Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

DarkLabor

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    60

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DarkLabor

  1. DarkLabor
    The problem is the access to the hatch crank and the ergonomics to enter the driver station. With the armor layout proposed to the swedes, there would be major ergonomic changes with the driver hatch in order to make things viable (position of the crank; cutout in the armor à la Leopard 2A5, etc). He is just BSing just to prove the point that everybody can come up with drawing and say whatever they want...
  2. DarkLabor
    I have reported this "leak" to Nexter and my contacts in french army. The feed backs I have from it are far away from what I have been able to see with some photos of the dismantlement of some Leclerc or some actual CAD been leaked on some blogs. There is nothing because it is nothing. 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). 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. 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? You make sooooo many assumptions that I don't know how to handle it to give you a proper response. I'll just make a ball of it and just dump... 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? 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! 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. 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 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.
  3. DarkLabor
    So what are the proofs? Some CAD made by the swedes disclosed without any sort of nuclear response between french army or Nexter and the FMW or the guy that disclosed those slides? That's a joke at best... Dunno where he got the AMX 30 thingy. But clearly an engineer of Giat Industries disclosed the fact that the design bureau didn't sent the quotes in time to the Greek authorities. As a consequence the protection offered by the Leclerc was considered/judged lower compared to the other western MBTs due to their lower volumes. We may like our tank, but we keep in mind its achilles heel. We do not claim that its protection is the absolute best in the world. But we are sure it offers an adequate protection (reinforced by what has been learnt in Yemen). You test the armor packages when you've selected a short list of contenders. What the swedes asked were quotes and some armor cavities to test the protection with their indigenous solutions... (what you have in the photo). No ballistic tests have been conducted on an actual tank in France for sure. The only two were one for the french army to validate their choices and one for Giat Industries to validate their softwares in the case of repeated impacts on armor packages and structures. Another one underwent tests in UAE to validate the choices of the UAE land forces. No trace of a potential swedish delegation to assess the armor packages with rigorous tests on ballistic modules... That's about it. So you just need some random CAD drawings to say "hey that's the original armor package!". How did they assessed the armor package in the US? How did they made their CAD to take into account the protection offered depending on the angle of the modules? How do they know how the packages are oriented within the turret modules? You are the kind of guy to swallow hook, line and sinker... Here the full armor layout of the Le Klurk for you : The swedes asked to be able to put their own armor on the vehicle. Hence the design bureau at Satory proposed a new layout for them to have more room for their solution. It is anything but an add-on armor on top of the legacy package modules... The above drawing is the CAD proposed by Giat Industries to the swedish authorities (all modules are extended not the legacy ones with add-on on top...). 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. Weight is not evidence of efficiency. The bigger the crew compartment, the bigger the structure (the weight of...), the bigger the modules to line the structure with... The french approach was to design the smallest crew compartment possible while shaping the modules in such a way that you didn't have to stack armor up to the level that the roof had to be not to collide with the breech at lowest elevation while firing. All those surfaces and volumes savings made some weight reductions; all of wich were reinjected into the density of the armor. Hence the two-man-turret concept illustrated by the Leclerc. Now think what you want. Call me a liar if it pleases you. But your logic is broken.
  4. DarkLabor
    Dunno what they've done... But for sure they left behind the car with G.I. workers and went full throttle. The technicians who were there were forced to REWORK the HULL. The suspension resisted the shock(s?) but the bolt holes were badly damaged. It took them a whole night with the tank on hydaulic lift to fix everything... At the time, the T1s sent there were equipped with instrumental suspension to gather data. The swedes managed to go up to 1400 bars in the nitrogen spheres (STAT members, who were not gentle people, didn't even go beyond 900 bars)... The incident got sent back to the higher ups and the president of G.I., with the support of the swedish industrials*, made a formal complaint. * At the time rumors were circulating that the swedish army was going to adopt the Leopard 2 no matter what; swedish industrials were left behind with no options. (Sauce : "La gabegie" by Pierre Chiquet Ed. Albin Michel)
