StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

australian armor museum? 

 

Yes, apparently the museum at the Australian army facility at Puckapunyal.

[2805662]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Yes, apparently the museum at the Australian army facility at Puckapunyal.

 Australian Army Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria - just down the hill from the School of Armour. There’s a M113A1 on the hill up to gunnery wing that’s also been cut in half, just without the interior. 

[heretic88]

I fully understand the ideas behind the design of the Leopard-1 , but Im still on the opinion that in a war this immensely thin armor would have led to massive casualties... But thankfully, it remains a question if the designers were right or wrong with this concept. Still, it was definitely far better than M-47 or M48A2 which had problems with penetrating the armor of soviet tanks.

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

Hey Fellas,

on Page 33 of this document on the AGS competition, a bid from Thyssen-Henschel is reported as the "TH-459L". Any clues on what this might be?

[Serge]

A light-tank based on the TH495 chassis, maybe ?

 

Very fun to read about the Mars-15 proposal. 

[SH_MM]

9 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Hey Fellas,

on Page 33 of this document on the AGS competition, a bid from Thyssen-Henschel is reported as the "TH-459L". Any clues on what this might be?

 

Forecast International's old report on the TH 495 mentions an AGS version in the section "variants":

Quote

Six- or Five-Wheel Chassis
TH 495 Reconnaissance Vehicle. This member of the TH 495 family is armed similar to the mechanized infantry combat vehicle.

TH 495 Armored Combat Vehicle. Also called the TH 495 Armored Gun System, this proposed vehicle would mount the Rh 105, 105 millimeter tank cannon, probably in the 105SLR reduced recoil form.

 

I don't think that they ever made an AGS prototype, but the six-wheeeld TH 495 prototype was fitted with two different medium caliber turrets.

[skylancer-3441]

speanking of TH-495 variants

and from romanian magazine "Știință și Tehnică" 1993-06:

[Wiedzmin]

 

made pic for better understanding 

[Wiedzmin]

[2805662]

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

Leopard AS1 (A3) - doesn’t like 120mm practice ammunition. 

[heretic88]

What was the advantage of this turret over the old cast one? Besides increased room for the crew of course.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

What was the advantage of this turret over the old cast one? Besides increased room for the crew of course.

Ease of production?

[SH_MM]

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

What was the advantage of this turret over the old cast one? Besides increased room for the crew of course.

 

Armor protection...

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Ease of production?

 

Casting a turret is a lot easier, if you have the facilities to do so (which West-Germany had).

[FORMATOSE]

6 hours ago, heretic88 said:

What was the advantage of this turret over the old cast one? Besides increased room for the crew of course.

 

Ballistic protection :

 

[heretic88]

But armor is still in the ridiculous category. The only real improvement is better protection vs 100mm APHE frontally. It is totally vulnerable to just about anything else. Even the 100mm APHE protection doesnt make much sense, because 3BM8 APDS was hardly new that time... Also, in 1973 the 3BM20 APFSDS was already in service.

[2805662]

15 hours ago, heretic88 said:

But armor is still in the ridiculous category. The only real improvement is better protection vs 100mm APHE frontally. It is totally vulnerable to just about anything else. Even the 100mm APHE protection doesnt make much sense, because 3BM8 APDS was hardly new that time... Also, in 1973 the 3BM20 APFSDS was already in service.

 

Still amazed at how lightly armoured the Leopard 1 - of any variant - is. There is a Leopard AS1 turret that was subjected to an unscheduled ballistic “test” by a 105mm service sabot round held in storage in Wodonga. Sadly, pics were not permitted. 

 

Apparently, the AS1 aren’t lasting nearly as long as forecast as hard targets. Further discussions revealed that the life projections were based on how long the Centurion Mk.5/1s lasted. 

[SH_MM]

RE: Leopard 1A3 turret armor... we discussed this already. It provides similar protection to the M60A1 turret (unless you believe SteelBeasts' incorrect older armor schemes).

[Scav]

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

RE: Leopard 1A3 turret armor... we discussed this already. It provides similar protection to the M60A1 turret (unless you believe SteelBeasts' incorrect older armor schemes).

How exactly?
I don't think it provides 350mm or thereabouts against KE.

 

That's what a lot of the M60A1 turret has, atleast from a frontal attack.

[FORMATOSE]

33 minutes ago, Scav said:

How exactly?

 

Spoiler

 

[SH_MM]

The M60A1's turret is 200-254 mm thick cast steel with a hardness of 220-240 HB, that isn't going to provide 350 mm protection vs KE...

 

According to Soviet evaluations of captured M60A1 tanks (probably gained via the Middle East) the frontal turret armor thickness ranges from 150 to 180 mm thick armor sloped at 22 to 30° in the vertical plane or 95 mm sloped at 35° horizontal and 55° vertical angle in front of the rangefinder. That is less than 220 mm of cast steel armor, which then again will provide 10-20% less protection than rolled armor steel.

[Scav]

2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The M60A1's turret is 200-254 mm thick cast steel with a hardness of 220-240 HB, that isn't going to provide 350 mm protection vs KE...

I've seen that and the one other document, but I've seen good counter arguments backed up with measurements on the real thing, I'm still mostly on the fence, though I think it's hard to argue with physical thickness measurements.

I was actually talking to several people that were "working" on trying to figure out what the M60A1 turret's protection really is, I'll ask them for some more specifics.

 

Still, it would seem odd to me that the M60A1 with it's ~10t higher weight would only achieve the same (rough) protection as the leo 1 on t he turret....

[Scav]

OK, so looking further at that document, I don't really get how they come to the conclusion that the hull is vulnerable to 100mm AP at 750m for the M60A1, same with the figure for the normal M60.

To me they seem practically immune to 100mm AP even at PB, not even taking into account the poor performance of AP(CBC) against slopes compared to APDS or APFSDS.

Seems to me they overestimated the USSR AP, or they were talking about APDS, but that doesn't seem likely.

 

As for the hardness, IIRC the early M60s had that, but the later ones had better steel in the ~260BHN region.

I'm by no means knowledgeable on these tanks though, it just seems odd to me and doesn't quite line up with other things I've seen.

[Xlucine]

Only 5 degrees of protection for the welded leo 1 turret? That's very narrow, M60 and chieftain were +/- 22.5 degrees IIRC

[Scav]

4 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Only 5 degrees of protection for the welded leo 1 turret? That's very narrow, M60 and chieftain were +/- 22.5 degrees IIRC

Well, it is like 10t lighter than those and has substantially thinner armour plates.

Still OK for what it was designed.

[heretic88]

Also do not forget the soviet evaluation about M-60A1 protection. They clearly state that from head on, the M-60 is fully immune to even 115mm APFSDS...

"От бронебойно-подкалиберных снарядов танковых пушек калибра 100, 122 и 115 мм лобовые проекции танка защищены следующим образом:

·       башня - при курсовых углах обстрела ±30° – с дистанции более 3000 м ; при 0° – при стрельбе в упор;"

 

Measurements fully support this, mantlet LOS thickness is more than 380mm in most areas. Yes it is cast armor, but even with a very pessimistic 80% value, its still above 300mm.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/404154-fwd2018-04-03-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet-measurements/