Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Serge said:

 

"In the imagery the Warriors appeared to be fitted with plates along the length of their hulls to defeat high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads, which British Army sources said is designated Operational Equipment Standard 3 (OES3)." - so the British army only needs mounting plates to defeat HEAT warheads? ;):D

Share this post


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

"Streetfighter II"
/.../
XNDgoJP.jpg
 

  Reveal hidden contents

LP6i5sh.jpg
zZuOako.jpg
Y3biZRi.jpg
h8L2QjW.jpg
3eoiZvB.jpg

 

 

   Why T-54B is photographed with it? It is 60+ years old tank after all, lol. Also, its still looks like something a field unit personal would do to a tank if sended to conflict zone and left without much supervision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Why T-54B is photographed with it? It is 60+ years old tank after all, lol.


Used in demonstration. Still runs.

 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Also, its still looks like something a field unit personal would do to a tank if sended to conflict zone and left without much supervision.


Basically is.
It's just a test platform for the tankers to try out ideas. Nothing official.

Share this post


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

Used in demonstration. Still runs.


Basically is.
It's just a test platform for the tankers to try out ideas. Nothing official.

   Syrians made a better "streetfighter" with their Adra modification of T-72s, heh, and it was made by field unit with steel bars and stones. IDK what purpose this vehicle serves, all useful mods from it (cameras, dozer blade) should have been easy task to work out (or should have been designed during tank development, in the first place), everything else doesn't look practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Syrians made a better "streetfighter" with their Adra modification of T-72s, heh, and it was made by field unit with steel bars and stones. IDK what purpose this vehicle serves, all useful mods from it (cameras, dozer blade) should have been easy task to work out (or should have been designed during tank development, in the first place), everything else doesn't look practical.


You need to look at the add-ons individually rather than as a complete package.
They're ideas that are quickly bolted-on to try out in various scenarios and to evaluate their effectiveness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vickers Mk.4 Valiant (1982):

wTHANs5.jpg
 

Spoiler

zS41yJj.jpg
29C0qzM.jpg
TK7WCB8.jpg
1He2lPS.jpg

 

Quote

'Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall formally opened the world's biggest and most modern privately-owned armaments factory. Sir Edwin unveiled Newcastle's new £7m Vickers plant, to be known as the Armstrong Works. Military top brass from 40 nations attended the ceremony. Pictured is the Vickers Main Battle Tank (MTB). 24th November, 1982. (Photo by NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 9:02 AM, Sovngard said:

 

The glacis layout of the Valiant seemed so much better than the one of the Challenger 1 & 2.

 

The decision to use an aluminum hull is also quite brave, the thing is only 47t despite mounting much of the same mechanical components as CR1/CR2 (and the whole universal turret assembly which was the forebear to the CR2 turret). Considering that it was the NERA modules that provided the real protection, I do wonder why Vickers totally ditched their hull design and opted for others.

 

It is exceedingly unlikely this is carrying 20t less armor than the CR2, so this seems to be mechanically a better hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mk.4 had problems with the aluminium hull wearing out. British testing found this out with MBT-80 but the hull was considered a replaceable part.
Vickers then quickly partnered with KMW for the Mk.7 for the Egyptians. 

Challenger 1's layout is a result of being based on the Chieftain. Challenger 2 is similar because Vickers didn't have the time or money to develop a new hull that would have to compete with the Leopard 2 & M1.

CR1 was expected to serve alongside CR2 and having a hull that could share equipment and upgrades was seen as preferable. Also Cheaper.

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...