Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

A few years ago, there was a Polish article claiming that the PT-91 and Leopard 2 had comparable armor protection, but based on documents from the Swedish tests, it might provide a bit lower protection against (modern) KE penetrators than the T-72 and T-72M1. As always there are many different factors to consider (such as: What rounds are used in the comparison? Older Soviet ammo should perform worse against multi-layered Chobham-style armor. What ammunition and steel alloy has been used for the armor values in the Swedish leaks?) , maybe militarysta knows something about "some tests" mentioned by Damian.

 

As I said - old Leopard 2A4 have better armour in case vs CE - while T-72M1 is circa 500-550mm then in Leopard 2A4 is 700-750mm+. It's big difrence.  From the other side - Leopard 2A4 have weaker armour vs KE.  Against older Soviet ammo (3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22) it's 400mm+ but against longer rods (M111, DM23 etc) its "only" circa 330mm RHA. 

In this  scenario, ironnicly T-72M1 have advantage over Leopard 2A4.  And unfortunatly PT-91 whit ERAWA 2 (on test better then Knive/Nozh ERA) is better armoured then basic Leopard 2A4. And again -in all other aspects Leopard 2 outperform PT-91. 

And I will repet  again - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too.  There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments.   Some rumors from MSPO'2018 are not trusted sources!

 

Quote

The T-72 has a cast turret with up to 500 mm thickness at the thickest points, the T-72M1 has roughly the same amount of steel armor, but with a kvartz filler added to that. The armor protection has been claimed to be more than 450 mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE, sometimes as high as 500 mm RHAe vs KE.

Nope.

l3V2Qe0.jpg

 

6Laq3yD

 

And 390-400mm vs KE value is for 30 degree for longitiudal axis. So 530mm LOS. For 650-950mm it's 480-700(!)mm RHA.  Thats reson why polish PT-91 was able to windstand DM33A1 and other mucht never APFSDS during trials for Peru :D

They are some rumors that old PT-91 whit aditional 40mm plates windstand in 1999/2000 trials in Poland while M1 shoot 5x M829 in hull frotn :-)

Back to the reality:

 

Quote

What Damian ignores is that is the fact that the M1 Abrams and the M1IP/M1A1 also had a lower protection level than the T-72/T-72M1 against KE based on available sources. He pretends that the Leopard 2 is poorly armored, yet it was better or equal to its NATO contemporaries at a lower weight (thanks to minimizing the protected volume). Based on Swedish data, the hull of the M1A2 from 1992 is worse against KE than the hull of the T-72M1!

Oh this in minnor problem - we can talk  about "brilant" M1 and M1IP FCS lack PERI analogue, AGT1500 durability and fuel compsumption,  to weak 105mm gun  etc. 

In fact M1 have only onne god think - armour integrity and vs. CE protection.

And really good protected tank was diffrent - Ob.219AS whit 4s22.

 

Quote

so maybe it is a problem unique to Poland related to how they use the tank and how it is maintained?

Well -weight limits in Leopard 2A4 are unclear. They are obvious limits for suspension (60,5t), but they are questionable abilities to overcome this level. Acoding to people from polish industry they are neccesery "major changes" in "hull structure". Some peoples had said that means only suspenson anchor point (mounted points?) other said that it's indeed need diffrent bottom-hull sides plates.   As I know Polish MOD had decide to choose Rhainmettal packed couse weigh limit related in limited budget. There was not enought money to improved chull suspension to  overcome 60,5 tons limit.

 

That's between $7.5 and $10 million per tank! I've heard rumors that the new built Leopard 2A7 tanks for Hungary might be cheaper (thanks to help from the EU).

It's estimated cost for tank it's rebuild in Lima and modernisation + trening + ammo + spare parts. If this value it's true it's mean really good price.

But I dont belive that M1A1PL will become real. Despite fact that is a good tank all factor supports buy new Leopard 2A7 for Polish Army. Exept one - this goverment present now in my country (PiS - Law and Justice party) is totally brownnose in relatio to USA and it's dislike EU structures including western industry. So all resonable arguments support buying nex Leopard 2 batch but polish goverment is not resonable ...

 

 

 

Share this post


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

depending on point of hit, 25-30mm APFSDS can disable any tank from the front, so ? 

 

There are massive differences in probability comparing a 25 mm to a 120 mm APFSDS...

