Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Scav

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

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. @Domichan Thanks for those pictures, still not sure though... DM53 looks very close. Nice pics, from my measurements it's the same length as M829A3 though the sabot looks a bit different as you pointed out. If we assume the core goes halfway into the windshield (which you can actually see fairly well, it's very thin), it's about 785mm long. Though I have to agree with @Militarysta, it very much looks like some kind of mockup or steel shell. Maybe you could hang around long enough to watch them move it to see how heavy it is
  2. That could easily have been a mistranslation or error on the part of the Brits writing it down. As if Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were devoid of ballistic holes.... that driver's hatch, lack of a gun mantlet on CR1 (with thinner composite armour behind it as well), TOGS hole on the side and equally large challenger 2 mantlet they ended up adopting.... Where exactly do you see that information? Are there more pages that weren't posted? FYI, KVT was built in 1989, so it's entirely possible they initially thought they could make the D armour an internal package and only in testing realised they couldn't do it without adding more armour externally. Besides, how would you explain that massive increase in protection in barely 3-4 years time when a much smaller increase (B to C) took much longer and (atleast according to the Brits) failed? Regarding the required protection values: in the Hayne's manual for CR2 the author remarks that the M1A1 Block 2 (M1A2) with DU had 15% better KE protection than the CR2 over a narrow frontal arc. Judging by the Swedish trials we can guesstimate the protection of M1A2 at around 600-640mm for the turret front, so CR2 would be around 510-540mm. So, you're saying this is them guessing. Then why do you also point out that it "could stop LKE1", that would be an even higher protection figure. Where did you read that late 2A4s were heavier than C tech ones? Finding information on any late 2A4s, including C is hard enough, let alone getting a comparison between the 1988 and 1991 models. Only info I could find was data on the Pz 87, most of which were C and it weighs around 56.5t. HOT-2 does not reach 1200mm, that's HOT-3. HOT-2 maxes out around 1000mm. Putting this into perspective: M1A2 had 2t of DU added to bump the protection up from around 400-450mm (still "debated") to 600-640mm (while CE remained the same if not slightly decreased), out of 939mm LOS. That's only for the turret front mind you, not even including turret side or hull front. Yet, somehow, this new armour package that comes at "almost no weight penalty", barely four years after the latest armour package, reaches 600mm and 1200mm CE out of 860mm LOS while also including a protection increase for turret side and hull front? Without actual proof this is pretty incredulous. Did I miss some pages? Where was this listed? I mean, naturally different types of ammunition react differently to certain armour types, but I fail to see how 400mm+ steel can result in less than that in actual protection. The steel APFSDS rounds were very poor against any form of composite armour compared to actual long rods, so it wouldn't surprise me that even 3BM26 failed to penetrate M1 frontal armour, let alone CR1 or leopard 2. If the 1991 batch was D tech, there was only 3-4 years between C and D, and the increase wouldn't be 20% but 43% (600/420). I severely doubt that 1.3x efficiency against APFSDS rounds, perhaps they're talking about steel or tungsten slug APFSDS, but certainly not tungsten/DU alloy long rods from the mid 80s. Where did you read that it was rejected...? Bit at a loss for words here, is there some other place more information gets published? It could, but then we'd solely be talking about the frontal armour, not including the sides etc, which is what the British appear to be talking about (hence the 350mm and 420mm). That's what makes it appear to ridiculous, how can you get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE in a 60° frontal arc (what the Brits were using) when barely 12 years earlier they reached 350mm? This is not even including the front of the hull. Plus, the only reason why it that 2AV version could reach such high figures is that it had lots of steel in the array , which in turn takes up lots of space, this leaves little room for CE protection or fancy materials. So, while you can technically reach 600mm KE, the CE protection in turn cannot also be so high. That's specifically hard to do with passive armour, even more if they didn't use a completely new material (like ceramics which is claimed to be utilised on C tech). The wedges on the other hand are an entirely different situation, here you have a (substantial) LOS increase along with materials optimised to work against CE (and the additional space also helps massively against KE). Definitely the most likely option here.
