Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

SH_MM last won the day on January 4

SH_MM had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About SH_MM

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,265 profile views
  1. https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4835-rafael-trophy-aps-for-leopard-2.html
  2. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    The roof armor is always thicker on some places of the Challenger 2. Most likely they added some sheet metal plates to make it look "flush and aerodynamic".
  3. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    "brand new welded turret"
  4. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    Well, the Tweet said "mate to a new hull". But designing a Leopard 2 competitor when work on the Leopard 2 replacement is under way really seems like a scheme to sell the new turret to the UK. "You finally have a tank to compete against last gen's MBT."
  5. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    So Rheinmetall has dropped the SAS and MSSA in favor for putting new armor on the turret (or a brand new turret, that looks extremely similar to the original Challenger 2 turret and mounts the same components in the same locations... ).
  6. Solid choice, although I imagine the turret roof become rather cluttered... smoke grenade launcher, commander's sight (with slaved MG?), situational awareness system, hatches and APS on that tiny roof?
  7. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    Gun is being considered a key factor for Rheinmetall's offer in their slides for the investors' conference in January 2019. Always find it ridiculous how people decide to speak about "the three best Western tank" (or four in this case) and then include the Challenger 2 over the Leclerc...
  8. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    No, BAE Systems just want to get a bit of the Boxer money. They're willing to trade 55% of their UK-based land vehicle division for that.
  9. The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances. As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct. Also interessting is the fact that they had a 32 mm projectile; is that a DM23 prototype? It retains its muzzle velocity for a longer period of time and penetrates more armor. Btw: According to Krapke, the 105 mm smoothbore gun was abandoned, after a "performance-improved M735 round" fired from the L7 tank gun matched its lethality. That is the reason why some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were retro-fitted with rifled L7A3 guns in the last stages of Leopard 2 development. That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules? The planned features for the Leopard 2AX are: new engine with 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) output hardkill active protection system remotely operated weapon station 360° vision systems improved KE ammunition (KE2020) automated target tracking If all these features will be adopted (if there is budget) and what exact parts will be chosen remains unknown. I'd say that the Rheinmetall ADS, KMW's FLW 200+ RWS and the Rheinmetall's SAS are some of the likely options.
  10. SH_MM

    DRDO; India's Porsche

    So is the mythical Kanchan armor just a copy of the T-72's hull armor array with increased thickness (3 x 50 mm layers of glass/phenolic-reinforced plastics vs two layers of 52.5 mm on the T-72M1)? Based on the following text, Kanchan might be only a substitute for the textolite material of the T-72:
  11. SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Comparing the turret armor of the Leopard 2 to the M1 Abrams wouldn't really very productive in real world scenarios; both had too low armor protection as a result of incorrect estimates of Soviet firepower. My perspective in the previous posts was focused on the requirements; if they were met and how they were met. As Wiedzmin correctly stated, it doesn't matter how much milimetres of steel equivalent protection an armor array provides, if both can be defeated by the same (common) battlefield threats. Based on available documents, the aim for the M1 Abrams for example was to resist future 115 mm APFSDS with tungsten penetrator ammo along a 50° frontal arc from a distance of 800 m (on the turret) or 1,200 m (in case of the hull). This requirements are based on assumptions that the Soviets would continue to use the 115 mm smoothbore gun with the T-64, the T-72 and other future tanks (i.e. the T-80) - this was wrong. Likewise the penetration was underestimated with the US military using the 152 mm XM578E4 APFSDS developed for the MBT-70 during the 1960s as a reference for the 1980s' Soviet anti-tank projectiles - this was also a failure of the procurement process and US intelligence service. The Abrams has supposedly 320-340 mm steel-equivalent Burlington armor along its frontal arc; this is insufficient to protect against 115 mm 3BM-21 and 3BM-28 APFSDS rounds at distances of 2,000 m. The same applies to the Leopard 2's armor; be it 400 or 450 mm equivalent protection heads-on at the turret front; the hull front and turret armor is insufficient against 115 mm APFSDS rounds along the frontal 50-60° arc. There isn't even a need to speak about how the required protection ("sufficient protection against future Soviet KE rounds at combat distances") isn't given when looking at 125 mm APFSDS rounds. These figures have been published in different German articles, I doubt that they are from some sort of CIA document. Krapke lists the weight of the Leopard 2AV's gun assembly though. There isn't one type of "Chobham" armor. The UK has designed and tested more than a dozen different types of Chobham armor during the late 1960s and 1970s, which were designed to meet different requirements. For example, one array was designed to improve efficiency against KE rounds from a mass efficiency of roughly 1 to 1.5, but traded a reduction in performance against shaped charges from a mass efficiency of 3 to just 2. We know from patents, German books on the Leopard 2 and Soviet sources, that the Leopard 2 employs some type of NERA or "not Chobham, but armor following the Chobham principle". While the West-German military asked for a higher level of KE protection relative to the US Army, it is still a lot harder to achieve sufficient protection to stop an ATGM with 530 mm penetration than an APFSDS round with 300-350 mm penetration along the frontal arc. By my estimates, the frontal armor would be nearly enough by itself (per weight) to achieve the desired level of protection against KE rounds, so only a "small amount" of additional protection (10-20%) needs to be achieved for it along the whole frontal arc. Meanwhile one needs to achieve a mass efficiency of 1.4 to 1.5 against shape charges for the frontal armor to resist a Milan-1 ATGM warhead and an even higher efficiency for protection along the frontal arc. According to a Soviet report - or at least a Russian book from 2005-2006 claims that there was such a report - West-Germany tested armor arrays making use of five NERA plates, which all had a rather thick front plate (25 mm) followed by a thin rubber layer (5 mm) and thin steel back plate (3 mm). This armor would be much more remiscient of the T-72B's turret armor, but could still be considered a type of "Chobham". The ISL suggested in 1979/1980 that for optimum protection against shaped charges, a multi-layered backplate (made of steel plates with either a glass or a ceramic "core") should be used in combination with spaced NERA sandwich plates. However filling the empty space with low-density compressible plastic or removing it, but layering the NERA directly ontop of the backplate was seen as counter-productive, reducing the protection level. Regarding Leopard 1A3 and Keiler: There never was a requirement for shaped charge protection on these tanks. The designs submitted to England during the early phase of the Kampfpanzer 3/Future Main Battle Tank project show how this "technology" would have been adapted to also protect against shaped charges: MaK's proposal had a spaced arrangement of seven thin steel plates as frontal armor, while Krauss-Maffei's design had six thin steel plates spaced apart, while a fuel tank would have been incorporated between the two outermost layers. How long did the process take? I know that these are different tanks, but the first photo shows daylight, the sky in the second photo is black from the night. According to Hilmes, it takes about a day to replace the barrel of the Chieftain tank. That would maybe provide a tiny bit of additional protection, but likely less than simply using spaced steel plates (which makes it easier for the fragments of the damaged projectile to spread along a greater surface). "Pure ceramic" armor is rather uncommon on MBTs and more or less never used alone (there were some Soviet designs, but these made use of ERA for achieving sufficient protection against shaped charges). Schürzenpanzerung means "skirt armor", so he is refering to the heavy ballistic skirts. Spielberger doesn't mention a change of the base armor, but confirms that both types - heavy and light skirt segments - were changed. Interessting.
  12. SH_MM

