Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RoflSeal said:

I don't know what you smoke, but the IPM1 had a brand new turret compared to the M1.

Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new".

Brand new would be M60 -> M1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scav said:

Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new".

Brand new would be M60 -> M1

Oh, so going from cast(?) to welded, just like the Challenger 2?

As I say, even if the original turret was welded, the new turret will use different steels for weight saving.

 

And even then, going back to M1->IPM1, you definition of a new turret is arbitrarily restrictive. And extended frontal armour wasn't the only difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Oh, so going from cast(?) to welded, just like the Challenger 2?

As I say, even if the original turret was welded, the new turret will use different steels for weight saving.

 

And even then, going back to M1->IPM1, you definition of a new turret is arbitrarily restrictive. And extended frontal armour wasn't the only difference.

 

Steel is basically steel. RHm can claim newer steels, but to be honest the improvements in most regards are in the order of 1-5% over the last 20 years - it's mostly marketing wank. Steel metallurgy is simply mature and has been some time, so with the exception of niche alloys/properties major improvements just aren't going to happen. That said, I do agree that re-use of sub-components does not make a new turret merely a variant of an old one. The earliest batches of 76mm Sherman turrets re-used the vast bulk of sub-components with the then-current 75mm turret models, and nobody says it isn't a new turret. The Keiler-derived Leopard 1A3 turret initially shared most sub-components and systems with the 1A2 cast turret, and nobody says they are different variants of the same thing.

 

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

The original M1 did have a different turret than later models.

 

Correct, the M1IP introduced the "Long" turret compared to the earlier "Short" turret on the M1 Vanilla. It re-used most subsystems and was based on the same overall design, but was structurally an all-new unit.

Share this post


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

T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components.

 

The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.

 

2 questions:

1)What exact components are outdated? If the outer shell holding the armor is changed, and the armor being possibly changed, the internal construction to alter the ammo stowage also being changed, and finally the FCS also changed, I don't see what exactly is left that could be considered outdated.

 

2)Even if the layout is almost identical (except for TOGS), does it necessarily mean the turret is the same?

I don't see why the externally visible components have to be relocated. 

Share this post


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

The original M1 did have a different turret than later models.

 

Yes, but it wasn't extensively marketed as a brand new turret design suited for other future tanks. It was said from the very beginning to be an improved version of the existing turret design, which I'd argue is the case with the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Rheinmetall aswell.

 

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

What are these "outdated" elements shown in this render?.

 

Everything except the new Thales Orion sights is unchanged. Also this is not a render, but a photograph of a photo printed on a poster.

 

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Different gunner's sight that is clearly a dual-mode day/FLIR sight. The current outdated sight is a day sight only. 

 

Yes, this was changed to meet the basic requirements of the Challenger 2 Lifetime Extension Programme. The "it's a new turret" argument is mostly marketing. They made a new steel structure, then did just enough work to meet the minimum requirements (removal of obsolencies in FCS and digital systems) and added all old parts to it. A turret is more than steel shell, given that fact that the 120 mm smoothbore gun is not a final offer (the budget for the gun replacement has still to be allocated and the decision to integrate it has still to be approved by the British MoD) Rheinmetall is essentially offering the same turret as BAE Systems, but they can bait all journalists with "brand new turret" after changing the internal steel citadel and extending the bustle.

 

People have been calling me a paid Rheinmetall shill in the past (I actually was once invited by them, but due to communication issues, I missed the event), but I have to call them out for this "brand new turret" marketing claims.

 

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Red and dark blue boxes are 1x periscopes. The loader's periscope sometimes seen replaced with a RWS on the current Challenger 2s.

How are the commander's copula periscopes out dated? These things are clearly present in modern manned turreted vehicles such as the Leo 2A7V and M1A2C in the same capacity; i.e. 1x wide angle view periscopes. 

The yellow box. A coaxial machine gun, clearly an outdated concept according to you.

