Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Xoon said:

If we can presume that the diagram, and this is accurate, don't we now know how effective the composite armor is compared to RHA?

 

Example:
Side turret armor is 400mm thick, with a protection level of 380mm, equals 0,95 as effective per millimeter vs RHA vs CE.

 

Also, it seems there is no protection gained for the turret side armor to be at 45 degrees, compared to 90 degrees?
 

 

The side armor at the turret bustle (the section providing 380 mm protection at 90° impact angle) is thicker than the armor at the crew compartment:

PbZ059d.png

 

So it seems the side armor has a thickness of about 300 mm at the crew compartment, while the thickness at the bustle is about 400 mm. The armor seems to have different composition depending on location:
17hetbP2.jpg

The bustle armor consists of many sloped NERA plates, while the NERA plates at the side armor of the crew compartment are flat (so they require an angle to achieve a higher level of protection):

 

armor.american.m1.abrams-side-hull-exposVu6lhvI.png

Share this post


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

This is identical to the diagram I posted earlier (with a lot less pixels) coming from a presentation on the Swedish tan trials. It seems that the protection level was censored in the Swedish presentation (because it is public access). I guess somebody dug this up out of the Swedish archives?

 

What munition exactly are they referring to when they're speaking of :

  • 148 mm ATGM
  • 81 mm HHIW
  • 127 mm ATGM IMPROVED (the ITOW ?)

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

But the file name suggest that it shows the M1A1 HA...

 

That was an error on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

TOW-2

C-G

ITOW

 

EDIT:

 

This 125mm ammo -it's US "black project" of 125mm test APFSDS whit technology of the XM829E1/E2 -so evaluation how good can by Sowiet APFSDS based on build "US 125mm ammo" on best avaibla components. It was XM.... (i will find this marks in my notes and put here).

 

 

ZMEcTj9.png

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

The more interestin think is -how to hell was resistant Leopard 2I armour if it was describe by Sweden as "better" then EAP in Abrams?!

 

And second think- we know that "Special armour" thickness like in Leopard 2A4 armour cabvity was able to stop LKE1 (DM43) from 2km.

So no less then 640mm RHA at 2km.

So meybe it's true:

tKTV4eu.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


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

@UP

TOW-2

C-G

ITOW

 

EDIT:

 

This 125mm ammo -it's US "black project" of 125mm test APFSDS whit technology of the XM829E1/E2 -so evaluation how good can by Sowiet APFSDS based on build "US 125mm ammo" on best avaibla components. It was XM.... (i will find this marks in my notes and put here).

 

 

ZMEcTj9.png

 

 

 

 

This American 125mm APFSDS-T was: XM711 / XM771 

Share this post


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

So it seems the side armor has a thickness of about 300 mm at the crew compartment, while the thickness at the bustle is about 400 mm. The armor seems to have different composition depending on location:
 

Yes, it's true:

 

YcAUEcj.jpg

 

3JFlTlj.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.3.2018 at 9:05 PM, Militarysta said:

@Methos

Confirm that german special amrmour was not tested in USA:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293016483954;view=1up;seq=1

 

marevelous document about 105mm vs 120mm in USA:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210024740399;view=1up;seq=1

"we know that 105mm is shit but it's cost effective"

 

BTW: Im agree that Leopard 2 is understimeted a lot. IMHO whole think is taken from T14 turret values or fact tahat in Leopard 2AV tehere was no special armour - just "cavity" made by frontplate and backplate - X-rayed by Americans who "discover" there is no special armour there. So propably (it's only my assumption) value for Leo2 is taken from XM1 whit thinner backplate and frontplate in leo-2 (2x 45mm RHA)

IMHO there is no other logical explanation of sucht value

 

 

The articles are surely interesting to read, but they do not say that armour was not tested in the United States. The actual tanks did not have armor, but the documents also mention that Germany delivered a ballistic turret (steel shell with armor modules) and a ballistic hulll (steel shell with armor modules) to the United States for testing:

 

Ps2hjyz.png

6FImVf9.png

 

The tanks also weren't x-rayed:

rLLjC9D.png

 

But the statement regarding the XM1 being better protected than the Leopard 2AV also should be taken catiously. According to the document, the protection was not solely limited to an analysis of the armor, but also included stuff like ammo storage (where the Chrysler XM1 is better) and other factors:

7VNwTGG.png

 

The only odd statement is the following:

zj297z7.png

"The Leopard has 87 percent less special armor protection than the XM1". That would mean - if this was a statement regarding the quality of the armor - that the Leopard 2AV's protection would be worse than the Leopard 1's (!). 13 percent of 350 to 400 mm is less than 60 mm. Therefore we can say: this value does not relate to actual armor protection.

