Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

It is honestly a bit depressing considering the Norwegian army is driving around in refurbished Leopard 2A4s, the armor is practically dead weight. 

I guess the CV90 120 option sounds really tempting. 

 

How did the French mess up the LeClerc's armor that badly by the way?

Didn't they use several weight saving measures? 

 

It depends on which armor package the Norwegian Leopard 2A4s are fitted with; the armor packages from 1987 and 1992 (or at least this is what I think the graph shows) would still be able to withstand older Soviet/Russian APFSDS ammo at long ranges. Don't forget that the majority of the Russian tanks seems to rely on Vant and Mango. Only the newer vehicles (T-90, T-90A and Sprut-SD) and upgrades (like the T-72B3) can utilize higher penetration APFSDS. So its still "good enough" to deal with the majority of the older tanks and IFVs. Now that the BMP-2 will receive Kornet and the T-72B3 is being adopted in larger numbers, it is time to upgrade.

 

If the CV90 -120T is not fitted with an active protectiton system, then it is not really better than the Leopard 2A4. It is a larger target (higher hull and turret, wider hull), while probably providing similar mobility and less protectiton. Only the lighter weight and the more advanced FCS make it superior. Buying an armor package (AMAP) and adding new electronics seems to be a much better idea IMO.

 

That the Leclerc wasn't well armored is no surprise, given its state of development (being pretty much a prototype during the tests) and its turret layout. I have mentioned the weak gun mantlet and the "gun bulge" in the turret roof several times, see the very first post of this topic. When seeing the tank from the front, it will have a lower profile, but not from the side. At the 20° angle, the Leclerc needs to protect 1.7 m² (for a crew of 2), while the Leopard 2 needs to protect only 1.6 m² (with a crew of 3!). That's quite surprising IMO. The later Leclercs feature thicker and heavier armor packages, so they probably closed the gap...

 

eIUyqAK.jpg

 

(from the Steel Beasts forum):

8386147533_4b35d4f4be_o.png.5494eff1f8b08387233180_15b0451f83_o.png.ddef0d92781f

 

They also added an armor block at the gunner's sight (left - old prototye, at the right is a newer model):

800px-Leclerc_mg_7754.jpgleclerc-turret_closeup_bastille_day_2006

 

___

 

Forgot to make a screenshot of the T-80U's armor, but Andrei_bt already made one:

820329_600.jpg

 

That's the doownside of cast turrets with ERA...

PS: Also confirms DM33 penetration to be 470 mm at 2,000 m distance, 540 mm at 200 m distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about the protection difference between the Swedish version and the German version. What I found very odd is the table on the last slide I originally posted, which list the Leopard 2 Improved with Vorsatzmodule of the generation "D-2" and internal armor of the generation "B".

 

I think this might be a reference to which prototype was send to Sweden for tests. The original Leopard 2 Improved prototype was the Komponentenversuchsträger (Leopard 2 KVT; "component test bed"), which was based on the chassis number 20825 (the 825th tank made by Maschinenbau Kiel). Based on this number, it appears that the hull (and turret) were made as part of the 6th Leopard 2 batch (the second batch of 2A4 tanks) made between January of 1988 and May of 1989. The previous batch (batch number 5, first batch of Leopard 2A4 tanks) was produced between December of 1985 and March of 1987, while the last batch of Leopard 2A3 tanks ended with the chassis number 20644 for MaK. Given that 45% of all German Leopard 2s were made by MaK and the 5th batch consisted of 370 tanks; therefore I assume that the 5th batch ended with the chassis number 20810 or 20811. The first 96 tanks of the sixth batch were made with the old armor, therefore the chassis number 20825 would fall into that category.

 

The later Leopard 2 Improved prototypes (Truppenversuchsmuster Maximum and Truppenversuchsmuster Minimum, "troops trial model maximum/minimum") were based on the chassis numbers 11156 (TVM max) and 11157, which were made by Krauss-Maffei and belonged to the 8th batch (the last batch of tanks for the German Army) made between January of 1991 and March of 1992.

