BaronTibere

https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/verteidigung-deutschland-startet-neuen-anlauf-fuer-kampfpanzer-allianz/29374860.html
 
Paywalled article:
 
 

Old picture of an AMX-10RC with the newer TML 105 turret fitted with the SAVAN 15 stabilized day/thermal sight and add-on armor :
 

Leopard 2A4M CAN
 

Royal Ordnance Factories's Chieftain 1000
 
It's somewhat reminiscent of the Chieftain 900. The displayed weight (52 t) seems a bit light for an upgraded Chieftain.
 

Via Sam Cranny
 

Challenger 2 beats Leclerc in drag race



https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=353656443154750
 

30x173 is also a NATO standard, the only part I could see being incompatible with other manufacturers might be the datalink for the airburst rounds.

This should really shake up UK procurement.

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.
 
 

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.
 
 

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.
 
 

Had the fantastic opportunity to PMCS, boresight, and road test a M1A2 SEPv3 from 4-9 CAV at Ft. Hood today.
 

 
https://i.imgur.com/X0GEL89.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/h0McxcP.mp4
 
Many images:
 
I can confirm the photo I posted previously that the turret weight of the SEPv3 31.5 tons (28.6 metric tons). I have a photo of the name plate but I haven't removed the serial numbers to upload it. 
 
I also made an extremely rough estimation of the turret armor LOS using my boot and then measuring my boot after (I didn't have a measuring tape on the tank nor did I want to piss off the crew). Using this very rough method I found the armor to be at least 1150mm LOS including the backplate. 
 
I may be able to get back on a SEPv3 next Monday. 

GDLS UK has announced that it will be providing verbal evidence to the Defence Select Committee on July 20. Also released ahead of the testimony is their written evidence: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/37866/html/
 
At this rate my suspicion is that in short order, this will be the case because nobody sane will want anything to do with British cavalry scout vehicle programs after this.

Well, it is now official; https://www.gov.pl/web/obrona-narodowa/czolgi-abrams-dla-sil-zbrojnych-rp. Poland will acquire M1A2 Sepv3. Abrams tanks, more information is to be given by the Minister of National Defence, tomorrow morning. 
I wasn't sure if this info should be posted here or in the "United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines" thread.

This should really shake up UK procurement.

This should really shake up UK procurement.

M1 turret

Some renders of the AS21 for sim purposes. 
 

 

 

 

CR1
 






 
 

If.

Apparently British tank designer's solution for more KE protection is using more steel. According to the following excerpt, the cast steel shell for the Challenger 1 turret had a weight of 7,500 kilograms.
 

 
In case of the Challenger 2, the contractor for the turret shell, i.e. William Cook Defence, claims that it is a single piece casting with a weight of more than 9,000 kilograms!


 
The casting also nicely showcases the weakspots caused by the gunner's sight and the loader's sight.
 

A closer look to the Challenger 2 mantlet :
 

 

 

 

Well, it depends on the exact armor layout. The problem is that the different slope will affect the effective protection provided by most materials (sloped steel being weaker against APFSDS rounds when sloped, unless sloped very high; NERA being less effective perpendicular to the threat, while ceramics are better in exactly the same situation).
 
If one does not account for these factors, the volume will be used less effectively. In case of the Leopard 2 (at least the Leopard 2AV) and the M1 Abrams, the shape of the hull armor cavities do not correspond to the actual shape/sloping of the armor arry. In case of British tanks, the shape of the armor cavities is less suited for such solution, hence the difference between the shape of turret and hull might be more relevant.
 
 
That is quite possible, though IMO the picture quality is too poor to make an accurate judgement.
 
 
British research on DU armor suggests that thin plates used in a NERA-like configuration are prefered, at least such an array (using very thin DU plates and poly-carbonate inter-layers) was revealed in a British publication:

Note that this armor is optimized for KE and each sandwhich plate is less than two inches thick. Both DU plates amount to less than half of the multi-layered plates thickness.
 
The US Abrams also apparently featured thin DU plates, at least in case of the M1A1 HA and M1A2. There is a 1995 report covering the SMC (Specific Manufacturing Capabilites) located at Idaho National Engineering Laborary, i.e. a facility run by Lockheed-Martin and the US Department of Energy specifically to manufacture DU elements for the M1A1 HA and M1A2 tanks. The reports speciifcally mentions that the shears (shears have to be used to prevent DU dust potentially contaminating the worker's lungs) are rated for DU plate thicknesses of 0.625 and 0.375 inches. This would suggest that at least some parts of the DU armor arrays of the M1A1 HA and M1A2 use DU plates with a thickness as low as 9.525 milimeters.
 

 
 
They are backplates, which is why it is extremely unlikely that they are made out of DU. DU is way to heavy.
 
How thick do you think is the backplate? To me it seems to be in the area of 40 to 50 mm (not accounting for slope).
 
The problem is that given the slope of the hull, you look at as much weight as a 188 to 235 mm thick steel plate (assuming a DU staballoy with a density of 18.5 kg/cm³). 188 mm thick steel weighs ca. 1,500 kilograms per m², a 235 mm steel plates weighs ca. 1,880 kilograms per m² . Given the size of the area covered by the backplate, that would already be more weight for the backplate than the Challenger 1 had for total Burlington armor on the hull front. Basically there would be no weight left for anything else (such as NERA layers required to reach the desired 800 mm protection against shaped charges). Without additional layers, the DU plate with additional steel front and back plates also would fail to reach the desired level of protection.
 
So either the backplate is not made of DU or there has been a massive, currently unexplained weight reduction in hull components and/or the existing steel armor.
 
The problem also exists for the turret. Turret armor slope is not as extreme, but the backplates are also fitted to the turret sides. Basically more than half of the turret armor's weight would be related to the backplates.
 
 
Other materials have to be used, as DU is simply to heavy.
Which other examples of DU being mounted as a plate for armor applications do you know?
 
 

This was shown to me recently:
http://www.physics.gsu.edu/qwip2006/Presentations/Thales Long Wave QWIP - Eric Costard.pdf
 
 
Namely pages 9 and 10. It lists the locations for each sight and the detector (both are french). Previously I assumed that Catherine was basically a rebrand of the Stairs C developed for the UK BGTI program but it would seem not!
 

All Catherine thermal imagers use detectors from Sofradir (which is a joint-venture between Sagem and Thales, which was founded long before Pilkington Optronics was acquired by the latter). Stairs C was never finished, the original BGTI uses the Pluton-LW (with 288 x 4 detector elements) second-generation thermal detector.