Wiedzmin Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 as far as i remember ther was some discussion about AMX-30 UFP thickness, and that it's 50mm not 80, external diam of smoke discharger 80-85mm ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 Leclerc hull 2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said: as far as i remember ther was some discussion about AMX-30 UFP thickness, and that it's 50mm not 80, external diam of smoke discharger 80-85mm ? 50 mm is the confirmed result of measurement with an ultrasonic probe. Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, SH_MM said: 50 mm is the confirmed result of measurement with an ultrasonic probe. but no any photos of this measures ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 No photos, but the person who measured it was who that made photos of measuring Chieftain's armor. He can be seen measuring the thickness of some tanks in the background one of the videos from Nicholas Moran (WoT's "TheChieftain" ) filmed at the Bovington tank museum. IIRC he was asked/paid to measure the armor thickness of the tanks for WoT. He also said that the lower section of the hull (where the armor is curved) is more complicated, as the thickness is variable there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, SH_MM said: He also said that the lower section of the hull (where the armor is curved) is more complicated, as the thickness is variable there. yes it's seen on photo, near to bended area it's get thicker, but this area is track tension system IIRC, so it could be very tricky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted June 17, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2020 Clan_Ghost_Bear, FORMATOSE, Laser Shark and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted June 18, 2020 Report Share Posted June 18, 2020 The Jaguar really causes some mixed feelings for me, because while I understand it is not made to stand up to AT fire (and that would indeed be a silly requirement) there's so much exposed that seems vulnerable to ubiquitous HMGs and light autocannons - lots of what are presumably hydrualic put possibly pneumatic lines on the undercarriage *entirely unprotected*, and all sorts of electronics and sensors on the upper works. Even the armored shutters for some of them don't appear to stand any chance of stopping HMG fire closed up, they seem to be just a few mm thick. Just makes me nervous that a well-camouflaged KPV or DShK/KORD would have no issue effectively disabling the thing, even if I am sure the actual fighting compartment is protected. And if those unprotected lines on the undercarriage are hydraulics, then running over a landmine on that will be a truly enlightening experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted June 18, 2020 Report Share Posted June 18, 2020 It simply >looks< like French engineering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted June 19, 2020 Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 On 6/18/2020 at 8:27 AM, TokyoMorose said: The Jaguar really causes some mixed feelings for me, because while I understand it is not made to stand up to AT fire (and that would indeed be a silly requirement) there's so much exposed that seems vulnerable to ubiquitous HMGs and light autocannons - lots of what are presumably hydrualic put possibly pneumatic lines on the undercarriage *entirely unprotected*, and all sorts of electronics and sensors on the upper works. Even the armored shutters for some of them don't appear to stand any chance of stopping HMG fire closed up, they seem to be just a few mm thick. Just makes me nervous that a well-camouflaged KPV or DShK/KORD would have no issue effectively disabling the thing, even if I am sure the actual fighting compartment is protected. And if those unprotected lines on the undercarriage are hydraulics, then running over a landmine on that will be a truly enlightening experience. The protection is focused on the crew survival cell, everything else around it is expendable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Posted June 19, 2020 Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 I guess that too easy mobility kill doesn't help the crew survivability either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted June 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 About the Jaguar reconnaissance vehicle. https://twitter.com/DGA/status/1273235297325797379 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted June 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 On 6/18/2020 at 11:57 AM, Rico said: It simply >looks< like French engineering... This was the cheapest proposal. There were more advanced concept such as this one : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted June 19, 2020 Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 This wouldn't have been something I'd complain about but the positive thing is that good looking in military means nothing as long as the vehicle does its job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted June 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2020 You know, we don’t know if it can do the job because of the chassis. Beer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted June 22, 2020 Report Share Posted June 22, 2020 On 6/19/2020 at 7:30 AM, Sovngard said: The protection is focused on the crew survival cell, everything else around it is expendable. I fully understand, but if you get immobilized and blinded by HMG or light autocannon fire, the crew capsule is now a stationary and defenseless target for