So Poland made a thing

>>31204183

You're saying that like the leopard is the only referent in tank warfare in Europe.

>>31204205
>it is

>>31204183
Does sloped armor not offer an advantage to vertical armor anymore?

Seems like less tanks are using it, with the exception of turrets sometimes

>>31204225
that is pretty sloped.... but it has lost a little efficiency due to new types of shells

>>31204183
Should be noted that this is a private initiative of OBRUM research & development centre and not something that the Polish MoD is actively looking into

>>31204225
Not much compared to the advantage of vertical armor's compactness allowing for tighter and tighter fits into medium and large transport planes.

>>31204213
>Leclerc
>Ariete

File: vTRBJJS.png (298KB, 620x427px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 620x427px

>>31204225
Sloped armor is kind of useless in the modern era
APFSDS either penetrates or shatters, it does not ricochet

>>31204243
>>31204256
Ah, that makes sense. Personally I prefer flat armor. I think it looks more aesthetic

>>31204283
Jesus.. that's what, 60/65/70* from vertical??

Also, how did such a small diameter dart make such a huge hole??

File: 2016-08-27 (10).png (2MB, 1514x913px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1514x913px

>>31204205
I am saying this not because Leopard is best tank and everyone is copying it, but rather because it's the only foreign tank Poland can reverse-engineer, considering that they have their hands on 250 of th- pardon, 249 of them.

>>31204283

is still an efficient method to avoid penetration since the projectiles needs tro travel more material to go through the armor plate.

>>31204312

When you're made of pure energy and the material offers a certain ammount of resistance you have that effect.

>>31204183
>...that's just an upgraded T-72.

You say this as if it is being presented as something else than a modernization for T-72's. And no, none of the equipment is taken from Leopard 2's.

Kek.

Using t-72 hull is not suprising, after all, they have a lot of them laying around.

But take a good look at the curved turret roof. Its still the old cast t-72 turret with a bodykit.

Looks kind of nice, tho.

>>31204340
>only foreign tank Poland can reverse-engineer

Poland doesnt need to reverse engineer shit. There are lot of manufacturers that are perfectly willing to sell them licenses or cooperate in developing new stuff.

For example, they have recently bought rights and knowhow to manufacture worstkorean K9 selfpropelled howitzer hulls. In 90s they were cooperating with GIAT - there were plans on putting modified Leclerc turret on T-72s.

>>31204340
>Polish companies (that do not even have access to the technology you imply they are copying) behave like China

>>31204183

delete this

>>31204476
Apparently there are two options offered, a new turret altogether or a modification of existing turrets. Both have a bustle mounted autoloader for the 120mm gun.

>>31204476
they are buying K9 chassis only because their own design was a flop
how do you even fuck such basic thing up

>>31204183
It's an upgraded PT-91, which is an upgraded T-72. Except now it has a 120mm gun. This is good. I don't know why you're bitching.

>>31204213
What bout challenger 2?

File: 1424593972945.png (1MB, 1024x982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x982px

>>31204283
>Sloped armor is kind of useless in the modern era

A homogeneous steel block of unknown softness is not representative of modern tank armor.

>>31204406
>pure energy
They didn't use lasers anon.

All I'm saying is how did a 1" needle create a 5+" through & through hole? (relative numbers, no idea what those sizes are exactly)

A 5.56mm AP round doesn't make a .338 size hole through 1/16" steel

File: IMG_0006.jpg (4MB, 2448x1836px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2448x1836px

I realize that Poland is not scavenging stuff out of Leopards, but the design is clearly influenced.

>>31204461
I say that as if there is only so much shit you can cram on over 40 years old tank. It holds pretty well despite it's age, though.
And it's not like Poland is going to use them anyways, they're apparently made for sale to other countries.

>>31204476
It has been said that turret is a new, welded design. I call bullshit.
The gun is 120mm, though not their local copy of Rheinmetall one but rather manufactured under license, has an autoloader for all the newest shells.
The armour is apparently similar to the Leopard 2 Evolution, it's supposedly delivered by IBD Deisenroth too.
The engine has 1000 HP and comes from Serbia.

>>31204502
See image.

>>31204550
The 120mm is great step, since now you can stea- I mean share ammo with rest of NATO.
I bitch because I'm Polish.