  3. You don't honestly think that out of ~700mm LOS (60° arc....) they can get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE right? Even assuming this is from direct front that 1200mm CE is just absurd in combination with the already very high 600mm KE. Not to mention the supposed "no weight penalty"..... This most probably refers to the wedges, those can reach the figures quite comfortably, and considering this is an early statement they were probably being carefull with their estimates. The date even corresponds with 2A5 adoption and not the 1992 leopard 2A4 batches. But to think this talks about some kind of internal armour is ludicrous, what are they using? Fairy dust? D type exists, sure, but in what form is the question.
  4. I guess a picture for proof isn't possible? So, this isn't correct? Everything besides the fins matches 105mm DM53 more closely than 120mm DM33 though... I know it's just a schematic, but .... Also, in that X-ray picture you posted, there's one frontal tip segment, on the schematic there's two. It could be that the first one was completely destroyed on impact and isn't visible for that reason, or it could be there was only one.
  5. I know this section is important, but the design in that schematic does not match production rounds. I've seen that before, and they probably used a similar design on many of their ammunitions (105 and 120 alike). If you were to look at the schematic's tip and the tip on actual production ammunition you'll see how much thicker it is on the latter. Ontop of that, the schematic shows a smooth middle part of the sabot, production DM33 does not have that, it has a small step in it. It might be a schematic for DM33, but it looks closer to what 105 DM53 ended up like. Either way, the design changed from the schematic quite a bit.
  6. Why wouldn't it? It would prevent shrapnel, small projectiles and possibly even APFSDS from riding up the armour and continuing to hit the cupola or whatever's behind it. The Brits found this to be an issue on the Chieftain, so it makes sense that these plates could prevent it and serve such a purpose. You mean the side armour that was cut open from above? If they for some reason decided to increase the height of the modules (like you propose by saying they didn't bother with adding a single plate on top to cover the three different modules, yet they are somehow taller than the ones on the 2A4) then why wasn't this done for the sides? I don't get it, why would this one composite package be taller than the rest and stick out? Why would this one package not be covered by a single plate to smooth it over? And even weirder is why it was only done on the back of the composite package and also covered the area behind the composite package.... If those stepped plates indicate there's composite right underneath then they extended the composite package backwards and left an area infront of them..... Maybe I'm misuderstanding what you meant, but those plates definitely do not cover the entire composite package... There's a decent amount of space between the loader's optic and the turret front interior wall, yet these stepped bits go right up to it. (It's a 2A4, but the loader's periscope didn't change) So....... No, I don't think it has anything to do with the armour package honestly. Is that the fuse of the warhead stuck in the mantlet? Boy, that was lucky, that mantlet is thin as all hell..... I imagine they can put something in there, but it's still rather little material in the way of that RPG.... He's right to smile.
  7. Ah yes, that picture. We don't know if that's DM33 120mm though. The Hülsendeckel on there isn't on production DM33 rounds, those also have two different kind of fins it seems like, one type like the ones shown here, but others are longer: Also note that the attachment of the case to the sabot is different, as well as the tip being substantially thicker on production ones. Closer to this diagram: I'm not sure, but the schematic you posted looks more like that experimental 105mm DM53: Granted, the fins are different, but the tip looks much closer, the rings on the sabot also match it closer, on 120mm DM33 there's a large open band that is for attaching the casing to it. I kinda wonder why they would have a sharp tip inside of the fatter steel tip though, the point of that thicker tip in the first place was improved performance against composite armour like on the T-series, having a sharp tip underneath that would partially defeat the purpose.....
