Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty dubious about the line that the Challenger 2 is the best armored contemporary MBT.  First, how would anyone know?  If they know for sure, they're not talking.  Second, Abramses have had two armor package upgrades since chally 2 debuted (SEP and TUSK).  Third, the Leclerc is more geometrically efficient than any of the other NATO MBTs, since it has one less crewmember to defend, and is only slightly lighter.  Absent specific information about armor performance, wouldn't simply geometry tell you think that's the best armored one?

 

Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.

 

The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

 

eIUyqAK.jpg

 

The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

 

6HbQSlr.jpg

 

The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

 

1412522094-leclerc-gun-shield.jpg

 

The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

 

1412521883-8387110204-85a735351b-c.jpg

 

Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.

 

Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:

  • Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor
  • Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front
  • M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides)

So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

That said, the commander and gunner both sit quite low in the turret of the Leclerc.  How much danger is the gunner in if the weak zone behind the gunner's sight gets penetrated?  Ditto the hump for the gun; if that gets penetrated from the side, crew injury seems unlikely.

 

Also, I'm not convinced that the protected volume inside the turret of the Abrams is any wider than the protected volume inside the turret of the Leo 2.  Look at where the crew hatches are located:

 

abrams1.jpg

 

The Abrams has a wider turret than the Leo 2 (and a very slightly wider turret ring), but most of the additional width of the turret appears to come from the enormously thick turret side armor.  The protected internal volume is greater because the ammunition rack is bigger, but the ammunition rack is isolated.

 

I Agree generally about gun mantlets.  The Challenger 1 design seems to have gotten that right.  I can't think of much else it got right (I guess the suspension is good?).  Mantlet design of Challenger 2 seems like a step backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the commander and gunner both sit quite low in the turret of the Leclerc.  How much danger is the gunner in if the weak zone behind the gunner's sight gets penetrated?  Ditto the hump for the gun; if that gets penetrated from the side, crew injury seems unlikely.

The spall cone created by shaped charges can be larger than 90°, in such a case there is quite some danger of the crew being injured. Fragments of the projectile/shaped charge jet might also damage the internals of the tank, rendering it useless. I wouldn't assume that hitting this place or the gunner's sight won't cause harm to the crew.

 

Also, I'm not convinced that the protected volume inside the turret of the Abrams is any wider than the protected volume inside the turret of the Leo 2. Look at where the crew hatches are located:

abrams1.jpg

The Abrams has a wider turret than the Leo 2 (and a very slightly wider turret ring), but most of the additional width of the turret appears to come from the enormously thick turret side armor. The protected internal volume is greater because the ammunition rack is bigger, but the ammunition rack is isolated.

 

Based on photographs, the side armor of the M1 Abrams is not thicker than the side armor of the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2. The M1 Abrams just has a very large commander's cupola, which creates the illusion of the hatches being located closer. The Abrams turret has about 10% more frontal surface and has about 40% more side armor volume (at the ammo racks), so I'd expect it to have less frontal armor at the same weight.

 

I Agree generally about gun mantlets. The Challenger 1 design seems to have gotten that right. I can't think of much else it got right (I guess the suspension is good?). Mantlet design of Challenger 2 seems like a step backwards.

The problem of the mantlet-less design of Challenger 1 and Chieftain, is that it had a negative impact on too many other aspects. For example replacing the gun barrel took about 24 hours, while the same task can be done within half an hour with proper equipment on the Abrams and Leopard 2 tank.

 

The lack of a proper gun mantlet also meant lower protection; while the size of the weakspot is smaller, the armor still gets thinner at the gun mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spall cone created by shaped charges can be larger than 90°, in such a case there is quite some danger of the crew being injured. Fragments of the projectile/shaped charge jet might also damage the internals of the tank, rendering it useless. I wouldn't assume that hitting this place or the gunner's sight won't cause harm to the crew.

 

 

Based on photographs, the side armor of the M1 Abrams is not thicker than the side armor of the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2. The M1 Abrams just has a very large commander's cupola, which creates the illusion of the hatches being located closer. The Abrams turret has about 10% more frontal surface and has about 40% more side armor volume (at the ammo racks), so I'd expect it to have less frontal armor at the same weight.

