Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,634

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    155

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
    No, its not. Why can't you War Thunder people stop making stuff up?
  2. SH_MM
    This fits here better than into the British topic: Comparison of hull armor of CR2 minimum requirement, CR1 (up-armored), T-72M1, T-80BV, M1A1 and Leopard 2. Some data is based on the manufacturer's claims, some of the data seems to be British estimates.
  3. SH_MM
    A bit more on the matter was posted on TankNet by Wiedzmin. There was a proposed upgrade for the turret armor to meet the increased protection requirement ("stretch potential"). Also more detailed CR1 protection estimates: The "lower glacis" is the part of the hull covered by the special armor, the lowest section (only RHA) is described as "toe" armor. The add-on armor for the CR1 fielded during Gulf War increased the hull front to 350/700 mm vs KE/CE (i.e. section where ROMOR-A ERA overlap). The side armor with Chobham armor modules was only protected against the most basic RPG-7 munitions. No wonder it was replaced on CR2 after a few months in Iraq with ERA. Challenger 2 apparently had barely improved hull armor and somewhat improved turret armor - that is, if the upgrade was implemented and funded. Even with the upgrade, the increased requirement (600 mm vs KE) was not met.
  4. SH_MM
  5. SH_MM
    The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin. How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry. Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions. It is solid steel. That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production. That is not really how it works. The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm. Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand. Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years. It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO. No.
  6. SH_MM
    According to Rheinmetall, first Ukrainian-made Fuchs APCs/IFvs are to be delivered in 2024, Lynx IFV to follow in Summer 2025 - if the final contract is signed soon. https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/industrie/rheinmetall-panzerproduktion-in-der-ukraine-soll-schon-2024-starten/29532760.html Apparently the Boxer CRV will not become the Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie (all contracts valued more than €25 million have to be approved by the parliament). This was already reported a few months ago, but leaks suggest that the MoD does not plan to submit the contract for approvement during the next meeting of defence committee. The reason for not accepting the Boxer CRV are two-fold. Supposedly the system is not as mature as claimed, inofficially the purchase was meant as a quid pro quo for selecting the Lynx. Not selecting the Lynx might have killed export chances for the Boxer CRV. For a somewhat long time, it seemed as the Patria CAVS was the only contender for the 6x6 program really considered by the Army, but it has been decided that all candidates should be tested before a selection is being made. Aside of the Fuchs Evolution/Fuchs 1A9 and Patria CAVS, the GDELS Pandur EVO is also a contender. These vehicles are also contenders for the Fennek replacement with a further competitor in form of the SuperAV/Guarani being offered by Iveco & Hensoldt.
  7. SH_MM
    On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight. I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states. A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.
  8. SH_MM
  9. SH_MM
    Could also be 155 mm L/52 weapon systems for testing the M109-52.
  10. SH_MM
    SHARD demonstaration against different steel targets.
  11. SH_MM
    Nice find. Also interesting that M1A1 was assessed with a hit probability (static vs static) of only 65%... armor and penetration values are also very interesting, though the British military has a tendency to measure penetration against extremely high angle sloped plates. Its worth noting that SR(L) 4206 is the requirement, it is not identical to the production variant of the Challenger 2. PS: Do you happen to know the account who originally tweeted this on twitter?
  12. SH_MM
    https://gandh.com/embedded-image-periscope-and-sighting-systems
  13. SH_MM
    The same brochure lists the DM63A1 also at "approx. 21 kg".
  14. SH_MM
    Optimal loading conditions = more propellant. DM73 still has the same propellant charge mass (same penetrator and sabot, yet same total mass -> propellant mass was unchanged) as DM63A1.
  15. SH_MM
    Thanks for the correction, mistook the headlights for the rear lights. I should have paid more attention.
  16. SH_MM
    The Germany parliament has reportedly rejected the notion to buy the Boxer CRV Block 2 from Australia after the selection of the Redback IFV. Earlier reports suggest that buying Boxers from Australia was twice as expensive as producing them in Germany and was meant to be a compensation deal when choosing Lynx.
  17. SH_MM
    Fairly certain that we can see a lid + latches at the turret side (on the right - increased brightness and contrast).
  18. SH_MM
    Photos showing the K2 armor thickness, taken by someone in Poland. Frontal armor seems rather inconsistent (at least in front of the gunner's sight). Basically only achieves consistent protection when seen directly from the front and ranges from ca. 650 mm (directly next to the gun mantlet) to ca. a maximum of 850 mm. Also I am not sure if the element to which the radar panels are mounted is actual armor; it is attached with bolts from the front, but there is also a welding seam at the top. At 30° angle, armor thickness can range from <100 mm to 630 mm. Not a very consistent protection. Turret side armor is 50 mm thick, seemingly a simple steel plate. Additional ERA can be attached to the stowage boxes. Side skirt armor. 50 mm baseline armor plus ERA panels (25 mm ERA + 25 mm backplate). Rear hull, 30 mm steel.
  19. SH_MM
    First Challenger 2 lost in Ukraine
  20. SH_MM
    The glorious leader personally inspecting the new NKStryker.
  21. SH_MM
    Probably the best angle to see the construction of the armor.
  22. SH_MM
    I would not trust the claims about the blast tests without any more detailed source. People somehow believe that Redback has good armor, because it uses armor provided by Plasan. The fact that Rheinmetall acquired IBD and IBD at its peak was a bigger player (in terms of total armor kits deliveried, locations around the globe and number of different vehicles types fitted with armor solutions) than Plasan in the armor market is often not known to those people. Plasan doesn't really have the same references, being not active on the global market for as long as IBD/Rheinmetall. They don't even provide the full armor kits for the Piranha series, only the mine protection kit. Just like with WCSP, where they only provided the turret armor. For the BAE Systems' ACV, IBD developed an armor kit capable to withstand the detonation of 10 (!) 155 mm artillery shells stacked ontop of each other... and that was ten years ago.
  23. SH_MM
    Close-up of the damaged turret armor:
  24. SH_MM
    Damaged MEXAS/AMAP-X armor module on this captured Strv 9040C.
  25. SH_MM
    M2020 has ERA now:
×
×
  • Create New...