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 BkktMkkt in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    Some my models
     
     
  2. Tank You
    Scav reacted to VertigoEx in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    I found this and reposted this on the SB forum.
     
    Interested in what others here think..
     
    More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them.
     
    So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. 
     
    Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1.
     
    IIRC Tankograd has evidence that suggests that  BRL-1 on the M1 uses titanium alloys with or in place of steel in the NERA array.  That would increase the ME, but not the TE against KE rounds no?
     
  3. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Wiedzmin in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    100mm/70deg - 3057meters
    15mm-100mm/70deg - 1250-1290 meters
     
    so "good against spaced armour" not good enough, but maybe better than nothing...
  4. Tank You
    Scav reacted to LoooSeR in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    Yeah, for crews to use as a ladder. 
  5. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from alanch90 in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  6. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Met749 in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    ^additional information: mantlet couldn't be salvaged/saved, they're working on a new one but had a deadline, so instead they put a camo net over the mantlet to cover it up.
    This is TVM MIN as indicated by the license plate (Y 907 793)
    TVM MAX was Y 907 792:
    Y 907 794 was the last 2A4 from 8th batch.
     
    If Y 907 792 was indeed MAX (as indicated) then how come an 8th batch, modified 2A4 had B tech internal armour + D-2 add-ons as shown in the Swedish trials?
    That would mean they changed the inserts to B tech (huh, cost maybe?) when they did the conversion, or these two tanks were B tech from the start (doesn't make much sense).
    There's a third option:
    KVT (modified 5th batch), which was converted to IVT, was also "shown" to the Swedes (for the IFIS), perhaps the Leopard 2 "Improved" slide talks about that one?
    Seems a bit of a stretch.
     
    However, if the TVM indeed did use B + D-2 and was the "German solution" we see in the Swedish comparison, then the improvement in armour might just be down to the add-on and not a better internal armour.
    Turret add-on definitely changed, hull one we don't know about.
    So, turret was a rather small improvement, but hull was ~80mm on upper hull/roof (82° AoA means you'd only need an additional 11mm RHA for the add-on thickness).
     
    Did they mess up with the indicated armour, or does a B tech leopard 2 with add-on reach these numbers?
     
    As previously posted in this thread:
    28mm sandwich + 71mm air + 28mm sandwich @ 65° = ~950mm protection against CE.
    Looks quite similar to the wedges for leopard 2A5.
     
    2A5 prototypes: 1720mm-1850mm CE protection on turret from 0° front
    -950mm from wedge = 800-900mm for main turret armour
    B tech requirement: Milan 1 or 600mm+ CE (probably 650-700mm from front)
    That leaves 250-100mm which isn't explained, could be due to airgap allowing the jet to disperse more before hitting the main armour.
     
    If we assume these armour arrays (or similar ones) were used in the wedges for leopard 2A5  and that the 250-100mm discrepancy can be explained or falls within margin of error, then it does seem plausible that B + D-2 = Leopard 2 "Improved" and that 2A5 uses B tech or a modified version thereof as base armour.
     
    Only thing that isn't entirely explainable is the (massively) increased KE protection.... but then again, even small impact angle changes (yawing LRP) can have massive consequences.
  7. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Molota_477 in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  8. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Laviduce in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  9. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Bronezhilet in No, Nozh doesn't work as advertised   
    @Collimatrix @Mighty_Zuk @SH_MM @LoooSeR @Militarysta @Xlucine
     
     
     
     
    Yeah I took 'some' liberties with the jet, but that mainly has to do with this being a rough first look at Nozh, I'll do a more properly shaped jet later.
     
     
    tl;dw: Yes, a copper jet can cut through a wolfram penetrator but the jet is not nearly long enough.
     
    Edit: This is also a frictionless simulation so the jet penetrating the steel plate doesn't slow it down at all. All in all, this is a best case scenario for Nozh.
  10. Tank You
    Scav reacted to David Moyes in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Puma's powerpack:
    MTU 10V 890 (MT 892) + Renk HSWL 256
  11. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Laviduce in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Interesting points:
    Mantlet weighs 640kg
    Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
    They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
    Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  12. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from That_Baka in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  13. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Zyklon in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  14. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from LoooSeR in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  15. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from N-L-M in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
    Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
    (Quoting friend)
    Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
     
    Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
    From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
     
    Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
    (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
     
    So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
    Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

    In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
    Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
    UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
    As previously pointed out in this thread.
    This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
     
    So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
     
    Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
    Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
    IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
     
    This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  16. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Interesting points:
    Mantlet weighs 640kg
    Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
    They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
    Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  17. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Collimatrix in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Interesting points:
    Mantlet weighs 640kg
    Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
    They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
    Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  18. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from N-L-M in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Interesting points:
    Mantlet weighs 640kg
    Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
    They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
    Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  19. Tank You
    Scav got a reaction from Serge in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    Interesting points:
    Mantlet weighs 640kg
    Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
    They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
    Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  20. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Militarysta in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    Well most description above are mistaken couse  most APFSDS-T above are not serial ones but R&D projects.
     
