TokyoMorose

3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I remember back when the WoT forum tank ID thread was on its last legs, I stumped everyone with this picture.  And yes, its a Bradley turret, but what is the hull?

 

Edit: I just noticed that for whatever reason, this photo has been reversed.  That Bradley turret has the missile launcher on the wrong side.  This is how it appears in the book I took the image from, I didn't reverse it.

 

Okay, this is a obscure one. Well done. TARDEC AReS - "Advanced Reconfigurable Spaceframe", modular electric hybrid IFV testbed - built 2008. Head to tear through tons of various documents as I don't have the book you got that from. (The TARDEC Story)

I hate to barge into someone else's arguments, but several (almost all of his last post really) of DarkLabor's points don't really make sense.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

Not anonymous, it's Marc Chassillan. He even published in on of his article of Raids magazine.
He was not directly responsible for the Leclerc MBT but was in charge of the ARV and then became marketing director in his latest years at Nexter.
The design bureau is always well placed in terms of informations simply because engineers and marketing teams work together to achieves successful foreign sales.

Add all the claims you want to all the things you want to back your claims. Armor protection and algorythms of the FCS are THE MOST protected data and are known by a few. Things happening during international competitions are worthless.
By the way it Giat Industries not GIAT. G.I.A.T. (Groupement Industriel des Armements Terrestres) was the previous entity...
People can bullshit, other can have a deficient memory. It is just a matter of sorting them out.
In the case of Marc Chassillan, he has a good memory and don't give a damn about new customers for the Leclerc (the competition is done, the production line is disassembled and stored; and he is no longer Nexter).

British representatives still made exorbitant claims about Challenger after it's production run was effectively over despite the fact that we now know from leaked British documents their claims were bunk. People still believe what they want even after a project is over. And GIAT keeping FCS and Armor data "THE MOST protected data" is not unique to them either.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

Only 13 kits were bought by the UAE and they only protect the chassis sides and rear plus turret bustle sides and rear...

13 out of 93ish tanks sent there. The 13 belong to a mechanised infantry batallion, that is usually sent in the hot zones usually in urban environment but not only...

You can't just have 1000 RHAe KE all around. You always have weakspots because you need to make room for the driver, his hatch, his field of view, etc. Under the same circumstances (angle and location), the same result would have been seen on other tanks...

Despite the fact that the main charge pierced. It did not go through far... The commander got the spalls from the driver frontal episcope. Other than that the tank was recovered by its own means and sent back. The glacis was patched, the frontal episcope was changed, the interior cleaned and the tank got back in the ranks.

What was the point of your statement? "Oh! If the Leclerc was THAT great, there would be no losses..."
Grow up, nothing is inpenetrable nothing works without quirks.

"Weak points" are not the same weaknesses between tanks. Even assuming that hit was through a weakpoint, it doesn't say much for the LeClerc's design that it managed to get hit in one. The Abrams has a comparatively fragile hatch, and yet in all the times they got hit in the mideast, I do not recall a hit managing to be landed clean on that hatch. No Chally 2 was knocked out to a hit to the drivers' optics despite the enormous chasm that was cut in the glacis armor for it. This suggests that the weakpoint on LeClerc is relatively large.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

To me this makes no difference. They can be high authorities or just random threadhead on the net, this change quite nothing.

What is the percentage of error while doing their CAD?
What is the method used to calculate the protection index under X angle?
To me they can do precise shit or just : "Ok this part if Xmm and this part is Ymm; knowing that X offers Amm RHAe against CE and Bmm RHAe against KE; so Y offers (A*Y/X)mm RHAe against CE and (B*Y/X)mm RHAe against KE"... and nobody is able to tell if it is actual facts or just BS.
They were given quotes; no armor compositions, no array layout...
You know "this tank is protected against X under Y and Z angles" backed by the kind of photos you've posted, armor modules  with semi infinite witness plates.
The new armor layout was a response from the design bureau of Satory to the FMV's high demands. Just like any project the customer gives a need and the supplier makes propositions.

No shit Sherlock?!
And what happens if you input incorrect data (approximate volumes; wrong armor array)? You get wrong results.
Or what proof do we have that the assessment was done properly?

The best proof for the accuracy of the Swedish armor CAD models is the fact that neither the Germans or US (who also keep their exact data secret) complained about inaccuracies in modeling. There's also the fact that not a single outside test of LeClerc ever, has praised its armor in relation to late model Abrams or Leo 2s.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

You fire at a full tank only once to validate the protection models elaborated previously. The number should only be one unless you have so much money that you don't know what to do with...
Greece tested a full Leopard 2 turret for the same matter validate and check if the protection was in conformity with the specs.
Giat Industries proposed to make the Leclerc been partially produced under licence to favor the votes in their favor. Giat Industries knew that the swedish industrials that were left behind by the FMV would push this offer to the top, preserving jobs and garantying a certain authonomy.
Regarding the greek trials I'm laughing my ass off with your claims as if radios was a crucial thing, no, a corner stone(!) in the assessment done...
In addition, they've used a Leclerc tropicalised prototype (a tank that is, by design heavier than the french version), so yeah lighter tank... LMAO! You're a troll aren't you?

