Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I'll put two things into perspective

1) K2PL will be 4 tons heavier than basic K2 but it has longer chassis due to additional pair of wheels. Where does the whole additional weight go? To armour? Or maybe to longer chassis and modified shape of turret?

2) We don't know from which distance K279 was shot (and if it even was K279), if it had full charge and what was the hardness of steel plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This time, photo taken by myself. APC Rosomak firing single 81mm camouflage granate GAK-81   single 81mm in 1st salvo:     and single 81mm in 2th salvo:  

Longer post in sevral parts. Rosomak wheeled IFV and APC in Afghanistan. Between 2006 and 2014 to Afhganistan where sent 181 "Rosomak's" so 1/3 of overal production between 2005 and 2014. Maksimu

photos of K2PL scalemodel from various twitter users

Here is another diagram to illustrate the idea of the 2 man flat turret design concept being able to use "denser" special armor arrays:

 

2_man_flat_turret_density

 

Although the modules on both turrets have the same constructive depth, the flat turret design can get away with adding another 3 NERA plates in its special armor array without a volume (really mass) penalty. In this case the flat turret design is even slightly "lighter"  (0,176 m3) than the full turret design ( 0,192 m3) while still theoretically improving the protection by 50%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zach9889 said:

Would you be able to provide this source you are quoting from? 

 

This excerpt was published on @Molota_477's blog, he probably can provide you the exact name of the document.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

I was explaining the idea of a 2 man flat turret according to GIAT/Nexter. The illustrations show that heavier(denser) modules can be allocated towards the front of a turret without much or any additional weight penalty. In case of the 3 man turret i might only be able to insert 6 special armor plates where as in case of the 2 man flat turret i can insert another 2,4 for the same mass.  I rather go with the 8.4 special armor plate design than with the 6 special armor plate design.

 

I am not disagreeing with the fact that making a smaller tank allows to either save weight or to improve protection while staying at the same weight. As far as I can tell, nobody in this topic question that and thus it never was the issue.

 

But I don't think that this is relevant to the topic; the statements regarding the questionable protection of the K2 were not related to its lower weight, but to the limited armor thickness and armor coverage. The fact that the K2 is a bit smaller and lighter than other contemporary tanks doesn't negate the fact that it indeed has thinner armor at certain angles.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

These British snippets are indeed problematic because they contradict what has been reported in the Swedish tank trials (Lindström presentation) and the Hellenic tank trials. What Leclerc version was tested ? Was it an early series 1 model , a prototype , if so, which one?  In case of the Swedish and Greek trials we  know which versions were evaluated, in case of the British Chieftain replacement program we do not.

 

I see a few problems with your way of choosing sources arbitratrily like that:

  • The British documents containing the armor protection estimates for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc are all from 1987 and thus provide a look at two contemporary armor packages. Unless the French armor technology was less advanced than the German, it would provide the cleanest point of comparison.
  • The Type C armor for the Leopard 2 was ready for production by at least 1988. After that it didn't change. We cannot say the same about the Leclerc's armor package, which probably was further improved (hence explaining the higher level of protection in the Swedish trials).
  • Comparing the armor package that entered service in 1988 and stopped improving (as a newer one had already entered development) with a newer one is silly. It removes the whole point of the discussion, i.e. showcasing that by reducing the physical size, a higher level of protection can be achieved. The Germans also offered the Type D armor to Sweden which was still in development - comparing that to the Leclerc would make more sense. In the end, West-German officials were sure that they could reach 600 mm RHA equivalent protection by 1994 (I previously wrote 1995, but I checked the source again. Sorry for that mistake). By 1990/91, a Leopard 2 with Type D prototype armor might have reached the same level or a higher level of protection than the contemporary Leclerc (specifically given that reaching a level of protection might be the first step in development; then making sure that it matches all constraints regarding weight, price, multi-hit capability, manufacturing capacities, etc. becomes relevant).
  • All values are subjective. The values for the Leopard 2A4's protection with Type B, Type C and Type D armor are based on data supplied by the manufacturer. The computer analysis of the Leclerc, Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams is based on (to us) unknown data. How do you know that the steel grades and penetration criteria a identical/comparable? It makes sense to compare the computer analysis data for each of the three aforementioned tanks, because it is based on the same criteria. Comparing the data for the Leopard 2A4 to any of them is questionable. We also have only Swedish data for the turret of the Leclerc.
  • Greece tested a Leclerc Series 2 tank. Comparing that to the Leopard 2A4 with armor that entered production in 1988 makes even less sense.

  

22 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Although the modules on both turrets have the same constructive depth, the flat turret design can get away with adding another 3 NERA plates in its special armor array without a volume (really mass) penalty. In this case the flat turret design is even slightly "lighter"  (0,176 m3) than the full turret design ( 0,192 m3) while still theoretically improving the protection by 50%.

 

The difference will be less pronounced once the whole 60° frontal arc is taken into account. The side armor stays the same in your graphic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

This excerpt was published on @Molota_477's blog, he probably can provide you the exact name of the document.