  8. The cupolas (hatches really) could still be damaged, and in the case of leopard 2E etc, a round that penetrates this roof module could jam the hatch, a stepped plate like this prevents this from happening. Not saying it's the main reason, but it could explain why it's only present infront of the hatch. I don't see how having the armour bulge out on the roof would be cost saving, while having all the other armour not do this. Unless only this part of the armour was changed, I don't see why it would be done. The cut seems to indicate the opposite to me, that the cavity is still the same and that these three plates were welded on later. On the original leopard 2 the roof over the cavity was flush, so unless they made the armour packages slightly bigger/taller (I don't see why this would be done just for this section), I would expect the same for the packages on the 2A5. Thanks! I don't have FB, so please do post any docs or pictures he posts regarding this topic, it'd be quite interesting to see. Note quite the same package (MEXAS-M I think?) but the 1A6BE was originally supposed to bring the leopard 1A5s up to a level sufficient to be used against RPG-7 equipped insurgents: More pictures here:http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/robert_de_craecker/leopard_1a5_abl/index.php?Page=3 I doubt it can stop more than early RPG-7s on the hull though, perhaps more on the turret. Regarding the base armour, it's hardly worse than what the leopard 2 uses for it's steel shell, the composite cavities are what gives that tank it's protection too.... Add enough of these packages to the outside of a leo 1 and I reckon you can get to similar protection levels.
  9. Looks like M322, or Slpprj 95 in Swedish service. http://www.imisystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/120mm-M322-APFSDS-T-Cartridge-.pdf Also, @BkktMkkt what are you basing the tip of DM33 off? Atleast according to the patent, it has a flat tip.
  10. Thanks! Those look like Dutch leo 1s at the firing range for their aircraft?
  11. I always thought this was to prevent rounds from striking up at the cupola or roof add-on package when installed (which "raises" the cupolas right?). Bit like the ribbed armour on BMP-1 glacis. Rather interesting as this would indicate they had the tank ready for the upgrade or thought it was necessary (UK found a similar necessity for the Chieftain's persicope GPS after the Iran-Iraq conflict). Also, is it just me, or does the leo 2 have thinner armour around the driver's hatch than on the rest of the glacis? Thanks for the translation BTW, wasn't sure on some points. Lol..... @David Moyes do you have a link to this post?
  12. Spielberger mentions in his book about German SPAA's that the Gepard prototypes had spaced armour: And in the pre-production series the tanks were lightened, but he doesn't mention the spaced armour configuration being deleted.... So, do the production variants still retain the spaced armour configuration?
  13. Did a quick calculation as to the steel LOS in the array, it's almost 400mm....? FYI, the 15mm comes from the U-shaped blocks in the front, from the horizontal, it seems as if a projectile would hit one and clip another before exiting that part of the array, hence 15mm without the 2.6mm sheet metal plate at the back. It's a rather impressive amount of steel, 393mm without even taking into account the effects of spacing etc, the 15° angled UFP is 81mm thick in steel or about 313mm LOS, then the glacis plate is ~323mm LOS. All of this would be substantially better against KE than the XM-1s.
  14. Why would they analyse an armour package and do tests on it when that's not the armour package that is in the tank they are doing the other trials with? They were sent the TVM for the trials, it makes little sense for them to test another armour package and not the TVM's, changes in module size and weight could affect mobility trials or even vision and other such things. "German model" being TVM (or KVT?) it has the add-on modules and thus shouldn't come as a surprise that it has better protection on both the hull and the turret. Not quite sure what you mean to point out with this? Those schematics are not detailed enough nor the same as those of the M1A2 where you can see the module being mounted (and not even that well), there being no difference doesn't mean much as they are not trying to represent the protection on the schematic itself, but merely using it as a way to indicate the location of the hits, like in that UK doc. I think you'll agree that this is hardly an exact representation of the armour layout of a leopard 2A4. It actually makes more sense to use slightly better modules than to change the base armour (with a very effective and probably expensive package as you have pointed out), as this would save costs and not add to them. The wedges being flat would inevitably lead to different protection to the later bulged ones as the angle of impact would be different. Fact is, we don't know what the "Swedish wedges" look like, but we do know that they were made in cooperation with IBD, the guys who made the first ones too. Besides, how else can you explain the difference in protection? 