Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

The front plates on the turret front and sides seem thin and bolted on. Whats the reason for that?


Looks better. Not joking. 
Also armour modules get bolted onto the turret sides when on operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this might be just mockup with thin sheet mtal clading ,  but its Interesting that only commanders hatch has all round observation pericopes also loots of exposed roof in this design .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d put money on that turret being non-ballistic. There’s some interesting design choices - what I’d call short-comings: vertical commander’s hatch & no visible armoured doors on the gunner’s sight (forward of the commander’s hole). 

Share this post


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

The front plates on the turret front and sides seem thin and bolted on. Whats the reason for that?

 

The armor modules of the Challenger 2 are always fixed with bolts. Rheinmetall probably added some thin layers of "cosmetic steel" to make everything look flush.

 

17 hours ago, mr.T said:

but its Interesting that only commanders hatch has all round observation pericopes also loots of exposed roof in this design .

 

These parts of the design are directly taken from Challenger 2. It is a charade to call the turret "new", but its better for marketing I guess...

 

17 hours ago, 2805662 said:

There’s some interesting design choices - what I’d call short-comings: vertical commander’s hatch

 

Same as on the original Challenger 2.

Share this post


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

 

The armor modules of the Challenger 2 are always fixed with bolts. Rheinmetall probably added some thin layers of "cosmetic steel" to make everything look flush.

He asked about the metal panel bolted over the turret. On the legacy turret, you don’t have such a panel.

With the Rheinmetall turret, the half front is covered by separated plates. This « skin » is interesting because it makes options integration easier. 

 

Share this post


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

Same as on the original Challenger 2.

 

Point still stands: poor design. 

 

ETA: original design’s hatch folds back from vertical. 

Edited by 2805662

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat unrelated but also related. 

 

I heard that the toilet and BV are being removed in the new update to the CR2 (the latter being a horrible design choice in my personal opinion)...where was the toilet in the old one/does anyone have any pictures of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 12:21 AM, Plebola said:

Somewhat unrelated but also related. 

 

I heard that the toilet and BV are being removed in the new update to the CR2 (the latter being a horrible design choice in my personal opinion)...where was the toilet in the old one/does anyone have any pictures of it?


The toilet is under the loaders seat.
 

BV is a requirement for British AFVs. I doubt it's been totally removed. 

 

16 hours ago, Serge said:

So, no news at DSEI-2019 from BAE about their involvement in the Challenger 2 LEP ?


The BAE-GD offer was never a real option.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:


The BAE-GD offer was never a real choice.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

So BAE/GD spend money for nothing !

 

 

Share this post


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

The BAE-GD offer was never a real choice.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

 

Given that Rheinmetall had essentially no local production sites in the UK and didn't deliver any AFVs to the British Army before, I was under the impression that the BAE-GD cooperation was deemed to win until Rheinmetall presented the Challenger 2 LEP & formed Rheinnmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). BAE Systems is a British company that has provided the British Army with Warrior, Challenger 2, AS-90, etc., while General Dynamics European Land Systems is delivering the AJAX family of vehicles.

 

Rheinmetall was the underdog given its limited foothold in the UK, only got in a favourable position after acquiring MAN's military vehicle divison, forming RBSL and getting downselected for the MIV program (has there been a contract for the Boxer yet?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Serge said:

 

So BAE/GD spend money for nothing !

 


They received government funding.
It's the price you pay to keep the illusion of a competition. 

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Given that Rheinmetall had essentially no local production sites in the UK and didn't deliver any AFVs to the British Army before


Neither did Lockheed-Martin UK.
10 years later we're still waiting for WCSP.

Rheinmetall seem to have a good relationship with Supacat and the Newcastle factory where Challenger 2 was built is now owned by the Reece Group (Pearson Engineering) who they're working with on Boxer.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I was under the impression that the BAE-GD cooperation was deemed to win until Rheinmetall presented the Challenger 2 LEP & formed Rheinnmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).


BAE-GD offer is at best a last resort.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

BAE Systems is a British company that has provided the British Army with Warrior, Challenger 2, AS-90, etc.,


BAE systems bought the companies that built those things
BAE is a scam of a company but uses its massive influence (BAE is an aerospace giant and much of the UK's economy is aerospace based) within the Government to get contracts. 
"Anyone but BAE" is the mantra of the MoD.

RBSL joint venture is the result of BAE finally accepting that they will never win a "competed" contract, jumping on Rheinmetalls popularity within the Army and keeping other defence giants out of the UK market.
For Rheinmetall they benefit from BAE's influence and their focus on Land systems won't cause problems with BAE's dominance in Aerospace.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

while General Dynamics European Land Systems is delivering the AJAX family of vehicles.


Army and GD fell out.

Army used to like American companies but is now enamoured with German and Israeli stuff.

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

(has there been a contract for the Boxer yet?)


No. It was thought to happen at DSEI.

 

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...