Blitz.

Австралийские танки, которые M1A1SA вариант, поэтому для них много компонентов, таких как цистерны пехоты телефон являются стандартными, вы можете обнаружить его на корпус обратно в коробочку.

Понятно, спасибо.

кто автор ? и что он принимает ? 

з.ы подписано что автор воевал, это фейк какой то ? или реальный аккаунт этого человека на артофваре ?

ковартсво иракцев не знало границ       

http://artofwar.ru/w/wechkanow_i_w/text_0020.shtml

много смешных картинок

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2012-12-14 01:53:10)

если не секрет, что именно ? речь про отколотый(?) кусок правой части маски ?

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2012-12-14 02:32:41)

ну она же явно не цельный кусок стали, это ведь ее боковые части и тыльная плита на фото ?

[реклама вместо картинки]

белыми стрелками просто показаны отвертсия на боковых плитах

з.ы это я по ночи туплю, маска вставляется в то что установлено на танке ? так ? т.е маска сама по себе может быть толстым куском стали, и за ней еще и тыльная плита

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2012-12-14 03:00:33)

типа того ?
[реклама вместо картинки]
за качество извиняюсь.

а это автоматически признак большого ума?

http://defense-update.com/20121207_gcv_hed.html

GCV.

It's interesting (LOS thicknes, and protection "values") when we compare this to Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask.

[реклама вместо картинки]

[реклама вместо картинки]

In Leopard-2 gun mantled mask is 940mm width but it have constant thickness - 420mm. Gun mantled mask area in Leopard-2 have multi layers structure - it's not monoblock! What is guite funny - we can try (mor or less correct )  to estimate gun manteld mask protection.
In this two greate articles about erly Burlinghton:
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf
We have some dates (with bibliography of course). In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel of the same weight.
So 1kg Burlinghton armour shoud offer protection like 1,5kg homogeneous steel armor vs APFSDs and 3kg homogeneous steel armor vs HEAT (of course it is only example).
Dimensions leopard-2 gun mantled mask are known, the same dimensions of blanks for L-44, FERO, and MG. And we know mass of gun mantled mask - 630kg. Rest is rather simple math base on qustion- how thick will be homogeneous steel armor block "inside" gun mask dimensions if it will be weight 950kg (630kg x1,5 vs APFSDS) and 1890kg (630kg x3 ve HEAT). The answer is:
a) 272 mm
b) 542 mm
So this protection offer by gun mantled mask should be:
a) 270 mm vs APFSDS
b) 540 mm vs HEAT

And If we want to talk about armour mass we should consider fact that  if for erly burlinghton 1Kg Burlinghton armour = 1,5kg RHA vs KE and 3kg RHA vs HEAT then Leopard-2A4 turret with weight 16000kg (without crew, ammo, attachments) whit "special armour" weight equal 8900kg is like: 13.350kg RHA vs APFSDS and 26700kg RHA vs HEAT and it's the lowest ratio for 1978 not 1985. in reality it could be even better.

If we realize that gun mantled mask area in leopard-2 (420mm) is exactly half the thickness of front turret LOS armour (840mm), then we consider if Leopard-2A4 protection will be like:
~540mm vs APFSDS*
~1080mm vs HEAT. *
Of course it's based on Burlinghton mass Efficiency from 1978 and definitely Leopard-2A4 from 1985/1986 have diffrent (stronger?) armour then erly leopard-2A0-A2 from 1980/1982. Another question is how cloes to the Burlinghton was German special armour - we know that in 1974 Germans have full aces to the americans Burlinghton branch development program.

*of course it's not so easy scale
In middle 1970 there was dependence between protection against APFSDS and HEAT
430 and 585mm RHA (1 to 1,36), but Increased armour protection against HEAT to 850mm RHA resulted with a decrease in armour protection vs APFSDS to "only" 405mm (1 to 2.09) etc -so the question is what was most important for germnas?

In fact Leppard-2A4 armour can give protection not in 1:2.09 ratio but in 1:1.36 ratio. In that case it will be ex:
540mm RHA vs APFSDS and ~740mm vs HEAT

In fact in the text are three important depending:
a) in 1964 the predecessor of the Burlington had mass Efficiency like ~1 vs APFSDS and ~2 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
b) In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
c) there was some ratios between protection against APFSDs and HEAT and there wasn't linear like this 430/585 and 405/850

And If we consider angle and LOS thickness then protection for that Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as ~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

For 2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

ps.sorry for writing in english

BTW:
the last think -part of a german patent about "armour protection" -on draws we can recognize NERA, NxRA, and ERA mehanism. Is possible that one of this combination (in idea of course) is using on leopard-2? IMHO -Yes.
[реклама вместо картинки]

Отредактировано militarysta (2012-12-18 22:09:09)

http://www.ndia-mich.org/downloads/GVSETS/GVSETSPapers/Modeling and Simulation, Testing and Validation/Impact of Loading Distribution of Abrams Suspension on Track Performance and Durability.pdf

[реклама вместо картинки]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262436.pdf

url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/gskiusa.jpg/][реклама вместо картинки][/url]

Для сравнения -Dhiel (Германия) - Leopard-2
общий срок - 16 000км
обмена в соответствии с инструкцией 11 000 -12 000 км

Американцы делают все лучше и лучше треки.

Не видел раньше фото Абрамса с Л55.....да и на фото, ИМХО, не она, а скорее 140 мм

Отредактировано tatarin (2012-12-29 13:26:22)

Это М1А2 вооруженный наиболее вероятно пушкой XМ291, но ли это ее версия калибра 120 мм ли 140 мм не известно, хотя припомнит пушку установленную на прототипах CАТТB, так вероятно этих 140 мм.