Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Not sure if this has been shared before but Auto_Tracking brought it to our attention on the WT forum. I am not sure whether it is authentic or not:

 

See here:

 

Share this post


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

So the diagrams are fakes ? :c 

 

The drawings are "fake", but the data is taken from actual declassified documents (~ with a bit of estimated performance regarding the change of armor protection at an angle).

 

The drawing of the "Challenger 2" is based on the "improved Challenger 1" requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

The drawings are "fake", but the data is taken from actual declassified documents (~ with a bit of estimated performance regarding the change of armor protection at an angle).

 

The drawing of the "Challenger 2" is based on the "improved Challenger 1" requirements.

Thank you, that sucks a bit! Also, would you know where the Leclerc protection info (350-430 mm KE for turret) is coming from and if they are legit or not ?

 

 

Share this post


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

Thank you, that sucks a bit! Also, would you know where the Leclerc protection info (350-430 mm KE for turret) is coming from and if they are legit or not ?

 

@Molota_477 said that this data is from a real British document, which I believe to be true - but I haven't seen it. He has posted lots of snipplets from declassified British documents on his Weibo blog/page, like for example the MBT 80 concepts:

SpQkpAf.jpg7jZCDvX.jpggTFiQ6i.jpg

 

 

SSp8Vv2.jpguMWY1g5.jpgjQT3mC0.jpg

 

Share this post


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

 

jQT3mC0.jpg

 

 

 

Looking at the bustle, one-piece ammunition were considered at that time ?

 

British data about the Leclerc protection level don't reflect what we can find in the two French books dedicated to this MBT.

 

Share this post


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

Looking at the bustle, one-piece ammunition were considered at that time ?

 

Unitary 110 mm ammunition was used as projected armament of some 1970s British tank projects, but they later switched to split 110 mm and then to the old 120 mm ammunition.

 

1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

British data about the Leclerc protection level don't reflect what we can find in the two French books dedicated to this MBT.

 

Literature hasn't proven to be very accurate regarding protection levels and often relies on exaggerated generalizations - if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different. But the British documents are likely refering to a concept/prototype version of the Leclerc, which should be kept in mind.

Share this post


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

 

 if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different.

 

Well, acually it was higly immune against 3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22, etc couse multi partial penetrator whit tungsten sub-rod (or rather tungsten slug) behave in special armour very diffrent then monoblock tungsten rod. So if some sources claimed that DM23 overpas 420mm RHA it's "diffrent" RHA eqivalent then  410 mm RHA for  60 deg and 450 mm RHA for 0 deg. achivale for BM26 whit lon steel penetrator whit tungsten slug before fins. 

The game changer where 3BM32 and 3BM42 - but both where intoroduced in to serial production in 1987 and 1988 and before SU colapse there where not produced in really huge numbers.

And remember that in your country the special armour where replaced during F6 in all Leos no less then twice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what about the 3BM29? It entered service in 1981, and used a DU core. Probably not a monoblock rod, but even if not, I think it would still have improved performance over the 3BM26. May be enough to defeat M1 and Leo-2 .

Why is this round such a mystery btw? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Yes but what about the 3BM29? It entered service in 1981, and used a DU core. Probably not a monoblock rod, but even if not, I think it would still have improved performance over the 3BM26. May be enough to defeat M1 and Leo-2 .

Why is this round such a mystery btw? 

You'r writing about this:

gqSAmS9.jpg

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we havn't so mucht options:

LPWFTa7.jpg

 

Looking on right top APFSDS-T series (from LEFT to right):

3BM32 and 3BM32 cut-view

3BM42 and 3BM42 erly prototype cut-view

3BM29???

3BM26 cut view

3BM22?

3BM9?

3BM15 whit no cut-viev

 

This two round difrences are interesting:

 

Lbs4Rla.png

xd2T3fH.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Literature hasn't proven to be very accurate regarding protection levels and often relies on exaggerated generalizations -

 

Admittedly, but Marc Chassillan isn't a mere historian.

 

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different.

 

It depends if you are referring to their 1960s/70s steel penetrators or their 1980s/90s monobloc penetrators.

 

The former weren't good against multilayer composite armor arrays.

 

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

But the British documents are likely refering to a concept/prototype version of the Leclerc, which should be kept in mind.

 

Unfortunately, this excerpt is undated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Moyes said:
Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones.

