Akim
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,353
- Likes
- 8,645
[OFF] Wow! We have for this money you can buy 2.5 liters of cognac.[/OFF]With our taxes half a liter of vodka costs 15$
[OFF] Wow! We have for this money you can buy 2.5 liters of cognac.[/OFF]With our taxes half a liter of vodka costs 15$
to this:przez militarysta » 22 gru 2013, o 14:33
przez militarysta » 16 sty 2014, o 18:35
tbcTo zależy gdzie będzie mieć miejsce trafienie. Jeżeli po stronie ładowniczego to raczej przyrządy nie powinny zostać zniszczone, jeżeli zaraz obok "doghouse" to raczej można się pożegnać z celownikiem. Co do samej elektroniki to ta z czołgów tym się różni od cywilnej że musi wytrzymywać takie rzeczy. Jeszcze do lat 1990 wielu autorów wierzyło, że każde trafienie będzie mieć bardzo negatywne skutki dla załogi (słynne opisy jak to będą wypadać oczka, uszka i płucka) ale były to opisy tworzone na podstawie nie najlepszych doświadczeń z eksploatacji wozów z monolitycznymi pancerzami stalowymi: M48, M60, Chieftian, T-55, T-54, oraz wozami z II wś gdzie istotnie każde (nie rykoszetujące) trafienie było niebezpieczne dla załogi - w opisach powtarza się ogłuszający huk, odpadające wewnątrz pojazdu elementy wyposażenia (i rażące załogę), krwawiące czasem bębenki i przygłuche załogi, w ekstremalnych przypadkach iskry (?!) w przedziale załogi.
Tyle, że ten opis w ogóle nie opowiada temu co się dzieje po trafieniu wozów z niemonolityczny opancerzeniem (T-64, T-72M1,T-72B, T-80B, etc) a już w ogóle nie odpowiada temu co się dzieje w przypadku trafienia wozów z pancerzem typu Burlington lub jego pochodną .
Ponieważ wygląda na to, że nic poważnego się nie dzieje w razie niepenetrujacego trafienia.
In case influence of the non-penetrating hits on tank it's multiple problem. In case tanks whit solid steel (monolith) armour - cast steel or RHA plates - the problem was transfering MJ energy from outern (hit) surface to inter (border of crew comparment) layers. Even if there was non-penetrating hit the where a hight risk of debrits or even shrapnels detached from armour and hit crew. What more -on this problem based HESH ammo - pretty effective against cast steel T-55 and T-62.The whole debate started after someone said that a tank (in this case a russian one, lets assume a T90) would remain operational and keep fighting even if it would recieve multipe partial-penetrating hits from a western (in this case shot from Leo2A4/A6) APFSDS rounds. I argued that should it happen that none of the rounds would penetrate to the crew compartment, atleast something would be broken or someone hurt. I just dont see it likely that a tank would just absorb multiple APFSDS hits and not be affected.
In Poland we have small problem whit militarium forum, now it's only fo register users, soon it shoud be open for wide public. Please be patient ;-)Frankly saying, to give someone a link for a Polish language forum, where we cannot see anything without registration, it's a bit mean.
Do not misunderstand me, I learn a lot from your post in the past years, and become a great fan of you, but this is harsh to me... Please at least turn on the interface language changing in phpBB options
I will!In Poland we have small problem whit militarium forum, now it's only fo register users, soon it shoud be open for wide public. Please be patient ;-)
Actually yes, but that's why we thanks your work!unfortunatly all in polish, but propably tehy are the best avaible NOW in the whole internet yes I know - Im so modest
• Zobacz dziaÅ‚ - Militarium in English -part in english, rather for ask and answersI will!
Just a question: at the Militarium, do you plan to have forgein language (at least english) forum, or remain polish only?
It's typical sword-shield next step More or less it's seems that tank armour since 1980s ussaly have small advantage over "sword".After reading your article about the Knife/Duplet system a question began to emerge inside me: as normal each step in "sword" development (this time: anti-armor rounds and missiles) is almost simultaneous to the "shield" (here: armor) systems. If the Knife / Duplet offer an above-average defense capability against the APFSDS rounds, then what is the next possible step for the "sword"? There is no force to step up in the caliber (let's say for 140mm, or even 152/155mm)? I believe the current armor systems are designed against the 120/125mm caliber threats, and level of penetration (and energy level around 11-13Mj), so if a 140mm canon hit the field (with muzzle energy level of 17-20Mj), that probably ruin the current type of armor desing, is not? Why no one take this step? Even the Armata reports saying it's retain the "old" 125mm caliber, while there is report about an ex-soviet / russian 152mm program...
Well, for me even the registration cause some problem, and because the whole user interface is polish only, it's really a pain in the ass to use the forum correctly.(I needed to remove the link, because the forum cannot allow me to include in my posts... - Cifu) Zobacz dział - Militarium in English[/url] -part in english, rather for ask and answers
Your answer basically point out that not an larger caliber conservative design, but the EMC is the next logical step? While even the US planned to use the "old way" in the XM360/XM360E1.It's typical sword-shield next step More or less it's seems that tank armour since 1980s ussaly have small advantage over "sword".
In case energy level those 11-13MJ is for penetrator and sabot together - for penetrator only is mucht less. Even for EMC gun MJ is up to 18MJ put power supply is teh key problem.
And armour is still better and better, so propably even EMC guns and new longer and better penetrator will not end this race.
Unfortunatly it will be polish only...I'm interested about the user interface language...
Rather any posible solution which allowed to achive bigger MJ energy transfered to target. So in theory as big as it's possible MJ energy transfered for as small as it's possible area cm2 on target. To complicated more - penetrator must overpass some ERA, NERA, SLERA armour and penetrate multilayered ative layers in Burlington armour style. So it's very hard task.Your answer basically point out that not an larger caliber conservative design, but the EMC is the next logical step? While even the US planned to use the "old way" in the XM360/XM360E1.
Is this the real "Armata" deal ?
Article: Об «Ðрмате» вопреки ÑекретноÑти | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»
In other news.......
According to Robert Griffin's Book Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II:
"The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimized to fight hull-down"
This concerns the FV4201 Chieftain, not the FV4030/4 Challenger 1.well, also turret with armor consisting of 125...140 mm of armor at 60 degrees does not provide adequate protection.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
W | Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank | Pakistan | 0 | |
T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective | Defence Wiki | 0 | ||
W | Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S. | Land Forces | 6 | |
W | Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia. | Pakistan | 68 |