Wiedzmin Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 17 hours ago, Laviduce said: On a side note: Reveal hidden contents kinda not sure that there was any increase in frontal thickness, only side part to improve protection in 20degree arc of attack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scout Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 IMO this drawing is not very accurate. This black corner must be out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanou Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 7 hours ago, Scout said: IMO this drawing is not very accurate. This black corner must be out. The 1st pic (the schematic) is not correct, so dont use it please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 Thank you for the feedback. I used a variety of sources, including Nexter/GIAT drawings of a Leclerc UAE hybrid and plenty of reference images to generate the models: Spoiler Spoiler As well as image references and Dark Labor's work: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Collimatrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanou Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 Just now, Laviduce said: Thank you for the feedback. I used a variety of sources, including Nexter/GIAT drawings of a Leclerc UAE hybrid and plenty of reference images to generate the models: Reveal hidden contents Reveal hidden contents As well as image references and Dark Labor's work: Reveal hidden contents Reveal hidden contents Reveal hidden contents Sorry I didnt know u were the author of it. I'm not sure about DL 3D rending for front turret but okay One thing, on S2 the block armor under the VTI is slighly thicker than S1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted March 10, 2021 Report Share Posted March 10, 2021 14 minutes ago, Chanou said: Sorry I didnt know u were the author of it. I'm not sure about DL 3D rending for front turret but okay One thing, on S2 the block armor under the VTI is slighly thicker than S1 That's ok. Constructive feedback is good. You mean the special armor block in front of the gunner's sight has been thickened on the S2 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanou Posted March 11, 2021 Report Share Posted March 11, 2021 23 hours ago, Laviduce said: That's ok. Constructive feedback is good. You mean the special armor block in front of the gunner's sight has been thickened on the S2 ? Yep Just a bit if you take look at picture You will find it out on my drive if you still have it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted March 11, 2021 Report Share Posted March 11, 2021 44 minutes ago, Chanou said: Yep Just a bit if you take look at picture You will find it out on my drive if you still have it ? Yes, I still have it. I am looking at the images now. It is difficult to see with certainty. I will keep looking. Maybe you can find a specific image or diagram that will confirm more clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted March 11, 2021 Report Share Posted March 11, 2021 Update: Spoiler FORMATOSE and alanch90 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzoc Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 Very loosely fit in the thread but the new song for the 93rd mountain artillery regiment is unconventional^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted April 14, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 Something new. Ascalon. https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1819865.html? Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaronTibere Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html I also did this while talking with someone else: Spoiler It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions) Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 3 hours ago, BaronTibere said: https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html I also did this while talking with someone else: Hide contents It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions) It's also a similar pressure according to them, which explains the 10 MJ standard muzzle energy (which is actually inferior to the L/55A1 if I remember right), and scales to just 13MJ... which is barely superior if at all. They seem oddly confident that 13MJ will be enough for the next 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanou Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said: It's also a similar pressure according to them, which explains the 10 MJ standard muzzle energy (which is actually inferior to the L/55A1 if I remember right), and scales to just 13MJ... which is barely superior if at all. They seem oddly confident that 13MJ will be enough for the next 50 years. They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 5 hours ago, Chanou said: They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing That's possible, but according to Rheinmetall the Rh-M-120 L/55A1 is already a 15MJ muzzle energy gun (technically 14.95MJ, taken from the known 13MJ launch energy of DM-53 out of the L/55 and adding 15% to meet Rheinmetall's claimed 15% energy increase). You would have to lose over 15% of your muzzle energy to have a 13MJ impact energy with a 15MJ shot out of the L/55A1 - and in what circumstances