Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Damian

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/13/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)
  1. In the video from Challenger 2 ceremony, there is a fragment showing turret fabrication. at around 10:56. Indeed it looks like the turret base structure is cast with rolled armor plates bolted to it.
  2. Consider it as perhaps field upgrade.
  3. Looks like all T-72's on that photo have Kontakt-1, the 4th tank as well.
  4. These are M1A2SEPv1/v2 tanks, not M1A1's.
  5. I do not need to prove anything to you, this is first thing. Second thing I meassured the real thing myself, it's 50mm. And seriously, measuring 1/35 model? It's just as reliable method of armor meassures you Russians use, as the previous estimations you people done on Leopard 2... which proved hilariously wrong.
  6. I always find it funny when Wiedzmin makes his estimations, never actually meassuring the real thing. Hint - upper front glacis is not 40mm but 50mm, same with drivers hatch.
  7. Remember that "Gur Khan" (Alexei Khlopotov) is UVZ propagandist, he likes to call himself an expert but the only stuff he is doing on his blog is copy pasting from official russian media, and posting some advertisement for model kits. So yeah great expert in the AFV subject.
  8. AFAIK some people considered pure DU "soft" compared to Tungsten or HHS... then again how true it is? Do you actually have informations about hardness of DU alloy (staballoy)?
  9. Looks like a standard PzKpfw VI Ausf B with 88mm to me.
  10. btw which sources ? Good point, actually term "steel encased depleted uranium" is used only in internet sources like FAS, while books I have only say that depleted uranium was somehow added to the armor. I will take a step back and look at this from a different angle. As we know DU itself is rather soft metal, so as armor might not make much sense, however also your sources clearly says it's DU alloy, this makes me to ask, how exactly that alloy behave as armor material? One might also speculate that perhaps various mentioned generations of the so called Heavy Armor Package that uses
  11. Because this is how it's described in US sources. You should consider a possibility that what British developed was only one solution, and should be only considered as prototype, Americans could pick up the idea, or had the same idea but realized it differently.
  12. Who knows, perhaps other solution was found, like different design of NERA package, we know Americans are using "steel encased DU". Perhaps the design is now made like this - HHS/DU/HHS + rubber/polycarbonite/something else + HHS/DU/HHS, or mabe it's something else.
  13. Keep in mind T-72B was fielded in 1984, the same year US started fielding M1IP's with improved armor protection, and in 1985 M1A1 was fielded. In 1988 M1A1HA was fielded again with improvements in armor protection against both KE and CE threats. So protection was not static... compared to T-72B where protection provided by the base armor stayed more or less the same trhough entire production run.
  • Create New...