Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.
  2. "SmK" is Spitzgeschoss mit Kern (literally "pointy projectile with core"), i.e. a bullet with hardened steel core for enhanced performance against armor/body armor. "SS" is scharfes Spitzgeschoss, i.e. a conventional lead/ball bullet. The term is more commonly used for WW2 ammo, but the same applies for "SmK". "Stzpfr." should be Stanzpropfen (plug formed by projectile impact, i.e. a form of spall).
  3. I have no idea what the first two abbreviations are supposed to mean, I cannot figure it out without context. "o.W Randtreffer" means "ohne Wirkung, Randtreffer", i.e. no effect (no penetration/spall) due to hitting the edge (of a steel plate?). "Sprungsicher" means "safe of cracks", i.e. the steel plate won't form cracks (one translation for Sprung is crack or fissure). I agree with your interpretation regarding "DMA", it seems to mean "Durchschuss mit Ausbruch", i.e. "penetration with spall".
  4. I don't know the proper English translations for some of the more technical German terms - but basically it is about the performance of the T-54 and "the Patton" on two different tracks which are simulating off-road travel ("Wellenstrecke" is a track with uneven ground - i.e. (concrete) elements creating a wave pattern, while "Schwellenstrecke" is similar, but the elements are shaped a bit differently). The table lists speed, the amplitude (vertical movement of the tank), increase in amplitude compared to the normal value on even ground (aka ca. 100 mm according to the text above the first table), measured frequency (how often does the tank "shake" up and down) and some technical/mathematical value representing the behaviour. The last column in the tables lists the condition/state of health (i.e. the crew comfort) of the crew - this is polled by asking the crew (left section of the column in the first table) and by comparing it with data from a graph (right section of the column in the first table). As the results of polling the crews and looking at the graph were identical in the second and third table, there is only one section. The condition/state of health has four different values (maybe more are possible): eträglich (endurable - no effect on the crew's health on the long term) leichtes Unbehagen (slight discomfort) Unbehagen (discomfort) schweres Unbehagen (serious discomfort) I.e. the tables just say: The T-54 driving over the "Schwellenstrecke" type test track will create discomfort for the crew at speeds of 5, 10, 15 and 20 km/h. Due to the shape of the uneven ground, the situation is worse at low speeds, where the tank will move by up to 125 mm as part of the "shaking". When the tank drives fast, the effect decreases, as the tank will not "fall" as deep into the grooves inbetween the bumps of the ground. Still it always will result in discomfort, which means that crews cannot operate as effectively when spending a longer time driving under such conditions. The second table shows that the performance on the "Wellenstrecke" is a bit better when driving just 5, 10 or 15 km/h (endurable or only slight discomfort), but the situation gets worse when driving faster, as the tank "shakes" more. According to the third table, "the Patton" tank performs comparable to the T-54 at speeds of 10, 15 and 20 km/h, but is worse than the T-54 at 30 km/h - while the amplitude is still slightly lower, it "shakes" at a higher frequency. This can create "serious discomfort". Basically the T-54 has a shitty supsension, but "the Patton" has an even more shitty suspension. In attachments I and F are photos shot during night (although it might be a typo and supposed to say "Nahaufnahmen" - photos made from a close range) showing the movement behaviour of both tanks.
  5. Now? Why do you think was the KF41 presented for the first time to public painted in Czech Army camouflage?
  6. https://www.armadninoviny.cz/vyvoj-vozidla-ascod-42-pro-tendr-ceske-armady-na-nova-pasova-vozidla-pokracuje.html Ballistic protection apparently is just (above) STANAG 4569 level 5.
  7. I don't think one can judge the armor thickness just from one model. The artists from twitter is assuming that the underlying turret citadel is identical to that showed on the original Griffin prototype (which was based on a ASCOD 1 prototype hull), yet the new MPF vehicle design from GDLS uses a very different hull - the same might apply to the turret.