File: 1397832060790.png (2MB, 689x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 689x800px

>>31204599
Aren't those plates just rubber & metal sandwiches? (they look similar to T-72B armor cells makeup)

>>31204627
>I say that as if there is only so much shit you can cram on over 40 years old tank.
The Abrams is an almost 40 year old design. It's still arguably the best tank in the world.

>I bitch because I'm Polish.
Then you should be happy.

File: 2016-08-27-33.png (337KB, 640x422px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 640x422px

>>31204677
>Arguably
There's also notable self-explanatory difference, T-72 was made by Soviets, Abrams was made by Americans.

>Then you should be happy.
It's a rule. Polish have to bitch about Poland until some foreign cuck tries to do the same. I guess I just want Poland to be stronk independent nation that needs no EU and can make it's own MBT that isin't based on old Soviet metal bawkses.

>>31204609
>They didn't use lasers anon.

WTF you idiot.

What is kinetic energy anon?

>>31204637

Yep, and those work best with high angle of impact, the plates are nearly useless if hit head on.

When a NERA sandwich is struck by a shaped charge jet, the rubber in the middle vaporizes and puts huge pressure on the two steel plates. These plates buckle and expand outwards, which feeds new plate into the metal jet and forcing it to penetrate much more armor.

Against sabots, the same thing happens, but rather the moving plates apply lateral stress on the sabot and snap it in half.

Both these mechanisms rely on high slope to work.

>>31204183
great job, you made a minecraft tank

File: maxresdefault.jpg (95KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1280x720px

>>31204183
but what about our space tank

>>31204677
>It's still arguably the best tank in the world.
Haha no. Absolute best goes to rooskie T-14 but as it isnt in serial production yet title goes to worst gook K2 for now. You know you have a showstopper when the other side ups a caliber and you don't.

>>31206876
>Absolute best goes to rooskie T-14
There's nowhere near enough information to make that claim.
>K2
Based on what I've read, I personally believe that to be the case with one exception- to my knowledge South Korea doesn't use any M829 series round. This is a significant disadvantage, but I'm not certain as to whether I'd say that makes it worse than the M1A2 SEPv2.

>You know you have a showstopper when the other side ups a caliber and you don't.
I'd say that has more to do with the fact that Germany doesn't use DU rounds.

In any case, it is not arguable that there are not valid arguments towards the Abrams being the best tank in the world. To say that there aren't is to be an ostrich with your head in the sand.

>>31206876
>You know you have a showstopper when the other side ups a caliber and you don't.

Is that why so many want the T-14 to have a 152mm gun?

>>31207010
>There's nowhere near enough information to make that claim.
Mere fact they are upgunning means a lot. Nobody ups a caliber for no good reason other than running out of perspective upgrades against likely opponent's armor.

>Based on what I've read, I personally believe that to be the case with one exception- to my knowledge South Korea doesn't use any M829 series round. This is a significant disadvantage, but I'm not certain as to whether I'd say that makes it worse than the M1A2 SEPv2.
You're right, they don't. They use DM-53/63s made through license. Only that Tungsten is not inherently inferior as it was before- it can be made to exhibit adiabatic shearing you know and at the optimum velocity of 1.8-2 km/s as well.

>I'd say that has more to do with the fact that Germany doesn't use DU rounds.
Oh their tungsten is just as good, if not better. Also, the new gun is precondition for the KMW and Nexter lovechild next gen MBT so it would likely use DU since the French use them as well. So no you can't really use the "muh DU" excuse as to why the krauts and frogs are going for a newer, and bigger gun.

>>31207214
>Mere fact they are upgunning means a lot.

I seriously hope you are not implying the 130mm gun that Rheinmetall is working on is a result of the T-14.

>>31207090
>Is that why so many want the T-14 to have a 152mm gun?
>taking vatnik rhetoric at face value
It doesn't have one mounted on it does it not? That should tell you the only relevant opinions of the actual experts such as only the actual designers on the matter.

File: d92b0ee14076f.jpg (858KB, 1424x2144px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 1424x2144px

>>31207214
>Oh their tungsten is just as good, if not better.

The DM63? It's just DM53 with tweaked propellant.

As a bonus it doesn't even have whatever the data link in M829A4 and the new French round is for.

>>31207256
>That should tell you the only relevant opinions of the actual experts such as only the actual designers on the matter.

Which you are not doing.

