Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Laviduce

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. 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?
  2. 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!
  3. 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.
  4. 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 RHA
  5. Guys what kind of rough KE and CE protection estimates would you give the Leclerc ?
  6. I am getting the impression that they are talking about the tanks pictured above (Stillbrew Chieftain Mk10, Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4 (early), M1A1, Vickers Mk7/2) The picture seems to have been taken some time in 1990. According to the Challenger 2 book by Osprey the Leopard 2A4 and the other contestants were "current production models". As we know; the latest models of these tanks were the Chieftain Mk11, Challenger 1 Mk3 (minus ROMOR armor), Leopard 2A4 with 2nd gen. special armor, M1A1 HA, Vickers Mk 7/2. There is at least 1 problem with this statement. The Leopar
  7. Leopard 2A1 ---- 55,15 tons Leopard 2A4 ---- 56,5 tons Leopard 2A5 ---- 59,7 tons Leopard 2A6 ---- 60,1 tons Leopard 2A6M ---- 62,3 tons Strv 122 ---- 62,5 tons Leopard 2E ---- 63 tons Leopard 2A7+ ---- 67,5 tons M1 ---- 54,5 tons M1A1 ---- 58 tons M1A1 HA ---- 61,3 tons M1A2 ----- 62 tons M1A2 SEP ---- 63,1 tons (up to 65 tons)
  8. I was thinking that such a hit would definitaly damage or destroy the hydraulic pump. You really think the pump is undamaged ?
  9. Although it is a work in progress, any constructive criticism and/or feedback to enhance or correct the model would be greatly appreciated!!!
  10. This confuses me even more. Rolf Hilmes explicitly states that the combined mass of the hull and turret chassis including special armor inserts accounts for 48 % of the entire weight of the 55t Leopard 2. This comes to about 26,5 t In the Spielberger book the combined weight of the basic hull and turret (Panzerwanne and Trumgehäuse) are given at 21 t. Would Hilmes be off by 5,5 t (20+ %) ?
  11. Some more information on the mass distribution of the Leopard 2: R. Hilmes gives the following mass distribution: Total System Weight: 55.150 kg Electronic components: 3.860,50 kg - 7 % Powerpack + full fuel tanks: 8.548,25 kg - 15,5 % Running Gear (.i.e: tracks, suspensions, wheels, etc.); 11.857,25 kg - 21,5 % Bare hull and turret with composite armor inserts: 26.472 kg - 48 % Weaponry (main gun, Coax MG, etc.): 4.412 kg - 8% (not sure whether or not this includes the gun mantlet or not.)
  12. From P. Krapke: -------------------------------------------------------- Total weapon assembly Weight without mantlet: 3100 kg Weight with mantlet (Leopard 2AV): 4290 kg ---------------------------------------------------------
  13. This is a compilation of properly scaled drawings that might be of interest:
  14. 1. Thank you guys, those STRV 122 pictures were the ones i was looking for. I would need to aks you for another favor thou. Would you guys know the actual length of the hull ammunition rack of the Leopard 2? Also , do you have any images that show if the rounds are totally enclosed in the ammo rack tubes? I would think that the entire round, KE or othertowerwise, would totally fit into the tube with only the base of the round (~5-10 mm) sticking out at the end. Since most of these 120 mm rounds are abou 980 mm in length i would assume the loaded rack not to be much longer than 1020 mm. E
  15. Amazing magic trick that i, sadly, have already tried with no luck :-/ Thank you for the pictures, there are some things i have not seen before. :3 Yes, something along those lines but where the bottom of the EMES-15 bay is visible. The first image is the closest to what i am looking for. Either way , i do not think the EMES will extend much further past the bottom edge of the cylindrical optical channel as seen in the 2nd image. I wonder if the upper edge of the circular opening is touching the lower edge of that 650 mm block or if there is a noticea
  16. Thank you very much for the images. Is the first image a Leopard 2A4 or a Leopard 2A5/6 ? It looks like a 2A5/6 turret to me with the roof and side wall liners. I was aware of the size differenze and that the total LOS thickness of the area below the cutout for the EMES-15 is about 1000-1100 mm. I just incorrectly sized the EMES bay by about 150+ mm. I am currently working on a 3D model of the turret and i will incorporate the changes accordingly. BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.
  17. You are correct, in my estimates i had overestimated the size of the EMES15 channel by about 130 mm, shrinking the space that could be used by composites. So the turret front is more uniform than in my initial estimate. I will make further adjustments. Either way, even with my "low" estimates , this gives the Leopard 2A0-2A0 turret superior KE resistance compared to the M1 turret. I am strongly convinced that the KE resistance of the early Leopard 2 is between the 420-570 mm RHAe for the left turret and right turret front within the 0-30 degree frontal arc. I will prepare an updated and more
  18. Hello and thank you ! SH_MM: Did you ever consider that this might be referring to the Leopard 2A4 and not the Leopard 2A0-A3? With the Leopard 2 vs. T-72 comparison in his latest Kampfpanzer book, I would find no reason why he would not refer to the Leopard 2A4 instead of the older Leopard 2A0-A3 versions. SH_MM: Luckily the T-62 is also displayed. Since this book was published in 1986 it would probably refer to the most advanced 115 mm APFSDS round of the time, the 3BM-28 from 1978. This lets me believe that the diagram refers to
  19. Hello Everyone, I have the strong impression that the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret seems to have a KE resistance of around 400-500 mm and a CE resistance of around 700 - 800 mm. based on: The P. Krapke threat diagram: The R. Hilmes estimate: 450 mm RHA KE: The Armed Forces Journal: 400 mm RHA KE / 700 mm RHA CE: P. Lakowski estimate using the established LOS thickness values: 495 - 590 mm RHA KE / 700 - 830 mm RHA CE: Militarysta estimate: 450-500mm RHA
×
×
  • Create New...