RoflSeal

On 1/23/2024 at 8:54 PM, BaronTibere said:

This is attributing things to this document that it cannot say, while ignoring what it does say. This document was rather popular on the war thunder forums among people looking for sources for buffs they wanted, instead of evaluating the document for what it is.

 

"In this quick study"

Not a roadmap of planned changes, a study of potential improvements to the platform. That there is a II and III and that the dates are similar does not really prove anything except that they spaced them out in roughly 3 year intervals. I cannot remember if there are additional pages but this makes no mention of TOGS. The Glacis protection could not be improved to that degree without obvious visual changes (i.e.: thicker, way thicker) and we have later documents that peg it at ~300mm KE (350mm with the gulf war applique). The new gun would not happen until Challenger 2, same with the free gunner's sight and transmission improvements.

 

I'm not entirely sure on the date of the document but it predates Mk.1 service (1983). You can infer this based on the wording regarding the OE ammo (L23A1) being in service in 1982, meaning the document is likely 1981 or earlier. Note L23A1 and L26A1 were already in development at this point, so predicting their service dates really just means that they managed to stay on schedule (though L26A1 would not be fielded until the gulf war).  This document is a fun read, and points to how early back they were aware of Challenger 1 short comings that would be remedied on Challenger 2, but it has zero bearing on what actually did happen.

 

 

 

It's from DEFE 25/576 in 1981, before CR1 entered service

So the 4 number -M turret tanks do not have DU in the front turret faces presumably, if they are being used by Poland (as well as US service)

6 hours ago, Cheburashka said:

Is the M41 Walker Bulldog TC cupola rotatable? 

 

https://imgur.com/a/unIjRNF

I don't think so, the Commander's persicope is a gunner's sight extention and you can see the a mechanical linkage in the Chieftain's hatch video

The Abrams and Leopard 2 upper hulls are roughly the same (bit where the drivers hatch is on)
~40mm at ~82 degrees

In Iraq the Scimitars were also up armoured with probably high hardness steel bolted onto the turret front and Hull front (vertical plate)
~10 mm I guess

Hull and turret side had spaced perforated steel mounted as well

Anyone know what the "box" is on the gunners side on top of the one of the ERA of the T-80U. Doubled up K-5?

On 11/14/2020 at 9:08 AM, Militarysta said:

 

1) In table are mixed values form estern and western block - but in fact the only one big diffrence is slighty overestimated soviet turrets vs KE due to using as referencial non-monoblock APFSDS-T in Soviet Union. Rest is showing just some general level of the frontal protection.  What is more important - those table data are based on RADE, CIA, and Soviets orginal data. Have You have something better? I don't.

 

2) and 4):  Indeed - "safe angle" in Mk.1 is smaller and in article it's mentioned very clearly: 

 

 

 

3) IMHO nope, those thickenss have fluent value :-) It's mucht bigger in lower past of the cast (ca 80mm) and the thinnest in upper part, again - it was noticed:

 

 

 

IMHO it wil be easier if you just read whole article not only tables.

 

And those Mk.1 part:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if I understand correctly, the side turret is rather like b) rather then a) and the front turret is like d) rather then c)?

31 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

 

5345-A as an Australian example. What are the other suffixes? 

-U tanks
 

Mix of M1A1 and M1A2

-M tank

First pic is M1A1 from Ramadi 2005. M designation seems rare and no idea what the difference is to the more common "U". Both are used on tanks in service with the Army and Marines.

-E tanks

Egypt, Saudi and Iraq respectively

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Just need someone to post a pic of the turret serial to check whether the suffix is ‘U’. 

"159498M"

43 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Yes, but it wasn't extensively marketed as a brand new turret design suited for other future tanks. It was said from the very beginning to be an improved version of the existing turret design, which I'd argue is the case with the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Rheinmetall aswell.

  

 

Everything except the new Thales Orion sights is unchanged. Also this is not a render, but a photograph of a photo printed on a poster.

  

 

Yes, this was changed to meet the basic requirements of the Challenger 2 Lifetime Extension Programme. The "it's a new turret" argument is mostly marketing. They made a new steel structure, then did just enough work to meet the minimum requirements (removal of obsolencies in FCS and digital systems) and added all old parts to it. A turret is more than steel shell, given that fact that the 120 mm smoothbore gun is not a final offer (the budget for the gun replacement has still to be allocated and the decision to integrate it has still to be approved by the British MoD) Rheinmetall is essentially offering the same turret as BAE Systems, but they can bait all journalists with "brand new turret" after changing the internal steel citadel and extending the bustle.

