Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Scav

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Scav

  1. Thanks, I remember reading somewhere that the manufacturer actually gave an armour protection figure (900mm vs KE with ERA) and that there was ERA on the front. Assuming that's correct, then I think it might be reasonable to assume it's Relikt or perhaps an improved version thereof and that without this ERA the protection would range around 600mm. Certainly doesn't seem unreasonable given the LOS or the armour levels previously achieved on T-90 etc. Still I wasn't able to confirm this rumour so take it with a pinch of salt. I've always wondered why the side looked the way it does, there's three panels that are hinged to each other while the rest isn't.... Those three panels are right next to the crew compartment and I assume those aren't the same as the rest, but why are the front ones not hinged too? What's the purpose of it? These front panels are also larger than the rear ones as can be seen by the height difference and they also look a little bit thicker if you ask me, maybe they're NERA and not ERA? The box above the side panels has also intruiged me, it looks very much like the boxes on T-72s etc that are for storing equipment, but the size of them makes me wonder why they would leave such a large gap (relatively speaking) in the coverage of the ERA between the hull and the turret. There's gotta be a reason for it all, the front panels being NERA sort of makes sense as they would be able to sustain multiple hits, which would potentially increase survivability for the crew, but ERA tends to be more effective for the same volume so......
  2. Do we know if it still uses the "USSR" style of composite like on T-90 and T-72 hulls? Or is it more like NATO armour/T-72B turret? Also, there's ERA on there too, which should be taken into account. Sides don't appear to be too thick apart from the skirts/ERA.
  3. Interesting, any mention of what ceramics would be used? Ah, I'd figured that the arrow meant the protection applied to the rest of the crew compartment area as well, bit confusing to be honest, connecting the arrow to the bustle section threw me off. So right after the UK's assessment.
  4. Explains the difference in reported numbers, thanks for the pic. Yeah, that's probably a better way of measuring it. It's rather clear that the XM-1 would've been quite different in protection, from what I can tell, the entire turret front and side of the M1 was supposed to protect against this 81mm HHIW, and at perpendicular angles too as the Swedish leak suggests: I strongly doubt the 2AV's turret side like the drawing from Wiedzmin would protect against that, probably only from a frontal angle around the crew, bustle wouldn't protect against anything but autocannons. Huh, why'd they do this then: I assumed that was to indicate that it applied to the entire turret and not just the bustle? There is less NERA there, but the base armour is also a lot thicker, 101mm thick or so. Might not be sufficient, but it's probably still better than what the 2AV has. That's odd, as the US at this time considered T-72 to be better: Before introduction of M774 (which means pre 1980) and M735 is considered to not be good enough even in a best case scenario and M735 had over 150mm of penetration at 60° at 800m. That should be considered enough to defeat 100mm at 68° (or 70°). Original T-64 layout was around 330mm against APDS like M392 and the immunity range was 500m or beyond according to Soviet requirement, M735 is a marked improvement over that round and thus should be capable of dealing with the original layout... It seems like the T-72 in this scenario had it's armour rated at or above 300mm for the hull alone, turret likely being the same if not higher. Quite a bit closer than the UK estimates, though they could just be using old and outdated ones and the US newer ones. Does it mention a simulated range for DM23? Or is the 200m range the range they were also simulating? If so, that's quite like the diagram of the T-80U turret from the Swedes where they also give a 200m version and a 2000m version. Was that Swedish diagram actually German in origin? One of my contacts claimed the Germans had conducted some tests on T-80 as well, but I wasn't sure if they just had test results or actually conducted the tests themselves.... Thanks for the additional info. True, there's actually more UK documentation flying around than German, which I find quite funny.
  5. Same values. I'd love to see pictures or see more detail on that. Frankly, I don't trust the Brits when it comes to talking about tank armour of other nations, they've been wrong on many occasions and often downplaying armour of other nation's tanks. Here we can see the T-64 and T-72 being misjudged by a large amount even if we assume they refer to the hull armour. T-80 is about right at 350mm even though T-72 and T-64 had practically the same armour at this point. They also criticise certain aspects of tanks like XM1 and leopard 2, despite using that very same aspect or concept in their own "dreamtank" (MBT-80): Ammo in the back of the turret is frowned upon, yet they were planning to use it in the MBT-80..... There's also the case of CR1's replacement, where people in charge of testing CR2, Leclerc, M1A2 and TVM all favoured the M1A2 or the TVM over the CR2, even going so far as to say they should atleast get the L44 if they opt for CR2. Politics intervened and they got the CR2 with the L30, because they'd already done the test against M1A2 and TVM they opted not to send a CR2 to compete in the Swedish trials, probably out of fear to see it end last and draw their earlier decision into question. Unless they have actual test results with confirmed threat and armour target, I will take whatever they say about other tanks with a grain of salt. Anyway, I'd love to see more info from either Wiedzmin about this or from you on those firing trials.
