Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Scav

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in Explosive Reactive Armor   
    Object 640 Kaktus ERA system - interesting overlapping position of each ERA tile sure looks like more serious effort than what you see on Budget Cuts 3.

     

     
     
     http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_66.html
     
       Also, according to pattent they wanted to detonate tiles in layers to increase amount of counter-actions against incoming penetrator. External ERA cover was involved in counter-action. After first layer detonates, a soft-ish material in between first and second layer of ERA was delaying damaging effects of first ERA detonation while tubes with explosives worked as detonators for second layer of ERA.
       On thise side cutaways you can see those detonation tubes between ERA tiles
     
  2. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Domichan in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    A production 120mm DM33 on top of Munitionsmerkblatt 1305-9213-4. Shape of the tip and fins is exactly the same.
    If you look at number 22 in the bottom picture, that is the  Hülsendeckel and "a" indicates where it is glued to the rest of the Hülsenmantel.
    Hope this helps.
     


  3. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Jackvony in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while.
     
    I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, while awesome and cool to get inside of, was nothing new. However, they had a cutaway of a M829A4 round, which was on public display so it's not breaking OPSEC. Thought it would interest you guys.
     


     
    Edit: I have no official measurements but I've looked at some photos of M829A3 and the penetrator definitely seems longer based on the sabot petals seeming to be longer at the top.
  4. Tank You
    Scav reacted to David Moyes in Britons are in trouble   
  5. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Lord_James in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    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.
  6. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
  7. Funny
    Scav reacted to Militarysta in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
  8. Funny
    Scav reacted to Willy Brandt in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  9. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Re: Leopard 2AV
     
    #
    projectile
    angle
    target
    result
    1 / 1
    81 mm HEAT
    40°
    left turret side
    no penetration, light bulge
    2 / 2
    81 mm HEAT
    40°
    left turret side
    penetration, cover of sponson fuel tank pushed in by shockwave
    3 / 3
    106 mm HEAT
    30°
    left turret side
    no penetration
    4 /4
    127 mm HEAT
    25°
    turret front, left side
    no penetration
    5 / 5
    127 mm HEAT
    25°
    left turret edge, between
    front and side faces
    penetration, track cover pushed in despite 25 mm cover plate, sponson fuel tank damaged
    6 / 6
    127 mm HEAT

    gun mantlet, front side
    penetration
    7 / 9
    81 mm HEAT
    30°
    right hull side,
    track skirts
    no penetration, 10 mm deep and 110 mm long mark on the exterior of hull side wall
    8 / 10
    81 mm HEAT
    30°
    right hull side,
    track skirts
    no penetration, bulge, 21 mm deep and 110 mm long mark on the exterior hull side
    9 / 8
    81 mm HEAT
    30°
    track cover, close to
    the driver's hatch
    no penetration
    10 / 7
    81 mm HEAT
    45°
    turret front, right side
    no penetration
    11 / 11
    127 mm HEAT
    30°
    turret front, right side
    no penetration
    12 / 12
    127 mm HEAT
    25°
    right turret side
    no penetration, weld along the turret roof broken along 1.66 meters length
    13 / 13
    127 mm HEAT

    gunner's sight
    penetration, only minor marks visible in the interior
    14 / 14
    127 mm HEAT
    20°
    third track skirt element
    penetration, only slight mark of damage in the interior; trunnion side wall pressed against gun mantlet, but movement of gun mantlet is not hindered
    15 / 14R
    127 mm HEAT
    20°
    first track skirt element
    no penetration, skirt element mostly destroyed, support roller penetrated; only minor marks on the exterior side wall
    16 / 15
    127 mm HEAT

    central hull front
    no penetration
    17 / 16
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    central hull front
    no penetration
    18 / 17
    127 mm HEAT

