Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Korvette

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Korvette

  1. I feel like there is a discrepancy between the actual definition of discussion and fact and your definition of those two things.
  2. Funny yes but unless Britain somehow just finds a couple billion dollars to spend on a whole new project, literally impossible to do at this point.
  3. Ajax doesn't have troop transport, its set up with the turret and armor makes it too heavy to fit troops. The Boxer however can do that job, honestly they might as well go full Boxer it's the cheapest solution for the cheapest military.
  4. Whatever he says, it's not from nowhere. What he means however may require interpretation. He could horrifyingly be right or be somewhat misleaded in the statement but the statement as I said exists and it could bare good or bad news.
  5. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14LGX9jZNCVLw4TpqNwKACITR2Hy75ZGr?usp=sharing A folder with DEF-STAN 95-25/19/26/24 all relating to the RHA/CHA qualities used amongst british tanks.
  6. sorry will fix it ASAP once I’m back at my computer
  7. Defence Standard 05-101, May 2005. Proof of ordnance, munitions, armour, and explosives. Includes proof pressures of the 120mm L30A1, AS90 155, 27mm Mauser, 30mm ADEN, and more along with the methodologies and testing measure used. Defence Standard 13-92 Older version of 05-101 it seems, another proof or ordnance paper that parallels 05-101 but from 1996. Still contains the 120mm L30A1 and so forth.
  8. I think you're giving yourself too much credit here as well. Nobody said he's not a lunatic that he's a reliable source but he said something rather important that can't just be dismissed. CR3's inner shell will be welded, and to make it the same/similar to that of the CR2 is the dumbest thing possible, retaining old weaknesses at the mantlet and RWS port and optic port which is present on the current demonstrators which would make Rheinmetall faint at the size of them. Therefore a new design must be put on it. Drummond by quote said something suspicious but it didn't come from nowhere. There are possibilities as to what he actually means, one could be that what he said is truly what is happening and the other could be that he has misspoke/misinterpreted what he was told, the degree of which we will have absolutely no clue of until further details are released.
  9. I see a few possibilities with what Drummond says, and a fallacy. If we look back to the video of the Challenger 3 reveal or the 'contract signed' media that was recently released, the entire of the turret looks reasonably similar to that of the old CR2, you can see the old style mantlet with the L94 inside of it, the angular turret cheeks in the inner shell, but the inclusion of a bustle rack, and digitizing/cleaning the turret. It wouldn't make too much sense that its somehow a leo 2 revo turret if presumably the interior we've seen is quite similar to the CR2 One possibility is that actually new turret that will appear on production line is simply fully new and simply bares a resemblance to Leo 2 and CR2 and that the new turret but is based on what is designed with things such as the Leo 2PL/SG in that the AMAP modules on the turret are what is now the 'new' modularity of the turret for the CR3 but instead using whatever came out of Porton Down, and that the carcass will be similar to that of the CR2 but welded. The other is that the new turret that will be revealed is infact simply the Leo 2 revo turret. From a budget standpoint it doesn't seem too far fetched from the British to attempt to just cheap out and have Rheinmetall recycle an old design and polish it a bit with some new things and that Drummond is having an old man moment and is instead saying that the production models will be what he described.
  10. KMW also probably knows where Leo 2 turrets are going, he's not fully out of the picture from the whole project.
  11. The armor blocks themselves around the sights is thinner and maybe even not even there as shown by construction photos. Drummond literally works for the companies in charge of this project. If he knows anything at all it’ll be this.
  12. You've heard of T-72Budgetcuts3, now get ready for FV 4034 'Cuts' 2.
  13. Not to mention the hull itself has steel literally everywhere covering nooks and crannies.
  14. I did not know that the staff requirement land 4026 was findable.
  15. Where is this found? As far as I know the 'requirement' was there but I don't recall seeing something about the actual implementation of the requirement
  16. After seeing Wiedzmin's photo from the damaged turret underside, you can see the array itself actually and to me it does seem that DU would simply take too much space in that LOS to achieve a protection level of what is approximately 650 or so KE. However this leaves a large hole, you can actually see a 2nd plate of similar style to the back plate in that array towards the front which now begs the question what is this plate made of to actually help achieve the on paper specified effectivity of armor. In my opinion now a much higher than average metal has to be used.
