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

    1,630

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    155

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
    Wow,. thank you @skylancer-3441. Seems like R. Lindström (accidentally?) uploaded some (formerly?) claissified documents in his original presentation. That confirms that the diagram is real, @Militarysta M1A2 turret was also meant to receive add-on armor... Leclerc armor was very poor: Leopard 2 armor evolution: Turret front of a Leopard 2A5 is about 700-800 mm vs KE, 1,600 to 1,800 mm vs HEAT. The Swedish Strv 122 has a different armor package, providing higher protection levels; the Leopard 2 (flat turret) has 300 - 500 mm vs KE protection, but about 50% of the surface is protected against APFSDS ammo with less than 400 mm penetration into steel only. Note the last slide: The German prototype offered to Sweden (and maybe also the German tanks) have Pakete (integrated armor pacakges) of the technology generation "B", while the Vors. Modul (Vorsatzmodul, add-on module in front of the armor) has the technology generation "D-2". I suppose Sweden uses a more modern integrated armor pacakge (C, D-1, D-2, D-3) and the same Vorsatzmodul. The German wikipedia (without citing a reference) claims that the German Leopard 2 uses "C technology" armor (so "Pakete"). Maybe that's based on Spielberger's book, I need to take a look at it in the future. The graph in the center of the last slide shows five colors... my guess (based on the graphs at the left and the right: purple - Leopard 2 from 1979, armor package of the "b" generation (fits the graph on the left); red - Leopard 2 with enhance armor package (1987), which might be "C" generation; yellow - Leopard 2 with enhanced armor package (1992), which might be "D-1" generation; blue - Leopard 2 with armor of the "D-2" generation or armor of the "B" generation with Vorsatzmodul of the "D-2" generation green - Leopard 2 with armor as adopted by Sweden - so probably "C" or "D-1/2/3" base armor with Vorsatzmodul of "D-2" generation This would lead to the following protection estimates (please note that it says frontal arc - +30° to -30°, not direct from front): Leopard 2 - 2A4 (from 1979): 300 mm protection vs KE at 60% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 25% of the surface Leopard 2A4 (from 1987): 300 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 55% of the surface, 500 mm protection vs KE at 30% of the surface Leopard 2A4 (from 1992): 350 mm protection vs KE at 93% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 87% of the surface, 525 mm vs KE at 50% of the surface and 620 mm vs KE at 42% of the surface Leopard 2A5 (prototype?): 620 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 700 mm protection vs KE at 40% of the surface Leopard 2A5 (production model? Swedish model?): 700 mm protection vs KE at 75% of the surface That also confirms that the older Leopard 2 models didn't feature the enhanced side armor found on newer production variants: Btw: "gor" seems to be pentrated, "ub" means to be not penetrated in one of the earlier tables.
  2. SH_MM
    Are you sure? Is it confirmed to be fake? This is from a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV: Except for the values, everything is there (lower left corner). The same set of presentations includes a lot of 100% valid files: So overall the drawing seems to be valid. Maybe the guy photoshopped the drawing into the background of a FMV file and added his own values - but look at the drawing in the left corner of the first slide: this drawing does exist and it does have oddly placed text... maybe because R. Lindström wasn't allowed to post the true version (which would have protection values there?)...
  3. SH_MM
    No, only at the turret front. The volume is a limiting factor, if you want protection against large calibre KE rounds and tandem shaped charges. Just look at the Leclerc (armor thickness increased on later variants), T-84 (armor thickness increased compared to T-80UD) and Leopard 2A5/Evolution/ADT/MLU (all adopting external armor modules, because the frontal armor doesn't have enough volume).
  4. SH_MM
    Here are two quotes from Rickard's O. Lindström's article on the development of the Strv 2000, which might be relevant to the protection level of NATO tanks in the 1990s: The above statement is made regarding the development of the Soviet 125 mm APFSDS ammo: NATO tanks of the 1980s doesn't seem to be protected against the weapons/ammo used by Warsaw Pact tanks. This probably meant that the protection of the tanks tested in Sweden wasn't necessarily as high as usually estimated on the internet... Inspired by the M1A1 HA, the Swedes tested DU as possible armor material for the Strv 2000 tank project. It showed that the usage of DU increased protection, but only if the volume was the limiting factor. If the weight was the limit, other materials could reach similar (or higher) protection.