 

114bd8be9c2b2.png

 

This would mean that original KVT (later renamed IVT) used 1st generation composite armor (also confirming that the "B" in the table stands for the original composite armor), while the TVM tanks had 3rd generation armor (believed to be "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" in the table). The actual Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 tanks were made using hulls from the 6th, 7th and 8th batches - so all German tanks with the second and the third generation of composite armor + 22 tanks with the original hull armor package. If the hull armor wasn't altered (although I assume it was), this would mean that there would be some tanks with worse/better hull armor than the others...

 

bw_kpz_leopard_2_kws-001g.jpg

 

The turrets were all taken from the 1st batch, so they probably replaced the armor inserts and upgraded them to "C" or "D-1/2/3" level. According to the book by Scheibert, the armor modules in the turret were replaced.

 

According to one issue of the Waffen-Arsenal magazine ("Leopard 2 A5 - Euro-Leopard 2" by Michael Scheibert), the Leopard 2 tested in Sweden was either a KVT/TVM mix or they tested both variants (not written clear enough for me to understand what was the case). In theory this might mean, that the higher level of protection of the Swedish variant is just the result of using "C" or "D-1/2/3" level armor inserts with the same Vorsatzmodul.

 

16 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

Well, every tank has a gun mask to fit the gun. And it's a week zone. Welded turret is the same.

 

Yes, that's true. However I've never seen a cast turret with composite armor in the gun mask and Soviet gun masks tended to be thinner. Also the composite filler of the turret always ends a few centimetres away from the gun mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018/3/8 at 11:30 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Wow,. thank you @skylancer-3441. Seems like R. Lindström (accidentally?) uploaded some (formerly?) claissified documents in his original presentation. That confirms that the diagram is real, @Militarysta

 

M1A2 turret was also meant to receive add-on armor...

coIJOcb.jpg

Woh9Ar3.jpg

 

Leclerc armor was very poor:

qdd9Vwe.jpg

 

Leopard 2 armor evolution:

lEE6a4G.jpg

957suts.jpg

mBzPASI.jpg

qNOwNaJ.jpg

 

Turret front of a Leopard 2A5 is about 700-800 mm vs KE, 1,600 to 1,800 mm vs HEAT. The Swedish Strv 122 has a different armor package, providing higher protection levels; the Leopard 2 (flat turret) has 300 - 500 mm vs KE protection, but about 50% of the surface is protected against APFSDS ammo with less than 400 mm penetration into steel only.

Note the last slide: The German prototype offered to Sweden (and maybe also the German tanks) have Pakete (integrated armor pacakges) of the technology generation "B", while the Vors. Modul (Vorsatzmodul, add-on module in front of the armor) has the technology generation "D-2". I suppose Sweden uses a more modern integrated armor pacakge (C, D-1, D-2, D-3) and the same Vorsatzmodul. The German wikipedia (without citing a reference) claims that the German Leopard 2 uses "C technology" armor (so "Pakete"). Maybe that's based on Spielberger's book, I need to take a look at it in the future. The graph in the center of the last slide shows five colors... my guess (based on the graphs at the left and the right:

  1. purple - Leopard 2 from 1979, armor package of the "b" generation (fits the graph on the left);
  2. red - Leopard 2 with enhance armor package (1987), which might be "C" generation;
  3. yellow - Leopard 2 with enhanced armor package (1992), which might be "D-1" generation;
  4. blue - Leopard 2 with armor of the "D-2" generation or armor of the "B" generation with Vorsatzmodul of the "D-2" generation
  5. green - Leopard 2 with armor as adopted by Sweden - so probably "C" or "D-1/2/3" base armor with Vorsatzmodul of "D-2" generation

 

This would lead to the following protection estimates (please note that it says frontal arc - +30° to -30°, not direct from front):