whatever heavier weapons the opposition feels to use at their leisure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted June 22, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2020 This is an old discussion about the survival cell interest and it’s mission kill risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.T Posted June 22, 2020 Report Share Posted June 22, 2020 On 6/22/2020 at 4:50 AM, TokyoMorose said: I fully understand, but if you get immobilized and blinded by HMG or light autocannon fire, the crew capsule is now a stationary and defenseless target for whatever heavier weapons the opposition feels to use at their leisure. Actually Jaguar is quite complex due to doubling of all the optics having both traditional glass and optronic sights for each station makin turret much more complex, hydropneumatic suspension greatly increases the hit probability while shooting on the move. can limp away with shot tyres tha normal suspension couldn't , but more importantly it can hug the ground to make for much smaller target. French have lots of experience with hydropneumatic suspensions and you can expect more of the worlds armies adopting these not just for wheeled but also tracked vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 22, 2020 Report Share Posted June 22, 2020 Problem with this vehicle is that hydropneumatic lines are exposed to fragmentation/splinters and bullets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Posted June 23, 2020 Report Share Posted June 23, 2020 8 hours ago, LoooSeR said: Problem with this vehicle is that hydropneumatic lines are exposed to fragmentation/splinters and bullets. Problem with other vehicles is that thin buttered armor around everything makes the crew capsule and their suspension comparable vulnerable while capsules like on Jaguar not. And something tells me it's easier to maintain also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Posted June 23, 2020 Report Share Posted June 23, 2020 On 5/20/2020 at 2:52 AM, Wiedzmin said: It seems that the fuel is compartmentalized. Very cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laser Shark Posted July 7, 2020 Report Share Posted July 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slakrrrrrr Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 Some people know about the French ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie de Combat), not to be confused with Engin de Réaction Anti-Chars: Spoiler It's an amphibious light tank from the early '60s, but apparently it didn't end with this vehicle. New photos have been added somewhat recently on chars-francais.net of a second, albeit similar vehicle: Spoiler No additional information is revealed, but the mounted gun is quite obviously larger than on the first one. Both vehicles are labeled "ERAC 105mm", yet the website claims the gun to be the 90mm DEFA D 914. Beer, Scolopax, Laviduce and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted July 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 This is definitely the DEFA gun. Integrating a 105mm would have been impossible to keep the amphibious capability. Slakrrrrrr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 10 hours ago, Slakrrrrrr said: Some people know about the French ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie de Combat), not to be confused with Engin de Réaction Anti-Chars: Reveal hidden contents It's an amphibious light tank from the early '60s, but apparently it didn't end with this vehicle. New photos have been added somewhat recently on chars-francais.net of a second, albeit similar vehicle: Reveal hidden contents No additional information is revealed, but the mounted gun is quite obviously larger than on the first one. Both vehicles are labeled "ERAC 105mm", yet the website claims the gun to be the 90mm DEFA D 914. Development of a 8-tonne reconnaissance amphibious tracked vehicle (ERAC) was launched in 1960. The use of a fin-stabilized shaped charge projectile as main anti-tank round was deemed obvious given the performance achieved with the 90 mm shell. The project consists of a D 739 gun firing a 105 mm projectile with a steel body designed to be fired under higher pressure (2100 kg/cm²) with a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The static firing trials in 1962 and the ERAC prototype the following year fall short of expectations ; the accuracy is barely acceptable and the armor penetration is mediocre compared to the caliber. Meanwhile, the ERAC project is cancelled and its successor, the ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie : amphibious fighting machine) didn't have any more luck. The AMX-10 RC also used a fin-stabilized shaped charge projectile but with a superior ballistic performance (1100 m/s). - MAREST, M, TAUZIN, M, COMHART T9 ; L'armement de gros calibre, Centre des hautes études de l’armement Division Histoire, Paris, 2008. Laviduce, Slakrrrrrr and Serge 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slakrrrrrr Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Sovngard said: The project consists of a D 739 gun firing a 105 mm projectile with a steel body designed to be fired under higher pressure (2100 kg/cm²) with a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The static firing trials in 1962 and the ERAC prototype the following year fall short of expectations ; the accuracy is barely acceptable and the armor penetration is mediocre compared to the caliber. I've never heard of the D 739! Is this all that's known about the gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.