10mm between the German model on the turret side and the Swedish model is too insignificant to be due to internal armour changes, same for the rest of the turret. Only on the hull is there an 80mm difference for the glacis, which is too little of a difference for a change from B to C (~300mm to ~425mm) and even more so if we assume this "D" package was used instead of B.... And where are these reports? Why else did the leopard 2A5 proto participate in the trials? The changes are too small to be because they changed the internal armour from something like B to C. And I never said the armour had to look identical, I think they actually tested modules similar to those on the actual 2A5 instead. That doesn't surprise me, there's the one slide that shows all the armour fitted to the Strv 122 compared to a normal 2A4 in yellow, it shows the side hull spaced elements being filled or changed. Even the skirts were different between the 2A5 (some of which used the older C tech skirts) and the Strv 122 (which probably exclusively used the newer D tech skirts). This amounted to an 80mm+ difference at 15-17.5°. Strv 122 is actually quite likely to use C in both the hull and turret, as they were making brand new tanks anyway. Couple of issues with this: Entire projectile only weighs 4kg according to GD 26x600mm penetrator would have incredibly low density to achieve the 4kg total weight Some sources claim it was derived from DM33 and just upscaled or lengthened Germany didn't think it was sufficient and dropped it in favour of DM53 Kotsch (a fairly decent source) states it isn't 26mm, which is most definitely correct based on pictures Let's assume the penetrator weight alone is 3.6kg (fairly normal weight for the fin assembly etc), volume of the rod is 318.56cc, this means the density of the rod would need to be just 11.3(!)g/cc to achieve a rod weight of 3.6kg..... This is WAY too low and thus unrealistic. Based on pictures such as these: We can deduce it is most definitely thinner than DM33, based on the known length and thickness of DM13 we can get a decent guesstimate at DM43's thickness, which is around 24mm on the non-threaded frontal part. This would still mean a very, very low density, thus that is probably not the actual thickness but the jacket thickness. Based on the weight, Kotsch's figures (admittedly quite a few of them are wrong, but DM43's are quite close to pictures), and similar rounds from this time period, it's likely that the actual rod thickness is around 20 or 21mm, with a jacket extending that to 24mm total. This would not only make it more effective against composites than a monobloc round, but would keep the density of the core at a reasonable level. Assuming the core actually weighs 3.4kg with the remaining 600g in the fins and jacket, that would give us a density of 18g/cc, totally reasonable and actually a density suggested in German patents before. While the jacket would definitely help with structural strength of the rod while penetrating (even against K-5), I think they were instead trying to minimise the sectional density to prevent the K-5 from activating in the first place, add to this the increased velocity, and it might just be sufficient for K-5, though I personally doubt it was very effective. It's entirely possible that they are referring to C tech, I strongly doubt it "only" had 425mm on the front of the turret as claimed by the brits, because it simply does not match the protection figures provided by the Swedish trials, nor does it make sense that the "improved" armour package didn't increase the frontal turret armour beyond B levels by any decent amount. Looking at that proposed armour from B&V (is it actually fitted or not? @Militarysta kinda seemed to say that it was, but then you said it wasn't?....) the LOS thickness of the steel alone is more than enough to reach 425mm of protection in the frontal 60° arc of the front (again, excluding the side armour, it's obviously the weakest part of the turret). So if they did end up increasing the frontal protection substantially (Swedish leaks indicate this), then it might just be C tech that stopped DM43. Almost 20% of the frontal surface was equivalent to 550mm of RHA protection, it isn't a stretch to think the ballistic test was conducted to simulate a 2000m range, at which point the penetration of DM43 from the L44 would've been below 600mm at the vertical, possibly being defeated by an array equivalent to 550mm. If there was a "D" tech main armour, I would seriously question how they managed to achieve substantially higher protection, with a LOS efficiency of around 0.85, compared to C tech, which came just three years prior.... That's not to mention the supposed increase in CE protection.... TOW is commonly known to be an error, HOT was indicated earlier, Milan same thing and the T-72 protection is also wrong as most sources say 300+ (350 for the 60-100-50 model). He wasn't even being clear on what he meant, internal turret armour or add-on or both? And he did make the 2A3 mistake which he should've had correct regardless, he's human and can make mistakes like the rest of them. And did he have access to this kind of info? Does he mention which generation or type of armour for both? He could again be referring to C for the internal armour and D for the external armour. Does he have any book on 2A4s etc? So, one book says they changed internals, one magazine says the same and mentions third generation armour (C tech), then R.H makes a vague statement of turrets being modified with D tech. Then there's 3 or 4 books that don't mention the internal armour being changed. Edit: That's a very complex armour configuration.... And did they use Gummi bears as spacers?
