Boche Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 thats one ugly son of a gun! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I think it looks rather nice (turret), we just need to wait for a new hull, I think the situation is similiar like with T-90M. They just finished the turret and test it with current hulls where new hull is in very early development stage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 M1A3 very interesting to see that turret. Where the hell did you get these photos? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Here, it seems that these guys don't even know what they seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Amazing. And how much is spent on satellite surveillance and counter-espionage...? All you need are some trainspotters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 So uhh, any estimates on the penetration capabilities of that gun and the new ammunition? Ouch... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Amazing. And how much is spent on satellite surveillance and counter-espionage...? All you need are some trainspotters. Ehm... and for what purpose You wan't to hide a tank? The most interesting things are in the guts, and nobody will se the interior so no problem. You know, Yanks don't have such paranoia like some others have. So uhh, any estimates on the penetration capabilities of that gun and the new ammunition? Ouch... Not enough data. But sure things are, the turret is based on CATTB design but is not CATTB itself. The gun is 120mm version of XM291. Besides this I think now that after cancellation of such many programs and redirect of funds in to upgrade programs of current vehicle fleet, the Army is just digging out old prototypes, they will test them, figure out what is usefull and prepare from this new modernisation program. Damn from all of this I hope that they finally revive AIPS program engines, no matter LV100-5 or XAP-1000, these things are needed now, because even if after TIGER program AGT-1500C is good engine, it need replacement, it should have been replaced in 90's! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Propably this turret have simmilar autoloader: 34rnd 14-12rnd/min 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Photo thanks to Jim Warford, it is maybe a second prototype named "Thumper" as we can see. Turret seems to be a bit different. Or vehicles both on photo and video are one and the same vehicle. It is now certain that main gun is XM291 120/140mm smoothbore gun. Both prototypes are a breakdowns from the CATTB program due to shortage of funds for it, but maybe some quotes from that Jim put onto TankNet and MilitaryPhotos. First things first...guys, the tank in question is almost certainly the (or one of the) Advanced Tank Cannon (ATAC) System Demonstrator Vehicles. The new (back in the day) turret was designed to integrate the XM291 140mm main gun into a new turret (with auto-loader), fitted to an M1 hull. The gun fired two-piece 140mm ammo "with twice the muzzle energy of the standard 120mm M256." The program also included the testing of a millimeter wave radar target acquisition system. The first (maybe only) demonstrator vehicle was named "Thumper" (see pic below - without the cammo paint). And one more. "Due to a shortage of funding, the CATT-B was never completed as a fully integrated system. Prior to being installed in the CATT-B, the ATAC System has been installed in a modified M1 turret on a standard M1 chassis (Thumper). This also features the Benet Laboratory designed automatic loader, modified M1A1 fire-control electronics, Rockwell Multisensor Target Acquisition Sensor, standard M1 gunner's primary sight and a new fire-control computer. In this vehicle the gunner is on the right, as in the M1, while the tank commander is on the left in the space normally occupied by the loader." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Alex - would You by some kind, and post this bellow here: http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=284&p=26 ?? As I said, a made some pohotos: and LOS in Leo2A4 look that: (for Leo2A4 finnal version, for T-90A of course not) And this: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg and this: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/leo3.jpg and of course Andriej-SBU-fakemaster-Harkonnen-Tarasenko this: http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/57551.html is FAKE, and B-S 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 militarysta hello. You know, we had a big discussion on OTVAGA, one man who working at UVZ told, that T-90A have absolute different armor structure that we thinking before. He cant say or show how it looking, because this is a secret and he can have a big problems, but one thing is clear, central week zone looks not like you and many others thinking, and it's not so week as it seems. I can show this image, of course this is only some 'thinking about' but you may understand, how different backside looks. And one more he told, T-72B turret also have stronger central part, that many people thinking about. I will post your images to show Leo armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 We both with Militarysta are reading OTVAGA. Actually Wiedzmin is a funny person, he have some problems with understanding? He wrote that on the photograph there is 80cm not 84cm, yes, because it is special armor cavity thickness, without the backplate, backplate in western tanks is rather thick, but it is difficult to estimate it's thickness, actually we were abale only to well estimate backplate of M1A1/A2 turret, with Leopard 2 it may be a bit difficult I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Alex, my photo on otvaga is not working. Here is another one, of course for OPSPEC reson i can't post here all photos, but this is safe for me: Mask:(42cm) or: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4562/p1190538.jpg area behind EMES-15 area: (65cm) or: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4562/p1190538.jpg front turret LOS (84cm) http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5083/28877502.jpg You know, we had a big discussion on OTVAGA, one man who working at UVZ told, that T-90A have absolute different armor structure that we thinking before. He cant say or show how it looking, because this is a secret and he can have a big problems, but one thing is clear, central week zone looks not like you and many others thinking, and it's not so week as it seems. I can show this image, of course this is only some 'thinking about' but you may understand, how different backside looks. Very possible - i based on mr.Fake (Andriej-SBU-Tarasenko) draws and "estimates" - if they are so correct for T-90A like for Leo2A4 it sure that T-90A is mucht stronger then Andriej T. says. Nobody in Poland says that russian tanks are weak. Some reports gives T-90A in central part about ~70-80cm LOS - it will by preety simmilar to your picture. So, of course it could be - as I said - I based on btvt and Andriej draws. And they are full od fakes... Best regard from Poland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 About Wiedzmin, who knows... :-) What Leo modification you measure? Some reports gives T-90A in central part about ~70-80cm LOS - it will by preety simmilar to your picture. That man says same thing... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Ordinary Leopard2A4 (production year: 1986) form 10TkBde :-) ps.That man says same thing... But I can't say any abouth this reports :-) You know what, i suppose :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 About Wiedzmin, who knows... :-) I actually knows that he have problems with understanding even so simple text in english like reports on testing of M1A1HA armor. And the tank on photos is or early production Leopard 2A4 or late production batch. Who knows. Militarysta, I will send You some info later on Militarium forum ok? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Ok, ps. Damian - 1986 :-) ordinary, old Leo2A4 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 But I can't say any abouth this reports :-) You know what, i suppose :-) Ugu :-) Peoples wants turret side photos ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 ?? "turret side" Can You show mi on some draw whith part of turret? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Side armor he means I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Side armor he means I suppose. Yes sorry, I was not correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well the most interesting in this thread is philosophy of how to distribut armor on vehicle. While US and UK where the less restrict on that and put on vehicle as much armor as possible, the Germans, French and Italians were more restrict and preffered more balanced aproach. While Soviets (Russians, Ukrainians) restriced by very hard demands on vehicle weight and dimensions needed to find some geometry tricks to preserve good protection with thinner armor. All of these philosophys have strong and weak points, but the final word should be, that all of them gives more or less equall protection on comparabale vehivles, vehicles generations, types etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militarysta Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Side armor he means I suppose. For turret or for hull? For turret is like on this colour draw 28-30 for 90. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Side hull on all western tanks is probably 70-80mm over most surface and 30-50mm in the suspension mount area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 For turret or for hull? Turret, hull not interesting :-) 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.