Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Burlington bisquit no.4 (1968)

 

25mm steel -/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/ 6,35mm polyester on 6,35 steel plate-/air gap/50mm backplate whole block 16 inch thick

 

and side modules is 1-2mm stainless steel 3,175-6,35mm plastic, whole block 8 inch thick

 

16" block when it's sloped at 60° gives protection from 6" HC(643mm pen)  and from 120mm APDS is equivalent to 136mm of RHA(both by weight and by level of protection)

i will add details later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hPAen1n.jpg
 

 


https://www.janes.com/article/90725/upgraded-warrior-completes-20-battlefield-missions
 

Quote

Key Points

  • Six WCSP prototypes have completed the first 20 battlefield missions as part of the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) reliability growth tests
  • The battlefield missions are designed to demonstrate the upgraded vehicle's ability to meet the missions required of it by the MoD

Lockheed Martin UK's Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) prototypes have completed the first 20 battlefield missions as part of the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Reliability Growth Tests, programme director Lee Fellows told Jane's on 22 August.

The six prototype Warrior infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) upgraded under the WCSP have been undergoing trials for the past six months, which will continue until mid-2021. "At the end of the trials will be design acceptance, and a contract will be placed when Lockheed Martin and the MoD decide that the time is right," said Fellows.

He added that the trials vehicles have completed thousands of kilometres of tests, and fired thousands of 40 mm rounds from the vehicle's main armament and from the 7.62 mm chaingun, all without any safety concerns. The successful completion of 20 battlefield missions marks the first point at which Lockheed Martin and the MoD will meet to review the data gathered during the trials.

"We have a plan, we are performing to that plan, and I am meeting all of the milestones," said Fellows, adding that the upgraded Warriors are the first vehicles to go through this process in the UK since the Challenger 2 main battle tank and its variants were introduced into service in the early 1990s.

The battlefield missions are designed to demonstrate the upgraded vehicle's ability to meet the missions that are required of it by the UK's MoD. There are a total of six sets of battlefield missions that are broadly arranged into groups of 20, added Fellows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

 

TcNx7U827IA.jpg

 

wKrXAusA2WY.jpg

 

1968, Burlington bisquit No. 4

 

tested by the British in the mid-late 60s, the type of combined armour, at an angle of inclination of 60deg, provided protection from 6 in (152 mm) HC with penetration of 643 mm (cone angle 60, copper), and also provided protection equivalent to 136 mm steel from 120 mm APDS L15A4 ( 1300-1500 yards), the assembly weighed the same way as a 135-136mm steel plate, with an inclination angle of 68 deg the entire assembly protection was achieved from 7 and 8 in HC (penetration unknown, cone angle 40, approximately penetration something around 800 and 900- 1000 mm)

at the beginning of 1965, bisquit No. 1 was tested to provide protection against a 5-in HC; by May 65 they switched to No. 4.

the presented scheme was compiled according to a handwritten report, in which only plate thicknesses and overall assembly dimensions are exactly given, the air-gaps could be a little different if more accurate data appear, I will correct the scheme.

Share this post


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

TcNx7U827IA.jpg

 

wKrXAusA2WY.jpg

 

1968, Burlington bisquit No. 4

 

 

If I’m reading this right, this says: 

Quote

1/4 polyester, 1/4 steel, without immediate plates

 

It doesn’t explicitly state the fractions are in inches, but it would be safe to assume so. I can’t make out the underlined section; if anyone can clarify, that would be appreciated. 

 

Is there more to this document, @Wiedzmin

Share this post


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

It doesn’t explicitly state the fractions are in inches, but it would be safe to assume so. I can’t make out the underlined section; if anyone can clarify, that would be appreciated. 

it also contain hand drawn scheme, all in inches, and it's "steel intermediate plate" not "without...", but english cursive is even more insane than russian... 

