BaronTibere

Apparently the Ajax is unable to fire accurately on the move, as the stabilizer is underpowered in relation to the gun's weight and recoil.
 
 
 
 
I've seen that snipplet and the corresponding topic in that forum... people there think that tungsten steel alloy means tungsten and titanium steel alloy means titanium - while these are just terms for steel alloys with relatively high W and Ti content respectively.
 
 
Chobham armor stopped including simple rubber already during the 1960s. In 1969, a type of (ballistic) nylon was used. More modern versions like Dorchester and possibly 1970s version of Burlington developed for the MBT 80 program are likely using more advanced inter-layer materials. The Leopard 2 supposedly used special composites developed by the German chemical industry rather than rubber, while the Leopard 2A5 apparently uses optimized inter-layer materials developed by Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth
 
I'd expect Dorchester to include some fiber-composites such as Dyneema or laminates of multiple materials as elastic layer of the NERA arrays. Research suggests that weaving kevlar into rubber improves the protection provided by a NERA panel.
 
As for "there [not being] many other options for filler" for the Challenger 2's (hull) armor array - I disagree. We know so little about the actual layout and composition of the armor of the Challenger 1 and 2, that the options are nearly limitless. Does the Challenger 2 have the same back and front plate thickness? Or was it reduced? Does the Challenger 2 use titanium, higher grades of steel or other materials? Did it actually meet the 500 mm protection requirement? How exactly did the reference threat look like?
 
Even when keeping the same amount of steel, just changing the layering can result in a drastic change in armor protection. Here are Polish computer simulations regarding one of their prototype APFSDS rounds against six targets - the first four targets have the same amount of steel (280 mm steel at 60°), but it is distributed in different amounts of layers:
 
... and that is not even using armor arrays designed to optimize protection against the specific APFSDS round. A thick enough front plate made out of high-hardness steel (to break the penetrator), some steel/titanium/NERA plates at different angles to spread the fragments of the shattered rod and a sufficiently thick blackplate to absorb the spread fragments could be a more optimal solution.
 
Titanium also can be a major (but expensive) factor for improving protection against KE rounds while staying at a similar weight. Ti-6Al-4V for example has 56% of the mass of steel for a given plate thickness, but provides approximately 90% of the protection. As per Hazell, the EM ranges between 1.5 and 1.8 against tungsten heavy alloy and DU penetrators with a L/D ranging between 10 and 20 to 1.

There was a certain member of a certain game related forum who was leaking like a broken faucet and provided this text excerpt from the challenger 2 aesp in regards to the mantlet armour. Can't say anything about its authenticity but it would suggest the use of higher grade metals was indeed part of challenger 2
 
[image removed]

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:
 

 
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions
 
Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:
 

 
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions
 
Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:
 

 
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions
 
Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:
 

 
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions
 
Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

From the British army twitter account:
 
 

From the British army twitter account:
 
 

From the British army twitter account:
 
 

Jordanian Centauro 

Bismarck wheeled Tank from behind

https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html
 
I also did this while talking with someone else:
 
It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions)

https://insidedefense.com/insider/bae-delivers-first-mpf-prototype

These designs seem to stray from the usual good practices of tank building. Bulky, tall and with little space for suspension. Armour on the "cannon" seems equal to that of a c2(IFV?). How is that justified?

Sorry it was referred to as a white paper elsewhere but yeah its only slightly less vague than the defense review itself. At least the name Challenger 3 is finally confirmed by the government.

Sorry it was referred to as a white paper elsewhere but yeah its only slightly less vague than the defense review itself. At least the name Challenger 3 is finally confirmed by the government.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-tank-numbers-drop-to-148-from-227/
 
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/
 
 
The full white paper:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-in-a-competitive-age/defence-in-a-competitive-age-accessible-version
 

I believe earlier on (mid century) they provided more power than electric drives but seems like at least by the mid to late 80s pure electric drives were able to deliver similar speeds.

Marconi IFCS (Chieftain Mk.9/10/11/Khalid, nearly identical to Challenger 1 FCS):
 
 
 
There are more images in the entire brochure but these are the figures. Bold choice of colours.

Marconi IFCS (Chieftain Mk.9/10/11/Khalid, nearly identical to Challenger 1 FCS):
 
 
 
There are more images in the entire brochure but these are the figures. Bold choice of colours.

AFAIK the one at Greek trials still had TOGs installed but the CR2E spec at that point was to remove it, it just hadn't been done yet - I think the one on display was later on.
 
The strange CR2E pictured above is for the South African proposal, idk much about it but it appears to be a slightly more austere version compared to full CR2E spec - euro powerpack but standard optics. In any case I believe it lost out to the Leclerc but neither went ahead.
 
Source: Simon Dunstan,

AFAIK the one at Greek trials still had TOGs installed but the CR2E spec at that point was to remove it, it just hadn't been done yet - I think the one on display was later on.
 
The strange CR2E pictured above is for the South African proposal, idk much about it but it appears to be a slightly more austere version compared to full CR2E spec - euro powerpack but standard optics. In any case I believe it lost out to the Leclerc but neither went ahead.
 
Source: Simon Dunstan,