Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Well WWII armor is not my main interest but, I can only think that it was another insanse Nazi experiment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yeah, it would definitely belong to a sci-fi movie if revamped. Speaking of old tanks... how unrealistic it is that one of Warhammer 40k's heaviest tanks around is a refurbishing of the basic english glory, the Mark I? Side sponsons and no turret, come on... I guess that would allow some pretty heavy armour, but the weapon flexibility? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It it not good idea, vehicle is not mobile, it is big and heavy and this don't means allways good protection. And weapons as You mentioned. Generaly awfull design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Mmmmh. But looking at future prospects, some experts say robotics will shift from predators to everything else, slowly. What do you think the remaining lifespan of the MBT as we know it will last? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Robotic tanks... the disaster for armed forces. UAV's are nice assets but robots never will be capabale and should not replace humans, also in form of vehicles. Crewed tank will allways be better than unmanned one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I concur, but you know that the fatcats like those shiny things, so... how long? A diagnosis? And once again yes, **** unmanned tanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Never, they will neve replace manned vehicle with unnmanned. Unmanned vehicles can however be a support for manned vehicles but they never will be good enough to replace manned ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hmmm. Then they'd be smart. But I do have read american proposals for that, or was I daydreaming? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 These were proposals for support vehicle not an unmanned tank replacement for manned tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 pheeeew. I'll have to actually give some credit to the American armed forces, then. Still rooting more for an Euroarmada, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yeah well, US.Army have a concept of introducing first 55 tons FMBT and then 40 tons original FCS as tanks supported by other types of weapons systems. While later some guys get a mad idea of 20 ton MGV vehicles using common hull for FCS. I will try to search in ARMOR magazine archieves to find some TACOM ideas for tanks. Very nice designs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Ignorant about the meaning of "F" in FMBT, and FCS and MGV. MANPADS was hard enough for me to learn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 FMBT - Future Main Battle Tank, FCS - Future Combat Systems, MGV - Manned Ground Vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Ah. I'll meditate on that while I gorge myself and watch basketball euroleague news at dinner. C'ya. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Ok I will copy all schematics and drawings and show You some great US designs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 https://www.knox.army.mil/center/armormag%5Cbackissues%5C1990s%5C1993%5Cja93%5C4tankdesign93.pdf US FMBT. Here are some drawigns, an FMBT, different FMBT project and M1 tank with FASTDRAW system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Image is quite small, can't work out the details. Since FASTDRAW is written all in caps, I assume it's another jolly acronym? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konev Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 AN/VLQ-8 Active Protection System. Hello everybody,I'm new here! I've never seen this before,I want to know that how does it working? Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konev Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Yes they are, Kontakt-5 will not be ignited by such APFSDS like M829A2 and M829A3, dunno what will happen when DM-53/63, L27A1 or OLF120F1/F2 will hit it, but these will probably ignite Kontakt-5. Why Kontakt-5 will not be ignited by M829A2 and M829A3? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Kontakt-5 v M829A2 From Wikipedia: "The plates are arranged in such a way as to move sideways rapidly when the explosive detonates. This will force an incoming kinetic energy penetrator or shaped charge jet to cut through more armour than the thickness of the plating itself, since "new" plating is constantly fed into the penetrating body. A kinetic energy penetrator will also be subjected to powerful sideways forces, which might be large enough to cut the rod into two or more pieces." " The M829A2 was rapidly developed to have the capability to destroy tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 reactive armor. The M829A2 has several improvements over the M829A1, including: a longer depleted uranium penetrating rod than previous designs, giving it improved performance over previous types of anti-tank rounds; better manufacturing processes for the penetrator; and a partially cut propelling charge to allow it to be more energetic while loading like a stick charge. The M829A2 was also the first APFSDS round to use carbon fiber sabot petals, reducing the weight of the overall round and allowing for the larger penetrator. Combined these features boost its muzzle velocity by 100 m/s to 1680 m/s, while operating at slightly lower