  1. Leopard 2 - 2A4 (from 1979): 300 mm protection vs KE at 60% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 25% of the surface
  2. Leopard 2A4 (from 1987): 300 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 55% of the surface, 500 mm protection vs KE at 30% of the surface
  3. Leopard 2A4 (from 1992): 350 mm protection vs KE at 93% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 87% of the surface, 525 mm vs KE at 50% of the surface and 620 mm vs KE at 42% of the surface
  4. Leopard 2A5 (prototype?): 620 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 700 mm protection vs KE at 40% of the surface
  5. Leopard 2A5 (production model? Swedish model?): 700 mm protection vs KE at 75% of the surface

 

That also confirms that the older Leopard 2 models didn't feature the enhanced side armor found on newer production variants:

LQfKaHrlkUM.jpg

 

Btw: "gor" seems to be pentrated, "ub" means to be not penetrated in one of the earlier tables.

 

 

OH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE BLOODY SHITSTORM LOOKS LIKE IN ANOTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any reliable estimates for the Challenger 1 ?

 

challenger1_LOS_estimate.jpg.2c58a09f6cc

 

The LOS thickness of the turret Chobham modules seems to be around 750 mm. I am not sure how thick the base turret is at the front. it seems that the Challenger (1983) could have a LOS thickness of 800-850. Could the British be capapable of producing a KE resistance of 620 mm RHAe for a LOS thickness of up to 850 mm?     The 1980 M1 Abrams LOS thickness seems to be around 740 mm generating a KE resistance of around 400-440 mm RHAe.  For the 1993 early export M1A2 tank we have KE resistance  of around 650-700 mm RHAe from the front for a LOS thickness of up to 940 mm. Could the Brits be that far ahead in 1983?

 

Also, what do you guys think about this estimate for the Leopard 2A1 for APFSDS rounds of the late 1970s?

 

5a8b5d3d0b1ac_Leopard2(A0)estimate_early

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

Value for L2A4 is not consist whit LOS thickness:

 

sUL2DrO.png

So @

Laviduce

 

- hull upper glastic is at least 320mm RHA, turret roof - no less then 320mm RHA too (my 580mm could be overestimeted - there is no more then 50mm RHA on this part of the roof -not 70mm *my mistake).

-  left and right turret side are equal - only weaker point is armour block behind EMES-15 sight -650-  660mm LOS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

@UP

Value for L2A4 is not consist whit LOS thickness:

 

sUL2DrO.png

 

 

14 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

This diagram above is not totally consistent with what i have here:

 

Leopard2scale3.jpg.12221440b0bbe812d1ef0

Left_turret_face_cross_section5a.jpg.dfd

 

-The block in front of the lower part of the EMES 15 does not seem to be not much thicker than 320 - 350 mm. The plate where the EMES piece penetrates does not seem to be much thicker than 300 mm.

 

-The special armor turret sides seem to be around 310 mm thick. 

 

-The thickest part of the of the turret seems to be the left turret face with 820-840 mm.

 

- The front turret roof seems to be about 45 mm thick.

 

- The turret roof seems to be about 30 mm thick.

 

- The front hull roof over the driver seems to be about 30-35 mm thick.

 

-The front hull /glacis seems to have a varying LOS thickness of 570 - 675 mm.

 

- The left turret face and right turret face seem to have different special armor thicknesses. 650 mm vs 830 mm on average.

 

The heavy side skirts seem to be around 105 -110 mm thick.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

This diagram above is not totally consistent with what i have here:

 

 

 

 

Sweet but I had mesured it on REAL Leopard 2A4:

https://zapodaj.net/fb111a0b1d0fa.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/30762558935f5.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/f5c200b6c64e1.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/716460c5d1b8c.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/2271c871df3f8.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/a606e3d00f632.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/f221e10d35d07.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/d892de33beacf.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/2e430aeaacc5e.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/cb414c13f107e.jpg.html

 

etc itp

 

BTW - front hull was 600-620mm thick but I have not photo couse pissed off sergant (military woman...) almoust shoot me down for making sucht photos whit measure tape :D

And text  "back to the kitchen" wasn't the best idea to be honest...

