Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language:wacko: chalenger-2_9.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language:wacko:

 

Ed5JzTj4TIo.jpg

 

You can see the armor thickness in the photo above. This is the Challenger 2 tank located at the Bovington Tank Museum.

 

52 minutes ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level? Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

The Swedish documents suggest that the Leopard 2 with the original armor package has at least 300 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at ~63% of its surface, at least 340 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 50% and at least 400 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 20% of the surface. The Japanese data seems to confirm this, but there still should be some places with at least 400 mm vs KE.

 



qNOwNaJ.jpg

Share this post


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

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

Sure but it's not consist whit values from Lindstorm and FMV:

Leopard 2A0-A4 ( till 1988) for +/- 30. from longitiudal axis:

20% front area more then 400mm RHA

30% front area circa 380mm RHA

ca 50% 300-350mm RHA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

You can see the armor thickness in the photo above. This is the Challenger 2 tank located at the Bovington Tank Museum.

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be just a 76mm steel plate. It didnt need protection according to the Brits (which makes sense) so they just made it strong enough to carry the weight of things like dozers and mine plows. Theres also a driver's manual I've seen a long while ago that shows it, but I dont have it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level?

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Akula_941 said:

in short, people crys, shouting , cursing, claiming this whole file is fake, Abrams 900mm vs KE,DU stronk, USA win.

 

any link? Will be funny to look )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

any link? Will be funny to look )

yDVErMHC1Sw.jpg

plrM6jzb7fQ.jpg

 

something nearby true from latest swedish tank tender's report. but I think you saw it. It is necessary to clarify which M1 model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

May be taken from a manual of digital camera or sth. else. 

 

 

Share this post


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

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

 

 

 Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

3 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

 Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

 

Mitsubishi has a few collections of the TK-X project from the Type90 to planned Type10 projection. This snipbit wasnt with the ones I have, but was found online. It's clear the style is from the same source. Just the one posting seems to have used similar numbers of armour to their advantage and tried censoring the rest to prevent reading in-context, or just failed to get what it said. It's clear at least one more is around that's public. Just not about the protection but built in tech instead. It'd be very welcomed. Especially when they seem to love comparing it to the T-90. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monochromelody said:

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

May be taken from a manual of digital camera or sth. else.

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

Also you can say bullshit and fuck on this forum, welcome to the club.

Share this post


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

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

 

Aye, did some digging, this is the chart's header. The original piece specifically labels it as the tanks sighting comparison. Lists 3 alternate options and which was better fit. Just the normal dont trust what you find online at face value. Just coincidentally has identical numbers mentioned about armour elsewhere.

 

MI2pE8N.png

Share this post


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

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

If these protection values would be representing the actual Leopard 2 and if these were actually based on tests with the 120 mm DM33/JM33 ammunition, then it most likely would mean that the Leopard 2 would reach a (slightly) higher protection level against older types of APFSDS ammunition. The 120 mm DM33 APFSDS was specifically optimized to defeat multi-layered armor, against which older designs of APFSDS were found to be rather insufficient. According to a patent from Rheinmetall, a special tip design developed in the mid-1980s allows to increase the penetration against multi-layered armor, specifically such armor designs with "bouncy"/elastically mounted steel plates. The NERA arrays used on the Leopard 2 could be described as such armor - the German text speaks of "komplizierten Mehrschichtpanzerungen" ("complicated multi-layered armor arrays") and "federnd aufgehängten Panzerplatten" ("resiliently mounted armor plates"). The moving metal plate(s) of a NERA sandwich can be described as "Federblech" or "Beulblech" in German, with the armor of the Leopard 2 being called "Beulblechpanzerung" (bulging-plates armor) and "Lamellenpanzerung" (the latter term is used by the Austrian Bundesheer).

 

BWMti0D.png13_53.jpg

Japanese_APFSDS.jpg



9E8VT5h.png

D0aRI9Z.png

 

According to conservative estimations during the development of this new tip design, the penetration performance of the APFSDS ammunition could be increased by more than 10% against certain special armor arrays. So a measured protection value of 380 mm RHAe - if this reflected the Leopard 2's claimed protection against the 120 mm DM33 APFSDS - could very well be 400-440 mm steel-eqivalent protection against older rounds such as 120 mm DM23, Zakolka, Vant, Mango, etc.

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

 

 

It's clear the text hidden has nothing to do with armour. Blatant out of context shot taking numbers similar to armour and censoring the text.

 

8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

 

The use of the Rheinmetall gun choice for the Type90's development didnt happen untiil 1988, after the first trial tanks were built. It was a late swap from their own 120 to using a cheaper Rheinmetall. Likely right after was their own round based on the DM33 was conducted leading to the introduction of the tank.

 

I don't know when. Japan does bring up the topic of western comparisons, and even including numbers matching that of the western contemporaries. It would either be clear intel sharing - or just random accurate presumptions. But based on the data they mention on the T-90 project, it seems it could be either or. 

 

guoGSH0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.03.2018 at 5:52 PM, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

You are unlucky - in Wroclaw city where I live there is big LG corp factory whit many Korean Managers. And preatty close there is TAKATA and Toyota big factories.

Funny I know people who know both - Korean and Japaneese language. And I had ask them about this whit kindly ask for translate.

It cost me a lunch. 

 

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

 

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

GTFO!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

 

GTFO!!!

ZL4GX.gif
sry it was too tempting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :P

 

Well - I did jump to conclusions without doing the proper looking into before sharing what's found online just because at first glance it matches with other material. So albeit harsh words, I did sort of earn the needed-backlash. :wacko:

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.
       


×