    central hull front
    no penetration
    19
    / 18
    127 mm HEAT

    upper front plate
    no penetration
    20 / 37
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    upper front plate, section sloped at 8°
    penetration, also damaged the gun mantlet (limited gun elevation only)
    21 / 19
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    upper front plate
    no penetration of crew compartment
    23 / 22
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    left turret side
    no penetration of crew compartment
    24 / 23
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    turret front, left side
    no penetration of crew compartment,
    turret roof bulged outwards by 15 mm
    25 / 24
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    turret front, left side
    no penetration of crew compartment
    26 / 25
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    20°
    left hull side, track skirts
    no penetration, bulge, 25 mm deep mark in the exterior side
    27 / 27
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    turret front, right side
    no penetration of crew compartment, turret roof bulged outwards by 18 mm
    28 / 28
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    turret front, lower right side
    no penetration, weld broken between turret front and side faces, dummy thrown out of its harness, gunner's sight screws knocked loose, turret can only hardly be turned
    29 / 29
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    turret roof
    no penetration
    30 / 30
    100 mm AP
    30°
    left turret edge, between
    front and side faces
    no penetration, broken weld to the turret ring; turret can only be turned using force
    31 / 31
    100 mm AP
    20°
    left hull side, track skirts
    shot bounced off, no penetration of crew compartment, material broken off from the inner wall (spall), two skirt elements destroyed, support roller damaged
    32 / 32
    100 mm AP
    10°
    central hull front
    no penetration
    33 / 34
    81 mm HEAT
    45°
    front wheel, left side
    no penetration, 5 mm deep mark in hull side
    34 / 35
    127 mm HEAT
    20°
    front wheel, left side
    penetration
    35 / 29R
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    turret roof
    no penetration, round bounced off, 250 mm long, 35 mm wide and 6 mm deep mark
    36 / 20
    D 105 mm APFSDS

    lower front plate
    penetration, first torsion bar damaged slightly, isolation of second torsion bar damaged, third torsion bar damaged heavily
    37 / 36
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    20°
    front wheel, left side
    no penetration, projectile did not touch hull side wall, but instead damaged the bearing of the front wheel, bounced off and penetrated two support rollers
    38 / 38
    D 105 mm APFSDS
    25°
    trunnion wall
    penetration, nearly no traces of damages on the inside (projectile fragments exited turret through the ammunition compartment, where the door was blasted off during earlier tests)
    39 / 6R
    106 mm HEAT

    gun mantlet
    no penetration
    40 / 39
    100 mm AP
    25°
    right turret side, close to the weld between front and side faces
    no penetration, only partial crack of the external weld between right turret front and right turret side
     
     
    There is a lot more info regarding the damage to the weld lines and the size of the holes caused by the hits.
  10. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    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?
  11. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    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.
     
  12. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    Possible layout of T-14 frontal armor
    http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2159&p=2#p1244215

     

  13. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    T-16 at UVZ

  14. Funny
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in General AFV Thread   
    From same event in Singapore, Leo2SG

     
     

       Imagine Chieftain here with his "oh my god, the tank is on fire!"
  15. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Wiedzmin in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
    25.04.75
    it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
     
     
    it can't

     
    HOT
     

     
    MILAN
     
    and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration
  16. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Wiedzmin in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
     
    As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
     
    this is description for this draw 
     

     
    but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
     

     

     
    as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
     

     
    tank cut-away show fuel tank
  17. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    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.
     
  18. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Lord_James in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23?
    Hull was penetrated once, which is entirely reasonable given that my estimates based on the Swedish leaks suggest around ~425mm on the UFP for C tech, DM23 should be sufficient for this, by contrast, only shot number 12 penetrated the turret cheek and this was most likely because it exited the main armour array into the gun area before it hit the back wall.
    According to my previously mentioned estimates, the turret front is around 550mm, though I have to point out that even then the percentages don't reach the values from the Swedish leaks, indicating that it could be slightly higher than this.
     
    Yes, and how did it "nearly" defeat it?
    As we can see from this:
    Even DM33 did a decent enough job and managed to punch through parts of the K-5 (to the right of the gun), so we really need more details.
    Besides, the two protection types are completely different, not sure how you can compare them 1 to 1.....
     
    He may not have lied at all, just made a mistake.
    The reason why I'd use the earliest turrets possible is that they would be in the most need for refurbishment and if there were plastics utilised in the turrets (which would seem to be the case if they used NERA or atleast some form of it), then it might've degraded the most and be in need of replacement.
    By that same logic, they would've needed to refurbish the entire turret and that would mean taking out the armour inserts and replacing the degraded parts, obviously the steel itself would've been fine and could be reused...

    If there is such a thing as D tech main armour and if it did provide a noticeable protection increase over C, it would've been substantially more expensive than B tech and I frankly doubt that they would upgrade the base armour of the turret to an even more potent armour type if the turret already achieved it's protection goals with B tech as a base.
    It would've made much more sense to adopt the hull add-on instead as this would bring the entire tank up to spec and would probably cost less as well.
     
