Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Pardus

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pardus

  1. I agree completely, and when speculating I think it's very important to be friendly & respectful about it, mostly because otherwise you end up looking like a real ass if your hypothesis turns out to be wrong And as for the factory drawings, they indeed tell the truth, but if they supposedly were/are as easy to get a hold of as Wiedzmin suggested, then I wonder why that hasn't already been done? I'm quite sure it wouldn't be due to a lack of interested individuals
  2. Not sure why you point this out, I never said it didn't? I posted the picture in response to Laviduce's reliance on Hilmes drawing for guessing armour thickness, which is an exercise in futility as these drawings aren't meant to showcase armour layout or thickness, hence why they also don't show these cavities amongst many other things.
  3. @SH_MM No, I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that 45mm is more likely in my opinion. I never once claimed it to be fact, and neither did I simply scuff & brush away anything you said as ridiculous the way you have done it to me. On the contrary I have an argument, which is that based on the logic that if immunity to 20mm DM43 was demanded above 700mm height then 30mm of armour wouldn't be enough. That's the main argument from my side. If you have a report that says otherwise, heck even that side armour was decreased the
  4. No, never implied that. Difference is I've been talking about the requirements for the production version the whole time, whilst you've been mixing it up with the initial ones. The Leopard 2K & 2AV couldn't meet updated requirements, hence the 2A was born. I have Krapke's book thank you very much. "neither failed to meet specifications" & "it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection" I hope you see the conflict
  5. The evidence is in the numbers as far as I'm concerned, 30mm of armour is not enough to reliably stop a 20mm DM43 at 100 m, it isn't even sufficient vs WW2 style 20mm APCR. And as we know the 2K & 2AV were both scrapped because they failed a number of unspecified criteria, and based on the adoption requirements my guess is side protection was one of the areas they failed to fully meet demands. Rarely is classified information mentioned specifically, hence I wouldn't put much thought into that.
  6. That's not a plan drawing showing actual armour thickness Laviduce, hence very bad idea to make guesses based on that. The 10mm sponson armour being a prime example as that would be insane to have as the only cover for your fuel tanks, as that would allow regular smallarms fire to cripple your tank. So I'm sorry but there's no way those guesstimates are accurate. To prove it you can observe pictures of the actual tanks sponsons opened up: As you can see the plating at the back is more like 20mm thick (with another angled plate in behind where the tools are mounted) rather
  7. No, I am not claiming it is 45mm, I am saying I think it must be around 45mm based on the adoption requirement, which is the only clue we have to go by. There's big difference between saying "It IS 45mm!" and "I believe it is 45mm based on this".
  8. Sorry but no. I'm not the one making blanket statements as to what the hull side thickness is. On the contrary I am saying not of us know as we don't have the plan drawings, yet since we do know one of the adoption requirements we can atleast make a reasonable guess, hence the 45mm figure as this would be sufficient to protect reasonably well against DM43 at 100 m. In short 45mm is what I think it is, not something I claim it to be. And I base this assumption on the evidence available.
  9. WT is definitely not equal to the real world. Lot's of stuff missing on the Leopard 2, including the gun trunnion and lots of LOS thickness for the mantlet and cheeks. Glacis plate (82 deg) is also only 35mm in WT, where'as it's 45mm in real life. Turret roof is 40mm in WT and again 45mm in RL. As for the hull side below the sponsons, I think it's 45mm based on the requirement for adoption, i.e. immunity from 20mm DM43 @ 100 m. But others in here are saying 30mm based on the rejected 2K & 2AV prototypes. None of us know for sure however.
  10. Doesn't seem like it's the same tank HAKI, as that one features add on armour around the angled part of the lower hull too, which the other one did not.
  11. 1) Again where's the proof of 30mm hull sides for the 2A4-6? Leopard 2K drawings don't really matter as we know it failed the requirements, as did the 2AV. I'm not saying it's impossible for the hull side to be 30mm, but where's the proof? I sincerely doubt it based on the requirement to withstand 20mm DM43 at 100 m from 700mm height upwards, for that to be met 45mm hull sides are basically required. 2) Already mentioned the increased hull side armour on the Danish A7DK's delivered recently (As I said I spoke to a couple of the guys who tested & now operate them). And t
  12. And the "real" penetration at 90 deg and 100 m? To me it looks like it agrees well with the figures on the chart. Mind you the Russian 14.5mm PTRS AT rifle could/can also penetrate up to 40mm at 100m 90 deg. And by comparison WW2 German 20mm KwK30/38 APCR was good for 40mm @ 30 deg @ 100 m, equivalent to a good 55+ mm flat. I will concede that I did actually misread that one, somehow mixed up the 30 & 60 deg figures. Anyway here's the source (Russian) for the table I posted: https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/298964.html
  13. By the very figures you just posted it is not (DM43 = 17mm vs 3URB8 = 27mm), also your figure matches the one on the chart for 1 km @ 60 deg quite well (27 vs 28mm). ad hominem attacks leads you nowhere, try to stick to the subject instead.
