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
    No, this photograph shows the EGS and not the TTK. The EGS predates the NGP project. It is a testbed, not a prototype; the whole purpose of the EGS was to test if it is possible to create a tank with modular armor package, two men crew in the hull and mobility equal or better than the Leopard 2(A4). The conception of the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project (from 1989!) already saw the use of a two men crew located in the hull. Just because the NGP had a two men crew, not all prototypes with a two men crew are related to it. The US Army also had tank prototypes with only two men crew, which are not related to the NGP. US tank design from 1993 with two men crew and unmanned turret. Have you noticed that the EGS has no turret and no gun? It doesn't have proper optics and no FCS sensors. It is not a prototype. No prototype of the NGP was ever build, because the concept phase was never finished. Four industry groups (Krauss-Maffei, Wegmann & Co., MaK Systemgesellschaft and a joint-venture of Henschel Wehrtechnik and KuKa Augsburg) were bidding, but none was chosen and no prototype was funded. The Technologieträger Kette (TTK) was a testbed for the crew compartment conception (much like the VT2000), but not designed with armor. It had a front-mounted engine (unlike the EGS), a weight of much less than 30 tons (probably less than twenty - it had only four roadwheels per side). There is no photograph of the TTK, but a drawing showing the vehicle. You can read all of that, and a lot more about the NGP and EGS in the book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien" by Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Hilmes, who worked at the German military procurment agency (BWB - Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung, now integrated into the BAAINBW) as "Referent für Panzertechnologie" and "wissenschaftlicher Direktor". Pages 87-92 contain a sub-chaper on the NGP, while the EGS is mentioned on the pages 180-182.
  2. SH_MM
    Your information is incorrect. The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP. The EGS' development started in 1989, the first prototype was finished in 1993. In 1995/1996 the vehicle was trialed. Unlike your claims, the EGS used large roadwheels with an increased diameter of 810 mm! Weight ranged from 48 to 62 metric tons (depending on armor package), the hull length is 8.67 metres and the height is 2.71 metres. The width is 3.98 metres overall (3.5 metres width to the tracks). No NGP prototype was ever build. You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations. The NGP was designed with modular armor and depending on variant a minimum weight of 51 to 55 tons. With full modular armor package mounted, the weight of the vehicle was to be 71 to 77 tons depeding on varaint. As no prototype was ever finished, exact statements to the details of the armor, armament and sensor suite are not possible. However Germany investigated to use either a 140 mm smoothbore gun or an ETC gun for the tank variant, while the IFV version was to be armed with a 50 mm gun and most likely ATGMs. The turrets were unmanned. A research project for multiple active protection systems was funded. The crew should be supported by multiple cameras and software functions like automated tracking. As engine conventional HPD (high power density) diesels and a diesel electrical drive system were considered. Armor protection included increased roof armor vs bomblets, improved mine protection and modular armor for the sides of the vehicle. The NGP project was never canceled, but it was cut back to just one version - the IFV variant, because the Marder required replacement more urgently than the Leopard 2. The program was renamed from NGP (new armored platform) to NeSPz (new infantry fighting vehicle) and then became after numerous changes in layout and requirements (and the project names Panther and Igel) the current Puma IFV. The idea was to later utilize new technology developed for the Puma (such as the newer HPD engines, the modular armor system, unmanned turret, decoupled running gear, MUSS APS, etc.) for a tank variant.
  3. SH_MM
    On the earlier tanks, yes. But on the T-80UD and late T-72B/T-90 hull and turret armor follow the same technology, the shape of the inserts was just adapated to the shape of the hull. Some sources suggest so, other sources however disagree. There are at least five M1 Abrams tanks with DU armor in the hulls located in the US Army schools - but it seems possible that DU armored hulls were not adopted in US Army service (yet). From a document of the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command Safety Office to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  4. SH_MM
    We haven't seen the armor layout of the turret cheeks, but we have seen the armor layout at 4 different places. The two places where the armor is integrated (hull front and turret bustle side), there is such a mounting bracket. On the two other places, the armor is fitted into modules can easily be detached. I find it hard to assume that the frontal turret armor suddenly follows a completely different layout - in general it should provide (on the oriignal production model) the same level of protection as the turret along the frontal 60° arc. The fact that the hull armor stayed at the same size, while the turret armor thickness increased is related to how armor upgrades distributed more mass to the turret; that still doesn't mean that the function of the mounting bracket was to provide volume for future armor arrays.
  5. SH_MM
    I guess it could be related to the way the NERA array is mounted, allowing easier replacement (repair) of damaged armor modules. I have been wondering (based on the following photograph) if the Abrams' side armor modules are inserted from the side, rather than cutting of the roof as done on the Leopard 2. This might make sense due to the M1's sight systems and hatches overlapping over the weldline of the armor cavity roof. (M1 Abrams turret structures during a upgrade process - note how the side armor of the crew compartment was cut open at the sides) British Burlington armor designs don't feature a mounting bracket or a large empty space betweem the NERA layers and the base armor. Well, there is a slightly larger air gap in front of the base armor, but it's only ~ 2-3 times as large as the spacing between each NERA layer. The air gap in front of the base armor of the US design is 5-6 times as large as the air gaps between the sandwich plates. I haven't seen any photo of a damaged M1 Abrams with such mounting bracket, do you happen to know a link to one? I don't think your theory is correct, based on the M1IP and M1A1 requiring new turrets with thicker frontal armor.