 

Outdated systems can be found on other tanks too. The whole vision & situational awareness concept for the crew hasn't seen any modernization; Rheinmetall originally teasered adopting its Situational Awareness System to provide 360° camera surveillance with automated target identification and tracking, but this apparently has been dropped in favor of the budget. The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk and has been criticized by British soldiers over at ARRSE for years; given that Rheinmetall has been trying to push its RMG 7.62 on its other current vehicle offers, this just shows how they had to cheap out in order to stay within budget.

 

On other tanks, work is done to enhance and improve situational awareness while some of the other obsolencies found on the Challenger 2 do not exist in the same fashion (but all tanks have their own issues). You also notice that I marked all the parts in order to show that they were unchanged and this turret was not brand new, rather than claiming every single of them was obsolete?

Share this post


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

 

Yes, but it wasn't extensively marketed as a brand new turret design suited for other future tanks. It was said from the very beginning to be an improved version of the existing turret design, which I'd argue is the case with the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Rheinmetall aswell.

  

 

Everything except the new Thales Orion sights is unchanged. Also this is not a render, but a photograph of a photo printed on a poster.

  

 

Yes, this was changed to meet the basic requirements of the Challenger 2 Lifetime Extension Programme. The "it's a new turret" argument is mostly marketing. They made a new steel structure, then did just enough work to meet the minimum requirements (removal of obsolencies in FCS and digital systems) and added all old parts to it. A turret is more than steel shell, given that fact that the 120 mm smoothbore gun is not a final offer (the budget for the gun replacement has still to be allocated and the decision to integrate it has still to be approved by the British MoD) Rheinmetall is essentially offering the same turret as BAE Systems, but they can bait all journalists with "brand new turret" after changing the internal steel citadel and extending the bustle.

  

 People have been calling me a paid Rheinmetall shill in the past (I actually was once invited by them, but due to communication issues, I missed the event), but I have to call them out for this "brand new turret" marketing claims.

  

 

Outdated systems can be found on other tanks too. The whole vision & situational awareness concept for the crew hasn't seen any modernization; Rheinmetall originally teasered adopting its Situational Awareness System to provide 360° camera surveillance with automated target identification and tracking, but this apparently has been dropped in favor of the budget. The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk and has been criticized by British soldiers over at ARRSE for years; given that Rheinmetall has been trying to push its RMG 7.62 on its other current vehicle offers, this just shows how they had to cheap out in order to stay within budget.

 

On other tanks, work is done to enhance and improve situational awareness while some of the other obsolencies found on the Challenger 2 do not exist in the same fashion (but all tanks have their own issues). You also notice that I marked all the parts in order to show that they were unchanged and this turret was not brand new, rather than claiming every single of them was obsolete?

You can't change the internal citadel willy nilly. Especially if it is moving from cast to welded construction. It is all new manufacture, and I assume the mounting points for the armour would have to be different as well ( Rhm advertized new armour fit for the turret, whether this means new protection, or a new method of mounting the current armour, it is unclear to me). Extending the turret bustle like on a Sherman Firefly is one thing. Remaking the entire citadel on a modern tank where pretty much all the equipment is mounted in, and the armour is mounted on is something else.

 

Dude you marked the gunners primary sight in a cyan box. Are you honestly claiming that the GPS in the Rhm picture is the same as the one on the current tank? And judging the weapon is the same from the flash hider sticking out of the mantlet? Are you serious? Should I remind you some Leopard 2's use FN MAGs, most use MG3s and the Swiss use the 7.5 mm MG87? And you can't tell the difference at all between them from the outside. I would personally go the direction of "wait and see" for more info, rather then making rash opinions.

Share this post


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

You can't change the internal citadel willy nilly.

 

I might not be able to do that, but Rheinmetall just did that. During upgrade and rebuilding processes, turrets of Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs have been completely stripped down, meaning all internal and external components have been removed. There is no reason why this should be impossible with the Challenger 2. The rest is a bit of engineering work that any medium-sized military vehicle integrator should be able to carry out. Technical documentation, specifications and blueprints were likely provided by the British military when the two Challenger 2 tanks were handed over to Rheinmetall (even if this didn't happen, they'd be able to do that by themselves).