is an APFSDS going to lose 15% of its energy mid flight? I would wager they don't lose 10% of their energy mid flight (other rounds are much draggier and lose more, but energy isn't really important for non-KE rounds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoritzPTK Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 16 hours ago, Chanou said: They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing Definitely not. That doesn't make any sense, because energies on impact will differ. Gun performance in MJ is practically always measured at the muzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWMSR Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 11 hours ago, TokyoMorose said: That's possible, but according to Rheinmetall the Rh-M-120 L/55A1 is already a 15MJ muzzle energy gun (technically 14.95MJ, taken from the known 13MJ launch energy of DM-53 out of the L/55 and adding 15% to meet Rheinmetall's claimed 15% energy increase). The 15% figure has been quoted for the change from L/44 to L/55 barrel retaining the same ammunition. Muzzle energy is 12.8 MJ for DM53 fired with the L/55 gun. For the L/55A1 gun firing the KE 2020 Neo round, a 20% increase in performance has been projected - leading to 15.36 MJ muzzle energy. 10 minutes ago, TWMSR said: DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start. At the current time, this remains speculation. Nexter has not revealed any specific details regarding the ASCALON concept, not even the caliber/bore diameter (Jon Hawkes initially tweeted that it would be a 140 mm gun, but he later corrected this claim). As stated by Nexter, the 10 MJ muzzle energy are achieved at pressures below the current operational pressures of the 120 mm smoothbore gun family. TokyoMorose and Beer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 9 minutes ago, SH_MM said: At the current time, this remains speculation. Nexter has not revealed any specific details regarding the ASCALON concept, not even the caliber/bore diameter (Jon Hawkes initially tweeted that it would be a 140 mm gun, but he later corrected this claim). ASCALON is a general tank ammunition devoted concept. Everybody is talking about the 140mm because nobody’s giving attention to the NEXTER press release. ASCALON can be offer in whatever calibre the customer wants. So the point now is to determine the optimum one. It can be 130, 140, 133 or any other figure. Let us remind the beginning of the French CTA. It started at 45mm. It was reduced to 40mm and it’s still a CTA. So, the main point to take into account is the French analysis : « more powerful than today’s 120mm can no more be off a classical design. » « Rheinmetall 130mm is doomed ». It means too « the 140mm FTMA can’t be a solution ». The French communication around the 140mm FTMA was made to save time against a premature decision in favor of the German 130mm. The battle for the next NATO standard is juste starting. It will be bloody. And at last, ASCALON is by no means a CTA design. It’s closer to a Supershot one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 Well, lets hope they can produce an actual demonstrator in a more timely fashion than the CTA gun... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzoc Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 It looks like a direct response to Rhm announcement that they were developing an autoloader based on an "asian design". I think Nexter know that the chances of their 140mm being chosen for the MGCS are slim compared to Rhm's 130mm. So they are edging their bets by reminding Rhm that as far as autoloader goes they have more know how than them, and choose a scalable (Autoloaded and SCALable Outperforming guN) solution to make sure that it may work with Rhm's gun as well. The fact that Nexter chose a CTA solution is also probably a way to push Rhm out of the munition supply for the MGCS (as Nexter can arguably claim to have more experience on CTA ammo thanks to the 40mm CTAS). But as several person said, there is the fact they seem to think that ammo with a maximal length of 130 cm and 10-13 MJ will be enough for the next 50 years, which is debatable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 2 hours ago, SH_MM said: Well, lets hope they can produce an actual demonstrator in a more timely fashion than the CTA gun... I don’t know why but I think Nexter knows its job. They are serious in tank barrel and ammo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 13 hours ago, TWMSR said: DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start. If the DM53 wastes 35% of its total energy on the Sabot, the ammunition team needs to be rounded up and fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler N-L-M 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWMSR Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 11 hours ago, TokyoMorose said: If the DM53 wastes 35% of its total energy on the Sabot, the ammunition team needs to be rounded up and fired. Great idea It is so silly to put parasitic mass into design, why do not use zero-mass sabots instead? And why waste so much energy on muzzle blast? All energy should go into penetrator, it must be easy task. Laviduce and Atokara 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.