Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 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. "...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
  5. 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).
  6. 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:
  7. 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 !
  8. 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 a
  9. 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 t
  10. 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 !
  11. 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:
  12. 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.
  13. that sucks! Are they any viable estimates on the protection level of the early Merkava I , II and III ? I am getting the impression that a lot of the general estimates of many MBTs out there are overestimates. The Leopard 2A5 turret cheeks having a KE resistance of 1300 mm RHAem is a good example of these overly "optimistic" estimates.
  14. What about the general protection levels? Are they wrong ?
  15. Is there any validity left in those Chinese protection values for the early Merkava III ?
  16. Hello guys, i need your wisdom and insight! would you guys know the approximate LOS thickness of the Leclerc front hull "beak" ? Im looking for the LOS thickness of the special armor in front of the fuel cell. Here is my preliminary estimate:
  17. In summary , how valid are these chinese protection diagrams ?
  18. How far along are you with your Merkava I and II study ?
  19. But how valid is this information on the Merkava III ?
  20. Hello Xoon ! Here are the translations: red - Operational Pressure orange - Control Pressure/Actuators yellow - Pre-control pressure green - Recoil white - N2 white - Air These should be about right.
  21. Hi Xoon, I do not have all the information you requested but this might be of interest. According to Krapke: For the Leopard 2(A0-A4) the gun laying system or Waffennachführanlage (WNA) is known as H22. It is a electric-hydraulic retarder control eqipped hydrostatic motor where an electric motor powers a coaxial piston pump which pumps the hydraulic fluid out of the reservoir into hydro storage cell. Here is the diagram of the WNA H22:
  22. we need more !!!!! We need ....https://media.giphy.com/media/wLXo0vTZSM7GU/giphy.gif !!!!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...