Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. Regretfully, I have not done a full CAD model on the Leo 2 (yet), so I can not tackle the volume/mass distribution from that angle in any meaningful way. Here are numbers coming from German and Swiss sources/publications (some of them are somewhat contradictory): This is for a Leopard 2 with B-Technology special armor, as far as i know: Total Combat Weight: 55,15 t / max: 55,55 t Hull without ammunition, equipment and crew: 37,80 t / max: 38,16 t Hull Shell: 12,1 t Turret with armament but without ammunition, equipment and crew: 16,0 t / max: 16,99 t Turret Shell: 8,91 t Main gun with breech: 1,97 t (1,995 t is also given) Main gun without gun mantlet: 3,10 t Main Gun Tube: 1,20 t Engine (dry): 2,71 t (with air filters) Transmission with cooling unit (wet): 2,97 t Powerpack including cooling unit (wet/dry): 6,05 / 5,61 t Tracks: 2,70 t Mass of fuel: 1,03 t Mass distribution in %: Electronic Equipment, Equipment, etc: 7% --> 3,86 t Armament and ammunition: 8% --> 4,41 t Powerpack with fuel:15,5 % --> 8,55 t Running gear/Suspension System/ tracks: 21, 5% --> 11,86 t Turret and Hull Shell: 48% -->26,47 t (this is odd) For the Swiss Panzer 87: Combat Weight: 56,5 t Turret weight with gun: 16 t Powerpack (wet/dry): 6,12 / 5,57 t Engine: 2,86 t Transmission (wet/dry): 2,45 / 2,17 t Suspension arm with / without damper: 0,226 t / 0,182 t Torsion bar: 0,059 t Return Roller: 0,025 t Idler Wheel: 0,034 t Idler Wheel arm: 0,11 t Bump Stop: 0,012 t Track link mass: 0,033 t Tracks: 2,75 t More on the gun system: With mantlet: 3,655 t (max 3,8 t) Without mantlet: 3,015 t Mantlet: 0,640 t Gun, Total: 1,905 t Gun Tube: 1,150-1,175 t Gun breech: 0,683 t Gun breech block: 0,110 t Bore Evacuator: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Front: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Back: 0,0128 t I might find more, but this is it for now.
  2. But muh heavy, muh chobham armor, muh resisting 70+ RPGs + Milan, muh... !!!
  3. Concerning the 1993/1994 Leclerc, I will stick to my guns and what was said to by Chassilan, Turbe and GIAT/Nexter.
  4. This is part of my study. Compared to the FMV model the protection coverage of my model is better at the lower RHA(e) values. Both models converge around 600 mm (35-38% coverage). Post 600 mm RHA(e) values, the coverage in my model falls short on what the FMV modelled: Small correction: I was a bit hasty to include the entire frontal 60 degree arc. After taking a second look, I have to lower my estimates. The 550 mm RHA(e) value is only being reached within the frontal 40 degree arc. To get a more favorable protection coverage the values go as low as 450-480 mm RHA(e) in the frontal 60 degree arc. Just to be on the save side, I would say the turret protection is around 450 mm RHA(e) in the frontal 60 degree arc.
  5. My Leclerc estimates are based on the Swedish vulnerability plot. Not including weak zones, it gives the Leclerc S1 a protection level of up to around 550 mm RHAe in the frontal 60 degree arc behind the original export M1A2 at 600 mm RHAe. If the upper front hull/glacis used similar technology and techniques I would not be particularly surprised if the hull KE protection values of around 500 mm RHAe were obtained. It seems, just in case of the flat turret concept, the special armor in the hull was also confined in rather concentrated zones. This approach could have helped to push the protection levels past similar vehicles (e.g. Leopard 2A4, M1A1, etc.) while sacrificing special armor protection coverage. Concerning the Abrams I was talking about the "beak" glacis and not the upper front hull glacis. I also did not mean the original export M1A2 but the 1998-2000 export model. There seems to be an indication that the front hull armor of later M1A2 tanks (Export 2, SEP models) was "improved".
  6. 1) Maybe, maybe not 2) Weak spots do exist 3) Compared to other contenders, yes they were lagging behind a bit in terms of protection. 4) KE Protection wise overall, I would give the advantage to the T-80U/UD, particularly for the hull.