  5. DarkLabor
    Swedish first and foremost. You just don't give CAD and armor composition to potential customers... Otherwise, you would lose the intel warfare and give away your Achilles heel. At best you give them quotes with protection levels but thats about it (rough estimates or minimal protection offered under certain angles). So these drawings are what the swedish army thought the armor protection was with their best indigenous layouts. This hasn't been made by Giat Industries for sure, the silhouette of the crew compartment should be a smaller with such angle. There is a dead space that hasn't been taken into account by the swedes.
  6. DarkLabor
    Some Leclerc crews having fun in Lithuania and setting positions in the woods :
  7. DarkLabor
    Is that an official press organism because, some statements are pure BS. All trials are crew based which allows to have three and four man crews without disparity in the scoring. Nobody from French Army got sent to Graffenwöhr after the fact. Spotting targets... they mean the SITREP trial??? It's just a dumb biathlon... They run in circle, shoot stuff. Get penalties if they miss...
  8. DarkLabor
    Tank biathlon has WARPACT procedures?! BEST-JOKE-EVER!!!
  9. DarkLabor
    You're looking too far. Just look at what has already been produced in terms of tanks. [Edit] Apparently you have a really hard time to see that the storage boxes have been changed to "hide the crime"
  10. DarkLabor
    Not missing. Just, look at the turret bustle sides and rear.
  11. DarkLabor
    E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors. The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one. Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer. If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.
  12. DarkLabor
    Kof! Turret bustle! Kof! Kof!
  13. DarkLabor
    Thanks for your assessment! I'm definately not an engine guy.
  14. DarkLabor
    Storage boxes are not part of the armor package. They contribute to the protection against CE, but they are no armor.
  15. DarkLabor
    I prepare some cookies and coffee.
  16. DarkLabor
    Yeah a storage box has been changed, you deduce the armor protection is completely changed... What a tremendous change... ... ...
  17. DarkLabor
    That's the specs of the engineers that worked on it. Every modification from serie 1 to the third (SXXI) always took the balance of both gun tube and turret into consideration. End of the story. Sure there is no 100% percent proof but we know the mindset and means of the one who made it.
  18. DarkLabor
    Not stacked with technical documentations on the AMX 10 RC but maybe that one will help you :
  19. DarkLabor
    Whuuuut? There is no rework regarding the armor. It's just the turret of a tropicalised Leclerc on a Léopard 2A7 hull with an adaptator and a rework of how the two communicate together... The later prototype was labelled as "standard european tank - french version" dunno about that one...
  20. DarkLabor
    Waste of weight and space. Unless you find some equipment to strap to the gun to add weight (such as elevation mechanism, air compressor for the bore evacuator and stud deflector, coax, etc.) to counter balance the gun. Nope you're wrong. The 130 & 140 are on the table not on the demonstrator.
  21. DarkLabor
    Not THAT close, don't forget the recoil!
  22. DarkLabor
    The design of the Leclerc allows a more convenient gun balance (on or very close to the trunnions axis). This allows the minimize momentums. The turret is balanced as well to control any momentum to achieve the same controls over momentums. Turret traverse and gun elevation have high acceleration rate (~45°/s²) dispite the 30°/s max speed. The autoloader allows a constant rate of fire whatever the tank is doing. I'll stop here, I'll skip FCS and suspension because, they have proven their values. The thing is none of the persons here can judge the value of any tanks because the hardware hasn't been shown into their worst conditions. Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Léopard 2 and others have just fired at worst on bumpy dirt roads with the crews doing all the SOP requirements to ensure a steady speed and minimise the vibrations. No matter what the competitions or tests have shown, people always forget that there is a huge piece of meatware that seats between the seat and the handelbar that can f**k things up... I won't hide that I consider the human loader as a risk at high speed high bumpiness. But in real combat, the pace of engagement is much slower than we think.
  23. DarkLabor
    Satory VII (1979) : https://imgur.com/a/4Kika8l
  24. DarkLabor
  25. DarkLabor
    ̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶?̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶d̶ ̶(̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶l̶e̶f̶t̶,̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶)̶.̶ Nevermind.
×
×
  • Create New...