>>31207214
>Mere fact they are upgunning means a lot.
But they aren't yet. This accounts for everything that you've said. It hasn't been confirmed that the 130mm gun they've been showing around means much of anything, and the Americans don't seem to be developing a larger gun, which seems to reason that they don't see any reason to, which would bring us to the conclusion that the latest M829 series rounds being capable of penetrating their worst-case estimates of the T-14's armor.

Now, if the Germans ARE confirmed for putting the 130mm gun on their tank, then that means one of several things- that their armor piercing ammunition doesn't have high enough penetration to penetrate their estimations of the T-14's armor, or that they don't think the gun is future proofed enough room for growth, possibly against future T-14 armor layouts.

Is that logical enough for you?

>>31207241
Why not? T-14 program started just a few months after object-195 was cancelled way back in 2010 and the latter itself was in development since the early 90s, not to mention the sovershetny?-88 projects that the actual 140 mm gun, which was the predecessor to the new 130 mm, sought to address. Just like the T-14 evolved from the Object 195 and past projects so did the 130 out from the 140. The timeline fits.

Why make new MBTs when it's all about sand battles and snackbar infantry? Shit's heavy and overkill.

>>31207326
Because tanks are the greatest maneuver assets in existence and they continue to be extremely useful in insurgencies no matter what the politicians think.

>>31207273
>As a bonus it doesn't even have whatever the data link in M829A4 and the new French round is for.
I'd be surprised if its in inventory anywhere considering it only entered testing.
>>31207292
>Which you are not doing.
At least im not the gullible fool who puts stock in the opinions of trolls- yep rogozin is a big one, instead of looking at whats set in metal.

>>31206352
It's a light tank

Fits other roles

>>31204374
At the cost of increased weight.
You'll get the same thickness if the weight is to be kept the same as vertical armor.

>>31207370
>I'd be surprised if its in inventory anywhere considering it only entered testing.

M829A4 or the French round? Because the former is already in production.

>>31207370
Are you going to get around to sharing "opinions of the actual experts such as only the actual designers on the matter" or continue straw manning about internet vatniks?

>>31207477
>>31204374
see >>31204599 and >>31205273

>>31207300
>But they aren't yet.
The gun still hasn't finished testing and the threat won't exist in considerable numbers until 2020 yet. Give them time.

>It hasn't been confirmed that the 130mm gun they've been showing around means much of anything
They announced it would arm the next gen MBT.

>Americans don't seem to be developing a larger gun
As if this means anything. Wouldnt put it past bureaucratic shenannigery to make them ignore rapidly changing threats.

>which would bring us to the conclusion that the latest M829 series rounds being capable of penetrating their worst-case estimates of the T-14's armo
Not the only valid sort of conclusion you can derive. Could very likely mean they are wrong and its the czech t-55 situation again. Or not. Not like we'd know for sure and we all have our biases anyway. As for me i really just dont expect the A4 to be better in more than a marginal way compared to the A3. Projectile is almost the same dimension, propellant volume is the same and the propellant from the A3 is that good already i doubt you can squeeze any better out of propellant tech, and sabots the same. Jury's out on whether it has the actual tip separation trick or not or whether its really effective against the APS of the T-14, and even then the short and more importantly blunt rod had to contend with ERA and the thickest Russian glacis yet.

>>31207313
>The timeline fits.

The timeline as you presented it is not even correct. Development of the Armata family started before the Obj195 was canned, and Rheinmetall is making this gun because it knows Germany/France are planning on making a new tank by 2030.

>>31207300
>Now, if the Germans ARE confirmed for putting the 130mm gun on their tank, then that means one of several things- that their armor piercing ammunition doesn't have high enough penetration to penetrate their estimations of the T-14's armor, or that they don't think the gun is future proofed enough room for growth, possibly against future T-14 armor layouts.
KMW and Nexter have merged and they have begun preliminary design studies for the new tank and commence testing the new gun- that good enough?
And it could only be both- the latter follows from the former.

File: e96fJd0.jpg (481KB, 2256x1496px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2256x1496px

>>31207550
On the other hand, ceramics work better in vertical armor.
Ceramic armor are often made as hexagon shaped tiles held in a honeycomb lattice under enormous pressure. When the shaped charge jet or APFSDS hits a tile it shatters and the shards are forced into the jet/APFSDS abrading it, reducing the penetration.
The Leo 2 uses both with the hollow NERA turret wedges covering the vertical armor that includes the ceramic component.

