Polish Ground Forces Tech Tree

[Yontzee 1,676]

Also depends on what Hibernyt version is used as some are equipped with electro-optical sighting/tracking and GROM missiles. I'm not sure if GROM missiles are used while mounted on the bed and/or deployed on the ground. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Yontzee

[olek_z17 29]

On 06/10/2022 at 23:30, Mahiwew said:

I'd argue that vehicles such as Hibneryt aren't technicals, mainly because they have an actual designation.
They were commissioned by an army for a certain purpose.

Technicals aren't so much made for a dedicated purpose. They are made to be able to transport heavier weaponry, with the weaponry varying widely and them more often than not having no formal designation, production order ect. 

I think I might've found the ultimate answer to this argument. Behold, the Technical Alignment Chart:
 

 

On 06/10/2022 at 09:52, Colerend said:

Im also working on a updated version of Polish ground tech tree with the help of some people. 

Can you give some more details? I'm also trying to do my version of the Polish ground TT so maybe I could help.

[Colerend 225]

10 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

On 06/10/2022 at 09:52, Colerend said:

Im also working on a updated version of Polish ground tech tree with the help of some people. 

Can you give some more details? I'm also trying to do my version of the Polish ground TT so maybe I could help.

Im working on Ground Tech Tree and Aviation Tech Tree with help of people that took part in this topic. I thought you completed your tech tree because it can be seen on github. Didn't knew you were still working on it. I can give you a link to our discord if you want.

 

[Colerend 225]

On 06/10/2022 at 23:43, Yontzee said:

Also depends on what Hibernyt version is used as some are equipped with electro-optical sighting/tracking and GROM missiles. I'm not sure if GROM missiles are used while mounted on the bed and/or deployed on the ground. 

There is no need for the versions with GROM launchers. The ones without them can be put at lower BR. There is a problem with SPAAG's when it comes to br's of 5.0 and 6.0

[Colerend 225]

On 06/10/2022 at 23:30, Mahiwew said:

I'd argue that vehicles such as Hibneryt aren't technicals, mainly because they have an actual designation.
They were commissioned by an army for a certain purpose.

Technicals aren't so much made for a dedicated purpose. They are made to be able to transport heavier weaponry, with the weaponry varying widely and them more often than not having no formal designation, production order ect. 

Even still, I think this conversation is silly for the purposes of this tree.
As it is proposed now, these vehicles would have to be a necessary evil (if you consider these types of vehicles bad additions). I'd rather have some SPAA capability between rank I and IV than none, regardless of whether it's a sophisticated vehicle or not. 

 

Nobody will be convincing the opposition either, so if anything it would likely be the best course of action to agree to disagree.

I agree with that but I wouldn't call them a necessary evil. It's just a truck with guns. Nothing big. There are other vehicles that I could fit it's place like MT-LB Promet but sources on that vehicle are hard to find. I chose this vehicle instead. A truck isn't as noticeable as a MT-LB in lower br's.

[olek_z17 29]

On 06/11/2020 at 14:50, RazNaRok said:

Can the 2x23mm AAA ZUR-23-2SP be operated/fired from mounted position on it's carier !?

As far as was seen in Ustka proving grounds only Piorun / Grom missiles were fired while this AAA system was mounted on carrier.

For operating/firing the 2x23mm AAA ZUR-23-2SP it has to be probably dismounted, due to the effect of recoils... with makes it obsolete it WT game play due to game mechanics.

It can shoot both from the truck bed and dismounted, both with guns and missiles (it carries 10 of them btw. - 2 in the launchers and 8 as a reload). It also can be operated remotely from the cabin, here's the photo of the gunner's position: 

[olek_z17 29]

1 hour ago, Colerend said:

I thought you completed your tech tree because it can be seen on github. Didn't knew you were still working on it.

Yes, I'm still working on it - it changed a lot since I proposed it here 3 months ago - I've added some more prototypes while still trying to make it not more "paper" than other big trees. And even now, the version you can see on Github is likely not the final one.

 

2 hours ago, Colerend said:

I can give you a link to our discord if you want.

Sure, it would be nice.

[Colerend 225]

On 09/10/2022 at 13:25, olek_z17 said:

On 09/10/2022 at 11:13, Colerend said:

I can give you a link to our discord if you want.