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    No, you didn't state reasons. You made a few claims and simply declared them true, without having a single source. In your own words: "Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it." And why should the T-14 use this kind of armor instead of anything even closely resembling the armor arrays used on their next-gen prototypes? Because they couldn't afford to use better armor? Because they magically can invest 12 metric tons just for the hull front armor array - while improving side protection, underbelly protection and roof protection at the same time? By your logic we also could assume that it uses simple steel armor, because the T-72's turret had pure steel. We could argue that the smaller size of the T-14 and the fact that using pure cast steel is cheaper than multi-layered armor would be an advantage. Then we say that the turret front has an armor thickness of 950 mm - without source - and do some napkin math like "950 mm * 0.97=921 mm, that is close to 900 mm!". Now it is proven with "historical and practical reasons"! The T-90 was designed as cheap stopgap solution until a true next gen tank (Object 195, Object 477/A) would have become available. These development projects continued after the end of the Soviet Union. It was supposedly chosen over the T-80U for cost reasons. The T-14 Armata is not a stopgap solution and not designed to be a low-cost tank. That the T-90A's internal turret armor array is identical to the one used on the T-72B is pure speculation, just like your claims that Object 187 used exactly the same armor as the T-72B (which the so-called Malachit ERA fitted to the last prototype of the Object 187 easily disproves). The T-90S as a (downgraded) export tank might use a similar arrangement of multi-layer plates (based on a single screenshot from the LS-DYNA software that was part of a marketing poster), but that the material composition and thickness remain unchanged are not confirmed. Assuming that the T-90A the export T-90S has the same armor array as the export T-90S is also pure speculation. It is napkin math on your side; the tankograd blog isn't perfect either and has a few mistakes, but he clearly mentions that the protection level are dependent on the types of ammunition used and explains how he comes up with his values (i.e. mentioning the relation to the penetrator geometry and the avialable ammunition at that time). He mentions that increasing the elongation of the penetrator material decreases the efficiency of the armor, likewise he tries at least to factor in L/D ratio and different penetrator constructions. Your "calculation" is purely assuming that the armor has to look like that, because other armor looked like this. Even Paul Lakowski did that better (he factored in weight and used an estimated density to assume the filler, his results still were horrible wrong) and he came up with some of the most incorrect armor estimates. The efficiency of modern longrods and composite armor is depending on numerous factors. Old armor like the one used in the T-72B is likely achieving a lower efficiency against newer penetrators with longer rods made from more resilient material. The amount of armor available is highly depending on weight - just "guessing" the armor thickness, ignoring weight and deciding that a certain armor composition is likely based on pure arbitrariness isn't going to be anywhere close to realistic. Then proclaiming that "the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it" is just silly, if not even dumb. That your math doesn't even add up according to your own logic (the 10-15% protection increase from replacing the cast steel shell with welded steel for some reason is applied to the whole armor array, including the protection provided by the HHS and NERA plates!). Your conclusion is also wrong. As the performance of ammunition is depending on the exact interaction between penetrator and armor, your hypothetical armor array based on the T-72B's simple NERA likely won't reach 760 mm equivalent protection against modern APFSDS rounds, thus it won't protect against any APFSDS round without ERA. The efficiency factors estimated from the tankograd blog are based on old style APFSDS from the 1980s with limited L/D ratio.
×