Laviduce
-
Posts
264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Laviduce
-
Do we get any information from the document about the actual Type 10 protection levels ?
-
a) I think the boundary of the green/yellow line should be at the Peri R17 level. b) From a properly scaled Rolf Hilmes Leopard 2 cross section i get the following: green: 40-45 mm max. I seriously do not understand how they can get 70 mm unless they include the spall liner on later Leopard 2s orange: 15-20 mm. 20 mm was outlined in design change documents of the Leopard 2AV, IIRC. red: up to 40 mm yellow: 30 mm cyan: 10 mm ? Looks really thin, does not show up well in the drawing for measurement. yellow: 30 mm max. Also, the turret bustle bottom seems to be 20 mm thick.
-
As far as i could see, the length of the upper part of the mantlet is about 510 mm, including the overhang. The maximum thickness from the front to the back seems to be 420 mm not including the overhang.
-
Thank you for the feedback! What do you mean by this statement? It does not seem that i removed that much from my previous model. I just balanced the greater KE resistance to the other turret face given what we currently know , more or less.
-
Something that should make us think:
-
Diagram from an Aselsan research paper dealing with gun tube vibrations (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914716301234?via%3Dihub):
-
My latest estimate. Oddly enough, according to the Lindstroem presentation on page 53, the right front of the Leopard 2 is better protected than the left. I incorporated this in this estimate. Any feedback would be appreciate.
-
Yes, i read about that too. Spielberger also talked about those D-technology based side skirts but i never had anyone go any deeper into the subject matter than Hilmes. Looking at the chart I also think it is possible that D technology Leopard 2A4 turrets were produced that early (1991-1992). On the other hand, this diagram could just have been part of the Krauss Maffei information brochures sent to Sweden after the request-for-information (RFI) was sent to Germany in November of 1991. Answers were received no later than March 1992. This image might actually show a projected introduction of the 3rd generation armor package in response to the future soviet tank (FST->T-90).
-
Some information on the armor package types on the German Leopard 2s:
-
Does anyone know where the gun elevation mechanism of the Leclerc is located and how it looks like? Using DarkLabors older CAD model i am getting the impression that the marked object is part of the gun elevation mechanism: The real thing:
- 581 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- leclerc mbt
- vbci
- (and 18 more)
-
You will be remembered! R.I.P.
-
I have 4 questions: 1) Where is the Leclerc's electric turret traverse mechanism located in the turret? 2) Where is the Leclerc's gun elevation mechanism located in the turret ? 3) How is the HL-60 gunner sight mechanically linked to the optics of the gunner? It seems the entire HL-60 sight moves with the gun up and down. 4) What is the diameter of the turret basket? It seems to me that the dark blue and the yellow box next to the ER315 radio have somethign to do with the turret traverse. I have no idea where the gn elevation mechanism is. I would appreciate any pictures and/or feedback that would answer the questions! Thank you in advance.
-
The mantlet drawing in the first image must be wrong. The vertical movement axis seems to be further back. The 420 mm that i got are maximum values. My first estimate for the actual mantlet not including the trunnion was around 380-400 mm. I was told that the mantlet was thicker than that. I will not name names. Also the mantlet in your image that is labelled as ~200 mm should be more like 270-280 mm. The part labelled as trunnion? is about 260 mm thick. This would give us LOS thickness of about 540 mm. After having taken a closer look at the mantlet setups on the Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks, i have come to the conclusion that the trunnion of the Type 90 could be located right above the turret ring edge. If we have position the 200 mm thick trunnion block according to the available drawings and models (i.e.Tamiya), this would leave us with about 390 mm of space to work with for the actual trunnion thickness. I will make the changes. -------------------------------------------------------------- Small update with change:
-
Thank you for your response, I appreciate the effort. I hope more information gets released and found. It seems quite a few tanks protection capabilities have been overhyped. This makes me believe that the protection requirement estimates in the Chieftain book by Richard Taylor are referring to the protection offered at 1000m and not point blank range. Questions: 1) At what distance does the Challenger 2 turret (cheeks?) and glacis offer protection against the 125 mm rounds of the T-72? Is it at 1000m and above or at point blank distances? In the image i could not see the distance given for the Challenger 2. 2) From what document does this information come from? 3) How old is this document?
