Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Laviduce last won the day on May 4 2019

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.

  1. Here are also seems to be another view of an Abrams turret shell CAD model in the lower right corner of the image: It seems that certain Abrams tank test rigs such as the M1 Thumper used the original M1 turret as a base instead of creating a new turret from scratch.
  2. Thanks for the feedback and additional information. I am trying to figure out what prototype could have been used in 1987. The earliest prototypes besides the 1986 Mulet Systeme Complete (MSC) was the Leclerc Ares prototype. The second prototype, Leclerc Bayard came into being in 1988. Frankly, the Ares prototype is the only Leclerc prototype I have never ever seen an image of in any publication or any other media. I have no idea how that thing looks like. Having said that, in 1987 the only vehicles available for an evaluation would have probably been the MSC (and maybe Ares). As
  3. Here is another diagram to illustrate the idea of the 2 man flat turret design concept being able to use "denser" special armor arrays: Although the modules on both turrets have the same constructive depth, the flat turret design can get away with adding another 3 NERA plates in its special armor array without a volume (really mass) penalty. In this case the flat turret design is even slightly "lighter" (0,176 m3) than the full turret design ( 0,192 m3) while still theoretically improving the protection by 50%.
  4. I was explaining the idea of a 2 man flat turret according to GIAT/Nexter. The illustrations show that heavier(denser) modules can be allocated towards the front of a turret without much or any additional weight penalty. In case of the 3 man turret i might only be able to insert 6 special armor plates where as in case of the 2 man flat turret i can insert another 2,4 for the same mass. I rather go with the 8.4 special armor plate design than with the 6 special armor plate design. These British snippets are indeed problematic because they contradict what has been reported
  5. Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal: Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat. Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection).
  6. The 60 degree frontal arc protection is not as consistent but directly from the front it has its advantages. Having a 2-crew autoloader flat turret design has the advantage that armor can be concentrated and protection improved by up to 74% compared to a 3 crew conventional turret of the same mass. That is what the South Koreans seem to have done. The French did it with the Leclerc to a slightly lesser extent. That also explains why the Leclerc has a similar mass to the Leopard 2A4 yet superior protection in terms of KE and CE resistance. This would also explain to some extent how a 55 ton veh
  7. Interesting! Where was this taken ?
  8. So E- technology armor packages are not meant to be armor inserts to replace the D-technology armor packages, they are meant just as add-on armor packages ?
  9. Does anyone know when the "E-technology" armor packages were introduced to the Leopard 2 line ? I heard that that happened over 10 years ago.
  10. Does anyone know what the distance was on these results again ? Thanks in advance !
  11. FYI , concerning the NP 105 A2 round: "Land Forces of the World" (Christopher Chant, 1990, Crescent Books / Crown Publishers / Brian Todd Publishing House Ltd, ISBN 0-517-69128-0), on page 146 the book describes an NP 105 A2 tungsten APFSDS round with a complete weight of 19.3kg (mid-1980s Jane's A & A suggests a penetrator length of 980mm and penetrator weight of 3.7kg Tungalloy T176FA) and a muzzle velocity of 1485m / sec, giving 150mm @ 60degrees @ 5800m performance (almost 6 inches at just over 3 & 1/2 miles). And the glacis of that T-72M1 was able to stop this round
×
×
  • Create New...