Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

So how you explain 152mm on Ob.292 (leningrad)?

It was not very logical design to be honest.

Or in Swizterland leo-2A4 when only one component (propelant charge) had autoloader and catrige 140mm was loaded manually?

Swiss Leopard 2-140 didn't had autoloader at all. And I think we all agree, it was not very logical either.

IMHO test station have nothing common whit normal tank, and for example Chineese industry just check how big forcess will exist in 140mm gun on typical ZTZ-99 chassis and turret. Just test station.

But do you have actuall proof that this photos shows 140mm gun? You have such proofs or not?

 

[Dazzler]

bigger pic of the said 140mm gun, compared to 125mm

 

[Damian]

Oh, yeah, right, based on such photos you meassure actuall calliber of a gun? Good luck with that!

 

[Sovngard]

Swiss Leopard 2-140 didn't had autoloader at all. And I think we all agree, it was not very logical either.

 

[methos]

Swiss Leopard 2-140 didn't had autoloader at all. And I think we all agree, it was not very logical either.

It was quite logical. It enabled them to put a much larger gun into their Pz 87 without doing any major modifciations to the turret. Both pieces of the rounds were iirc. slightly lighter than a unitary 120 mm round, so that a quite similar rate of fire should be possible

German patent, see the right side.

 

[Sovngard]

German patent, see the right side.

The NPz K-140 and the Pz 87-140 were quite similar.

 

[Damian]

It was quite logical. It enabled them to put a much larger gun into their Pz 87 without doing any major modifciations to the turret. Both pieces of the rounds were iirc. slightly lighter than a unitary 120 mm round, so that a quite similar rate of fire should be possible

Nah. If you play with larger gun, it is better to use autoloader.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Armour Protection and Affordable Protection for Futuristic Combat Vehicles | Madhu | Defence Science Journal

Cross posting from Arjun MK2 thread ..

Posted by @Shaitan

 

[militarysta]

I was posting the same one year ago and few weeks ago.
Nothing new, you have the same stuff here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/58298-arjun-mk-2-vs-you-name-tank.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You havent posted any screen shots, did you ?

You talk was about NERA, This is not NERA ..

I was posting the same one year ago and few weeks ago.
Nothing new, you have the same stuff here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/58298-arjun-mk-2-vs-you-name-tank.html

 

[Damian]

You havent posted any screen shots, did you ?

You talk was about NERA, This is not NERA ..

No, it is NERA, principle of working mechanism is same, just got a different fancy name.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

My bad, I almost missed that there are many kind of NERAs ..

I was taking Rubber sandwich NERA ..

No, it is NERA, principle of working mechanism is same, just got a different fancy name.

 

[militarysta]

You havent posted any screen shots, did you ?

You talk was about NERA, This is not NERA ..

I had posted picturec from this pdf even in this topic in circa 2012...

 

[Akim]

Royal Thai Army
M60A1 and BM Oplot-M

 

[arnabmit]

[video=youtube_share;BX4Lak_MjQc]http://youtu.be/BX4Lak_MjQc[/video]

 

[Sovngard]

The thing that worries me with this new south-korean main battle tank is the small thickness of each sides of its turret.

 

[313230]

Those side boxes are armor or just storage boxes?
If those boxes are storage boxes, it could be replace with armor if needed. Overall it should provide 300mm-400mm LOS

 

[Damian]

These are storage boxes that in theory can be replaced with armor modules.

What is more problematic, is the small size of turret bustle, which means low ammunition capacity ready to use.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

These are storage boxes that in theory can be replaced with armor modules.

What is more problematic, is the small size of turret bustle, which means low ammunition capacity ready to use.

I think the K2 is a significant improvement over the K1 series in all three major categories; firepower, mobility and protection.

Firepower: The L55 allows the K2 to theoretically fire high end KE rounds such as the M829A3 and DM53/63, putting the tank on an equal footing with tanks such as the M1A2 SEP and Leopard 2A6.

Mobility: The MTU (soon Korean) 1500 HP engine, coupled with the relative low weight of 55 tons and hydro-pneumatic/variable suspension should give the tank mobility to rival the best foreign counterparts such as the Leclerc XXI, BM-Oplot-M, etc.

Protection: Although the ammo hull storage is inferior compared to the Abrams series, the K2, Unlike the K1 series, has an autoloader equipped bustle wrack that is very similar to the Leclerc's. If i recall the Leclerc's autoloader has a 22 round capacity, which should be quite sufficient for the K2.

 

[Sovngard]

Those side boxes are armor or just storage boxes?
If those boxes are storage boxes, it could be replace with armor if needed. Overall it should provide 300mm-400mm LOS

These are storage boxes that in theory can be replaced with armor modules.

I don't think that the storage boxes fastening will be able to hold a composite armor module.

The planned upgrade of the K2 Black Panther (which is still not in service), the PIP Product Improvement Program will only add some small ERA bricks over the storage boxes.

What is more problematic, is the small size of turret bustle, which means low ammunition capacity ready to use.

16 rounds in the bustle autoloader, still one more than the Leopard 2

The current Type 10 tanks used in JGSDF's training school have a bustle autoloader with a 14 rounds capacity but Japanese claim that it can be extended to 18 without heavy modifications.

If i recall the Leclerc's autoloader has a 22 round capacity

Yes