    3BM29:
     

     
    3BM26:


     
     
     
     
    3BM42:


     

     
     
     
  21. Tank You
    Scav reacted to Militarysta in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    @Methos
    Confirm that german special amrmour was not tested in USA:
    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293016483954;view=1up;seq=1
     
    marevelous document about 105mm vs 120mm in USA:
    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210024740399;view=1up;seq=1
    "we know that 105mm is shit but it's cost effective"
     
    BTW: Im agree that Leopard 2 is understimeted a lot. IMHO whole think is taken from T14 turret values or fact tahat in Leopard 2AV tehere was no special armour - just "cavity" made by frontplate and backplate - X-rayed by Americans who "discover" there is no special armour there. So propably (it's only my assumption) value for Leo2 is taken from XM1 whit thinner backplate and frontplate in leo-2 (2x 45mm RHA)
    IMHO there is no other logical explanation of sucht value
     
  22. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!   
    Oh, sure. A former worker of Giat is certainly an unbiased and accurate source, a lot more trustworthy than the lying Swedes, who only wanted to buy the MBT best matching their requirements, instead of marketing a single tank type.
    Sweden should have gone for the Leclerc, because that would allowed them to licence-produce the tank... it's not like they licence-produced the Leopard 2....
     
    I am also sure that Sweden has absolutely no experience with hydropneumatic suspensions. I mean they only have been using a tank with hydropneumatic suspension since 1966, they surely lack the experience to judge when a hydropneumatic suspension is not suited for their terrain and is damaged by tests. But hey, some random former worker from the company knows better, he certainly isn't biased towards his own product. That never happens, just like people on the internet are never arguing in favor of certain AFVs, just because they are made in their home-countries...
     
    The Leopard 2 won based on actual tests results, but this has to be due to corruption, because the Swedes should have chosen the Leclerc, a tank so unreliable that it wasn't considered ready for production by the FMV, instead? Because without corruption the Leopard 2 cannot win any competitions according to you. That the bribe in Greece was negotiated by Wegmann while Krauss-Maffei (responsible for the export of the Leopard 2) hasn't merged with it doesn't matter, I guess. But hey, Giat not only was caught manipulating tests during the Greek trials, but also got the sole export order thanks to bribing officials in the UAE (and officials in Germany to ensure the export of the EuroPowerPack to UAE is allowed). Certainly they are better people and make a better tank, just because they are French
  23. Funny
    Scav reacted to Alzoc in Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!   
    I'm not sure about rainbows though Gotta dig deeper in the interwebz...
  24. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in Britons are in trouble   
    I might not be able to do that, but Rheinmetall just did that. During upgrade and rebuilding processes, turrets of Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs have been completely stripped down, meaning all internal and external components have been removed. There is no reason why this should be impossible with the Challenger 2. The rest is a bit of engineering work that any medium-sized military vehicle integrator should be able to carry out. Technical documentation, specifications and blueprints were likely provided by the British military when the two Challenger 2 tanks were handed over to Rheinmetall (even if this didn't happen, they'd be able to do that by themselves).
     
    During the early stage of the Leopard 2 development, three different construction mechanisms were used to create the turret shells for the prototypes. There really isn't any magic required to move from a cast to a welded construction.
     
    As for the armor I can only point towards to Grant Turnbull's article, which mentioned this aspect: the Challenger 2 LEP is a program focused on obsolescence management. Replacing the gun or improving the armor protection isn't part of it and the figures released by Rheinmetall during its Capital Markets Day 2018 suggests that the company is banking on an increased budget for the gun replacement, so many changes to the armor aren't financially feasible. Most likely the statement from Turnbull's article is a reference to the changed in turret bustle protection and/or improved protection via using welded steel. A new armor package would require an extensive qualification program on side of the British MoD (risking delaying the whole program) and likely would have looked more similar to the other offers from Rheinmetall:

     
    Why would the gun mantlet and original turret front shape remain unaltered, when the steel citadel is replaced and a whole new armor package is added?
     
     
    I never said that. I posted a picture showcasing why it is not a brand new turret, you just added your own interpretations to it (at first "that guy considers everything obsolete that the guy marked" and now "that guy things everything is unaltered that is marked in the picture"). You notice that I never said anything along these lines; instead I even pointed out in my last reply, that the Thales Orion sight is now fitted. The identical location of the gunner's sight and commander's cupola, which leads to a weakspot is worth nothing, showing that this isn't exactly brand new. But well, maybe you should go for your own suggestions and play "wait and see", rather then registering to this forum because you were trigged by your own interpretations of my picture and made rash opinions.
  25. Tank You
    Scav reacted to SH_MM in Britons are in trouble   
    T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components.
     
    The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.
×
×
  • Create New...