Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

 

29 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

073539cxs7dob79vt6dxud.jpg

Simply translate the words into English, hope it will help. 

9S2JFZR.jpg

Another figure, posted by Wiedzmin in a thread on otvaga, shows the fuel filling port of front fuel system unit. 

 

According to a video record,

about JGSDF tank training in US, they refuel a Type-10 MBT on a fuel filling port of similar location. I assume they both have similar arrangements. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 623
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF 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 came

I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources su

33 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

it's strange, report says that hull special armor weight 1249, so "A" part on scheme can't be fuel cell ? but without big fuel cell how far type90 can ride ? 

With a internal fuel capacity of 1272 litre, Type-90 can travel about 300-340 km.

Type-74 in comparison, can travel about 400 km when equipped with external fuel container. 

Exact data could depends on terrain and weather, especially in winter condition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

There might be some sort of spaced metal plates inside the fuel cell to improve its effectiveness as armor.

Hmmm!!! Just like Fuel Cell B, that surrounds the ammunition , fuel cell A could be a composite array that uses diesel fuel to complement its protective properties.

 

Type90_fh_fc.jpg.532e4aa1e4085c88e3b048e

Note: The front hull special armor is supposed to have  a mass of 1249 kg!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

 

Actually it is a well known idea used in "cells" armor developed by hydrodynamic institute of Siberian departament of academy of scince of USSR in 70s. http://btvt.info/5library/vot_yacheiki.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

More about how this works can be found in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281489377_Theoretical_Study_of_a_Diesel-Filled_Airtight_Structure_Unit_Subjected_to_Shaped_Charge_Jet_Impact

 

If you want the full paper, PM Me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

On 19.3.2018 at 5:36 PM, Alzoc said:

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

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

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

 

 

But how valid is this chart ?  Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 15.3.2018 at 2:01 PM, SH_MM said:

The British had some odd ideas about main battle tanks, although they wanted their MBT-80 to be more advanced in some aspects than the Challenger 2 currently operated by the British army...

  1. The lack of an indendepent sight for the commander was disliked
  2. The laser rangefinder of the M1 Abrams was incompatible with the thermal imager (?)
  3. For some reason the British military thought it was a bad idea to integrate daysight and thermal imager into a unitary optic
  4. The M1's fire control system resulted in a low hit probability (confirmed by statemens from US and German sources regarding the comparative trials of XM1 & Leopard 2AV)
  5. The armor of the M1 Abrams could be penetrated at ranges of 4,000 m by the 125 mm gun according to British estimates
  6. Storing ammo below the turret ring is/was seen as better than having a separated ammunition compartment at the rear of the turret because some US test proved that it might not always work with 105 mm ammo and wasn't tested with 120 mm; also the blast door needs to be open for reloading (silly complaint)

 

K7E4Sox.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SH_MM, some of the protection level bullets are familiar, some less so. 

 

More specifically:

 

It's a very nice summary, so I'd love to see the sources I'm missing that provide the additional specificity. My search terms may have failed me and I may have missed the links b/c I'm new to the site...

 

P.S. Greetings

  • On 3/1/2018 at 7:54 AM, SH_MM said:
    •  
    •  
    • That leaves us with the following (is there any easy way to add tables?):
    • Tank type
    • T-72
    • Leopard 2K
    • Leopard 2AV
    • (X)M1 Abrams
    • MBT-80
    • Weight
    • 41 tonnes
    • up to 47.5 tonnes
    • 56.935 tonnes
    • 52.6 tonnes
    • (?)
    • KE threat
    • 105 mm "next-generation" AP(FS)DS from 500 m along ±30° from the centerline
      14.5 mm - 20 mm AP allround (?)
    • 105 mm APDS from 800 m along ±15° from the centerline (turret only),
      90 mm AP(DS) from 1,500 m along ±15° from the centerline (hull),
      20 mm AP from 100 m (upper portions of the hull sides) or from 500 m at 20° (lower portion)
      14.5 mm AP from 100 m (engine comparment)
    • 105 mm APFSDS with 38 mm core diameter (ammo for the smoothbore gun?) along ±30° from the centerline,
      7.62 mm AP at 30 m (engine vents),
      14.5 mm AP all-round (20 mm AP at crew compartment?)
    • 115 mm APFSDS from 800 - 1,200 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round (?)
    • 125 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round
    • CE threat
    • 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) at ±30° from the centerline
    • None
    • MILAN warhead
    • 127 mm HEAT warhead (TOW-1?) at ±25° from the centerline,
      81 mm HEAT at 45° (crew compartment)
    • (?)
    • Artillery threat
    • (?)
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10 m
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10-15 m,
      155 mm artillery fragments at 25 m (vehicle rear),
      no protection required (cover above the tracks at the engine compartment)
    • 95% protection against 155 mm splinters at 15 m (crew compartment),
      57% protection elsewhere
    • 155 mm splinters at 10 m
Edited by Olds
increased specificity, grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olds said:

 

SH_MM, some of these protection level bullets are familiar, some are not. Are these all definitely documented somewhere--some other thread with links or whatever--or is this a list from memory? (I don't mean that in a bad way :), but I'm curious just how definitive some of these items are).

 

P.S. Greetings

  •  

Welcome to SH Olds.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/4-a-beginners-guide-to-posting-on-sh/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is some info dealing with the protection requirement of the Chieftain of the 1980s:

 

Chieftain_protection_medium

 

 

This also makes me believe that the turret "cheek" armor protection of the Challenger 1 is 500+ mm RHAe against subcalibre KE threats. The Armed Forces Journal estimate of 580 mm RHAe and the British CR1 engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following diagram seems to show some old "weldlines" on the hull of a Leclerc prototype concept. Given the dimensions of the hull, nothing much seems to have changed between this prototype concept and the Leclerc Serie 1 hull.  This would give the front hull a LOS thickness of 600-620 640 mm, which conveniently falls within the limits of the earlier diagram:

 

Leclerc_prototype_concept_drawings

 

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

engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

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

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

I also read that the CR2 was expected to have a KE resistance lower than that of the M1A1 HA. I think this came from a British assessment document.   Yet there is a problem , the British were aware of the threats posed by the 125 mm guns. There is little reason to believe that the British were not successful of reaching a protection level of 500 mm RHAe in the 60 frontal arc. This would translate to about 580 mm RHAe from the front. The M1A1 HA KE protection in the frontal 60 degree arc was stated to be around 600 mm RHAe. This would translate to a KE resistance of up to 690 mm directly from the front.

 

What we know:

 

CR1 - Armed Forces Journal estimate: 580 mm RHAe

CR1 -  Engineer Rumor:  620 mm RHAe

 

Average between the sources: 600 mm RHAe

 

M1A1 HA - multiple sources - up to 690 mm RHAe

 

CR2 - British document projection - below M1A1 HA level

 

This would give us:     600 mm RHAe < CR2 KE resistance < 690 mm RHAe      -> reasonable middle ground for the CR2 turret cheek armor from the front 650 mm RHAe

 

This would satisfy the requirement of the CR2 offering marginally inferior KE resistance compared  to the M1A1 HA but marginally superior KE protection compared to the CR1. Now 50 mm is not much of an improvement but it could still be true. 

 

The jump in KE resistance from the M1 to the M1A1 was also around 50 mm if we follow the given sources.  The increase in CE resistance was more significant, from 700 mm RHAe all  the way up to 1000 mm RHAe for the frontal 60 degree protection arc.

 

The CR2 could have followed the same idea, where an increase in CE protection was emphasized over an increase in KE protection.

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

I note that in 10 pages, the Abrams, Leo 2 and even Challenger have had their defenders, but nobody has gone to bat for the Ariete.

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

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

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

 

according to mysterious sources:

 

" ... In any case, the level of protection, in particular against APFSDS projectiles, remains the Achilles' heel of the vehicle, reaching 500 mm in the frontal arc of the turret (C1 Ariete), a thickness comparable to that of a Soviet T-72B of the 1980s  but lower than that of contemporaries M1 Abrams or Leopard 2. "

 

Yay !!!! :P

 

...wait a minute!!!! :o:what:

 

 source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13    :wacko::huh:

 

OM*G!  <_< 

 

The turret values might actually be correct but there is no way of practically veryifying it either way. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

 

:shitpostdiarrhea:

 

 

 

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?

×
×
  • Create New...