  6. Yeah, that's quite interesting, was the turretless tank supposed to have an autoloader as well? Some drawings have it, some don't, as @David Moyes pointed out, the concept drawings recently posted by Molota have the driver off to the side.
  7. Are these the values quoted by the Haynes CR2 manual? If so, they didn't specify turret or hull, nor what arc. Unless they give detailed info on what part achieves what protection, it might not mean the protection was reduced at all. They could just be using a different way of presenting the same info or even more likely, are just generalising the info and boiling it down to one single RHA value even though the original info does not. I have to point out the similarity between those values (350 and 420mm) and the protection achieved on 50% of the profile for the leopard 2 leaks from Sweden: Excuse the quick markings, but you can see here that 350mm and 420mm line up pretty well with the 50% area covered mark.... Unfortunately we don't know if Germany gave the UK this slide when they did their trials in the late 80s to early 90s, but considering the similarity between the data and the small timegap between the Swedish and British trials, I think it's quite likely that the middle slide was originally made for the UK and afterwards was repurposed and set over to the Swedes. That could also explain why it's actually three slides and why the middle one looks slightly darker and is also in English as opposed to the other two being in German. But as you can see, there's various ways in which the information could be interpretted, and seeing how there's absolutely no indication the frontal turret armour was touched or changed in those pictures @SH_MM posted earlier, I don't see why you think they all of a sudden decreased the frontal armour by ~100mm while also keeping the weight the same.... The hull was changed and some other small bits were made thinner or lighter by using aluminium, but there's simply no mention of the turret front being changed, so if this diagram from Wiedzmin is indeed talking about 2AV, that is most likely also the armour that ended up on series leopard 2. Regarding ceramics.... the Swedes tested that in the early 90s and they didn't seem impressed: http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm So either it was used in conjunction with the already existing armour without replacing large parts, or they were using different ceramics which the Swedes didn't know about. Either way, ceramics don't offer great multi-hit capability and that's something NATO specifically seems to care about quite a bit. So if they did use it, I highly doubt it's in large quantities or forms the base of the armour.
  8. Looks quite short, wasn't MBT-80 roughly the same length as CR1? Driver position matches though.
  9. I don't have the full document unfortunately, just these bits that others have posted before: These are all the bits I've found on the web, not sure if others have more, you can probably ask @Wiedzmin for those. Milan depends on the source, pretty sure I've seen UK reports saying 530 or 580mm, I'll look for that in the meantime. Weight reduction is fairly simple, as sent over to the US, leopard 2 did not comply with the maximum weight set forth by the agreement between the US and Germany, this IMO isn't a big deal considering the leopard 2 was using heavier tracks than the XM1 (which ended up using very similar ones on the M1A1) and it was using a larger gun. Still, Germany seemed to still think it was too much and opted to optimise and rearrange some things. 105mm APFSDS is some proto version of DM13, SP15 had some stuff on it: https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/ Seems to largely compare to a beefed up 3BM9 if you ask me (performance wise), though design looks more like 3BM42. Who says it was? It seems more likely to me that the graph we got from the Swedish leaks wasn't just talking about frontal armour protection but the entire profile instead, which would ofcourse lower the overal protection quite a bit. From the things I've found, nothing indicates a loss of protection for the turret, nor hull (though the hull isn't specified to remain the same, just that it still complies with requirements). To be fair, it uses vastly more steel and overal higher thickness than the plates inside the arrays of M1 or Shir 2/protos, while the front and backplate aren't quite as thick. Which pretty much confirms to me that unlike with "normal" chobham, the actual "NERA" sandwiches (or in this case, mostly just spaced steel plates with a small liner/bulging plate on the back) are meant to largely affect KE protection, as they are not only thicker, but mostly made of steel instead of very thin layers of steel + thicker rubber/plastics. Likewise, it explains why the HEAT protection wasn't as good per LOS as on the M1's turret for instance. It does seem like there's a lot of steel though.... more than I expected (I think around 428mm LOS worth). Hang on, because I think there might be some confusion here, @Militarysta provided us with excellent pictures pretty much proving that the LOS from the front is 860mm without question, on most drawings and pictures I've found the angle of the cheeks wouldn't be enough to reach 860mm if we assumed a perpendicular 680mm LOS. For reference, the angles I've measured seem to hover around 35-37° , if we assume 36° (bit of an odd number IMO), for 860mm LOS you'd need around 696mm base LOS. If we take 35° this would increase to 704mm base LOS. IMO, that seems closer than 680mm. So, was there really a change in LOS? Comparing pictures, I can't tell and it would seem rather odd to change it by such an insignificant number. As in a more efficient design or perhaps higher quality steel? That's quite likely. I prefer to see the original, though I understand if Wiedzmin can't give us that. Would be a real shame though, I'd love to see that. The side seems to be quite thin honestly, around 120mm of steel for ~320mm of LOS. Probably also why the US complained about unbalanced protection, the side probably can't stop an RPG-7 fired perpendicular, though it might from a frontal angle. I'm pretty sure they were using imperial tons, metric tonnes would be written differently and the XM1's weight was also listed higher than what it is in metric. Welp, guess I should've scrolled down first before writing. Thanks for those other pics tho, I couldn't find them anymore.
