Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. we need more !!!!! We need ....https://media.giphy.com/media/wLXo0vTZSM7GU/giphy.gif !!!!!!!
  2. 1) Yes, i simplified the diagrams to show the approximate areas of vulnerability. Here is a more detailed breakdown of the roof area of the model: Overall, i would still consider this roof area to be a weakened zone given the quickly decreasing LOS thickness of the special armor and thinness of the roof plate. The trunnion area follows the same example. I assumed that this zone belongs to the 500+ mm RHAe areas in the diagram. I set this value to 5% of the total surface. 2) Spielberger said the following about the Leopard 2 vs. M
  3. Leopard 1: Leopard 2K: These images made me believe that the Leopard 2 trunnion interior is "...actually thin air, or cardboard..."
  4. But how valid is this chart ? Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?
  5. If the mantlet is using the same armor makeup as the turret cheeks with the same thickness efficiency we have => mantlet composite array (KE resistance of = ~220 mm) + 25 mm steel+ ~180-230 mm air gap + 25 mm steel = ~270-280 mm KE resistance against APFSDS rounds.
  6. Thank you very much for the feedback. I will make the changes! In the meantime, could you take a look at this and tell me what you think: The sponson and track areas gave me the greatest problems. Explanation: Sponson (outside->inside): Section around the turret ring: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel) + 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 510 mm Section around the heavy side skirts: 50 mm steel (angled) + 490 mm Fuel Cell (diesel)+ 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 550 mm Section around the powerpack: 10 mm steel (angled) + 490
  7. The mantlet seems to be 420 mm thick. This is followed by the hollow trunnion block giving a total LOS thickness of 680 to 730 mm.
  8. Yes ! Using the drawings, the forward turret roof comes to about 45 mm at around 7 degrees , whereas the level turret roof comes to about 30 mm. This gives me a LOS thickness of aroudn 350 mm. I will make that change to the diagrams.
  9. 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.
  10. 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:
  11. 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!
  12. Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).
  13. 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
  14. 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 ?
  15. 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.
  16. I will look into this! I will also update my Type 90 volume model.
  17. I really wonder if they would let us measure and examen it !
  18. 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.
  19. 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:
  20. 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:
  21. Why in the world would the Merkava 1 still be classified ?
×
×
  • Create New...