Jump to content

Przezdzieblo

Members
  • Content Count

    1,555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Przezdzieblo

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Warsaw

Recent Profile Visitors

561 profile views
  1. One of Burlington 'biscuits'.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 we
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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 Evaluatio
  8. Sovngard, in Bovington I saw data table from 1974, with figures on 110 mm gun for MBT-78. It was stated that muzzle velocity of it's APDS projectile was 1521 m/s. Old ROF, like mentioned few years ago, in 1975 round of trials 110 mm APFSDS was fired as demonstration of potential growth. Any results got from that were discarded and not counted as official. Hence UK failure in 1975... and impression on US side strong enough to try another round and give UK another chance. 110 mm APFSDS, AFAIR, was based on some US components, modified by UK side. W. A. Cl
  9. BRL-2 was used as a special target in 1976. It was fired at with 105 mm M735, XM774 model 28 and XM774 model 26, 120 mm FRG APFSDS (WHA, proto-DM13) and HEAT (proto-DM12) and 120 mm UK APFSDS (XL22, WHA). No penetrations, but the UK projectile made the biggest bulge. BRL-2 was also used as special target in 1977. It was penetrated by 120 mm UK APFSDS (XL22, WHA) at point blank, and by 120 mm UK APFSDS (C24) and FRG APFSDS (proto-DM23?) at 2000 m. It was also defeated by potential growth projectiles: 120 mm UK two APFSDSs (DU variant of XL22 and C21) at 4000 m and 105 mm APFSDS (SB-60-24 o
  10. It is noted: perforations are unlikely to be caused by this form of attack at striking velocities less than 2500 fps, i.e. at ranges greater than 2500 yards. So to slow, and core deflected would shatter. Oh, Round 5 (APCBC) also shattered, but remained in pieces big and fast enough to make a hole in roof.
  11. WO 171/849, fragment from War Diary of 24th Lancers, Jan-Aug 1944. Notes on the Panther. On the first July a Panther was destroyed by us at a range of 800 yards head on. The shot was fired from a 75 mm gun and appeared to be a lucky one. It hit the lower half of the gun mantlet and penetrated downwards through the plate covering the driver's and wireless operator's compartment. Other tanks have been found penetrated and destroyed this way. WO 194/1345, Armour Trial Reports AT.232 part 2. Round 5, 6 pdr APCBC, striking velocity 2175 fps, range 280 ft, strucked 4" below ce
  12. Hello, a friend of my gathered his remarks on T-34 design, especially on shape of that tanks, reasons for it and effects it made, in this PDF file. Someone might find it interested, since questions asked there are common for discussions on T-34.
  13. Nice example of new 3-point of contact sabot. And lets remind known photo.
×
×
  • Create New...