>>31207638
>The gun still hasn't finished testing and the threat won't exist in considerable numbers until 2020 yet. Give them time.

The 130mm gun won't be ready until 2025 or 2030 according to Rheinmetall.

>They announced it would arm the next gen MBT.

Rheinmetall wants it on Germany/France's next MBT, it hasn't been selected for Germany/France's next MBT.

>As if this means anything. Wouldnt put it past bureaucratic shenannigery to make them ignore rapidly changing threats.

The US Army is screaming about needing to modernize into a post sandbox world, hence why it has so many upgrade projects and new vehicles in the chute.

>Jury's out on whether it has the actual tip separation trick or not or whether its really effective against the APS of the T-14, and even then the short and more importantly blunt rod had to contend with ERA and the thickest Russian glacis yet.

I like how you acknowledge you don't actually know the characteristics of a M829A3/A4.

>>31207519
French round. But the A4 shouldnt be as well as it only entered production. Typically youd wait a few years for stocks to accumulate and testing data as well before you release them for use by the general tankery.

>>31207538
>Are you going to get around to sharing "opinions of the actual experts such as only the actual designers on the matter" or continue straw manning about internet vatniks?
Even better. I have it as facts set in metal.

>>31207673
>KMW and Nexter have merged and they have begun preliminary design studies for the new tank and commence testing the new gun
>KMW and Nexter are testing Rheinmetall's gun

>>31207720
>Typically youd wait a few years for stocks to accumulate and testing data as well before you release them for use by the general tankery.

So you are talking out of your ass.

>Even better. I have it as facts set in metal.

You have a manufacturer hoping its unfinished product will get used in a future vehicle whose design process has only just started.

>>31207656
>Development of the Armata family started before the Obj195 was canned
Where did you get this? Didn't you realize parallel development of two new expensive tanks with almost same parameters is nothing but verbotten in Russian mil-ind complex? Either cant become low to the other's high since the l T90 and legacy T72 exists and the T-72 is only retained because they have shitloads of it and is cheap to operate and maintain and could share parts with T90. The Russians are all about standardization now, otherwise they wouldnt bother with writing off the entire T-64, older T-72 and a large part of the gas turbined T80 lines.

>>31204609
5.56 doesn't go 5,500 feet per second. Apfsds rounds have enough velocity to vaporize some of the armor when it hits. High kinetic energy+resistance=thermal energy.

>>31207752
>You have a manufacturer hoping its unfinished product will get used in a future vehicle whose design process has only just started.
Im talking about the T-14 with its 125 mm gun- sheesh work on your reading compre skills.

>So you are talking out of your ass.
At least Im not the one whos entire head is up their ass. Outside of testing batches to give a couple tankists the feel of a new round as well as testing data new rounds dont enter the onboard ammo storages until a few years. Barring something like desert stirm of course.

>>31204283
The modern idea is to shoot a tiny grenade into the flight path of the APFSDS rod, explode it to slightly alter the flight path of the rod so only a fraction of its kinetic force can come into play at the tip of the rod, it either ricochets or preferably the flight path was so destabilized that it hits the armor sideways.

>>31207638
>The gun still hasn't finished testing and the threat won't exist in considerable numbers until 2020 yet. Give them time.
We have no confirmation that the gun will ever be used. Don't base your entire opinion off that it will.

>They announced it would arm the next gen MBT.
They haven't, actually. Rheinmetall has said they want to put it on it, but that has not been confirmed nor have the German or French governments said they want to put it on their future tank. Further, I'm dubious of Franco-German procurement efforts. They tend to break up midway.

>As if this means anything.
Considering how hard the US Army has been pushing modernization, yeah, it does mean something. Imagine the sort of funding the Army could get if they said "Russian tanks are impenetrable by our guns". In order to think that way, you're assuming that the US Army is controlled by absolute retards instead of just a bunch of high strung assholes.

>Could very likely mean they are wrong
That's included in what I said. Does "Worst Case Estimate" mean anything to you?

My point is that the US Army does not seem to be freaking out over it, and that should probably say something.

>>31208217
How do you alter the flight path of something both fin and centrifugal stabilized traveling at 1.6Km/s+ with just a "small grenade"... You'd need a lot of force to alter that.

And you'd have to do it far enough out to give it time to rotate.

