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

Hello everyone!  i would need some feedback on my latest estimates on the Leopard 2(A0-A4 early):

 

 

 

Leo2A1_armor_estimate_fin.jpg.12bcd90ac8

My proposed protection solution could potentially satisfy the plot depicted in the Lindström presentation:

Leo2a4vsLeo2S.thumb.jpg.aa0a526e10c4a5bc

 

As we know, the center plot is of particular interest. It seems to depict the various armor solutions (packages). I used the magenta colored plot line (B-type armor tech?) for my solution:

Leo2A1_armor_distribution_fin.thumb.jpg.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Very nice job, but IMHO there is one small mistake:

Upper hull plate is no lees then 30mm RHA - the same as turret roof. So both have the same protection.

 

Thank you for the feedback, Militarysta. Using the Hilmes drawings i came to about 30 mm at around 8 degrees from the horizontal. Looking at the Leopard 2K drawings , i see that the plate is 35 mm thick at 8 degrees from the horizontal. I think quite a few things were taken over from those early prototypes and i think this might be one of those features. Given this, i will adjust the estimate for this area to around 215 - 250 mm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

 

Thank you for the feedback, Militarysta. Using the Hilmes drawings i came to about 30 mm at around 8 degrees from the horizontal. Looking at the Leopard 2K drawings , i see that the plate is 35 mm thick at 8 degrees from the horizontal. I think quite a few things were taken over from those early prototypes and i think this might be one of those features. Given this, i will adjust the estimate for this area to around 215 - 250 mm.  

 

IMHO there is no need to use draws ;-)

I had masured it by my own hands:

Hatch:

GczYE3A.jpg

 

Upper glastic plate is the same.

So 30mm at 8 = 215mm RHA

 

The bigger problem is whit turret roof but it's propably  the same.

 

Share this post


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

 

IMHO there is no need to use draws ;-)

I had masured it by my own hands:

Hatch:

GczYE3A.jpg

 

Upper glastic plate is the same.

So 30mm at 8 = 215mm RHA

 

The bigger problem is whit turret roof but it's propably  the same.

 

Yes !   Using the drawings, the forward turret roof comes to about 45 mm at around 7 degrees , whereas the level turret roof comes to about 30 mm. This gives me a LOS thickness of aroudn 350 mm. I will make that change to the diagrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrunkenMaster said:

How are you getting 280mm for the gun mantlet? Isn't the gun shield alone 200mm thick? Or is it just the raw armor value of the gun mantlet without the gun shield?

 

The mantlet seems to be 420 mm thick. This is followed by  the hollow trunnion block giving a total LOS thickness of 680 to 730 mm.

Share this post


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

Update with corrections:

 

 

Leo2A1_estimate3_CE.jpg.3a39ece00fe5f23c

 

Whit KE I can agree - IMHO it's more or less correct.

But IMHO - CE value is mistaken. I will explain why - even erly Burlington armour give protection circa as 1 (in compare to the same weight) RHA block agains APDS and after APFSDS and 2 (in compare to the same weight) RHA block agains HEAT. Of cource we can discuss it this ratio is insluding backplate and frontplate or for same "special armour" itself but more or less - HEAT protectio will be mucht bigger then you marked.

I propose to not break open door and just copied KE/CE ratio from well known M1 Abrams from 1982 - the same armour orgins, teh same year itp:

mJpFCBI.jpg

 

400mm vs KE

750mm vs CE

ratio: 1,875

 

And finnal it should looks like this:

zcszs27.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Militarysta said:

 

Whit KE I can agree - IMHO it's more or less correct.

But IMHO - CE value is mistaken. I will explain why - even erly Burlington armour give protection circa as 1 (in compare to the same weight) RHA block agains APDS and after APFSDS and 2 (in compare to the same weight) RHA block agains HEAT. Of cource we can discuss it this ratio is insluding backplate and frontplate or for same "special armour" itself but more or less - HEAT protectio will be mucht bigger then you marked.

I propose to not break open door and just copied KE/CE ratio from well known M1 Abrams from 1982 - the same armour orgins, teh same year itp:

mJpFCBI.jpg

 

400mm vs KE

750mm vs CE

ratio: 1,875

 

And finnal it should looks like this:

zcszs27.png

 

 

Thank you very much for the feedback. I will make the changes! In the meantime, could you take a look at this and tell me what you think:

 

Leo2A1_estimate_side.thumb.jpg.ad3f44ed8

The sponson and track areas gave me the greatest problems.    Explanation:

 

Sponson (outside->inside):

 

Section around the turret ring: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel) + 10 mm steel.  Total LOS: 510 mm

 

Section around the heavy side skirts: 50 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel)+ 10 mm steel.  Total LOS: 550 mm

 

Section around the powerpack: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Batteries/empty space/NBC system + 10 mm steel.  Total LOS: 510 mm

 

Side skirts (outside->inside):

 

Heavy side skirts:  100-110 mm (steel/spaced) heavy side skirts + 680 mm air gap + 30-35 or 50 mm of steel.  Total LOS: 810-845 mm

 

Side skirts:   20-25 mm ruberized perforated steel plates + 680 mm air gap + 30 or 50 mm of steel. Total LOS: 730-755 mm

 

Turret bustle:   Construction depth of around 80 mm at most. Seems to be spaced. Possible make up: 45 mm Steel + 20 air gap + 15 mm  steel. Total LOS: 80 mm

 

Ammunition hatch: Hatch seems to be mostly composed of "thin and light elements". Possible basic construction:  10 mm steel cover plate + 280 mm air gap/spacer + 20 mm steel cover plate. Total LOS : 310 mm

 

Lower side hull:  angled bottom side hull seems to be 20 mm thick steel at around 45 degrees. Side hull seems to alternate between 30-35 mm and 50 mm.

 

 

Updated CE resistance disgram:

 

Leo2A1_estimate6_CE.thumb.jpg.83f9ea5c7f

I adjusted the values according to 1) Militarysta's feedback and 2) the respective LOS thicknesses. 

 

 

I would be grateful for any feedback!

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×