 

17 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

s there more to this document, @Wiedzmin

it's very strange dock, i trying to get original source(report AR191 ) and with typed text, not handwritten... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wXjE4xm.jpg
 

Quote

In 2004 post Operation Telic the Defence Equipment and Support agency asked for assistance in trialling modifications and improvements to the M3 Amphibious Rig carried out by General Dynamics.

Operation Telic saw up-armoured Challenger 2 crossing the river Tigris on 28 RE's M3 Rigs. The tanks weighed in excess of 70 ton and with future armour packs being trialled by the Armoured Trials Development Unit back in Bovington it was assessed that the battle weight of a Challenger 2 could go up to 80 Ton.

In November 2004 C Squadron were chosen to support the trial, and two of the Squadrons tanks were dispatched to Hameln where they would be fitted with addition weight to simulate the increased armour packs and ammunition. The crews were issued with life vest and put there lives in the hands of the Royal Engineers throughout the trial.


 

Spoiler

OucTvoq.jpg
JrAUYfZ.jpg
ShWftUi.jpg
eto7AH0.jpg
IuhLnDG.jpg
Gy7n2KO.jpg
ItUtxvg.jpg
sFGRa6p.jpg


https://www.facebook.com/The-Queens-Royal-Hussars-Museum-1087446214620464/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 9:24 PM, David Moyes said:

m0IZNif.jpg
 


Rheinmetall image shows Challenger 2 Mk.2 and UK-spec Boxer at DSEI 2019.
It appears Rheinmetall-BAE will propose Archer-on-MAN for British Mobile Fires Platform programme.

Model from 2018:

RNBVGoA.jpg
Jwj3wuP.jpg

 

Confirmed: the HX77 with Archer module is at DSEI. Very, very large vehicle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 9:33 PM, 2805662 said:

Confirmed: the HX77 with Archer module is at DSEI. Very, very large vehicle.  

Why not stick to the original Volvo articulated truck? That has excellent offroad mobility, unlike the HX77. Also seems to be a little bit more compact too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Why not stick to the original Volvo articulated truck? That has excellent offroad mobility, unlike the HX77. Also seems to be a little bit more compact too.


I think the Volvo is not made anymore.
MANs are also currently in-use. Makes sense for commonality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://supacat.com/newsevents/news/supacat-grows-engineering-services-business-supporting-rheinmetall-uk-australian-defence-programmes/

 

Quote

Supacat grows engineering services supporting Rheinmetall on UK and Australian defence programmes

05-09-2019

Supacat, the UK headquartered Special Forces vehicle developer, is growing its Engineering Services, in parallel to its core OEM vehicle business, to support global primes on defence programmes.  At DSEi 2019 Supacat is highlighting its collaboration with Rheinmetall on four key programmes – the UK’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) Boxer, Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme (CR2 LEP) and the Scout SV turret and on Australia’s Land 400 Phase 2.

With UK MoD announcements expected on CR2 LEP and MIV, we are fully committed to supporting Rheinmetall wherever we can add value. We currently have engineers on placement with Rheinmetall Landsystemes at Kassel and Unterluess working on ongoing programmes”, said Phil Applegarth, Head of Supacat.

Supacat is renowned for its innovation in developing platforms such as the HMT `Jackal`, and brings this experience in delivering fully-engineered, integrated and battle-ready vehicle systems to both the UK and Australian MoD from its operations in each country.  It is distinctive in the market in offering primes a full OEM engineering capability but with the responsiveness and flexibility of an SME (Small to Medium Enterprise).

The relationship gives Rheinmetall the agility to rapidly draw on additional and specialist resources from engineering design to rapid prototyping and manufacture through to project and supply chain management”, said Thomas Zierke, Vice President Programmes at Rheinmetall Landsysteme.

 
Pictured: Mock turret for Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2), manufactured by Supacat to allow validation of the internal layout and optimisation for human interface factors including evacuation.

GtxHlBF.jpg


According to EXIF data this was taken at:  2018:06:22 11:03:05


 

Share this post


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

I think the Volvo is not made anymore.

