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
    I also read that the CR2 was expected to have a KE resistance lower than that of the M1A1 HA. I think this came from a British assessment document. Yet there is a problem , the British were aware of the threats posed by the 125 mm guns. There is little reason to believe that the British were not successful of reaching a protection level of 500 mm RHAe in the 60 frontal arc. This would translate to about 580 mm RHAe from the front. The M1A1 HA KE protection in the frontal 60 degree arc was stated to be around 600 mm RHAe. This would translate to a KE resistance of up to 690 mm directly from the front. What we know: CR1 - Armed Forces Journal estimate: 580 mm RHAe CR1 - Engineer Rumor: 620 mm RHAe Average between the sources: 600 mm RHAe M1A1 HA - multiple sources - up to 690 mm RHAe CR2 - British document projection - below M1A1 HA level This would give us: 600 mm RHAe < CR2 KE resistance < 690 mm RHAe -> reasonable middle ground for the CR2 turret cheek armor from the front 650 mm RHAe This would satisfy the requirement of the CR2 offering marginally inferior KE resistance compared to the M1A1 HA but marginally superior KE protection compared to the CR1. Now 50 mm is not much of an improvement but it could still be true. The jump in KE resistance from the M1 to the M1A1 was also around 50 mm if we follow the given sources. The increase in CE resistance was more significant, from 700 mm RHAe all the way up to 1000 mm RHAe for the frontal 60 degree protection arc. The CR2 could have followed the same idea, where an increase in CE protection was emphasized over an increase in KE protection.
  2. Laviduce
    Those evil Russians ! Why are they so evil ? Why is Putin so evil ? Why does he gas people and invade countries in Europe and the middle east ? This is so confusing. Thank goodness i have the BBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. to keep me informed !
  3. Laviduce
    The following diagram seems to show some old "weldlines" on the hull of a Leclerc prototype concept. Given the dimensions of the hull, nothing much seems to have changed between this prototype concept and the Leclerc Serie 1 hull. This would give the front hull a LOS thickness of 600-620 640 mm, which conveniently falls within the limits of the earlier diagram:
  4. Laviduce
    here is some info dealing with the protection requirement of the Chieftain of the 1980s: This also makes me believe that the turret "cheek" armor protection of the Challenger 1 is 500+ mm RHAe against subcalibre KE threats. The Armed Forces Journal estimate of 580 mm RHAe and the British CR1 engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.
  5. Laviduce
    that sucks! Are they any viable estimates on the protection level of the early Merkava I , II and III ? I am getting the impression that a lot of the general estimates of many MBTs out there are overestimates. The Leopard 2A5 turret cheeks having a KE resistance of 1300 mm RHAem is a good example of these overly "optimistic" estimates.
  6. Laviduce
    What about the general protection levels? Are they wrong ?
  7. Laviduce
    Is there any validity left in those Chinese protection values for the early Merkava III ?
  8. Laviduce
    Hello guys, i need your wisdom and insight! would you guys know the approximate LOS thickness of the Leclerc front hull "beak" ? Im looking for the LOS thickness of the special armor in front of the fuel cell. Here is my preliminary estimate:
  9. Laviduce
    but but why not ? I like to "believe"...
  10. Laviduce
    In summary , how valid are these chinese protection diagrams ?
  11. Laviduce
    How far along are you with your Merkava I and II study ?
  12. Laviduce
    But how valid is this information on the Merkava III ?
  13. Laviduce
    Hello Xoon ! Here are the translations: red - Operational Pressure orange - Control Pressure/Actuators yellow - Pre-control pressure green - Recoil white - N2 white - Air These should be about right.
  14. Laviduce
    Hi Xoon, I do not have all the information you requested but this might be of interest. According to Krapke: For the Leopard 2(A0-A4) the gun laying system or Waffennachführanlage (WNA) is known as H22. It is a electric-hydraulic retarder control eqipped hydrostatic motor where an electric motor powers a coaxial piston pump which pumps the hydraulic fluid out of the reservoir into hydro storage cell. Here is the diagram of the WNA H22:
  15. Laviduce
    we need more !!!!! We need ....https://media.giphy.com/media/wLXo0vTZSM7GU/giphy.gif !!!!!!!
  16. Laviduce
    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. M1 Abrams Swiss tank trials (1981-1984): "Der Leopard 2 zeigte sich seinen Konkurrenten in den Kriterien Feuerkraft und Beweglichkeit ueberlegen und beim Schutz nicht ganz gleichwertig." "The Leopard 2 demonstrated that it is superior compared its competitors in terms of firepower and mobility but not totally an equal when it comes to protection" Source: Walter J. Spielberger - Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2 - Page 342. The Swiss National Archives might have already declassified at least some of the results of these trials. The following link suggests that they have something: https://www.swiss-archives.ch/detail.aspx?ID=4687655 A) Bericht über die Truppenvergleichserprobung Leopard 2 und M1 ABRAMS, 1981-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#29) B) Leopard 2 Strukturbaum Bewertung/ Vereinbahrung, 1981-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#31) C) Evaluation neuer Kampfpanzer (Schlussbericht über die Technische Evaluation Neuer Kampfpanzer), 1982-1982 (Archive ID: E5560D#2007/169#32) 3) I agree 4) Concerning the sponson. I am not that sure about the KE and CE protective properties of a 10 mm steel plate + 490 mm diesel fuel cell + 50 mm of steel. How would you estimate it ? Also, the angled lower front hull section seems to be about 20 -25 mm thick. According to the diagram below, the side plates are angled at about 51-52 degrees from the horizontal giving us a LOS thickness of 25-32 mm:
  17. Laviduce
    Leopard 1: Leopard 2K: These images made me believe that the Leopard 2 trunnion interior is "...actually thin air, or cardboard..."
  18. Laviduce
    But how valid is this chart ? Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?
  19. Laviduce
    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.
  20. Laviduce
    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 mm Batteries/empty space/NBC system + 10 mm steel. Total LOS: 510 mm Side skirts (outside->inside): Heavy side skirts: 100-110 mm (steel/spaced) heavy side skirts + 680 mm air gap + 30-35 or 50 mm of steel. Total LOS: 810-845 mm Side skirts: 20-25 mm ruberized perforated steel plates + 680 mm air gap + 30 or 50 mm of steel. Total LOS: 730-755 mm Turret bustle: Construction depth of around 80 mm at most. Seems to be spaced. Possible make up: 45 mm Steel + 20 air gap + 15 mm steel. Total LOS: 80 mm Ammunition hatch: Hatch seems to be mostly composed of "thin and light elements". Possible basic construction: 10 mm steel cover plate + 280 mm air gap/spacer + 20 mm steel cover plate. Total LOS : 310 mm Lower side hull: angled bottom side hull seems to be 20 mm thick steel at around 45 degrees. Side hull seems to alternate between 30-35 mm and 50 mm. Updated CE resistance disgram: I adjusted the values according to 1) Militarysta's feedback and 2) the respective LOS thicknesses. I would be grateful for any feedback!
  21. Laviduce
    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.
  22. Laviduce
    Update with corrections:
  23. Laviduce
    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.
  24. 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.
  25. Laviduce
    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:
×
×
  • Create New...