Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Olds

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Olds

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Cold War in Europe stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wasn't, which explains some of the discrepancy. I try to stick to some sort of generic 'frontal protection level'--so, yes, typically the minimum protection for the turret (often 30 degrees to each side--obviously not by coincidence). The minimal hull protection is, of course, almost always 0 degrees, being unsloped when viewed from above. So the original M1 is about 350 KE minimum (hull and turret)--but of course the turret from 0 degrees is more like 400. I generally assume those charts do the same--the British one from 1978 certainly does: armor protection "at [the] normal".
  2. I think too much speculation is necessary to argue purely based on weight--small errors could result in large armor estimation differences so I find it to be a bit of a rabbit hole. We've all seen a million speculative assumptions that tank armor "had to be this" because of some weight or measured depth--and yet they usually end up being wrong. I certainly give your speculation more weight than average because it's well informed, but it's still speculation and it's outweighed by what (few) official docs we have for any of these vehicles. I understand that. But I think it might b
  3. The PK might be dubious as it depends on how they weighted the attack angles, etc. So I lean toward the simpler formulation: "MBT80 is better protected against KE attack than XM1 whilst XM1 has better HEAT protection than MBT80". The UK experimented pretty wildly with protection levels in the early Chobham days (mid 60's-70's). They ended up shifting--increasingly and quite rightly--toward KE protection, and perhaps the added weight there diminished their fervor for high CE. The M1 did indeed end up with a weirdly high CE given its spec. But it appears that all the way through t
  4. Thanks for sharing another fine doc. More evidence pointing broadly in the same direction. (The links below are also all in this thread IIRC). I interpret the 1988 UK doc for KE protection as: Leo-2A4 < Stillbrew Chieftain < CH1 < CH2 < M1A1HA. The top number in the range is likely 600mm, and yet the CH2 should have "significantly" better KE than the CH1. IMO, one should assume the lowest possible KE for Stillbrew & CH1. Even 500 seems too high to fit into this 'formula'. I can't find contemporary Soviet CE protection estimates from the UK. The US low-en
  5. If you still have the link to the Russian post, I'd love to check it out. I find Zaloga to be very hit or miss, so I'm hoping there's some additional support for that protection level... it does certainly sound familiar, but I'm having trouble tracking down where I read something similar. Cheers
  6. SH_MM, some of the protection level bullets are familiar, some less so. More specifically: The XM1 spec is thoroughly documented--Hunnicutt's "Abrams..." and other docs. The MBT80 is documented with in this thread. Some/all of the Leo-2AV spec is referenced elsewhere in the forum (still reading through it). The only reference to T-72 protection levels I've seen is a general comment in one of Zaloga's Osprey books(?) It's a very nice summary, so I'd love to see the sources I'm missing that provide the additional specificity. My search terms may ha
×
×
  • Create New...