Not true:

https://www.volvoce.com/great-britain/en-gb/smt/products/articulated-haulers/#/all

But choosing the MAN sadly comes with the drawback of significantly reduced offroad mobility. Just a little rain, and those trucks are like grounded whales. The Volvo on the other hand, is fine with almost any terrain, only tracked vehicles are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Not true:

https://www.volvoce.com/great-britain/en-gb/smt/products/articulated-haulers/#/all

But choosing the MAN sadly comes with the drawback of significantly reduced offroad mobility. Just a little rain, and those trucks are like grounded whales. The Volvo on the other hand, is fine with almost any terrain, only tracked vehicles are better.

 

Let’s remember, we’re talking about the British army here; their bosses are not known for making good decisions. 

Share this post


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

Is the Rheinmetall L55 going to replace the rifled gun in British Challengers (finally) or is it just a demonstrator? 


A new gun is apparently a requirement for the upgrade now.
The L55 has been chosen for RBSL's bid.

Nothing is official yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Quote

AJAX showcases its transition into service with the British Army at DSEI 2019

General Dynamics Land Systems–UK will demonstrate the capabilities of the AJAX Family of Vehicles at Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2019.

The AJAX programme, a £4.5 billion programme to deliver 589 vehicles in six variants to the British Army, has begun the transition of vehicles into service ahead of the planned Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2020.  The first six ARES vehicles were delivered to the British Army in February this year, and desktop training equipment and full-motion driver training simulators have been installed at the Armour Centre in Bovington and at Ministry of Defence Lyneham to support advanced training of British Army soldiers.

In parallel, eight production and seven prototype vehicles continue to demonstrate the capabilities of the AJAX Family of Vehicles, through trials including live fire, cold-weather,  Equipment Support-specific trials (such as ATLAS successfully recovering a 60-ton Challenger Main Battle Tank) and through ongoing reliability trials in which two ARES production vehicles have run more than 10,000 kilometres to date.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D6VzBep.jpg

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-unveils-new-archer-mobile-howitzer-at-dsei
 

Quote
The key is a modular design that allows it to be integrated onto different truck chassis and then seamlessly introduced into existing vehicle fleets. The ARCHER’s modularity makes it a cost-effective solution that provides critical battlefield capabilities. The ARCHER system displayed at DSEI 2019 is mounted on a Rheinmetall RMMV HX2 8x8 truck – meaning it could be common to systems already in service with the British Army. The original ARCHER, first delivered to the Swedish Armed Forces in 2013, is mounted on a Volvo A30 6X6 articulated hauler.
 
“This new international version of the ARCHER can be easily integrated onto a variety of different chassis, allowing the customer to specify the vehicle best suited to their needs,” said Ulf Einefors, director of marketing and sales at BAE Systems Weapon Systems business in Sweden. “We’re pleased to display this new version at DSEI to demonstrate the versatility that ARCHER could add to any allied military force.”

The long-range, self-propelled ARCHER brings speed, mobility, and high rates of fire to support ground troops. From the safety of ARCHER’s armored cabin, a three-person crew needs less than 30 seconds to deploy or displace the system, making ARCHER the ultimate shoot-and-scoot artillery system. As the most advanced wheeled 155mm, 52-calibre system in operation today, ARCHER features a 21-round auto-loader and onboard ballistic calculation. The system can fire up to eight rounds per minute at ranges approaching 40 kilometers with conventional 155mm ammunition and 60 kilometres with precision guided munitions such as Excalibur.
 
Visit BAE Systems at DSEI 2019 on stand S4 – 200 or find additional information via our events page at: www.baesystems.com/dsei.


Images, brochure and video: https://baesys.resourcespace.com/pages/search.php?search=!collection564&k=b9d6b00896

FXGtf80.jpg
Ul6OvQG.jpg
xb7zeVk.jpg

mbOaOPg.jpg
F2yDJYj.jpg
DpHfCqJ.jpg
F8g4zSS.jpg
sp24l1C.jpg
Eg5xK5n.jpg
0aZaLHb.jpg
 

Spoiler

 

 

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...