Instead it seems to be related to armor coverage:

pt19-t19.jpg

The Leopard 2AV did not have special armor skirts (only the same skirts as the Leopard 1), it doesn't have composite armor at the turret bustle (only simple spaced solution also used on the Leopard 2) and it's hull armor had reduced special armor thickness (because it incorporated a fuel tank following a suggestion from the United States, that this would be an efficient armor layout). So IMO the XM1 was found to have much more surface covered by special armor:

haNd12m.jpg

 

The document "Department Of Defense Consideration Of West Germany's Leopard As The Army's New Main Battle Tank" seems to support this suggestion and is a lot more balanced (it criticizes the fact that biased people like Gen. Robert Baer, the XM1's project manager, were part of the "judges" overseeing the tests). It states the following regarding the armor:

ATdRy81.png

fMUIyLq.png

  • "... special armor protects a larger area of the XM-1 than the present Leopard ..." - no surprise, it has heavy ballistic skirts, turret bustle armor and probably also more special armor in the hull.
  • "... and that the XM-1 is currently capable of sustaining more types of hits without serious damage." - well, the Leopard 2AV would probably fail to stop a 81 mm HEAT round (Carl Gustav warhead) at the turret bustle... just like the Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5...
  • Reason for the different protection levels provided by the armor are attributed to "Differences in how the two countries perceive the threat." -  IMO this means, that Germany focused more on protection against KE threats (i.e. APFSDS ammo and artillery fragments) rather than shaped charges. This would fit the graphic posted earlier.
  • "The protection offered by the present-generation German chobham armor is not [...] equal to that of the XM-1." - it was apparently also optimized to defeat other threats. Furthermore the hull armor (incorporating a fuel tank) was extremely inefficient! According to German documents, redesigning the hull with a single array of NERA (rather than two separate ones?) allowed to free 700 kilograms of weight without reducing the armor protection:

leoav-7sazrk.jpg

 

 

55 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

The more interestin think is -how to hell was resistant Leopard 2I armour if it was describe by Sweden as "better" then EAP in Abrams?!

 

And second think- we know that "Special armour" thickness like in Leopard 2A4 armour cabvity was able to stop LKE1 (DM43) from 2km.

So no less then 640mm RHA at 2km.

So meybe it's true:

 

Well, there are three facts to remember:

 

1. The Leopard 2A4's turret armor was tested with a physical thickness of 800-860 mm against the LKE1 APFSDS, so it simulated a direct hit from the front. The M1A2 armor scheme shows only the guaranteed protection along the frontal ± 30°. So the 600 mm RHAe value might be 650-700 mm  RHAe when hit from the front (0° from the turret centerline). The 350 mm hull armor however should be corresponding to 0° impact angle, because the effective armor thickness increases at other angles.

2. The T-80U's turret in Sweden was claimed to provide protection equal to roughly 600 mm RHAe vs KE (without Kontakt-5 ERA)

3. Leopard 2A5 was considered to be better protected than the M1A2, Leclerc and T-80U in Sweden and in Greece.

 

Share this post


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

 

The M711 is not American, and I'm pretty sure it was never named "XM711".

 

Maybe, maybe not. There might be aswell an American XM711. Don't forget that the designation "M426" exists in the US inventory (105 mm HEAT-FS round) and the Israeli inventory (105 mm APFSDS-T round, also known as 105 mm DM63); it would be quite a coincidence, but there also might be an American XM711 round. Maybe the M711 was developed as a joint-venture with US companies or based on a contract of the US Army?

