Renegade334

So apparently they've been looking into composite metal foam (CMF), which is a spongy form of metal that offers increased resistance to heat and fragments, at a mere fraction of the weight of its RHA equivalent. Which would be a boon for IFVs and other lightweight vehicles in search of protection.
 
 
How well does it hold up against an APFSDS, I wonder.
 
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20601/metal-foam-stops-bullets/

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*
    The AMX32's protection
The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.
The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.
Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.     --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.       The Leclerc's armors:   Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.   During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.   The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.   In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.   Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.
The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.
As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.
Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.
The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.       Text on the lower left, under the picture:   One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.         EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*
    The AMX32's protection
The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.
The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.
Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.     --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.       The Leclerc's armors:   Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.   During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.   The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.   In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.   Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.
The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.
As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.
Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.
The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.       Text on the lower left, under the picture:   One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.         EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*
    The AMX32's protection
The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.
The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.
Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.     --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.       The Leclerc's armors:   Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.   During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.   The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.   In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.   Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.
The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.
As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.
Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.
The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.       Text on the lower left, under the picture:   One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.         EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*
    The AMX32's protection
The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.
The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.
Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.     --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.       The Leclerc's armors:   Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.   During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.   The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.   In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.   Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.
The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.
As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.
Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.
The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.       Text on the lower left, under the picture:   One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.         EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

Does it also shoot at passing fishing trawlers and invite friendly fire? Must stay authentic, after all.

@Serge: GDLS did more than just add "special armor" skirt to protect that hull area. They thickened the hull sides, and that extra thick slab of steel is noticeably longer on the right side, to cover the hull ammo compartment.
 

 
I thought I had on my HDD a pic of the right-hand side of the hull but I can't seem to find it, so I'm afraid I'll have to make do with the next two pictures, which are comparisons of Abrams hulls by different model kit makers (I have the 1/35th M1A2 SEP TUSK v2 by Meng, btw).
 
   
 
You'll note that the hull armor is longer on the right side, by two torsion bars, so to speak.
 

Leo doesn't seem to have this extra hull protection - thickness appears rather uniform.
 

 

 
 
EDIT: why the fuck did the forum software decide to post this without my permission? I wasn't done typing...

Not the Phantom Swift (thank God, that thing looks like a botched abortion to me, only exceeded in ugliness by DARPA's LightningStrike), but Boeing's MQ-25 flying tanker proposal. I confess I'm a bit disappointed, the V-type empennage originally had me hoping for a revival of the Boeing Bird of Prey, instead of another boring X-45/X-46 derivative. Oh, well.
 

Not the Phantom Swift (thank God, that thing looks like a botched abortion to me, only exceeded in ugliness by DARPA's LightningStrike), but Boeing's MQ-25 flying tanker proposal. I confess I'm a bit disappointed, the V-type empennage originally had me hoping for a revival of the Boeing Bird of Prey, instead of another boring X-45/X-46 derivative. Oh, well.
 

Does it also shoot at passing fishing trawlers and invite friendly fire? Must stay authentic, after all.

Side clearance definitely requires a closer look by the engineers - these sponson-like things look like they're begging to snag onto something while the tank's maneuvering around.
 
Anyway, I wonder if they can still fit ARAT-2 tiles on the turret. Some might say they're redundant, but they're meant to ward off EFPs and I'm not sure whether Trophy can perform EFP-on-EFP intercepts. Additionally, the HV adds 820kg to the turret - no wonder TARDEC has been having some concerns about turret performance and balance.
 
EDIT - all credits go to Damian90 on AW forums, dunno where he got the pics from in the first place
 
Stryker with pesticide dispensers Iron Curtain:
 

The late M1 prototypes (not the old XM1) were capable of mounting the AGT-1500 gas turbine and AVCR-1360 diesel, until they eventually settled for the former.
  ^--- The two tanks on the right showcase the different engine compartment covers.   There was even an attempt to create a transversely-mounted AGT-1500, called the AGT-1500 TMEPS, to free some space in the engine compartment.     The M1A1 CATTB was supposed to mark a return to Diesel with the XAP-1000 engine. You can see it on this picture of the CATTB, which lacks the turbine exhaust grille.     And this document here: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 alleges that the AIPS diesel engine (the XAP-1000 or the LV/100 by GE/Textron-Lycoming) was successfully integrated into the CATTB in FY1992 (cf p.262 in PDF reader), so it must've at least gone past the paper or mockup stage.   However, the Thumper, a CATTB variant lacking its predecessor's turret appliques and tassel-type heat-concealing side skirts, reverted back to the AGT, as seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&t=96
As you can see, the exhaust grille is the regular one found on AGT-1500-equipped models.   The Germans did some work adapting the MTU 12V880 (a MTU 12V883?) on the M1A2 SEP, but IIRC they had to give up some of the torsion bars to accomodate this diesel engine. Can't remember exactly.       Right now USAR is codeveloping with Achates Power a new opposed-piston, two-stroke Diesel engine for a certain range of vehicles, which includes the Abrams (there is a 1,500HP variant of the said engine).   http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/HTUF_2016/6_-_Major_-_Achates.sflb.ashx

