Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Laviduce last won the day on March 28

Laviduce had the most liked content!

About Laviduce

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Laviduce

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    I thought so too. My original believe was that it has a LOS thickness of about 60 mm: "The bustle rack side armor seems to be spaced and around 60-70 mm thick. (1 Possible solution: 35 mm steel-10 mm air gap + 15 mm steel). " I was not sure if the outer shell was the thinner or thicker plate. But then an Ex Leopard 2A4 tanker had this to say: " It is around 80-85mm with air gap inside not thicker than 15mm,..." Concerning the roof, I was getting ready to set the roof thickness at 30 mm where the hatches are and about 45 mm where the sloped front roof is. In the Hilmes diagrams it looks like that part is about 40-45 mm thick, so i was thinking about going with the 45 mm. Also the Swiss archives had to this to say about the Leopard 2 documents: "Experience shows that about 85-90% of the requests for insight are granted (viewed as a whole). Therefore, I could well imagine that your application would be approved accordingly. The term of protection for these documents is 80 years. This means that you will be freely accessible from the year 2063. I suspect that this takes too long. However, you are welcome to submit an application for access to these three dossiers at www.swiss-archives.ch. The processing of such an application usually takes 4-6 weeks. Any authorization is then valid for life."
  2. Laviduce

    Syrian conflict.

    Will anyone hold these aggressors responsible or will they get a pass again ? The US and their vassals are acting like a collective Hitler, totally out-of-control.
  3. Laviduce

    Syrian conflict.

    The governments of these baltic countries remind me of those countries that aligned themselves with Nazi Germany during WW2. They seem to sell themselves to anyone just to get revenge. I wonder if these governments (butthurt troublemakers)will still be so enthusiastic and confrontational if push comes to shove.
  4. Laviduce

    Syrian conflict.

    Outrageous !
  5. Laviduce

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    "...doesn't mean that the frontal armor protecttion is lower; given that the Abrams has more side armor..." I concur! Concerning the M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2A1 protection question, I was somewhat confused about the comment by Spielberger. Looking at my protection solution of the Leopard 2A1 and the estimates of the M1 Abrams it seems that the turret front of the Leopard 2 might actually be better protected against KE (and maybe CE) rounds compared to the M1. The front hull of the M1 seems to be better protected than the Leopard 2. The side turret of the M1 is better protected compared to the Leopard 2 for somewhat obvious reasons. Reading the Spielberger comment I always assumed that all aspects of both the turret and the hull of the Leopard 2 were not as good protected compared to the M1. I never considered that the protection difference issue might be a bit more complex than that. Also, according to the Archives the documents in Schutzfrist could be cleared for access if requested in about 4 to 6 weeks. They will let me know further details.
  6. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    As mentioned on the site; the information comes from "... posts on Tanknet the premier source of tank discussion online. Also from Stephen Zaloga's various works on Russian MBTs, GSPO forum, Hilmes' books, Hunnicutt Patton and Abrams, Janes IDR and the NII Stali website. " Some of the values shown on the site do correspond to values revealed in recent documents, while others are rather more questionable (e.g.: Challenger 1 Lower hull front of Mk1/3 version had ERA = 520mm KE).
  7. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    With the CR1 protection numbers, I personally did not believe the "engineer rumor" myself. I just did not believe that British could compose an armor array that would offer a superior armor efficiency compared to their US and German counterparts. There are quite a few issues: 1) The British are aware of the threat the 125 mm guns pose by no later than 1981. 2) The armor array of the Challenger 1 was never upgraded as far as i know while it was in service (1983-1997). If these two statements are true we need to ask the following question: If the Challenger 1 turret offers a similar protection level like their German and US counterparts, why were the armor packages of the Challenger 1 never replaced while in service ? The British thought it was necessary to up-armour their Chieftains but they did not find it necessary to up-armor their Challenger 1s by replacing the old armor packages with new ones? Either the armor package was replaced or the original armor package was considered adequate enough to already offer enough protection to deal with the 125 mm ammunition. I really wonder where the Armed Forces Journal Author got his numbers from.
  8. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Apologies ! I was just really looking forward to finding some original sources on the protection level of the Ariete, yet it turned out that i was moving in circles yet again. What a shame !
  9. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    according to mysterious sources: " ... In any case, the level of protection, in particular against APFSDS projectiles, remains the Achilles' heel of the vehicle, reaching 500 mm in the frontal arc of the turret (C1 Ariete), a thickness comparable to that of a Soviet T-72B of the 1980s but lower than that of contemporaries M1 Abrams or Leopard 2. " Yay !!!! ...wait a minute!!!! source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13 OM*G! The turret values might actually be correct but there is no way of practically veryifying it either way. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!
  10. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    I also read that the CR2 was expected to have a KE resistance lower than that of the M1A1 HA. I think this came from a British assessment document. Yet there is a problem , the British were aware of the threats posed by the 125 mm guns. There is little reason to believe that the British were not successful of reaching a protection level of 500 mm RHAe in the 60 frontal arc. This would translate to about 580 mm RHAe from the front. The M1A1 HA KE protection in the frontal 60 degree arc was stated to be around 600 mm RHAe. This would translate to a KE resistance of up to 690 mm directly from the front. What we know: CR1 - Armed Forces Journal estimate: 580 mm RHAe CR1 - Engineer Rumor: 620 mm RHAe Average between the sources: 600 mm RHAe M1A1 HA - multiple sources - up to 690 mm RHAe CR2 - British document projection - below M1A1 HA level This would give us: 600 mm RHAe < CR2 KE resistance < 690 mm RHAe -> reasonable middle ground for the CR2 turret cheek armor from the front 650 mm RHAe This would satisfy the requirement of the CR2 offering marginally inferior KE resistance compared to the M1A1 HA but marginally superior KE protection compared to the CR1. Now 50 mm is not much of an improvement but it could still be true. The jump in KE resistance from the M1 to the M1A1 was also around 50 mm if we follow the given sources. The increase in CE resistance was more significant, from 700 mm RHAe all the way up to 1000 mm RHAe for the frontal 60 degree protection arc. The CR2 could have followed the same idea, where an increase in CE protection was emphasized over an increase in KE protection.
  11. Laviduce

    Syrian conflict.

    Those evil Russians ! Why are they so evil ? Why is Putin so evil ? Why does he gas people and invade countries in Europe and the middle east ? This is so confusing. Thank goodness i have the BBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. to keep me informed !
  12. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    The following diagram seems to show some old "weldlines" on the hull of a Leclerc prototype concept. Given the dimensions of the hull, nothing much seems to have changed between this prototype concept and the Leclerc Serie 1 hull. This would give the front hull a LOS thickness of 600-620 640 mm, which conveniently falls within the limits of the earlier diagram:
  13. Laviduce

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    here is some info dealing with the protection requirement of the Chieftain of the 1980s: This also makes me believe that the turret "cheek" armor protection of the Challenger 1 is 500+ mm RHAe against subcalibre KE threats. The Armed Forces Journal estimate of 580 mm RHAe and the British CR1 engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.
×