Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Scav

  1. The 3800kg weight is not given for the L/44 as on leo 2, but the LR version(s). Not sure, but could be that it's the same for this: https://web.archive.org/web/20061103224651/http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1448&lang=3&pdb=1 So, 150kg added.... From? Things that changed (MRS, MG mount) aren't very significant in weight. The Strv 121/122 doc has weights given for the 122 BTW, not the 121. Note on the Pz 87 site: they list 56.5t (presumably because their tanks are C tech).
  2. Comparing proto to production, yes it will matter....
  3. I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages. The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.
  4. We don't know the exact dimensions of the holes, though you can sort of get close with pixel measuring on the inside, but that isn't particularly relevant because the gun cradle isn't just that block, it's also the thicker part of the barrel right in front of the block and right behind it. In the Rh120 brochure from Rheinmetall I posted a while ago the "gun port" dimensions are given: 730x500mm, thus while the gun cradle itself is 728mm wide we can surmise the height is close to 500m, after you know the rough dimensions some guessing of hole sizes, you can get a decent idea on how much volum
  5. Why all this guessing? https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4xitrrBUDsYckRhSXNNSXpKbkE/view?pli=1 Gun cradle weight of 595kg, and all the other stuff you can probably use translate for (this is most likely for Strv 122 as well, not Strv 121). So gun cradle on 122 is steel, not titanium, weight in this location doesn't matter as much as it's right on the pivot point, inertia and balance doesn't change a whole lot because of it.
  6. No need to guess: Quite easily 64mm, though I'm not sure the entire hatch is that thick considering there's optics on it and they have to lead down somewhere, so maybe there's a cutout that allows you to push up the other end (haven't bothered to get inside pictures, so purely speculation).
  7. @Domichan Thanks for those pictures, still not sure though... DM53 looks very close. Nice pics, from my measurements it's the same length as M829A3 though the sabot looks a bit different as you pointed out. If we assume the core goes halfway into the windshield (which you can actually see fairly well, it's very thin), it's about 785mm long. Though I have to agree with @Militarysta, it very much looks like some kind of mockup or steel shell. Maybe you could hang around long enough to watch them move it to see how heavy it is
  8. That could easily have been a mistranslation or error on the part of the Brits writing it down. As if Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were devoid of ballistic holes.... that driver's hatch, lack of a gun mantlet on CR1 (with thinner composite armour behind it as well), TOGS hole on the side and equally large challenger 2 mantlet they ended up adopting.... Where exactly do you see that information? Are there more pages that weren't posted? FYI, KVT was built in 1989, so it's entirely possible they initially thought they could make the D armour an internal package a
  9. You don't honestly think that out of ~700mm LOS (60° arc....) they can get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE right? Even assuming this is from direct front that 1200mm CE is just absurd in combination with the already very high 600mm KE. Not to mention the supposed "no weight penalty"..... This most probably refers to the wedges, those can reach the figures quite comfortably, and considering this is an early statement they were probably being carefull with their estimates. The date even corresponds with 2A5 adoption and not the 1992 leopard 2A4 batches. But to th
  10. I guess a picture for proof isn't possible? So, this isn't correct? Everything besides the fins matches 105mm DM53 more closely than 120mm DM33 though... I know it's just a schematic, but .... Also, in that X-ray picture you posted, there's one frontal tip segment, on the schematic there's two. It could be that the first one was completely destroyed on impact and isn't visible for that reason, or it could be there was only one.
  11. I know this section is important, but the design in that schematic does not match production rounds. I've seen that before, and they probably used a similar design on many of their ammunitions (105 and 120 alike). If you were to look at the schematic's tip and the tip on actual production ammunition you'll see how much thicker it is on the latter. Ontop of that, the schematic shows a smooth middle part of the sabot, production DM33 does not have that, it has a small step in it. It might be a schematic for DM33, but it looks closer to what 105 DM53 en
  12. Why wouldn't it? It would prevent shrapnel, small projectiles and possibly even APFSDS from riding up the armour and continuing to hit the cupola or whatever's behind it. The Brits found this to be an issue on the Chieftain, so it makes sense that these plates could prevent it and serve such a purpose. You mean the side armour that was cut open from above? If they for some reason decided to increase the height of the modules (like you propose by saying they didn't bother with adding a single plate on top to cover the three different modules, yet they are somehow
  13. Ah yes, that picture. We don't know if that's DM33 120mm though. The Hülsendeckel on there isn't on production DM33 rounds, those also have two different kind of fins it seems like, one type like the ones shown here, but others are longer: Also note that the attachment of the case to the sabot is different, as well as the tip being substantially thicker on production ones. Closer to this diagram: I'm not sure, but the schematic you posted looks more like that experimental 105mm DM53: Granted, the fins are different, but the tip looks much c
  14. The cupolas (hatches really) could still be damaged, and in the case of leopard 2E etc, a round that penetrates this roof module could jam the hatch, a stepped plate like this prevents this from happening. Not saying it's the main reason, but it could explain why it's only present infront of the hatch. I don't see how having the armour bulge out on the roof would be cost saving, while having all the other armour not do this. Unless only this part of the armour was changed, I don't see why it would be done. The cut seems to indicate the opposite to me, that the
  15. Looks like M322, or Slpprj 95 in Swedish service. http://www.imisystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/120mm-M322-APFSDS-T-Cartridge-.pdf Also, @BkktMkkt what are you basing the tip of DM33 off? Atleast according to the patent, it has a flat tip.