 

During the early stage of the Leopard 2 development, three different construction mechanisms were used to create the turret shells for the prototypes. There really isn't any magic required to move from a cast to a welded construction.

 

As for the armor I can only point towards to Grant Turnbull's article, which mentioned this aspect: the Challenger 2 LEP is a program focused on obsolescence management. Replacing the gun or improving the armor protection isn't part of it and the figures released by Rheinmetall during its Capital Markets Day 2018 suggests that the company is banking on an increased budget for the gun replacement, so many changes to the armor aren't financially feasible. Most likely the statement from Turnbull's article is a reference to the changed in turret bustle protection and/or improved protection via using welded steel. A new armor package would require an extensive qualification program on side of the British MoD (risking delaying the whole program) and likely would have looked more similar to the other offers from Rheinmetall:

21764795_1283684795074556_23239433950156

 

Why would the gun mantlet and original turret front shape remain unaltered, when the steel citadel is replaced and a whole new armor package is added? :rolleyes:

 

29 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Dude you marked the gunners primary sight in a cyan box. Are you seriously claiming that the GPS in the Rhm picture is the same as the one on the current tank? And judging the weapon is the same from the flash hider sticking out of the mantlet? Are you serious? I would personal go the direction of "wait and see" for more info, rather then making rash opinions. 

 

I never said that. I posted a picture showcasing why it is not a brand new turret, you just added your own interpretations to it (at first "that guy considers everything obsolete that the guy marked" and now "that guy things everything is unaltered that is marked in the picture"). You notice that I never said anything along these lines; instead I even pointed out in my last reply, that the Thales Orion sight is now fitted. The identical location of the gunner's sight and commander's cupola, which leads to a weakspot is worth nothing, showing that this isn't exactly brand new. But well, maybe you should go for your own suggestions and play "wait and see", rather then registering to this forum because you were trigged by your own interpretations of my picture and made rash opinions.

Share this post


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

The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk

 

It isn't. It's actually very good but on some vehicles to get it to fit they had to install it upside down, which it wasn't designed for. This caused a bunch of issues and led to it's negative reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 4:40 PM, Ramlaen said:

I am skeptical that Rheinmetall would want to make a Leopard 2 competitor, it sounds more like a scheme to sell whole tanks to the UK instead of new turrets.

 

BAe and Rheinmetall did not really have much choice. Nexter (the French combat vehicle and gun manufacturer) and KMW (the German combat vehicle manufacturer) were merged in 2015, so Rheinmetall and BAe were on a forced track. KMW and Nexter had already been in a company almost all that needed for a tank (the Nexter have it's own gun development section) - so the former KMW-Rheinmetall brotherhood after decades of good operation (the Rheinmetall make the guns, KMW had developed a vehicles) begin to show cracks...

At the beginning of the 2000s, BAe bought quasi-semi-compulsive British war firms, the BAe itself relatively went well after the cold war, while the land-based weapons and ships makers not really. That's how the Royal Ordnance and Alvis Vickers came into their possession. The former went into bankruptcy and the latter find itself in a difficult financial situation, so the General Dynamics show up with an acquisition plan for £ 309 million. At that time BAe was already a minority shareholder in Alvis Vickers and rather than let a big competitor build momentum at their home, they bought the majority of Alvis Vickers for himself.

But afterwards they were unable to bring life to the land-based warfare division (the shipbuilding section, even if not so cheerfully, but can bloom thanks to the QE2 class). The United Defense acquired by BAe in 2005 did not help much, practically got the Zumwalt class AGS (perhaps this need no further explanation), and the Mark 45 ship cannon plus the Bofors (which was part of the UD at that time) had the 57mm Mark 110 gun bring some revenue.

The Rheinmetall itself was relatively stable (alone roughly twice as big as KMW + Nexter company), but originally believed they can bring the KMW under its own wings, but the KMW resisted. The cracks between the two companies began to appear at some point in the late 2000s, Rheinmetall began to develop its own combat vehicle programs, seeing after how the Boxer armored vehicle and the PUMA IFV development ran (both collaborate working of KMW and Rheinmetall). The MBT Evolution development package designed to support Leo2A4 developments with AMAP armor modules, competing with KMW's own Leopard 2 development packages. The next attack point of Rheinmetall was the IFV's although Rheinmetall was also interested in the development and production of PUMA, still developed an own competitor: the Lynx IFV family.

