Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Scav

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scav

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So I should assume a higher protection under the EMES-15. Ha, lol. I should've checked it, the layout seemed odd for a book... Well, to be fair, they did give their sources and as far as I can tell what they claim about the 2A4 is more or less correct. At least Frank Lobitz says the same things (one of their sources actually). I agree, it's a big mish mash and you're never quite sure what they mean. Especially the "generations" are odd because they might even assume there was an older generation than B tech for all we know. Well, the way I see it there's two options: either he had good info regarding the upgrades carried out (he mentions base armour being upgraded in the 1988 model which AFAIK is confirmed) or he didn't have good info and guessed based upon other authors and pictures, in which case he might not have known that the 1991 models had improved internal armour too. But considering he specifies that the internal armour was upgraded in the 1988 model while saying only the skirts were upgraded for the 1991 model, I would think he does actually have decent info. I think he's trying to say this: So it seems he's putting emphasis on "now also", which to me makes it seem like he's pointing it out as the sole difference. That said, German isn't my native language (and I'm a bit rusty) nor do I have that book to properly judge the context. Well, it could very well be a more optimised skirt than previous models which was ready before the rest of "D tech", so ready for early adoption. I recall seeing a picture of a leopard 2 skirt somewhere with "holes" under the surface, not sure if that was the early variant or a later one. I doubt those skirts can offer more protection than the frontal armour even if it's at, let's say, a 15° angle. From pictures and what @Militarysta posted on his leo 2A4 armour measuring page, it seems to me that the early skirts weren't that heavy or dense, probably consisting of spaced plates that aren't very thick. At the same time, they also started using C tech midway through a batch, that seems like a bigger change than some different skirts. Hence I don't think changing skirts was a major thing or would be "held back" to coincide with an internal armour change. Interesting.... possibly a typo or maybe even a contradiction to what he earlier said? Could very well be a small difference. Mounting points being different could indicate a new skirt possibly being heavier or lighter.... or it could possibly be an optimisation from field testing showing different mounting points were desirable.
  2. That would refer to C tech as far as I know. Still, good info, don't find much of that.
  3. Scav

    Britons are in trouble

    It's British, they'll just use teabags as side armour.
  4. Thanks! So I assume he doens't talk about wether or not the base armour was changed in type? This was the information I was looking for, thanks!
  5. @SH_MM I've recently found this book again: https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/10795487/leopard-2-gfj-hostingde It also talks about the leopard 2A4 and the different technologies: It's saying one of the improvements was new skirts, both light and heavy in D-tech. Which IMO makes sense given there's leopard 2A5s with both these and C tech ones. There's some minor issues with this book, namely they seem to have taken some internet estimates for the armour.... Anyway, would you mind sharing what Rolf Hilmes or other authors have to say about this? Could you maybe show a small snippet of the books you use?
  6. Scav

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Hm, Abrams seems to have quite a thin mantlet in comparison with the rest of the turret though, Merkava is definitely also one that has good protection around the gun, but the T-series really does have a weaker area around the gun than the rest of the turret, even on the T-90A it's only protected by normal steel blocks, Challenger 2 did seem to have an OK mantlet but it's still thinner than the rest of the turret front, so unless there's some armour block or spallshield behind that I would still consider it weaker than the rest of the turret.
  7. Scav

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Small size from the front, yes, from the side it's not that small. Mantlet on some tanks is weak, but others like the 2A5 isn't, though that's mostly an exception to the rule.
  8. Scav

