Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. 1) Yes, i simplified the diagrams to show the approximate areas of vulnerability. Here is a more detailed breakdown of the roof area of the model: Overall, i would still consider this roof area to be a weakened zone given the quickly decreasing LOS thickness of the special armor and thinness of the roof plate. The trunnion area follows the same example. I assumed that this zone belongs to the 500+ mm RHAe areas in the diagram. I set this value to 5% of the total surface. 2) Spielberger said the following about the Leopard 2 vs. M1 Abrams Swiss tank trials (1981-1984): "Der Leopard 2 zeigte sich seinen Konkurrenten in den Kriterien Feuerkraft und Beweglichkeit ueberlegen und beim Schutz nicht ganz gleichwertig." "The Leopard 2 demonstrated that it is superior compared its competitors in terms of firepower and mobility but not totally an equal when it comes to protection" Source: Walter J. Spielberger - Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2 - Page 342. The Swiss National Archives might have already declassified at least some of the results of these trials. The following link suggests that they have something: https://www.swiss-archives.ch/detail.aspx?ID=4687655 A) Bericht über die Truppenvergleichserprobung Leopard 2 und M1 ABRAMS, 1981-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#29) B) Leopard 2 Strukturbaum Bewertung/ Vereinbahrung, 1981-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#31) C) Evaluation neuer Kampfpanzer (Schlussbericht über die Technische Evaluation Neuer Kampfpanzer), 1982-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#32) 3) I agree 4) Concerning the sponson. I am not that sure about the KE and CE protective properties of a 10 mm steel plate + 490 mm diesel fuel cell + 50 mm of steel. How would you estimate it ? Also, the angled lower front hull section seems to be about 20 -25 mm thick. According to the diagram below, the side plates are angled at about 51-52 degrees from the horizontal giving us a LOS thickness of 25-32 mm:
  2. Leopard 1: Leopard 2K: These images made me believe that the Leopard 2 trunnion interior is "...actually thin air, or cardboard..."
  3. But how valid is this chart ? Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?
  4. If the mantlet is using the same armor makeup as the turret cheeks with the same thickness efficiency we have => mantlet composite array (KE resistance of = ~220 mm) + 25 mm steel+ ~180-230 mm air gap + 25 mm steel = ~270-280 mm KE resistance against APFSDS rounds.
  5. Thank you very much for the feedback. I will make the changes! In the meantime, could you take a look at this and tell me what you think: The sponson and track areas gave me the greatest problems. Explanation: Sponson (outside->inside): Section around the turret ring: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel) + 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 510 mm Section around the heavy side skirts: 50 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel)+ 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 550 mm Section around the powerpack: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Batteries/empty space/NBC system + 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 510 mm Side skirts (outside->inside): Heavy side skirts: 100-110 mm (steel/spaced) heavy side skirts + 680 mm air gap + 30-35 or 50 mm of steel. Total LOS: 810-845 mm Side skirts: 20-25 mm ruberized perforated steel plates + 680 mm air gap + 30 or 50 mm of steel. Total LOS: 730-755 mm Turret bustle: Construction depth of around 80 mm at most. Seems to be spaced. Possible make up: 45 mm Steel + 20 air gap + 15 mm steel. Total LOS: 80 mm Ammunition hatch: Hatch seems to be mostly composed of "thin and light elements". Possible basic construction: 10 mm steel cover plate + 280 mm air gap/spacer + 20 mm steel cover plate. Total LOS : 310 mm Lower side hull: angled bottom side hull seems to be 20 mm thick steel at around 45 degrees. Side hull seems to alternate between 30-35 mm and 50 mm. Updated CE resistance disgram: I adjusted the values according to 1) Militarysta's feedback and 2) the respective LOS thicknesses. I would be grateful for any feedback!
  6. The mantlet seems to be 420 mm thick. This is followed by the hollow trunnion block giving a total LOS thickness of 680 to 730 mm.
  7. Yes ! Using the drawings, the forward turret roof comes to about 45 mm at around 7 degrees , whereas the level turret roof comes to about 30 mm. This gives me a LOS thickness of aroudn 350 mm. I will make that change to the diagrams.
  8. Thank you for the feedback, Militarysta. Using the Hilmes drawings i came to about 30 mm at around 8 degrees from the horizontal. Looking at the Leopard 2K drawings , i see that the plate is 35 mm thick at 8 degrees from the horizontal. I think quite a few things were taken over from those early prototypes and i think this might be one of those features. Given this, i will adjust the estimate for this area to around 215 - 250 mm.
  9. Hello everyone! i would need some feedback on my latest estimates on the Leopard 2(A0-A4 early): My proposed protection solution could potentially satisfy the plot depicted in the Lindström presentation: As we know, the center plot is of particular interest. It seems to depict the various armor solutions (packages). I used the magenta colored plot line (B-type armor tech?) for my solution:
  10. Hmmm!!! Just like Fuel Cell B, that surrounds the ammunition , fuel cell A could be a composite array that uses diesel fuel to complement its protective properties. Note: The front hull special armor is supposed to have a mass of 1249 kg!
  11. Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).
  12. This is very confusing. I used this diagram and other digrams to generate the front hull module volume. Here it is being described as a (fuel) tank ? This is rather confusing
  13. Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?
  14. Thanks! The frontal cross section area of the mantlet is about 0,4 m2 . I set the density of steel to around 8000 kg/m3. Knowing this, the steel block LOS thickness comes to about 197 mm of steel.
  15. I will look into this! I will also update my Type 90 volume model.
  16. The K2 and Type 10 seem to follow a similar turret protection design philosophy:
  17. I really wonder if they would let us measure and examen it !
  18. He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing. This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin: That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.
  19. My 5 cents from a few months ago: I was told that this is the front hull arrangment of the Leopard 2AV just to find out that it is rather unlikely. Then a short while later i was told that it was a patent, just like SH_MM said. Also let us not forget this:
  20. Guys do think this diagram is still a legitimate estimate of the location of the turret composite modules of the Type 90 MBT: I made these based on diagram and other references:
×
×
  • Create New...