Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Molota_477 last won the day on November 18 2018

Molota_477 had the most liked content!


About Molota_477

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/03/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views
  1. From this book I believe. https://tankmuseumshop.org/collections/haynes-tank-owners-workshop-manuals/products/challenger-2-main-battle-tank-owners-workshop-manual
  2. Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong
  3. No idea if it is ture or fake. BUT, until now this claim by Jia Yuanyou in CCTV is the only opened official source related to 99A's protection. There is little information about 99's real protection level because its top secret. When I first heard such info, I also keep skeptic, but now IMO it is possible, according to other information implied by some official publishments (mainly China Ordnance Society), there might be some type of integrated ERA under the face plate of 99's modular composite armor(So there are 2 layers of heavy ERA if taking account the hinged ERA tiles), which can drastically increase the KE protection level..
  4. He said that both KE and CE protection level have exceed 1000mm RHA.
  5. Both hull(full protection, including front arc of 50°) and turret at 69 metric tonnes. While combat weight at 64 tonnes——fully protected turret + hull protection without enough side armor(only front glacis). The number of 540mm actually meams a specific KE threat which could penetrate up to 540mm RHA at 1km range(It was assumed as Soviet DU APFSDS M1980). MBT-80's Chobham armour was desired to defeat such threat after some meetings in 1978. Besides these two heaviest schemes, there are also 2 correspondly intermedial schemes have 480mm protection level, but still too heavy, the full protection scheme weight 65 t, and the "only front protection on hull" version weight 62 t. Note that all of these schemes are only on paper discussion. And the level of 430mm RHA actually is the original requirement for MBT-80 before 1978. They thought it can be achieved within MLC60 which the turret is fully protected while the hull only has upper glacis. As for CE threat, they specified the need of againsting 130mm caliber shape charge(also is front ±25° in azimuth). That's all I have seen.
  6. Yes , the GSR 3572 only for MBT-80, so that's all I mean.
  7. Finally I found the document of GSR3572, the data of 480 and 430 only refer to the KE protection, but not the mass equivalent thickness, and there is a heaviest protection level up to 540mm.(But it is so heavy and very hard to offer full protection on hull under MLC70, while MLC60 or 55 tonnes only is a basic model without full protection on hull, note "full protection" means including side protecion within a limited angle.
  8. https://m.blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221397823921 Original blog.
  9. Yes, I misread it before, so it makes sense that the ''up armour'' Challenger 1's turret can obtain up to 500mm protection against some specific KE rounds while the thickness of steel-equivalent mass only 430mm.I think the same theory also is appropriate for the glacis.
  10. "Equivalent amount" might refer to the mass of special armor which mounted on MBT-80 and provide 480mm protection for turret and 430mm for front hull: Note the endnote"6"
  • Create New...