Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Damian90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/13/1990
  1. http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/28700 Well, as far as translation goes, it seems that US Army performed first, and successfull test of the Trophy HV active protection system (known also as Windcoat in IDF service) installed on M1 tank.
  2. Thanks! Well you know, people here are really passionate about history. I hope soon the Armored Vehicles Museum in Poznań will be opened for public after relocation outside military base, then I can visit it in my free time, and get inside more vehicles.
  3. Yeah, it seems that Barracuda kits are still seen only in US, in Europe what they use is most likely ULCANS, altough I heard that US Army was interested in Polish Berberys, that is said to be better suited for terrain here in the region.
  4. One of the more interesting projects was Chieftain 800/900. Also interesting is the way how special armor is installed, seems to be exactly same method as in case of Challenger 1. Actually turret seems to have the exactly same basic structure as in Challenger 1. Another interesting project was so called "Aluminium" Chieftain. Some other interesting projects. Vickers Mk4. Vickers Mk7. Vickers Mk7/2. It seems that Vickers Mk7 turret was a direct predecessor of Challenger 2 turret.
  5. Indeed, it's also less capacity than Meggitt autoloader.
  6. Maybe but I have here somewhere in my room one of the issues of Nowa Technika Wojskowa magazine, and it's clearly written in article about "Leopard" training center, that they also use Steel Beasts. Hmmm, I think I gonna need one day to investigate this more. PS. Altough they have ASPT and AGPT so, perhaps someone confused these with SB? AGSHP – Ausbildungsgerät Schießsimulator für Handwaffen und Panzerabwehrhandwaffen; AAT – Ausbildungsanlage Turm; ASPT – Ausbildungsgerät Schießsimulator Panzertruppe; AGPT – Ausbildungsgerät Gefechtssimulator Panzertruppe; AGDUS – Ausbildungsgerät Duellsimulator. This is full list of trainers in "Leopard" training center. And some photos.
  7. Ha, this would amazing indeed. By the way I know that 11 Armored Cavalry Division uses some old version of Steel Beasts Pro, probably given by the German Army with all these simulators for the "Leopard" training center. PS. SB Pro PE T-72M1 can be used with proper camouflage texture as Polish one, PT-91 on the other hand is a different story, believe it not, outside soldiers, nobody knows how Drawa/Radew FCS works (in terms of visuals). Altough T-72B1 with Kontakt-1 ERA can be used as substitute for now. Also retextured Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2A5's in standard German configuration can be used.
  8. It's not about any modern vehicle, but fascinating story in itself. I strongly recomenned everyone to watch this video, and don't worry, there are english subtitles added.
  9. There is only one drawing of the XM91.
  10. I suspect both CATTB's are still kept somewhere, maybe APG, maybe somewhere else.
  11. Aye, but it seems that to install CV12 diesel, Chieftains rear hull needs to be redesigned to be more similiar to Challenger 1 hull rear.
  12. http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/8/1308.pdf Interesting, it seems that ERA used by many vehicles, among them US M2 IFV's, M1 MBT's and Stryker FoV, provides protection against 30mm APFSDS rounds. http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf And there brochure about Trophy active protection systems.
  13. In my opinion the reason for such design were weight restrictions. Same case in M1 or Leopard 2, where both LFP and UFP could be protected by special armor, yet it would probably significantly increase weight above original requirements.
  14. So, yeah, why not to discuss this extremely interesting subject. I will start with Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, and with their armor protection, as it's very unusual design and very interesting one. Let's start with Challenger 1 composite armor distribution. The composite armor thickness of turret is actually very good, and armor is also well sloped. However in this case I see one weakness, turret itself is modified Chieftain design made from cast steel, as we know, cast armor steel offer from 5 to 15 % less protection than rolled armor steel. Challenger 1 interior. Hull protection is different than in Leopard 2 and M1. In Challenger 1 composite armor is placed on the UFP, not the LFP, thus the LFP itself is a weak zone protected only by 80-100mm rolled homogeneus armor. What is important to note, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 front armor design is direct descendant of various Burlington armor upgrades for the Chieftain, for example Chieftain 800/900 had similiar front hull armor distribution. Now let's move to Challenger 2 turret, it's a new design however it's made from cast components to which later a rolled steel plates are bolted on. We can see part of the turret and hull manufacturing process on this video. One other interesting subject is the vehicle weight. Challenger 1 is rated to weight around 62 metric tons, and Challenger 2 is rated to weight 62.5 metric tons, but this seems wrong. Challenger 2 is slightly larger (taller turret) and also uses more advanced "Dorchester" armor, which should be heavier than "Burlington" armor used in Challenger 1, and in all other MBT's in general, more modern armor is heavier. However nowhere I am able to find reliable data about Challenger 1 weight to make this clear. Of course it is possible that "Dorchester" uses more weight efficent materials like Titanium to keep the weight on the same level, while increasing protection levels. Anyway, hope everyone finds this interesting, perhaps it will help ESim to make further improvements to SB, and hopefully we gonna discuss this fascinating subject further.
  15. XM1069 AMP changed designation to XM1147 AMP. As for CROWS, problem with CROWS size was solved with CROWS-LP. It seems US Army is very happy with it. Now they are working on solving some problems with M829A4 accuracy, it seems that it is some software bug than hardware bug and perhaps it's solved now. And also also further working on new armor and other improvements. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/army/2016m1a2sep.pdf As for Trophy HV, this is how it will be most likely installed.