  7. It was on the dead district blog spot back in 2017: The Chronology of the New Army Program of the Greek Army looks as follows: For the launch of the program (in 1996), the 1735 acting tanks were included in the Greek Army. This was the maximum allowed by the CEF. The entire tank park structure was as follows: M-60A3 - 312 M-60A1 - 357 M-48A5MOLF - 395 M-48A3MOLF - 400 M-48A5 - 304 M-48A3 - 11 Leo-1GR - 105 Leo-1V - 170 Leo-1A5 - 77 The Turkish army had the following tank park: M-60A3 - 658 M-60A1 - 164 M-48A5T2 - 760 M-48A5T1 (lightly improved M-48A5) - 1560 M-48A5T5 - 183 Leo-1T1 (ie improved Leo-1A3, which was the Greek Leo-1GR counter strike) - 227 Leo-1T2 (ie Leo-1A1A4) - 170 The Greek procurement tank cost 1 959 824 581 (almost two billion euros). From this the producer was given 1 659 000 000 euros for the cost of arrangement of equipment and manufacturing lines, and the rest went to various taxes and financial operations. The Greek side purchased 183 pieces of Leo-2A4 (50,000 euros) in addition to 170 Leo-2A6, and received 150 pieces of Leo-1A5. What happened in the fall of 1998 at the Lyothoro firing range - The six best tanks in the world first compete with each other. In addition, the Eastern and Western schools of tank construction have been challenged for the first time. The purpose of the exams was to examine the technical data in real-time conditions. Which usually does not match the manufacturer's advertisements often. It should measure the data such as acceleration, maximum speed, stroke supplies, stabilization quality and more. Storage reserve - accessed to a large distance, from Lyothoro to Poliskaustro on the road and covered a mixed passage (asvalust and ground). All tanks were equipped with Greek fuel simultaneously, put in the column and paved the way. The aim was to move the tanks up to the fuel. As a result of which the tanks came up, their assessment took place. After the fuel generation, the M1A2 has been on the first track, it is clear that its gas turbine burns a lot of fuel compared to classical diesel. The distance that the tank has passed or is relatively small compared to the others, but the manufacturer has more than ever been declared. The best indicator was the French Leclerc, who was "not going to stop". This is the smallest weight (10 tons light compared to other western tanks), and by the time of the mid-range 1500 hp diesel engine MTU MB-883, the engine is low-voltage compared to the MTU MB-873 installed on the Leo-2. The French tank's similar engine was also on the British Challenger-2E, but its heavier weight reduction in stock. The GIAT team is preparing to enter the tanks Leclerc 60% surprise was a terrible test for all participants. The tanks should be safe on the elevator and come down, and in addition to stop in the middle of the road, engage the engine, then lie down and drive back or forward without hitting. The resistance was ideally passed by Leclerc, with good results showing M1A2 and Leo-2A5S, while the remaining three participants had problems with overcoming resistance. Tank Leclerc and T-80U 60% surfacing point. Observe the Russian tanks Zakrdeni most part of the surface does not touch the concrete Challenger-2E and T-80U at the moment of crossing the trench Challenger-2E has lost almost all rubber pedals at the moment of the vertical resistance Absolute test was a day and night shoot. The uneven ground of the lycourt polygon was a great problem for the stabilizer. The tanks have to move more speed than the speed allowed at motion relief. In this test, the eastern tanks showed a marked lag. The best German West was the Leo-2A5S, which showed the ideal result in the shooting, which is the perfect work of stabilizer and fire management system. Leopard was very close to M1A2, third and fourth places respectively, according to Leclerc and Challenger-2E. M1A2 M-865 Practical Shot Pallet for M1A2 and the moment of booting Leclerc's subalbital shells and the moment of shelling load in automatic charger Inspection of the carriage was the following: - The representatives warned that the tanks were in perfect condition and prepared for the test. On the horizontal aspiration path, the tanks were to be stopped only after braking with the help of brake. These extreme braking machines should be replicated ten times. The Ukrainian and Russian tanks did not complete the test, the first, second and third places from the western tanks were respectively Leclerc, Leo-2A5S and M1A2. Final assessment of tanks The tanks participating in the competition were as follows: The Challenger-2E tender was a bad surprise German Leopard-2A5S and Ukrainian T-84 ( 478ДУ2) on the lorigore tank firing range Lyothoro polygon, firing test results - Target M-48 Armored shells on the M-48 tower The German sub-division DM-33, which is supported by the M-48 block On the lower two photographs of the Challenger-2E knotted cannon on the M-48's tower Again the M-48's tower and this time through the hamstring - American 120 mm sub-KW-KE-W M-48's tower. M1A12 Type M830A1 HEAT-MP-T Cumulative Sheet Run from Challenger-2E, the result of the HESH-type shell on the M-48 tower. But it did not break up, but inside the steel stainless steel "alloy" tanks, the crew had very little chances of survival (although this is the principle of HESH)
