Damian90
-
Posts
977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Posts posted by Damian90
-
-
US is considering to expedite production of M1A2SEPv3's for Poland. This means that M1A2SEPv3's production would have priority over production for US Army and Australia.
Another option that is considered and do not exclude option no.1 is to provide additional tanks to Poland via Lend Lease.
Subject is discussed around 1:06:00.
0 -
Poland just signed contract with MBDA for license production of Brimstone ATGM for new 4x4 tank destroyer. https://newsroom.mbda-systems.com/pgz-mbda-uk-agreement-for-tank-destroyers/
Vehicle configuration will probably look like this graphic:
However it will use new chassis codeveloped by HSW and Tatra.
Here some graphics of Tatra/HSW 4x4.
Ex-Polish T-72M1R's upgraded with ERA. in Ukrainian service.
2 -
-
On 4/30/2022 at 8:27 AM, bloodycut said:
Looks nice on maps. I like those nets on tank too. Any videos of your training area from tank training?
4 -
10 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:
Reported up-coming field ex, where is this taking place, any info?
Our excercises are mostly done at several training areas like Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area, Nowa Dęba Training Area etc.
Photos I posted are from Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area which is the largest Training Center in Poland.
0 -
Some more photos from Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area where tank crews from 1st Armored Brigade are going through initial course on M1A2SEPv2's before we will receive our M1A2SEPv3's.
1 -
3 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:
Will the 120 ammo be produce there, or will purchase from USA?
Thinking supply chain issues.
From US we will buy right now KEW-A1 APFSDS and we already have green light to buy KEW-A4 APFSDS as soon as it will complete all trails and mass production will commence.
Polish M1A2SEPv3's will also be certified to use DM63A1 APFSDS and also Polish designed and produced Pz531 Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 APFSDS.
Our M1A2SEPv3's will also use M830A1 MPAT, M1147 HEMP and Polish designed and produced Pz541 HE.1 -
First tank crews from 1st Armored Brigade are starting their training course at Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area. At the moment they will use 28 M1A2SEPv2's provided by US Army, untill our new M1A2SEPv3's will be produced and shiped to Poland.
1 -
Polish MoD just informed that first Polish soldiers went to US to be trained in use of M1 tanks. These are not the front line tank crews, but future instructors that will train further soldiers here in Poland.
1 -
Concept models of the "Sona" VSHORAD/SHORAD systems.
1. Combat vehicle on Rosomak chassis, armed with 1x 35mm autocannon with programmable ammunition, and 4x Piorun 2 missiles.
2. Combat vehicle on K9PL chassis with modernized Loara-A turret armed with 2x 35mm autocannons with programmable munitions and 4x Piorun 2 missiles.
3. Laser system based on Rosomak chassis.
0 -
33 minutes ago, Ssnake said:
We're skirting on the No Politics rule here, but I think your argument is inherently contradictory. It's true that Poland made moves to join and that wasn't met with enthusiasm. But when, as you rightfully observe, even France and Germany haven't yet agreed on the tactical requirements, would adding a third partner make it more likely that a compromise could be found, or more difficult?
So maybe it's not about double standards and preferential treatment, but simply was a pragmatic decision. And if the program is bollocks, then why did Poland want to join in the first place?
We would not add requirements. The goal was to aquire rights for production in Poland.
As for program being bollocks. Well I was not the one making decisions back then. If it would depend on my decision, I would either seek to get license for M1. Or more preferably, already make agreement with Republic of Korea, for K2PL. But I am not a decision maker.
And I agree, let's stop this, too much politics involved.0 -
19 hours ago, Marko said:
Not the T72-m But the T-72M1R, PT-91, PT-91MA, PT-91MA1. are more then a match
Also the leo fleet even with out the upgrades are superior.
also no dispute with any nations right to defend its self. that's beyond question.
But it does amuse me when the media and annalists make out Russia has the capability invade Western Europe
Yes it has the power to intimidate its nearest neighbours and has large numbers of reserve tanks IFV etc.