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Different design philosophy, can't directly compare the "efficiency" of the armour layout to each other since one has an unmanned turret that is likely paper to any calibre of 90mm or higher while the other has the heaviest armour on the front of the turret. So, while the abrams has to cover a lot of space, it also does a good job of that, unlike the T-14 which relies entirely on not getting hit in the turret by any decent KE or HEAT shell. You might argue that the crew will live because they're not in the turret, but you don't know that, if their capability to fight back has been neutralised that means anything can then follow up, even IFVs, which will absolutely wreck any optics making the crew blind so they have to rely entirely on poor vision or GPS to find their way back to cover. Even if the tank does get out of the situation with "only" a firepower kill, that's still a neutralised tank, if that was an M1A2, it could've taken the hit and potentially fired back. Sure, the T-14 probably is more weight optimised, but you're also comparing a late 70s tank to a mid 2000s tank while not taking into account the consequences or results of that higher weight optimisation.
  9. In general there seems to be information that I'm not able to find readily on the web, I'm really looking for small details and mechanics and such. Yeah, it's not easy to see the thickness of either without having a measuring tape. It was just a rough guess. Yeah, I expected some minor changes in the hull and I didn't know C tech was weight neutral. So more or less a complete overhaul of the armour? I agree, that's why I initally thought D tech wasn't a main armour technology but small things like skirts and add-ons. While the LOS is higher, that's mostly because of the empty space between the two blocks of armour, that might help or it might not,, logically it would atleast provide more space that the penetrator has to deal with, but if the armour packs itself are only like 650mm or so (looking at Laviduce's model) and the space in-between makes up the rest.... I don't think it would actually provide more protection than the rest, or atleast not significantly more. Considering the turret cheeks are roughly 20% of the frontal area of the tank and that correlates to around 400mm if we look at that protection graph. Now only around 6-7% of the surface area is protected against 500mm but that % stays more or less the same all the while it goes up to 700mm, so I don't think it's actually talking about that section under the EMES-15 but rather some other overlaps or places around the mantlet for instance where you have a lot of steel, or even the area just above the UFP on the roof where there's still special armour right under it. If the area under the EMES-15 would indeed provide more protection I would expect that to lead to a higher % of the tank to be protected against 400mm from the +20° angle compared to the -20° angle. Though there are some small weird anomalies like more surface area being protected of a + angle (right turret cheek, where the optic is) from 300mm and 500mm, I think that might be due to overlaps or perhaps even the added armour for the driver's side. At the same time I'm not even sure if the armour behind the optic is weaker than the normal cheek armour, they could very well have made it denser to compensate, though for simplicity reasons this might not have been done. What's your take on this? Do you think the EMES-15 area is weaker and the area under it stronger despite having "less" armour but more LOS? And, now that I think about it: wouldn't that space actually be partially filled with the traverse mechanism? That might add quite some steel which wouldn't show up on an armour analysis but would help in reality.....
  10. Might've even been a book for all I remember, it's not that easy to find. Oh interesting, I'd imagine that they did something so the commander can more easily reach the hatch? That doesn't seem very thick no, but I think the space might still provide the necessary room for the penetrator to yaw or deform, which would massively reduce penetration. Are you talking about this picture: It's pretty hard to tell how thick it is, I think it says 26 or 28mm. Might be related. I agree. I honestly didn't even consider that one, I find pictures like that a little bit vague so I mostly focussed on the one with the actual numbers. Thanks, I really need that book it seems, there's a lot of info in there I assume. Well, from what I can tell the driver's hatch was changed and it seems like the hull roof itself might've been made thicker (I saw some picture where you could see the hatch open and compared it with a 2A4 picture, not exact science) and seen multiple people also make that claim. So most of the weight changes was turret? That would definitely indicate more changes than I thought. Just something I heard from two ex-loaders, one on a 2A4 and the other on a 2A6M, the 2A6M guy said those skirts were pretty damn heavy but the other one was surprised because he found them quite light. Would've been a minimal weight difference if any. I was under the impression that the weight was 62.5 for the 122B, sorry. Yeah I assumed the choice was between German army version and Swedish Strv 122. Makes sense, I guess they didn't bother with all the possible combinations though? To me it makes little sense to have B pakette + B add-on (whatever that is if it even exists, which I doubt) so that would reduce the amout of possible combinations. About that picture for the protection angles: I find it odd that the "German solution" doesn't give equal protection on the left turret face compared to the right turret, if it's the optic, that would be the other way around....
