Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. Laviduce
    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!
  2. Laviduce
    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
  3. Laviduce
    Update:
  4. Laviduce
    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.
  5. Laviduce
    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 ?
  6. Laviduce
    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:
  7. Laviduce
    On a side note:
  8. Laviduce
    Is there more of this that deals with the turret front and hull front ?
  9. Laviduce
    The tweet is unavailable ?!
  10. Laviduce
    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" !
  11. Laviduce
    Not sure if posted already but i think this might supposed to be a BMP variant:
  12. Laviduce
    Hello Everyone, I was wondering, does anyone know of this mystery steel system called "triple hardness steel" ? I was trying to find information on it like layout and hardness (BHN or VHN) but i could not find anything concrete on it anywhere. Although it gets mentioned in the AFV community fairly regularly, I can not find it anywhere. If anyone knows, please share it. Thanks in advance !
  13. Laviduce
    Not sure if this has been posted before: from: https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2021/01/about-challenger-1-mbt-weight-breakdown.html
  14. Laviduce
    So the Leclerc wont the South African competition ? How did it win it ? I never heard of that competition until now. Is there any more information floating around out there ?
  15. Laviduce
    A naked Rh-120 L44 maybe ?
  16. Laviduce
    AMX-56 .... AMX-56 !!!????
  17. Laviduce
    Here are also seems to be another view of an Abrams turret shell CAD model in the lower right corner of the image: It seems that certain Abrams tank test rigs such as the M1 Thumper used the original M1 turret as a base instead of creating a new turret from scratch.
  18. Laviduce
    Thanks for the feedback and additional information. I am trying to figure out what prototype could have been used in 1987. The earliest prototypes besides the 1986 Mulet Systeme Complete (MSC) was the Leclerc Ares prototype. The second prototype, Leclerc Bayard came into being in 1988. Frankly, the Ares prototype is the only Leclerc prototype I have never ever seen an image of in any publication or any other media. I have no idea how that thing looks like. Having said that, in 1987 the only vehicles available for an evaluation would have probably been the MSC (and maybe Ares). As BaronTibere already mentioned the values mentioned by British in their documents might have been initial projections of what was currently (1986/1987) available. Concerning the two sources, I selected them because they are among the potentially more reputable ones out there. I think for the most part, we are all aware that any special armor will offer different protection values when ballistically tested against different KE threats or CE threats. So none of us are really expecting to see one consistent protection value across multiple projectile types. For the Leopard 2, I would be not really surprised that a D-tech equipped Leopard 2A4 could potentially reach protection values approaching exceeding 600 mm RHAe in the frontal arc against KE threats by 1994. I would think that the mass of the vehicle would start to exceed 57 metric tons. In my graphic i kept the side turret armor the same to illustrate the ability to maximize frontal (0o) protection: The 2 man flat turret design has ballistic holes (the hump in particular) when not directly facing a threat projectile from the front as pointed out before by MoritzPTK and others.
  19. Laviduce
    Here is another diagram to illustrate the idea of the 2 man flat turret design concept being able to use "denser" special armor arrays: Although the modules on both turrets have the same constructive depth, the flat turret design can get away with adding another 3 NERA plates in its special armor array without a volume (really mass) penalty. In this case the flat turret design is even slightly "lighter" (0,176 m3) than the full turret design ( 0,192 m3) while still theoretically improving the protection by 50%.
  20. Laviduce
    I was explaining the idea of a 2 man flat turret according to GIAT/Nexter. The illustrations show that heavier(denser) modules can be allocated towards the front of a turret without much or any additional weight penalty. In case of the 3 man turret i might only be able to insert 6 special armor plates where as in case of the 2 man flat turret i can insert another 2,4 for the same mass. I rather go with the 8.4 special armor plate design than with the 6 special armor plate design. These British snippets are indeed problematic because they contradict what has been reported in the Swedish tank trials (Lindström presentation) and the Hellenic tank trials. What Leclerc version was tested ? Was it an early series 1 model , a prototype , if so, which one? In case of the Swedish and Greek trials we know which versions were evaluated, in case of the British Chieftain replacement program we do not.
  21. Laviduce
    Very nice work!
  22. Laviduce
    Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal: Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat. Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc. Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme: Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front! IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional turret design. Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts: 3-man full turret: and the 2 man flat turret: TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went. The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more! This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm ! I hope this clears things up a bit! P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.
  23. Laviduce
    The 60 degree frontal arc protection is not as consistent but directly from the front it has its advantages. Having a 2-crew autoloader flat turret design has the advantage that armor can be concentrated and protection improved by up to 74% compared to a 3 crew conventional turret of the same mass. That is what the South Koreans seem to have done. The French did it with the Leclerc to a slightly lesser extent. That also explains why the Leclerc has a similar mass to the Leopard 2A4 yet superior protection in terms of KE and CE resistance. This would also explain to some extent how a 55 ton vehicle (K2) can have similar head on protection than a vehicle that is 5+ tons heavier (M1A2 SEP v1).
  24. Laviduce
    Interesting! Where was this taken ?
  25. Laviduce
    So E- technology armor packages are not meant to be armor inserts to replace the D-technology armor packages, they are meant just as add-on armor packages ?
×
×
  • Create New...