 

btw2 -inner masuremend to find where is backplate and how thick it is:

https://zapodaj.net/f6cb1974e3b75.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/c68bdfea955af.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/fff0d8b7c7f67.jpg.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Sweet but I had mesured it on REAL Leopard 2A4:

https://zapodaj.net/fb111a0b1d0fa.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/30762558935f5.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/f5c200b6c64e1.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/716460c5d1b8c.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/2271c871df3f8.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/a606e3d00f632.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/f221e10d35d07.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/d892de33beacf.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/2e430aeaacc5e.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/cb414c13f107e.jpg.html

 

etc itp

 

BTW - front hull was 600-620mm thick but I have not photo couse pissed off sergant (military woman...) almoust shoot me down for making sucht photos whit measure tape :D

And text  "back to the kitchen" wasn't the best idea to be honest...

 

btw2 -inner masuremend to find where is backplate and how thick it is:

https://zapodaj.net/f6cb1974e3b75.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/c68bdfea955af.jpg.html

 

https://zapodaj.net/fff0d8b7c7f67.jpg.html

 

 

Great but i used the Leopard 2 plans provided by Rolf Hilmes and  measurements. Also you should have told that female sergeant to chill and go make you a sandwich!;)

 

Also, would you have measurements of the interior of the commanders and gunners stations ?  That would be really useful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Great but i used the Leopard 2 plans provided by Rolf Hilmes and  measurements.

 

Yes, i had tried to do the same using all posible plans. And finnaly - it was nacessery to go and masured it by myself couse mesure made on draw was really inacurrate.

IMHO real measure tape on real tank is final in therm of the LOS thickness...

 

Unfotunatly I haven't opportunity to measured  other crew station despite driver  -slopped inner backplate is starting 3cm from edge of the hatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

BTW - IMHO Your draw rather should have sucht values:

 

1R0xEA2.jpg

 

 

This asymmetric LOS thickness has confused me for a while. how can a 650 mm block offer the same protection of a 820-840 mm thick composite block ?   How can 320-350 mm thick composite block, 360 mm EMES 15 space and a 300 mm thick  composite block (970-1000 mm LOS total) offer the same protection as a 820-840 mm composite block?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no rule that says they have to use the same composite fill for all armour blocks. There could be a different array with greater space efficiency (and poorer mass efficiency, or higher cost) filling the spaces where the location of components reduces the volume available for armour. If the left cheek only gets ~40cm eq. from ~80cm LoS, then the obvious thing to do would be to put solid steel in the thinner right cheek - for a total eq. protection of ~70cm! That's probably not what the germans used, but there's clearly room using simple technology to vastly improve upon the space efficiency of the composite armour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Are there any reliable estimates for the Challenger 1 ?

 

The LOS thickness of the turret Chobham modules seems to be around 750 mm. I am not sure how thick the base turret is at the front. it seems that the Challenger (1983) could have a LOS thickness of 800-850. Could the British be capapable of producing a KE resistance of 620 mm RHAe for a LOS thickness of up to 850 mm?     The 1980 M1 Abrams LOS thickness seems to be around 740 mm generating a KE resistance of around 400-440 mm RHAe.  For the 1993 early export M1A2 tank we have KE resistance  of around 650-700 mm RHAe from the front for a LOS thickness of up to 940 mm. Could the Brits be that far ahead in 1983?

 

Also, what do you guys think about this estimate for the Leopard 2A1 for APFSDS rounds of the late 1970s?

 

The Challenger 1 is based on the Shir Iran 2 main battle tank designed for Persia. According to British data, the Shir (Iran) 2 prototype's armor offered protection comparable to only 325 mm steel at the frontal arc. The British military desired a higher level of protection, but it is questionable how much better the actual production version was. If you look at the power to weight ratio of the Shir 2, you'll notice that it should weigh about 63-65 metric tons - like the Chieftain-based Shir (Iran) 1, the second version was also fitted with the Condor Perkins V12 engine developing 1,200 hp.

