Jump to content

Przezdzieblo

Members
  • Posts

    1,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Przezdzieblo

  • Birthday 01/01/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Warsaw

Recent Profile Visitors

690 profile views

Przezdzieblo's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Main advantage of vision block is simplicity. Depends on exact design some could be easier to change if needed. You can have more spare vision blocks than periscopes or just periscope heads. Vision blocks need less space inside. I think, in theory, those could be also a less vulnerable to blast than some periscopes. WWII periscopes could be pushed inside by blast, with all consequences for crew on trajectory. Also, rotary periscopes, even if not forced in, can also cause injuries by rapid movement when subjected to blast. Cons are well known. Not best awareness provided, substandard protection. On second topic check Vulnerability evaluation of the M48 tank, and cupolas M1 and M13, against small arms attack. There is nice 4-part article about different commander's vision solutions (not only cupolas) by Stefan, in German.
  2. I got few. From my point of view - valuable books. However, in my impression these books represent a specific approach. There are stronly resource-based, there is not much other than dense information gathered and taken directly from the sources: technical reports, minutes etc. Interesting, but very narrow point of view. It is good somebody reached to all those documents, that means other one can use them in more analythical or synthetical ways.
  3. Quite interesting video on adiabatic shear bands formation as important penetration mechanism. Disclaimer - the author is not native English speaker.
  4. Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm.
  5. Arsenalen's tank is prototype of Leopard 2, hull no. 7, turret no. 5, with 105 mm gun.
  6. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/supplier-network/product/establishing-failure-mechanisms-in-apfsds-projectiles/ So Rheinmetall's 120 mm gun. To much pressure because of too hot propellant on Shot 2, resulting in in-bore sabot failure and general failure during launch.
  7. One of Burlington 'biscuits'.
  8. This simulation is nice visualization of theoretical APS that uses EFP vs APFSDS. Title of that video is overenthusiastic. And hence misleading. Armata's APS launchers looks pretty standard, tubes. I am not sure if that diameter is enough to provide slug big enough to make effect.
  9. There were at least two German APDS projectiles (10.5 cm Pzgr. 38 TS and 15 cm Pzgr. 39 TS), the former used 75 mm APCBC(HE) and the latter with 88 mm. Both with discarding base and separate ring design. There were also other experimental variants like 105/75 mm, 105/88 mm and 128/88 mm. In all cases modified existing APCBC shells were used. Peenemünder Pfeilgeschoss was not anti-armour design. It was HE(FSDS) shell made for extended range, like other sabot projectiles, designed for 'Hochdruckpumpe' cannon. There were also Röchling shells, long and with discarding sabots. Those were bunker-busters, hence can be somehow called AP(HE)FSDS. Why rather low interest of APDS ammunition in WWII Germany? My guesses: tungsten carbide shortage, matured APCR designs, various issues with discarding sabot technology (compare with British and, later, American problems), big, potent, long-barreled guns with efficient fullbore shells, doubts on behind armour effect (when compared with normal shells), need for energetic and probably erosive propellant, increased barrel wear because of erosive propellant, hypervelocity and interactions of sabot and barrel bore. But I cannot point the major issue from that list.
  10. I remember a news footage from 1991, from the beginning of land operation in Iraq, with US soldier slipping on Bradley's ramp and falling on his lower back in the front of camera. Maybe this hazard should be noted as a small disadvantage of designs with ramp
  11. And something about new French APFSDS called SHARD: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/120-shard-the-new-generation-of-anti-tank-ammunition Remember that round, with blue wires in cartridge? CLICK Some time ago it was speculated that it could be data link, like in case of new US ammunition. But there is one more possibility. Because of long projectile primer must be short, and igniter wire is a way to enhance efficency of propellant charge. Described in this Nexter patent --> CLICK
  12. United Kingdom L28A1 cartridge, similar to the M392 except for its primer (L1A2, L1A3, or L1A4), is not to be fired in 105mm gun M68 except under combat emergency conditions. The clip will remain on the cartridge case at all times until the cartridge is partially chambered. TM 43-0001-28, p. 2-71.
  13. The US adopted the two UK rounds with the exception that the igniter in the primer was replaced by a US design. The UK primer is a conductive-mix design and is considered to static discharge. Occurences of accidental primer initiation when tested by the US reinforced the US plan to develop a bridgewire type igniter. In addition, field manuals restricted firing of UK ammunition by US troops. To achieve an interoperability and safe firing agreement, the teams thoroughly reviewed and discussed primer sensitivity and safety history. [...] In the late 1960's the US Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) condudted safety and performance tests with the UK APDS L52A2 round and with the L45A1 DS/T training round. Both rounds contain the L1A4 primer, with the conductive-mix igniter. No safety hazards were encountered during firing of the L45A1 round. TECOM concluded that the L1A4 primer for the UK 105 mm APDS-T L52A2 projectile is not sussceptible to activation [...] TECOM recomended that the US adopt the UK 105 mm APDS L52A2 projectile for standardization. Safety and interoperability agreements on bilateral use of artillery, tank and mortar ammunition during training, 1979, pages 12-13 --> click
×
×
  • Create New...