 

That... that is impressively pointless. I'd wager by the time you've built the limited run of new hulls you're nearing the total cost/vehicle as the Ajax but while still being limited to ye olde chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Some heads should roll for the wasted £400m

Not exactly. A lot of money went to develop and buy the turrets, and then qualify them for use.

 

All that is left to do is buy more ASCODs and that's it.

Share this post


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


Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones.

 

There is this thing called an Ajax...

 

It's being built in the UK...

 

It has an IFV variant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

There is this thing called an Ajax...

 

It's being built in the UK...

 

It has an IFV variant...

Wonder if the Ajax with all its recon capabilities could detect its existence, and inform the MoD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e5PfQn8.jpg

Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL)
https://rbsl.com

 

Quote

PRESS RELEASE
1 JULY 2019
 

RHEINMETALL AND BAE SYSTEMS LAUNCH UK BASED MILITARY VEHICLE JOINT VENTURE – RHEINMETALL BAE SYSTEMS LAND
 

Rheinmetall and BAE Systems have today launched a new, independent UK-based joint venture (JV) for military vehicle design, manufacture and support – known as Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). Headquartered in Telford in the West Midlands, the JV will sustain around 450 jobs across the UK and is well positioned for future growth.

RBSL intends to play a major role in manufacturing the Boxer 8×8 for the British Army’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) programme and other strategic combat vehicle programmes, while also providing support to the British Army’s in-service bridging and armoured vehicle fleets.

Del66sn.jpg
 

Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt said:

“This announcement is a clear vote of confidence in the UK’s defence industry as a world-leader in designing, supplying and supporting military vehicles.
“This exciting venture clearly demonstrates how Defence sits at the heart of the prosperity agenda. Its benefits will be felt in the West Midlands and across the UK defence supply chain, creating jobs, boosting exports and guaranteeing our technical skills base into the future.”


RBSL will draw on Rheinmetall’s broader military vehicle technologies combined with the additional capabilities and systems brought to the Joint Venture by BAE Systems’ Land UK business, such as Trojan, Terrier, Warrior, military bridging and the AS90 self-propelled artillery system. RBSL will have the potential to create hundreds of additional UK jobs, both in Telford and the wider supply chain.
 

Peter Hardisty, formerly of Rheinmetall UK, has been appointed as Managing Director of the new company. He said:

“RBSL is a new business drawing on the significant strengths and expertise of both BAE Systems Land UK and Rheinmetall. Our employees in Telford, Bristol, and Washington (UK) have a valuable skill set and extensive experience in combat vehicle engineering. With new orders, we shall be able to sustain these capabilities and expand over the coming years, seeking new opportunities in the UK and overseas.”


The new management team that will lead RBSL into the future also includes Carrie White as Finance Director and Phil Simon as Operations Director, both of whom join from BAE Systems.
Regulatory approval for the joint venture was granted on 13 June 2019.


Background information
 

Rheinmetall Defence is one of the world’s leading makers of military vehicles and systems. In the United Kingdom the Group is already present in the form of Rheinmetall Defence UK and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles UK. These two businesses are well-established suppliers to the British Ministry of Defence. They assist Her Majesty’s Armed Forces in a number of areas, including vehicle systems, ammunition and technical support.

For many decades BAE Systems has been the UK’s premier land systems manufacturer and source of technical support. BAE Systems companies have produced the Challenger 2 main battle tank, the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle as well as the Terrier combat engineering vehicle. BAE Systems Land UK is currently supporting the British Ministry of Defence and British Army in maintaining and upgrading the operational effectiveness of the UK’s combat vehicles and systems. It has over 400 employees devoted to military vehicle systems, primarily in Telford in the West Midlands.
 

Excluded from the Joint Venture are activities of BAE Systems Land UK in the field of weapons and ammunition in Great Britain, as well as the CTAI project with Nexter.


For more information, please contact:

Oliver Hoffmann
Head of Public Relations
Rheinmetall AG
Tel.: +49-(0)211-473 4748
oliver.hoffmann@rheinmetall.com


wskZuaZ.jpg
w2Evlz2.jpg
DAXajRE.jpg

https://twitter.com/TotherChris/status/1145636029531086853
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rheinmetall-and-bae-launch-joint-vehicle-design-venture/
 

 

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 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...