  8. ASCOD 42, note the new variant of the Iron-Fist LC active protection systems with three-round launchers: That turret is quite ugly.
  9. I don't understand this obsession with the T2000 turret. Aside of a new steel shell and a few components made by EOS, it is largely the same turret fitted to the Elbit/STK Sentinel II that was rejected during the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. That just changing some electronics to something Australian-made is being depicted as a game-changer seems rather questionable.
  10. It is very normal, nothing special. Dimensions and velocity of M829A4 were already confirmed during development (due to US Army's report on development programs). Many countries display even their new rounds before they enter service.
  11. It is very unlikely that this hypothesis is correct. The effort of launching a "precursor" tip at the pre-determined distance is too much to be viable (not only the volume taken up by the fuze and explosive charge, but also the cable running to the back of the fins will create issues in an APFSDS penetrator). Chances are high that the Master Sergeant doesn't know the exact working mechanism of the round either. M829A4 has essentially same velocity as M829A3 (based on US reports), so the mass will be similar. The tip section is screwed in by hand and it is implied that this is mostly related to the qualification process of the ammunition (otherwise the loader would need to know which tip is best suited for which specific target, which is pretty hard to achieve once autoloaders are added into the mixture).
  12. M829A4 and M829A3 having similar dimensions, weight and velocity was confirmed years ago. That they look so similiar isn't very surprising. On an unrelated note, unidentified APFSDS rounds with 140 mm sabots from an article written by a German author - very confusing.
  13. These are informations given by the person who posted the previous snipplet, supposedly based on the complete report(s). Because there is photographic evidence of an armor that was offered as drop-in replacement to several non-German Leopard 2A4 users (-> the only reason why this information was leaked) showing the armor stopping an undisclosed LKE1 at 2,000 m. This is based on numerous sources (ranging from news articles, statements from militaries and articles published in professional military/defence magazines) listing higher weights than 55.15 tonnes specifically for the Leopard 2A4, sometimes while including photographs of a tank beloning to the last production lots. At optimum stand-off (8 calibres aka 1.2 meters) HOT-2 reaches 1,200 mm penetration. Build-in stand-off is just 220 mm, so penetration is a lot worse. But the Leopard 2 with the prototype version of Type C armor was tested against HOT-1 at optimal stand-off according to the British document (the West-Germans claimed a penetration of 750 to 800 mm steel, which is above what British tests at non-optimal stand-off showcased). In German tests held in Meppen in 1985, the HOT-2 warhead achieved a penetration of approximately 1,150 mm at optimal stand-off distance: (HOT is actually HOT-2 and MILAN is actually MILAN-2) Supposedly - and this might only speculation by the original source - the targeted 600 mm steel equivalent protection is only achieved along a 40° arc (+ 20 to -20 degree), just like the Leopard 2 KVT (Type B armor and wedges) managed to meet the required protection level of 700+ mm vs KE only at a 40° arc. I know that a drop-in armor packaged stopped LKE1 when hit in such a way, that the LOS thickness of the armor array was ca. 800 mm (i.e. it was actually thicker, because cheaper steel was used to simulate the more expensive steel supposed to go onto the actual tank). This and a few statements between the lines/without direct source being posted. The range at which Leopard 2 (Type B) supposedly could defeat steel APFSDS was below 1,500 m. Thinner steel plates at an angle might not be the most optimal solution against thick/long monobloc penetrators. There still is a so called "T/D effect" (at least this is the terminology used by Paul Lakowski), which has been observed in firings of larger projectiles against very thin plates resulting in a lower reduction in penetration performance than the thickness of the plate - i.e. an APFSDS with a 400 mm penetration power will penetrate more than 395 mm steel after traveling through a 5 mm steel plate. If the Leopard 2 in 1991 had full Type D armor, then this would be a rather improbable increase in protection, but that is another topic. Expected readiness for series production was in 1993/1994, not 1991 - maybe the Type D armor was only ready for production in 1995, explaining the more than 2 tonnes weight difference between the "naked" Leopard 2 KVT and the "naked" Leopard 2A5: KVT: 60.5 tonnes minus 3 tonnes for hull and turret roof applique armor minus ca. 1.5 tonnes for turret wedges = 56 tonnes "naked" weight (while mounting more new components) Leopard 2A5: 59.5 tonnes minus ca. 1.5 tonnes for turret wedges = 58 tonnes "naked" weight That the Leopard 2AV armor shown by Wiedzmin was likely rejected has been stated in this very topic by Wiedzmin and Militarysta. Both said that Blohm & Voss created a simpler version of armor, that they believed ended up being selected for series production. Well, steel technology also evolved quite a bit. In the early 1990s steel combinations (i.e. THS) with a mass and thickness efficiency of 1.8 were tested by the Franco-German institute in Saint-Louis (ISL) according to an article published by members of the ISL in the European Forum on Ballistics a few years ago. This material has been claimed to be used in the Leclerc tank. Do you have a more detail description (what is the angle of the plates, the thickness of the plates and the composition - all NERA plates with thin backplate only)?