  17. I didn't expect anything at all for the mantlet. I've seen a similar photo to this before it's just that there are furious internet arguments about this specific portion of the tank being armored or not, but thank you for the extra photos.
  18. Yes that report is, literally what I was quoting. And as I precisely said, the CR2 directly met the MoD requirements I didn't say that it exceeded the M1A2 at any point in time. The issue is that as I said its somewhat unofficial is that it can probably contain inconsistencies like with other British reports on the NATO tanks, specifically leo 2 that don't match with the criteria stated by the original user. I don't see your point that the occupied volume of the hull array makes it less likely to be similar/identical to the turret? You can compare hull backplate to turret backplate and see that their thicknesses are very similar. I'd also like to see a source on why 'thin plates' are used for DU, the context is important. The plate we see on the CR2's turret and hulls are backplates, something that must absorb the last amount of energy and force imparted upon it or in general, keeping the array in front unable to be compromised by resonating forces, and having a thin plate wouldn't bode well to withstand the possible threat against it, plus the possibility that these could be the only set of RHA plates within the array apart from the front plates encasing the entire tank, it wouldn't add up to be very heavy. Other materials could have been used as the backplate but the specific mounting procedure on how it its attached to the hull and turret to me resemble other examples of DU being mounted as a plate. The other thing is that we have no context other than the possibly the armor of what else the CR2 saved weight upon to achieve better protection over the CR1, Vickers marketing states almost a hundred or so 'improvements' to the tank, all of these changes to components could be contributing to a long term weight savings. It's not like the M1A1 to 1A1HA where effectively only the armor array was changed for a formula that was considerably different, we are also comparing that the CR1 is a 1960s/early 70s tank to the CR2's development which expanded for reasonably long time from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990's, with the prototypes unveiled in mid 1990, it is possible to conceptualize what was done to keep weight similar but to also improve upon the tank, keep in mind that while the hull received improvements as well despite being effectively identical to the CR1, the turret is entirely clean sheet design that is able to incorporate a multitude of weight savings
  19. I appreciate how you specifically avoided the mantlet, quite amusing..
  20. One of the assumptions we can possibly make is that the CR2 did achieve a protection level at least close to or meeting/exceeding the required amount. Consider that the early 90's late 80's somewhat unofficial report where they compared the prototype (probably) V9 to the M1A1HA/1A2 in which the armor on the turret in the realm of 650-700, but also that the hull array is theoretically identical to the turret array due to construction photos seen using some form of high hardness RHA backing plate that would then have the rest of the array bolted on. This would mean that the effectivity on the turret, is similar to that of the hull. The layout of the array is important but these polish tests while provide a lot of insight to composite array effectivity, also change in physical dimensions. In the confines of the CR2's turret, there is a portion of the LOS taken by RHA around the filler array, for example the 2 plates welded together at the very front of the array and then the thick backplate. The same form of space taken is seen on the hull as well. Compare hull here to the turret, you can see backing plate (which in my opinion look similar if not identical to DU plates) in the same fashion that is on the turret. All that is left is to take some measuring and compare effectivities to see if they match.
  21. Other than steel and rubber, there isn't indication of any other element within chobham armor other than air. CR2's armor has a lot of high hardness backing plates in its armor but there aren't many other options for filler for the rest of the composite. There could be simply all RHA sandwich which to me wouldn't make sense in terms of weight because it'd weigh a lot more than about 1-2 tonnes extra from CR1 and also increase its protection level on hull and turret increasing by such a large factor.
  22. The whole premise of most of the CR2's improvements were simply switching in and out components, the armor was improved but you're comparing 1960's first generation crappy spaced steel composite to a more modern ceramic, high hardness metal composite which achieved more for less.
  23. The computer simulations isn't really fully necessary to design something stealthy, i.e the F117 is a paper and ruler designed plane but the tank itself doesn't evolve in shape far from the CR1, its signature would definitely not be improved in a conceivable way for an advantage.
×
×
  • Create New...