  

 People have been calling me a paid Rheinmetall shill in the past (I actually was once invited by them, but due to communication issues, I missed the event), but I have to call them out for this "brand new turret" marketing claims.

  

 

Outdated systems can be found on other tanks too. The whole vision & situational awareness concept for the crew hasn't seen any modernization; Rheinmetall originally teasered adopting its Situational Awareness System to provide 360° camera surveillance with automated target identification and tracking, but this apparently has been dropped in favor of the budget. The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk and has been criticized by British soldiers over at ARRSE for years; given that Rheinmetall has been trying to push its RMG 7.62 on its other current vehicle offers, this just shows how they had to cheap out in order to stay within budget.

 

On other tanks, work is done to enhance and improve situational awareness while some of the other obsolencies found on the Challenger 2 do not exist in the same fashion (but all tanks have their own issues). You also notice that I marked all the parts in order to show that they were unchanged and this turret was not brand new, rather than claiming every single of them was obsolete?

You can't change the internal citadel willy nilly. Especially if it is moving from cast to welded construction. It is all new manufacture, and I assume the mounting points for the armour would have to be different as well ( Rhm advertized new armour fit for the turret, whether this means new protection, or a new method of mounting the current armour, it is unclear to me). Extending the turret bustle like on a Sherman Firefly is one thing. Remaking the entire citadel on a modern tank where pretty much all the equipment is mounted in, and the armour is mounted on is something else.

Dude you marked the gunners primary sight in a cyan box. Are you honestly claiming that the GPS in the Rhm picture is the same as the one on the current tank? And judging the weapon is the same from the flash hider sticking out of the mantlet? Are you serious? Should I remind you some Leopard 2's use FN MAGs, most use MG3s and the Swiss use the 7.5 mm MG87? And you can't tell the difference at all between them from the outside. I would personally go the direction of "wait and see" for more info, rather then making rash opinions.

Just now, Scav said:

Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new".

Brand new would be M60 -> M1

Oh, so going from cast(?) to welded, just like the Challenger 2?

As I say, even if the original turret was welded, the new turret will use different steels for weight saving.

And even then, going back to M1->IPM1, you definition of a new turret is arbitrarily restrictive. And extended frontal armour wasn't the only difference.

1 minute ago, Scav said:

Strawman argument.....

As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret".

 

 So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.

I don't know what you smoke, but the IPM1 had a brand new turret compared to the M1.

9 minutes ago, Scav said:

Ha, right, so that should include things you say.

 

There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out.

That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed.

So from the M46 to the M1 Abrams, nothing has changed with the turrets, the layout of the crew and periscopes is still very much the same, just with "deep modifications"

T-90A's welded turret is not a brand new turret. Not a lot has actually changed from it's previous iterations.

If we go to a welded turret (as Rhm say) from a, presumably, cast turret previously when the Challenger 2 was first produced 2 decades ago or so, that is new manufacture, by definition it is a brand new turret. Even if the original Challenger 2 turret was welded, doesn't matter, it is new manufacture, it uses new (modern) steels (as Rhm have said). It's weight is different (Rhm say the turret will be lighter so other equipment can be mounted for no overall weight gain). Layout of the certain periscopes doesn't matter, if it works, don't change it stupid.

45 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components.

 

The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.

What are these "outdated" elements shown in this render?.

Different gunner's sight that is clearly a dual-mode day/FLIR sight. The current outdated sight is a day sight only.

Red and dark blue boxes are 1x periscopes. The loader's periscope sometimes seen replaced with a RWS on the current Challenger 2s.

How are the commander's copula periscopes out dated? These things are clearly present in modern manned turreted vehicles such as the Leo 2A7V and M1A2C in the same capacity; i.e. 1x wide angle view periscopes.

The yellow box. A coaxial machine gun, clearly an outdated concept according to you.

A wind/temperature sensor, clearly an archaic device, fit only for obsolete tanks such as the T-14 Armata.

You can clearly see a change in the commanders periscope, it has been moved aft, and it is dual-mode day/FLIR. This is not the "same (outdated) component(s)" as on the current Challenger 2 in service with the British Army. This is the biggest difference along with the removal of the TOGS, clearly though they haven't been marked by you for probably some nefarious reason.

 

43 minutes ago, Scav said:

@SH_MM
Don't bother with him, he just likes trolling for the sake of trolling.

No, lovey I just don't stand complete and utter bullshit.

23 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

"brand new welded turret" 

I guess these are same turrets as well

 

What a contrived way to make an asinine statement