But how much is even serviceable. look at the recent conflicts the performance was poor to say the least.
My original post was not to question the polish decision to purchase more tanks.
The M1a2s SEP is one if the best tank of this generation of Tanks.
There are some new designs out there.
My original post was to question if such a large purchase that will probably still be in service for the next twenty/ thirty years.
Is the best choice
to be honest i was thinking of the new French German design.
But its long way away from manufacture and deployment.
T-72M1R is just refirbishment + thermal camera. Nothing special, still obsolete. PT-91's are still obsolete.
Leopard 2's are still obsolete! Their armor protection is obsolete, you think we don't know what armor they have? Type B armor provide less protection vs KE than T-72M1 armor! Most of our Leopard 2A4's use Type B armor, which provised ~350mm vs KE. Some A4's have Type C armor, which provides protection comparable to T-72M1, which is ~410-420mm vs KE. Leopard 2A5's have Type C armor on the hull and Type D armor on the turret. Type D provides ~600mm vs KE.
All these is simply obsolete!MGCS from France-Germany is a no go, because we were told to screw ourselfs, we are not allowed to join. No wonder considering EU is a club of sates with double standards, where some countries are treated better than others. Besides MGCS is a program with death star syndrome. Up to this day Germany and France can't agree on basic requirements, they can't agree on what gun they will use, not to mention costs! You seen how much money will cost to build only technology demonstrators of MGCS? This program is bollocks!
I guess for the same money thatwill be put in to MGCS program, we could procure ~1000 M1A2SEPv3's or K2PL's.0 -
59 minutes ago, Marko said:
why the sense of urgency.?
Poland already has a very considerable armoured force.
The T-72 fleet are equal if not superior to any potential threat from the east.
Are you serious?! You consider obsolete T-72M and T-72M1 tanks as equal or superior to Bellarusian and Russian fleet of T-72B's and their modifications?!
Besides this is our security, Myself and my fellow citizens do not feel any necessity to explain ourselfs to anyone.1 -
5 hours ago, Ssnake said:
The relevant question is, will a potential adversary have a radically better tank available in the forseeable future? The Armata might reach maturity, and it's "radically different", I agree. But is it "better"?
Is there a specific technological development that will make tanks obsolete in the next 15 years?
If the answer is No to both (and I think it is), then the M1A2 SEPv3 certainly is among the better choices.
And one of the most important factors is, that first M1A2SEPv3's will be ready and sent to Poland somewhere next year. Time is crucial.
0 -
1 hour ago, Marko said:
Not saying the M1À2 SEP is a bad choice.
But its a forty year old design.
I realise its fire control and other key components have had numerous upgrades but still.
M1A2SEPv3's are all new builds. And to be frank, M1A2SEPv3 is a completely new design compared to older vehicles.
Besides, technology wise, how much different is M1A2SEPv3 compared to Leopard 2A7V or K2PL? Technology wise there is no difference.
While in the same time, next generation like MGCS or OMT are still in concept and development phase. It will be a long time before they will be avaiable.
0 -
11 minutes ago, DK-DDAM said:
god you guys must have a logistical nightmare.. with all the differet spare parts you are gonna use
Not really. Of course there will be interim period which will be problematic. But in the end we will reduce number of tank types in active service to 1 or max 2.
Because currently we have Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2PLM1, Leopard 2A5, T-72M, T-72M1, T-72M1R, PT-91, PT-91MA, PT-91MA1.
Now, 250 M1A2SEPv3's will replace 250 T-72M, T-72M1, T-72M1R in active service.All Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2PL's are meant to be upgraded to Leopard 2PLM1, and Leopard 2A5's are meant to be upgraded to Leopard 2A7PL.
From 2030 remaining T-72's, PT-91's and also Leopard 2's will start to be replaced by new MBT Wilk. Wilk might be M1A2SEPv3/v4 or K2PL or what ever. So from 2030 onwards we will start to reduce tank types to 1 or 2 as I said.
