Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Khand-e

Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Yeah, the mean Swedes! How could they demand their future tank to be reliable, to accurately hit targets and to drive through muddy terrain and snow. These bastards!

In what world do you live?

The Swedes had the opportunity to add "production under license" in their requirements yet they ignored the propositions and threw their industry under the truck by just buying from the germans (the trials in itself was a mean to appease the industrials that were complaining).
In addition, they managed lose the accompaniment vehicle of Giat Industries and during that time, they managed to damage the hull of a Leclerc... It was written that the suspension was damaged yet those fools didn't even managed to damage it. The impact was so strong that the nitrogen spheres went up to 1400 bars (were the french STAT managed to go up to 900 bars with their testings) and the bolt holes of the suspension units had been deformed...
Hell, even recently, the "armor assessment" "leaked" is just BS. The swedes just 3D modeled however they wanted and put their armor composition in their simulation.

Apparently from what I'm reading, you live in the world of care bears & Co...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KMW already showed evidence of corruption during the greek trials; that would not be impossible that they did the same thing with the swedes...

But yeah keep drawing sunshine and rainbows with your crayolas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "evidence of corruption" was found in an unrelated contract for the delivery of the Panzerhaubitze 2000, not a contract regarding the sale of MBTs. There wasn't a comparative trial, so it opens the option of corruption. The Greek tank trials and the Swedish tank trials however were comparative trials held in front of an audience consisting of representatives of the Swedish government, the Swedish military, the tank manufacturers and members of the operator countries. It isn't a real option to bribe a procurement officer, when  there are dozens of people seeing the trials and how data is recorded. 

 

Maybe you shouldn't have eaten as many crayolas as a kid, otherwise you'd move on and accept that a tank is not automatically perfect just because it is made in France, not everybody is a liar and corrupt, just because they don't buy French tanks. Funny thing is that even French books state that the reduced volume of the Leclerc saved 4 tonnes of weight compared to the Leopard 2's design, yet you believe that the 54 tonnes prototype tested in Sweden has better armor than a 62.5 tonnes Leopard 2 Improved! What's next, conspiracy theories why baguette isn't the only type of bread in Europe?

 

bdM2o4j.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yeah, the mean Swedes! How could they demand their future tank to be reliable, to accurately hit targets and to drive through muddy terrain and snow. These bastards!

No, no. 

I already stated the problem with the Swedish tests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Sure... the Swedes are all liars and you know better... :rolleyes:

Yes, they are. 

And if you look at the Swedish politics history, they are not sweat harts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The "evidence of corruption" was found in an unrelated contract for the delivery of the Panzerhaubitze 2000, not a contract regarding the sale of MBTs. There wasn't a comparative trial, so it opens the option of corruption. The Greek tank trials and the Swedish tank trials however were comparative trials held in front of an audience consisting of representatives of the Swedish government, the Swedish military, the tank manufacturers and members of the operator countries. It isn't a real option to bribe a procurement officer, when  there are dozens of people seeing the trials and how data is recorded. 

BTW, wasnt this "corruption" theory spread (or even invented?) by Damian?  I remember he was referring to this countless times in the past to bash the Leopard-2, to the point that it became quite suspicious. There was a case when he went as far to claim that the Leopard was the worst tank amongst those were trialled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes, they are. 

And if you look at the Swedish politics history, they are not sweat harts. 

 

Come on, Serge - that is an exceedingly silly thing to say. As if the French or pretty much any nation are wonderful sweethearts who only deliver fin-stabilized sunshine & rainbows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The "evidence of corruption" was found in an unrelated contract for the delivery of the Panzerhaubitze 2000, not a contract regarding the sale of MBTs. There wasn't a comparative trial, so it opens the option of corruption. The Greek tank trials and the Swedish tank trials however were comparative trials held in front of an audience consisting of representatives of the Swedish government, the Swedish military, the tank manufacturers and members of the operator countries. It isn't a real option to bribe a procurement officer, when  there are dozens of people seeing the trials and how data is recorded. 



Your lack of knowledge regarding the different stages of the trials is kinda cute.
That's not a pure competition à la Strong Europe Tank Challenge where the winner is designated at the end of the "field activities".
Nor the competitors have eyes on what could happen behind the rug. They don't clearly know what other competitors have put on the table.

 

 

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Maybe you shouldn't have eaten as many crayolas as a kid, otherwise you'd move on and accept that a tank is not automatically perfect just because it is made in France, not everybody is a liar and corrupt, just because they don't buy French tanks.

 

Never been educated with crayolas, always pencil and eraser.
Never stated that the Leclerc was "perfect" far from it. That is one of your inventions to drag the argument where you want it to be.
The Leclerc is a compromise that suited the french army at the end of the cold war (sadly not anymore).
It's greatest drawbacks are :
-Complexity to use (complexity that serves as anti-theft and complexity induced by the system of systems)
-Low ground footprint (forcing to weight every evolution to minimize the increase of ground pressure)
-Of course the ridiculous number produced and the lack of family to drag down the prices on "consumables"...