 

47 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

and what protection does it gives? mantlet itself can't stop anything, it's 650kg box with speical armor insert in it,(and it's not 420mm los btw), so even it it gives 150-200 mm vs APFSDS(or you think mantlet itself gives 400 vs APFSDS?) and you add this to 230-280mm(which is have thinner parts) you will have what ? 380-480mm vs APFDS vs 370  is "not so weakened" or ? all this statements about "oh this mantlet is 100% better than this solution on Tseries/Mseries) based on what 

 

Tanks and other AFVs are designed to resist certain reference threats, ideally they would resist them at every part of the desired surface. In practice that is unfortunately not possible due to the need to make place for the gun mantlet, turret ring, optics, etc. Still design decisions can be made to try compensating as much as possible for the weakened section.

 

On the T-72M1, there are parts with very high LOS and there is the center section, which is a lot weaker. This means there isn't a very uniform level of protection, i.e. it can be penetrated by rounds that are - in relation to the base armor - a lot weaker than the reference threat (specifically if you also include anti-tank munitions with shaped charge warheads as refernce threats). The Soviet tanks were designed in such a way, that the surface area and volume was minimized, which provided advantages such as weight saving, reducing the probability of being hit and allowing to invest more armor into the turret cheeks and hull. Tank designs are trade-offs between various different factors, there rarely is a design decision that has no negative effects; in case of the Soviet tanks, this was a lower protection level at the gun mount.

 

On other tanks different optimizations have been made and other drawbacks were accepted. In case of the Leopard 2, accounting for the holes (one with a diameter of 215 mm and two with a diameter of 75 mm) in the mantlet reveals that at a weight of 650 kilograms, it is equivalent to a 186 mm steel plate - but it is not steel, but special armor. How much protection it will provide? I don't know, it will depend on the exact threat. British tests (with Chobham armor and their own reference threats) showed a 30 to 50% higher mass efficiency against KE threats and more than 2 against shaped charges. In such a case, the mantlet would provide 240-270 mm protection, which added to the gun mount means that the area directly next to the gun cradle reaches the same 400-450 mm protection vs KE as the rest of the turret (against the refernece threat), i.e. a very uniform level of protection. It also would be enough to stop the MILAN's shaped charge warhead, which served as shaped charge reference threat.

 

bO7sIP7.gif

 

Obviously the very center of the gun mantlet remains a weakspot, but it shows how the tank design was adapted to minimize these. A different design with different drawbacks and advantages (to the latter belongs the ability to easier access the gun for repairs and replacement).

 

You already claimed once that the 420 mm LOS thickness figure would be incorrect, but your proof was proven wrong back then. Why do you still say that

 

47 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

look at uppermost and lowermost edges of any tank, western or eastern... 

 

Yes and no. It is always a weakspot, but how large it is depends on the exact design. Measures can be made to minimize them. A cupola like on the T-72 doesn't seem to be optimized for protection, but rather for providing a good overview on the battlefield, trading higher vulnerability for that.

 

T-72A_MBT_Main_Battle_Tank_Russia_Russia

 

32 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Nope.

l3V2Qe0.jpg

 

As I said, there is about 500 mm LOS steel from the front plus the kvartz filling. Take a look at the cut-through section III. That's 284 mm + 142 mm of steel (plus 115 mm of kvartz) at 38° slope. From the front this will be ~540 mm steel at LOS (+ kvartz). The cut above has the nearly the same thickness without slope (532-534 mm instead of 534-535 mm), but is sloped only at 30°. That's ~490 mm steel at LOS (+ kvatz). Overall there is about ~500 mm steel at LOS at the cheek sections closest to the center.

 

33 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

There was not enought money to improved chull suspension to  overcome 60,5 tons limit. 

 

But how do they want to pay $3 billion USD for Damian's M1A1PL?

Share this post


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

There are massive differences in probability comparing a 25 mm to a 120 mm APFSDS..

and ? there is no tank that can survive even 105mm APDS at 100% of frontal area, at the moment when 78degree roof was accepted there was only a requirement of protecting tank vs 105mm APDS and this requirement was met

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Tanks and other AFVs are designed to resist certain reference threats

and often when it comes to real war/test tank can't resist most of this threats , there is a tons of methods to make you new tank shiny and  glorious in the eyes of future customer(government or any export), but when you start to use this tanks in battles, well all this " shiny and  glorious " became rusted remain

 

for example take T-64A/B,T-72A/M1,T-80B and M111, soviet test their tanks at this moment only against theirs shitty ammo, and when they encountered not so shitty ammo, here is where the fun begins... 