  10. Swedish shooting table for leopard 2 lists gun parts and has the trunnion/gun cradle listed at 595kg. Official Rheinmetall brochure for the L44 from 1982 has these weights: 630kg for mantlet, 1905kg for barrel, 1110kg for breech assembly (inc gun cradle). Volume of gun cradle x density of steel gives very similar numbers as reported by the Swedes and indicates it's not hollow.
  11. M735 used 18.5g/cc alloys. And according to the US, it didn't perform as well as the XM-1, most likely as a result of the skirts (or lack thereof) and hull protection/amount of hits the armour could take. I don't think you can deny that the protection levels between hull and turret ended up being different though. Then there would still be a difference between the highly angled upper glacis and the actual composite, unless the hull was only around 300mm effective, which would be lower than Challenger 1. Velocity loss from sources appears to be from 75m/s to around 100m/s. Normal velocity is probably between 1450m/s and 1500m/s, it's what most of these 105 rounds have. Not really conflicting, just much earlier data, these are prototype rounds after all and not production ones (which probably perform better...) Not denying the actual armour would be better on the leopard 2, just showing that this round really isn't bad and relatively potent as far as early 105 APFSDS goes. And if this 32mm round is M111 (which it might not be, though it's not unreasonable to think it might be), then atleast in this point in time they were fairly close. Also, wasn't DM13 specifically designed to have improved performance against complex targets? If so, what would it have comparably better performance to? Some DM13 proto with a monobloc core? So, despite carrying the 120 and using (mostly) the same round as the 105, they wouldn't have tested it against the leo 2? Seems odd, not that the UK actually had a round that could simulate those estimated 125 rounds either, so not like they could test the armour with it. The times I've seen it used they didn't specify what it consisted of, being used along terms such as: "Sonderpanzerung". Because they didn't specify the times they used it, you cannot know what they mean, hence it's "vague". That doesn't explain the lack of textolite, or why they didn't just make the steel plate thicker instead of going more more but thinner plates. Ah, just a misunderstanding then. I was referring to the lack of textolite and increase in steel plate count with decrease of thickness (not always though). Would the two layers of explosives not have any effect on this? I thought that's one of the reasons why they had two layers at different angles. That's assuming they didn't do their job and that weight wasn't considered important enough to be updated. Different transmission and automotive components, supposedly using aluminium roadwheels for instance and the new suspension (hydrogas). Cutout for the TOGS probably saved a bit as well. Which I haven't seen anywhere else and could mean a lot of different things. Without increasing thickness, they'd have to increase weight (didn't seem to happen) or make the inserts substantially better by using higher quality materials (thereby increasing price). Then it somehow reaches 500mm from around 420mm (assuming protection scales with the LOS thickness)? It's a bigger leap to think that "improved turret armour" means a substantial increase in KE resistance without visual difference or secondary source confirmation, than to assume they got the weight of the tank right on official documentation which was finalised 2 days before the tank got delivered. The weight was also clearly "filled in" after the document itself was made, which is exactly what you would do if you weren't entirely sure about specifics yet and were waiting for the last moment to fill them in. They had three months between acceptance of CR1 and delivery of the first tank/last modification of the document. You mean the document talking about Challenger I, II, III or the MBT-80? Because if it's the latter, I didn't see any mention of this before and that would still not prove that CR1 was then required to achieve the same level of protection: Thanks to @Molota_477 we know: Which means that to achieve 430mm of protection the turret had to be 480mm thick (probably at normal and including turret casting), this is substantially more than the 430mm of CR1 (at normal, confirmed to be with turret casting). So..... pretty much all secondary sources (this one is fairly well respected) say that MBT-80 was to have superior armour..... You think they left those hollow? LOS of the main UFP armour for both is around 630-660mm, with leo 2 going down on the LFP and CR1 also going down starting from the beak til below the numberplate (below that is plain steel). Still looks like a bigger or perhaps comparable area to me. Still don't know where this number comes from, finding info on CR1 special armour weight is nigh impossible. Also, leopard 2 most likely used HHA and didn't use a cast turret base.... that alone will make it quite a bit more mass efficient (never seen mention of HHA for CR1, but I have seen mentions of aluminium...). Why would they downgrade the hull armour from Shir 2 to CR1? I'd think this would be mentioned somewhere. It's never specified that it was reduced. Again, I didn't see any source for the weight and that thicker backplate is cast, which itself isn't good for thickness efficiency, they didn't even have a 125mm APFSDS (or simulant) of the levels you say it's required