-
I thought so too. My original believe was that it has a LOS thickness of about 60 mm: "The bustle rack side armor seems to be spaced and around 60-70 mm thick. (1 Possible solution: 35 mm steel-10 mm air gap + 15 mm steel). " I was not sure if the outer shell was the thinner or thicker plate. But then an Ex Leopard 2A4 tanker had this to say: " It is around 80-85mm with air gap inside not thicker than 15mm,..." Concerning the roof, I was getting ready to set the roof thickness at 30 mm where the hatches are and about 45 mm where the sloped front roof is. In the Hilmes diagrams it looks like that part is about 40-45 mm thick, so i was thinking about going with the 45 mm. Also the Swiss archives had to this to say about the Leopard 2 documents: "Experience shows that about 85-90% of the requests for insight are granted (viewed as a whole). Therefore, I could well imagine that your application would be approved accordingly. The term of protection for these documents is 80 years. This means that you will be freely accessible from the year 2063. I suspect that this takes too long. However, you are welcome to submit an application for access to these three dossiers at www.swiss-archives.ch. The processing of such an application usually takes 4-6 weeks. Any authorization is then valid for life."
-
Will anyone hold these aggressors responsible or will they get a pass again ? The US and their vassals are acting like a collective Hitler, totally out-of-control.
-
The governments of these baltic countries remind me of those countries that aligned themselves with Nazi Germany during WW2. They seem to sell themselves to anyone just to get revenge. I wonder if these governments (butthurt troublemakers)will still be so enthusiastic and confrontational if push comes to shove.
-
Outrageous !
-
"...doesn't mean that the frontal armor protecttion is lower; given that the Abrams has more side armor..." I concur! Concerning the M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2A1 protection question, I was somewhat confused about the comment by Spielberger. Looking at my protection solution of the Leopard 2A1 and the estimates of the M1 Abrams it seems that the turret front of the Leopard 2 might actually be better protected against KE (and maybe CE) rounds compared to the M1. The front hull of the M1 seems to be better protected than the Leopard 2. The side turret of the M1 is better protected compared to the Leopard 2 for somewhat obvious reasons. Reading the Spielberger comment I always assumed that all aspects of both the turret and the hull of the Leopard 2 were not as good protected compared to the M1. I never considered that the protection difference issue might be a bit more complex than that. Also, according to the Archives the documents in Schutzfrist could be cleared for access if requested in about 4 to 6 weeks. They will let me know further details.
-
As mentioned on the site; the information comes from "... posts on Tanknet the premier source of tank discussion online. Also from Stephen Zaloga's various works on Russian MBTs, GSPO forum, Hilmes' books, Hunnicutt Patton and Abrams, Janes IDR and the NII Stali website. " Some of the values shown on the site do correspond to values revealed in recent documents, while others are rather more questionable (e.g.: Challenger 1 Lower hull front of Mk1/3 version had ERA = 520mm KE).
-
With the CR1 protection numbers, I personally did not believe the "engineer rumor" myself. I just did not believe that British could compose an armor array that would offer a superior armor efficiency compared to their US and German counterparts. There are quite a few issues: 1) The British are aware of the threat the 125 mm guns pose by no later than 1981. 2) The armor array of the Challenger 1 was never upgraded as far as i know while it was in service (1983-1997). If these two statements are true we need to ask the following question: If the Challenger 1 turret offers a similar protection level like their German and US counterparts, why were the armor packages of the Challenger 1 never replaced while in service ? The British thought it was necessary to up-armour their Chieftains but they did not find it necessary to up-armor their Challenger 1s by replacing the old armor packages with new ones? Either the armor package was replaced or the original armor package was considered adequate enough to already offer enough protection to deal with the 125 mm ammunition. I really wonder where the Armed Forces Journal Author got his numbers from.
-
Apologies ! I was just really looking forward to finding some original sources on the protection level of the Ariete, yet it turned out that i was moving in circles yet again. What a shame !
-
according to mysterious sources: " ... In any case, the level of protection, in particular against APFSDS projectiles, remains the Achilles' heel of the vehicle, reaching 500 mm in the frontal arc of the turret (C1 Ariete), a thickness comparable to that of a Soviet T-72B of the 1980s but lower than that of contemporaries M1 Abrams or Leopard 2. " Yay !!!! ...wait a minute!!!! source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13 OM*G! The turret values might actually be correct but there is no way of practically veryifying it either way. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!
