Wiedzmin

10 minutes ago, Liberator said:

Are you sure that these are non-metal elements?

i think it's aluminium OR non-metall, because there is no point to fasten it with bolts if it's steel + whole structure will be quckly destroyed by incoming hits + weight of that plates

CR2 prototype in Bovy have rails even on turret IIRC, serial tanks have this strange plates on turret front and side

On 5/13/2019 at 6:54 AM, Molota_477 said:

CR1 UFP without cover

 

so they changed from rails to that aluminum( doesn't look like steel)/non metal backing plates like on CR2 ? you sure that is CR1 hull ?

On 5/13/2019 at 7:12 AM, Molota_477 said:

Interesting that the No.4 array had been mentioned in a report of Chieftain mk5/2, would you mind share the source of this message?  Title of report is ok.

T 225/3237, main problem that there is no detailed info about 5,7(40 and 60 degree cone) and 8(40 and 60 degree cone) inch warheads, what explosive it used, what was the speed of jet etc, thats why real effectivness of all of those "Biscuits" vs real ATGM/RPG not quite clear

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Leopard 2 has been focused on a certain (not specified) frontal arc.

Late requriments for L2 lets say have similar requriments as L3 in terms of KE, 120mm from 1km IIRC(doesn't have doc at the moment), knowing L3 armour array you can propose what L2 array is

11 hours ago, Liberator said:

Does this mass include various external elements on the UFP?

no, only UFP and LFP itself without any addons, without idlers housings, blade etc, even without driver vision block and plate(and without 16mm add-on) for it IIRC

upd: UFP(without 16mm addon, without driver plate for vision block and any other additions, but only with tow hooks) + LFP(499kg) - 3517kg, so UFP alone with hooks - 3018 kg

4 minutes ago, Liberator said:

Are there exact numbers on mass of UPF+LPF T-72A?

i can find exact "kg" but it will take some time

4 minutes ago, Liberator said:

Did you mention mild steel plates, is there any more accurate data? (Hardness or maybe steel grade or some other data?)

this is only description what i seen in reports about chobham biscuits, few spaced armor plates which is protects  agains KE, and package of mild steel on plastic(NERA) to protect from CE

presumably the first authentic photo of 115mm 3BM21M APFSDS(maybe for export)

7 minutes ago, Liberator said:

s it mass of whole UPF or only special armor?

for soviet tanks whole UFP(as i wrote - UFP( in case of soviet tanks UFP structure is special armour basically,because only whole structure gives protection, but not 2/3/4/any number sheets of FPR from whole structure )  + LFP + some other in case of oplot) + LFP

in case of CR1 weight of special armour module(spaced armour plates, mild steel plates on plastic, fasteners etc)

one more example

Biscuit №4 was 406mm thick(50mm of those 406 was RHA backing plate, so 356mm for special armour), whole assembly have weight similar to 5,3 inch steel plate(135mm)

gettyimages now have much higher res previews 

On 5/11/2019 at 1:03 AM, SH_MM said:

The weight

it's funny to read about all this "weights!11"

for example T-72A hull front (UFP + LFP) 3+ tons IIRC

oplot-m hull front(UFP + LFP+"ERA cassette(without ERA blocks inside)" which is part of UFP) 4966kg

CR1 UFP special armour - 1.4 tons (1427 kg) (hull itself with special armour, fuel,ammo,engine etc isnide - 41700kg)

27 minutes ago, Scav said:

A thin steel plate put on brackets outside the tracks of the vehicle?

no, there is many pages, part - front with add-on armour, part about hull side which is 80mm thick and have side screens far from it (spaced at distance of track etc), part about comparing with rh105 etc...

29 minutes ago, Scav said:

That's quite a large space

it's not about posted image 

29 minutes ago, Scav said:

Also, junk US/UK test plates?

i think you can find some reports about M392 APDS IIRC which was tested on 240 bhn plate in US, usual practice at the time 220-250bhn, and many others in archives 
 

On 4/17/2019 at 12:41 AM, SH_MM said:

How exactly looked this spaced armor (steel hardness, spacing

it's describes only as auxilary armour, distance of spacing showed only for target represent tank side, quality of german plates similar to soviets tank armour(i think a talked about it earlier), not US/UK junk test plates (220-240bhn)

On 4/17/2019 at 12:41 AM, SH_MM said:

 

Btw. the distances apparently should be 1,140 metres and 4,197 metres).

one mark - 200 meters so it's 1250-1290 and 4310, and my mistake about 3057 which is only showing difference, to much work lol...

18 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Here is the "high res" image of the hull:

i'm talking about other images

about hull front i think your model is correct(as swedish report showed), but side "flaps" imho looks very strange 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

These images come from the book "Char Leclerc: De la guerre froide aux conflits de demain" by Marc Chassillan.

thank you

about you schemes with special armour, turret right "cheek" seems to have some sort of weakspot in bottom part(protection of left and right asymmetrical by height? or maybe it's not that obvious on early turrets)  

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Oh, yes ! I used a high res scan of that image to get my lower boundaries for the front hull inserts among other things.

can you share this/those scan/scans ?

such an arrangement of special armour is very doubtful due to uneven LOS imho, it can be spaced armor, but not special

btw maybe someone remember, from which magazine this pictures ?

3 hours ago, Liberator said:

Lanz-Odermatt

it’s impossible to calculate rounds like DM13, BM42, BM15, M735 etc with L-O

On 4/9/2019 at 9:21 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Well,

100mm/70deg - 3057meters

15mm-100mm/70deg - 1250-1290 meters

so "good against spaced armour" not good enough, but maybe better than nothing...

strange shape of detail 

at first you can see two turrets (one on top of other)

two version of turrets ? 

mk4 turret front plates?

1 hour ago, Scav said:

major mistakes

it's not mistake, just old method(one of) of protection assessment

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Yep, AFAIK they didn't test tandem warheads either, those might stand a much better chance.

They did do real firing tests, but only against 3 different SC warheads and I don't know the difference between the two large ones (third is the Carl Gustav's 81mm charge).

 

Edit: checked again, the first charge is a 165mm charge (CE 165), second is a 143mm charge (CE 143 FFV) and the third is the 84mm charge (not 81mm as I previously said, apologies).

yes CE 143mm - 1000mm RHA, CE 84mm - 420mm RHA, and KE - 700mm, but all this doesn't have any sense because if tank doesnt penetrated with 1000mm level threat and you have 200mm of "unpenetrated LOS" it doesn't mean that you have 1200mm vs CE, which is seems to be the method used in swedish presentation 

14 hours ago, AC GiantDad said:

is a significantly better construction

doesn't mean that is significantly better in penetration

14 hours ago, AC GiantDad said:

less vulnerable to the shear stresses found at high obliquities

i will find report , there was test agains 70degree 100mm RHA + 15 or 30mm HHA IIRC, which round coudn't penetrate 

20 minutes ago, Scav said:

but then again, even small impact angle changes (yawing LRP) can have massive consequences.

and if you set SC charge on unoptimal focal distance you can stop jet pretty much by anything, yes, but real firing are main interest, not this "we can protect it from deathstar, but we have one smaaaal condition..."

16 minutes ago, Scav said:

Besides, I'd still consider DM13 superior to BM15/22, specifically against composites.

DM13 same shitty round, have some report about it i think. need a lot of time to find it...