pressure." Looks like it will be ignited but because the penetrator is longer than the amount of armour the Kontakt has and it is better made and less likely to break up it will not be defeated ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 AN/VLQ-8 Active Protection System. Missile Countermeasure Device (MCD) SACLOS, (semi-automatic command line of sight) ATGMs work by having the operator keep the target in the cross hair. The launcher detects where the missile is by "seeing" an Infra Red (IR) flare in the base of the missile and then sending the corrections to the missile to make it fly into the cross hairs and hence the target. I understand the AN/VLQ-8 and similar systems work by producing an IR light that is mimics the flare in the missile, making the the launcher unit think that the missile is already on target so it sends no corrections and , with a bit of luck (!) , the missile misses. A "fire and forget" IR Image ATGM like the US Javlin ATGM (not the Brit AA Missile) might also be fooled as it takes a "picture" of the target and guides itself to it. If that picture suddenly becomes a bright flare that the MCD provides it might break the lock. More likely tho', the missile would just continue to the now much "brighter" target. If the MCD was on when the missile was locked and then turned off when it was launched then it might work better? Good luck detecting what type of missile has just been launched tho'. Laser systems or the old manual wire guided systems of course would not be fooled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Image is quite small, can't work out the details. Since FASTDRAW is written all in caps, I assume it's another jolly acronym? I think it is one of those acronyms that are made up so that the acronym itself is the thing that makes sense not the supposed "real" name. So rather than just say Autoloader it might be...... Future Armoured Second Tier Diverse Reloading Automatic Weapon ? Anyone got another ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Why Kontakt-5 will not be ignited by M829A2 and M829A3? Probably because they are slower than earlier penetrators that Kontakt-5 was designed to defeat. So if they are slower that means that when they hit it, there will be not enough pressure on reactive element and it will not ignite. At least this is how I understand this phenomen. It was discussed on TankNet. Of course M829A3 will be much more effective than M829A2, because latter was a stop gap after tests with M829 (dunno if M829A1 was tested) fail to perforate T-72M1 with K-5. Looks like it will be ignited but because the penetrator is longer than the amount of armour the Kontakt has and it is better made and less likely to break up it will not be defeated ? Yes, this was one of design solution of M829A2 and especially M829A3. Penetrators is very long, actually M829A3 is the longest APFSDS penetrator used. It have also bigger diameter than other types of Penetrators, and with slower velocity it just performs better against targets protected by heavy dynamic protection. As for US Active Protection Systems, there are similiar to Russian TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1, Russian APS is jut more complex. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Probably because they are slower than earlier penetrators that Kontakt-5 was designed to defeat. The article says they are actually faster. The original idea with ERA was that it would only react to the extremely fast velocities of HEAT detonations, so they couldn't be detonated by small arms. I think that this will still detonate, it just will not have much of an effect on the longer thicker rod of the new M829 rounds. As for US Active Protection Systems, there are similiar to Russian TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1, Russian APS is jut more complex. The Shtora is a system rather than a single item. It has Smoke Dispensers, laser jammers, IR/EO jammers and well as a threat axis detection set up. The unit shown and named is only the IR jammer section of a wider system which I presume US tanks are equipped with. Of course always tricky to find true info on this stuff outside the official secrets act 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The article says they are actually faster. The original idea with ERA was that it would only react to the extremely fast velocities of HEAT detonations, so they couldn't be detonated by small arms. I think that this will still detonate, it just will not have much of an effect on the longer thicker rod of the new M829 rounds. M829A2 could be a bit faster, M829A3 is slower. Kontakt-5 will be ignited only at certain velocities. My theory is that, M829A2 was designed in such way that it can survive Kontakt-5 ignition, while M829A3 was designed in such way that it will not only survive possible ignition, but also it will not ignite K-5. The Shtora is a system rather than a single item. It has Smoke Dispensers, laser jammers, IR/EO jammers and well as a threat axis detection set up. The unit shown and named is only the IR jammer section of a wider system which I presume US tanks are equipped with. Of course always tricky to find true info on this stuff outside the official secrets act Yes Shtora is a system composed from laser warning (not jamming) system, IR jammers, smoke dispensers etc. while AN/VLQ-6 and AN/VLQ-8 are simpler systems. 0 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.