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

    1,635

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    156

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. SH_MM
    Most likely there was just dirt stuck in the barrel...
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. SH_MM
    Gun shield armor module of an Abrams.
  6. SH_MM
    The British document is from 1988, so it might contain information on another variant than tested in the UK. But as you said, it appears that they tested the Leopard 2A4 with first-generation armor package. The upper section of the heavy side skirts found on late-productiton Leopard 2A4 tanks was never removed; if you look closer at the tank, you should notice that the complete side skirts are changed. This tank features completely improved side skirts (rear sections made of a high-hardness steel plates rather than rubber-encased perforated plates, lower section of the frontal skirts is thicker and seamless, upper section was added). You won't find a Leopard 2A4 with such skirt armor anymore, because all hulls were used for the Leopard 2A5. The German Leopard 2A5 tanks were all created by converting Leopard 2A4 tanks. The hulls were taken from the latest batches, because these had the lowest wear (so engine, running gear etc. could be kept), while not much other work had to be done on the hull (maybe swapping out the armor inserts). The original plans from the German army saw a major hull upgrade happening in the third stage of the upgrade (KWS) program (originally schedule for 2008), when the 140 mm gun in a new turret would be added. Then the hull would need to be reworked (due to the 140 mm calibre being incompatible with the existing ammo rack), the hull armor of the Leopard 2A5 prototypes (also used on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopardo 2E and Leopard 2A6HEL) would be added and the torsion-bars would probably be replaced (to deal with the increased weight). The turrets were taken from the very early batches Leopard 2 tanks, because pretty much everything needed to be changed. The turrets from the late batch Leopard 2A4s were then mounted on the hulls of the early batch Leopard 2s creating so called "hybrid Leopard 2" tanks.
  7. SH_MM
    With the exception of the Turkish Leopard 2A4, nobody uses the older models in combat. The Danish Army used the Leopard 2A5DK in Afghanistan, but as an upgraded variant called Leopard 2A5DK INTOPS. This had a mine protection kit (AMAP-M from IBD), Barracuda MCS, air conditioning, etc. The weight of this variant is 66,700 kg. Germany has the Leopard 2A7, combat weight is 63.9 metric tons without applique armor, for which the tank has been prepared. The Swedish Army has the Strv 122B for use outside Sweden, which features the same mine protection kit as the Leopard 2A6M. Combat weight is about 65 metric tons. Canada deployed the Leopard 2A6M CAN with slat armour, the Barracuda MCS and additional applique armor on the glacis, so the weight should be about 64-65 metric tons (i.e. the slat armor for the Stryker ICV weighs 5,200 pounds, i.e. 2.35 metric tons). Only the Leopard 2A4M CAN, which is specifically optimized for the counter insurgency and urban combat operation rather than high intensity warfare, was deploey in combat while weighing less than 62.5 metric tons. Granted, the TUSK makes the M1A2 SEP v2 heavier than the basic Leopard 2A7, but the Leopard 2A7 prototype with add-on armor weighed up to 70 metric tons (depending on prototype and armor package). The 67.5 metrci tons figure for the Leopard 2A7+ is the result of KMW suggesting two variants (Leopard 2A7+ UrbOps with all-round protection and Leopard 2A7+ DuelOps for tank-vs-tank warfare) with specialized armor kits, rather than one version for both tasks. The Leopard 2A7Q (based on the Leopard 2A7+ DuelOps) should weigh some 65-66 metric tons without add-on armor at the sides. As for the Spanish and Greek tanks, I suspect them to be slightly heavier than 63 metric tons, but there is no more detailed figure available. The main point still stands. Saying "I would rather sit in an heavier Abrams tanks than in a Leopard 2" implies that the Abrams is always heavier (armored). In reality the Abrams is only a few tonnes heavier, if you compare it to a much older/outdated variant. In such a case, I guess everybody would want to sit in the tank with a newer armor package. Likewise I would rather sit in a lighter T-90MS than in a Leopard 2A4 with 1979's armor package. I also would rather sit in a Leopard 2 Evolution (60 metric tons) than in a M1A1 HA, because I consider a modern armor package from 2010 a lot better than an armor package from 1988. As for your data: The combat weight of the M1A1 with T156 tracks is 123,000 lbs (55.79 metric tons) according to R. P. Hunnicutt. Only a M1A1 with T158 tracks (which add 2,800 lbs, i.e. 1,270 kg) is more than a metric ton heavier than a contemporary Leopard 2A3/Leopard 2A4. The T156 tracks are a bit lighter than the Diehl 570 tracks of the Leopard 2, while the T158 tracks are a bit heavier, which makes comparing the weight of both tanks a bit more complicated.