  14. That I sincerely doubt, as 25mm Bushmaster APFSDS-T round is supposed to penetrate ~48mm RHAe @ 60 deg @ 1 km vs the 17mm of the 20mm DM63 at the same distance.
  15. Sorry but at 100 m 20mm DM43 is not going to hit at much of an angle (couple of deg at most), and the requirement was that the armour was immune to 20mm DM43 at this distance, i.e. irrespective of impact angle, as in a real world combat condition projectiles can come from all sorts of directions as in the real world combat doesn't always take place on a level field where attacks can only come with difference in the horizontal. I also see no reason to drop this requirement, if anything the requirement would become stricter with further advancements in same caliber cannon penetration
  16. Problem is that would have it fail the requirement as it leaves the area I was talking about completely vulnerable to 20mm AP, incl. the hull ammo rack, failing the immunity requirement at 100 and even 500 m: 20mm DM43 performance at 1 km: This would become more problematic with the newer RHA skirts as they actually cover a bit less area: Hence I am still more inclined towards 45-50mm side hull armour above the 700mm line, where'as below that 30mm is possible as the hull is angled, plus there is no vital parts there.
  17. @SH_MM I don't think it's silly to believe the hull armour is 45-50mm at all, esp. considering that immunity to 20mm AP was required. That means complete protection even at point blank. Also keep in mind that a noticable area of the Leopard 2's hull sn't covered by the skirts, hence 20mm DM43 AP would be able to sail through a 30mm plate here. As for the Leopard 2AV meeting the requirement, where is this established/mentioned? So is the Abrams.
  18. Yeah the BMP-1 frontal hull is also very well sloped (80 deg upper, 57 deg lower), and APCR does not deal well with sloped armour to begin with. Anything less than 45mm at 90 deg simply wouldn't pass as immune to 20mm AP, and would even be vulnerable to Russian 14.5mm HMGs.
  19. Apologies for the late answer to this, but the Danish governement actually decided in late 2018 that all 44 tanks will recieve the full upgrade. https://www.berlingske.dk/nyheder/forsvaret-faar-flere-og-bedre-kampvogne-men-det-bliver-dyrt To translate: "All 44 tanks are now to be upgraded to the same high standard, where'as the plan initially was to make due with fewer" (16 out of 44)
  20. Well to be considered immune to 20mm DM43 HK which can penetrate over 50mm, within 500 m atleast, will require more than 30mm of base side armour + 12mm steel rubber "Lochbleche" skirts. To be classifed as "immune" afterall requires 100% certainty of protection. Hence why I've always suspected 45-50mm as the hull side thickness decided upon for the production version, esp. since skirts don't cover everything, and it would be damn embarrasing to lose an MBT to something as simple as a ZPU equipped technical (14.5x114mm AP can penetrate 40mm RHA @ 100 m) On a sidenote,
  21. The early skirts were not solid though, but a "ventilated" steel rubber combo, which I doubt would affect 20mm DM43 HK much. Penetration performance of the 20mm DM43 is afterall over 50mm at 1.5 km. Hence I seriously doubt 30mm is the thickness of the Leopard 2A0->'s hull side. I know it was 29mm in the in 2K, but it was also rejected. Also are you sure the Abrams side is only 27mm thick around the crew compartment?
  22. Well it's supposed to break up the cone of a HEAT warhead, so why not? If anything it should be effective versus any HEAT warhead. The 2AV must have featured thinner side armour as the Leopard 2A was supposed to be immune to 20mm AP, so that would rule out 30mm hull armour for the production version atleast. 50mm is the only thickness which would reliably protect you against the 20mm AP available in the 70's. As for the RPG-7, I doubt it will penetrate 80-100 mm of armour 500mm behind a 12mm steel skirt, as was also demonstrated several times in Iraq & Afg
  23. I am talking purely if the side skirts are hit, in which case there's a ~500mm stand off between the RPG warhead going off and the ~100mm UHA underneath. If the side skirts are not hit, then ofcourse the RPG will punch straight through.
  24. Frontal protection looks enhanced if anything, not reduced on the 2A7+ Urban Operations (which was just an addon kit AFAIK). So unless they removed internal NERA packages the frontal protection would still be at maximum, as the turret wedges are the same and the tank also features the extra upper hull protection. http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280 Is there information that says they removed the internal NERA arrays on this model? Well the entire side of the tank was fitted with slat armour, including the heavily armoured forward turret side, so I
×
×
  • Create New...