Sure, it would be nice.

https://discord.gg/wRUz8qgZYp Everyone is welcome to join.

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Colerend
Dead link replaced

[DeadShot_duke 1]

On 05/11/2019 at 02:46, PikPikker said:

yes just yes gaijin plz add this

 

[NeXeS-PL@psn 270]

Poland's first 10 K2 Black Panther main battle tanks were rolled out at Hyundai Rotem factory in Changwon today on 19 October 2022.

Poland intends to acquire up to 980 K2 tanks and signed an initial contract of 180 tanks in August.

 

KOREA DEFENSE BLOG

[Abrams_X 1,234]

13 hours ago, NeXeS-PL@psn said:

Poland intends to acquire up to 980 K2 tanks and signed an initial contract of 180 tanks in August.

it is 1000, to be precise. 180 K2 from S. Korea and 820 K2PL from Polish manufacture.

[NeXeS-PL@psn 270]

AS21 REDBACK

Now is tested in POLAND

 

AS21 REDBACK

Now is tested in POLAND

 

[olek_z17 29]

On 20/10/2022 at 14:07, NeXeS-PL@psn said:

AS21 REDBACK

Now is tested in POLAND

 

Bad news...
It's being tested with the Israeli turret, and what's even worse, our MoD is considering that turret as an option.
The "tactical penises" camo is beautiful as usual tho:)

[Yontzee 1,676]

3 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

 

Bad news...
It's being tested with the Israeli turret, and what's even worse, our MoD is considering that turret as an option.
The "tactical penises" camo is beautiful as usual tho:)

Hopefully they consider using the ZSSW-30 turret as that will make it easier for using it on multiple platforms. 

[olek_z17 29]

13 hours ago, Yontzee said:

Hopefully they consider using the ZSSW-30 turret as that will make it easier for using it on multiple platforms. 

I really hope so, especially that it's simply better than the Israeli one:

• Israeli turret is manned.
• Israeli turrets are known to have issues in lower temperatures (even temperate climate is enough to cause problems),
• This particular turret has the ATGMs in an internal container that elevates to shoot missiles. It's a bad solution as if the turret is struck and the ATGM detonates inside, the whole turret is gone. If the ATGM on ZSSW-30 is hit, the turret is more less fine, only the external container is gone and another one can be reattached rather quickly.
• Israeli turret has no armored covers for the optics.
• And the last one, for us Israel is just about as reliable of a partner as Germany (which means it's not really reliable).

Sure, ZSSW-30 doesn't have the hard kill APS and Iron Vision, but these flaws are not impossible to fix (although installing hard kil APS on it might be harder due to the external container).

Edited October 22, 2022 by olek_z17

[NeXeS-PL@psn 270]

AS21 

Nowa Dęba

 

 

fot. Polska Zbrojana

Edited October 22, 2022 by NeXeS-PL@psn

[Yontzee 1,676]

On 22/10/2022 at 02:42, olek_z17 said:

I really hope so, especially that it's simply better than the Israeli one:

• Israeli turret is manned.
• Israeli turrets are known to have issues in lower temperatures (even temperate climate is enough to cause problems),
• This particular turret has the ATGMs in an internal container that elevates to shoot missiles. It's a bad solution as if the turret is struck and the ATGM detonates inside, the whole turret is gone. If the ATGM on ZSSW-30 is hit, the turret is more less fine, only the external container is gone and another one can be reattached rather quickly.
• Israeli turret has no armored covers for the optics.
• And the last one, for us Israel is just about as reliable of a partner as Germany (which means it's not really reliable).

Sure, ZSSW-30 doesn't have the hard kill APS and Iron Vision, but these flaws are not impossible to fix (although installing hard kil APS on it might be harder due to the external container).