to defeat. What we have is: doc from 1981 saying T-72 tank rounds can only be stopped above 1000m by CR1 turret, same doc specifies said round as penetrating 480mm of RHA at this range UK considering USSR ammo inferior to their own later document (unknown date) specifying turret to protect against 105 and 120mm APDS, 125mm APFSDS such as the quoted Russian round.... Thinner armour than MBT-80 which was required to stop 430mm same LOS as leo 2 turret higher emphasis on CE protection inefficient cast turret base lower weight than Shir 2, tank it's based off and whose armour was 325mm on the glacis and uknown value for turret (not designed against APFSDS). secondary sources all agreeing CR1 was less armoured than MBT-80 and was "outdated" by around 1990 Primary source stating armour was slightly superior to XM-1 Tank design – a discussion of some of the factors which influence the choice of armour and gun, DEFE 24/1369 (I don't have this) https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11345559 Dates to jan of 1978 to dec of 78 Thanks! That's from April of 1978 apparently. Would be interesting to compare both documents. Thanks for that other info btw. edit: SH, if you think they sacrificed hull armour and put everything on the turret, so be it, but there's really about as much proof for that as there is for what I've said.
  12. Unfortunately there's no pictures to confirm, M111 (or prototype thereof) seemed rather likely as the diameter is the same and I haven't seen any other round that could be used that has the same diameter. If it was a different prototype round, it's unknown. Nice pic, But then the HEAT protection specified in a later document wouldn't be achieved, and "480mm" is again higher than what they settled on for MBT-80 while also not specifying what round it is against. That's weird, MBT-80 settled on ~405mm KE requirement and ~850mm CE. Yeah, this is pretty much why I don't believe that it could achieve 500mm (atleast against long rods, against slug type 125mm ammo it definitely might). Can you link where you got these weights? I've been trying to gather more info, I don't have access to the archives directly.
  13. Ofcourse there's speculation in what I say, there's speculation in almost everything regarding classified vehicles like the MBTs we're talking about. You yourself even speculate in the same paragraph: Right there you speculate the requirement also includes protection for the frontal arc (inc side armour), you even speculate it includes the hull! There's nothing in that snippet which talks about the hull, merely that the armour is "assumed" to be protected against these threats, it doesn't specify arc, nor range, nor part of the armour. Do I think it's possible it also includes the hull? Yeah, perhaps, but not the lower hull, nor do I think protecting against 105mm DM13 (APFSDS) is that easy, you essentially need T-72M levels of upper hull armour, if not a bit more (T-72M1). Why do I think so? Because https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/ gives us performance for DM13 APFSDS and what looks to be M111 (32mm core, matches that of M111 and I cannot think of any more probable round that it could refer to). The performance figures for a 150mm plate @ 60°: Interestingly, DM13 penetrates the plate as low as 1329m/s, while M111 fails at 1379m/s, which could indate that atleast against monolithic targets, DM13 performs slightly better. It gets even more interesting when we look at the third target, a 40mm plate + 150mm air + 90mm plate (all at 60°) Here DM13 has a ~100m/s advantage over M111 (at ~75m/s velocity drop over 1000m that means about 1.25km range advantage). So, if M111 could penetrate T-72Ms from about 800-1200m and DM13 (105 APFSDS) was better than this, I don't see the leopard 2 hull stopping it below 1500m. So, assuming worst case scenario for M1 and best case for leo 2, that's how you get them to have almost equal side turret armour? I don't do that, assuming equal testing methods (which they probably are considering there's NATO standards), the M1s turret side is still better for equal LOS than the leo 2s (against CE). I'm looking at what's most probable given available info, and sharing that idea so I can get constructive criticism, but I don't assume best case scenario like what you said there. Assessed as being able to stop an estimated round at ranges above 1km.* FYI, this document is from 1980-1981: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16517036 I was going off Krapke's diagram. If you're worried he's wrong about something like this, why aren't you worried about a vague term like "Beulblechpanzerung"? Neither is there for CR1 or M1, only on paper. Besides, if you're going to assume the CR1 was tested against 125mm simulants, might as well do the same for leo 2. And you don't think "Beulblechpanzerung" might not refer to the armour type you think it refers to? It's a vague term, only describing what happens, not how it happens, never mind the exact composition or layering to achieve the effect. That is what I really have an issue with, the fact it might not be "conventional" chobham, yet lots of people seem to think it is. Interesting, I myself found some of what he said a bit "enthusiastic" as well, but overal, most of what he says is backed up by valid sources and "logic". Specifically his explanations and points regarding the Soviet UFP armour seem to be rather accurate, albeit a tad high in some cases. Quite clearly though, if we assume NATO armour increased in mass efficiency