  8. A new non-DU armor package seems to have been used that seem to have improved protection significantly. Using "new geometries" it seems possible that this armor package could have been similar in performance to the 3rd Gen HAP, meaning that it could have been used on later US Abrams tanks. Some turrets do show the XXXXM designation instead of the typical XXXXU designation (for DU equipped turrets): Defense Daily, 30 May 2000 GD, U.S. Army Sweeten M1 Offers to Greece, Turkey With New Armor Package By Vago Muradian General Dynamics [GD], with the blessing of the U.S. Army, has offered Greece and Turkey a highly-sophisticated armor package to entice the countries into buying the company's M1-series tank. The new armor, developed by the Army, offers the same level of protection as the depleted uranium armor used by U.S. forces, but without using the controversial material. "At the time we adopted depleted uranium, it was the only material that gave us the level of protection we wanted," Peter McVey, vice president for international business at GD's Land Systems Division, told sister publication Defense Daily International during a telephone interview last week. "The new armor we are offering for the first time to Greece and Turkey offers similar protection through a combination of metals and geometry without using heavy metals. We're confident that after testing the new armor package, Greece and Turkey will be very pleased with it." GD and the Army are pulling out all the stops in the bid to win the Greek and Turkish competitions for more than 1,200 tanks, recovery vehicles and bridging equipment. While Turkey has traditionally bought American tanks, Greece's fleet includes Leopard-series tanks built by Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, a newer version of which is competing against the M1A2 in both countries. The Leclerc by France's Giat Industries and the Challenger II by Britain's Vickers are competing against the M1A2 in Greece for about 250 tanks, while the competitors for the Turkish order for as many as 1,000 tanks includes a diesel-powered version of the M1A2 System Enhancement Package, the Leclerc, the Leopard 2A6 and the T-84 by Ukraine's Kharkov Design Bureau. The Army launched the effort to develop the new armor package after GD in 1993 lost the competition to supply Sweden with a new tank in part because of the U.S. government's refusal to allow export of the depleted uranium armor package. Sweden chose the Leopard 2 Improved tank equipped with a new armor package that did not use heavy metals, but was superior to the U.S. armor offered at the time. The composite armor developed by Sweden, dubbed the Swedish armor package, has become Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's export standard and has been offered to Greece and Turkey. "The new armor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then," McVey said. "We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material. We have passed along technical details to both customers through classified channels, and I would say we are equal, or better than, the competition in terms of protection." The armor is referred to as the third-generation package because the protection system is the third type fitted to the M1-series since its introduction nearly three decades ago. The first versions of the M1 were equipped with composite Chobham armored developed by Britain, which at the time was considered the best in the world. The British armor was succeeded by the DU, or heavy armor, which equips front-line versions of the M1. The third-generation armor, however, is intended for export because the Army sees no need to assume the cost of replacing the DU armor in existing tanks with the new protection package. McVey added he is confident GD is offering not only the best protection, but also the best price and industrial package in both competitions. In Greece, GD has offered a comprehensive workshare package to Greece's state-owned armored vehicle-maker, ELVO, while in Turkey the company is allied with BMC, part of Turkey's Chicarova Group and Nurol. The question is politics, which is a factor in every overseas weapons competition, he said, adding that the dynamics are different in Greece and Turkey. Greece in particular, as a member of the European Union, has in the past come under intense pressure from fellow members to buy European, lobbying pressure that has successfully cost U.S. contractors. For example, in 1998 senior Greek defense officials promised their U.S. counterparts that Northrop Grumman [NOC] would be awarded the country's order for four airborne early warning aircraft. But less than a week after Greek political leaders were confronted by E.U. leaders who challenged why Greece continued to buy American, the radar plane order was shifted to the Erieye by Sweden's Ericsson and France's Thomson-CSF. Several months later, in early 1999, E.U. lobbying pressure convinced