Building off of that, if they can install Iron Fist APS on a cramped Bradley turret, I’m confident space or external equipment won’t be an issue for the ZSSW-30 turret. I’m sure we’ll see a variant of the ZSSW-30 turret with some sort of APS system in the future. I hope they stick with the Borsuk IFV and continue to develop it further. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Yontzee

[Zucc_Boi 657]

On 22/10/2022 at 12:42, olek_z17 said:

I really hope so, especially that it's simply better than the Israeli one:

• Israeli turret is manned.
• Israeli turrets are known to have issues in lower temperatures (even temperate climate is enough to cause problems),
• This particular turret has the ATGMs in an internal container that elevates to shoot missiles. It's a bad solution as if the turret is struck and the ATGM detonates inside, the whole turret is gone. If the ATGM on ZSSW-30 is hit, the turret is more less fine, only the external container is gone and another one can be reattached rather quickly.
• Israeli turret has no armored covers for the optics.
• And the last one, for us Israel is just about as reliable of a partner as Germany (which means it's not really reliable).

Sure, ZSSW-30 doesn't have the hard kill APS and Iron Vision, but these flaws are not impossible to fix (although installing hard kil APS on it might be harder due to the external container).

You make minor issues to be major ones, and make major ones to be minor.

 

Regarding bullet points, in order:

1. The T2000 is manned by Australian demand. It is based on the MT30 Mk2, but since that one maintains the same software and mechanical interfaces, it can be replaced with the UT30 Mk2 easily if demanded. What matters most is testing the systems together, which is why it's okay to test an unmodified manned variant for now.

2. Rafael, Elbit, and IAI, don't really develop the mechanical aspects. They develop the electronics, and outsource the mechanical design. If and when climate suitability is an issue, the mechanical design can be based on another solution, for example on the basis of the ZSSW-30 if requested.

The Czech first identified problems with the Rafael Samson Mk1 on their Pandur, but it was reported that they quickly sorted out the issue, meaning it might have been a problem in training personnel on maintenance (OEM's responsibility), not necessarily the mechanics of the turret.

Climate suitability design and qualification requires time and money, so companies usually show a product as-is, and if bought they make the adjustments.

3. That is widely considered to be a major plus and is a feature shared mostly by turrets that are well thought in advance and meant to use ATGMs from the beginning. 

By placing ATGMs inside the turret, you are protecting them from external damage and contain residual damage that could harm nearby infantry. 

Putting ATGMs outside makes them vulnerable, and requires increasing the armored surface and reinforcing their mechanisms, making the overall solution heavier and more expensive. External ATGMs also require more expensive dampening solutions, hence why sometimes they are neglected and it in turn reduces their shelf life.

4. Armor on the optics is literally just a matter of requirements. If they choose to go with this turret and want armored optics, they'll have them. It's as simple as that. Rafael for example is marketing its Samson turret with armored optics, but for now customers buy the un-armored option.

 

 

Not having an APS and IronVision is no small thing. That's a lengthy integration work that could push back schedules by many months if not years. Elbit already offers its turrets with those systems built-in, and if Poland wants a ZSSW-30 but with the superior capabilities of the T2000, it would basically have to replace a lot of components on the ZSSW-30.

 

Poland's unique temperature requirements mean foreign companies will usually have to make adjustments to their designs to have their products accepted, thus giving local companies an edge in the mechanical system design. However, its industry does not have the tools to kit a local turret with the same capabilities that Elbit currently has to offer with its very wide portfolio.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Zucc_Boi

[olek_z17 29]

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

1. The T2000 is manned by Australian demand. It is based on the MT30 Mk2, but since that one maintains the same software and mechanical interfaces, it can be replaced with the UT30 Mk2 easily if demanded. What matters most is testing the systems together, which is why it's okay to test an unmodified manned variant for now.

Well yes, but actually no - while the turret can indeed be unmanned, it would require a major redesign of the hull to fit the commander's hatch there. And that would require moving the turret backwards as currently the turret is too much forward for a human sized hatch to fit.

 

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

The Czech first identified problems with the Rafael Samson Mk1 on their Pandur, but it was reported that they quickly sorted out the issue, meaning it might have been a problem in training personnel on maintenance (OEM's responsibility), not necessarily the mechanics of the turret.

It's not just Czechs, it's every European country that bought them:

• Lithuania with the Samson Mk II for their Vilkas IFVs.
• Romania with the UT30 MK2 for their Piranha 5 IFVs.
• Czechia with the RCWS-30 for their Pandur II IFVs.
• Poland with the RCWS-30 and UT30 planned for the BWP-1 modernization (the turrets didn't pass environmental chamber tests)

 

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

3. That is widely considered to be a major plus and is a feature shared mostly by turrets that are well thought in advance and meant to use ATGMs from the beginning. 