 

 

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Funny thing is that even French books state that the reduced volume of the Leclerc saved 4 tonnes of weight compared to the Leopard 2's design, yet you believe that the 54 tonnes prototype tested in Sweden has better armor than a 62.5 tonnes Leopard 2 Improved! What's next, conspiracy theories why baguette isn't the only type of bread in Europe?

 

bdM2o4j.jpg

The designers of the Leclerc have set every armor modules with a set of mass efficient // volume efficient materials it's protection efficiency varies independently of the thickness. Nothing like what the swedes did with their simulation.
The Leclerc has smaller armor packages with more dense materials. In that case, the weight of the turret itself is not a good indicator...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DarkLabor said:

Nothing like what the swedes did with their simulation.
The Leclerc has smaller armor packages with more dense materials. In that case, the weight of the turret itself is not a good indicator...

The Swedes "simulated" the armour by asking the companies involved for specifications on how to make said armour, which was then produced locally according to specs and tested.

They did also produce their own add-on armour for these tanks and because they didn't get the exact measurements on the armour carrying parts, they had to make these themselves:

Quote

In parallel with the paracetic experiments with the tanks , FMV carried out technical tests and analyzes. Particularly battle wagons survival - the ability came to be subject to rigorous review. Sliding tests were carried out in each country against sub-samples of the various tanks' protective modules in chassis and towers. The corresponding test was also done with the relevant hot ammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) on FFK in Karlsborg against all tanks or provided with a Swedish-developed protection from Åkers Krutbruk and the German partner partner IBD (Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth). Since we did not get enough documentation from the supplier, we had to build sub-hulls for our own head in order to be able to carry out sliding tests on the various tanks with the Swedish-developed protection - something that particularly surprised the French ...

This was a ballistic protection which, in many attitudes, increased the level of protection by 50-100%, above all the French , but also the American tank (something that a four-star American general got surprised by a review). The tanks' signatures within different wavelength ranges were also mapped - something that FOA helped with, among other things.

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

He also mentions tests were conducted in each country on the base armour.

So, this isn't a "simulation" as much as it is live testing.

 

Hold up, so you're saying that the leclerc when using smaller armour packages with denser armour somehow makes turret weight irrelevant?
Isn't that the exact opposite, less volume with denser materials -> same/similar weight....?

 

I don't see how that makes the turret weight irrelevant, it still needs the same armour mass to achieve the same level of protection unless you're using more advanced, more mass efficient materials.

Generally speaking, less dense, higher volume armour is more mass efficient..... just look at 2A5 vs M1A2.... 59.7t vs 62.5t.... stops DM53 vs doesn't stop DM53.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scav said:

The Swedes "simulated" the armour by asking the companies involved for specifications on how to make said armour, which was then produced locally according to specs and tested.

They did also produce their own add-on armour for these tanks and because they didn't get the exact measurements on the armour carrying parts, they had to make these themselves:

They asked for quotations, and maybe got demoed a live fire of said protection in each country.
But they did NOT use the different packages for their own testings...
 

8 minutes ago, Scav said:

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

 

He also mentions tests were conducted in each country on the base armour.

So, this isn't a "simulation" as much as it is live testing.

They got rigs to put THEIR OWN layouts so they could test on their own but that's about it. NOTHING developped by the different competitors have been tested BY THE SWEDES THEMSELF.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Scav said:

Hold up, so you're saying that the leclerc when using smaller armour packages with denser armour somehow makes turret weight irrelevant?

Isn't that the exact opposite, less volume with denser materials -> same/similar weight....?

What do you want? A full volume made out of the strongest/the most dense alloy you can ever make? (yay, check mate engineers!) That is silly! You have sandwiches that can shear the penetrator (presenting fresh armor as the penetrator is advancing). You can set up your layout so that a large dense chuck can deform the penetrator, backed by a set of disruptors that will shear the penetrator in a different direction, backed by a lightweight high tensile buffer...
In the age of composite armor, the mass is nearly irrelevant (totally regarding HEAT protection;  a little less for KE protection).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 2:09 AM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:


Considering that they didn't even test the Ariete I think he's right.

 

Yeah not like Italy was in need of it first ^_^

That said even if they tested it I'm not sure they'd appreciated it as much as the others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

meanwhile in Poland...

Im writing article about ZTZ-99 tanks family, I would be very glad for any link whit or direct interior of the tank photos. Or any good source.

J.

 

 

 

Some images of the interior of the ZTZ family: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7682151@N07/with/47021860851/

 

A book dealing with the early ZTZ-98/99 series: https://docdro.id/7PxAUUl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 6:12 PM, DarkLabor said:

They asked for quotations, and maybe got demoed a live fire of said protection in each country.
But they did NOT use the different packages for their own testings

And how do you know?
They clearly did their own tests, with reference armour inserts and also with their own developed add-ons.