  5. SH_MM
    Is this the M829 APFSDS? (upper target is titanium, lower one steel).
  6. SH_MM
    Maybe, maybe not. There might be aswell an American XM711. Don't forget that the designation "M426" exists in the US inventory (105 mm HEAT-FS round) and the Israeli inventory (105 mm APFSDS-T round, also known as 105 mm DM63); it would be quite a coincidence, but there also might be an American XM711 round. Maybe the M711 was developed as a joint-venture with US companies or based on a contract of the US Army? ___ Enough of the "heavy" discussions, time to lighten up the mood. French armor protection (some of the other forum users with better French skills should try to fact-check my translation): AMX-32: frontal armor consists of spaced armor, the outer layer is a dual-hardness steel plate; spaced armor is also used on the turret sides designed to resist 57 mm AP (from the ASU-57) and 75 mm APCBC ammo (from the AMX-13/75) - penetration should be 100-170 at 1,000 m distance a lot better protected than the AMX-30, which was designed to stop 20 mm ammo only roof armor is designed to provide protection against bomblets with 30° impact angle (?) AMX-40: frontal arc is protected by composite armor, which is resistant to 76 mm AP ammo - only the PT-76 and M41 Walker Bulldog used this calibre - and the RPG-7 side armor of the turret is spaced and provides protection against 23 mm AP AMX E4 (modified AMX-40 design offered to Egypt, weight increased from 43.7 metric tons to 50 metric tons): completely redesigned (composite) armor, offers protection against 105 mm HEAT and APFSDS ammo at the frontal arc heavier versions (53 metric tons) of this design were supposed to have armor protection comparable the Leopard 2(A4) AMX Leclerc: unlike Chobham, the Leclerc's armor was always designed to provide higher efficiency against both KE and CE threats (early Chobham was optimized against hollow charge ammunition only) the Leclec has the same weight as the Leopard 2A4, but is 850 mm shorter (hull length). This allows the implementation of a higher protection level. However instead of focusing all armor on the frontal arc (like the Leopard 2), the weight was used to increase protection along a greater area: the heavy ballistic skirts are thicker and cover more surface, while the turret side (and bustle) armor is designed to protect against RPGs.
  7. SH_MM
    The articles are surely interesting to read, but they do not say that armour was not tested in the United States. The actual tanks did not have armor, but the documents also mention that Germany delivered a ballistic turret (steel shell with armor modules) and a ballistic hulll (steel shell with armor modules) to the United States for testing: The tanks also weren't x-rayed: But the statement regarding the XM1 being better protected than the Leopard 2AV also should be taken catiously. According to the document, the protection was not solely limited to an analysis of the armor, but also included stuff like ammo storage (where the Chrysler XM1 is better) and other factors: The only odd statement is the following: "The Leopard has 87 percent less special armor protection than the XM1". That would mean - if this was a statement regarding the quality of the armor - that the Leopard 2AV's protection would be worse than the Leopard 1's (!). 13 percent of 350 to 400 mm is less than 60 mm. Therefore we can say: this value does not relate to actual armor protection. Instead it seems to be related to armor coverage: The Leopard 2AV did not have special armor skirts (only the same skirts as the Leopard 1), it doesn't have composite armor at the turret bustle (only simple spaced solution also used on the Leopard 2) and it's hull armor had reduced special armor thickness (because it incorporated a fuel tank following a suggestion from the United States, that this would be an efficient armor layout). So IMO the XM1 was found to have much more surface covered by special armor: The document "Department Of Defense Consideration Of West Germany's Leopard As The Army's New Main Battle Tank" seems to support this suggestion and is a lot more balanced (it criticizes the fact that biased people like Gen. Robert Baer, the XM1's project manager, were part of the "judges" overseeing the tests). It states the following regarding the armor: "... special armor protects a larger area of the XM-1 than the present Leopard ..." - no surprise, it has heavy ballistic skirts, turret bustle armor and probably also more special armor in the hull. "... and that the XM-1 is currently capable of sustaining more types of hits without serious damage." - well, the Leopard 2AV would probably fail to stop a 81 mm HEAT round (Carl Gustav warhead) at the turret bustle... just like the Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5... Reason for the different protection levels provided by the armor are attributed to "Differences in how the two countries perceive the threat." - IMO this means, that Germany focused more on protection against KE threats (i.e. APFSDS ammo and artillery fragments) rather than shaped charges. This would fit the graphic posted earlier. "The protection offered by the present-generation German chobham armor is not [...] equal to that of the XM-1." - it was apparently also optimized to defeat other threats. Furthermore the hull armor (incorporating a fuel tank) was extremely inefficient! According to German documents, redesigning the hull with a single array of NERA (rather than two separate ones?) allowed to free 700 kilograms of weight without reducing the armor protection: Well, there are three facts to remember: 1. The Leopard 2A4's turret armor was tested with a physical thickness of 800-860 mm against the LKE1 APFSDS, so it simulated a direct hit from the front. The M1A2 armor scheme shows only the guaranteed protection along the frontal ± 30°. So the 600 mm RHAe value might be 650-700 mm RHAe when hit from the front (0° from the turret centerline). The 350 mm hull armor however should be corresponding to 0° impact angle, because the effective armor thickness increases at other angles. 2. The T-80U's turret in Sweden was claimed to provide protection equal to roughly 600 mm RHAe vs KE (without Kontakt-5 ERA) 3. Leopard 2A5 was considered to be better protected than the M1A2, Leclerc and T-80U in Sweden and in Greece.
  8. SH_MM
    The side armor at the turret bustle (the section providing 380 mm protection at 90° impact angle) is thicker than the armor at the crew compartment: So it seems the side armor has a thickness of about 300 mm at the crew compartment, while the thickness at the bustle is about 400 mm. The armor seems to have different composition depending on location: The bustle armor consists of many sloped NERA plates, while the NERA plates at the side armor of the crew compartment are flat (so they require an angle to achieve a higher level of protection):
  9. SH_MM
    Well, I didn't mean the armor of current tanks, but older variants. Some claim that the M1A1HA has 600-700 mm steel equivalent hull armor vs KE and 800 mm steel equivalent turret armor vs KE. I do believe a lot of modern tanks have similar protection levels - the German Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 tanks made use of Leopard 2A4 hulls, so the protection is probably about 300-450 mm vs APFSDS ammo. When fitted with applique armor (or newer inserts), the protection level should be higher. Swedish tests using the MEXAS-H armor (on the hull aparently a single heavy NERA sandwich with lots of slope) from IBD Deisenroth (locally made by Åkers Krutbruk under licence) showcased an increase in armor protection by 50 to 100% in case of the M1A1 hull. This armor is also fitted to the hulls of more modern Leopard 2 variants (incl. the Strv 122). The Leclerc was to be fitted with a wide array of MEXAS armor (turret front armor similar to the Leopard 2A5, side armor similar to the Leopard C2 from Canada). The Leclerc was some paper design utilizing the MEXAS armor, it probably was not very optimal. I guess the turret needs to be turned to the side, just like on some Leopard 2 variants.
  10. SH_MM
    This is identical to the diagram I posted earlier (with a lot less pixels) coming from a presentation on the Swedish tan trials. It seems that the protection level was censored in the Swedish presentation (because it is public access). I guess somebody dug this up out of the Swedish archives? But the file name suggest that it shows the M1A1 HA... That said, it seems to be legit. It would confirm my believes on the armor protection of modern tanks being hugely exaggerated and matches some of the earlier mentioned requirements stated in the British documents. PS: This is another photo from a Swedish presentation. Note how the background matches!