As to Greek trials - SH never claimed that the Radios were a crucial thing or a corner stone - just said they interfered. That they used the heavier tropical model does not stop them from reducing the weight of that relative to a normal tropical, which is what I am sure SH meant.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

And this is actually a good point. Giat Industries do NOT disclose openly about the protection level. It is defended secret. You just don't come and say "Oh! I am interested in the Leclerc can I have the armor composition, pleeease?".
If there is an actual customer, the transfert of information must comply with an actual export authorisation from the french government.
And this proves, that the swedish did their thing concerning the protection... Thus, the data you have is not "vintage" it is "swedish"! End of the story!

I already touched on this - KMW and GDLS do not openly discuss Abrams or Leopard 2 protection either. Literally nobody does, and SH is well aware of this. And yes, you have to get permission from the relevant export control authorities to get data on those vehicles as well. So the Swedes could jump through all the hoops with GLDS and KMW, but magically not with GIAT?

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

Think what you want of me.
I have my sources of informations. And between those and a random retard coming from who knows in the internet, I'd rather believe those coming from a source that has more credibility and that is fact checkable with my contacts.

SH_MM is far from a "random retard", which is why I wrote this post. If your contacts are in the French army, of course they are going to say the LeClerc is the best. Everyone in the British army continued to say Challenger (both times!) was the best even after embarrassing performances that saw them lose time and again in trials. It is not in the interest of the French army to say their tank isn't the best, and it's also in their interest to tell everyone joining the armored force in France that their tank is the best. Troops in M1A1s in the late 80s were told that the vehicle could deal with every latest and greatest Soviet battlewagon without issue, and that they had armor capable of resisting whatever the Soviets could throw at them. We now know both of these to be categorically false, and that analysts at the time were aware of it in secret.

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

Look at the base of the turret, it is the same as the other with the "so we replaced the plastic boxes..." as opposed to the other bullshit CAD made by the swedes.
So the those black and white CAD drawings come from Giat Industries; and the other one is just a some stuff put together by the FMV...
The one with the "thin shield" is most likely the first proposition made by the french before the FMV gave their feedback.

You just contradicted yourself. You said "it is the same as the other [...]" and that these drawings came from GIAT while the other is somehow "just a some stuff put together by the FMV". Which is it? Are the turret designs different, or was the FMV model correct?

On 7/1/2018 at 1:33 PM, DarkLabor said:

You once again made the assumption that... Just forget it, you're wasting my time.
From now on to expect me to respond to your BS.

That original statement you made was in fact very silly: "The engineers were not taking into account the other western MBTs when designing the Leclerc. They comply with the established specifications that took into account the latest warnings in the WarPact threats." When designing the Abrams, design specs were entirely based on hypothetical Soviet threats. Same with Leopard 2, same with Challenger. There was never a spec in Challenger that said: "we should make sure the armor is similar to Leopard 2, or better than Abrams".

On 7/1/2018 at 8:40 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

No, a tank with final drives that last on average 150 kilometers, is still a total trash tank, even if, by an evil God, the Nazi Germans had an auto industry that wasn't a shitshow, and a capable producing a decent heavy truck. 

Oh, I am in complete agreement. The Germans managed to build the world's first transforming tank - drive a Panther 150km and it turns into a pillbox! It's just you'd think that faced with such disastrous longevity, they'd try to develop a transporter so they don't have to drive around said tanks.

33 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

I didn't realize the Germans used wheeled transporters at all until looking it up, and even then it doesn't seem they were very prevalent at all. Biggest vehicle on one I saw in my quick search was a Panzer IV bridgelayer.

Maybe the Panther's final drives wouldn't have been such a disastrous issue had they diesel-powered tank transporters available. Also would probably help with the fuel issues... but German logistics in WW2 is a sad story in general.

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The MGS did not have stability issues.

 

And just in case, yes it had no problems firing to the side.

I know that it wasn't in danger of rolling over every time it looked sideways, but did have issues with smoothness over undulating terrain and had a more severe side-slope limit. Strykers always seemed top heavy to me, and this just seems to make the problem a lot worse than the alternative 30mm options.

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

More and xbox hueg versions here.

Are they *trying* to raise the center of gravity to somewhere approximating lunar orbit? This looks to be taller than the MGS mount and we all know the amazing stability that vehicle had.

I got to thinking on the merits of the actual double-V (and not the compound V that I was thinking was double-V whoops) - and since the idea seems to be to minimize the amount of area that has to be reinforced (only the trough, and even it is supposed to be slightly concave and open at the ends to vent blast forwards/back) would something like a triple-V not be better? Put third V where the trough is to make two smaller troughs, these will be more concentrated and have to be more heavily reinforced but would not heavily reinforcing those two very small troughs be similar in weight to reinforcing the single large trough while taking up less interior space?

