Jump to content

Przezdzieblo

Members
  • Posts

    1,688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Przezdzieblo

  • Birthday 01/01/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Warsaw

Recent Profile Visitors

1,221 profile views

Przezdzieblo's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Vakuum is said to achieve 15,3 MJ. 775x25,5 mm rod is huge and heavy. Unless composite sabot is used flying mass might be circa 12 kg, so muzzle velocity would be close to 1600 m/s.
  2. Vakuum maybe? Projectile part of ammo for 2A82 is said to be circa 900 mm length. See scheme, fig. 7. https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2398176C1
  3. This is what is the army needed for. Nice background for current MOD.
  4. Tungsten pellets for ehanced effect versus lightly armoured targets. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4353305A
  5. This APDS is of Canadian line, developed by J. A. Caddy. Sabot is one-piece, shot is tappered, hence a bit worse ballistic properties (velocity drop, dispersion) than Mk. 3 with L. Permutter four-pieces petal sabot.
  6. Probably rubber from sandwich plates. And remains of projectile and jet, that were stopped and contained inside special armour array. With perforated target there is no such problem, but there are few more
  7. ...and Chobham armour demonstration: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060035263 Lookes like holes were covered after firing to hide details of interior.
  8. Fort Irwin case looks like ammo deflagration after uncontrolled fire in engine bay. Not so rare situation in case of M1s. Abrams 120mm ammo compartments are designed to withstand full detonation of one HE warhead - a bit more than equivalent of 2 kg of TNT. Other scenarios - like sympathetic detonation of more warheads - might be a lot of more dangerous for crew.
  9. I am not sure what do you mean by 'our army' here. General staff or commands' officers? Crews? I think their opinion might vary, from none to some. But this means nothing really important. No trials of Leopard 2 protection were ever conducted in Poland. And no trials of K2 and M1A2 protection were ever conducted in Poland. Decision to buy those tanks got nothing to do with any factual knowledge about protection level of those AFVs that 'our army' might have. More, that decision do not have much in common in 'our army' opinion, nevermind as you define it. Please, do not use example of Poland's last decision as argument. In Sweden and in Greece a lot of trials were made, so decision could be taken with some knowledge in min, not opinions.
  10. Well, you invoked it as an argument. It is not very fair to turn Piotr's claims into 'some time ago somebody wrote something somewhere, go and find yourself'. Maybe it would be easier for you to mark those errors? Or make an answer to methos post, which looks like quite well supported.
  11. I asked about errors, which according to you those documents were full of. Fragments provided by methos sounds reasonable. Do you have strong evident that "Swedes could only guess"? I am affraid I missed that content by Piotr. Was it on the web or printed in "NTW"? Did Piotr make a claim that M1A2 was anyhow treated unfavourably by Swedish researchers?
  12. Damian, could you indicate main errors in Swedish documents and elaborate why you disregard data on M1A2 included there?
  13. In general, single-pin pros: - simplicity - low weight - price and cons: - easy access of dirt into pin mounting can result in faster erosion and track lengthening - excess load on pin can result in pin deformation - polygon effect that can result in excess vibrations - noisy. Double-pin pros: - longer life - lower vibrations - easier maintenance - smoother and quieter ride and cons: - complicated - heavy - expensive.
  14. Almost. XM735 got different fin section, was a bit longer. Final 105 mm design - M735 - was further changed and visually differs from XM579 and XM578. Check BOCN forum for some pics and schemes.
×
×
  • Create New...