over the years, we have to assume the same for USSR armour arrays. Besides, what other reason could they have for ditching the textolite in the T-72AV and going thinner spaced plates (which could be more easily destroyed or damaged)? If the T-72AVs armour wasn't more mass efficient than the T-64B/T-80BVs, why use it? Curious, why wouldn't it be? I mean, he did underestimate that round in particular (~450mm vs actual ~650mm), but is there some other element that he failed to mention? Apart from TOGS, what do you think they added that could weigh ~3t? Personally think automotive change, but that wouldn't account for it. Anyway, this isn't a prototype or whatever it's talking about, this is the production CR1 Mk1: last changed: 14/3/83 after CR1 entered service. Shir 2 was scheduled for production in April of 1979, but cancelled in Feb of 1979. It was found to be "unsatisfactory" in terms of fire control systems primarily, with the UK going for the MBT-80.... But then in 1979 they realised it wasn't feasable and they decided to buy a limited number of FV4030/3 (Shir 2) in Sept 1979, but without major modifications. Personally, I'd class "improved turret protection" under "major modification", especially considering the cast base turret of the design already made it weaker than if it were RHA. All the secondary sources I've been able to find indicate that only automotive/gunnery trials were held, no changes in armour are mentioned. In dec of 1982 it was then accepted, but they should fix some issues: TN37 Gearbox (problematic apparently) Fightability Scale of major assembly spares Main engine generator drive Neodymium YAG Laser sight Tools and test equipment None of that would increase weight by that much. Oh, and the tank entered service officially on the 16th of March in 1983 (handed over to the troops). That's two days after the source I've been using for the weight.... More specs: Interesting to note is how much bigger CR1 is compared to M1. In a UK doc? They'd say it's a notable improvement still, even then the 275mm you're using for the hull comes from the same document here: It doesn't say "275mm", it says "a minimum protection equivalent to 275mm". This could mean a variety of things, possibly that the "shoulders" of the UFP are less armoured than the middle section, or something else. But it doesn't say 275mm for the UFP, that would be 50mm lower than the Shir 2 had..... While I agree that survivability is hard to quantify or dependant on what you're looking at, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden the UK only considers their new tank (which according to you offers around 500mm for the turret, close to MBT-80) as "slightly" better protected. If you assume 325mm KE protection on the hull (Shir 2 values) and ~500mm on the turret, you have to weigh the side protection a lot higher than the frontal protection for the M1 to only be "slightly" worse. And source for the Vicker's weight is? It could use newer armour when compared to Challenger 1 which seems to just be a Shir 2 in armour technology. After all, it was developed in 1984-1988(?) to replace Challenger 1 and/or be used for export. It was a later design and could incorporate new armour technology. You're ignoring that the hull is smaller, lighter and has less armoured surface area compared to CR1. Speculating? It clearly mentions what I say and it doesn't take much to see how a "successor" 125mm round with an estimated performance substantially higher than L23, yet somehow about as capable as L23 in the eyes of the UK, has to be considered "inferior" in design for that assumption to work. If those figures came from the Stillbrew study (feasibility study of improving chieftain turret protection), then they're more recent than the Challenger 1's requirement, as that study is from after 1981 when the UK got the chance to inspect destroyed Iranian Chieftains. Unless they now assumed the USSRs rounds to be worse than before, I don't see why the values would be "outdated". How is this possible if the MBT-80 study was ended in 1979 (L23 still in development) and CR1 was finalised before the end of 1982 (L23 still not introduced)? They tested the Stillbrew package in 1985, after L23 was introduced and when BD26 was well underway, so if anything, the Stillbrew package was probably tested with superior ammo. Initial requirement called for 430mm+ worth of protection on hull and turret, this was lowered to 405mm when they increased the HEAT protection. At this point they didn't have APFSDS that could even reach it, nor alloys for such rounds, so this was purely theorising and best case scenario in terms of armour capability. Same hull as Shir 2, same weight as MBT-80, fully steel (apart from roadwheels), so I highly doubt same turret armour. Hull definitely didn't change from Shir 2 to CR1, turret most probably didn't, Shir 2 was developed in the mid 70s before UK was convinced to switch to APFSDS and way before they even had their own APFSDS. Just in 1970 they had been testing Chobham against 120mm APDS and only stopping at at 1300m, you really think they managed to suddenly optimise the armour against a new type of round they had little to no experience with and which also performed substantially differently and better than APDS? Shir 2 was for export to Iran, highly doubt they would've designed the armour to defeat ammo (115mm APFSDS) they didn't think was that impressive (considered equal to 105mm APDS in 1970). No secondary sources say anything about armour upgrades between Shir 2 and CR1, no