  8. SH_MM
    In Australia Patria and BAE Systems have to cooperate, because Patria doesn't make turrets, while BAE Systems doesn't make wheeled vehicles. The UK doesn't want a turret for the MIV, so there is no need for BAE and Patria to team up. What is more interesting is the fact, that BAE competes against Rheinmetall for the Challenger 2 LEP, but cooperates in case of the MIV.
  9. SH_MM
    Apparently the Slovenian MoD has stated on its website, that initially enough Boxers will be purchased for just one battalion. According to earlier reports that would be about 50 vehicles.
  10. SH_MM
    With BAE Systems as a partner, their chances have increased. Still General Dynamics is lobbying big time for the Piranha 5, which would be made in Wales. They even managed to persuade Welsh MPs to talk about the advantages of the Piranha 5 (aka full production in Wales) in parliament.
  11. SH_MM
    SAIC and ST Kinetics' offer for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program:
  12. SH_MM
    You gotta find a Abrams variant a couple of tonnes heavier than a Leopard 2 first... current top-models of the Leopard 2 are heavier.
  13. SH_MM
    Slovenia will aparently buy the Boxer: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/slovenia-selects-boxer-meet-8x8-requirement/
  14. SH_MM
    It is a Leopard 2, which IMO is facing to the right side of the frame. The ATGM seems to have impacted behind the heavy armor skirts, pretty much in the center of the tank. Most likely behind the fourth roadwheel, maybe a bit to the right or left side. Maybe it looked like this:
  15. SH_MM
    This is an extract from a British document from 1988. Apparently the British military believed that the "uparmoured Chieftain" has better frontal protection than a Leopard 2, while the Challenger 2 has inferior protection against KE than an uparmoured variant of the Abrams announced "recently" by 1988 standards. IMO the latter refers to the DU armor upgrade of the M1A1 HA. Interesstingly this is said to provide better protection only over a narrow frontal arc... does this mean that the Abrams' armor array does not provide full protection of the 60° frontal arc? At least other images also imply the that... The graphic above is from a Swedish document and might have been taken from an official M1 sales/info brochure, as Sweden tested the Abrams. Based on this, the "turret front" arc for the M1A2 covers the crew compartment only at angles of about 17-21° to each side of the centerline. As for the Leopard 2 and the Chieftain: Honestly I am quite confused. In 1988 the second generation armor package for the Leopard 2 was adopted (based on German marketing documents send to Sweden) - if that is true, the British assessment might still be based on an earlier Leopard 2 model with the original first generation armor package from 1979. That this would provide lower protection than the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and M1A1 HA Abrams is quite easy to believe (weight 55.15 tons vs 61-62.5 tons). Apparently the document does not disclose what tank variant exactly is meant with the uparmored Chieftain and how armor protection was rated (disclosed figures, estimates, weighting for KE/CE protection, etc). I don't believe that they meant the Chieftain with Stillbrew armor, based on the fact that its protection against shaped charges seems to be extremly weak (no composite armor on the hull, except for a bit Stillbrew armor at the turret ring) and at best should have comparable protection at the turret (weight of both tanks is very similar, but the Chieftain's turret is made from inferior cast steel, that offers less protection per weight). Maybe the British military was still toying with the idea of upgrading Chieftain tanks? In the end they had concrete plans for upgunning the Chieftain with the L30 tank gun and adopting the Challenger 2's FCS, which were only canceled after the end of the Soviet Union. So it seems possible that the uparmored Chieftain statement is refering to a hypothetical armor upgrade that was not adopted in service. Maybe something similar to the original Chobham armor upgrade concept form the 1970s, the Chieftain Mark 5/2 or the Chieftain 900:
  16. SH_MM
    Brits on Milan and HOT... I really don't understand these values. Milan is listed with a 96 mm warhead, but the missile diameter was 103 mm... so it must be quite inefficient compared to newer ATGMs. The "Milan B" is listed witha 120 mm warhead diameter, yet in reality Milan 2 has a 115 mm diameter and a penetration of more than 700-800 mm. I guess that a case of reality vs laboratory values, so the advertised performance needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
  17. SH_MM
  18. SH_MM
    VJTF = NATO's Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
  19. SH_MM
    Yes, the Leopard 2 upgrade seems to be canceled (inofficially. Officially it is only delayed until a decision will be made by the new government. As the Spiegel reported today, the upgrade of about 120 M60 tanks with German protection technology was already pre-approved by the German Federal Security Council (responsible for approving/denying arms exports) in Oktober 2017. The M60 tanks are meant to receive armor modules including belly plates to protect against mines and IEDs. Such a pre-approval usually means that the full deal will be approved shortly after. This means the deal might have been approved already (current status unknown given that the decisions of the Federal Security Council remain secret). Fragments from the metal flyer plates. Three metres is the distance between the ERA and the reference plates, you don't know how much further the metal fragements retain dangerous velocity. These test were done with ERA specifically designed with reduced collateral damage, not the more dangerous first-gen types such as Kontakt-1/Kontakt-5, Brenus and Blazer. Well yes, but how dangerous exactly is depending on what you look at. A Merkava 4 should have all-round protection against the basic PG-7V/PG-7M rounds fired by the the RPG-7, so in this case the APS adds additional danger to people (if the RPG-7 round hits the armor, there are a few fragments; if the RPG-7 round gets engaged by the APS, there are more fragments).