 

 

I am not disagreeing with the fact that making a smaller tank allows to either save weight or to improve protection while staying at the same weight. As far as I can tell, nobody in this topic question that and thus it never was the issue.

 

But I don't think that this is relevant to the topic; the statements regarding the questionable protection of the K2 were not related to its lower weight, but to the limited armor thickness and armor coverage. The fact that the K2 is a bit smaller and lighter than other contemporary tanks doesn't negate the fact that it indeed has thinner armor at certain angles.

 

 

I see a few problems with your way of choosing sources arbitratrily like that:

  • The British documents containing the armor protection estimates for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc are all from 1987 and thus provide a look at two contemporary armor packages. Unless the French armor technology was less advanced than the German, it would provide the cleanest point of comparison.
  • The Type C armor for the Leopard 2 was ready for production by at least 1988. After that it didn't change. We cannot say the same about the Leclerc's armor package, which probably was further improved (hence explaining the higher level of protection in the Swedish trials).
  • Comparing the armor package that entered service in 1988 and stopped improving (as a newer one had already entered development) with a newer one is silly. It removes the whole point of the discussion, i.e. showcasing that by reducing the physical size, a higher level of protection can be achieved. The Germans also offered the Type D armor to Sweden which was still in development - comparing that to the Leclerc would make more sense. In the end, West-German officials were sure that they could reach 600 mm RHA equivalent protection by 1994 (I previously wrote 1995, but I checked the source again. Sorry for that mistake). By 1990/91, a Leopard 2 with Type D prototype armor might have reached the same level or a higher level of protection than the contemporary Leclerc (specifically given that reaching a level of protection might be the first step in development; then making sure that it matches all constraints regarding weight, price, multi-hit capability, manufacturing capacities, etc. becomes relevant).
  • All values are subjective. The values for the Leopard 2A4's protection with Type B, Type C and Type D armor are based on data supplied by the manufacturer. The computer analysis of the Leclerc, Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams is based on (to us) unknown data. How do you know that the steel grades and penetration criteria a identical/comparable? It makes sense to compare the computer analysis data for each of the three aforementioned tanks, because it is based on the same criteria. Comparing the data for the Leopard 2A4 to any of them is questionable.
  • Greece tested a Leclerc Series 2 tank. Comparing that to the Leopard 2A4 with armor that entered production in 1988 makes even less sense.

  

 

The difference will be less pronounced once the whole 60° frontal arc is taken into account. The side armor stays the same in your graphic.

 

 

 

Thanks for the feedback and additional information. I am trying to figure out what prototype could have been used in 1987. The earliest prototypes besides the 1986 Mulet Systeme Complete (MSC) was the Leclerc Ares prototype. The second prototype, Leclerc Bayard came into being in 1988. Frankly, the Ares prototype is the only Leclerc prototype I have never ever seen an image of in any publication or any other media. I have no idea how that thing looks like. 

 

Having said that, in 1987 the only vehicles available for an evaluation would have probably been the MSC (and maybe Ares). As BaronTibere already mentioned the values mentioned by British in their documents might have been initial projections of what was currently (1986/1987) available.

 

Concerning the two sources, I selected them because they are among the potentially more reputable ones out there. I think for the most part, we are all aware that any special armor will offer different protection values when ballistically tested against different KE threats or CE threats. So none of us are really expecting to see one consistent protection value across multiple projectile types.

 

For the Leopard 2, I would be not really surprised that a D-tech equipped Leopard 2A4 could potentially reach protection values approaching  exceeding 600 mm RHAe in the frontal arc against KE threats by 1994. I would think that the mass of the vehicle would start to exceed 57 metric tons.

 

In my graphic i kept the side turret armor the same to illustrate the ability to maximize frontal (0o) protection: The 2 man flat turret design has ballistic holes (the hump in particular) when not directly facing a threat projectile from the front as pointed out before by MoritzPTK and others.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO you are looking to far.

 

South Korea have (without doubt) two armour technology:

 

1) K1 and K1A1 so basicly america NERA, and looking at thickenss im preatty sure that is well known NERA from M1 in general shape or style:

F5nVTZU3.jpg

 

2) T-80U from SU or it's late variant. So basily second or experimental third lyout:

bs7tj8Q.png

 

For me it's sure that in worst scenario A+B armour type will give quide good protection and in K2 we have two nice chamber:

Veb55UJ.jpg

 

IMHO NERA in 1st chamber + layout form 30 degree from T-80U/UD in second one (special armour only) and voila - we have resonable vs KE and CE armour whit no tehnical risk. And cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 10/24/2020 at 4:49 AM, Zadlo said:

Borsuk during the qualification tests in Drawsko.

This prototype received additional armour modules on external buoyancy modules and has removed trim vane.

 

ElAna4BXgAANoWF?format=jpg&name=large

 

ElAni3YWAAAgaHE?format=jpg&name=large

 

ElAnknsXEAI4JX_?format=jpg&name=large

What engine it uses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

 

MTU 8V199 TE20 but it may be changed for production vehicles. HSW is looking for complete replacement for MTU engines because they're expensive in terms of both service and purchase.

Do you know where the fuel is located and who sits behind driver?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...