SH_MM
-
Posts
1,632 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
155
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SH_MM
-
-
-
On 1/10/2023 at 10:43 PM, Yoshi_E said:
This armor block is a one piece block with cutouts for a polymer at a 90% steel 10% polymer ratio, making 4 steel and 3 polymer layers.
However I find the use of the screws in this construction rather odd.
These bolts pass through the block and connect to something on its back. There is no threading on these bolts that interact with the steel block. They just pass through.
Does anyone know how the backside of this armor block looks like / whats attached to these bolts?
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.
On 1/14/2023 at 4:28 AM, Pardus said:Solid steel? I really dont see the necessity for that, considering:
It is solid steel.
On 12/14/2023 at 1:53 AM, Cheburashka said:Are there any plans or is it even possible to mount Trophy APS on Leos like the 2A7HU or does it have to be factory incorporated like on the newly planned German 2A8?
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.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:Swedish test shown that leopard 2 with B tech Hull plus MEXAS HEAVY Add on armor has 750mm of KE protection, so B tech is 350mm,that mean add-on armor have 400mm of protection ?and d tech hull have nearly 600mm of protection ,is that mean leopard 2a7v has nearly 1000mm of ke protection ?
That is not really how it works.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:and also wanna ask that is the armor besides the leopard gun shield thickness around 600mm just pure RHA armoror is it something else?
The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:Also wanna know did AMAP side armor have 600mm to 700mm of KE protection at 60°? I saw someone says that from war thunder advise of leopard 2 evolution, he said AMAP side have 750mm of CE protection (confirmed )and 600 to 700mm of KE protection,
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.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:And also wanna ask why leopard 2a8 use trophy as APS not rheinmetall ADS,I think ADS is better It has ability to stop round going fast and doesn't need to care the distance .
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.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:And did anyone know will leopard 2a7v equipped PSO side armor or the IBD AMAP side armor ?
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.
On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:Did the pso armor have same protection As AMAP?
No.
- Clan_Ghost_Bear, LoooSeR and Laviduce
-
3
-
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.
On 6/24/2023 at 7:02 PM, SH_MM said:As the Boxer CRV is a reconnaissance variant based on an IFV variant, it is designed with capacity for infantry (dismounting scouts), but the German Jäger will not have dismounts on the Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie... so they are trying to come up with some sort of use for the rear compartment such as carrying UAVs (which can be and are already carried in lighter vehicles at greater distance from the front line) or "UGVs armed for example with an autocannon" (currently market available UGVs with autocannon - unless talking about an anemic solution with the M230LF - are too heavy and too large to be carried inside the Boxer and have enough endurance - e.g. Milrem Type X UGV: 600 km - to be drive on their own).
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.
On 6/24/2023 at 7:02 PM, SH_MM said:The program for the Fuchs successor is also on-going. Currently the German Army plans to purchase 629 new vehicles. Germany has joined the Patria CAVS program, but this is not a final decision as it is a prerequisite for testing the Patria 6x6 vehicle. Patria has stated in an interview with German media that it is looking for local partners that would take care of the production for the Bundeswehr's program, if the CAVS is selected. Rheinmetall is offering its Fuchs Evolution, which is not really a Fuchs 2, but also more than the previously proposed Fuchs 1A9.
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.
-
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.
- LoooSeR, TWMSR, David Moyes and 1 other
-
4
-
-
Could also be 155 mm L/52 weapon systems for testing the M109-52.
-
SHARD demonstaration against different steel targets.
-
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?
-
-
The same brochure lists the DM63A1 also at "approx. 21 kg".
-
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.
-
On 9/9/2023 at 10:09 PM, Wiedzmin said:
that's front part
Thanks for the correction, mistook the headlights for the rear lights. I should have paid more attention.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
First Challenger 2 lost in Ukraine
-
The glorious leader personally inspecting the new NKStryker.
-
-
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.
-
Close-up of the damaged turret armor:
- Laviduce and Clan_Ghost_Bear
-
2
-
Damaged MEXAS/AMAP-X armor module on this captured Strv 9040C.
-
M2020 has ERA now:
-
-
19 hours ago, RIP_USA_07_1776-01_2021 said:
If the M829A3 and M829A4 have SUPPOSEDLY the same or similar "Specs" in terms of length of Penetrator and Steel Tip and weight as well as both are supposedly just DU and steel not DU and Tungsten, why/how then is the A4 >100m/s faster than the A3 both fired from M256?
Because they have a different propellant charge.
19 hours ago, RIP_USA_07_1776-01_2021 said:Also, why would A4 need Data-Link? Could this A4 Tip be something completely new? Something that needs to go off at just the right moment?
The ADL is a bi-directional interface, so it could be used for taking the propellant temperature of the individual round into account, assuming a temperature sensor is fitted to the round.
Britons are in trouble
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
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.