  11. SH_MM
    That's very interesting, but using a single value to represent armor protection is quite a bit lackluster. What exactly is one value meant to show (average protection, maximum protection, protection at the frontal arc, protection at the frontal surface only)? The British underestimated the armor protectiton of Soviet tanks by a lot. T-64 and T-72 should have some 350 mm RHA equivalent armor on the UFP and turret armor up to 450 mm. The T-72A, T-80(B) and later tanks would have even higher levels of protection. The Leopard 2's armor value is suprisingly low. It makes me wonder what the British military knew about the Leopard 2 in 1978. Previously there was quite a bit of cooperation (UK presenting Chobham to Germany in 1970, Germany and UK developing a tank in 1972-1976/77), but the latter all ended about the time the Leopard 2 was redesigned to accept special armor. The Leopard 2K has 38 mm high-hardness steel + 127 mm airgap + 84 mm RHA sloped at 25° at the turret front, which turns out to be 288.6 mm steel along the line of sight. So assuming a slightly higher efficiency than RHA (due to it being spaced armor with high-hardness steel), it already should reach protection equivalent to 300 mm steel armor against APFSDS ammo (at 0° impact angle). I'd be quite surprising if the Leopard 2 retained this level of KE protection (with a greater coverage) on the 2AV and later models... The Shir 2 has a power-to-weight ratio of 18 bhp/ton with the 1,200 hp CV12 engine, so it should weigh something between 63 to 65 metric tons... that's quite a bit of weight given the poor level of protection. The Shir 2 was used to create the Challenger 1 (!), which has a weight of only 62 metric tons. Unless the armor composition was changed, this would mean the Challenger 1 had the lowest KE protection per weight (although it is not exactly clear how the protection was defined) and be worse protected than the M1 and M1A1 Abrams. This graphic was published in a 1986 German book. The Leopard 2 is meant to resist (at the turret) a 125 mm APFSDS at 1,500 m range. That sort of makes 300 mm RHA impossible, unless this is a minimum or average value (though the latter would mean, that the hull would have less than 300 mm RHA equivalent protection, which also doesn't seem realistic...).
  12. SH_MM
    Might be true, Algeria is also testing the Boxer with Lance turret to replace the old BTRs.
  13. SH_MM
    Regarding the earlier discussion about the XM1 and the British MBT-80's armor protection, posted by Wiedzmin on Tank-Net: "Why the Brits didn't like the protection of the XM1 tank". Interesting is the protection of protecting the roof only against artillery fragments and the crew compartment against 81 mm HEAT warheads at 45° angle. I guess the latter might be a reference to the Carl Gustav recoiless rifle (which has 84 mm diameter, so 81 mm warhead diameter seems to be likely). The intervall for the range at which protection against APFSDS shall be provided might suggest, that this is either different for turret and hull (i.e. turret resistant against APFSDS fired from 800 m distance, hull resistant to APFSDS fired from 1,200 m distance) or depends on angle (impact angle 0° = armor resisting APFSDS fired from 800 m; impact angle 20-30° = armor resisting against APFSDS fired from 1,200 m). That leaves us with the following (is there any easy way to add tables?): Tank type T-72 Leopard 2K Leopard 2AV (X)M1 Abrams MBT-80 Weight 41 tonnes up to 47.5 tonnes 56.935 tonnes 52.6 tonnes (?) KE threat 105 mm "next-generation" AP(FS)DS from 500 m along ±30° from the centerline 14.5 mm - 20 mm AP allround (?) 105 mm APDS from 800 m along ±15° from the centerline (turret only), 90 mm AP(DS) from 1,500 m along ±15° from the centerline (hull), 20 mm AP from 100 m (upper portions of the hull sides) or from 500 m at 20° (lower portion) 14.5 mm AP from 100 m (engine comparment) 105 mm APFSDS with 38 mm core diameter (ammo for the smoothbore gun?) along ±30° from the centerline, 7.62 mm AP at 30 m (engine vents), 14.5 mm AP all-round (20 mm AP at crew compartment?) 115 mm APFSDS from 800 - 1,200 m range, 14.5 mm AP all-round (?) 125 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m range, 14.5 mm AP all-round CE threat 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) at ±30° from the centerline None MILAN warhead 127 mm HEAT warhead (TOW-1?) at ±25° from the centerline, 81 mm HEAT at 45° (crew compartment) (?) Artillery threat (?) 155 mm artillery fragments at 10 m 155 mm artillery fragments at 10-15 m, 155 mm artillery fragments at 25 m (vehicle rear), no protection required (cover above the tracks at the engine compartment) 95% protection against 155 mm splinters at 15 m (crew compartment), 57% protection elsewhere 155 mm splinters at 10 m