  15. I have a hard time believing that an array less than 700mm thick can stop DM43 when at the same time it supposedly defeats K-5 + T-80UD turret armour. DM43 doesn't seem to have any built in mechanism for dealing with heavy ERA, it's a light, thin rod that goes very fast, so unless it simply didn't trigger the K-5, it wouldn't be much better at defeating it than DM33 apart from the extra velocity and length. M829A1 was defeated by K-5 on a T-80U, M829A1 is longer than DM33, heavier, but slower, so it's probably only slightly worse than DM43. Was this on the cheeks from the front, or the cheeks from the side? Did it actually trigger the K-5? That is the area that I mentioned... It's right at the edge of the internal cavity. The hulls were used to carry relatively new turrets and weren't part of the "main reaction force", obviously these hulls were outdated yet not upgraded, definitely because of costs. Plastics don't go bad from one day to the next, it's a gradual process and for what those hulls would be used, it was probably not considered worth the money, a lot of these vehicles would be later on sold as training vehicles or additional equipment to countries such as Turkey, Greece, etc... There's plenty of sources making no mention of internal armour changes, yet talking about the new additional armour (which is said to be "fourth" generation or "D technology" armour). The only other source I've managed to find that corroborates the packages being replaced is one that talks about third generation armour (AKA, C tech), and this is from the armor magazine... Rolf Hilmes is the only one that seems to mention "D" main armour being used, and I cannot find this book anywhere (at a reasonalbe price) to confirm. Rolf Hilmes makes mistakes just like every other author, it's entirely possible he mixed the letters up or intended to say the armour was changed to "C" instead of "D". Here he says HOT penetrated 800mm ( @Wiedzmin found info indicating otherwise), Milan penetrating 500mm (it's slightly more), TOW 600mm (430mm for the original one), I-TOW 860mm (real one around 600mm). He also claims this is what the Merkava front hull looks like, even though it doesn't appear to be correct. Yes, he's an excellent author, but that doesn't mean he's always right or doesn't make mistakes. As for the add-ons changing, you can clearly see the turret add-ons changed quite a bit from TVM to 2A5.... I don't need to point that out. Between 2A4 (B tech) and 2A5 turret there's a 3.6t difference, which means 2.1t are unaccounted for when we exclude the wedges. There's also the new mantlet with multiple parts (probably a decent weight increase), changing of the optic placement (which means slightly more armour there), the EWNA, spall liner, perhaps a slightly changed turret roof, new storage baskets at the rear, radio in the old hydraulic pump area (which was removed), etc. Quite a lot of changes, if they account for all the weight difference, I don't know, but it's hard to say without knowing the numbers. He can easily make a mistake by meaning to point out that add-on modules are D tech and accidentally also saying the internal ones are too. There's like 4 other books that I have, which make no mention of changed internal armour, but do mention the add-on modules and the tanks using old turrets. Atleast two of these also make mention of new skirts being adopted (which is a very insignificant thing and only relates to batch 6/7 hulls, not batch 8 hulls). If they were doing this to "maximise" protection level, then why didn't they adopt the hull add-on too? Even a B tech hull with add-on would be better than a normal C tech hull. Because in 1991 they would have the add-ons ready? Obviously before that time, they wouldn't necessarily know what they'd look like. Batch 8 in multiple books is stated to only change the skirts, not the main armour. You'd think main armour would be more important to mention, especially if it came with a weight increase like you propose is the reason for the "missing" weight between 2A4 and 2A5. There's even one book that was made before the 2A5 was finalised and shows the "2A5" to be a 2A4 with improved armour... This shows that even at this point there was confusion on what exactly the 2A5 would be. Every book so far mentions that in the 6th batch there was new armour introduced as well as new skirts, why would they omit this for the 8th batch if that was the case again? Yet, not