This was followed by the KMW + Nexter merger in 2015, which was a eye opening moment for Rheinmetall and perhaps for BAe.

After that, there is some silence, and boom, BAe sells the majority of BAE Systems Land & Armaments UK to Rheinmetall and will only be a minority owner in this branch. Presumably, the KMW-Nexter merger pushed BAe more towards Rheinmetall because it would not have been able to compete with the other two major competitors (GDLS and KMW + Nexter). Take note, the british army choose the tracked AJAX APC / IFV / reconnaissance family, build by the GDLS. The BAe could only comfort itself with a wheeled APC tender won by Boxer, with his partner KMW and Rheinmetall...

 

(Edit: Only the BAe Land UK division what we talking about, not the entire BAe Systems)

The end is what is now unfolding on the European land-based defense companies. There will be a French-German (KMW + Nexter) and an English-German (Rheintell BAe Land Systems) land vehicle manufacturer multi, and the third major player at the US General Dynamics Land System.

It will be a major issue in the years to come that the players will streamline their portfolio (eg. Rheinmetall has won the CV90 next to PUMA and Lynx in the IFV portfolio), and that in the future their can be interesting what bring for the tenders (For example, with new turreted Chally2 version (even on new chassis), Rheinmetall could even start betting on the Leopard 2-oriented tenders, which a bit morbid, but not completely unrealistic ...).

Edited by Cifu
Clarification

Share this post


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

It isn't. It's actually very good but on some vehicles to get it to fit they had to install it upside down, which it wasn't designed for. This caused a bunch of issues and led to it's negative reputation.

 

Didn't know that, but apparently a lot of British soldiers over at ARRSE don't seem to bother distinguishing between the different use-cases.

 

1 hour ago, Cifu said:

BAe and Rheinmetall did not really have much choice. Nexter (the French combat vehicle and gun manufacturer) and KMW (the German combat vehicle manufacturer) were merged in 2015

 

Nexter and KMW didn't merge yet, this is becoming one of the most common internet myths. Both Nexter and KMW still exist as separate entities with their own marketing units, their own CEOs, their own R&D divisions, etc. KMW and Nexter both gave the shares of their companies to a common holding (KDNS), which is owned by Nexter and the family that owned KMW. The two separate companies will try to cooperate by marketing each others products and not competing for the same contracts; further integration of both companies is possible, but only when this becomes viable from a business stand-point.

 

1 hour ago, Cifu said:

...

 

Sorry, but your whole post is just baseless speculation. First of all: BAE Systems and Rheinmetall have one joint-venture for one specific market: they have not joined operations on all markets (just regional) and only try to provide vehicles to this market. I've seen a lot of people in other forums thinking like you, assuming that BAE Systemsn and Rheinmetall would now act as a single company. That is not true.

 

Both BAE Systems and Rheinmetall have tons of other joint-ventures. For example you mentioned the Boxer and Puma: both made by joint-ventures between KMW and Rheinmetall (and these aren't the only JVs between both companies). As a matter of fact, Rheinmetall also has joint-ventures with states: in Romania there is/was a JV with the Ministry of Economy, while there is a JV with the Ministry of Defence in Qatar. As for the Lynx: KMW never has been active on the IFV market (neither had been Krauss-Maffei) until the NGP/NeSPz projects, while Rheinmetall has been making Leopard 1 and 2 tanks (or rather MaK, which was acquired by Rheinmetall). So your logic is inverse.

Share this post


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

Nexter and KMW didn't merge yet, this is becoming one of the most common internet myths. Both Nexter and KMW still exist as separate entities with their own marketing units, their own CEOs, their own R&D divisions, etc. KMW and Nexter both gave the shares of their companies to a common holding (KDNS), which is owned by Nexter and the family that owned KMW. The two separate companies will try to cooperate by marketing each others products and not competing for the same contracts; further integration of both companies is possible, but only when this becomes viable from a business stand-point.