  11. Yeah, not sure where I read it, but I think some British source says that the leopard 2 development was already too advanced to incorporate Burlington, I'll try to find that. I drew the same conclusion, though I don't know much about the TVMs. Quite likely, it also seems like the armour they wanted for the Strv 122 was a slightly later development and thus they had to make it themselves during or before the testing. Could be, but to me it seems like it adds quite a bit of weight (probably less than a tonne though) and extra profile, maybe it's not needed, maybe it is, I don't know. Doesn't the commander actually sit higher though? At the very least it increases the profile so more of the tank is visible if you're in a hull down position, not sure if that's a bad thing for thermal optics but it definitely looks like a bigger target or easier to identify. The Swedes considered it inert, but as far as I can tell it's still part of the crew comparment (atleast for the hatches). In any case, they've done similar things in the past (German M48, lowered cupola), probably with a good reason, perhaps in hindsight the saying: "'Better safe than sorry" is applicable. Yes, but I think for the PzH 2000 it's necessary to armour it against counter battery fire. For the Puma it's also necessary because of it's role as close infantry support. It might also be necessary for the MBTs, IDK. Hm, I should rephrase that: I think the purpose of the wedges was to roughly retain LOS efficiency (and thus massively increase protection) but as an overall package and not purely because of the wedge if that makes any more sense. While they are mostly empty, they are made of more modern materials and constructed in a different manner, I wasn't trying to argue based purely on LOS effectiveness but that the wedges are cheap, light and maintain the overall efficiency of the entire armour array, they could go with denser and higher efficiency armour but that seems more expensive and more trouble than it's worth. In that case I don't think upgrading the base armour from B to something else would be necessary to attain the 800-850mm effectiveness with the wedges, as they are made of more modern materials and do a seperate job that doesn't just "add" to the base armour but compliments it. So despite them being way more air and less dense than the base armour, they can still provide the necessary protection in combination with the main armour to essentially double the effective armour because they are made of more modern materials. I think they might honestly have been lazy enough not to "grey out" those boxes, another reason why I suspected "D-tech" wasn't a main armour tech despite being shown as a possibility, could also be because they had extra "blocks" similar to those fitted to the Pz 87 140 as add-on instead of wedges. Possibly they found out that having the add-ons slightly further and at more of an angle compared to the main armour increased effectiveness despite being thinner? They might also provide the same protection but with less weight like you say. Same data, different conclusions or theories :). I think this could very well come from a difference in add-on modules, base armour is also possible, I have to point out that the 720mm figure is pointed right at the mantlet/breech area and not the plain cheeks like the others. In this case I very much think different angles cannot be compared directly or "converted" to attain different figures. The wedges are quite complex, they have two layers and because the angles differ I wouldn't call this traditional NERA but more like you said: "comparable to heavy ERA", I would go even a step further and outright claim that "converting" or calculating different angles is simply impossible. Interesting, he didn't mean it as an overlapping statement? Haven't found a place where I can get that book yet, I've wanted it for quite some time now. Don't forget the mantlet, turret drives (probably lighter) and some other internal changes though, while the Dutch did reveal the weight I wonder if they didn't round it off or kept it at 500kg just to be vague. AFAIK the Strv 122 also incorporates the mine protection, which is probably around 1-2t. If we compare normal 2A5 to 2A4 it's 59.7t and 55.15t, around 1.5-2t is for the turret which leaves 3-2.5t unexplained: front hull roof was increased, armour of turret roof and so was driver's hatch (not sure how much, could be little to nothing), new heavier skirts, spall liners were fitted and the armour infront of the optic was increased. I agree that falls short of the weight difference, I don't know how much though. IIRC it had C3I, roof protection and hull protection that was all superior to the german 2A5, that could be all or there might be more. Good point, I don't know, perhaps this was for an earlier version, though that doesn't seem likely. On the 2A4 where B was indicated it didn't mention a combination, do you think the combination number refers to the order of the selected modules? As is often said: "You have a no, but you can get a yes". I don't have high hopes though. Well, I'd hoped to get more answers but it seems you've left me with even more questions ... I think I'll make some armour estimates for the different graphs in the leopard 2 thread with this new info. Thanks for the input!