  20. SH_MM
    Yes, I believe that this would be the side armor arrangement. You can see an early Ajax vehicle with storage boxes not covered by applique armor in the third video embedded in an article from Forces.tv. Here is the side armor without storage boxes/additional armor layers:
  21. SH_MM
    According to British tabloids/newspapers, the upper side boxes serve for storage of ammunition. The lower boxes (not always fitted) also appear to serve for storage tasks (at least in some places). Naked Scout-SV Ajax/Ares? (Note the arrangement of the headlights - that is not a standard ASCOD 2 hull). Note two things: the frontal hull armor is too thin to stop RPGs; on the right side is an Ares without modular armor at the sides and LFP: the armor modules appear to be usually mounted ontop of the storage boxes. The ASCOD 2 tested in the Czech Republic also had all ammunition stored externally (outside the crew compartment) according to General Dynamics... and it looked like this: My guess is that the thick boxes mounted at the hull side are mostly storage boxes, which however needs to be armored (otherwise a bullet from a machine gun can set the most of the main gun ammo on fire).
  22. SH_MM
    I'm still not sure what to think about the Ajax platform. But I guess they now officially confirmed (for the second time), that the "side armor" modules are in fact storage boxes; otherwise there wouldn't be a need to adopt the net-based Tarian's RPG armour at the sides.
  23. SH_MM
  24. SH_MM
    No, it is not fake. This is the collateral damage caused by ERA with metal flyer plates, that has specificially been designed with reduced collateral damage: I.e. in this case (SidePRO-CE ERA) all metal fragments are kept within a 10-15° horizontal arc. Normally the metal fragments would spread along a 90-120° arc. In the vertical plane they still spread along a 90° arc. After traveling approximateely three metres, the fragments still can punch through the reference plate (aluminium armor). On older ERA types like Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, ERAWA, Brenus and Blazer, the metal fragments will spread in a 90-120° cone and cover a distance of multiple meters, so that operating vehicles fitted with such armor in urban environments and alongside infantry is dangerous - in the opinion of the German military, too dangers. More modern types of ERA such as BRAT/SRAT, SidePRO-CE, Breakwater and Iron Wall, the ERA casette is covered by a thin rubber or kevlar too reduce the amount of fragments. Not adopting ERA before the Puma. ERA got patented in 1969 by Dr. Held, yet it took until 2015 to become adopted by the military. The company behind ADS (i.e. the joint-venture between IBD and Rheinmetall) has already been working with the French industry and government. I.e. the ADS is currently the most French APS, because it uses sensor components from the French manufacturer Thales (or at least the French version uses Thales' sensors). It was/is known as SHARK (systéme hardkill) and received funding from the French government. Prototype from 2008 Not all temporary solutions become long-term ones in the US military; a lot of them end after a short time. They just don't stay in the minds of the people after they were replaced. The MAPS is designed to accept a larger amount of different countermeasures and sensor units, so they have to design it to work with box-based/distributed and launcher-based systems. I think it is pretty safe to assume that on the long run the US won't have three different types of APS. Well, a successful interception rate of 80% (at different weather conditions and including top-attack ATGMs) is pretty much as good as it gets. If you talk to people who are involved in arms procurment processes and/or read between the lines, a lot of other systems supposedly fail to meet this STANAG requirements. In 2011 when the US military tested the AMAP-ADS (as it was known back then), it claimed to reach an overall interception rate of 95%, according to the manufacturer the best overall result in the tests - other systems were claimed to have a "clear (performance) gap". In general hypothetical performance vs actual performance is quite different in some cases. Every modern IFV claims to have a first round hit probability of 80-90% at medium ranges, yet in the Czech Republic (with shorter than average range), all IFVs except the Puma missed half the shots. Also note how high the failure rate of anti-ballistic missile systems is compared to how they are advertised... The leftover armor penetration applies only to intercepted rounds. Many types of APS (i.e. systems like Trophy and Arena) damaged the shaped charge warhead without completely destroying it, so there will still be a (small) amount of residual penetration.
  25. SH_MM
    According to a Chinese article, the frontal armor of the VT-4 provides protection equal to more than 500 mm steel vs KE without ERA. With ERA it is boosted to more than 700 mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE. Supposedly Chinese tanks are much better protected, but more than 700 mm vs KE is "enough for the third world". http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2014_12_05_302564_s.shtml
×
×
  • Create New...