 

gXAIUVr.jpg

 

There is quite some time between the date of the document (1978) and the introduction of the Challenger 1, so they could have adopted a new generation of Burlington armor or at least chosen to integrate another variant, which was more optimized against KE. However I think your "620 mm RHAe for a LOS thickness of up to 850 mm" is a rather far stretch: the desired protection for the MBT-80 was to resist 125 mm APFSDS at distance along the frontal arc (est. penetration 445 to 460 mm at that range). The table lists the MBT-80 with a protection level of 430(+) mm. I think this should give us a ballpark estimate for armor protection.

 

Please note that the MBT-80 was expected to achieve such a high level of protection thanks to the usage of aluminium armor for the rear section of the vehicle, an idea that the British FVRDE was very fond of, as various other projects show (older projects such as the Chieftain Mk 5/2, FV 4211, JagdChieftain, and Vickers Valiant used full hulls/turrets made of aluminium). The Chieftain is a very heavy tank for its day, so one should expect a high level of protection; but it is also very large with a rather heavy gun. The British themselves claimed that the M1A1 HA has better protectiton at the frontal turret arc than the Challenger 2 prototype design from 1988, which was supposed to offer improved protection over the Challenger 1.

 

I don't know where you are getting the values for the armor thickness and protection of the M1 Abrams and M1A1/M1A2 model. I know that there are a lot of different armor thickness values floating around, but none of them are confirmed. These are either "guesstimates" or based on scale measurements done on drawings. These are not very accurate. I remember a discussion with Damian back on DFI, where he claimed the M1A2 has 960 mm thick armor. Measuring the drawing from Hunnicutt's "Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank" which he provided, resulted in an armor thickness of less than 800 mm. He then added his own lines where the armor modules would end, because the sketches in Hunnicutt's book are rather inaccurate (I agree with this - the weldlines do not represent the actual armor). However based on his new lines (which IMO extended a bit too much into the tank) the armor thickness would have been 820-840 mm on the left and 880-900 mm on the right side (depending on wether the pixels of the lines were included or not). Then another poster joined the dicussion, who had created a 3D model of the M1A2 Abrams. He came to the conclusion, that both front modules of the turret were only 845 mm thick, but the backplate extended even further into the turret than on the altered drawings from Hunnicutt...

Over the years I've seen thickness values for the Leopard 2A4 ranging from 500 to 900 mm (we've gotten a confirmation that it's ~860 mm), from 600 to 800 mm for the M1 Abrams and from 750 to 1,000 mm for the M1A2... given that range I'd be rather careful to base armor protection estimates on "guesstimated" thickness values. Aside of statements from Zaloga, I've yet to see actual proof that the physical thickness on the M1IP/M1A1 was increased over the M1 Abrams.

 

I don't know where you got the 440 mm RHAe vs KE for the M1 Abrams. The CIA document from 1982 revealed that "one version" (which we just assume that it is the basic model - in theory it could have been the design for the M1IP/M1A1: the M1E1 prototypes with weight demonstrators to resemble the armor package then in the making were delivered in March 1981) had 400 mm RHAe vs KE at the turret; there is no statement made regarding wether this protection is achieved along the frontal arc or this is just achieved when the turret is directly hit from the front. In theory both the British and the CIA estimates could fit together, with the turret achieving 340 mm steel-equivalent protection when hit at a 20-25° angle (nullifying the slope along the horizontal axis) and 400 mm steel-equivalent protection when hit directly from the front.

Given that composite armor elements such as NERA panels, STEF, glass and ceramic tiles provide different protection at different angles, it could very well be that the efficiency increases with at larger impact angles (and thus lowered thickness) to provide a more consistent level of protection.