0 -
https://www.defence24.pl/blaszczak-pieniadze-z-nowelizacji-budzetu-min-na-abramsy
First funds are secured by Polish MoD and government for procurement of M1A2SEPv3's.
0 -
So it seems that M1A2SEPv3's for Poland are formally confirmed also by US side.
0 -
On 7/16/2021 at 5:57 PM, deees said:
I'm not questioning the accuracy of the FEA software, just whether it's likely that person configuring the simulation would be able to input the correct material properties to product meaningful solutions?
I probably should have stated using highly-sloped armor for the purpose of deflecting modern long-rod penetrators is questionable. The penetrators don't defect significantly. The original Leopard 2 and Abrams being examples of armor designed after their introduction.
(The new front wedges and the Abrams hull above the driver are examples of highly sloped armor, but they defeat projectiles in different ways.)
The problem with Abrams is that most likely it's upper glacis have changing thickness. Over driver compartment it's ~50mm thick, however over fuel tanks it might be thicker, perhaps ~80mm angled at 83 degrees.. We have photos that might confirm this theory, showing different thickness over glacis plate around driver hatch and above fuel tanks.
@Ssnake@dejawolf This is probably worth considering in the vehicle model in SB ProPE.
Also steel used, we might assume that two types of steel is used when building M1's. General structure is made from MIL-A-12560 steel with thickness ranging from 4.23mm to 152.4mm, hardness ranging from 363 to 400 BHN, yield strength 1187 MPa, tensile strenght 1318 MPa. While for specific parts and probably inside composite armor, MIL-A-46100 steel with thickness ranging from 2.5 to 50mm, hardness 477-534 BHN, yield strenght 1480 MPa and tensile strenght 1655 MPa.0 -
-
Polish Minister of Defence in Washington D.C. talked with Secretary of Defence, MoD says everything is on the right track to procure M1A2SEPv3's and first tanks should be shipped to Poland next year, if everything goes as planned.
Tommorow Polish MoD will visit Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.0 -
So going through archives I found two interesting publications. First is Ballisticians in War and Peace vol.3 where I found description of Ballistic Research Laboratory work on M1A2 (variant fielded in 1992) hull front armor, that had 35% increased protection vs KE and 25% increased protection vs SC threats compared to basic M1A1.
I also found another publication, The US Army Laboratories at Watertown that provides description of work that Watertown and BRL done in 1988-1991 timeframe on Tandem Ceramic Armor, which provided 33% increase in KE protection.
This is very interesting co-relation and both are in timeframe of M1A2 development.
So perhaps hull front of the M1A2 used some sort of armor based on ceramics?
Also Ballisticians in War and Peace vol.3 mentions something called KE Backpacks as improvement used in M1IP and M1A1 armor, to increase their KE protection. Perhaps these KE Backpacks were also some sort of steel/ceramic/steel armor, combined with existing NERA arrays?
Food for thoughts.
Links to sources:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf2 -
Huge news, Polish MoD confirms Poland is purchasing M1A2SEPv3's. Tommorow in Wesoła where 1st Armored Brigade is stationed, MoD will present details at 11:00 local time.
1 -
19 hours ago, Marko said:
They could opt for the new diesel engine.
The poles must still have faith in heavy Armour.
Logistically it would be a burden they will have three types of MBT in there fleet. the T-72. leo-2 and M1A2
New tank, M1A2 or other type is meant to replace T-72 in short term. In mid term PT-91 and in long term also Leopard 2.
0
Poland Armed Forces Modernization.
in Ground Zero
Posted
So Polish MoD sent Letter of Request for 500 M142 HIMARS launchers.
It's worth to mention that we want to procure only launchers + missiles. Trucks will be Polish Jelcz, also FCS will be Polish Topaz. There is also talk about procuring license for at least one type of missiles, I guess GMLRS or GMLRS-ER.