 

or you can take Leo2AV which have fuel cell as main frontal hull armor, and germans trying  to deceive the americans about the real weight of the tank during trials(tank for mobility trials did not have armor package for example )

 

as for war, when it comes to T-72 "battle history" we often blame arabs etc users because they can't use it properly, but what with the rest part of the world ? maybe turks good users of Leo2 ? or saudi of M1A2 ? or iraqi of M1A1 ? 

 

all weak part of eastern tanks well known only because it used in many wars and often with unqualified crews and almost all soviet tanks after USSR collapse gone to NATO countries for trials, only western tank that have more or less same long "battle history" is Abrams.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Measures can be made to minimize them. A cupola like on the T-72 doesn't seem to be optimized for protection, but rather for providing a good overview on the battlefield, trading higher vulnerability for that.

qL_BVinQjAM.jpg

CR2 have even greater weak spot, is there any hits in this area ?

wTRB4B_e_rQ.jpg

CR1 and CR2 lowermost edges of turret

atC0hoP5U-M.jpg

Leo2 lowermost edges of turret(photo from bellow, but you can find good frontal pics, zone will be not much smaller)

 

all i try  to say - all modern tanks have huge weakspots, but some tanks use in combat almost any day in any theatre of war and taking hits in any part of tank , and some mostly used in military exercises, and of course if your tank never been in real long term combat(rpg, atgm, artillery, other tanks etc), you will never know it's real weaknesses and strong points. 

 

and of course all tanks  design is based on the probability of hitting of some elements(what will be probability of hitting mantlet during tank vs tank combat on move when you aiming in tank center, and shell have some dispersion, stabilizer has errors etc, or what is better - to have almost all ammo in turret with blow off panels and make it safe for crew but increasing the chance of hitting the ammo, crew allive - good, you don't have tank platoon from first hit - not good, or you have all round/charges in hull which is supposedly constantly covered by the landscape, if you hit ammo crew and tank dead, but whole platoon can have success because tanks doesn't get hit in ammo, etc, it's not that easy to say, when you watching youtube and some guy with rpg destroying tank with 1 grenade in city you think oh that tank is crap, but in real war with other country this tank can have other "destiny", ooor can be same pice of shit tank lol ) have some  as well as the tactics of their use(you don't have side protection vs PRG and ATGM, but there is no infantry around you, because you just nuke them all lol, etc) 

 

the main problem with tanks is that they are designed on the basis of some(any) statistics, and if the statistics are incorrect(or analyzed wrong) , then a tank built with this statistic in mind may be a mistake

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

You already claimed once that the 420 mm LOS thickness figure would be incorrect, but your proof was proven wrong back then

by who ? i saw that people can't understand what is 420mm part, thats all.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Obviously

you trying to protect Leo2 as Damian protects M1, thats obviously 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

British tests

what british test have to Leo2 armor ? nothing, you just trying to get and "good" for expected level(expected  by you)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

as for war, when it comes to T-72 "battle history" we often blame arabs etc users because they can't use it properly, but what with the rest part of the world ? maybe turks good users of Leo2 ? or saudi of M1A2 ? or iraqi of M1A1 ? 

The Turks modified the Leo 2's blast doors to remain open for "faster loading" according to a German instructor sent there, they also just had a coup like two or three years ago and a "cleansing" to accompany that...

So yeah, they're not "good users" of Leo 2s.

Most probably the same with the Saudi M1A2s and Iraqi M1A1s.

 

39 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

CR1 and CR2 lowermost edges of turret

I mean..... Challengers.

Might as well consider the entire hull a weakspot.

Share this post


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

This is just classical for Damian. He always likes to criticize every piece of military gear made in Germany for some of the most nonsensical reasons, but he loves the United States and will pretend everything made in the USA is better and flawless. He has directly admitted his bias in the past and kept making incorrect claims for his own agenda.

Some years ago, in a discussion with me he was desperately trying to prove that base M1 had around 550mm vs KE armor...  When I asked him about his sources, he said something about his connections in US army he cannot reveal because OPSEC, and he will never talk about these informations openly... Since then I dont believe anything he says.

Sorry for a bit derailing the discussion.