visual difference regarding thickness of armour, urgency to put the tank into production, weight limit...... All these things contribute and point to the CR1 having near identical performing armour to the Shir 2. And his source for this was? What? If you're referring to the preference of not using highly sloping armour plates for the top of the hull and instead "pulling up" the armour to cover that area, leaving the LFP exposed, then yes, it's less efficient in terms of coverage and does make that area thicker, but that was my point. The armour layout is simply less efficient than that of leopard 2 or M1, by "pulling up" the armour on the UFP, it makes the front of the hull higher and thus means more volume/weight, only leaving a thin LFP to protect the lower hull. Just compare both of these: Clearly, the Challenger 1s armour is spread over a larger area and protects areas that the leopard 2 does not (highly sloped UFP and "shoulders"). In turn the leopard 2 doesn't have a driver's hatch and features composite in the lower plate (albeit substantially thinner than the rest). Except that it's not counted as composite and reduces the surface area that needs to be covered by composite, thereby indirectly making it a more weight efficient method if we only count the composite weight. Also, again, 325mm if we go by Shir 2 numbers.... It protects the sponsons and gets closer to the turret base of the leopard 2, so more area covered, albeit less consistently. Protection level is again, not lower, but about the same if not ever so slightly higher. Larger profile and higher volume of frontal hull armour, which means same weight and lower density or higher weight and same density. Larger area covered, unconfirmed weight, cast base turret and similar LOS to leopard 2 front armour, I don't see how it can be much better. (Possibly older armour technology and more optimised against HEAT as well)
  14. Smart propellant system? Somehow making sure the round gets the proper velocity by adjusting something in the propellant, or maybe even some primitive guidance method to limit effect of wind? There's a few things that it might be, some make more sense than others, I think a programmed seperation action for a part of the penetrator makes the most sense. Thanks, there's a lot of conflicting data on this round, but this volume makes sense and adds up to the possible weight. One thing that never lines up is the penetration though, often claimed to be 430mm at 2000m 0°, but this doesn't seem possible with the dimensions of the round and velocity at 2000m.
  15. Ah okay, is there anything on the frontal add-on armour? For US maybe, but I think UK mostly used 260-300BNH.
  16. True, definitely isn't bad, but that is the maximum and it hasn't been upgraded since (that we can tell). So, we're talking about auxiliary armour like a Pz 4 H? A thin steel plate put on brackets outside the tracks of the vehicle? If that's the case, it's probably about ~500mm away from the main side plate (width of thet tracks are the minimum) at normal, and at 70° that would be about 1460mm..... That's quite a large space, it doesn't really surprise me that the round has issues with such a large gap, it kind of reminds me of this: Bottom row is quite similar, 65° and 1550mm space gap between a 10mm frontplate and 70mm rearplate, this arrangement was 18.3% more mass efficient than an 80mm plate. Frankly, that doesn't make DM13 look bad, not when you realise it's essentially a round from 1974.... I think it would do better against the actual frontal armour array as it seems the first segment was "wasted" on the thin 10mm plate.... Also, junk US/UK test plates? Where do you get this from? I know the M60s had very soft armour etc, but I didn't think they tested with equally soft steel, same for the UK.
  17. Interesting, never heard of BM22M before. Those are some nice models, if they are to scale, could you post the volume and dimensions of BM32?
  18. To clarify the hull armour layout on M1(A1): The plate under the tank that covers the special armour cavity is ~23" long (26.5"-3.5"), with the exterior LFP plate being 1.25" thick and set at roughly 39°, the interior plate is 4" thick and at an unknown angle (I presume the same as the exterior plate). Exact measurement is hard to see in the picture, and it wasn't easy to get them, so big thanks to my friend that went back and crawled under it As the plate in the picture is also at an angle ~8°, we can try to add these values together to get the rough LOS thickness: 1.25" @ 39° + 23" @ 8° + 4" @ 39° = ~30" or about 762mm. Bit of an odd number (the raw thickness) as it isn't nice and round, guessing the actual length of that bottom plate is 22.75", which would make the raw thickness 28". None of the angles are for certain as it wasn't measured, but the difference would be rather small.
  19. Interesting, perhaps the substantial % of additional weight going to the extra 6° of frontal arc protection is due to the much larger surface area on the side of the vehicle rather than the small frontal area? I've only ever seen BRL-2 mentioned as being "improved armor" when talking about IPM1 vs M1, it's never mentioned how, so it seemed logical it was just the increase in thickness they were referring to.... Either way, do we know what they were using as simulant for this 115mm DU round? (or where we can find this paper?) Yeah, but you'd also need a higher thickness of the plates to get the same effect, unless the first steel used was quite soft and the new alloy was very good...
