Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    I might not be able to do that, but Rheinmetall just did that. During upgrade and rebuilding processes, turrets of Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs have been completely stripped down, meaning all internal and external components have been removed. There is no reason why this should be impossible with the Challenger 2. The rest is a bit of engineering work that any medium-sized military vehicle integrator should be able to carry out. Technical documentation, specifications and blueprints were likely provided by the British military when the two Challenger 2 tanks were handed over to Rheinmetall (even if this didn't happen, they'd be able to do that by themselves). During the early stage of the Leopard 2 development, three different construction mechanisms were used to create the turret shells for the prototypes. There really isn't any magic required to move from a cast to a welded construction. As for the armor I can only point towards to Grant Turnbull's article, which mentioned this aspect: the Challenger 2 LEP is a program focused on obsolescence management. Replacing the gun or improving the armor protection isn't part of it and the figures released by Rheinmetall during its Capital Markets Day 2018 suggests that the company is banking on an increased budget for the gun replacement, so many changes to the armor aren't financially feasible. Most likely the statement from Turnbull's article is a reference to the changed in turret bustle protection and/or improved protection via using welded steel. A new armor package would require an extensive qualification program on side of the British MoD (risking delaying the whole program) and likely would have looked more similar to the other offers from Rheinmetall: Why would the gun mantlet and original turret front shape remain unaltered, when the steel citadel is replaced and a whole new armor package is added? I never said that. I posted a picture showcasing why it is not a brand new turret, you just added your own interpretations to it (at first "that guy considers everything obsolete that the guy marked" and now "that guy things everything is unaltered that is marked in the picture"). You notice that I never said anything along these lines; instead I even pointed out in my last reply, that the Thales Orion sight is now fitted. The identical location of the gunner's sight and commander's cupola, which leads to a weakspot is worth nothing, showing that this isn't exactly brand new. But well, maybe you should go for your own suggestions and play "wait and see", rather then registering to this forum because you were trigged by your own interpretations of my picture and made rash opinions.
  2. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    Yes, but it wasn't extensively marketed as a brand new turret design suited for other future tanks. It was said from the very beginning to be an improved version of the existing turret design, which I'd argue is the case with the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Rheinmetall aswell. Everything except the new Thales Orion sights is unchanged. Also this is not a render, but a photograph of a photo printed on a poster. Yes, this was changed to meet the basic requirements of the Challenger 2 Lifetime Extension Programme. The "it's a new turret" argument is mostly marketing. They made a new steel structure, then did just enough work to meet the minimum requirements (removal of obsolencies in FCS and digital systems) and added all old parts to it. A turret is more than steel shell, given that fact that the 120 mm smoothbore gun is not a final offer (the budget for the gun replacement has still to be allocated and the decision to integrate it has still to be approved by the British MoD) Rheinmetall is essentially offering the same turret as BAE Systems, but they can bait all journalists with "brand new turret" after changing the internal steel citadel and extending the bustle. People have been calling me a paid Rheinmetall shill in the past (I actually was once invited by them, but due to communication issues, I missed the event), but I have to call them out for this "brand new turret" marketing claims. Outdated systems can be found on other tanks too. The whole vision & situational awareness concept for the crew hasn't seen any modernization; Rheinmetall originally teasered adopting its Situational Awareness System to provide 360° camera surveillance with automated target identification and tracking, but this apparently has been dropped in favor of the budget. The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk and has been criticized by British soldiers over at ARRSE for years; given that Rheinmetall has been trying to push its RMG 7.62 on its other current vehicle offers, this just shows how they had to cheap out in order to stay within budget. On other tanks, work is done to enhance and improve situational awareness while some of the other obsolencies found on the Challenger 2 do not exist in the same fashion (but all tanks have their own issues). You also notice that I marked all the parts in order to show that they were unchanged and this turret was not brand new, rather than claiming every single of them was obsolete?
  3. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components. The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.
  4. https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4835-rafael-trophy-aps-for-leopard-2.html
  5. 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".
  6. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    "brand new welded turret"
  7. 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."
  8. 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... ).
  9. 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?
  10. 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...
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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:
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Thanks for the correction. I typed "T-72B" into google and that came up. Didn't pay attention to the details.
  17. (I misread.)
