Wiedzmin

maybe some german speaking members can help with translation ?

as i understand turret was jammed after 90mm HE strike " no hydr. operation possible, turret ball bearing blocked after a short turn. No visible effect on the crew represented by cardboard cylinder. The tank is initially no longer operational."

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, the infamous "Auyer & Buda"

this report give you source for it's claims. you can go to NARA and order research to get all blueprints from souce list.

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Just check what the report says. 4.5 inches for the gun shield. 114mm. Which is more or less OK, however, it does not take into account the fact that there is a huge block behind,

and ? Centurion mantlet have areas 300+mm which also serve as a gun cradle etc, but briths on their schemes show only 152mm as protective thickness 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

as the soviet report stated.

soviet report stated that "mantlet-cradle" gives protection only from spall and bullets and says nothing about mantlet 115mm APFSDS resistant. 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

A&B definitely made one by using wrong data for mantlet

report have sources, this sources are factory blueprints of M60A1 tank, such as:

Turret Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10911647(M60A1)

Hull Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10905702 (M60A1)

etc

if you want to argue with factory blueprints, well....

good luck to you 

37 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

"Poorly protected M-60A1 turret" myth was debunked in WT forums, with real measurements. Mantlet thickness reaches 270mm at some points. (No, it isnt hollow!) And the angle isnt even considered. LOS thickness is around 380mm. Not even 125mm APFSDS (3BM9, 3BM12) was able to penetrate it in the beginning.

people don't understand their own measures and physics  typical situation for all gamers

mantlet get thicker only where it have "claw" for gun trunnion, the rest (and most of) the area simple 110-118mm of casted low hadness steel with holes for MG and optic. gun barrel etc. omitting the fact that getting hit into the area of the trunnions will lead to jamming of the whole mantlet. but who cares...

37 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

http://btvt.info/1inservice/m60a1_israel/vop_m60a1_israel_armor.htm

if you take this "research" as basis about "115mm ineffective" you must also take that article says about mantlet - "antispall/bullet armour" instead of choosing the facts that are more convenient for you

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

So the steel was quite a bit harder than the steel armor used on other tanks of the same time period. 

 

 

well, not much, 490 for 12mm plates only to protect from 14.5 and 20mm(and all plates for light AFV used +- same HHS)

370-410 for main plates more or less the same for soviet BTK-1 HHS used on T-80 and other new soviet tank, T-55/62 used 42SM steel with 290-310HB IIRC, US M1 also used HHS etc 

btw it's funny there are some report about quality of US/UK and FRG plates for APFSDS test, XM735E2 penetrates 150/60 of UK/US plates from 3.4km, and FRG 150/60 only from 500 meters, and one of main reasons - hardness of plates(noted that the germans apparently use plates that more closely represent soviet tanks), it will be interesting to find some day real test of any APDS/APFSDS on any real tank... 

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

. The Leopard 1A3 clearly had a smaller protected arc and therefore was arguably still more vulnerable overall, depending on how threats from different angles were weighed.

it's also very importatn what your tank can do after hit, for example Centurion Mk.2 mantlet after hits with 6Pdr will be jammed, after this brits reinforced trunnion pin and now mantlet gets jammed only afted 17 Pdr AP, after that they made resilient mantlet on Mk.8, and for example if 88mm APCBC(real test) hits turret of Centurion on ricochet , some vision block craks, sight etc.

T-55 firing BR412B at T-54 can put out of action it without any penetrations, etc

there is a very interesting part of non-penetrative tests on tank - force impact on equipment but such reports are almost never found

I posted protection levels for this turret earlier, it can withstand some 100mm ap (haven't seen test with 100mm but they tested 90mm)from 1km in +-5 degree arc 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

So roughly 177 mm steel when seen directly from the front, with a slightly higher effective protection due to the armor being spaced. Is the outer layer made of high-hardness steel like on the Leopard 2 PT with spaced turret ("Leopard 2K")?

(30+35)65mm/65 degree 

HZB 301 370-410HB and up to 490 for 12mm plates,roof HZB20 260-300HB

1A3 turret armor btw

16 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

This is not entirely correct, because the frontal armor is only 703 mm thick instead of 727 mm. I guess it is a slightly different state of development of the same vehicle.

i guess brits made some wrong calculations(frontal stucture 7 plates for example. not 6) because german report(from which they take this drawings) gives scheme that Yuri posted.

ofcourse there can be some variants, but it(drawings) look like same in german source report 

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

German concept proposed during the Kampfpanzer 3

and its armour. posted by Yuri Pasholok 

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

I've never seen detailed comparative tests of those performance parameters, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Leo 1 was superior across the board in terms of practical mobility. 

i mostly interested in reports, because they rarely contain a personalized opinion, only facts,  without reports there is no any interest in my "reasonable to assume", or your, or anybody else, with all due respect

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

It was much lighter than the M60 or Chieftain

M4 Sherman much lighter than Panther, but in Swedish test IIRC was worse cross country than Panther, that's why I want to see reports, and not some logical conclusions

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

I don't believe Chieftains somehow got better mileage than a tank twelve tonnes lighter.

it's not a matter of faith, for example in the offensive movement and the column, the unit moves with the speed that is set by its weakest(or lets says with speed of fuel supply and technicians) 

yes Chieftain unreliable, but after all, there are no complete reports on all the technical "features" of Leo1 (as i have mentioned the problems with tires at max speed, for example)

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

As for the rubber on the Leo 1's roadwheels delaminating, this is a very common problem.

but this problem decrease so called "good mobility" to same level as other western tank, no ? and moving in mixed column(with IFV, APC, and other) will decrease even worse.