16 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

For vehicles where it is simply not possible to introduce a V-shape to the hull due to height and handling problems that may arise, it is possible to introduce a ‘double V’-shape (or essentially a ‘W’-shape). With this concept, instead of the blast being solely directed to the outside of the vehicle, a double V–shaped arrangement means that some of the blast is directed into the centre of the vehicle (Lee 2013). The blast is then spread fore and aft along the vehicle’s central axis using a suitably reinforced ‘duct’ that is concave downward. The deformation of the internal angled parts leads to a downward ‘pull’ on the central concave part thereby countering some of the upward impulse from the blast. Therefore, this provides a route to provide some meaningful blast protection in vehicles that would otherwise not be able accommodate a full ‘V’-shape.

Hmm, that weight penalty for reinforcing the duct seems to be a disadvantage, I wonder if it is really worth it vs raising the vehicle.

25 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A double V has a trough.

 

I stand entirely corrected, and yet this design baffles me. That central trough is going to act as a stress concentration for the blast wave.

6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Yes, the goal was for crew safety. 

 

That's what I based 3 and 6 off of. I wonder why they use double-V hulls on the new Strykers if it would cause problems like the hull splitting open, unless there's something else going on. 

I am not sure why you would think that 3 or 6 would be a double-V hull. Mirroring that design to produce a full hull would result in an inverted trough running down the middle of the vehicle, a great weakness. 5 is the best, and a true double-V.

From my memory, T__A's comments on the IS-3 ring true. They did have serious welding issues, the mechanical systems tended to overheat, and some of the crew positions were ergonomically unacceptable. This is not so much due to any major weight gain, but was rather due to a number of design flaws caused by the extreme haste in which IS-3 was developed and put into production (under a year from the start of development to production starting).

14 hours ago, T___A said:

 

If Khrushchev was right it wasn't because of any foresight on his part. The man clearly had no aptitude and knowledge for both armored warfare and tank design. I'm not sure if you're familiar with why the T-62 has the 115 but he was involved and the whole affair was dumb.

 

If they weren't canceled either the Object 277/8 Object 770 or would've been produced*. Probably with the 140mm smoothbore. Maybe the Object 292 would also be produced as a hold over until 277/8 or 770 gets rolling. After that its impossible to say the if the later designs would be worthwhile. I think pure institutional inertia from the SA would keep heavy tanks going at least until the collapse of the USSR. Again I don't know if  the later designs would be good and therefore worthwhile. All the heavy tanks designers threw in the towel after the decision but I don't know what happened to their protégés after the infamous order. So I don't know if they were any good. I presume they kept working in the industry. 

 

 

*Probably with the name T-11 since it would've been the 11th heavy tank produced by the Soviet Union. 

Do you have any idea why the Object 777 went nowhere despite development being largely done before the stupid bulk cancellation of Khrushchev? That seems to be IMHO, the best overall of the soviet heavy tank designs, and was worked on for quite some time.

On 5/1/2018 at 5:08 AM, LoooSeR said:

Why?

Some of these Ukrainian proposals really seem to be throwing every envelope sketch at the wall and trying to see what sticks. As far as I can tell, that has been the origin of most Ukrainian offers since the 90s.

8 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Thanks for the great explanation. 

 

But how do you heat treat a tank chassis?

I am not sure how it is done for Leopard 2 components, but I have seen entire cast or welded assemblies heated up and quenched at once in appropriately massive facilities. This image of a Panzer 68 hull being Quenched at Thun always comes to mind.

Welding plates post heat-treatment is very difficult without making the zone around the weld weak. It is usually preferred in metallurgy to weld before heat treatment and then do it all together.

9 minutes ago, Xoon said:

What is austentic and ferritic welding?

Different crystal phases of the steel, essentially the grade "P" armor is welded while still hot, the other grades are welded at much cooler temperatures. Likely implies that the grade P material is welded post-heat-treatment, while the grade Q and R metal is welded pre-heat-treatment. (This is not necessarily the case, but would be the most likely reason for welding at different phases).

While only tangentially related, I find it interesting that the M1 apparently has issues with the terrain of the Golan Heights, not because that terrain is easy (it is very nasty terrain) - but rather because the US extensively has tested the Abrams on the Yakima Training Center grounds which has lots of similar basalt. I wonder if the YTC gives the Abrams headaches.

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

What I find most interesting is this seems to confirm that the Type 90, at least for the hull, doesn't have a 60 degree frontal arc of protection. Odd decision, really.

Now, I am pretty sure this is the right thread - but @Waffentrager has managed to put this diagram of the various material sections of the Type 90 together. The blanked-out APFSDS in the RED description is JM-33, which (as I am sure most everyone here knows) is their variant of the DM-33.

On 2/17/2018 at 5:58 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

Hmmm... anyone want to hazard a guess as to what this means exactly?  My guess is that it's something like a ring laser gyroscope.

It's a HRG. Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscope - it would be a major accomplishment of Russian industry if they have actually put these into mass production. Only two firms on the planet so far make them.

(Also, first actual post of a longtime lurker!)