  20. Many thanks Oh right, I read something somewhere about the loader's hatch being deleted....
  21. IIRC diesel isn't so bad, unless the warheads (HEAT rounds, I don't know about APFSDS) use aluminium liners. Is there a way to visually differentiate them from each other? Germany actually still has some 2A5s in storage according to one of my friends (ex 2A6M loader) for urban warfare. Or they could've been 2A6s but with the L44, I don't quite remember...
  22. And the version Germany was planning to field was...... TVM. Yeah, and it's probably not entirely correct as they were using cast armour for both the base and the add-on, add the rubber to this and they reached 480-540mm LOS. If going by LOS, sure it's better, but because both parts were cast and the rubber seems to be included in the overal thickness, the actual protection would be substantially lower, I don't think it would be much better than leo 2's turret. (they also get to that LOS through angle, which is less effective than vertical armour per LOS against long rods) Why wouldn't they? The part about leopard 2 "improved" probably wasn't added yet, but I'm sure they gave the info on the other versions somehow, why make a new graph for every country you're planning on selling the tank to? It's not an unreasonable assumption. If it's 350mm for the frontal arc, then it can only be talking about the frontal armour, not the sides. And 350mm seems too high for the hull (from the front). Perhaps, but one could just add 5-10mm and substantially increase protection, or use a NERA style sandwich.... Just seems a bit too rushed, more testing could've shown highly angled plates aren't a terrible idea.... Wasn't there an issue with weight for the hulls? Something about making sure the hulls could handle any future upgrades....
  23. I wouldn't say that, in T-72B they could mount it in any way they wanted due to the inconsistency of the cast turret cavity, but with box like cavities you could make all internal plates the same dimensions and simplify logistics somewhat, would also make it theoretically easier to mount and dismount the plates as they would be individually acessible. If they were angled (substantially) on the inside I would expect higher (or similar) CE protection as the LOS thickness is greater than M1 yet it somehow has less.... Don't know for sure, but it's a possibility either way and I doubt they're highly angled, atleast in the turret. If it reached their requirement for CE protection and was more effective against KE then I don't see why they wouldn't choose it, but I get your point, likely the real way the armour looks is somewhere in-between. Just don't call it Chobham or say it's a derivative thereof, evidently they had their own armour designs prior to the cooperation between them and the UK, completely ditching their old research doesn't seem likely. Yes, and this is why I think they used this kind of system, it allows them to use HHA plates in the arrays, enhancing KE protection. I didn't say that, but I'll rephrase some of my words: The emphasis seemed to be on higher KE protection relative to CE protection when compared with other MBTs like M1. CE requirement for M1: 680mm penetrating SC for only 740mm LOS (0.92 ratio) CE requirement for Leo 2: 580mm penetrating SC for ~860mm LOS (0.67 ratio) The M1s requirement was 36% more thickness efficiency against CE than leo 2, that isn't "slightly" more. Is it really though? CR1 was rated for T-72 tank rounds at 1000m, whereas Leo 2 was rated for T-72 tank rounds at 1500m, both on the turret. Depending on the simulant used, either could be a "higher" requirement. It's not completely different, it probably uses some of the same elements, I just don't think it's a derivative. Yes, authors describe it as such, same way they did back when everyone thought these tanks used lots of ceramics/plastics/steel in solid arrays, which led to estimates like Paul Lakowski's..... Are they? Even close up pictures don't tell much about what they are made of, the only things we know is that they're not heavy enough to be mostly steel and that they seem to have a rather big space in the middle. "Made of...."? It's an indication that they still think spaced armour is useful, meaning it's still a relevant design choice. Pretty sure that they used different armour on the turret for manufacturing reasons, hence why they went for welded turrets with T-90A.....(when they realised cast turrets simply have too many weaknesses). Yet they are still using the same kind of hull armour arrays.... Their armour arrays were quite good against KE despite "only" using spaced armour, it's very likely that Germany noticed the higher efficiency of spaced steel arrays too. T-72AV has 60-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-50, while the first and last plate become quite thick, the intermediate ones only get to around 30-45mm.... this seems to be an optimal thickness. Not because of that. But because this thickness range seems optimal against sub caliber shells too.... Leopard 2K heavily utilised angles and spaced armour to obtain it's protection, it only had two spaced layers too.... Pretty much the opposite of 2AV. Yes they did, they got substantially better over time, not just through higher steel thickness. I recommend you read this blog on the matter: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html#ural (you might already have) Despite weighing less and having the same armour thickness? Doubful, if anything this would be a minor change in steel type, yet no sources specify the steels used as being special anyway... Weight of Shir 2: 60-62t Weight of CR1 (Mk1): 59.5t (Also note that they say the armour protection is slightly superior to M1) So..... what is slightly higher than 350mm? 500? I don't think so, and neither did you: CR1 uses a cast base turret, probably plain RHA as front plate and most probably not much more advanced than what the Shir 2 had..... The armour could've been "improved" in various ways, better against several hits, slightly better coverage on the internal plates, side armour might've been "adjusted".... 