 

___

 

Enough of the "heavy" discussions, time to lighten up the mood. French armor protection (some of the other forum users with better French skills should try to fact-check my translation):

 

4n9tBsl.jpg

AMX-32:

  • frontal armor consists of spaced armor, the outer layer is a dual-hardness steel plate; spaced armor is also used on the turret sides
  • designed to resist 57 mm AP (from the ASU-57) and 75 mm APCBC ammo (from the AMX-13/75) - penetration should be 100-170 at 1,000 m distance
  • a lot better protected than the AMX-30, which was designed to stop 20 mm ammo only
  • roof armor is designed to provide protection against bomblets with 30° impact angle (?)

U3CiP8q.jpg

AMX-40:

  • frontal arc is protected by composite armor, which is resistant to 76 mm AP ammo - only the PT-76 and M41 Walker Bulldog used this calibre - and the RPG-7
  • side armor of the turret is spaced and  provides protection against 23 mm AP

AMX E4  (modified AMX-40 design offered to Egypt, weight increased from 43.7 metric tons to 50 metric tons):

  • completely redesigned (composite) armor, offers protection against 105 mm HEAT and APFSDS ammo at the frontal arc
  • heavier versions (53 metric tons) of this design were supposed to have armor protection comparable the Leopard 2(A4)

bdM2o4j.jpg

AMX Leclerc:

  • unlike Chobham, the Leclerc's armor was always designed to provide higher efficiency against both KE and CE threats (early Chobham was optimized against hollow charge ammunition only)
  • the Leclec has the same weight as the Leopard 2A4, but is 850 mm shorter (hull length). This allows the implementation of a higher protection level. However instead of focusing all armor on the frontal arc (like the Leopard 2), the weight was used to increase protection along a greater area: the heavy ballistic skirts are thicker and cover more surface, while the turret side (and bustle) armor is designed to protect against RPGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*

 
 
The AMX32's protection

The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.

The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.

Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.
 
 
--------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.
 
 
 
The Leclerc's armors:
 
Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.
 
During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.
 
The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.
 
In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.
 
Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.

The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.

As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.

Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.

The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.
 
 
 
Text on the lower left, under the picture:
 
One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.
 
 
 
 
EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.
Edited by Renegade334
Reworked some sentences, removed some kinks...made it a bit more palatable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do the stats sheet:

 

General characteristic of the AMX 40

 

Crew: 4

Total length with the gun at 12 O'clok: 10,04 m

Hull length: 6,8m

Width with appliqué (front side armor): 3,36 m

Width hull only: 3,18 m

Total height: 3,10 m

Height (turret roof): 2,38

Mass with combat load: 43,7 t

Ground pressure: 0,83 bar

Fuel reserve: 1300 L

Fuel consumption: between 180 and 220 L/100 km on road

Autonomy: 550 km on road

Top speed (road): 70 km/h

Acceleration: 0 to 32 km/h in 6s

Max obstacle height: 1,1 m

Trench: 3,2 m wide

Slope: 60%

Cant: 30%

Fording without preparation: 1,3 m

Fording with 5 min preparation: 2,3 m

Engine: V12X 24,69 L diesel with a 1100 hp output ; water cooled 2 stage overfeed ; power can reach 1300 hp with adjustment

Transmission: Automatic ZF LSG 3000 ; 4 forward gear ; 2 reverse gear

Suspension: Torsion bar and rotary dampener

Tracks: 570 mm width with dry axis

Main gun: Smoothbore 120 mm L52 NATO

Secondary armament: 20mm M693 (coax) and 7,62 mm (RCWS on the commander cupola)

FCS: Digitalized COTAC allowing to fire on the move on moving targets

Gun elevation: -7°/+20°

20 mm coax elevation: -7°/+40°  (independent from the main gun)

RCWS elevation: -10°/+40°

Commander sight: M527 Stabilized panoramic sight ; x2 and x8 day ; light intensification night ; linked to the FCS allowing to fire on the move (apparently by using the commander sight as a reference that the gun try to follow)

Gunner sight: M581 scope with a x10 unitary zoom ; linked to gun

Thermal camera: Castor

Self defense: 6 Galix tubes

Ballistic protection: Composite block providing a protection against 76 mm AP and RPG-7 in the frontal arc ; 23 mm AP on the sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two quotes from Rickard's O. Lindström's article on the development of the Strv 2000, which might be relevant to the protection level of NATO tanks in the 1990s:

 

Quote

Denna pilprojektil har sedermera ersatts av ytterligare förbättrade versioner, men under 80-talet hade bevisligen inte NATO:s stridsvagnar den skyddsnivå som krävdes för att motstå attacker från Warszawapaktens stridsvagnar.