The late M1 prototypes (not the old XM1) were capable of mounting the AGT-1500 gas turbine and AVCR-1360 diesel, until they eventually settled for the former.
  ^--- The two tanks on the right showcase the different engine compartment covers.   There was even an attempt to create a transversely-mounted AGT-1500, called the AGT-1500 TMEPS, to free some space in the engine compartment.     The M1A1 CATTB was supposed to mark a return to Diesel with the XAP-1000 engine. You can see it on this picture of the CATTB, which lacks the turbine exhaust grille.     And this document here: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 alleges that the AIPS diesel engine (the XAP-1000 or the LV/100 by GE/Textron-Lycoming) was successfully integrated into the CATTB in FY1992 (cf p.262 in PDF reader), so it must've at least gone past the paper or mockup stage.   However, the Thumper, a CATTB variant lacking its predecessor's turret appliques and tassel-type heat-concealing side skirts, reverted back to the AGT, as seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&t=96
As you can see, the exhaust grille is the regular one found on AGT-1500-equipped models.   The Germans did some work adapting the MTU 12V880 (a MTU 12V883?) on the M1A2 SEP, but IIRC they had to give up some of the torsion bars to accomodate this diesel engine. Can't remember exactly.       Right now USAR is codeveloping with Achates Power a new opposed-piston, two-stroke Diesel engine for a certain range of vehicles, which includes the Abrams (there is a 1,500HP variant of the said engine).   http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/HTUF_2016/6_-_Major_-_Achates.sflb.ashx

The late M1 prototypes (not the old XM1) were capable of mounting the AGT-1500 gas turbine and AVCR-1360 diesel, until they eventually settled for the former.
  ^--- The two tanks on the right showcase the different engine compartment covers.   There was even an attempt to create a transversely-mounted AGT-1500, called the AGT-1500 TMEPS, to free some space in the engine compartment.     The M1A1 CATTB was supposed to mark a return to Diesel with the XAP-1000 engine. You can see it on this picture of the CATTB, which lacks the turbine exhaust grille.     And this document here: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 alleges that the AIPS diesel engine (the XAP-1000 or the LV/100 by GE/Textron-Lycoming) was successfully integrated into the CATTB in FY1992 (cf p.262 in PDF reader), so it must've at least gone past the paper or mockup stage.   However, the Thumper, a CATTB variant lacking its predecessor's turret appliques and tassel-type heat-concealing side skirts, reverted back to the AGT, as seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&t=96
As you can see, the exhaust grille is the regular one found on AGT-1500-equipped models.   The Germans did some work adapting the MTU 12V880 (a MTU 12V883?) on the M1A2 SEP, but IIRC they had to give up some of the torsion bars to accomodate this diesel engine. Can't remember exactly.       Right now USAR is codeveloping with Achates Power a new opposed-piston, two-stroke Diesel engine for a certain range of vehicles, which includes the Abrams (there is a 1,500HP variant of the said engine).   http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/HTUF_2016/6_-_Major_-_Achates.sflb.ashx

*Looks at LoooSeR's pics a couple posts above*
*Back at Bronezhilet's post*
...
...
You mean, "guess the ATGM version"?

Doesn't look too shabby compared to what "Dr." Kwadwo Safo tried to sell to Ghana:
 

In French, un trompe-la-mort (yeah, hyphens) means someone who either doesn't fear death or had a close brush with it. Can also mean a stuntman or daredevil.
 
---- The more you know!(tm)

In French, un trompe-la-mort (yeah, hyphens) means someone who either doesn't fear death or had a close brush with it. Can also mean a stuntman or daredevil.
 
---- The more you know!(tm)

Al-Zarrar