105mm APFSDS rounds in 1978? Sure, but not 120mm APFSDS rounds in 1980. And it specifically mentions those for the Vickers. Thinner and lighter? Where did you see that? It's a newer tank, unlike Shir 2 CR1. Yes, I've asked multiple people and they all drew the same conclusion. Then why mention 105/120mm APDS? That's even less relevant. More on that in a sec. The same book also clearly mentions the UK considers USSR rounds inferior to their own. So, if L23 (penetration of 480mm PB at 69.5°) was "only" resisted at 1000m, then why did they think the armour had a decent chance to stop the future 125mm APFSDS? Despite said penetrator penetrating more armour than L23 even at vertical (they use this for the previously mentioned 125s)..... So, either they considered USSR ammo inferior (probably at angles) or they assumed 2000m+ or they didn't understand that long rods penetrate more LOS armour when the angle goes up..... In any of those cases, it's wishful thinking on their part. At what angle though? Clearly they considered USSR ammo inferior or equal to APDS back in the 70s, and in the 80s they seem to consider it inferior to their APFSDS. In what way, I don't know, but there's more to it than: USSR APFSDS = NATO APFSDS. Both of those rounds are from 1987 and substantially more advanced, which is why it's completely reasonable to assume that less advanced ammo would have a harder time with the same armour array. Optimised against APDS, LRPs are substantially better against composites than APDS, CR1 is mostly Shir 2, thus, unless the armour changed drastically, CR1s armour would be less effective against LRPs than against APDS. I didn't say that I believed it, quite the contrary, this shows that the document is either looking at the future (it is called "Post 1995 tank research" or something along those lines...) or going very hypothetical. Challenger 2 apparently wasn't even considered or started until 1987, 6 years after this document was finalised. Couple of problems: Probability of hit is also calculated, as can be seen by Chieftain having a 64% chance of being knocked out at 2000m despite the ammo being used overmatching the armour on it by a large margin This is beyond the range at which the round used achieves 480mm of penetration, so this means that to reach 50% probability of kill with this round, the tank would need to have a minimum of 50% of it's frontal area be a weakspot When taking that all into account, it means that despite an alledged "500mm RHAe on hull and turret" (double that of Chieftain and more than enough to stop this round) and the reduced probability of hit at this range, it still has a 50% chance of being knocked out?? Don't tell me that 50% (when taking probability of hit into account, way more) of the frontal surface is weakspot.... Where did you get the weight for CR1 from? Haven't found any good sources for that. CR1's armour layout is not very efficient, it protects the sponsons of the hull, it doesn't use highly angled plates for a decent surface area to protect the tank (they didn't like this) and the total surface area of the tank that is protected by composite is probably a lot higher. The front of the turret is wider, the front of the hull is higher, it has more frontal weakspots.... Is that special armour weight based off the 62t weight or the 59.5t weight? So, the armour is spread over a larger area and uses angles more to obtain higher LOS. Speaking of which, the hull is about the same LOS thickness (on the UFP), LFP is massively thinner, turret front is about the same and the turret side is reasonably close too. If leopard 2 reaches ~430mm KE and 650-700mm CE, how would CR1 reach 500mm KE and 750mm+ CE? It doesn't add up. Again, it doesn't add up: If this is Chieftain stillbrew, how come the difference between 480mm threat and 630mm threat is only 1% when Hull down stationary? Surely the stillbrew package covers more than 1% of the surface area of the turret..... Furthermore, there's a 70% chance to kill Chieftain when fully exposed stationary at 100m, seeing how those "weakspots" definitely don't make up 70% of the surface area, we can conclude this is probably an RPG-7 that has enough penetration to penetrate pretty much any spot on the Chieftain, thus the 70% is due to probability of hit more than armour protection (as evidenced by the probility dropping off severely at longer ranges). So, from a base probability of hit of around 70%, it drops to 44% when hull down, clearly even if it is a stillbrew Chieftain, those weakspots wouldn't make up more than 44% of the frontal area..... Let's look at those weakspots to be sure: turret ring, around 1-3% of frontal area gun mount, around 10% of frontal area hatches..... can you even consider this a weakspot that leads to a "kill"? If you do, less than 5%. I don't see how those would add up to around 44% of the frontal area on either Chieftain or Challenger. See how it's just weird?
  24. Does it specify the airgap size? That's a nice picture though. Edit: It's also not 100mm/70° at 3057m but 3057m more than the reinforced array, so over 4000m. That's not bad at all, given the high angle and the fact this is essentially their first APFSDS....(own development)
×
×
  • Create New...