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
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. SH_MM
    SAIC and ST Kinetics' offer for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program:
  7. 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.
  8. SH_MM
    Slovenia will aparently buy the Boxer: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/slovenia-selects-boxer-meet-8x8-requirement/
  9. 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:
  10. 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:
  11. 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.
  12. SH_MM
  13. SH_MM
    VJTF = NATO's Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
  14. 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).
  15. 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:
  16. 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).
  17. 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.
  18. SH_MM
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. SH_MM
    The whole "close-proximity APS are saver" discussion (and marketing) has been done since at least ten years, there are tests (and probably also studies) confirming this. How much the increased safety is valued by each potential user nation is different. In Germany, modern conventional ERA was invented (indepent from Soviet research), yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). Many other countries didn't care about it, German companies developed the CLARA (HL-Schutz) ERA. Yet CLARA was chosen for a €124 million contract by the UAE army, not one of the cheaper, more dangerous options... As far as the APS market is concerned, I think you assessement is incorrect. The Netherlands are buying Iron Fist for tests first, a follow up order to equip more CV90s will come only if these tests are successful. Australia might buy Trophy or any other APS. They have not decided yet and are also considering the ADS - don't forget that the ADS is mounted on one of the Boxer CRVs! Aside of an unnamed SEA country, Turkey is actively trying to buy the ADS (despite also developing their local APS called Akkor). The deal has been delayed by the German government, but it soon might be finalized (see my mention of the news report by the Spiegel magazine earlier). Germany is testing the ADS as possible option for the Boxer and Leopard 2. Furthermore three European countries (France, the UK and Sweden) have funded trials of the ADS in the past; none of these have yet decided to buy an APS - but if they do, would they buy a system already tested by their own military or buy something else? Who knows. Last but not least: The United States are interested in buying the ADS for tests. On the long run, the US Army will adopt its own APS, the modular active protection system (MAPS), which might incorporate technology from other systems. The current APS trials in the United States need to be put into the context of the MAPS, they are only used to tests the capabilities of current active protection systems and find out how the MAPS should look like. Only Trophy (as urgent material requirement) will be adopted on actual combat vehicles, while the Iron Fist APS and the Iron Curtain APS will be used for tests. As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017: "The system has been tested successfully against a range of weapons, including the Russian Kornet and RPG-7 families, the US TOW 2B, and the Swedish BILL 1 and AT4 Confined Space (CS). Capable of firing even if the associated ROSY_L smoke dispensing system has been deployed, the ADS uses an infrared bandwidth that is lower than the multispectral smoke can obscure. The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs. The Active Defence System has already been sold to Malaysia (I assume they mean Singapore...) for use on its upgraded Leopard 2SG MBTs. ADS even claims it is more effective than rival hard-kill systems such as the Israeli Trophy because it is more effective at preventing detonation of the threat projectile’s warhead." (Please note that the current NATO standard STANAG 4686 for (active) protection systems demands only an 80% probability to reduce armor pentration by 50%)
  22. SH_MM
    Belarussian army training to target weakspots of Abrams, Bradley and Stryker... https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/678197.html
  23. SH_MM
    Since March 2017 Turkey is interested in upgrading its Leopard 2A4 tanks with technology from Rheinmetall. Given the political tensions between Germany and Turkey (and other reasons), this deal has been blocked by the German government. Now as reported by the "Spiegel", the government might approve the deal. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesregierung-will-aufruestung-von-tuerkischen-leopard-panzern-genehmigen-a-1188730.html What exactly is part of the deal has not been disclosed. Earlier news reports simply mention "protection systems". The Spiegel mentions "thicker belly plates to protect against mines and IEDs" aswell as "additional sensor systems to protect against anti-tank weapons". The "Welt" reported in March 2017, that the Turkish military wanted to buy the ADS active protection system. The whole deal is not approved yet and it is very controversial. Just two days ago, it was reported that Erdogan wanted to set free a German journalists (a number of German journalists with Turkish heritage have been arrested in Turkey, because Erdogan is no fan of free speech) if Germany approved more arms sales to Turkey.