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

The swinging motion is an obvious consequence of the long-travel suspension that the Leo 1 possesses.  Chieftain's paired roadwheel suspension provides excellent resistance to pitching motion, but it's completely terrible at isolating the crew from bumps from moving over rough terrain at speed.  Leo 1's suspension is squishy at low speeds and very prone to pitching motion during starts and stops due to low spring constants, but it provides far better isolation from bumps when moving at speed.

so you have tank with great speed, without stabilisation(until 1972?) and main method of firing will be firing from short stops/halt ? and in this situation you will have problems with swinging ? 

On 8/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, Collimatrix said:

there will always be these sorts of trade-offs in suspension design.

in whole tank design yes.

On 8/17/2018 at 2:15 PM, SH_MM said:

If I am understanding the following Dutch graphic correctly,

saw this on FB page of museum IIRC, unfortunately they didn't post the report itself, is there an opportunity to contact them?

On 8/17/2018 at 2:15 PM, SH_MM said:

I don't think it makes sense to argue

i interested in full reports in all conditions, so as to be as impartial as possible

On 8/17/2018 at 2:15 PM, SH_MM said:

while Germany also rejected the Chieftain (both M60(A0) and Chieftain were tested by the Bundeswehr

it would be very strange if the country producing its own tanks would decide to kill its own production

9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The Leo 1 beat the snot out of other Western MBTs in terms of practical mobility in its day. 

average techical speed of Leo1, M60A1, Chieftain squad/platoon cross-country ? 

average techical speed of Leo1, M60A1, Chieftain squad/platoon cross-country in battle formation during offensive ? 

same values during winter in snow-covered field ?

fuel consumption for each squad ? 

each squad real speed at which it can hit targets on the move at distance 2km and 1km away with a probability not lower than 60% ? 

i know that Chieftain engine is unrelible, read some reports, but i don't see any reports on Leo1 with real data. 

maybe you have 1966 report about Leo-1 test in Salisbury plain, Aldershot and Long Valley IIRC ? 

9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The Leo 1 had a total of 383-407mm of total travel of its road wheels.

and ? during 1966 test IIRC brits noted the tendency of L1 to swing when moving at high speed over rough terrain, movement on roads with maximum speed was possible only within half an hour due to the risk of overheating rubber bondage of roadwheels  at a speed of 50 km / h, overheating occurred an hour later, and to continue the movement it was required to drop the speed to 40 km / h

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The author of the book is pro-Chieftain, the test results are not. These tests need to be put into a context, which the author doesn't do. He just says "look, Chieftain is only 7.4 seconds slower to 500 m" distance (when driving along a certain cross-country track), but in reality it matters how often the tank will need to drive 500 m, how much will it drive less and how often more than 500 m? What is the requirement?

well, lets make it simple 

1 squad Chieftan

1 squad Leo1

1 squad M60A1

how fast each squad can make a march cross-country  at 300km ? 500km ? 

I'm not trying to argue with you or with somebody. 

all this "armour protects only from rain and wind, but mobility!111" looks also like 

but what we have at the moment ? british "pro-Chieftain"(i understand the fact that all nations have theirs idiotic "national pride") report(about real test) and what report from german side about Leo1 vs any western tank ?

Book gives name of exercise, you can try find report, it's not "pro-chieftain" it's usual trials , real tank mobility have nothing to "max.speed" and all of that "max" values, so in real life there is no great advantage of Leo1 mobility over any western tank in cross-country, if i remember correctly this is one of many tests show that's is nothing "special" in Leo1 mobility. 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, it had great mobility

On 7/31/2018 at 2:53 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

I've never heard of the part being bronze before, and since its a gun mount, the part is not in the G104 parts lists, so I don't have a good description of the part either.  I'll ask over on the Sherman mailing list and see if they have any idea.

at least on M4A4 tested by brits it was bronze, and seems to be bronze on some restored tanks 

AT.100 Ballistic test of hull and turret of general Sherman tank (courtesy of Fu_Manchu)

btw maybe you know exact thickness of bow MG shield ? 

On 7/16/2018 at 9:41 AM, Wiedzmin said:

 

read some british report about M4A4, it syas that bow machine gun have bronze(on second photo shield is painted yelow, but ball look like bronze?) parts C and BB, does all shermans have same ? and is there any good blueprint or measures of B(shield) part(1-2 inch thick?) ? 

 

 

one more about bronze

one more

updated 

^10 meters

there was a tests with  polyethylene, for buletproof vests, it was able to stop AKM 7,62x39 point blank(10 meters), but when bullet velocity drops to distance of 300 meters , bullet went through 

300 meters^

don't know if it was problem with certain polyethylene or it correct for any sort of polyethylene

Btw, if you take a look inside emes15 sight gap, you will see ground from the hole(small rectangular hole on turret bottom) for cooling of emes15 iirc 

ah, this file... thank you

On 7/20/2018 at 3:20 PM, SH_MM said:

Its from an old file containing lots of armor estimates from Paul L. and others, which were gathered from the early internet. The original source isn't stated.

thank you, is this file available ?