Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.
  2. Thats ok. Thank you, I appreciate your effort!
  3. Can you ask them about the weights of the following: Turret and stripped turret Hull and stripped hull Mantlet Applique armor front turret and side turret Has the EMES15 been replaced with an updated model ? Have there been any armor insert updates ever? Thank you !
  4. As far as i know, roughly: Orange: Should be 20-25 mm thick when the thickness is measure from the normal. Yellow: Seems to be 30 mm primarily. the forward section around the driver could be up to 50 mm thick. Light Orange: Heavy Side skirts are up to 110 mm thick. Side hull 30 mm, up to 50 mm potentially in certain areas. Magenta: Side skirts seem to be between 10-23 mm thick. Side hull seems mostly to be around 30 mm in this area. Purple: Outer side hull sponson seems to be 10 mm thick. Inner walls seem to be 10 mm thick in the forward section and 60 mm in the mid-section. Cyan: Outer side hull sponson also seems to be about 10 mm thick here. Inner side walls will also most likely be not much thicker. Fuel cells, NBC system, batteries are not included in this.
  5. According to Rolf Hilmes the aim of the LKE2/DM53 program was to create a KE shell that had the ability to pierce about 1000 mm of RHA using the L55. Rumor has i that it can penetrate over 900 mm RHA.
  6. I suggested that the average RHAe KE resistance could be around 380-400 mm including 400 mm. It is an after all an estimate.
  7. To clarify myself, as far as i know the overall mantlet/trunnion KE resistance of the Leopard 2 (B-tech level) is between 250 and 350 mm . That does not mean the mantlet/trunnion has a KE resistance of 350 mm overall necessarily.
  8. The barrel length of the L44 is given at 5280 , which works out with the rest of the drawings. Yet, there is a problem. The length of the gun assembly (muzzle to breech block mechanism end) is given at 5593. In my scaled drawings that length is about 5550 mm. Also, the ~300-350 mm RHAe against KE estimate includes the trunnion block. Using the approximate thickness efficiency of the turret faces i got an actual mantlet KE resistance range of around 180-220 mm RHAe.
  9. I am not totally sure why there is such a significant discrepancy (40-45 mm vs. 70mm). I made a serious effort to properly scale the drawings. Concerning the turret ring guard, it should make a small but at least somewhat noticeable difference. Also, has anyone figured out how and where the side turret special armor inserts terminate ?
  10. You are welcome. I am getting the impression that the area in question might have been thickened in parts in the Leopard 2A5 and later models. Three deflector plates in front of the loaders periscope are clearly visible.
  11. Do we get any information from the document about the actual Type 10 protection levels ?
  12. a) I think the boundary of the green/yellow line should be at the Peri R17 level. b) From a properly scaled Rolf Hilmes Leopard 2 cross section i get the following: green: 40-45 mm max. I seriously do not understand how they can get 70 mm unless they include the spall liner on later Leopard 2s orange: 15-20 mm. 20 mm was outlined in design change documents of the Leopard 2AV, IIRC. red: up to 40 mm yellow: 30 mm cyan: 10 mm ? Looks really thin, does not show up well in the drawing for measurement. yellow: 30 mm max. Also, the turret bustle bottom seems to be 20 mm thick.
  13. As far as i could see, the length of the upper part of the mantlet is about 510 mm, including the overhang. The maximum thickness from the front to the back seems to be 420 mm not including the overhang.
  14. Thank you for the feedback! What do you mean by this statement? It does not seem that i removed that much from my previous model. I just balanced the greater KE resistance to the other turret face given what we currently know , more or less.
  15. Something that should make us think:
  16. Diagram from an Aselsan research paper dealing with gun tube vibrations (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914716301234?via%3Dihub):
  17. My latest estimate. Oddly enough, according to the Lindstroem presentation on page 53, the right front of the Leopard 2 is better protected than the left. I incorporated this in this estimate. Any feedback would be appreciate. 
  18. Yes, i read about that too. Spielberger also talked about those D-technology based side skirts but i never had anyone go any deeper into the subject matter than Hilmes. Looking at the chart I also think it is possible that D technology Leopard 2A4 turrets were produced that early (1991-1992). On the other hand, this diagram could just have been part of the Krauss Maffei information brochures sent to Sweden after the request-for-information (RFI) was sent to Germany in November of 1991. Answers were received no later than March 1992. This image might actually show a projected introduction of the 3rd generation armor package in response to the future soviet tank (FST->T-90).
  19. Some information on the armor package types on the German Leopard 2s:
  20. Does anyone know where the gun elevation mechanism of the Leclerc is located and how it looks like? Using DarkLabors older CAD model i am getting the impression that the marked object is part of the gun elevation mechanism: The real thing:
  21. I have 4 questions: 1) Where is the Leclerc's electric turret traverse mechanism located in the turret? 2) Where is the Leclerc's gun elevation mechanism located in the turret ? 3) How is the HL-60 gunner sight mechanically linked to the optics of the gunner? It seems the entire HL-60 sight moves with the gun up and down. 4) What is the diameter of the turret basket? It seems to me that the dark blue and the yellow box next to the ER315 radio have somethign to do with the turret traverse. I have no idea where the gn elevation mechanism is. I would appreciate any pictures and/or feedback that would answer the questions! Thank you in advance.
  22. The mantlet drawing in the first image must be wrong. The vertical movement axis seems to be further back. The 420 mm that i got are maximum values. My first estimate for the actual mantlet not including the trunnion was around 380-400 mm. I was told that the mantlet was thicker than that. I will not name names. Also the mantlet in your image that is labelled as ~200 mm should be more like 270-280 mm. The part labelled as trunnion? is about 260 mm thick. This would give us LOS thickness of about 540 mm. After having taken a closer look at the mantlet setups on the Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks, i have come to the conclusion that the trunnion of the Type 90 could be located right above the turret ring edge. If we have position the 200 mm thick trunnion block according to the available drawings and models (i.e.Tamiya), this would leave us with about 390 mm of space to work with for the actual trunnion thickness. I will make the changes. -------------------------------------------------------------- Small update with change:
  23. Thank you for your response, I appreciate the effort. I hope more information gets released and found. It seems quite a few tanks protection capabilities have been overhyped. This makes me believe that the protection requirement estimates in the Chieftain book by Richard Taylor are referring to the protection offered at 1000m and not point blank range. Questions: 1) At what distance does the Challenger 2 turret (cheeks?) and glacis offer protection against the 125 mm rounds of the T-72? Is it at 1000m and above or at point blank distances? In the image i could not see the distance given for the Challenger 2. 2) From what document does this information come from? 3) How old is this document?
  • Create New...