Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Rheinmetall – MBT 130 mm Gun fitted to Challenger 2 LEP
 


Also shows a larger armour array fitted to the turret. Not sure if this is for LEP or RBSL looking to export or to increase scope of LEP:

sEQ2XLC.jpg
DGvwTnW.jpg


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

Challenger 2 ATDU - Early 90's
 



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

British Companies to Manufacture Military Vehicles in Algeria?

An editorial in a Spanish newspaper mentions that British companies are setting up to manufacture military vehicles in Algeria.
I haven't heard anything about this is British news and Algeria seems focused on buying German (Fuchs-2, Boxer, Lynx 41? Gladius kit). I wonder if this is Rheinmetall/KMW working through RBSL/WFEL/others to avoid German/EU regulations?

 

Quote

Apart from tourism, in that region on the border with Algeria, British metal construction companies are also setting up to manufacture military vehicles; and they also exploit two gas wells, with studies carried out to drill another two in the future.



https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20200719/mohamed-vi-reino-unido-desafia-espana-marroqui/506199908_0.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

An editorial in a Spanish newspaper mentions that British companies are setting up to manufacture military vehicles in Algeria.
I haven't heard anything about this is British news and Algeria seems focused on buying German (Fuchs-2, Boxer, Lynx 41? Gladius kit). I wonder if this is Rheinmetall/KMW working through RBSL/WFEL/others to avoid German/EU regulations?

 

Algeria is not buying AFVs from Germany, but factories and licenses. The Fuchs 2 is made by a company owned by the Algerian MoD, Rheinmetall Algeria holds only 5% of the shares of the production company.

Share this post


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

 

Algeria is not buying AFVs from Germany, but factories and licenses. The Fuchs 2 is made by a company owned by the Algerian MoD, Rheinmetall Algeria holds only 5% of the shares of the production company.


I'm aware. Just theorising how the article came to this conclusion.

Share this post


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

For me I wonder if the 31 round count reported earlier was for the 130mm gun instead of the 120mm.

 

It was stated that the number is for unitary rounds. 130 mm unitary round is too heavy and large for human loader so it has to be stored in an autoloader but I think that there is not enough space in the bustle for 31x 130 mm autoloader. So let's say that there is less than that but storing a portion of those massive unitary 130 mm rounds somewhere in the hull doesn't sound right either. Also the original tweet posted on the last page explicitely named L55A1 and that is 120 mm gun. Therefore I think that the number was indeed valid for the 120 mm.  

Share this post


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

For me I wonder if the 31 round count reported earlier was for the 130mm gun instead of the 120mm.

 

Mr. Hawkes was talking to Rheinmetall personnel specifically regarding the Challenger 2 LEP offer with 120 mm L/55A1 smoothbore gun: "following introduction of the L55A1 in notional CR2 LEP is going to reduce round count from 49 to 31". In Rheinmetall's video footage, one can already see that the turret only provides space for rounds of 16 main gun ammo.

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...