  14. No need for elastomers. Glass itself can be used as interlayer material for NERA - see "Glass Armour and Shaped Charge Jets", Dr. Manfred Held, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 23(1998). A 1 and 2 inch thick glass plates can be used to create the desired bulging effect with 3/4 inch steel plates. Given that PGR 20 is used as spall liner, it likely has a decent level of Polycarbonate is very hard, but also very elastic - which is why it is used for riot shields and ballistic windows. If it was only hard, these would shatter on impact. Polypropylene and polycarbonate have a lower young modulus (ca. half of it) than ebonite (aka "hard rubber"), a material which is still elastic to a certain degree.
  15. The armor module to protect the driver against RPGs is NERA.
  16. You are getting ridiculous It literally says Type D armor was offered as drop-in packs for the turret, not as external armor modules. West-Germany offered this to persuade the British Army to buy the Leopard 2A4 as Chieftain replacement and later buy the Type D armor modules as retro-fit option, an offer made after the Leopard 2 with Type C prototype armor failed to meet the claimed protection (stopping 120 mm DM23 from 200 m distance) in 1987 in front of an audience including a British delegation (the British opinion on these firing trials was posted earlier by Wiedzmin). This solution was rejected by the British Army, because even with the projected protection level (i.e. the claimed 600 mm RHAe vs KE), it still was considered to fail at meeting the required protection levels due its the ballistic holes (gunner's sight weakspot and large size of the gun mantlet). Only then the Leopard 2A5 with re-designed gun mantlet and external armor modules started coming in focus. The Challenger 2 was apparently required to reach 500 mm RHAe vs KE and 800 mm RHAe vs CE; which then was uprated (or an increase was at least considered) to 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 900 mm vs CE. As for the protection levels: this is obviously the projected protection, given that the document is from 1987/1988. One has to be careful with the claimed performance, as West-Germany didn't want to reveal anything without a MoU. It might have been the talk of a single soldier/scientists that was considered enough. The late Leopard 2A4 and the variant of the Leopard 2A5 placed in service (not accounting the add-on armor modules) were heavier than the Leopard 2 with Type C armor. There is however one variant of flat/internal armor that was offered in the 1990s as upgrade option of old Leopard 2A4 variants that could stop the LKE1 APFSDS. The claimed HEAT protection is awefully close to HOT-2 at opimal stand-off... Btw. while the Brits assessed the Type B armor to provide protection equal to 350 mm steel against KE rounds, they also said that according to Germany it stopped 125 mm steel APFSDS (with WC slug), which according to the Brits could penetrate 380 mm of steel armor at 1,000 m and 420 mm point-blank. So protection is very variable, always depending on what round is used as reference. DM23 (with 420 mm RHA penetration at 200 m) was considered to be equal to Soviet 125 mm tungsten APFSDS with 475 mm penetration into steel point-blank and 440 mm at 1,000 m. In terms of technology, it is possible to achieve such a major gain in protection while staying at a comparable weight. The Leopard 2's Type C armor was tested eight years after the Type B armor entered service and increased KE protection against monobloc tungsten penetrators by 20%. The Type D armor was expected six/seven years after the trials of Type C armor, so a similar increase in armor protection per weight might not be impossible. According to a declassified British documents, the Challenger 1's Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of 1.3 against APFSDS