  14. SH_MM
    Here are some more photos of the Stryker with CROWS-J and the Dragoon in Germany: http://tank-masters.de/?p=6670
  15. SH_MM
    Doesn't really seem convincing. RUAG also provides parts for the Boxer's armor package (i.e. the anti-mine plating and the roof armor), so they are rather independent of BAE Systems. OTOH this is the first case known to me, where a Patria AMV will be fitted with RUAG's SidePro armor. Previously all AMVs armor seems to be provided by either Rheinmetall/IBD, Tencate and Rafael, depending on user country. Given that the E35 turret used on the CV9035 used armor from RUAG, while the Patria AMV for Sweden, Finland and other countries used armor from Åkers Krutbruk (100% daughter of IBD), they probably had to make a choice to ease logistics. Opting for armor made by the competitor doesn't make much sense.
  16. SH_MM
    Yes. The 90 kph top speed of the T-80 and the 63.8 metric tons combat weight of the M1A1 are also incorrect. IMO these are copy errors: 63.8 short tons is the combat weight of the M1A1, the author didn't convert it. He apparently also just took the maximum physical armor thickness without slope for the M60A3.
  17. SH_MM
    Jordan to retire the Challenger 1, but keep the M60. http://www.janes.com/article/78095/jordan-restructures-its-armoured-formations
  18. SH_MM
    This table is from the CIA report "Egypt and the M1A1 Tank: The Push for Coproduction". It doesn't seem to be very reliable data, but it is interesting to see how the situation on the tank market was judged during the 1980s. The Egyptian military wanted to produce the M1A1 Abrams tank, because the upgraded T-54 and T-55 tanks (called "Ramses") with 105 mm L7 gun and new FCS aswell as the M60A3 were believed to be inferior to the T-72 tank operated in Lybia (which seems to be correct regarding some of the general performance characteristics). The Egyptian military believed that Lybia might be interested in buying the T-80 tank in an unknown configuration. The improvements to Israeli tanks also fueled the desire to adpot a new tank. Aside of the M1A1, the Leopard 2, the AMX-40, the OF 40, the Type 74, the Yugoslavian M-84 and the Vickers Mark 7 were available on the market, however the low budget reduced the Egyptian options to the M1A1 Abrams, which was cheaper thanks to the US government partially funding the Egyptian military modernization. Still the US believed selling the M1A1 to Egypt wouldn't make much of a difference on the geopolitical scale: "Acquistion of the M1A1 probably would not dramatically enhance Egypt's military capabilities in the 1990s", something that is related to the CIA assessment suggesting that the T-72 and T-80 would be able to outgun the M1A1 (no further reasons stated why this would be the case...). The Egyptian military was not expected to be able to make much use of the M1A1 due to them already having maintenance and training problems with the M60A3, which was claimed to be a less complext tank than the M1A1. Due to the Egyptian military still making use of standard Soviet formations, they wouldn't be able to make fully use of the M60A3's capabilities. Apparently the Leopard 2 was somewhat considered by Egypt. The officials from the Ministry of Defence traveled multiple times to West-Germany, although it is highly questionable that Germany would have agreed to sell the tanks to a (former) opponent of Israel. There were plans between a Turkish and Egyptian cooperation to jointly buy the Leopard 2 tanks. CIA assumed that the Egyptian minister also would have suggested a joint production of the M1A1 tank to Turkey. Previously he made public statements of a cooperation between both countries allowing a reduction in the M1A1 price by as much as 40%. The CIA assessment suggests that politics were heavily involved. Egypt wanted to buy the M1A1 tanks, because this would appeal their national pride; they would be on the same level as Israel in terms of their cooperation with the United States. Also the Egyptian minister supposedly assumed that chosing the M1A1 Abrams over other MBTs was a favor to the US government. Canceling the deal was not deemed to be possible in 1987 for the US, as this would damage the USA-Egypt relations and Mubarak might have blocked the Suez canal from being used by US Navy vessels.