  18. SH_MM

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    The Evolution package is not the "only and best" solution; but there are only very few upgrade options and it is among the best. IBD Deisenroth is a large company, the market leader in composite armor solutions in Germany; it is not a company depending on a single product or man to be succesful. Just last years they revealed winning a contract for a new armor kit for the Boxer, their new Smart ProTech armor, that a new NERA kit for the Puma had been qualified and that they started working on turret designs for the MGCS. The company also has started to offer protection analysis (as computer simulation aswell as ballistic tests) for external costumers, recently the armor for Czech Gerlach from Zetor Engineering was tested by IBD Deisenroth. The company has sold tens of thousands of armor kits and keeps making new ones. As for the changes in company lead; that is hardly relevant. It really doesn't matter if a man or his daughters are leading the company or wether it got sold to Rheinmetall (or any other bidder) is irrelevant, tha doesn't affect the performance. Wether Rheinmetall, IBD Deisenroth or any other name is written on the armor doesn't matter. Also note that I specifically mentioned that these are claims made by the manufacturer and that one always should be careful with marketing claims. The reason why the armor provides such a high level of protection per weight, is that it trades higher weight-efficiency for larger volume and a lower multi-hit capability. Tests with the same armor array in the ISL during the late 1970s showed that by increasing the space between certain layers, a 15% increase in protection could be achieved (or at the same protection level, armor weight could be reduced to ~86%) - that is because NERA, NxRA and anti-KE armor arrays designed to shatter the projectile or induce yaw to it, become more efficient when spaced further away. That is why single NERA layers in scientific papers (with usually more than 1,000 mm empty space behind them) can reduce the penetration of shaped charge warheads by massive amounts, leading to a mass efficiency of sometimes more than 20, while actual armor (like Chobham) had a mass efficiency between 2 and 4 against shaped charges. The added space, new materials and better optimizations allow AMAP-SC allows to reach a mass efficiency of 8 to 10. The Leopard 2A5's wedge armor also relies on the same principles as the AMAP add-on modules. Last but not least you are looking two decades in technological advancements. KMW is not developing its own special armor. The Bergepanzer 2 (locally called Taurus) of Canada is fitted with MEXAS, these kits were already purchased during KFOR. The Leguan bridge-layer isn't sold with add-on armor by KMW, it uses a standard Leopard 2 hull. The Leopard 2A7V for the German army will receive add-on armor made by IBD's Greek office (as the hulls are remanufactured there), same happened with the Leopard 2A7+ hulls for Qatar. All current products of KMW rely on armor made by other companies, often GEKE/RUAG or IBD, but sometimes other suppliers aswell. KMW just never directly reveal swho makes the armor. This is AMAP-SC, a type of NERA or NxRA. This is SidePRO-RPG armor from RUAG, it is used on the Leopard 2 MLU at the rear sections of the turret (turret bustle). It is extremly weight-efficient (not as good as slat armor, but has a higher working probability) and can include an optional layer of perforated armor against 14.5 mm AP rounds (when fitted to light vehicles like the M113). It doesn't work against RPGs and ATGMs with long stand-off probes or tandem warheads (i.e. it would fail to protect against the PG-7VLT). This actually is not the same armor as previously, but SidePRO-ATR; it is also NERA/NxRA and RUAG's competitor to AMAP-SC & AMAP-B. RUAG sells the armor of GEKE Schutztechnik, a German company partially owned by it. GEKE/RUAG provide certain armor systems for the Leopard 2, Puma and Boxer.