Greek officials to embrace the multinational Eurofighter combat jet over the F- 15 fighter by Boeing [BA]. The loss of the Greek order, coupled with Israel's decision to buy more F-16 fighters by Lockheed Martin [LMT], doomed production of the F-15. Greek officials downplay the importance of E.U. pressure, adding that the Erieye and Eurofighter were selected on merit, not politics. That said, McVey continues to closely watch political developments in both Greece and Turkey. Greek officials have indicated that before the winning tank is selected, the country must first gain formal entry into the European Monetary Union. That is expected to happen on June 19. The European Parliament recently approved Greece's membership in the Euro group of nations. Second, a new armaments director must be appointed to replace Toannis Sbpokos. Until Sbpokos is replaced, it is unlikely a winning tank will be selected, sources said. Analysts and executives have said, however, they expect a winner to be announced during the Defendory 2000 sea-air-land exposition to held in Athens Oct. 3-7. I suspected this as well that CR2 has the same hull protection as the CR1, but I was not sure. According to this chart, which is in the Chasillan tank encyclopedia book supposedly, CR2E had the "weakest" hull protection out of all contenders: It was the aim of the British to improve the ballistic protection of the hull (glacis) "to a minimum of 500 mm" RHAe KE on a future "Challenger II and III" : I suspected the KE protection of the various contenders during the Greek tank trials to have been roughly as follows: Leclerc UAE/ S1/S2 front hull/glacis KE protection: ~500-540 mm RHAe Challenger 2E front hull/glacis KE protection: ~500 mm RHAe <- could also be 275-300 mm RHAe (CR1). Strv 122 front hull/glacis KE protection: ~650-750 mm RHAe T-80UD front hull/glacis KE protection: ~600-700 mm RHAe M1A2 (with improved armor package*) front hull/glacis KE protection: ~550+ mm RHAe (this could also be around 470 mm RHAe KE) Given that the export M1A2 front turret armor was rated at "very good", second only to the Strv 122, I would rank the turret Cheek armor around 700-800+ mm RHAe. Not Quite Strv 122 levels of protection but still considerably better than Challenger 2E and Leclerc UAE at around 600-650+ mm RHAe. One question: Could the Leclerc S1/S2 have a better hull protection than CR2(E) ? As mentioned by SH_MM In the article, the Leclerc was "similar or never far behind" the CR2E in terms of protection. I am not sure how to interpret this.
  9. Not totally sure about the mantlet without having taken a closer look at the boundary geometry and potential layout. So I rather say nothing about it.
  10. My take on Challenger 2 based on what I have read about the Greek Tank Trials, the Chasillan Tank Encyclopedia book, UK docs, Taylor CR2 book,etc.:
  11. Does anyone know the combat weight of a Challenger 2 ? I have three sources that point to 63-64 metric tons instead of 62,5 metric tons. Given the alleged armor upgrades (i.e. 300 mm RHAe to around 500 mm RHAe KE) from the CR1 hull to the CR2 hull, is the CR2 hull heavier than the CR1 hull ? As far as i know, Challenger 1 Mk1 has a turret mass of 20,3 metric tons, while the Challenger 2 is supposed to have a turret mass of around 20,5 metric tons. If the hull weight stayed the same, could it be that hull components were just rearranged/taken out to compensate for the additional mass of the new hull special armor package for CR2 ?
  12. For reference, other turret weights: 105 mm M1 -> 19,1 metric tons. Arjun Mk1 -> 17,5 metric tons Leclerc S1 -> 18,5 metric tons
  13. Does anyone have a clue about the K2 front hull profile design ? I am trying to figure out the geometry, but I have not been able to find anything on it. Any feedback would be appreciated!
  14. From the Rumor Mill: - Frontal Hull protection The same Publicly Stated to be. 614MM against KE 1513 Against HEAT - Protection between the two...... Frontal Turret: K2 and Altay have the same Frontal Protection... According to hyundai Rotem the K2 Completely Stopped the A M829A2 (760MM pen at 2 KM) And Dm63 (780MM at 2km) at point blank with a Extra 150 MM untouched. Meaning 910 MM Front
  15. Yes, I still have it. I am looking at the images now. It is difficult to see with certainty. I will keep looking. Maybe you can find a specific image or diagram that will confirm more clearly.
  16. That's ok. Constructive feedback is good. You mean the special armor block in front of the gunner's sight has been thickened on the S2 ?
  17. Thank you for the feedback. I used a variety of sources, including Nexter/GIAT drawings of a Leclerc UAE hybrid and plenty of reference images to generate the models: As well as image references and Dark Labor's work:
  18. Is there more of this that deals with the turret front and hull front ?
  19. Thank you all for your feedback ! I have talked to three other people familiar with armor and they have never heard of it. I will try to get to the bottom of this "mystery" steel (system). I am getting the impression that this might be another case of "AMX-56" !
  • Create New...