rounds. If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36. Never seen any description, but it is either a different protection requirement or related to different width limitations of the railway cars (folding down armor panels vs completely unmounting them to reduce width even further). Unlikely. First of all, one does focus protection requirements on enemies - when the MEXAS package for the Leopard 1 was designed (as part of the Canadian KFOR contingent), only Sweden had 40 mm APFSDS rounds, while Russia was still using 30 mm AP. Secondly: in the 1990s Sweden still used the Mk 1 40 mm APFSDS from Bofors, penetration was just 120 mm at 1,500 m. Adding just 10 mm of steel would probably make the hull proof against this round point blank. A few years ago, the armor kit for the Leopard C2 was still marketed by IBD Deisenroth as part of its AMAP-IED product line, i.e. the second level of AMAP-IED: Likely the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C1 and C2 was designed to stop PG-7V and TMRP-6 EFP mines, i.e. the threats feared by NATO during KFOR. No, you are incorrect. The 212 mm LOS is not accounting the empty space between box and glacis plate. Poland has produced NERA module consisting of three sandwich plates capable of completely stopping a PG-7V round, which is mounted on the UFP of the up-armored Rosomak. If the 30 mm box contains two NERA sandwiches, then it is likely capable of reducing penetration of a shaped charge by such an amount that the steel hull can deal with the rest.
  17. Given that Rheinmetall had essentially no local production sites in the UK and didn't deliver any AFVs to the British Army before, I was under the impression that the BAE-GD cooperation was deemed to win until Rheinmetall presented the Challenger 2 LEP & formed Rheinnmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). BAE Systems is a British company that has provided the British Army with Warrior, Challenger 2, AS-90, etc., while General Dynamics European Land Systems is delivering the AJAX family of vehicles. Rheinmetall was the underdog given its limited foothold in the UK, only got in a favourable position after acquiring MAN's military vehicle divison, forming RBSL and getting downselected for the MIV program (has there been a contract for the Boxer yet?).
  18. According to the Brits, Type D base armor is a thing.
  19. The armor modules of the Challenger 2 are always fixed with bolts. Rheinmetall probably added some thin layers of "cosmetic steel" to make everything look flush. These parts of the design are directly taken from Challenger 2. It is a charade to call the turret "new", but its better for marketing I guess... Same as on the original Challenger 2.
  20. A "stepped plate" won't change anything, while being rather weight-inefficient and covering pretty much no arc (the side armor and the mantllet lack "stepped plates"). If you believe the stepped plates were added for protecting the cupola of the loader (even though that doesn't make sense) how do you draw conclusions about the underlying base armor? The frontal armor of the Leopard 2 overlaps the turret ring, so it has to be accessed from the top. The side armor (as discovered by noisy Leopard 2 users trying to improve their own tank industry) can be replaced from the bottom. The mantlet armor was replaced and most definetly the armor at the EMES-15's gunner's sight (which required major redesign, so no "stepped plates"). AFAIK there is a further layer (of ceramics?) added ontop of the UFP, as shown here. According to a Canadian solider, a Leopard C2 surived a hit by an unspecified RPG on the gun mantlet in Afghanistan (or rather a "volley"). This photo is supposed to show the result: Leopard 1A6 prototype were meant to survive ATGM and 125 mm APFSDS at 1,500 m distance. That's a protection level above the original M1 Abrams (although on a reduced frontal arc)!
×
×
  • Create New...