Laviduce
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Laviduce
-
Thank you for the feedback, Militarysta. Using the Hilmes drawings i came to about 30 mm at around 8 degrees from the horizontal. Looking at the Leopard 2K drawings , i see that the plate is 35 mm thick at 8 degrees from the horizontal. I think quite a few things were taken over from those early prototypes and i think this might be one of those features. Given this, i will adjust the estimate for this area to around 215 - 250 mm.
-
Hello everyone! i would need some feedback on my latest estimates on the Leopard 2(A0-A4 early): My proposed protection solution could potentially satisfy the plot depicted in the Lindström presentation: As we know, the center plot is of particular interest. It seems to depict the various armor solutions (packages). I used the magenta colored plot line (B-type armor tech?) for my solution:
- 1,525 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- leopard 2
- protection
- (and 1 more)
-
Hmmm!!! Just like Fuel Cell B, that surrounds the ammunition , fuel cell A could be a composite array that uses diesel fuel to complement its protective properties. Note: The front hull special armor is supposed to have a mass of 1249 kg!
-
Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).
-
This is very confusing. I used this diagram and other digrams to generate the front hull module volume. Here it is being described as a (fuel) tank ? This is rather confusing
-
Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?
-
Tank you very much !
-
Thanks! The frontal cross section area of the mantlet is about 0,4 m2 . I set the density of steel to around 8000 kg/m3. Knowing this, the steel block LOS thickness comes to about 197 mm of steel.
-
Updated volume model:
-
I will look into this! I will also update my Type 90 volume model.
-
The K2 and Type 10 seem to follow a similar turret protection design philosophy:
-
Leopard 2(A0/A1) Study Update:
-
Type 90 Study Update:
-
I really wonder if they would let us measure and examen it !
-
He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing. This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin: That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.
-
My 5 cents from a few months ago: I was told that this is the front hull arrangment of the Leopard 2AV just to find out that it is rather unlikely. Then a short while later i was told that it was a patent, just like SH_MM said. Also let us not forget this:
-
Guys do think this diagram is still a legitimate estimate of the location of the turret composite modules of the Type 90 MBT: I made these based on diagram and other references:
-
My 5 cent: Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively. compared to: - I also belive the mantlet to be rather "thin". 380-400 might be a rather optimistic estimate. 350 mm might be closer to reality. -I also believe that the composite armor does not extend all the way to the bottom. It might jut follow the Leopard 2 example shown in red: (lower front hull could be spaced armor) This image does not tell us enough: or it might be more similar to the Type 10: in both cases the lower front hull could be spaced armor.
-
Why in the world would the Merkava 1 still be classified ?
-
This asymmetric LOS thickness has confused me for a while. how can a 650 mm block offer the same protection of a 820-840 mm thick composite block ? How can 320-350 mm thick composite block, 360 mm EMES 15 space and a 300 mm thick composite block (970-1000 mm LOS total) offer the same protection as a 820-840 mm composite block?
-
Great but i used the Leopard 2 plans provided by Rolf Hilmes and measurements. Also you should have told that female sergeant to chill and go make you a sandwich! Also, would you have measurements of the interior of the commanders and gunners stations ? That would be really useful!
-
This diagram above is not totally consistent with what i have here: -The block in front of the lower part of the EMES 15 does not seem to be not much thicker than 320 - 350 mm. The plate where the EMES piece penetrates does not seem to be much thicker than 300 mm. -The special armor turret sides seem to be around 310 mm thick. -The thickest part of the of the turret seems to be the left turret face with 820-840 mm. - The front turret roof seems to be about 45 mm thick. - The turret roof seems to be about 30 mm thick. - The front hull roof over the driver seems to be about 30-35 mm thick. -The front hull /glacis seems to have a varying LOS thickness of 570 - 675 mm. - The left turret face and right turret face seem to have different special armor thicknesses. 650 mm vs 830 mm on average. The heavy side skirts seem to be around 105 -110 mm thick.
-
Are there any reliable estimates for the Challenger 1 ? The LOS thickness of the turret Chobham modules seems to be around 750 mm. I am not sure how thick the base turret is at the front. it seems that the Challenger (1983) could have a LOS thickness of 800-850. Could the British be capapable of producing a KE resistance of 620 mm RHAe for a LOS thickness of up to 850 mm? The 1980 M1 Abrams LOS thickness seems to be around 740 mm generating a KE resistance of around 400-440 mm RHAe. For the 1993 early export M1A2 tank we have KE resistance of around 650-700 mm RHAe from the front for a LOS thickness of up to 940 mm. Could the Brits be that far ahead in 1983? Also, what do you guys think about this estimate for the Leopard 2A1 for APFSDS rounds of the late 1970s?
-
i want to see more !!!!
-
Guys what kind of rough KE and CE protection estimates would you give the Leclerc ?