 

As for the price of our new Leo-2A7+ tanks, I didnt hear anything exact lately in local media. The only info I have is from Hlopotov's blog, which says 565 million USD for the whole contract (including PzH 2000)

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/12/blog-post_88.html

Share this post


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

 

This is just classical for Damian. He always likes to criticize every piece of military gear made in Germany for some of the most nonsensical reasons, but he loves the United States and will pretend everything made in the USA is better and flawless. He has directly admitted his bias in the past and kept making incorrect claims for his own agenda. Before armor measurements for the Leopard 2 were made, there was a time where he claimed its maximum physical armor thickness was just 500 mm, while the original Abrams would have had 900 mm. Now we know that the Leopard 2 has up to ~860 mm at the turret front, while the M1 Abrams untilm 1984 had only ~730 mm physical armor thickness at the turret.

 

The best way to deal with Damian is to let him roast himself:

95uKSKz.png

Share this post


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

and of course all tanks  design is based on the probability of hitting of some elements(what will be probability of hitting mantlet during tank vs tank combat on move when you aiming in tank center, and shell have some dispersion, stabilizer has errors etc, or what is better - to have almost all ammo in turret with blow off panels and make it safe for crew but increasing the chance of hitting the ammo, crew allive - good, you don't have tank platoon from first hit - not good, or you have all round/charges in hull which is supposedly constantly covered by the landscape, if you hit ammo crew and tank dead, but whole platoon can have success because tanks doesn't get hit in ammo, etc, it's not that easy to say, when you watching youtube and some guy with rpg destroying tank with 1 grenade in city you think oh that tank is crap, but in real war with other country this tank can have other "destiny", ooor can be same pice of shit tank lol ) have some  as well as the tactics of their use(you don't have side protection vs PRG and ATGM, but there is no infantry around you, because you just nuke them all lol, etc) 

 

x2

 

BTW - Leopard 2 was developed whit some "german specyfic" too - armour was only "addon" to whole rest and prioryty was firepower, mobility and relability. After IIWW trauma when Panthers and Tigers where mostly in repairs then on battlefields there was the same story since Leopard 1 - tank must be on battlefield not in garage during reperation and mobility and firepower haveprioryty then armour. And Leopard 2 would be mucht more sophisticated but US trials had shown that Leopard 2AV even castrated from autoloader, APU, better FCS etc outperform XM1 in this case. 

And finnaly we had Leopard 2A0-2A3 whit working FCS, whit panoramic comander sight, whit 120mm and whit gorgous mobility and relabity. And really easy to use and repair. 

Polish army have very very good compare between T-72M1 so pure low-cost soviet tank, PT-91M/MZ so deep modernisation whit western FCS, western stabilisation, turet ring, transmision, thermal cameras etc and...25 yers old leopard 2A4. And what? And this "old" Leo-2A4 outperform not even T-72M1 but mostly PT-91MZ (Pandakar) tank in olmoust all aspects -including fire power, not even mentioned about durbility and relability. And thats the reason why Bumar łabedy had butthurt and had tryied (sucesfully...) block any take nex Leo-2 batch between 2003-2012...They "new" child whit mostly western components suck in compare to old 2A4. Ironiccly not in armour area but in all others aspects importatnt for tankers. In some way taken in 2002 Leopard 2A4 for Germans had killed Bumar-Łabedy and PT-91. But MoD and Army didn't do anything between 2003-2012 not take next Leo-2 batch (and Germans had offered circa 500 tanks) nor developed and buy nex PT-91 or modernisated T-72M1/PT-91 to  "Pendakar" level.  Of course Iraq and A-stan mission, and cirisis in 2008 hurt a lot armu budget but whole problem is mucht deeper - pepole rosponsible for army modernisaton did nothing in those times... :-/

Only thanks to two Generals Polish Army had taken germans 2A5 - it was small miracle in polish shitholle named moD, and lucky shoot. But whole rest had problems - including Leopar' s 2A4 couse lack of spare parts and looooooooong procedure to choose who (KMW, RHM or Aselan lol) will modernisated polish leo-2A4. This procedure had taken from 2012 to...december 2015. So proud of my MoD... :/ And form limited budget army choose Rheinmetall and..choose wrong in some way

Long story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond all words and data, I think that the swedish 1994 contest was the better evaluation of last 20 century MBTs' generation.
And the winner was ... You all know ...