  19. SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Well, you are right, but I think we are looking at the tanks from different perspectives: You ask the question wether the requirements were well suited for the tanks and focus on the actual situation on the (hypothetical) battlefield. In this regard you are clearly correct with your assessment. In my previous posts in this discussion, I was more focused on the perspective of the requirements, i.e. how the engineers try to meet their goals. The Leopard 2 with "B" technology armor's lower level of KE protection clearly is a negative factor in real life combat, but based on the Swedish leaks it seems that the gun mantlet still reaches 350 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE or more when seen directly from the front, which is rather impressive as this seems to be the desired protection level along the frontal arc (so the main turret armor will also provide roughly ~350 mm protection vs KE when hit in such a way, that the slope in the horizontal plane is negated) - in other words, the tank seemed to have a rather consistent level of protection, but the protection requirement was too low in hind-sight. The T-72A/M1 seems to have been built with a higher level of protection against KE, but less consistent coverage. The Challenger 1's lack of a gun mantlet might have been the best solution when only looking at armor coverage (trying to minimize weakspots), but made replacing the barrel and accessing the gun a nightmare. The Leopard 2AV was not a good tank, pretty much a prototype. They couldn't spend lots of time on the design stage and testing all changes, because the deadline to participate at the US trials was too close. The decision to integrate the fuel tanks into the hull armor was however made following a suggestion by the US Army. According to the testimony of a West-German general to the US officials (indirectly to the US Congress) it was a "mistake" that the weight demonstrators in the mobility trials didn't correlate with the true weight of the tank, but their is a large probability that this was a lie. Both sides (US inudstry/Army and the Germans) were focused on doing their best to get the US Army to spend millions on buying their respective tanks. The US government originally agreed to send all design and development papers of the XM1 designs to West-German, but declared them "top secret" after having received the Leopard 2AV designs... such behaviour from both sides is rather counterproductive when trying to make sure that NATO has the best possible equipment - unfortunately it is still common. I think you may have misunderstood me. I never intended to say that the T-72 (and other Soviet designs) was worse in all aspects regarding tank design, armor protection and the focus on trying to minimize weakspots than all NATO tanks. There are places where the T72's armor layout and design is better than that of the Leopard 2, there are places where the Challenger 1 is worse and there are places where all contemporary NATO tanks are worse than the T-72A. I believe that the Challenger 1 is not a good design in many aspects, which is likely related to the low development effort and its origin as an export tank. The MBT-80 would have been a lot better in pretty much every category bar costs. Btw. according to Hilmes, the gun trunion/cradle length of the T-72A is just 870 mm, while it was extended to 1,510 mm on the T-72B. A longer gun trunion/cradle means the gun is less affected by oscillations and easier to stabilize; but on the T-72A, the area of the trunions is the weakened section in the center of the turret - so does the T-72B have a larger weakened area than the T-72A? Yes, the lowest edges are always an issue, but subjectively I thought that it was a bigger issue than on the Leopard 2. Maybe I was wrong, I've never seen a lot of data regarding this (aside of comparisons between scale drawings). Maybe these weakspots are similar in size, but they just are a lot easier to see on the T-72(B): I agree; as I said, tank designs are trade-off. Sometimes there isn't one perfect answer to a question (for example how to protect the gun mantlet area), but there are different options. For example eliminating the gun manlet, having a smaller weakened zone, but needing to lift the turret of the tank everytime there needs to be work done on the tank. Having a large gun mantlet covering the complete gun cradle allows a much easier access, but also means a larger weakened zone - which when adding more armor to this area can be reduced, but never eliminated. Having a small gun mantlet with lower level of protection is also a valid solution, which can be better than the former - if you don't get hit on the smaller mantlet. Well, the situation is a bit messy, because the original photograph printed in Krapke's book is rather small (whole image is 2.4 x 7 cm) with limited resolution. Maybe you are right and the edges are proturding over the armor block; but by how much? Is the extrusion at the top completely part of the proturding edges (as assumed by you) or only partial? Also note that the center section of the mantlet includes a plate for the gun trunion to screw into, which is actually proturding even further than the edges - but what is it made of? Steel, aluminium, titanium? Is it hollow or solid? If you think so, maybe I am. I am obviously biased in regards to thus statement and I disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, I specifically phrase my sentences carefully when speculating and/or questionable (note that I'm often using words like "supposed", "might", "could", "allegedly") to show that this is either not confirmed or that this is supported by "weak" sources only. I am willing to change my mind and not using outdated or incorrect sources rather than having an opinion set in stone (e.g. I am not considering a table in an overview document citing "Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide" as source to be better and more accurate than official reports from NCR). I also don't dislike any sort of technology (be it a gun, a tank or anything civilian) because of a personal dislike of certain people/countries (unlike our favorite Abrams' fanboy, who hates stuff just because it is German and Germany conquered and occupied Poland during WW2). I do however not accept incorrect statements or unreasonable bashing. I wouldn't say that I am "protecting the Leopard 2" specifically, due to my language skills, nationality and personal connection/experience it is however the MBT for which I happen to have access to the largest number of souurces and I hope that this way I can provide the most to discussions. If I'd speak French, I'd probably buy and read lots of books and articles regarding their military hardware - just like I would probably have a deeper interest in Soviet/Russian tanks, if I spoke Russian. I however do not and secondary sources (like for example the rather limited "Osprey New Vanguard" books) are often rather bad. I wouldn't mind you posting more information about other tanks, so I'll keep on learning about them. As translated by Cicerio, scio me nescire. As I said I don't know how the Leopard 2's armor does perform in this regard; I specifically pointed that out. The UK however believed that the Leopard 2's armor is a copy of Chobham armor, so it seems relevant to this discussion; if you have better sources, please post them. Based on the estimated armor weight (difference between values from Spielberger regarding the weight of the steel construction minus special armor and HImes regaridng the weight of the "naked" tank with special armor) and the Swedish leaks, the overall special armor of the Leopard 2 seems to be have a mass efficiency 1.1 and 1.3 against APFSDS for the left turret cheek. There are no accurate informations regarding CE protection and the exact construction of the gun mantlet (how thick are the cover plates for the special armor?), so there isn't much more to say.
