Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, barbaria said:

I should have said 'not cost effective in replacing/repairing the Armata'

If a warhead penetrates the ammo in the autoloader, it will cause such a huge explosion that the turret will be popped of just like any other tank. The turret contains lots of expensive and sensitive electronics, optics and the main gun itself. Such an explosion would probably wreck any electronic or mechanical connection between the crew module and engine which makes repairs difficult and expensive, if not impossible. 

 

The most probable outcome of an internal ammo explosion of the Armata will be a total write off of such a tank, only in this case the crew is more likely to survive than lets say a T-90. An M1 Abrams won't suffer an internal ammo explosion and would thus be less expensive and difficult to repair and put in combat after a/couple hits.

 

Of course the Armata will be a tough nut to crack with it's advanced APS and  thick side hull armor.

   You are comparing ammunition fire with a detonation/"burst fire". In case of detonation of propellants and projectiles Abrams crew will be as fucked as in any other vehicle, because hatch between ammunition storage and crew compartment will not survive explosion. Abrams turret bustle is designed to keep ammunition fire/propellant fire from escalating into explosion or fast fire that is becoming almost like explosion.

   In T-14 it was claimed that ammunition storage/autoloader also equipped with blow out panels to achive similar situation when ammunition/propellant fire will not become detonation. IDK if those claims are true or what will happen with T-14 design after all tests, but in case if those claims are true, ammunition fire will not wreck hull. Although, gun breech and autoloader itself will be damaged.

   Anyway, maybe Turkish tankers will adopt something similar to Russian tankers in Chechnya - to load only part of ammunition in most safest ammunition storage. In case of T-72s/80s it was autoloader, in case of Leo-2s they could put rounds only in turret bustle and leave hull ammorack empty. Not ideal, but not being fried alive is not bad motivator for such changes. 

Share this post


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

[...]

 

With the exception of the Turkish Leopard 2A4, nobody uses the older models in combat. The Danish Army used the Leopard 2A5DK in Afghanistan, but as an upgraded variant called Leopard 2A5DK INTOPS. This had a mine protection kit (AMAP-M from IBD), Barracuda MCS, air conditioning, etc. The weight of this variant is 66,700 kg. Germany has the Leopard 2A7, combat weight is 63.9 metric tons without applique armor, for which the tank has been prepared. The Swedish Army has the Strv 122B for use outside Sweden, which features the same mine protection kit as the Leopard 2A6M. Combat weight is about 65 metric tons. Canada deployed the Leopard 2A6M CAN with slat armour, the Barracuda MCS and additional applique armor on the glacis, so the weight should be about 64-65 metric tons (i.e. the slat armor for the Stryker ICV weighs 5,200 pounds, i.e. 2.35 metric tons). Only the Leopard 2A4M CAN, which is specifically optimized for the counter insurgency and urban combat operation rather than high intensity warfare, was deploey in combat while weighing less than 62.5 metric tons.

 

Granted, the TUSK makes the M1A2 SEP v2 heavier than the basic Leopard 2A7, but the Leopard 2A7 prototype with add-on armor weighed up to 70 metric tons (depending on prototype and armor package). The 67.5 metrci tons figure for the Leopard 2A7+ is the result of KMW suggesting two variants (Leopard 2A7+ UrbOps with all-round protection and Leopard 2A7+ DuelOps for tank-vs-tank warfare) with specialized armor kits, rather than one version for both tasks. The Leopard 2A7Q (based on the Leopard 2A7+ DuelOps) should weigh some 65-66 metric tons without add-on armor at the sides.

As for the Spanish and Greek tanks, I suspect them to be slightly heavier than 63 metric tons, but there is no more detailed figure available.

 

The main point still stands. Saying "I would rather sit in an heavier Abrams tanks than in a Leopard 2" implies that the Abrams is always heavier (armored). In reality the Abrams is only a few tonnes heavier, if you compare it to a much older/outdated variant. In such a case, I guess everybody would want to sit in the tank with a newer armor package. Likewise I would rather sit in a lighter T-90MS than in a Leopard 2A4 with 1979's armor package. I also would rather sit in a Leopard 2 Evolution (60 metric tons) than in a M1A1 HA, because I consider a modern armor package from 2010 a lot better than an armor package from 1988.

 

As for your data: The combat weight of the M1A1 with T156 tracks is 123,000 lbs (55.79 metric tons) according to R. P. Hunnicutt. Only a M1A1 with T158 tracks (which add 2,800 lbs, i.e. 1,270 kg) is more than a metric ton heavier than a contemporary Leopard 2A3/Leopard 2A4. The T156 tracks are a bit lighter than the Diehl 570 tracks of the Leopard 2, while the T158 tracks are a bit heavier, which makes comparing the weight of both tanks a bit more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumption is abandoned and destroyed to prevent capture, but this isn't the first time we've seen a Turkish Leo 2 with such damage

 

 

On 1/10/2018 at 2:11 PM, Stimpy75 said:

7IFZb1.jpg

 

For reference, the image here is before their operation into Afrin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkish twitter guy says the barrel burst apart due to operating in too hot environments... but I don't believe that unless they sawed off the rest of the barrel.

Share this post


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

Just a few gifs from Forsvaret:
giphy.gif

Note the odd 5th roadwheel. 

 

 

What's odd about it? Most of the desert tan paint has come off, revealing the standard green color underneath, but otherwise it looks normal to me.

Share this post


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

Turkish twitter guy says the barrel burst apart due to operating in too hot environments... but I don't believe that unless they sawed off the rest of the barrel.

 

WTF is wrong with their barrel metallurgy if they burst from "operating in too hot environments?"  Turkish twitter guy needs to come up with more plausible lies!

Share this post


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

 

What's odd about it? Most of the desert tan paint has come off, revealing the standard green color underneath, but otherwise it looks normal to me.

Just looks odd, not that it is a weird incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

WTF is wrong with their barrel metallurgy if they burst from "operating in too hot environments?"  Turkish twitter guy needs to come up with more plausible lies!

Yeah but it does seem to be caused from internal stress, not any external factor. Maybe they're half right, and they fired too many shells without accounting for barrel heating. Just a speculation.

Share this post


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

 

WTF is wrong with their barrel metallurgy if they burst from "operating in too hot environments?"  Turkish twitter guy needs to come up with more plausible lies!

 

The propellant would get very exciting long before the temp had any metallurgical effect on the gun steel, maybe the ammunition is not using similar propellant to DM-63?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @SH_MM has it.  Propellant does increase peak pressure if the temperature prior to ignition goes up, especially if it isn't temperature stabilized.  But if that's what caused the failure of the tube, shouldn't the tube have failed nearer the breech end where the pressure is the highest, and not halfway down the tube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×