By placing ATGMs inside the turret, you are protecting them from external damage and contain residual damage that could harm nearby infantry. 

Putting ATGMs outside makes them vulnerable, and requires increasing the armored surface and reinforcing their mechanisms, making the overall solution heavier and more expensive. External ATGMs also require more expensive dampening solutions, hence why sometimes they are neglected and it in turn reduces their shelf life.

That ATGM placement means that if the turret gets hit and the ATGM goes off, it completely obliterates the whole turret (including the gunner and commander in this case). Unlike with the external placecment in where the container essentially acts as a blow-off panel.
Also, as long as the container can be closed and isolated from the environment, it doesn't make ATGMs any more vulnerable than putting them inside of the turret.

There's also no need for extra vibration dampening - the container is a part of the turret. Separate part, but a part nonetheless. And even if it's a slightly more expensive solution, the added safety benefit far outweighs that added expense.

 

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

2. Rafael, Elbit, and IAI, don't really develop the mechanical aspects. They develop the electronics, and outsource the mechanical design. If and when climate suitability is an issue, the mechanical design can be based on another solution, for example on the basis of the ZSSW-30 if requested.

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

4. Armor on the optics is literally just a matter of requirements. If they choose to go with this turret and want armored optics, they'll have them. It's as simple as that. Rafael for example is marketing its Samson turret with armored optics, but for now customers buy the un-armored option.

On 24/10/2022 at 12:43, Zucc_Boi said:

Poland's unique temperature requirements mean foreign companies will usually have to make adjustments to their designs to have their products accepted, thus giving local companies an edge in the mechanical system design. However, its industry does not have the tools to kit a local turret with the same capabilities that Elbit currently has to offer with its very wide portfolio.

But that means a redesign or a completely different turret, so why don't just use the Polish one since it's already a complete package and is already (or very soon will be - the agreement is already signed) in production?

 

Oh, and I forgot one critically important thing. Elbit is backdooring their software.

 

Here are two Twitter threads by Jarosław Wolski, military analyst, OSINT gatherer, author of articles for military magazines and a very well regarded expert. They are in Polish so you can use a Google Translate or ask me for specific terms, I'll be happy to help:

https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros/status/1583386582438273024?s=20&t=j7SA1zlS9RAqVcvQdxQJTg
https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros/status/1583523043191664641?s=20&t=j7SA1zlS9RAqVcvQdxQJTg

[Zucc_Boi 657]

1 hour ago, olek_z17 said:

Well yes, but actually no - while the turret can indeed be unmanned, it would require a major redesign of the hull to fit the commander's hatch there. And that would require moving the turret backwards as currently the turret is too much forward for a human sized hatch to fit.

Well yes, but actually no - while replacing the turret from MT30 to UT30 might require such redesign, it is said in the context of switching to ZSSW-30, which is unmanned and thus its switch requires the same modifications.

In defense of unmanned turrets in general, rearranging the fighting compartment is considered a minor modification, as it does not require any modification to the chassis.

1 hour ago, olek_z17 said:

It's not just Czechs, it's every European country that bought them:

• Lithuania with the Samson Mk II for their Vilkas IFVs.
• Romania with the UT30 MK2 for their Piranha 5 IFVs.
• Czechia with the RCWS-30 for their Pandur II IFVs.
• Poland with the RCWS-30 and UT30 planned for the BWP-1 modernization (the turrets didn't pass environmental chamber tests)

I'm not calling them liars. I am, however, casting doubt on the significance. On the Czech program, I only heard it had minor issues at first, which were alleviated and they were generally very pleased with the turret, and only want to replace it to add features that were developed over the years like reload-under-armor and better armor.

https://www.czdefence.com/article/new-weapon-turret-for-the-pandurs

 

Regarding the Vilkas, I found nothing but complaints about the cost of the entire vehicle due to inflation, and some software issues that were reportedly (by Lithuania's MoD) fixed.

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1773585/lithuania-fixes-problems-on-its-boxer-ifv-platform-says-ministry

I remind that beyond supplying the turret, it needs to be integrated with the Boxer's digital architecture, so we don't know the source of the problem and the MoD did not specify the problems.

