Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Ed5JzTj4TIo.jpg

 

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

 

52 minutes ago, Waffentrager said:

 

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

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

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

 

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

 



qNOwNaJ.jpg

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

 

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

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

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

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

20% front area more then 400mm RHA

30% front area circa 380mm RHA

ca 50% 300-350mm RHA

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

3 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

MI2pE8N.png

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

BWMti0D.png13_53.jpg

Japanese_APFSDS.jpg



9E8VT5h.png

D0aRI9Z.png

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

guoGSH0.png

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

 

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

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

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

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

It cost me a lunch. 

 

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

 

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

GTFO!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

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...