Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scav last won the day on January 7

Scav had the most liked content!

About Scav

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So it would traverse between firing each one to get a good coverage? Interesting that they went for a bit of increased complexity as opposed to what ROSY does (similar amount of charges per "turret" AFAIK).
  2. And how do you know? They clearly did their own tests, with reference armour inserts and also with their own developed add-ons. Again, why do you think so? Everything points to the opposite, they tested the armour as would be on the test vehicles, afterwards they added their own add-ons and tested again. Which is exactly what I pointed out....if you go lower armour volume you need to compensate with higher density of materials, which almost always in turn means similar weight.... However, high thickness/volume of armour is generally more mass efficient than the same mass of armour in a smaller volume. Mass will always remain relevant, but you need to take into account mass efficiency to get anything out of it.
  3. The Swedes "simulated" the armour by asking the companies involved for specifications on how to make said armour, which was then produced locally according to specs and tested. They did also produce their own add-on armour for these tanks and because they didn't get the exact measurements on the armour carrying parts, they had to make these themselves: http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm He also mentions tests were conducted in each country on the base armour. So, this isn't a "simulation" as much as it is live testing. Hold up, so you're saying that the leclerc when using smaller armour packages with denser armour somehow makes turret weight irrelevant? Isn't that the exact opposite, less volume with denser materials -> same/similar weight....? I don't see how that makes the turret weight irrelevant, it still needs the same armour mass to achieve the same level of protection unless you're using more advanced, more mass efficient materials. Generally speaking, less dense, higher volume armour is more mass efficient..... just look at 2A5 vs M1A2.... 59.7t vs 62.5t.... stops DM53 vs doesn't stop DM53.
  4. Same story as the export Abrams or CR2, yet you don't see people saying that about leos, nor Leclercs.
  5. Perhaps because the crew are placed further apart and closer to the outside. I'm sure there's a reason why the Swedes decided to render the important area as bigger. I agree that the actual crew compartment is lower, but the gun certainly isn't and that's still counted as fighting compartment AFAIK. Still, autoloader =/= more effecient internal layout, especially not when you have silly comparisons like that M1 turret vs the Type 90 turret.
  6. But the actual fighting compartment as viewed from the front is wider, I had some internal volume figures somewhere, I'll see if I can dig those up.
  7. Autoloader isn't the reason why: Despite having an autoloader and only 3 crew, the Leclerc's fighting compartment volume is higher than that of the Leo 2. It isn't about autoloader's, it's about internal volume and the armourweight/volume required to protect this internal volume. You forgot to point out that this means lower elevation angles for the gun, reliability issues for the autoloader, less frontal protection and a myriad of other issues. Also, that's possibly one of the worst drawn M1 turrets I've seen so far. Even then, the M1A1 turrets are vastly better in frontal protection than the Type 90 because it's got ~270mm more LOS while also adding more weight in armour going from A1 to A1HA than the Type 90 has total for it's special inserts.
  8. Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new". Brand new would be M60 -> M1
  9. Strawman argument..... As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret". So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.
  10. Ha, right, so that should include things you say. There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out. That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed. Also, since when is pointing out typical marketing quotes "utter bullshit"?
  11. @SH_MM Don't bother with him, he just likes trolling for the sake of trolling.
  12. Could be, doesn't appear to be a final design, though it's no PL-01. If they did rework parts of the turret, they could've done away with the toilet and other unnecessary items, possibly lowering the profile and having extra room on-top, though I would question the location of the optics then.
  13. Is it just me or does this new turret feature additional armour? That's either a shitty fit and finish, or a roof add-on module.
  14. Atleast it uses a modern gun.... and isn't 75 tonnes fully upgraded....
  15. I found them a little bit confusing and perhaps a little too little detail as well. I think the diameter of the penetrator matters with this kind of test though: http://www.j-mst.org/on_line/admin/files/09-04151_2076-2089_.pdf Velocity also matters and I think having a thicker projectile means some kind of "overmatch" could take place, for both of these DM13 works quite well. The Brits might've been right, but I think there's more to it than what we can see from these tests. In any case, there's a good reason why Germany upgraded the UFP of leopard 2s (only on 2A7Vs but, some earlier versions for other countries had it too). Odd that the US hasn't done the same. Still think it's a more efficient layout than what the Challenger 1/2 use. edit: you can also see in that research paper that the hardness of the target plate matters, if the leopard 2 had a HHA hull roof that might've increased the protection by quite a bit. OK, so I asked him again, he said it was 12cm total with the add-on, I thought it was odd too (I probably misunderstood). More info: roof was 26mm over crew compartment, add-on on LFP was 80mm + 5-10mm of air + 30-40mm base armour. UFP was 30-40mm base + 5-10mm air + 50mm add-on. So, I was mistaken and it was 120mm total, excuse me. edited the wording, don't want my German friend to go all 1939 on me
  • Create New...