Molota_477

Full page of the leo 2 armor:
 

I don't think that it refers to mass of the special armor. Note that the following document seems to list the MBT-80 with "430 mm+" protection, while also listing the effective hull armor thickness of Centurion and Leopard 1 (implying that the figures for the other tanks might also be hull armor).
 

 
In documents from 1969 and 1970, it is already mentioned that Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of above 1.0, so 430 mm steel-equivalent mass should provide a noteworthy larger amount of armor protection. It also would be odd to mix figures in milimeters with tons (for the applique armor) without even specifying that the milimeters is meant to be steel-equivalent mass.

Full page of the leo 2 armor:
 

The yellow graph might correspond to the Leopard 2A4 with "D" technology armor (production start in 1991), not the Leopard 2A4 with "C" technology armor (production 1988-1991).
 
I can say that the late Leopard 2A4 turret front with the latest armor ("D" technology) did survive a direct impact from the LKE1 APFSDS fired from 2,000 m distance without the projectile reaching the inner layers of the armor array. This round was later type-qualified as 120 mm DM43 APFSDS (given its 600 mm penetrator length and 1,740 m/s muzzle velocity, it should be able to penetrate about 600 mm of flat armor at this distance). The sources for this is classified, unfortunatley it cannot be shared without potentially getting some people in trouble.

This is a snipplet from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. Dick Taylor of the RTR.
 
Apparently the M1A1 HA's DU armor results in about 15% better protection against APFSDS ammunition compared to the Challenger 2, but offers a lot lower protection against HEAT munitions. Given that the M1A1 HA's turret appears to have approximately 600-660 mm vs KE (estimated 30° arc and direct from the front), that would put the Challenger 2 at 510-560 mm vs KE (this figures would match the earlier documents form the Challenger 2 design phase asking for 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull). The Challenger 1 was designed to reach a protection level of 500 mm vs KE on turret and 275 mm vs KE on the upper hull front, but according to a footnote in the same book reached only 480 mm vs KE on the turret and 340 mm vs KE on the hull.
The Leopard 2 was apparently not only offered with the B armor configuration (as tested in the UK), but it was at least proposed with the C and D armor generations aswell (protection level of the latter armor type not being disclosed to the UK). It seems that the text on the right mentions protection figures in milimeters for the Leopard 2A4 with Type B and Type C armor configurations, but that is unfortunately cut off. The Leopard 2A4 (with Type B armor) was rejected for its poor armor, worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew vs KE.
 
Does anybody have this book? I wonder if it is worth the read, because other snipplets I've seen seem to feature quite a lot of bias (i.e. tests of Challenger 2E in Greece).
 

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/11/blog-post_75.html

 
 

about the “Oplot”, I think this is a “triumph” of the T-64 series ... and its followers.  But this is not a 21st century tank.
 Morozov’s followers on both sides of the border sawn the old concept, time showed how far ahead of time it was.  But sometimes it is worth stopping and thinking about something new (I’m not talking about Armata and not even about T-95).
 

 

 

 

 
Ukrainian BM Oplot tank in details –
http://btvt.info/1inservice/bm_oplot.htm
 
 

UAE moving Leclercs to Hodeida (Yemen)

 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

Well, I never heard of it.
This doesn't mean that it never happenned. It could have happenned in punctual manner to validate or gather additionnal data...
There is A LOT of things that the constructor (or the DGA!) experimented that has not been revealed to the public.
 

While there is no radar on this photography, the MSC used to carry a ballistic radar to collect data.



Never heard or seen anything like this on the prototypes or the first batches...

 

White parts are measuring instruments. Green parts are from the Leclerc demonstrator. But, there is no radar and I never heard about any radar test for this MBT.  

And there is a livejournal post about AMX-30 test with Radar FCS(in Russian)
https://strangernn.dreamwidth.org/1786004.html
 

And there is a livejournal post about AMX-30 test with Radar FCS(in Russian)
https://strangernn.dreamwidth.org/1786004.html
 

This was 490A from late 1984 which was  intended to use the variable shape propellant charge. It was also intended for 152 mm 477.

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). 
Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1


884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices.
 
 

cost figures from Appendices F and B:


things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17):
(there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment)

apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). 
 
 
...
btw, GAO's report  "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23:

and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):

Hi guys, I would like to take this place to ask that how credible is this article?

Screenshot from Magazine RAIDS Les Chars de Combat en Action 3,.
All of tanks mentioned in this article have taken part in the Sweden trials, I suppose that maybe the author would have some materials related to the true armor layout.

That is not the correct translation of "Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande". It should be "The results showed the possibility of better armor performance if volume and not weight ("och inte vikten") was the resrtricting factor".
 
 
The armor is designed to protect the crew compartment along the 60° arc against ATGMs and APFSDS ammo. Let me illustrate this with a poorly made drawing:
 

 
Both tanks have the same protection level for the crew compartment (driver's compartment + turret ring), but with a front mounted engine, longer side skirts are required to cover the crew compartment (because it starts behind the enigne). I.e. heavy ballistic skirts and armor modules covering the complete length of the engine compartment have to be added to reach the same level of protection along the frontal arc. This is one of the reasons why Germany and the United States both decided to not build tanks with front-mounted engines, after evaluating the concept and even creating prototypes for testing this interior layout.