 

The problem of the mantlet-less design of Challenger 1 and Chieftain, is that it had a negative impact on too many other aspects. For example replacing the gun barrel took about 24 hours, while the same task can be done within half an hour with proper equipment on the Abrams and Leopard 2 tank.

 

The lack of a proper gun mantlet also meant lower protection; while the size of the weakspot is smaller, the armor still gets thinner at the gun mount.

Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem of the mantlet-less design of Challenger 1 and Chieftain, is that it had a negative impact on too many other aspects. For example replacing the gun barrel took about 24 hours, while the same task can be done within half an hour with proper equipment on the Abrams and Leopard 2 tank.

 

The lack of a proper gun mantlet also meant lower protection; while the size of the weakspot is smaller, the armor still gets thinner at the gun mount.

 

That's just ham-handed misdesigning then.

 

The gun trunnions jut forward; put more armor over them!

 

The gun can't be removed from the front.  Put an access panel on top of the turret (like IS-3 had).

 

 

Edit:

 

Per Froggy on the SB forums, Leclerc's mantlet has composite fill.

 

If this is the same Froggy as on TN, then he is a Leclerc crewman and does know his stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When comparing the Leopard 2 and Abrams protected volume, remember that the Abrams is shorter and that the hatches on an Abrams are closer together (even when accounting for the large commanders cupola on the M1A2).

 

 

UxfIkOI.jpg

 

GwDeQ69.jpg

 

c7Mzb0s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When comparing the Leopard 2 and Abrams protected volume, remember that the Abrams is shorter and that the hatches on an Abrams are closer together (even when accounting for the large commanders cupola on the M1A2).

 

 

UxfIkOI.jpg

 

GwDeQ69.jpg

 

c7Mzb0s.jpg

Welcome to SH good sir. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5+?

 

In reference to what statement?

 

Per Froggy on the SB forums, Leclerc's mantlet has composite fill.

 

If this is the same Froggy as on TN, then he is a Leclerc crewman and does know his stuff.

 

How thick is this composite armor? Is this only the 30 mm gun shield or also the armor at the gun mount? How much area does it cover? And how did Froggy "discover" this?

 

When comparing the Leopard 2 and Abrams protected volume, remember that the Abrams is shorter and that the hatches on an Abrams are closer together (even when accounting for the large commanders cupola on the M1A2).

 

The Abrams is not shorter. It has a longer hull (7.92 metres vs 7.672 metres) and a longer turret (at the turret centerline, the Abrams' turret has a length of 4.77 metres, where as the Leopard 2's turret has a length of only 3.99 metres). The only difference is the location of the unarmored external storage boxes, which in case of the Leopard 2 are all located behind the turret, increasing the visible turret length without affecting the internal volume. On the Abrams, external storage boxes are not only located at the turret rear, but also at the rear side section. I think it is obvious why I am not including the storage boxes:

 

KuJNABd.png

 

As for the hatches, them being closer together means nothing. If you have a sheet of paper and draw to circles with a distance of X, putting two larger circles onto another sheet of paper at the same position will reduce the distance to less than X.

 

The commander's cupola has a diameter of 31.75 inches (806 mm; slightly more if you include it's "turret ring"), which is a lot more than the 500-550 mm diameter of normal hatches as found on the Leopard 2 and for the M1 Abrams' loader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They all have the same Diehl double-pin, rubber-bushed tracks.  Most of them have the same gun.  Most of them have, or can be ordered with the same power pack containing the same MTU liquid-cooled diesel with the same Renk transmission.

 

Ariete_tank_of_the_Italian_Army.jpg

 

640px-Challenger_2_Main_Battle_Tank_patr

xEu3ckK.jpg

 

8KZsQxT.jpg

 

GjUaMnr.jpg

 

qhP9iqt.jpg

 

iKVz5Iz.jpg

And let's face it, they even look the same.

 

It is time to argue minutiae of enclosed volume dimensions, probable contents of classified armor packages, and fire control systems to determine WHICH WESTERN MBT IS SUPREME!

 

 

(To any who are confused, I moved a bunch of posts into this thread to prevent another from being derailed.  This post is supposed to be the OP, but it shows SH_MM is the thread author because IPBoard always orders posts by date.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How thick is this composite armor? Is this only the 30 mm gun shield or also the armor at the gun mount? How much area does it cover? And how did Froggy "discover" this?

