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?


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:



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:

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):



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 622
  • 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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites








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).






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:





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








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).








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

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


Confirm that german special amrmour was not tested in USA:



marevelous document about 105mm vs 120mm in USA:


"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:





The tanks also weren't x-rayed:



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:



The only odd statement is the following:


"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:


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:



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:



  • "... 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:




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.


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):




  • 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 (?)



  • 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)


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.
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
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.


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:



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...



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.

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).



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:



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


T-80U armor:




T-72M1 armor:



Proposed Leclerc armor upgrade:



Leopard 2 armor:



M1 Abrams armor:



Reference threats:




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?)...



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

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...




Leclerc armor was very poor:



Leopard 2 armor evolution:






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:



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



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.

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? 

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.

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.

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: 
      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...