  6. SH_MM
    It's worth noting that on the T-80U tested in Sweden, the two rows of polymer-filled cells in the turret armor had different thickness. The outer steel plate with the "pocket holes" for the polymer was 100 mm thick, the inner steel plate with pocket holes was only 60 mm thick. PS: Those schemes are from Sweden, not South-Korea.
  7. SH_MM
    I am more suprised about how much space is occupied by the mounting brackets for the NERA. There are a number of possible armor layouts that don't need such brackets.
  8. SH_MM
    I wonder if the offset first warhead might not help when hitting the edge between two ERA tiles: it might only defeat an ERA tiles that is not in the path of the main warhead...
  9. SH_MM
    Not all documents available on the CIA website are actually written by the CIA.
  10. SH_MM
    What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online? But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976. I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window. ___ I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP). I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6: (that's what seems to be the most likely assumption) Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August. So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case. Now let's take a look at the Leopard 2A7V demonstrator from Eurosatory 2016. In general the hull armor seems to have the same thickness as on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL, Leopard 2DK and Leopardo 2E (however the armor composition was most likely altered, the position and size of the bolts is different): The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!
  11. SH_MM
    I wonder what the exact reason for this is? Weight saving?
  12. SH_MM
    That is interesting information. However I am not so sure about the claimed protection levels and armor thickness. How does a 20 mm thick "BDD-type NERA" look? The Soviet BDD armor is not exactly the common type of NERA and requires lots of thickness. The coverplate of the BDD turret armor is between 60 mm and 80 mm thick, the "NERA" consists of four to five 5 mm steel plates with 20 mm polyurethane layers inbetween. Also is the applique armor only covering this little area of the tank? Is there any more information on the TR-125's armor? It seems to be thinner than the armor of the T-72M1 and T-72B, so I am wondering how the estimations for armor protection should be higher. Sure it's heavier, but it also has a longer hull and uses heavier side skirts...
  13. SH_MM
    Well, that doesn't look good... Photos via SyrianMilitaryCap from Twitter. I am still not sure, that these tanks weren't destroyed after being abandoned by the crew. Specifically the last photos are very odd; the hull ammunition apparently didn't detonate (otherwise hull UFP armor would be blown off), but the turret is detached from the hull without any major sign of damage.
  14. SH_MM
    " "JagdChieftain", a prototype from the Anglo-German FMBT project.
  15. SH_MM
    Also nice is a story from CIA is how the Soviet Union supposedly acquired a Leopard 1 engine by ordering a yacht in West-Germany, which secretly was said engine. Interestingly the CIA document is a scan of the New Yorks Time article "A Defector Warns: What Fools".
  16. SH_MM
    Yes, that is a Leopard C2 with MEXAS. You can see the spaced (NERA) plate ontop of the glacis and the mounting bolts for the side armor module. Also the turret armor is visible.
  17. SH_MM
    Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately I was/am having a bit of time shortage, so I didn't proof read well enough. I will try to fix the error and incorporate your new information into the post when updating.
  18. SH_MM
    Going back to the RUAG Leopard 2 MLU: RUAG's armor protection is based on German technology. To be more exakt, RUAG bought 51% of the stocks of the company GEKE Schutztechnik GmbH in 2009. GEKE/RUAG's armor is supposedly used on the Boxer (roof armor), Puma (roof armor, mine protection) and Leopard 2 (mine protection of 2A6M, supposedly also unknown armor for the Leopard 2A7+). GEKE's armor technology includes ERA and NERA:
  19. SH_MM
    It's a T-72. Six roadwheels, thermal sleeve at the gun and the typical slots at the lower turret.
  20. SH_MM
    WithinSyria.blogspot.com has some more photos from the North Korean FCS: It includes a new computer system with it's own control panels, a barometer, a hygrometer, and a thermometer. Range is supposedly up to 4 km. It is fully automatic aside of the optional wind setting, the gunner can switch between first and second laser echo. The FCS was designed in Syria, but the technology was delivered by North Korea.
  21. SH_MM
    There also is AMAP-P, but it might have been discontinued or the development was never finished. At least later AMAP brochures from IBD and Rheinmetall Chempro's website don't list AMAP-P anymore: Quoted weight is lower than slat armor and comparable to net armor, it defeats RPGs by "disabling the warhead of a RPG by destroying or short-circuiting the ignition circuit."
  22. SH_MM
    I don't know what footage you have seen exactly, but the one of captured equipment in snow I have seen showed only one tank. ISIS supposedly captured three tanks, so seeing one in snow doesn't mean that none of the others was destroyed by a Turkish F-16.
  23. SH_MM
    No, the German magazine cites a Turkish blogger, but claims that there is no further confirmation.
  24. SH_MM
    Ah okay, so I misunderstood your previous post. According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.
  25. SH_MM
    How you know that the destroyed Leopard 2 wasn't among the earlier ones hit by ATGM or among the captured ones? It wouldn't be the first time that the IS terrorists blow up captured tanks for propaganda purposes (the have done this with at least two M1 Abrams tanks).
×
×
  • Create New...