Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Damian90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/13/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fresh M1A2SEPv3's from factory.
  2. AFAIK 9M133 Kornet ATGM penetration for newest versions will range from 1100 to 1300mm RHA depending on steel target characteristics, for example hardness, and also it's design (homogeneus, spaced, composite, passive, NERA/NxRA). I understand the purpose of it's characteristics in SB, but it might be overestimated. It's not, 9M133 Kornet is a 152mm calliber, BMP-3 uses 100mm gun-launcher to launch it's ATGM's which are of different type and with lesser capability.
  3. So US Army officialy admitted that under guise of M109A7 modernization they developed a completely new 155mm SPH. There won't be M109A8, now it will be designated as M1299 (XM1299 during R&D phase). https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Musgrave.pdf
  4. Official weight for T-14 and T-15 provided is 55 metric tons. Obviously this means that due to smaller internal volume at such weight, T-14 have superior protection over T-15.
  5. I have interesting observation. The US Army M1A1SA and some M1A2SEPv1/v2 tanks, have serial numbers ending with letter M on their turrets. What does that mean? It means that the M suffix is a code for the NGAP or Next Generation Armor Package, as the same M suffix can be seen on the newest M1A2SEPv3 tanks. Ok, so what is the difference? Well, the M1A2SEPv3 have turret and hull front armor thicker than previous generations. My theory is that NGAP armor have two generations. 1st gen. NGAP was an upgrade for M1A1SA (possibly also M1A1FEP) and M1A2SEPv1/v2. Pic. M1A2SEPv2 and M1A2SEPv3 While 2nd. gen. NGAP armor is an improved variant for M1A2SEPv3/v4, that is designed not only to protect against current modern threats but also possible future threats, by not only using improved armor composition, but also making it significantly thicker and heavier.
  6. https://военное.рф/2019/ФорумАрмия64/ So it seems that during Army 2019, Anatoly Tarnayev, chief engineer at Plant no.9 in Yekaterinburg (this plant developes large calliber artillery weapons), said that all research and development work on 152mm high pressure smoothbore tank gun 2A83 had been... cancelled. T-14 MBT's will be armed only with 125mm smoothbore gun 2A82.
  7. Wasn't XM827 WHA rod? Or at least one of variants tested?
  8. Low magnification makes finding targets easier, cause you see more, your vision is not reduced to a very narrow FoV. It's like Nick Moran explained why in general during WWII American tank crews in M4's had better situational awareness than their German counterparts. In German tanks, gunner vision was reduced only to a narrow FoV of his telescope sight. In M4 medium tank, gunner had a periscope sight combined with unity sight, and later both periscope sight, unity sight and telescope sight. If I can be frank, I really dislike Leopard 2's day sight, even tough it have a very good double axis stabilization for it's mirrors, I preffer M1/M1A1 sight, even if it only have single axis stabilization of it's mirrors.
  9. Meh, crunchies... which sounds funny to me, in the army I was a crunchie, in the Air Cav. BTW so your answer means yes?
  10. Ha so I was not wrong that Active Protection Systems are implemented in SB Pro PE! Will also NATO vehicles receive them? Like a Trophy HV module for M1A1/M1A2?
  11. Damian90


    Claessen, Luitenant-kolonel A.H.J., Tanks & Pantserwagens — De Technische Ontwikkeling, Blaricum, 2003, p. 96 Allegedly this source claims that Challenger 2 might use Tungsten as part of it's "Dorchester" armor.
  12. Damian90


    Yeah I recall it was mentioned on TankNet years ago.
  13. Did I seen it right, is Afganit active protection system on Kurganets-25 functional, or am I just seeing things?
  • Create New...