  20. SH_MM

    DRDO; India's Porsche

    Best quote... showcasing a massive lack of self reflection:
  21. SH_MM

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    I wouldn't agree with that statement. The gun mantlet is always a weak spot, even on the Leopard 2A5. However the amount of armor seems to differ quite dramatically between tanks, with many designers focusing on reducing the overall size of the mantlet rather than trying to add lots of armor to that. For example on Abrams the special armor cavity at the front of the gun mantlet seems to be less than 300 mm thick, unless the soldiers in the following picture happen to be giants... The Merkava's design seems to also to be very much focused on reducing the size of the gun mantlet rather than focusing on providing it with thick armor. On the earlier models, there isn't much of a question. For the Merkava 4, the mantlet is extremely small (one of the smallest one in use), but it still seems to be fitted with rather limited protection only: The T-90A with welded turret seems to have a decent mantlet thickness based on drawings and exterior photographs, but the earlier Soviet-designed tanks didn't feature any special armor at the gun mantlet. Russian language articles have claimed a protection level of 900 mm RHS vs KE, but I doubt that this is based on official claims. It seems highly unlikely that the T-90A's turret armor array or a similar construction is used in the T-14 Armata. Any source for these claims? The T-90 and T-90A were made as cheap main battle tanks to keep the industry alive, the Soviets already had better armor in development and proposed for all of their next-generation desgisn (both Kontakt-5 and the "bulging plates" main armor was therefore outdated in certain aspects). They are totally not and that was some very weird and questionable napkin math. That is way too heavy to be a reliable estimate. The complete special armor of the Leopard 2 from 1979 supposedly weighs between 5.4 and 5.5 metric tons - for a total weight of 55.15 metric tons; putting the weight of the tank without special armor at 49.65 to 49.75 metric tons. With 9 to 12 metric tons of glacis main armor (and the tank is also featuring special armor at the sides of the hull and roof) and additional ERA - the Kontakt-1 kit for the T-80BV weighed 1.2 metric tons; the T-14's heavy ERA covering a larger area (hull flanks, roof and glacis) should weigh a lot more - the T-14 tank without any special armor would have a weight significantly lower than 40 metric tons, which I'd consider impossible given its size. The unmanned turreet allows shaving a few metric tons away, but not that much. Unless you are mixing short and metric tons, your claim is incorrect. Only a relatively small part of the weight is special armor, as the steel construction, ammunition, gun and internal components are quite heavy. For example the weight of non-armor (neither steel structure nor composite armor) of a Leopard 2A4 turret is more than 6.5 metric tons. The T-14 Armata's turret is likely heavier than 10 metric tons (as it features a heavier gun than the old Rh 120 L44, has a basic steel structure, roof armor and ERA, an APS, a RWS, etc.). The main problem I have with perforated DU armor plates in the Abrams is that there is no source suggesting anything like that. All speculation regarding such a design seems to be related to a statement regarding a "DU mesh" on Wikipedia - it was never provided with a reference to a source and hence removed quite a while ago; yet it seems to still hang around in the minds and memories of lots of people. Using DU as material for a NERA array was at least scientifically tested by the UK. It is the only known case of a DU armor array being tested (while Sweden did also test DU, we have no idea about what the specific armor arrays looked like). SLERA is trading some multi-hit capability for a higher overall performance; so to answer your question: the theoretical DU SLERA would outperform the other types, but would withstand less consecutive hits in the same area.
×