 

On Romania's Piranhas I also found that UT-30 failed one test, then went on to a successful one in Norway. It caused a delay but there are no standing issues with the turret, as far as I can find.

https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-defense-23068583-video-XXX-fost-testata-norvegia-turela-tun-30-asamblata-romania-pentru-transportoarele-blindate-piranha-5.htm

 

The Polish BWP-1 upgrade program was cancelled altogether, and it wasn't just the RCWS-30 and UT-30 that were tested but also the Hitfist which was later adopted by Poland on a different platform. So conclusions from this program are impossible to make, especially when modifications weren't even properly funded.

 

All in all, we can see that all these issues were alleviated very quickly, and each occurring in a different turret that was integrated for the first time on the given platform, and integration work is done by local, non-Israeli companies. In 2 of the 3 mentioned programs, GDELS was the prime integrator, and we know just how bad their reputation is in light of the Ajax fiasco.

2 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

That ATGM placement means that if the turret gets hit and the ATGM goes off, it completely obliterates the whole turret (including the gunner and commander in this case). Unlike with the external placecment in where the container essentially acts as a blow-off panel.

Do you have any footage that shows the ATGMs are not separate from the crew?

2 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

Also, as long as the container can be closed and isolated from the environment, it doesn't make ATGMs any more vulnerable than putting them inside of the turret

It means they are less armored, and their external placement makes them more likely to be hit.

2 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

But that means a redesign or a completely different turret, so why don't just use the Polish one since it's already a complete package and is already (or very soon will be - the agreement is already signed) in production?

There is nothing in the ZSSW that makes it more ready for integration than the UT-30. To the contrary. Both are unmanned and so need the same mechanical changes, but software-wise, the UT30's systems are already integrated to a high degree, while the ZSSW never even started that process.

 

2 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

Oh, and I forgot one critically important thing. Elbit is backdooring their software.

 Your source doesn't show anything about backdoors. Oh wait, I forgot, you didn't post any...

2 hours ago, olek_z17 said:

Here are two Twitter threads by Jarosław Wolski, military analyst, OSINT gatherer, author of articles for military magazines and a very well regarded expert. They are in Polish so you can use a Google Translate or ask me for specific terms, I'll be happy to help:

I've seen many experts that make simple mistakes, many OSINT guys that fall for forgeries, and above all, plenty of people who just outright refuse to provide proper sources for their information.

The allegation of backdoors is just an allegation, which Elbit denied and the Australian MoD never claimed backdoors were found.

In this article, it is said the program itself was managed improperly and led to cost overruns. Part of the mismanagement included a request to fix several security issues, but the deadline passed and it prompted a halt to payments.

To this day, there is no explanation as to why the program was cancelled.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/british-military-briefings-australia-security-elbit-technology/100181550

 

The UK approached Australia about the issue, was briefed, and it examined the system independently. It found no issue and even deployed the system that same year to a NATO exercise.

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/51171

So, please, share the source.

 

Regarding his allegations on turrets, he says so himself - they showed problems at the BEGINNING. 

Yes, during development systems are supposed to interact improperly with one another, and that's fixed in the integration phase which naturally involves trials. Therefore, trials are supposed to fail until they gradually become more and more successful, after which the certification process can begin where they are stress-tested.

What fact remains beyond the single analyst Jaroslaw Wolski, is that Israeli turrets are very popular, including a large acquisition by the US which naturally also operates in the same cold Polish weather, and Elbit's BMS are extremely popular as well, being one of the most widespread BMS worldwide.

[olek_z17 29]

14 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

Well yes, but actually no - while replacing the turret from MT30 to UT30 might require such redesign, it is said in the context of switching to ZSSW-30, which is unmanned and thus its switch requires the same modifications.

In defense of unmanned turrets in general, rearranging the fighting compartment is considered a minor modification, as it does not require any modification to the chassis.

It does - it requires the installation of a commander hatch. And to do this on this particular chassis they would have to move the whole turret ring to the rear, which by itself is a big redesign.

 

25 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

All in all, we can see that all these issues were alleviated very quickly, and each occurring in a different turret that was integrated for the first time on the given platform, and integration work is done by local, non-Israeli companies. In 2 of the 3 mentioned programs, GDELS was the prime integrator, and we know just how bad their reputation is in light of the Ajax fiasco.

