Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

b249324b0a3dfcf79cab831b01d95089L44_size_estimate

 

 

The barrel length of the L44 is given at 5280 , which works out with the rest of the drawings. Yet, there is a problem. The length of the gun assembly (muzzle to breech block mechanism end) is given at 5593. In my scaled drawings that length is about 5550 mm.

 

Also, the ~300-350 mm RHAe against KE estimate includes the trunnion block. Using the  approximate thickness efficiency of the turret faces i got an actual mantlet KE resistance range of around 180-220 mm RHAe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me 350mm RHAe equivalent seems likely considering the 420mm mantlet + 240mm solid titanium block behind it. 

 

If the engineers at KM didnt want the mantlet to be a weakspot there's also every reason to believe that they put thicker NERA blocks in there. 

Share this post


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

 

An undisclosed Asian country ordered ADS in 2011, when it wasn't ready for service. Maybe that's Singapore. On the other hand Turkey has been requesting the system since 2016...

 

47 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

I hope, soon we will see the photos Leopard 2 mbt with ADS AVSPS

 

You mean like this?

Leopard-2-Tank-Advanced-Technology-Demon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pardus said:

To me 350mm RHAe equivalent seems likely considering the 420mm mantlet + 240mm solid titanium block behind it. 

 

If the engineers at KM didnt want the mantlet to be a weakspot there's also every reason to believe that they put thicker NERA blocks in there. 

To clarify myself, as far as i know the overall mantlet/trunnion KE resistance of the Leopard 2 (B-tech level) is between 250 and 350 mm . That does not mean the mantlet/trunnion has a KE resistance of 350 mm overall necessarily.

Share this post


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

To clarify myself, as far as i know the overall mantlet/trunnion KE resistance of the Leopard 2 (B-tech level) is between 250 and 350 mm . That does not mean the mantlet/trunnion has a KE resistance of 350 mm overall necessarily.

 

I'd expect atleast 350mm RHAe in the center if we're talking 420mm composite + 240mm solid titanium (660mm LOS).

 

The edges of the mantlet area could present as high a value as 400mm RHAe considering the 240-280mm RHA turret armour behind the 420mm mantlet:

6dCUHw8.jpg

wALjP69.jpg

 

 

 

PS: Went and sat in a Leopard 2A5DK today and had the opportunity to eyeball the thickness of the add on armour on the upper hull. These blocks of armour looked atleast 5cm thick, probably more. So the upper hull on the newer leopards is very strong. Also had a good 5 min in the gunners position, and I must say the gunners optics are excellent, extremely crisp (no LCD screen for the gunner in the tank I sat in though). Also noted a small joystick to the right of the gunners control handle, not sure what that was for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 10:39 PM, Laviduce said:

Thank you for the feedback!  What do you mean by this statement?  It does not seem that i removed that much from my previous model. I just balanced the greater KE resistance to the other turret face given what we currently know , more or less.

 

You marked the left turret front as "380 to 400 mm" KE, but if it offered less than 400 mm protection,  the portion of the tank's surface with "400 mm or more" KE protection would be far below the ~19.75% shown in the leaked graph.

 

1 hour ago, Pardus said:

Went and sat in a Leopard 2A5DK today and had the opportunity to eyeball the thickness of the add on armour on the upper hull. These blocks of armour looked atleast 5cm thick, probably more

 

It is 40 mm thick.

 

Share this post


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

 

You marked the left turret front as "380 to 400 mm" KE, but if it offered less than 400 mm protection,  the portion of the tank's surface with "400 mm or more" KE protection would be far below the ~19.75% shown in the leaked graph.

 

 

It is 40 mm thick.

 

I suggested that the average RHAe KE resistance could be around 380-400 mm including 400 mm. It is an after all an estimate.

Share this post


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

It is 40 mm thick.

 

 

Yeah the base upper front hull is just 40mm,  but those blocks of armour they added on looked like they were ~50mm thick. But if you measured them at 40mm I'm ofcourse gonna have to bow to that as I only eyeballed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest armor upgrade offer from IBD Deisenroth Engineering (the company behind AMAP and the Leopard 2 Evolution):

 

YrrBroD.jpg

 

IMO a combination of AMAP and ADS (maybe as a "less active" protection system, which operates similar to ERA, as it only detects the projectile on impact).

 

Edit: Article on Jane's:

http://www.janes.com/article/80769/smart-solution-against-tandem-warheads-es18d1

 

Quote

IBD Deisenroth Engineering (Hall 6, Stand K567) is demonstrating its new SMART PROTech solution against tandem shaped charge warheads which, the German company says, avoids the deficiencies of today’s explosive reactive armour (ERA) and active protection systems (APS).

Modern anti-tank weapons can penetrate from about 300mm to 1,400mm of rolled homogeneous armour (RHA). These high levels make it impossible to protect medium fighting platforms with passive armour against this kind of threat. Even main battle tanks (MBTs) are difficult to protect in the upper range. Since MBTs must also be protected against large calibre kinetic energy (KE) 120/125mm ammunition, the design of a polyvalent technology integrating efficient protection against both threat types at an acceptable weight has reached a limit.

IBD Deisenroth says SMART PROTech is different. Its basic element is a module, which includes a sensor and one or two countermeasures depending on the size, position and orientation of the module on the platform.