one book mentions the armour itself being changed in the 8th batch. Not one mention of internal armour changes. As for Hilmes' claim of D technology in the turret base (the one I could find on the web): Translation: "For the conversion to the Leopard 2A5, the oldest turrets (1-4th batch) are taken and modified with the most modern D-technology into KWS-turrets. He doesn't mention the add-ons in this sentence specifically, and thus he treats the entire turret including add-ons as the same thing, which could either mean both the add-ons and the internal armour is "D tech" or he is referring to the add-ons only. It could be interpreted both ways. I wouldn't exactly call this definitive evidence. Is there another time he talks about this? Anyway, I think it's evident that if many (if not all) authors mention with the 6th batch that the base armour + skirts changes, they would do the same for the 8th batch if it was the case. No author mentioning the base armour being changed in the 8th batch, either means no author knew about this (but then how/why did they know about the 6th batch change?) or it means it simply didn't happen. Protection requirement was to defeat DM53, either from the L55 or the L44. L44 was proven to be met in the Swedish leaks, and if we are to trust the rumours regarding the Greek trials, perhaps also with the L55. I doubt the price of the hull add-on would be more expensive than this "magical" D tech for the turret base. Along with a complete redesign of the turret for the 140? So, you're telling me that somehow less than 700mm of LOS can defeat an APFSDS capable of defeating 700mm+ RHAe? Even when the M1A2 with 2t DU can only do 600mm RHAe out of ~760mm LOS, and even the T-80U with K-5 supposedly only barely stopped this round? It would need to use something similar to K-5 but better, which I highly doubt. Souds like magic fairy dust to me. You lost me there, how does the armour not looking the same, with different angles, different thicknesses (LOS) mean it isn't different? The Swedes specifically mentioning "their" armour (different add-on) performed better and was made (in coorperation) by the same company that made the initial wedge design (IBD)? https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/ Hmm, even former UK tank officer seems to agree however.... The UK trial was to be held in 1990 but was delayed due to the Gulf War, and ended up happening in 1991, when the IVT and perhaps even the TVM were already completed.... So, yes, it's actually quite probable the Leopard 2 Improved won the trial itself (Swedes considered it better than the M1A2, doubt the UK would think otherwise), this also means they (probably) did get the info about the protection of D tech. Which would be the only area where the leopard 2 improved would not be automatically considered better than Challenger 2. And as we "know" from the Greek trials, the rest is vastly better, with a good possibility of the armour also being better. The one big difference between these two in terms of survivability is the ammo in the turret... That could be the sole reason the survivability on CR2 was considered superior, not exactly more important than all the other benefits of the leopard 2. And as I pointed out, Hilmes can make mistakes too. Perhaps because it didn't get changed? You're missing the fact that the angles are different compared to the TVM.... The sides on the TVM are flat, the wedges on the front are slightly differet too and don't have the cut-outs. All the pictures are relevant as all of them talk about the add-on armour, but not at all about the base armour, just like no book seems to talk about the base armour of the 8th batch being different yet mentioning the skirts are.... If nobody talks about the armour changing, despite them mentioning it before on a different variation, maybe it's because nothing got changed? In the same manner that nobody mentions the UFP armour on the T-54 getting changed or remaining the same on the T-55, evidently this is because it didn't get changed. Except the Swedish leaks say so....? TVM was sent over and was the tank they analysed, it was made of the 8th batch, yet apparently had B tech base. Unless you think they actually sent over the KVT, despite several sources saying otherwise. Is that the weight with wooden mock up modules or actual armour modules? Yes, they are, atleast several books mention them being heavier.
×
×
  • Create New...