 

 

If you read on in that thread, it's pretty clear that it's the same Froggy as on Tanknet, and that he's served on the AMX-56.

 

Not that a composite block that thick would do much, given same TE values for most array, but I could see the mantlet armor taking it from something that gets penetrated by 40mm autocannon fire to something that gets penetrated by 90mm HEAT.

That said, the mantlet design is baffling for something that's clearly supposed to fight hull down (the hump on the turret roof).

Supposedly the weird gunner's sight design in the Leclerc is where it is so that it can be directly connected to the right gun trunnion, to ensure accurate and repeatable zero with the main gun:

 

BJDZr7s.jpg

 

I wonder if there was similar rationale with the placement of the sight on early Leo 2s and on the Arjun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to what statement?

 

You said it took about half an hour to change the gun barrel on the Leopard 2 with proper equipment.

 

When you said Leopard 2, did you refer to the Leopard 2A4 or to the Leopard 2A5 and later variants? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abrams is not shorter.

Except it is, I am not talking about length. The hull of an Abrams at the turret ring is the same height as the hull of a T-72 at the turret ring, while the hull of a Leopard 2 at the turret ring is significantly higher than the hull of a T-72 at the turret ring.

Furthermore the turrets do not have the same vertical thickness at the front where the armor cavity volume (and weight) is.

As for the hatches, them being closer together means nothing.

The inner walls of the side armor come up to the hatches (at least on the Abrams), if the combination of hatch/cupola width and distance between hatches is smaller on one tank then there is less internal width being armored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it is, I am not talking about length. The hull of an Abrams at the turret ring is the same height as the hull of a T-72 at the turret ring, while the hull of a Leopard 2 at the turret ring is significantly higher than the hull of a T-72 at the turret ring.

The upper photographs are a bit misleading. The tanks were photographed from different distances; you can see that by comparing the size of the measuring pole: each square is about 9-10 pixels high on the Leopard 2 photo and only 7 pixels on the T-72 photograph. Correcting this shows that the Leopard 2's hull is about 160 mm higher; however the Leopard 2 has a ground-clearance of 550 mm (reduces to 500-520 mm at the engine compartment), while the T-72 has a ground-clearance of only 490 mm. As such, the hull height difference at the turret ring might be only 100 mm.

 

German author Rolf Hilmes wrote a chapter in one of books solely to compare the T-72(A) to the Leopard 2. This is based on the official evaluation of ex-GDR tanks analyzed by the Bundeswehr after the reunification of Germany. According to him, the difference in hull height is 188 mm, but he didn't write at which exact position (other than comparing the total height).

 

Comparing other photographs of the T-72M1 and M1 Abrams, there seems to be a similar-sized hull height different, if we take into account ground-clearance (Abrams and T-72 have essentially same ground-clearance).

 

VoTpZ8G.jpg

 

Note that the ARAT reactive armor covers only the side skirts, the tank hull actually extends over these skirts though. In so far I would be careful with claiming that the hull height of the Leopard 2 is much greater and the tank thus has a greater internal volume. Should I measure scale drawings or photograhs to come up with a mililmetre value?

 

Furthermore the turrets do not have the same vertical thickness at the front where the armor cavity volume (and weight) is.

Not the exact same, but very close. Given that more of the Leopard 2's frontal turret profile is covered by the sloped roof armor, the Abrams might actually have more vertical thickness at the front.

 

The inner walls of the side armor come up to the hatches (at least on the Abrams), if the combination of hatch/cupola width and distance between hatches is smaller on one tank then there is less internal width being armored.

It is however not the case. The scale measurements have some margin of error, but the roof section excluding the armor is at most 20 mm larger on the Leopard 2. If you take into account that the M1's turret is much longer (see previous posts) and it's width increases downwards (from ~2.5 to ~3.3 metres), it will have a quite larger internal volume.

You said it took about half an hour to change the gun barrel on the Leopard 2 with proper equipment.

When you said Leopard 2, did you refer to the Leopard 2A4 or to the Leopard 2A5 and later variants?

