Wiedzmin

you don't have cuts for turret, and trying to comapre later turret overall view( let me guess 077 sb ?) with my mid turret cut 073 sb ? and even here it soooo "wrong", lol

nope, just art critic from ukraine have low iq and can't understand such thing as geometry(and many other things), especially considering the fact that the sections are redraw according to the real drawing but if you don't belive you can take 541mm part(section) and incline it up to 37-38 degree for example and i posted corrected version if you didn't notice

and ? there is no tank that can survive even 105mm APDS at 100% of frontal area, at the moment when 78degree roof was accepted there was only a requirement of protecting tank vs 105mm APDS and this requirement was met and often when it comes to real war/test tank can't resist most of this threats , there is a tons of methods to make you new tank shiny and glorious in the eyes of future customer(government or any export), but when you start to use this tanks in battles, well all this " shiny and glorious " became rusted remain for example take T-64A/B,T-72A/M1,T-80B and M111, soviet test their tanks at this moment only against theirs shitty ammo, and when they encountered not so shitty ammo, here is where the fun begins... or you can take Leo2AV which have fuel cell as main frontal hull armor, and germans trying to deceive the americans about the real weight of the tank during trials(tank for mobility trials did not have armor package for example ) as for war, when it comes to T-72 "battle history" we often blame arabs etc users because they can't use it properly, but what with the rest part of the world ? maybe turks good users of Leo2 ? or saudi of M1A2 ? or iraqi of M1A1 ? all weak part of eastern tanks well known only because it used in many wars and often with unqualified crews and almost all soviet tanks after USSR collapse gone to NATO countries for trials, only western tank that have more or less same long "battle history" is Abrams. CR2 have even greater weak spot, is there any hits in this area ? CR1 and CR2 lowermost edges of turret Leo2 lowermost edges of turret(photo from bellow, but you can find good frontal pics, zone will be not much smaller) all i try to say - all modern tanks have huge weakspots, but some tanks use in combat almost any day in any theatre of war and taking hits in any part of tank , and some mostly used in military exercises, and of course if your tank never been in real long term combat(rpg, atgm, artillery, other tanks etc), you will never know it's real weaknesses and strong points. and of course all tanks design is based on the probability of hitting of some elements(what will be probability of hitting mantlet during tank vs tank combat on move when you aiming in tank center, and shell have some dispersion, stabilizer has errors etc, or what is better - to have almost all ammo in turret with blow off panels and make it safe for crew but increasing the chance of hitting the ammo, crew allive - good, you don't have tank platoon from first hit - not good, or you have all round/charges in hull which is supposedly constantly covered by the landscape, if you hit ammo crew and tank dead, but whole platoon can have success because tanks doesn't get hit in ammo, etc, it's not that easy to say, when you watching youtube and some guy with rpg destroying tank with 1 grenade in city you think oh that tank is crap, but in real war with other country this tank can have other "destiny", ooor can be same pice of shit tank lol ) have some as well as the tactics of their use(you don't have side protection vs PRG and ATGM, but there is no infantry around you, because you just nuke them all lol, etc) the main problem with tanks is that they are designed on the basis of some(any) statistics, and if the statistics are incorrect(or analyzed wrong) , then a tank built with this statistic in mind may be a mistake by who ? i saw that people can't understand what is 420mm part, thats all. you trying to protect Leo2 as Damian protects M1, thats obviously what british test have to Leo2 armor ? nothing, you just trying to get and "good" for expected level(expected by you)

btw, my bad, on this pic 900+mm area will be further from the point i marked, sorry for this

and T-72 ? turret designed to protect in +-30° arc it was posted by Khlopotov it does mention exact round and distances, and it's problem not for T-72B itself, but for all soviet tanks with 78degree roof. depending on point of hit, 25-30mm APFSDS can disable any tank from the front, so ? i'm not trying to say that soviet or any other tank "good/bad" most of tanks - shitty steel boxes designed in a way to get profit for factory which is making this junk, not for "saving crew lives" or something like this. and what protection does it gives? mantlet itself can't stop anything, it's 650kg box with speical armor insert in it,(and it's not 420mm los btw), so even it it gives 150-200 mm vs APFSDS(or you think mantlet itself gives 400 vs APFSDS?) and you add this to 230-280mm(which is have thinner parts) you will have what ? 380-480mm vs APFDS vs 370 ? is "not so weakened" or ? all this statements about "oh this mantlet is 100% better than this solution on Tseries/Mseries) based on what ? look at uppermost and lowermost edges of any tank, western or eastern... my main point that there is a tons of myths about any tank, but no one wants to get the truth about them because truth can be very dangerous for mental health of arguing people lol(take M60A1 for example)

like "850mm" for Leo2A4 turret is a LOS thickness of left(loader side) "cheek" only (physical will be something like 680-700mm, right will be even less ) "500" is a physical thickness of T-72A turret, which became 650-950 LOS depending of how far from center line of turret you measure it. in some places Leo2 turret have protection only against HMG and the source of this claim ? guess what, if turret RHA roof 45mm/78° is vulnerable for old soviet APFSDS, what will be if you hit hull roof of Leo2 which is 30mm/79-80° ? Leo AS1 as far as i remember started to cracking without "50-60 years" ? i'm not trying to defend someone or start hollywar, but all this "we have better tank A, and ugly tank B" is a waste of time and words if you/or someone doesn't have reports(and preferably from different sides of "conflict", to get the least biased assessment) proving some sentences

it's czechoslovakian made T-34-85

is there any real report proving that german WW2 tank sights were better(which model) that any other ? because early optics seems to be not very good, and later models with blooming of optical lenses was there only to resolve the problem with 20% light transmission(sights with flexible "head" have less transmission ), but no because it was "super cool sights"

cast and rolled. it's not very high,before you ask high hardness not always means super brittle german panzer IV front plate(30mm) has 600 on outer surface(face hadened) and 418 rest part(core) of front plate, 50mm plate on G model was 500-520HB but these plates often was brittle indeed

T-34 and JS-2 have 440-450 if US metallurgical test correct

FT.50-H-2 3 - infantry firing table for 45in + i have US specs on AP M2 cartridge which gives 853m/s IIRC

any progress ?:)

don't know where you get 455HB for serial postwar casted soviet turret, but T-62, T-72 and T-64 uses SBL-2 steel which has hardness up to 277HB(Impression Diameter - 3,65mm) and tensile strength up to 882MPa

made pic for better understanding

pic from some forum, and it gives 2935 f/s for AP M2

FT.50-H-2 3 Cartridge, AP, M2 Muzzle Velocity, 853.4 M/S Remaining Velocity 0 Meters - 853 M/S 100 Meters - 813 M/S 1000 Meters - 482 M/S is there any FT on .50 AP M2 that gives 895m/s and remaining velocity on range ? I found only WWII era schedule but...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a317929.pdf Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle Barrels

have question about 12.7x99 AP M2 cartridge WWII time books gives muzzle velocity for AP M2 - 895 m/s for 45in barrel, modern days firing tables and manuals gives 856 m/s for 45in barrel, which is correct, or both correct but 1st for WWII and 2nd for modern dayes cartridges ?

maybe someone have info about addon sight on 61 Mech Ratels?

it's posted by Jon Bernstein Armor Modeling and Preservation Society Social Group on FB

australian armor museum?

3 in hull creating new huge weakspot, 2 in turret

and higher res without watermark from Alexey Khlopotov blog

thank you, interesting