Or if you put it the other way, every country that bought them experienced issues at the beginning.

Btw, the lack of a proper turret was one of the main reasons why the program was cancelled. The Hitfist turret was just to heavy for the BWP-1 to remain amphibious (which is very important for our MoD), while both Israeli turrets failed the weather tests.

 

31 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

Do you have any footage that shows the ATGMs are not separate from the crew?

I've said "inside the turret", not "inside the crew compartment" - they're not in the crew compartment, but their placement is about as safe for the turret and the crew as it would be to weld tank's blow-off panels shut.

 

33 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

Your source doesn't show anything about backdoors. Oh wait, I forgot, you didn't post any...

I have, it's in the article...

Besides, there are multiple articles about this.

 

34 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

The allegation of backdoors is just an allegation, which Elbit denied and the Australian MoD never claimed backdoors were found.

What was Elbit suppose to say?

 

38 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

What fact remains beyond the single analyst Jaroslaw Wolski, is that Israeli turrets are very popular,

No they're not - they're not used by many countries and those who use them did't order a lot.

 

Besides, ZSSW-30 has a very big advantage for Poland - it's Polish. And I don't have to explain how many advantages does using domestic products in the military have.
One other thing is that Israel is just about as good of a partner for us as Germany. Which is, not a good partner at all. Mainly they have a large Soviet population (yes, Soviet - they are Israeli immigrants from the USSR), large enough to influence elections. And that means they'll never be as anti-Russian as they should.

[Zucc_Boi 657]

18 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

It does - it requires the installation of a commander hatch. And to do this on this particular chassis they would have to move the whole turret ring to the rear, which by itself is a big redesign.

It's a serious work if the vehicle is already produced. Otherwise, not so much. It would invalidate mobility certification, but if Poland wants the ZSSW-30 it would have to recertify it regardless.

And I repeat, changing to the UT-30 or ZSSW-30 would require the same level of redesign, and more integration work for the ZSSW.

20 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

Or if you put it the other way, every country that bought them experienced issues at the beginning.

That's hardly surprising. Manufacturers tend to make products, by default, for some predetermined industry standard, and only if a customer has unique demands, make corrections. Israel has a warm climate, and its customers also typically don't have extreme weather. The Polish cold is rather unique, so it makes sense not to spend more money on making it suitable for the cold weather. If the customer wants suitability for cold climate, it has to, first, pay for the modifications, and two, be aware that integration work typically involves failures at the early stages.

 

The USMC for example, doesn't buy off the shelf kit. To certify equipment, manufacturers have to make said equipment suitable for high salinity.

Had the USMC fitted the ACV with Kongsberg's MCT-30 turret as-is, it would suffer the same issues as described for Israeli turrets. Instead, the USMC certifies that turret for high salinity environment.

 

27 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

Btw, the lack of a proper turret was one of the main reasons why the program was cancelled. The Hitfist turret was just to heavy for the BWP-1 to remain amphibious (which is very important for our MoD), while both Israeli turrets failed the weather tests.

And was there any information on a contract to modify them for cold weather? Say, if the turret uses optics certified for -40° (which is the industry standard), but Poland demands, e.g. -60°, then that requires a redesign that could be quite expensive, not a desirable trait for a program to upgrade an antique.

 

29 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

I've said "inside the turret", not "inside the crew compartment" - they're not in the crew compartment, but their placement is about as safe for the turret and the crew as it would be to weld tank's blow-off panels shut.

So they are physically separated from the crew, but somehow they endanger the crew, did I get this straight? Sorry it just doesn't make sense to me. 

Are you aware of the fact that blow-off panels are NOT the only mechanism that keeps crewmen safe? Beside them, there must be a wall or a blast door that physically separate crew from ammo.

So good job disproving yourself I guess.

 

35 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

I have, it's in the article...

Besides, there are multiple articles about this

Are you aware of the fact that you have not, at any point, provided any source for this? Nor did you substantiate this claim.

 

36 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

What was Elbit suppose to say?

Cherrypicking again. There are 2 sides in this story. Neither side claims backdoors exist - this was a rumor spread by media that was never substantiated.

37 minutes ago, olek_z17 said:

No they're not - they're not used by many countries and those who use them did't order a lot.