>>31204627
>I realize that Poland is not scavenging stuff out of Leopards, but the design is clearly influenced.

Unless you have info about the contents of the armor modules, you can fuck right off. Because that is where the magic happens, not in the aesthetics.

>>31208222
>We have no confirmation that the gun will ever be used. Don't base your entire opinion off that it will.
Then what will the new tank use? They already projected you need a gun with at least 20 MJ to crack the FST from the 80s, likely more with advancement of tech, both own and adversary.

>They haven't, actually. Rheinmetall has said they want to put it on it, but that has not been confirmed nor have the German or French governments said they want to put it on their future tank.
Except there is a requirement of minimum energy that is already known since the 80s.

>That's included in what I said. Does "Worst Case Estimate" mean anything to you?
Yeah its a pretty tall order to expect it can pentrate the T14 esp. at worst case for them (which itake to be the best projection of the adversary armor) when past trends suggests you need a new iteration of the m829 series everytime those rooskies even upgrade one compnonent of their tank's protection- and those are only passive in nature like the era for example. When they have upgraded every part of the protection while the new round does not even look different in more than a marginal way when it did as compared to its predecessor and it shows the lack of room for any more upgrades, that's when one asks "how it could even compete?" outside of fairy tale land?

>>31208455
2-3 deg of yaw degrade penetration to something like 60-70% of the original. The effect decreases with increasing impact velocitu since the penetration channel becomes wider and the walls dont hit the penetrator.

>>31204947
Kinetic energy cannot be "pure energy" because it requires mass.

>>31208711
>Yeah its a pretty tall order to expect it can pentrate the T14 esp.

Considering how lightly armrored its turret is, a 40mm autocannon has the potential of knocking it out from the front.

This isn't even addressing the hull armor is a complete unknown.

I can't be the only one to notice that "Germany is upgunning because of the T-14" has evolved into "Germany planned on a bigger gun since the 80's".

File: is-3m.jpg (113KB, 800x582px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x582px

>>31204285
>he doesn't think sloped armor is aesthetic

Pleb

>>31204627
>design is clearly influenced

Well obviously it would be, the Leopard 2 is probably continental Europe's best tank. Of course they're going to take elements from it to use. They don't want to have shitty tech.

>>31204312
Going 4000fps and more dense than the material its hitting

The only thing that is so fucking ridiculously ugly about this tank is the headlights. They should have gone with KTO Rosomak style "angry eyes" ones, they clearly had enough space for that.

>>31208711
>Then what will the new tank use?
We don't know. It could very well use the 120, considering the Americans seem not to be developing a new gun to fight the Armata. You seem to somehow know more than the US Army.

>which itake to be the best projection of the adversary armor)
It's the absolute worst case scenario for the US- the T-14's absolute best possible armor based on what they've seen and even inflated for what they haven't. And yet they don't seem to be in any big fuss about it. How can you explain that away without saying that the Americans are grossly incompetent and have no idea what they're doing?

File: 0_100c80_ee46884f_XXL.jpg (288KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1024x682px

>>31208980
>Considering how lightly armrored its turret is, a 40mm autocannon has the potential of knocking it out from the front.
The turret is armored pretty well against autocannon APFSDS at least, as the pic shows. Unless someone invented 200mm RHA sabots for autocannon, and then its just a matter of adding an inxh or twi of steel plate and its back to armor overmatch.
>This isn't even addressing the hull armor is a complete unknown.
Not really. Weve seen pics from inside the armor capsule and looking from the outside thats some pretty thick glacis. About 900mm thick for the most part and that is unangled.

>>31207697
That Leo2 turret wedge could have WAY more NERA plates in it.. so empty.

>>31209990
>We don't know. It could very well use the 120, considering the Americans seem not to be developing a new gun to fight the Armata. You seem to somehow know more than the US Army.
Who told you they aren't developing one? Black projects nigga, you haven't heard of it?

>>31210528
>The turret is armored pretty well against autocannon APFSDS at least, as the pic shows.

Your picture shows the thin shell around the turret that is meant to lessen its IR and radar signature.

>Weve seen pics from inside the armor capsule and looking from the outside thats some pretty thick glacis.

No we haven't.

>>31210544
The wedge is meant to hinder a penetrators ability to work properly on the main turret armor.

China's wedge turret faces on the Type 96 and Type 99 follows the same premise but uses ceramics instead of NERA.