 

This say a bit more than that. The KDNS will develop a franco-german tank and a self-propelled artillery.

 

30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Sorry, but your whole post is just baseless speculation. First of all: BAE Systems and Rheinmetall have one joint-venture for one specific market: they have not joined operations on all markets (just regional) and only try to provide vehicles to this market. I've seen a lot of people in other forums thinking like you, assuming that BAE Systemsn and Rheinmetall would now act as a single company. That is not true.

 

Perhaps my post a bit misleading, the Rheinmetall buy majority into the BAe Systems Land UK.  The BBC says that. 

I'm not say the whole BAe and the Rheinmetall fusion into one entity, only the ground vehicle division...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cifu said:

The KDNS will develop a franco-german tank and a self-propelled artillery

 

No, they won't. The project is still in the conception phase, it has yet to be decided which company will be contracted to make which parts and who will end up the primary contractor for each vehicle. The only decision that has been made yet, is that German companies (KMW, Rheinmetall, or others) will be awarded the primary contracts (system integration) for the MGCS next-generation tank, the CIFS next-generation self-propelled gun and the EuroMALE drone. A French company (Dassault or Airbus) will be awarded the primary contract for the next-generation jet aircraft of both countries, the FCAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

It seems to me that with Drummond there's always an equal possibility he's talking out of his ass.

Drummond is an idiot and hack, we probably should have a rule about unironically posting links to his tweets. :D

Share this post


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

 

Steel is basically steel. RHm can claim newer steels, but to be honest the improvements in most regards are in the order of 1-5% over the last 20 years - it's mostly marketing wank. Steel metallurgy is simply mature and has been some time, so with the exception of niche alloys/properties major improvements just aren't going to happen.

 

My books on armor metallurgy disagree.  As an example, if you could eliminate all of the bonding dislocations in a piece of mild steel, its tensile strength would be 20 times higher.  Modern steels aren't anywhere near their theoretical maxima.

 

Entirely novel steel metallurgy has been developed in the last 10 years, including armor steels with bainitic microstructure, TRIP and TWIP steels.  Additionally, ultra high hardness steels are being developed that may be viable alternatives to ceramics.

 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Drummond is an idiot and hack, we probably should have a rule about unironically posting links to his tweets. :D

 

Yes.

Share this post


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

Didn't know that, but apparently a lot of British soldiers over at ARRSE don't seem to bother distinguishing between the different use-cases.


They're upside down on the Warriors (IFV and Engineering) but correctly mounted on Challenger 2. Another problem was that the feed link wasn't supported enough so would jam. Soldiers would treat it like a conventional machine gun, manhandling it and forgetting to decouple the power when working on it. Hence the "unreliable machine gun that would randomly fire and then take your fingers off when trying to fix it".
All of this has been resolved with upgrades and training, only the old-timers still complain about the "chaingun".

 

4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Drummond is an idiot and hack, we probably should have a rule about unironically posting links to his tweets. :D

 

Yes.


He's solid on British Army and Industry (other sources do confirm) which is why I post his messages. But he does like to interject his own views and hyperboles.

 

6 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

So how deep is the rework?

And what T-72s are there in the UK?
Or which T-72s does Rheinmetall own?


I believe the firings where done in Germany. So East German?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 7:35 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

My books on armor metallurgy disagree.  As an example, if you could eliminate all of the bonding dislocations in a piece of mild steel, its tensile strength would be 20 times higher.  Modern steels aren't anywhere near their theoretical maxima.

 

Entirely novel steel metallurgy has been developed in the last 10 years, including armor steels with bainitic microstructure, TRIP and TWIP steels.  Additionally, ultra high hardness steels are being developed that may be viable alternatives to ceramics.

 

Oh, I'm entirely aware of what has been produced in labs or in 1 or 2 pound test batches, but I was more generally speaking about mass-produced armor steel that they could build a large number of turrets right now out of. Some of the maraging sintered alloys that have come out are remarkable (well over 700 Brinell!), but these haven't moved to mass production of plates and likely wont for some time.

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...