This was the case of the old Leopard 2 (2A4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought of the Leo 2 as a particularly big tank. It's narrower than the Abrams, if perhaps a tad taller.

According to General Dynamics, a M1A2 is 3.66 meters wide and 2.38 meters tall with a ground clearance of .48 meters.

According to KMW, a Leopard 2A6 is 3.77 meters wide and 2.64 meters tall. They do not state a ground clearance but according to MM it is .55 meters.

This means a Leopard 2A6 is .11 meters wider and .19 meters taller (hull bottom to turret roof).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard 2A6 is 2.64 metres tall with the additional bomblet protection at the turret roof, as operated by Greece and Spain; the height of the roof of a Leopard 2 without bomblet protection is 2.48 metres as you can read in Spielberger's books on the Leopard 2.

The width of the Leopard 2 is greater because of it's thicker heavy ballistic skirts at the frontal hull; on the Leopard 2 to 2A4, the width was 3.70 metres. On the late batches of the Leopard 2A4 and follow up models (2A5, 2A6, 2A7), thicker heavy ballistic skirts increase the total width of the tank to 3.76 metres. Without any skirts, the Leopard 2's width is only 3.42 metres (Spielberger). Given

 

The Leopard 2 has much thicker, but shorter heavy ballistic skirts. On the M1 Abrams, the frontal skirt elements have a thickness of supposedly 70 mm (claim made by a US tank crew member), while on the Leopard 2 the thickness is 110 mm (earlier versions) or 150 mm (later versions; skirts are mounted a bit closer to the tracks). This is why the Leopard 2's hull is actually not as wide as the hull of an Abrams tank.

 

nKwZFoG.jpg?1

 

pAhMHRz.jpg?1

 

Excluding skirts and optional roof armor, the Leopard 2 is 30-40 mm taller (ground clearance 550 mm vs 482 mm), but the Abrams is 100 mm wider. That's why calling the Leopard 2 a giant compared to the Abrams is not justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have ground clearance figures for the T-72?  I had always heard that it's about two inches less than for Western MBTs.

I'm also curious where the ground clearance is measured from, because the bottom of the T-72's hull is an irregular shape:

 

OgGpxhJ.jpg

 

Also curious if anyone has figures showing the approximate thickness of the armor in the front hull of the Leo 2.  Frontal hull vulnerability, at first glance, looks like one area where the Abrams is greatly superior to the Leo 2.  The left side of the Leo 2 hull is filled up with non-compartmentalized ammo and the right side of the Leo 2 hull is filled up with driver.  On the Abrams the driver is centerline, and the right and left are filled with fuel tanks.

 

4XflE0c.jpg

So unless the lower front plate and glacis of the Leo 2 are both way thicker than the hull armor on the Abrams (not entirely impossible; Abrams' glacis is rather thin), the hull is quite a bit more vulnerable from attack straight ahead.

Attack against the front of the hull from oblique angles will favor the Abrams as well, especially against CE threats.  The driver is centerline, and thus protected by the fuel tanks as well as the hull side armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was an odd decision to put the ammo at the front. 

What else to put there? It makes more sense to put fuel tanks in the rear or on the sponsons. Radios and bow gunners were deleted, and the engines in general are too big. So why not increase the tanks ammunition capacity and reduce the size of the rest of the tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else to put there? It makes more sense to put fuel tanks in the rear or on the sponsons. Radios and bow gunners were deleted, and the engines in general are too big. So why not increase the tanks ammunition capacity and reduce the size of the rest of the tank?

 

Erm... I like fuel tanks up front. That way, if you get hit, the fuel acts as a dampener.

Ammo just explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm... I like fuel tanks up front. That way, if you get hit, the fuel acts as a dampener.

Ammo just explodes.

I am fully aware that you can put fuel tanks there, my point was that it's a big empty space that is excellent for ammunition storage. Of course, putting fuel tanks there makes more sense in terms of protection, but not when it comes to space efficiency.

 

But pretty much, a tank designer has 3 options:

Put fuel there to improve protection.

Put ammunition there to improve ammunition load without increasing the size of the tank.

Put an engine there to allow a rear hatch or to make it more modular. 

 

4 if you use a unmanned turret:

Put the rest of the crew members there. 

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
×
×
  • Create New...