File: kill me fam.jpg (62KB, 237x225px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 237x225px

>>31204257
>LeClerc: Operators: France and UAE
>Ariete: Operators: Italy
>Leopard 2: Operators: Austria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,

>>31210662
>Your picture shows the thin shell around the turret that is meant to lessen its IR and radar signature.
Zoom in on the portion visible underneath the shell.
>>31210691
>The wedge is meant to hinder a penetrators ability to work properly on the main turret armor.
Its meant to impart yaw before the projectile even encounters the main armor.

>>31209091
That's because the T-14 is really just the latest and finally succesful attempt to introduce a new generation Russian MBT. Had the SU not collapsed we would have been introducing hovertanks armed with fucking plasma cannons by now. Face it, we were all fucking robbed.

>>31210556
They could be, but why would they? They could use it to show that the US Army needs more funding.

File: 1472967795977.jpg (10KB, 198x108px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 198x108px

>>31210732
can't see shit captain

>>31210798
>They could be, but why would they? They could use it to show that the US Army needs more funding.
And risk it getting canceled by some idiot secdef?

>>31210859
You see 6 aps interceptor tubes? Just to the right of the rightmost one, thats where.

>>31210726
>Leopard 2: Operators: Austria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,

Note how many only use the Leopard 2 because Germany sold most of its 2A4's and all of its 2A5's for a huge loss.

>>31210878
Fuck, i meant 5.

>>31210862
The SECDEF wouldn't be able to do that with pressure from the SASC and HASC, who would be motivated not only by themselves but by pressure from fucking everywhere else. It'd be tantamount to suicide, and wouldn't accomplish anything because the HASC and SASC would just make legislation for it. Plus, why the hell would he? He sure as hell knows about the issue, and if he didn't he would be made well aware, so there's no possible way he'd do it even if he could.

File: t14_turretarmor.jpg (284KB, 1561x914px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1561x914px

>>31210878

>>31210881
>for a huge loss

>>31210881

So how many?

>>31210903
>Selling a 2A4 for $1 mil

File: Leo ohne Ton 1.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>31210726
shhhh, don't bother anon with those facts

It's funny because the Leopard 2 is generally the most expensive one in the bids.

And they won pretty much all competitions except the Turkey and India ones because domestic industry shanigans.

The only cheap Leopard 2 tanks are the ones if you are happy with the Cold War version of the Leopard 2.
Though even such tanks went through expensive upgrades to meet the national needs like the Canada or Singapore Leopards.

>>31210910
New build?

>Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland

The rest use ex-German or ex-Dutch tanks.

>>31210953
It is kind of like with Australia's Land 400 program, it is almost blatantly obvious the requirements are being written to favor the Boxer despite there being newer and better options.

>>31210975
Yeah, like everything was written for Australia to get the Souryuu submarines!

Ignoring HEAT protection what is the most effective armor VS APFSDS these days? I have seen claims composite is better per KG but has a larger volume. While RHA is best per MM. While, tungsten, DU-titanium alloys are only used sparingly in thin plates, I'm unsure if they would work as larger blocks or not.

>>31211001
The requirement for the Collins replacement were written to exclude specific submarines?

>>31211044
You are claiming things.

>>31207477
Sloping your armor doesn't increase mass. This is basic geometry.

Yes it does if you want to keep the same plate thickness and cover the same area.

>>31211064
I am claiming the Land 400 requirements that were made public?

File: images.png (2KB, 410x123px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 410x123px

>>31211080

>>31207273
>the data link in M829A4 and the new French round is for.

That's not a datalink, this is a flexible primer/igniter.

>>31211080
Yes but to slope and not gain any mass you're going to have the same armor as unsloped armor.

Not like sloping matters anyway nowardays.

>>31211080
Let's say we're supposed to be covering a distance of 10 units in height, yeah? Let's assume both plates are also of the same thickness. Obviously, if we're talking about the flat plate, it's just 10 units wrong. If we assume an angle 30 degrees from the vertical, that's a plate that is about 11.5 units long. If we assume 60 degrees from the vertical, we get a plate that's around...20 units long? I think? It's been a while since I've had to do 30-60-90 triangles, so I'm not sure on the second one, but the point is that in order to cover the same amount of vertical area, you need longer plates.

>>31210544
Do you think they will openly showcase the filling?