 

The above statement is made regarding the development of the Soviet 125 mm APFSDS ammo: NATO tanks of the 1980s doesn't seem to be protected against the weapons/ammo used by Warsaw Pact tanks. This probably meant that the protection of the tanks tested in Sweden wasn't necessarily as high as usually estimated on the internet...

 

Quote

Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande.

 

Inspired by the M1A1 HA, the Swedes tested DU as possible armor material for the Strv 2000 tank project. It showed that the usage of DU increased protection, but only if the volume was the limiting factor. If the weight was the limit, other materials could reach similar (or higher) protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And the M1A1HA only had DU on the turret sides, right? Because that's the only place that is actually limited by volume rather than weight, in most tanks.

 

No, only at the turret front. The volume is a limiting factor, if you want protection against large calibre KE rounds and tandem shaped charges. Just look at the Leclerc (armor thickness increased on later variants), T-84 (armor thickness increased compared to T-80UD) and Leopard 2A5/Evolution/ADT/MLU (all adopting external armor modules, because the frontal armor doesn't have enough volume).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Is it confirmed to be fake?

 

This is from a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV:

whToVIX.jpg

 

Except for the values, everything is there (lower left corner). The same set of presentations includes a lot of 100% valid files:

Spoiler

T-80U armor:

CL7scIv.jpg

7YHWfVX.jpg

 

T-72M1 armor:

H05wxYw.jpg

 

Proposed Leclerc armor upgrade:

ZugyAbV.jpg

 

Leopard 2 armor:

hC3VldQ.jpg

 

M1 Abrams armor:

aiQkoGX.jpg

 

Reference threats:

3k7Yr6N.png

 

 

So overall the drawing seems to be valid. Maybe the guy photoshopped the drawing into the background of a FMV file and added his own values - but look at the drawing in the left corner of the first slide: this drawing does exist and it does have oddly placed text... maybe because R. Lindström wasn't allowed to post the true version (which would have protection values there?)...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 12:11 AM, SH_MM said:

This is from a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV:

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 pages long. Apparently it's exactly the same as one available now online, except for some pages on tank protection https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH 
(according to Chrome history file, which i've backed up in dec.2015 and still have now, this pdf was without a doubt downloaded from ontres.se https://i.imgur.com/ysAJQgr.png)

...
new link https://cloud.mail.ru/public/579x/2Z1Bqxm2m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

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 pages long. Apparently it's exactly the same as one available now online, except for some pages on tank protection https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH 

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


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

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

 

Yes, and Im happy that it's indeed not fake. On the other said - sombady who I know was so pretty sure that it is fake... As we can see - no, it's not, it's real and to be honest - it's now the most reible source about western armour...

And it's amazing to be honest. Really amezing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

 

Well we knew that the layout was bad, but not by that much.

And given the placement of the armour (composite block on the whole length of the turret side instead on focusing everything on the front) it should have been obvious retrospectively, I just didn't expected it to be to that point.

I guess that the initial goal was crew survivability since those armor modules are RPG-7 proof at 90°.

Something the Leopard 2, even up-armored, is bad at since there is almost no special armor on the turret side.

 

It's a good armour layout in urban environment, not so much in a long range frontal engagement.

The leo 2 with A5 wedge armor get the job done by putting a huge slab of armor in front of everything and there is no denying that the Leopard 2 was the best armoured competitor during the Swedish trial.

The M1A2 get it done with an unusually wide turret which mean that when you see it from an angle, you see a bigger surface of turret front compared to a narrower turret.

 

Another interesting point is that both the Leclerc and the M1A2 seem to cap at 600 mm KE (the drop from 600 to 700 mm is quite significant).

It may indicate that the array composition and layout might have been similar.

 

Regardless this is indeed a significant find.

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 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?
    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...