  24. SH_MM
    The website of the Iranian military industrial complex has an interesting selection of some odd ammo... 105 mm APFSDS with 460 mm penetration against a steel target. No range data, no velocity. But look at the shape of the sabot... that's just odd. 106 mm recoilless rifle ammo My personal favorite: a 122 mm HEAT shell for howitzers. Seems to be a copy of the 125 mm HEAT shell adopted for the smaller calibre. 220 mm at 60° penetration. Old Soviet 125 mm ammo. Note that the penetration for the 105 mm APFSDS would exceed that of the BM-42 Mango based on their way of writing just a number without range data...
  25. SH_MM
    I have been searching for informations regarding current Chinese APFSDS ammo for a discussion in another forum... seems interesting. The older APFSDS design had a windshield and a copy of the M829A2's "stepped tip" to maximize penetrator length. According to the original poster, the left APFSDS shown in this image has a WHA penetrator, the other one has a DU one and is therefore shorter (due to keeping a desired velocity I assume). The Type II M APFSDS has a penetration of 220 mm at 66.4° at 2,000 metres or roughly 550 mm along the line-of-sight. It has a muzzle velocity of 1,700 m/s and is overall a bit lighter than the DTW-125. The PTZ98 II round for the 120 mm smoothbore gun has similar armor penetration, but a lower muzzle velocity of only 1,660 m/s... so it either has better flight characteristics or a longer penetrator (overall length of projectile is 655 mm, so penetrator length most likely is less than 600 mm). The 105 mm DTW2 APFSDS penetrates 150 mm at 71° at 2,000 m, which is roughly 460 mm along the line of sight. 125 mm BTJ1 HEAT penetrates 180 mm steel at 68° or roughly 480 mm unsloped steel, so performance seems somewhat poor. 125 mm Type IIM or 125 mm DTW-125 APFSDS in front, at the left side is an old 105 mm APFSDS not being sold anymore Old 105 mm APFSDS has a penetration of 460 mm (220 mm at 61.4°) and a muzzle velocity of 1,530 m/s. The 105 mm BTA2 APFSDS seems to be nearly identical to the DTW2, but has a much higher penetration 220 mm at 66.42° at 2,000 m. That's about 550 mm along the line of sight! Muzzle velocity is slightly better than on the DTW2 and old APFSDS (1,540 m/s instead of 1,530 m/s). The projectile is much longer (703 mm vs 636 mm), but the weight has slightly decreased from 6 kg to 5.9 kg for the projectile. Do the Chinese utilize composite sabots? 125 mm DTW-125 APFSDS on the top, unknown two other rounds. Note that the 120 mm APFSDS seems to be a lot more beefy (longer road) than the previous PTZ89 II. The 105 mm APFSDS also has a "DTW" name, so it is probably the DTW2 above. These two photos confirm that the upper APFSDS is indeed the DTW-125 The APFSDS round is called DTW-125 and supposedly capable of penetrating 220 mm steel at 68.5° slope and 2,000 m distance, which is roughly equal to 600 mm along the line of sight. The muzzle velocity is 1,740 m/s and the overall weight of the complete round (both parts) is 21.36 kilograms. Dispersion at 1,000 m is 0.25 x 0.25 m on average. Some claim that the DTW-125 and DTW10-125 APFSDS rounds can only be fired from the Type 99(A) tanks. For the VT-4 the Chinese manufacturer NORINCO is offering the BTA4 APFSDS. I wonder if this is equivalent to the Type II M or the DTW-125... The size comparison between BTA4 and BTJ1 HEAT suggests that the BTA4 APFSDS is identical in length to the Type II M. I personally would asusme that Type II M and DTW-125 were identical (seem to be similar sized), if it wasn't for the differences in armor penetration and velocity. So that points to a stronger powder charge or a composite sabot. The latest round is the DTW10-125, which has a slightly longer penetrator than the previous DTW-125. Supposedly it has no ballistic cap, but the penetrator extends into the tip. I remember reading similar patents from the 1980s or 1990s suggesting this layout, doesn't seem to be cutting edge. No performance data, but claimed to be 650-700 mm.
×
×
  • Create New...