  19. SH_MM
    These tanks seem to use a different/larger ATGM system than the Ch'ŏnma-ho tanks.
  20. SH_MM
    edit: nvm, was a fake
  21. SH_MM
    Most likely there was just dirt stuck in the barrel...
  22. SH_MM
    Turkish twitter guy says the barrel burst apart due to operating in too hot environments... but I don't believe that unless they sawed off the rest of the barrel.
  23. SH_MM
    AFAIK Qatar didn't buy any second hand gear. ___ PS: The Slovenian "medium battlegroups" will have the following composition according to the Slovenian website Obramba.com: - three companies of 13 Boxers with 30 mm gun (apparently in the Rheinmetall Lance Modular Turret system, at least photographs of a Boxer with Lance have been used by Slovenian websites) - one heavy company of 8 Boxers with 120 mm mortar - a single scout platoon of four Boxers with 30 mm guns. The already purchased Patria AMVs will apparently be used for other support roles. 24 of the Boxers with 30 mm gun will be fitted with the Spike ATGM. That would put each battlegroup at 51 vehicles each. However Obramba.com claims that the first batch to be ordered by Slovenia is 56 vehicles large, so maybe that includes driver training vehicles. Locally the Boxer will be known as BKV 8x8. Meanwhile representatives from the Czech defense news services were invited to KMW's Munich facility to be briefed on the advantages of the Puma (typical marketing event). There are some generic informations regarding the Puma: its protection level is exceeding the current STANAG 4569 level 6 standard against ballistic threats and the STANAG 4569 level 4a/b against mines. The mine protection is formed by (at least) two sandwich-plates, with a space of more than 100 mm between them. the unmanned turret includes blow-out panels in its roof armor or the armor would act like a blow-out panel. This also seems to be the case with the hull ammo, but maybe Google Translate twisted the words a bit... the elements of the decoupled running-gear supposedly can be swapped out after damage to reduce repair times, making it easier to get the vehicle combat ready after being struck by a mine or an IED Germany considered the ASCOD, the CV90, the M2 Bradley and the Warrior before opting to develop the Puma the ERA by Dynamit Nobel Defence was apparently added, because it offered increased protection over the previous armor layout Czech newspapers claimed that the Puma had a really high fuel consumption, but KMW denies these claims. The range of 550 km on road and 250 km cross-country has been confirmed by the German Army's testing. The Czech sources would exaggerate the values, but the Puma should have slightly higher fuel consumption than the other vehicles, because it was both heavier and faster during the tests. MTU has created a 1,000 kW variant of the MT 892 V10 engine, which does not increase fuel consumption (by a major amount) the Puma's ATGM launcher is dampened, so that the vehicle can drive more than 1,000 km without the vibrations damaging the missiles. This was proven with special tests the United States Army agreed to consider foreign vehicles in the NGCV program (M2 Bradley replacement). KMW seems to be interested in offering the Puma series production in Germany is currently outputting between 66 and 71 vehicles per year people can train repair and maintenance works with VR/AR googles a demonstrator for the first Puma upgrade (including color displays, a 360° day and night surveillance system and maybe also the TWSA) already exists, but during the visit of the Czech writers it was being tested by the German military additional Puma variants (required by the Czech military) could be locally developed in the Czech Republic
  24. SH_MM
    So it seems that this number was incorrect or that the first contract will be about half the amount of Boxers only. According to Jane's IHS, overall two battlegroups of the Slovenian army will be equipped with Boxers. Each battlegroup will have 48 vehicles with a 30 mm autocannon in an unspecified turret. The DTR Magazine claims that the overall number of vehicles too be purchased by Slovenia will be about 100, which might include driver traning vehicles.
  25. SH_MM
    Gun shield armor module of an Abrams.
×
×
  • Create New...