 

On 2/6/2019 at 6:12 PM, DarkLabor said:

They got rigs to put THEIR OWN layouts so they could test on their own but that's about it. NOTHING developped by the different competitors have been tested BY THE SWEDES THEMSELF.

Again, why do you think so?
Everything  points to the opposite, they tested the armour as would be on the test vehicles, afterwards they added their own add-ons and tested again.

 

On 2/6/2019 at 6:12 PM, DarkLabor said:

What do you want? A full volume made out of the strongest/the most dense alloy you can ever make? (yay, check mate engineers!) That is silly! You have sandwiches that can shear the penetrator (presenting fresh armor as the penetrator is advancing). You can set up your layout so that a large dense chuck can deform the penetrator, backed by a set of disruptors that will shear the penetrator in a different direction, backed by a lightweight high tensile buffer...
In the age of composite armor, the mass is nearly irrelevant (totally regarding HEAT protection;  a little less for KE protection).

Which is exactly what I pointed out....if you go lower armour volume you need to compensate with higher density of materials, which almost always in turn means similar weight....

However, high thickness/volume of armour is generally more mass efficient than the same mass of armour in a smaller volume.

 

Mass will always remain relevant, but you need to take into account mass efficiency to get anything out of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scav said:

And how do you know?
They clearly did their own tests, with reference armour inserts and also with their own developed add-ons.

 

Again, why do you think so?
Everything  points to the opposite, they tested the armour as would be on the test vehicles, afterwards they added their own add-ons and tested again.

 

Which is exactly what I pointed out....if you go lower armour volume you need to compensate with higher density of materials, which almost always in turn means similar weight....

However, high thickness/volume of armour is generally more mass efficient than the same mass of armour in a smaller volume.

 

Mass will always remain relevant, but you need to take into account mass efficiency to get anything out of it.

 

I am in touch with some former worker of Giat Industries and have some details on what happened.
That's how I know one of the Leclerc got its chassis damaged and not the suspension (as claimed the swedes...). I also have the confirmation that, at the time, the Leclerc performed poorly in mobility due to the defect of a temperature sensor that induced surging on multiple occasions.
In addition, the tanks sent there were NOT prototypes, they were batch 1 tanks (a pre-series despite what say the engineers).

I still maintain that weight is not a gage of efficiency of the armor. There is so many mecanisms that enter into play to defeat a penetrator that it is difficult to make a clear statement.
But the example of a large slab of a dense material compared to an array of same thickness having a succession of sandwiches (dense material  + rubber +  dense material). Overall the slab of dense material is more dense than the array having rubber and air inbetween the sandwiches. Yet the array will be more efficient to defeat a penetrator, because it will disrupt it. The succession of different densities will also reduce greatly the kinetic energy.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A former worker is much more credible when he, unlike any parties in presence (competitors + judge) , did show me his videos of the competition. The tank losing the accompaniment vehicle. The fixing process on the hull, etc.

In addition, the guy who supposedly leaked info on the armor protection said that they made, on their own, some changes to the armor protection of the Leclerc. Yet the 3D model shown was a Giat Industries one used to make a counter proposal on the protection requirements of the swedes.

Regarding the suspicion of bribery with the aid of Al Yousef, this has been under reinforced investigation and nothing has been found so far. Giat Industries continues to abide french laws wich led to the dispute in the first place. Do not mistake lobying with corruption. But I give you that the comissions made are sickening for business reporting and marketing...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

In addition, the guy who supposedly leaked info on the armor protection said that they made, on their own, some changes to the armor protection of the Leclerc. Yet the 3D model shown was a Giat Industries one used to make a counter proposal on the protection requirements of the swedes.

 

It was a different, very similar looking 3D model, as one can clearly see by looking at the gun mantlet. You just like to ignore that.

 

gxJSCfu.pngstrv_ny-18.jpg

 

3 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

Regarding the suspicion of bribery with the aid of Al Yousef, this has been under reinforced investigation and nothing has been found so far. Giat Industries continues to abide french laws wich led to the dispute in the first place. Do not mistake lobying with corruption.

 

Nexter has admitted that they have given money to Al Yousef for bribing UAE's decision makers. They stopped in 2000, when bribing officials in other states became illegal in France. They didn't break the law, yet they still bribed via Yousef paying money to UAE officials and even travelling to Germany to bribe people there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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. :rolleyes:

Do you know someone unbiased ?

 

LOL. Made my day. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM
@Serge

@DarkLabor

@Scav

Move this discussion to appropriate place as all this is going way offtopic and have completely nothing to do with PLA AFVs. And you have 3 threads to choose from for this, hehe:

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1576-french-flair/?page=7

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1527-the-leopard-2-thread/?page=22

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/8-the-swedish-afv-thread-not-just-strv-103s/?page=7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...