 

Since then the MBTs have evolved, but the scenarios and threats more.
I think it's a bit weird today to continue evaluating MBT/AFVs just for LOS-RHAe on the frontal arc.

There are a lot of NLOS/PGM/top attack systems that could destroy every AFV beyond visual range (BVR, as for modern aircraft).

 

In my modest opinion it's very strange that the absolute need for APS system is again so underestimated.
I hope that next generation AFVs (starting with the future German-French MBT) will take into accounts that scenarios and threats and therefore have a really "revolutionary" approach  
 

best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rob89 said:

In my modest opinion it's very strange that the absolute need for APS system is again so underestimated.

APS' can fail, not to mention that few protect the tank against top attack ammunitions.

Let's not forget that many MBTs including the leo 2 in German service are always supported by infantry, an APS that uses fragments to intercept threats can be very dangerous or even lethal for supporting infantry.

 

That's why Germany has been keen on developing an APS that doesn't have these drawbacks, but this takes time and money.

 

Also, not sure where I read this, but IIRC there was some trial that showed passive protection systems often only worked (reliably) with their own ATGMs, not enemy ATGMs.

Share this post


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

APS' can fail, not to mention that few protect the tank against top attack ammunitions.

Let's not forget that many MBTs including the leo 2 in German service are always supported by infantry, an APS that uses fragments to intercept threats can be very dangerous or even lethal for supporting infantry.

 

That's why Germany has been keen on developing an APS that doesn't have these drawbacks, but this takes time and money.

 

Also, not sure where I read this, but IIRC there was some trial that showed passive protection systems often only worked (reliably) with their own ATGMs, not enemy ATGMs.

All tests and combat employments showed either perfect results, or very close to perfect.

 

The US tested 2 systems to the point of accepting them into service, and determined both to be safe enough for use in infantry-filled environment.

 

In Trophy's case alone, they test fired it 48 times and it worked every time. These tests also disproved the myths spread by Raytheon that the system somehow "shreds nearby infantry".

 

With the Iron Fist LC it was even more important to ensure safety, and it qualified as well.

 

Both these systems also protect against top attack munitions.

 

The only in-service system that won't defeat top attack munitions is the Afghanit, but that is because this design flaw was embedded within it willingly, for reasons only the Russian MoD will understand.

Share this post


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

All tests and combat employments showed either perfect results, or very close to perfect.

Were they tested with top attack ammo?

Or multiple simultaneous hits?

 

26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The US tested 2 systems to the point of accepting them into service, and determined both to be safe enough for use in infantry-filled environment.

 

In Trophy's case alone, they test fired it 48 times and it worked every time. These tests also disproved the myths spread by Raytheon that the system somehow "shreds nearby infantry".

If it uses fragments to intercept the threat it'll inevitably have side-effects, maybe not to the point it "shreds" all nearby infantry, but probably still enough to injure infantry close to the vector of the intercepted thread.

Also, I haven't seen any actual declassified testing with all the data available, just articles on "it works" which doesn't say a whole lot.

If you do have that kind of data, I'd love to see it.

 

32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Both these systems also protect against top attack munitions.

Don't they still have a limited vertical arc?

Share this post


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

/.../

The only in-service system that won't defeat top attack munitions is the Afghanit, but that is because this design flaw was embedded within it willingly, for reasons only the Russian MoD will understand.

I missed something?

Share this post


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

 

If it uses fragments to intercept the threat it'll inevitably have side-effects, maybe not to the point it "shreds" all nearby infantry, but probably still enough to injure infantry close to the vector of the intercepted thread.

 

The projectiles it is intercepting (if not inert) would most likely contain far more explosives than the Trophy or Iron Fist’s interceptors do. 

Share this post


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

The projectiles it is intercepting (if not inert) would most likely contain far more explosives than the Trophy or Iron Fist’s interceptors do. 

Yes, exactly.

If that explodes too, you'll have even more fragments that are directed at the tank (and around it).

 

I still think having an APS is a good thing, but a good thought out implementation is needed, you can't just slap it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 10:14 PM, Militarysta said:

 

As I said - old Leopard 2A4 have better armour in case vs CE - while T-72M1 is circa 500-550mm then in Leopard 2A4 is 700-750mm+. It's big difrence.  From the other side - Leopard 2A4 have weaker armour vs KE.  Against older Soviet ammo (3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22) it's 400mm+ but against longer rods (M111, DM23 etc) its "only" circa 330mm RHA. 