  16. Thanks! Those look like Dutch leo 1s at the firing range for their aircraft?
  17. I always thought this was to prevent rounds from striking up at the cupola or roof add-on package when installed (which "raises" the cupolas right?). Bit like the ribbed armour on BMP-1 glacis. Rather interesting as this would indicate they had the tank ready for the upgrade or thought it was necessary (UK found a similar necessity for the Chieftain's persicope GPS after the Iran-Iraq conflict). Also, is it just me, or does the leo 2 have thinner armour around the driver's hatch than on the rest of the glacis? Thanks for the translation BTW, wasn't sure on som
  18. Spielberger mentions in his book about German SPAA's that the Gepard prototypes had spaced armour: And in the pre-production series the tanks were lightened, but he doesn't mention the spaced armour configuration being deleted.... So, do the production variants still retain the spaced armour configuration?
  19. Did a quick calculation as to the steel LOS in the array, it's almost 400mm....? FYI, the 15mm comes from the U-shaped blocks in the front, from the horizontal, it seems as if a projectile would hit one and clip another before exiting that part of the array, hence 15mm without the 2.6mm sheet metal plate at the back. It's a rather impressive amount of steel, 393mm without even taking into account the effects of spacing etc, the 15° angled UFP is 81mm thick in steel or about 313mm LOS, then the glacis plate is ~323mm LOS. All of this would be substantially better again
  20. Why would they analyse an armour package and do tests on it when that's not the armour package that is in the tank they are doing the other trials with? They were sent the TVM for the trials, it makes little sense for them to test another armour package and not the TVM's, changes in module size and weight could affect mobility trials or even vision and other such things. "German model" being TVM (or KVT?) it has the add-on modules and thus shouldn't come as a surprise that it has better protection on both the hull and the turret. Not quite sure what you mean to point out
  21. I have a hard time believing that an array less than 700mm thick can stop DM43 when at the same time it supposedly defeats K-5 + T-80UD turret armour. DM43 doesn't seem to have any built in mechanism for dealing with heavy ERA, it's a light, thin rod that goes very fast, so unless it simply didn't trigger the K-5, it wouldn't be much better at defeating it than DM33 apart from the extra velocity and length. M829A1 was defeated by K-5 on a T-80U, M829A1 is longer than DM33, heavier, but slower, so it's probably only slightly worse than DM43. Was this on the cheeks from the
  22. Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23? Hull was penetrated once, which is entirely reasonable given that my estimates based on the Swedish leaks suggest around ~425mm on the UFP for C tech, DM23 should be sufficient for this, by contrast, only shot number 12 penetrated the turret cheek and this was most likely because it exited the main armour array into the gun area before it hit the back wall. According to my previously mentioned estimates, the turret front is around 550mm, though I have to point out that even then the percentages don't reach the values from the Swedi
  23. I still disagree on this topic. Besides, who says C tech can't stop DM43? If that red graph from the Swedish files is C tech (pink matches with B tech and yellow with B + D-2, no place for "plain" D tech), then it sports roughly 550mm on the front of the turret, which might be sufficient against DM43. And D tech was probably ready by the point the UK trials were held, which was in 1990-1991 (IVT was tested during this period and used D tech wedges on B tech base). As I mentioned previously, ex-loader told me one guy can't (easily) lift those skirts up an
  24. Ah, thanks, didn't know it was for Milan/HOT, which is for which?
  25. It seems they're referring to the wedges like on 2A5 etc, these would be introduced on the KVT in 1989: It's not very well known, but KVT was already partially ready in 1989 and would be quickly converted to the IVT (which most pictures show). So, mostly experimental and just armour tests instead of an actual vehicle? True, I guess I'd just expect them to write "0°" then. Yes, ofcourse, but considering the thickness of the plates, I doubt it ends up lower, most likely higher..... Different requirements.... Plus, I meant more
  • Create New...