    Also, considering B + D-2 already achieves remarkable levels of protection and the D-2 got changed for a better version in the Mannheim specification, C tech as base would've already made it pass the requirement, let alone some type of even further improved base armour....
    C tech offered an improvement of 20-35% over B, with add-ons I'd imagine that gap would increase further (comparing B + add-on and C + add-on), so why would there be a need for a D tech base?
     
    IMO:
    Pink -> B tech ("confirmed")
    Red -> C tech (indicated by circumstancial evidence)
    Yellow -> B + D-2 ("confirmed")
    Blue -> B + D1/3
    Green -> C hull + D1-3, B(or C) turret + D1-3
     
    Not entirely sure when you mean by blue having less protection at 50% than the "German model"?
    At 50% it has around 650mm protection while yellow ("German model" I guess?) has 525mm.
    I don't think you can just extrapolate the gradients beyond what the graph shows from the ones that come before, as you can see from the yellow, graph, the gradients can change drastically.
    Plus, I don't see how a normal 2A4 with D main armour could possibly reach the levels of protection that B + D-2 show, the LOS simply isn't good enough.
     
    Rather, I think that the reason for blue merging with yellow left of 400mm is because it ( the add-ons) don't cover as much of the tank as D-2 does, possibly because the LFP or some other small area isn't quite as covered.
    Or, it could be that they actually match and the gradients are equal at this point....
    In any case, I think the additional protection blue offers over yellow has to do with the hull protection, more so than turret protection.
     
    Perhaps I'm wrong and blue indicates they utilised C tech for the hull as base as well as different add-on, which would also explain the gap.
     
    They might even throw us a curveball and utilise different add-ons for both hull and turret, we don't know.
     
    You can quite clearly see that the add-on which got adopted on the Strv 122 or 2A5s is quite different compared to the TVMs, the turret is most notably different.
    The hull could also be different, thicker plates perhaps, that wouldn't show up on pictures unless you get a close up and compare them directly.
     
     
    What is most curious though, is that some sources claim the base armour of the TVM was changed:
    But we know that the TVM had B as base..... yet was made of an 8th batche vehicle.
    So, that begs the question: did some authors confuse this info and think that the 2A5  also received these changes? Not realising that on the TVM it was probably a change from C to B.....?
     
    Yes, it's an enecdote, just like how another loader lost one of his skirts on a 2A6 and went looking for it on the range with another crewmate.
    It's still interesting.
     
    Always useful to go back and look at the origins, it'll always be relevant to know the baseline.
     
    x3
    Yeah, I agree, it'd be nice if we wouldn't adapt schemes and make "fake" ones.
     
    Link broken unfortunately.
     
    2A5s for the Netherlands and Germany were old turrets that were refurbished, for Strv 122, Leopard 2HEL and Leopard 2E brand new turrets were made (no ammo hatch on the side).
    They pretty much had to cut up the entire turret though, and supposedly even then some additional changes were made later on in tanks like the leopard 2HEL or E.
     
    Did I miss something?
    The B&V armour did get chosen for 2A0?
     
  19. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Gun Ready in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Coming back to the old German specification for armour steel (TL 2350-0001): The allocation to hardness is the following
    A, R and D   250 to 300
    B                   310 to 360
    C                   340 to 390
    E                   400 to 450
    X                   370 to 420
    W                  400 to 450
    V                   440 to 490
    L                    250 to 300
    Now @Wiedzmin you can perform the analysis for the old Leopard 2 AV.
  20. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Wiedzmin in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    1974 requirements
    -105mm KE
    -120mm KE
    -120mm HEAT

    120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
     
    1977-78 requirements

    did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

     
    mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
     

     
    1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
     
    -120mm DM23
    - HOT


    and once again
     

     
    HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
     
    as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
     
    british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
     
    for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
     
     
    firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...
  21. Funny
    Scav reacted to Scolopax in T-80 Megathread: Astronomical speed and price!   
    It looks like a T-80UE-1, so it kind of is a collection of spare parts to begin with.
  22. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in Models and pictures of Soviet MBT designs from 80s. Object 477A, Object 490 Buntar and Object 299.   
    Fresh from https://twitter.com/xmszeon

     
     
  23. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in Britons are in trouble   
    It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output).


     
    Autoloader:

     
     
    MBT 80 had central position for driver.
  24. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Regarding weight reduction:


  25. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Willy Brandt in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    2AV
     
×
×
  • Create New...