In this  scenario, ironnicly T-72M1 have advantage over Leopard 2A4.  And unfortunatly PT-91 whit ERAWA 2 (on test better then Knive/Nozh ERA) is better armoured then basic Leopard 2A4. And again -in all other aspects Leopard 2 outperform PT-91. 

And I will repet  again - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too.  There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments.   Some rumors from MSPO'2018 are not trusted sources!

 

Nope.

l3V2Qe0.jpg

 

 

Incorrect turret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scav said:

Were they tested with top attack ammo?

Or multiple simultaneous hits?

 

If it uses fragments to intercept the threat it'll inevitably have side-effects, maybe not to the point it "shreds" all nearby infantry, but probably still enough to injure infantry close to the vector of the intercepted thread.

Also, I haven't seen any actual declassified testing with all the data available, just articles on "it works" which doesn't say a whole lot.

If you do have that kind of data, I'd love to see it.

 

Don't they still have a limited vertical arc?

 

Trophy and Iron Fist are advertised with a long list of key features. These include protection against top attack munitions at a "significant angle". I think the Iron Fist can be aimed to 90 degrees from horizontal, with one of the grenades on each launcher (the grenades rotate vertically on independent axis).

 

Because the typical layout is 2 launchers for both systems, they don't even need the ability to aim straight up, and instead just intercept the missile at a short range from the vehicle. Both systems also have the ability to do very close range interceptions, while a long range would be around 20-30 meters.

 

No such statement was made on the Iron Fist, but the US Army officials said the Trophy worked exactly as advertised.

 

Both the Trophy and Iron Fist, much like competing systems, have their own methods to eliminate risk to nearby troops.

Trophy has an MEFP with a very limited amount of penetrators, only enough to ensure a high probability of interception.

A total of 17 fragments, all precisely directed, is not enough to pose any significant risk. 

 

Iron Fist uses a fragment-free warhead that uses a shockwave to 'cut' through the projectile, or tilt it in case of a KEP. The only fragments are those of the casing of the grenade, which can be made disintegratable.

 

15 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I missed something?

 

The Armata is frozen, not dead. Its 2300 units by 2020 were reduced to ~100 but it's still something. Enough to equip the Tamanskaya, and create overmatch against the British Army (sorry bois).

 

I think it's pretty much safe to say now it's in service, even if in very limited numbers.

 

37 minutes ago, Scav said:

Yes, exactly.

If that explodes too, you'll have even more fragments that are directed at the tank (and around it).

 

I still think having an APS is a good thing, but a good thought out implementation is needed, you can't just slap it on.

 

Some APS mechanisms are more focused than others at neutralizing the warhead. But even Trophy which sacrifices neutralization chances for longer standoff and more compact interceptors, has a neutralization rate of more than 50%.

 

Thus to be statistically more dangerous, or at least as dangerous as not intercepting an ATGM/ATR, the Trophy would have to produce at least as many fragments as an ATGM/ATR and with the same chaotic nature (i.e seemingly random dispersal rather than a focused blast).

Share this post


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

/.../

The Armata is frozen, not dead. Its 2300 units by 2020 were reduced to ~100 but it's still something. Enough to equip the Tamanskaya, and create overmatch against the British Army (sorry bois).

 

I think it's pretty much safe to say now it's in service, even if in very limited numbers.

/.../

   When "field testing" became "in service"? 

Share this post


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

Both the Trophy and Iron Fist, much like competing systems, have their own methods to eliminate risk to nearby troops.

Trophy has an MEFP with a very limited amount of penetrators, only enough to ensure a high probability of interception.

A total of 17 fragments, all precisely directed, is not enough to pose any significant risk. 

 

Iron Fist uses a fragment-free warhead that uses a shockwave to 'cut' through the projectile, or tilt it in case of a KEP. The only fragments are those of the casing of the grenade, which can be made disintegratable.

Only decent testing footage I've found:

 

Does look rather minimal, but I still don't want to be near that when it goes off, though I guess most combat clothing/vests will protect the infantry.

So, safe to say it's probably not lethal unless it hits the head/armpits with the larger fragments, but minor injuries are still very much possible it seems.

 

I'd still prefer a proper analysis, but I guess we'll have to wait for that....

Share this post


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 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.
×
×
  • Create New...