Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Damian90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/13/1990
  1. Arjunk Mk1/Mk2 "Kanchan" Armor.

    @dejawolf You remember DFI and the talk about Arjun Mk1/Mk2 and it's "Kanchan" armor? Well, we now know what it is exactly... and not very impressive at all.
  2. History of US Tanks.

    http://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Achates-Power-OPES_TARDEC_Brendle.pdf More about ACE engines development and technical details.
  3. We love photos

    Thanks. There was never such thing as T-72 "Monkey Models". Export T-72M or T-72M1 have exactly the same protection levels, firepower, mobility as Soviet T-72 or T-72A. There are minor difference in communication equipment, NBC protection etc. But in essence, a T-72M1 is exactly the same as T-72A.
  4. We love photos

    Assad Babil might indeed be a local name for T-72, but otherwise, these tanks were made in former WarPact member states, Iraq never produced them, and there are serious doubts they even assembled some from knock-off kits.
  5. History of US Tanks.

    So Achates Power and Cummins developed the Advanced Combat Engine. It's a two stroke, opposed piston diesel engine or rather a family of modular engines. The first variant and a prototype is a 1000hp one which is intended for use in tracked IFV's, APC's, SPH's etc. As we can see on the graphic it reduced the space it takes inside Bradley engine compartment by ~50% compared to currently used engine. Prototype will be tested this year or 2020, and next step is 1500hp variant for MBT's.
  6. We love photos

    Khem khem. Assad Babil variant is kinda a myth. Iraq never produced T-72's on their own. Their tanks were either early T-72M, late T-72M or T-72M1, purchased in Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia. I guess if we would have theirserial numbers, and then dig in to archives, we could know where and when these tanks were made.
  7. About that deleted thread

    Perhaps because NERA or NxRA types of armor might differ in efficency due to different polymers used as their reactive layer. Who ever said that M1's NERA uses rubber instead of some more energetic polymer material? And who said it is NERA? Why it can't be NxRA for example? Burlington program in UK and Starflower program in US was much wider in scope than most people realize, it included also such things as ERA builded in vehicles armor, similiar in concept to Soviet Kontakt-5 etc. It's very easy to say, oh it's old, so documents must be true! I readed it, and I actually know many sources of these revelations, these are as credible as Bible for example. Let's say I know exactly what kind of people mostly talk about such subjects, and it ain't pretty. Who says entire humanity needs to progress? I definately do not want some humans to progress over our western civilization, especially the ones that are hostile to it. Besides with my background in military, I rather preffer to keep things to myself, and you should also. Did ever sad gentlemen from counterintelligence visited you? I know some people that had such visit due to various reasons, sometimes it's better to keep silent than say too much. But I digrece from topic.
  8. History of US Tanks.

    Seems like everything is ok now, there are no "classified" stuff here from what I seen.
  9. About that deleted thread

    The general layout or rather type of armor is true. However these drawings are not technical drawings, just generic information ones, so assume lots of stuff is off the scale, geometry is wrong, and even proportions might be wrong.
  10. About that deleted thread

    And there is one more aspect. Disinformation, who says that some documents are not released to public on purpose and are on purpose modified with certain information. I can say one thing, a lot of such people that treat these documents as gospel, would be very, very surprised about the truth, and that's all I have to say.
  11. About that deleted thread

    And I fully agree. The problem tough is different, and fueled by some... let's call them "circles" of internet warriors fighting for "their country is the best and rest sucks". As a researcher and military journalist I decided some time ago to leave these people, I made the same mistake, making discussions about the subject, which is pointless with this kind of people. It's just waste of time. And if I get to know something through my own research, I tend to mostly not share it with other people, my own curiosity is fullfilled.
  12. About that deleted thread

    The problem is that the actual data, is also an estimation more or less, because various armor types will interact differently with different types of ammunition, heck if we fire two different APFSDS rounds in to a same armor module, this armor module might interact differently with each round depending on armor and round design and implications this comes with. Same with shaped charges, there is no single and same shaped charge warhead, more newer shaped charges use wave shapers, have better explosives that propels shaped charge jet faster which have it's own implications on the armor performance. This is a very complex subject.
  13. History of US Tanks.

    Interesting project from late 1970's and early 1980's to develop a heavy IFV based on M1 tank chassis. There is some more data about these designs. Important! These are unclassified documents, I hope they do not violate forum rules.
  14. About that deleted thread

    First and foremost, before posting some "estimations" or "secret data" for armor protection, be sure these are actual facts and are real. For example Swedish docs about M1A2 protection. 1. Sweden did not tested US armor in M1A2, heck they didn't done ballistic tests on actual M1A2 at all. 2. Sweden ballistic trails contained only models of hull and turret front with Swedish made armor, not US made armor. Tough I know there are people that like to make conclusions based on this, that M1A2's armor was weaker than other estimations imply. @lavictoireestlavie You know what an actual researcher do? Admits that without an actual direct documents from US DoD, GDLS, TACOM, TARDEC etc. he does not know protection levels. Simple as that. What I can conclude? I seen a video from Iraq where export M1A1M with Export Armor Package was capable to withstand on turret front, hit from Metis-M ATGM, Metis-M is known to penetrate ~900-950mm of RHA, so we can conclude that front turret protection provided by Export Armor Package in Iraqi M1A1M, is greater than ~900-950mm RHA, but we know that Kornet ATGM capable to penetrate ~1100-1200mm RHA is capable to pierce it, so we can conclude also that Export Armor Package provides less protection than that vs CE. We also know that US M1A1/M1A2 tanks were hit by RPG-29 in the lower front hull armor module, most likely these tanks were protected by 2nd or 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. We know that RPG-29 can penetrate ~650-750mm RHA, so we can conclude that 2nd/3rd generation Heavy Armor Package can provide protection vs CE greater than that. Also some people meassured one M1A1 in museum, so we know it's front turret and hull armor thickness. Which means that my estimations were more or less correct. So turret front armor both left and right is ~700+mm 30. degrees from turret longitudinal axis and ~800-900+mm at 0. degrees from turret longitudinal axis. Front lower hull armor is ~600-700+mm thick from weld to weld. However these meassures are done by this person (dunno who he was) from weld to weld, and do not include full thickness of the turret and hull front backplates that are ~100mm thick. Altough I am quiet happy, than once more my estimations were confirmed by real meassurements. Anyway I would be very carefull with lots of these estimations. Not to mention that outside a few people that know how US armor evolved, nobody would tell how it changed, and it changed a lot compared to a bit inaccurate drawings from CIA.
  15. History of US Tanks.

    These were not done in Sweden, this is first thing, and neither Swedes exactly knew what was inside these models. And as you can see it clearly says about "Swedish armor" in these test modules, not US armor, be it Heavy Armor Package or something else.