  12. Yeah, I discussed this at length with one of my friends, we basically came to the conclusion B tech was probably something like spaced steel (with relatively thick plates) array either with rubber liners or suspended in rubber so it can move. I don't think they used something like Burlington or BRL-1 simply because when the UK shared the info they also commented that Germany already had different composites and was chosing those for the leopard 2AV, still it's a possibility though I think it's less likely than the spaced array option. Fair point. Hm, well as far as I can tell the Leopard 2 "improved" that was tested by Sweden and sent from Germany had the B pakette + D-2 wedges (as seen on that graph comparing leopard 2A4 variants), at least he values seem to match the ones tested by Sweden. I agree, it seems they accepted the Strv 122 add-ons instead of the other ones, at least the turret front, side, hull side add-ons were accepted on the 2A5. Hull add-on was definitely for cost saving reasons, roof seems to be a deliberate choice as the Germans don't seem to like the roof add-on and how much it increases the profile (atleast two German crewmen told me this was a general consensus among crews). To me it seems like the Swedish version(prototype) still used atleast B tech turret, just with different wedges and perhaps the hull too, the wedges add something like 700-800mm LOS to the front turret while also almost doubling the effectiveness, so it stays around 0.5 LOS efficiency which doesn't seem like they used anything other than base B armour, I would expect higher values if some other base armour was used. Those wedges seem pretty much an ideal solution for KE threats considering the massive LOS and rather simple nature, I think the effectiveness of them would increase almost exponentially with increasing base armour effectiveness. Basically: I think it's quite likely the 800-850mm number was "only" B pakette + the new wedges (would be cheaper than also using even more expensive base armour). Mostly just speculation but I'm basing it off the German prototype sent to Sweden already reaching 700-820mm on the turret face and those values lining up quite nicely with the chart they also provided. Exactly what I was getting confused about, my theory is that D-1 could refer to a different add-on such as the roof and thus would be pointless to represent for a frontal attack and it's also the main reason for my suspicion of a 2A4 with "D" tech armour. D-3 could very well be the add-ons used by the Strv 122 proto. I don't know frankly and I've been debating this with friends for quite some time, it's also why I very much appreciate the continued discussion :D. I think the green graph represents the Strv 122 prototype considering only about 30% is below 700mm protection (LFP is roughly 20% of the frontal profile and turret roof 9%, both of these I doubt you can armour past 700mm without adding too much extra weight) so that's either B pakette + D-3 add-ons, assuming D-3 is better than D-2. Blue could represent B pakette + D-1 + D-2 or C pakette + D-1/D-2, but I don't know and I doubt we'll know without asking someone involved with the trials (perhaps Lindström can be contacted?). I agree with red probably representing C and pink representing B, yellow we also have a good candidate for but the rest is pure conjecture honestly. Still fun to talk about though. Possible as well. Yeah, sorry, that is the most likely option which is why I find it suspicous to be missing from the graph. In that case I agree, probably wasn't an add-on. ohhhh, thanks! I always wondered why it looked relatively modern (clean) without some kind of restoration having been done to it. It certainly doesn't help there's a couple of people that always make crazy claims for the M1 series (and most "normal" people believe these guys). I always thought it would be atleast about leo 2 level but didn't know for sure, so when one of my friends said he was working on a restoration in this museum I jumped on the chance to ask him :). I still want some better pics as it would definitely help to combine both inside measurements to outside measurements. True, side effect (probably intended) of their simulation I guess. Yep, that's one advantage of such a spacious and wide armour design I guess. If you compare the leclerc, leo 2 and M1A2 you can still see just how small the actual crew area is on the leo 2, it's even smaller than on the leclerc! Thanks! I have been looking on that site but clearly my search skillz weren't quite up to par .
  13. Scav

    Britons are in trouble

    Well, apparently they're going to go with BAE and if they do that, that means any future procurement will also be given to BAE. Rheinmetall's upgrade wasn't just a gun either, it was quite a bit more but I guess we'll see when they finally decide.
×