Just today another country bought the TORCH-X. The UK operates it under the Morpheus program. Israel operates it almost 20 years. Brazil, Canada. In August an unnamed country in the SEA region bought it for $548 million. 

Its SDRs, which are a key aspect of the BMS, have also been sold in huge amounts. 

[olek_z17 29]

On 26/10/2022 at 21:38, Zucc_Boi said:

So they are physically separated from the crew, but somehow they endanger the crew, did I get this straight? Sorry it just doesn't make sense to me. 

Are you aware of the fact that blow-off panels are NOT the only mechanism that keeps crewmen safe? Beside them, there must be a wall or a blast door that physically separate crew from ammo.

So good job disproving yourself I guess.

It's so funny when someone doesn't understand what he's talking about but thinks he "destroyed" the other side's arguments, just like you did above.
Yes, they are separated from the crew.
Yes, they still endanger the crew.
Let me show you how it works: do you see the plate that separates the ATGM compartment from the crew compartment? I marked it red on the photo below:

Guess what. It's the same thickness as all the other plates covering the ATGM compartment (also marked red below):

And what does that mean? It's rather obvious - the explosion is just as likely to go into the fighting compartment of the turret as it is to go every other way.
The (quite unfortunate) placement of the ATGM compartment has one other drawback - the gunner's optics which almost always is in front of the compartment in those turrets, gest completely obliterated in the case of such explosion.

 

And how does that look in ZSSW-30?
Let's take a look at the Polish turret:

As you can see above, the front and back covers of the container (front one marked in red) are thinner than the side, top and bottom walls (also marked red), and that means that the explosion would most likely go forwards and backwards.
And yes, there is the armor plate on the outer wall of the container, but here it isn't a bad thing in the case of an explosion as you'll see below.

Here's the difference between the ZSSW-30 and all of the other turrets - that big air gap between the ATGM container and the turret itself (marked in green above, just on the right of the container with its walls thickness marked in red).
So what does it mean? It means that even if the explosion doesn't go outwards because of the armor plate, it doesn't damage the turret because it's very well separated from it.
And now the issue of the optics. The gunner's optics is on the other side of the turret, which means that it's completely safe from a potential ATGM explosion. The commander's sight however is close enough to the container to be affected. But guess what? It's armored, so it won't be damaged either.

 

One last thing - I know how blow-off panels work. I know that there have to be separation from the crew compartment fot it to work. And as you can clearly see above, that separation is there in both of the cases, however only in the case of the ZSSW-30 the separation from the rest of the turret is greater than from the outside, so only in ZSSW-30 the ATGM explosion won't have a chance to go into the turret and destroy it.

 

 

 

As for the Israeli BMS in Australian service sending data back to Israel, I've provided a source at least once here and it's entirely your fault that you're not willing to accept it.
But that isn't the only time Israel betrayed a country they previously sold a piece of equipment to. In 2008 they sold Russia codes to Georgian drones (Israeli Elbit Hermes 450 drones in Georgian service), which allowed Russia to easily track and down Georgian UAVs. And here's a source, in case you missed it: https://www.suasnews.com/2012/02/israel-sold-georgian-uav-codes-to-russia/.
 

 

 

Edit: a totally unexpected leak from yesterday about the test results of the Elbit's turret on the AS21: 

I mean, to be honest it is a bit unexpected - knowing the "quality" of Elbit's products I expected the turret to malfunction because of even the slightest frost or rain, but it turned out that it's accuracy is at an impressive level of... 10 to 20%.

Edited November 18, 2022 by olek_z17

[olek_z17 29]

Well, no more AS21 for Poland, at least in its current form. The Korean narrative changed from "we'll sell you the AS21 as soon as possible" to "we'll use our OMFV bid's hull, integrate it with the ZSSW-30 turret and build it for you in the future". The AS21 we got for testing turned out to be let's say, "not ideal" - not only the turret turned out to be of a quality typical for all Israeli turrets, but the hull itself wasn't good either. For example, the one we got lacked the exhaust cooling system, so not only the exhaust itself was visible in thermals, the exhaust's placement made it so that it warmed up the whole right hull side:

Edited December 18, 2022 by olek_z17

[AquaMeba 5]

There is one problem AS21 have exhast cooling system but not on this prototype.