFVs that were there, in every terrain. Even good artillery will be required to do some unexpected actions.

We had a few exercises when the Sholef was driving alongside the tanks to solve a certain scenario in a very 'special' terrain conditions. Had it not had the tracks that allowed it to 'sprint' with the tanks, and the large belly (ammo storage), it would have been a significant disadvantage. So the mobility allows me to go 'wild' on the battlefield and do things the enemy wouldn't expect me to be able to do.

It's obvious the new howitzer will be much better than the Rochev, but it's important to see how limited it will be in certain conditions.

 

Another important aspect in the conception of the new howitzer is its firing and loading systems, with emphasis on their reliability. In the technological age of today, Almagor explains, automatic systems are far more reliable than they were in the Sholef's days, and they know how to locate and analyze almost any fault. With that in mind, we need to be careful so that technology wouldn't dictate our actions and cripple our forces when the reported faults don't need the reality on the field.

When we asked Aviel to insert new capabilities, we had to make sure that the addition brings an operational advantage, and that we control the technology and not it controls us, he adds.

When we're talking about weapon systems, the ability to override the automatic systems is critical. That is, I must be able to tell the robot "I understand you, there's a problem but keep going". In the Sholef we dedicated a lot of thought into that. If the robot tells you, for example, that there's no shell in the barrel, but you can see that there is, and there's a problem with a small sensor - does the commander have the ability to override the problem and continue the mission, or should the whole system be shut down?

Will the howitzer only work when it's 100%? Or will it work when there are malfunctions? All this needs to be considered. Even if today's systems are more reliable sevenfold, the new howitzer will be 20 times more complex, and thus the expectancy of malfunctions will not reduce.

 

In the battlefield, the howitzer is of course more exposed to dangers than sand and mud. Almagor identifies the aspect of self defense as a potential weakspot. Historically, we can put less emphasis on protection because few are the times when we're hit with counter-battery fire. But whoever fears counter-battery and wants to increase his range, deploy on larger areas, and quick movements after firing, must also provide an answer against short range shrapnel, small arms fire in case of commando attack, and protection of the charges' bin.

I think the new howitzer must have means of self protection for the crew. Whether it is machine guns, a mortar, or other means. The howitzer cannot be dependent on another protective force. 

From my experience, I'd recommend it have a few minimal protective capabilities. In the Sholef we had 2 machine guns on the roof that provided us great protection against infantry. We pondered whether to add a mortar like they had in the armored corps - but we didn't adopt the idea in the end.

According to the media, the new howitzer will present improved rate of fire, that will allow few vehicles to provide high concentrations of fire with high accuracy. In Almagor's opinion, in order to have a high rate of fire, the the importance of the belly (ammo storage) is critical.

Other than having just a wide belly that will allow a large number of shells that will support a high number of missions, a high variety of types of shells is also important. A howitzer with many shell types will be more flexible.

Today's developments in the artillery world present a high variety of innovative ammunition. With that in mind, there also needs to be the capability to fire old types of ammunition. If we look at the military history of Israel, it seems that in every lengthy war we had to receive support from friendly states in order to refill our ammo stocks. So that the importance of backwards compatibility is significant in this regard.

Another aspect of the ammunition belly is the 'ground shells' (shells provided by the ammo carrier that are usually just dropped on the ground near the howitzer) . At the time we thought the Sholef should fire these. That is, if I am in a safe position, it's best I fire these before I start consuming my internal ammo, and only consume it when I maneuver. I suggest the developers look into this aspect as well.

 

Screenshot_1.png

 

Is there a digital version of the Hebrew original?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

@Mighty_Zuk

 

Well, with all these information, you should write an article on the Mk. 3 armor right now. 1522687557-screen-shot-2018-03-01-at-12-

It's been in progress for a long time. This will definitely add some depth to it, but I still need info on the Mark 1 and 2 tanks. 

 

 

@Molotav_DIGITANK

Is there anything on the physical thickness of the armor, rather than just protection values?

 

Also, there's a photo of the up-armored Mark 3 there, in a configuration that didnt enter service. Does it say anything special about it? Purpose and such. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's been in progress for a long time. This will definitely add some depth to it, but I still need info on the Mark 1 and 2 tanks. 

 

 

@Molotav_DIGITANK

Is there anything on the physical thickness of the armor, rather than just protection values?

 

Also, there's a photo of the up-armored Mark 3 there, in a configuration that didnt enter service. Does it say anything special about it? Purpose and such. Thanks.

 

How far along are you with your Merkava I and II study ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

q0VQ-s4m9Vc.jpg

Merkava hull ?

 

Mark 1-2. Definitely. Although it does seem to miss the curved armor over the engine compartment, and the wall between the driver and that same compartment. Also misses the rather massive rear door. Other than that, all seems good.

This gives it a LoS thickness of 212mm.

 

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

How far along are you with your Merkava I and II study ?

 

Not far enough. Mostly the well established stuff. It's nearly impossible to find concrete stats that are comprehensive enough because of the odd shape of the hull itself. But Wiedzmin just helped me get closer to the finish line.