>>31211644
The fuck you mean?The front hull of most (if not all) modern tanks are sloped like hell

File: 1438328769492.jpg (984KB, 3000x1997px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 3000x1997px

>>31211873
Sloped on the lower so it can actually cross shirty terrain and sloped upper so the driver can see the ground in front. H

File: t-80-0031.jpg (86KB, 787x590px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 787x590px

>>31211873
Out of necessity due to the design.
The turrets of the T-80, Leo 2, Arjun and Type 90 tanks are more or less vertical at the front.
The thing is, if you need to cover an area with armor and have a set weight of the armor plate, angling the armor requires the plate to be thinner due to the increased length needed.

>>31211617
According to some rumors M829A4 will have a datalink for >pic related

They are going to remove ammo selector switch and the FCS will read the type of round loaded using the datalink.

File: iDU7cGOGSeU.jpg (82KB, 1384x825px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1384x825px

>>31212095
Forgot pic

>>31204183
>flat turrent front >not angled
shiggydiggy

>>31204183
I hope it still has integrated dozer blade.
>>31204225
Some of it is just spaced stuff for convenient ERA mounting.

>>31211400
Not pictured - additional volume which has to be covered by roof armour.

>>31212147
The dudes and machinery inside will need the space they need inside the tank, and as such the same roofing area no matter what armor layout you use.

>>31212124
>still living in 1942
I bet you also think shot traps are a thing of concern.

>>31212095
We don't know what the data link is for, it isn't for the FCS to identify the rounds because the French use a bar code pattern on their ammo.

>>31211617
Then why does the other round have the same cables and a visible primer.

> t-72 variant with decent side hull protection
about time

Isnt it proven that tanks are useless in this day and age.

Just look in Syria, fucking sandniggers are blowing up every T-72 on sight, and those sandniggers have an IQ of 70

>>31212521
A lot of that is because the tanks aren't being used with infantry support in urban areas.

>>31212521
Syria is an example of how useful even early cold war relics are despite modern anti tank weaponry being present.

>>31212521
Both Syria and Ukraine prove the need for state-of-the-art reactive armour on all AFV's.

>>31206352

nice CV90, cuck

>>31212493

Flexibles primers are thinner and allow to put more propellant in the cartridge.

File: giat1ammunition.jpg (33KB, 429x333px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 429x333px

>>31212095

The French don't need datalink since the barcode printed on the French 120x570mm cartridges does the same job.

>>31213319
Since when the French uses M829A4?

>>31213319
The sata link isn't to tell the FCS what is loaded.

>>31213226
That isn't a flexible primer.

>>31204283
>it does not ricochet
It does. But at such high angles that make armor around this principle mostly unpractical. Though it can has some limited application like Abrams glacis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231117078_Ricochet_of_a_tungsten_heavy_alloy_long-rod_projectile_from_deformable_steel_plates

>>31207273
>data link in M829A4 and the new French round is for.
Disinformation operation. There are no reasons to declassify these things if they actually do anything.

>>31214213
By that logic there is no reason to display the new rounds to the new rounds to the public altogether.

>>31214393
>the new rounds to the new rounds

Don't get distracted while writing.

>>31214393
Deployment of new rounds is more difficult to classify than couple wires INSIDE those rounds. Do US or France parade around schemes of their tanks armors? Nope, these are "black boxes".

>>31214655
Setting aside that no one has any idea what the wires are for and the only clue is the rounds are meant for vehicles that are getting ammunition data links added.

>>31210544

Compared to the Leopard 2A4, the center of gravity of the Leopard 2A5 has already moved forwards, now it pitch nose down after each bump.
It's going to get worse if you fill the hollow spaces.

>>31204183
Old soviet tech with cardboard body kit vol. 2.
Just remember the stealth tank

>>31214931
Stealth tank "PL-01" was a CV-90-120T with a body kit and APS.

No Soviet stuff in there.

>>31214905
So stick some counterweight in the back?

Or is the Leo2 chassis getting near its top end weight limit?

>>31215165
weight limit and it would be stupid to put something on it that serves only to balance it. No one would accept the budget to add a weight to a tank.

File: 35216.jpg (90KB, 750x543px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x543px

>>31215165
>So stick some counterweight in the back?
So smart.

>>31216883

Even the M60A1 fitted with the ARA explosive reactive armor was more mobile than the Enigma.