Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • 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. From what document are these pictures from ? What year was this document created ? Thanks in advance !
  2. From what document is this from ? What year was this released ?
  3. I am not sure if this applies to the new or old smoke grenade launcher boxes:
  4. Thank you for feedback! I tired to keep it simple and not get into details, since i had limited information and limited time for the model before i had to move on to the vulnerability study.
  5. Ahh, thats ok. I am grateful for your contributations. Does this seem like a reasonable approximation for the gun-mantlet assembly ?
  6. Also; the gun mantlet area as well as the gun elevation mechanism. Thank you ! :3
  7. My model against 700 mm KE threat at -20 degrees from the front: Original FMV model against 700 mm KE threat at -20 degrees from the front:
  8. Thank you for your response. The top diagrams seem to show the protection of the entire vehicle, not only the turret. As you pointed out, the magenta colored plot seems to correspond to the left diagram and the yellow plot corresponds to the diagram on the right. Here is my DM33 estimate on the Leclerc S1:
  9. No , this tank is not an M1A2C. The turret face is a little to thin (by 1-2 inches) and the hull towing connectors are of the old type. It seems to be an M1A2B.
  10. Could someone explain this center plot to me again? I assumed that the different colors represented the KE protection coverage offered on the Leopard 2 using 5 different armor (wedge? / insert?) types (B, C, D1, D2, D3). Looking at the T-80U front protection coverage: Overlaying the D1 frontal (0 degrees) plot with the T-80U plot, Leclerc plot of the Swedes and the Leclerc plot of my model i get the following results: These results confuse me. I used to the plot below to generate the plot for my model above. The T80U offers better armor coverage and resistance compared to the "D1" Leopard 2 and my modeled Leclerc. The D1 armored Leopard 2 barely shows any significant improvements over the modeled Leclerc and it is overall inferior to the T-80U in terms of KE resistance from the front. Here is the -20 degree plot: I tried to come as close as possible to the Swedish results when i did my calculations. Both the Swedish model and my model of the Leclerc offer inferior KE protection coverage to the export M1A2 at -20 degrees from the front. My questions: 1) What armor combination, wedge and insert type, was used to get the following results: From what i have seen and read, I do not believe that the T-80U offers better KE resistance over the front, yet the D1 plot shows the Leo 2 (D1) to be inferior. I believe that D2 ord D3 armor technology was used to generate the diagram above. 2) Do you think my Leclerc plot comes "close enough" to the Swedish (FMV) Leclerc plot? I would appreciate your response and feedback.
  11. Cross-section of the Leopard 2(A0-A4) with uncensored hull front geometry:
  12. Test Line-Of-Sight Thickness Diagram overlay at +10 degrees of the Leclerc S1 model: The overlay diagram is just a test. Considerable more fine tweaking has to go into it before i can release the rest. The MATLAB program measures the LOS thickness in 10 mm intervals over any part of the crew compartment using pixelated slices of the vehicles in a .png picture format. I have tested it several times with smaller inputs and it seems to work, although it has to process for 30+ minutes for each aspect. Note that this is not the vulnerability diagram. As one can see the left front hull LOS is not visible because it went below the value color threshold. Other color coding schemes are available, which i might use instead of this "hot" color scheme. The values vary from a couple of centimeters to a couple of meters. The tracks and the main gun are the primary contributor for these large differences. The program and/or the slice diagram could be adjusted to get rid of the main gun and track assembly so the program generates a more reasonable output. Either way, more fine tuning and work is required to get the diagrams to a presentable level.
×
×
  • Create New...