Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. Laviduce
    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.
  2. Laviduce
    Does anyone know what the distance was on these results again ? Thanks in advance !
  3. Laviduce
    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 ?
  4. Laviduce
    Yeah, i saw that. Wonder what the penetration figure would be for a 60 degree inclined standard RHA plate.
  5. Laviduce
    Yes, exactly. I might have jumped the gun by just looking at the numbers and not knowing anything about the testing conditions (e.g. range to target,etc.).
  6. Laviduce
    I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety.
  7. Laviduce
    I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe not including weak zones. I would expect T-72B hulls to be this resistant but not T-72A/M1 hulls. Can someone explain this to me ?
  8. Laviduce
    So the Challenger 2 turret mass is around 18 metric tons ?
  9. Laviduce
    Thanks for the heads up !
  10. Laviduce
    In other news: "Marines to Shut Down All Tank Units, Cut Infantry Battalions in Major Overhaul" In the next decade, the Marine Corps will no longer operate tanks or have law enforcement battalions. It will also have three fewer infantry units and will shed about 7% of its overall force as the service prepares for a potential face-off with China. More here: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/23/marines-shut-down-all-tank-units-cut-infantry-battalions-major-overhaul.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1584990680 and "New Marine Corps Cuts Will Slash All Tanks, Many Heavy Weapons As Focus Shifts to Lighter, Littoral Forces" The Marine Corps will soon lay out its path to achieve a 2030 force optimized for conflict with China in the littorals – a force that will completely divest of its tanks and slash most of its artillery cannon battalions, instead focusing on developing light mobility options to get around island chains with the assistance of unmanned systems and mobile anti-ship missiles. from here: https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/new-marine-corps-cuts-will-slash-all-tanks-many-heavy-weapons-as-focus-shifts-to-lighter-littoral-forces
  11. Laviduce
    Not sure if you all have seen this before. This is a chart that shows of the technical details of the BM Oplot tank and VT4 tank. Richard Gao over at the SinoDefense Forum was so kind enough to translate the original chart: I am not sure if about the protection values. According to the chart, the turret front and hull front of the Oplot are rated at: KE(3BM42/OFL120F1)>= 1100 mm** CE(<Kornet-E>) >= 1300 mm** As far as I know, the 3BM42 has the ability to penetrate roughly 500 mm of RHA (260 BHN?) at 2000 m. The OFL120F1 penetrates around 560-600 of RHA (260 BHN?) at 2000 m. Could anyone please explain this information?
  12. Laviduce
  13. Laviduce
    From what document are these pictures from ? What year was this document created ? Thanks in advance !
  14. Laviduce
    From what document is this from ? What year was this released ?
  15. Laviduce
    I am not sure if this applies to the new or old smoke grenade launcher boxes:
  16. Laviduce
    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.
  17. Laviduce
    Ahh, thats ok. I am grateful for your contributations. Does this seem like a reasonable approximation for the gun-mantlet assembly ?
  18. Laviduce
    Also; the gun mantlet area as well as the gun elevation mechanism. Thank you ! :3
  19. Laviduce
    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:
  20. Laviduce
    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:
  21. Laviduce
    Thank you for the feedback !
  22. Laviduce
    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.
  23. Laviduce
    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.
  24. Laviduce
    Cross-section of the Leopard 2(A0-A4) with uncensored hull front geometry:
  25. Laviduce
    Allegedly the M829A4 round:
×
×
  • Create New...