When the threat hits the surface of the module, the sensor sends a trigger pulse to the corresponding countermeasure. The orientation of the countermeasure is such that the energy beam is directed towards the main warhead to destroy it before the shaped charge jet is generated. The modules will not be activated by small arms fire.

Most tracked platforms are equipped with a technology that has both KE and shaped charge protection integrated in the add-on kits. This new kit can be designed such that the main part of the add-on modules will be equipped with the technology optimised for the defeat of long rod penetrators. SMART PROTech modules mounted on the outside of the passive kit will deal with anti-tank weapons. This new configuration is said to be much more efficient: the weight of the kit will be less, while the required space will stay within the same range.

 

Share this post


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

Hey guys. 

Does anyone have any primary sources that reference the perforation performance of German 120mm DM23 APFSDS-T ammunition? 

 

Best regards, 

Rohrkrepierer o7

War thunder, eh?

 

Well according to my dude, the DM23 has a penetration of 480mm RHA.

However, my dude gives this value for 60° so it's a few milimeters lower for 0°.

 

Share this post


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

War thunder, eh?

 

Well according to my dude, the DM23 has a penetration of 480mm RHA.

However, my dude gives this value for 60° so it's a few milimeters lower for 0°.

 

 

But those figures are based on Russian estimates, which if we look at the numbers for the DM53 don't look particularly realistic.

 

Infact AFAIK the true penetration performance of the DM13 and DM23 (let alone DM33, 43 and 53/63) is still not known.

 

A current Leopard 2 tanker mentioned 1,000+ mm RHAe LOS penetration for the DM63 through the L/55.

 

Share this post


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

Hey guys. 

Does anyone have any primary sources that reference the perforation performance of German 120mm DM23 APFSDS-T ammunition? 

 

Best regards, 

Rohrkrepierer o7

 

Welcome to SH, Rohr :) 

 

5 hours ago, Pardus said:

 

1,000+ mm RHAe LOS penetration for the DM63 through the L/55.

 

That's impossible considering the rod isn't 1m long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

That's impossible considering the rod isn't 1m long. 

 

Well that's assuming Lanz Odermatt's equation is 100% applicable to the most recent penetrator designs. 

 

I mean we have plenty of figures showing penetration past the length of the rod, so...

 

Share this post


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

 

Welcome to SH, Rohr :) 

 

 

That's impossible considering the rod isn't 1m long. 

 

28 minutes ago, Pardus said:

 

Well that's assuming Lanz Odermatt's equation is 100% applicable to the most recent penetrator designs. 

 

I mean we have plenty of figures showing penetration past the length of the rod, so...

 

 

 

According to Rolf Hilmes the aim of the LKE2/DM53 program was to create a KE shell that had the ability to pierce about 1000 mm of RHA using the L55. Rumor has i that it can penetrate over 900 mm RHA.

Share this post


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

According to Rolf Hilmes the aim of the LKE2/DM53 program was to create a KE shell that had the ability to pierce about 1000 mm of RHA using the L55. Rumor has i that it can penetrate over 900 mm RHA. 

 

That is not what Hilmes wrote. ;) According to him the aim was to defeat armor array providing protection equivalent to 1,000 mm RHA (depending on range). That is a big difference.

 

There is a graph in a classified document, which shows how the armor protection of future enemy tanks was expected to increase, it would have reached 1,000 mm by 2010. The area covered by the graph is divided into three colors: one is representing reactive armor, one is representing ceramic armor and one is representing steel armor.  The DM53 and DM63 are believed to be segmeneted penetrators, which would fit well to such an "armor array", as Rheinmetall's patents specifically mention that they've improved the segmented penetrator design to work better against ceramic armor.

 

It is worth mentioning that the company has said on multiple times that they do not want to measure penetration into RHA anymore, because modern MBTs use special armor and RHA does not reflect the protection properties of such armor (IMO implying that Rheinmetall's ammunition does relatively worse against RHA than special armor targets).

Share this post


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

Infact AFAIK the true penetration performance of the DM13 and DM23 (let alone DM33, 43 and 53/63) is still not known.

 

Well I got a hold of a Polish ministry of defence research paper that test fired DM33, which came out with 470mm of LOS pen @2km.

 

16 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Welcome to SH, Rohr :) 

 

Thank you. Heard a lot of good about SH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

csH1ZYm.png

 

The article from Jane's daily. Same text, but a better illustration of the working principle.

 

On 6/11/2018 at 4:51 PM, Rohrkrepierer said:

Does anyone have any primary sources that reference the perforation performance of German 120mm DM23 APFSDS-T ammunition?  

 

No primary sources, but it is not going to be very much.

 

 

Share this post


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

No primary sources, but it is not going to be very much.

 

At this point I'd take anything to be honest. I have a russian book that mentions DM23 in a table (It's the one that's on Google pictures), and a snipet of the Polish ministry of defense report that mentions DM23 too, but that one sadly doesn't list the penetration in a table, only in a graph which is not useable in my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rohrkrepierer said:

 

Well I got a hold of a Polish ministry of defence research paper that test fired DM33, which came out with 470mm of LOS pen @2km.

 

Ok, would you be able to share it?

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.
×