 

For the M1A1, I think we can use the M1 Abrams' armor protection as a basis and use the weight simulators of the M1E1 as a reference how much armor weight was added. Given an anti-KE mass efficiency of 1 to 1.5 (based on British documents on the development of Chobham), the M1A1's armor protection could be estimated.

 

 

 


M1E1-S-Zaloga-coll.jpg

LUh9dmD.png

DsvRsK5.png

prTlfsG.png

TxwqEAF.png

 

That seems to be a mass increase of about 15- 20 mm per m² on the lower hull and 70 - 100 mm per m² on the turret. Kinda makes the 380 mm CIA estimate very likely (for the hull; turret at 20-25°) if we use the British estimates as base.
 

 

 

The export M1A2 has 600 mm vs KE for the turret armor along the frontal arc. If we assume that the armor efficiency stays the same regardless of angle, that would be 640 to 660 mm from the front (depending on which side of the turret front is hit due to their different angles).

 

As for your model of the Leopard 2: I don't think it is very accurate. According to the Swedish documents, last slide, about 20% of the Leopard 2's frontal projection reach 400 mm RHAe vs KE or higher; in your drawing it is roughly 17% of the turret only. Given that the hull has a similar surface area, I think you should at least double the area with 400+ mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE. But due to the fact that the protection provided by composite armor depends on the specfici interaction between armor array and penetrator, I personally wouldn't want to use singular values for armor protection.


Early Soviet APFSDS ammo (and some NATO types like M735) was really, really bad at defeating everything other than a simple steel plate. The DM13 was specifically optimized to defeat multiple spaced steel plates, because the earlier APFSDS ammo designs (used for the M735 and the MBT-70's APFSDS ammo) couldn't do that.

 

17 hours ago, Laviduce said:

This diagram above is not totally consistent with what i have here:

 

Leopard2scale3.jpg.12221440b0bbe812d1ef0

 

 

The above is a composition from various sources, so I wouldn't rate that reliable. First of all the drawing used by Hilmes didn't include a backplate (it was censored), so the line drawn in the photo is not really accurate. IRL the thickness of the center plate is parallel to the outer plate - it only gets thinner at the top (where the slope is increased to provide sufficient protection against older types of ammo) and at the lower section (where the tank is less likely hit). The image section showing the turret is from a patent regarding a new recoil mechanism, which would sit within the left and right corner of the turret, rather than on the gun. This would require redesigning the complete turret, so I wouldn't necessarily consider that a reliable source. There are also patent drawings showing a cicrcular hole in the armor for the EMES-15,  we know that this is not true.

 

y4HDHTK.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Now that we know the Challenger 2's Life Extension Program won't include a new gun, there's news coming in that the Warrior's modernization program is highly likely to be cancelled:
      Axe Hangs Over UK Warrior Upgrade.
       
       
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since Xlucine suggested it in the general AFV thread, here is a new version of the old Tank ID thread that used to exist at the WoT forums, back before the great exodus to SH.
       
      The rules are simple.  Post a picture of some sort of AFV and everyone has to try to name what it is.  Try to avoid posting a new picture until the previous picture is identified.  Generally, the person who was first to correctly ID the picture in question gets to post the next picture, unless they want to pass.  If a picture is not ID'd in a day or two, the person that posted it should say what it is and bask in their own sense of superiority.   They should then post a new picture for the sake of keeping the thread moving.  Please, no fictional tanks, paper napkin drawings that never made it to prototype or pictures where the vehicle in question is obscured or particularly hard to see.  Also, if posting a picture of an unusual variant of a relatively common vehicle, be sure to note that you are looking for the specific variant name, not just the general family of vehicles it belongs to (for example, if I post a picture of a Panzer IV with the hydrostat drive, I would say in the post something like "What makes this Panzer IV unusual?" since everyone can ID a Panzer IV)
       
      It is perfectly ok to shame those that make spectacularly wrong guesses.  That's just how we roll around here.  
       
      I'll start 
       

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


×