 

If you want a spoiler, the conclusions are pretty much:

Mark 1: Composite armor technology already exists for it, but the industry is not prepared to manufacture it (too poor quality, lots of resources getting wasted in the process, about 90% actually, and production rate is only 25% of what is required to keep up with the tank production). So they just make it durable enough against the most immediate threats. Therefore by (then) modern standards it was sub-par, especially at the hull. Engine somewhat makes up for it.

Mark 2: Production capability has improved enough to allow putting composites on the more vital areas, but not everywhere. Sub-par on the hull. Engine makes up for it.

Mark 3: Composite armor everywhere, protection capabilities were pretty much the same as contemporary tanks.

Mark 4: Literally god tier. Bow before it or perish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Mark 1-2. Definitely. Although it does seem to miss the curved armor over the engine compartment, and the wall between the driver and that same compartment. Also misses the rather massive rear door. Other than that, all seems good.

Mk3.

External fuel tanks are vertical. 

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If you want a spoiler, the conclusions are pretty much:

Mark 1: Composite armor technology already exists for it, but the industry is not prepared to manufacture it (too poor quality, lots of resources getting wasted in the process, about 90% actually, and production rate is only 25% of what is required to keep up with the tank production). So they just make it durable enough against the most immediate threats. Therefore by (then) modern standards it was sub-par, especially at the hull. Engine somewhat makes up for it.

Mark 2: Production capability has improved enough to allow putting composites on the more vital areas, but not everywhere. Sub-par on the hull. Engine makes up for it.

Mk1 was not an initial batch of the so called Mk2 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Serge said:

Mk3.

External fuel tanks are vertical. 

 

Mk1 was not an initial batch of the so called Mk2 ?

I'm not following. Where do you see the fuel tanks there? Are you referring to the rear sponsons by a chance?

 

 

Also, it is possible to see the Mark 1 as an early batch or prototype, but still there were some differences in armor. Notably, the chains in the back and composite armor plates on the sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm not following. Where do you see the fuel tanks there? Are you referring to the rear sponsons by a chance?

q0VQ-s4m9Vc.jpg

It clearly shows the rear fuel tanks introduced by Mk3. The shape is different from the former Mk2 battery/CBRN filter compartment. 

 

Quote

Also, it is possible to see the Mark 1 as an early batch or prototype, but still there were some differences in armor. Notably, the chains in the back and composite armor plates on the sides.

Adding chains-balls is just an hour welding job, same for the side armored plats bolted on the sides. It doesn’t change the tank design. 

Even the new mortar position is a very light modification. Look at the Dor Dalet standard. It’s a little bit more complex change, isn’t it ?

With the Merkava program, you have only 3 generations of tanks. 

 

The same thing occurred with the South-African G6. Prototypes were send to battle in Angola. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very much the same story with many weapon systems today. The naming became far more conservative after the end of the cold war.

 

Leopards literally got new names (2A1, 2A2 etc) just because of the batch numbers at the time, with minor improvements only.

The Abrams had gained more capabilities in the SEP programs than going from M1A1HA to M1A2 did.

 

I looked a bit into what the sponsons on the Mark 3 contain and I remembered that the Mark 4 does have fuel tanks there (though not only, obviously, there's other equipment like infantry phone etc), so it makes sense the Mark 3 made the first move (EDIT: Found the pics I was looking for, definitely has openings there for fuel). But if that's the Mark 3, then it really makes no sense. The plate which the diagram depicts  is of the thickness that is in front of the engine compartment, not the driver. The driver's plate is reinforced and is double the thickness there. There's also mentioning of the Mark 4 in that book, which is the only tank in the series to have a completely flat UFP, but then its armor thickness there is more than 3 times as much, and it has the same sponson shape at the rear where the fuel tanks are.

 

EDIT2: Here you can see that the main plate could be argued as being 55mm thick, although it is curved thus it's not the one referred to, while the driver's plate is made up of 2 plates of similar thickness:

Spoiler

merkava3_01_b.jpg

 

And here's one with up-armored front (and sides also, but that's unnecessary):

Spoiler

Merkava4_6.jpg

I'll never understand why MANTAK had developed such an extensive armor kit for the Mark 3, and even mounted it on the Mark 2D, but chose not to apply it to the Mark 3 even though newer variants like the recently shown Mark 3M have even further improved turret armor.

I could understand that the Mark 3 was the last one considered to be built for defensive warfare and thus didn't need the hull armor, and that the Mark 4 has much thicker armor thanks to it being more offense and mobility oriented, but it doesn't absolve them from upgrading the Mark 3s to meet the new combat perception and doctrine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

It was explained to me by people in MANTAK, that the Merkava 1 was rushed into service before it was ready.  The Merkava 2, if there would not have been such pressure to introduce the tank into the order of battle,  would have been the first model accepted for service. The intent was  that by telescoping the evolution of the Merkava and learning from combat lessons, what was in essence a developmental vehicle, could be rapidly modified into a fully fledged MBT. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       

×
×
  • Create New...