Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

 

29 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

073539cxs7dob79vt6dxud.jpg

Simply translate the words into English, hope it will help. 

9S2JFZR.jpg

Another figure, posted by Wiedzmin in a thread on otvaga, shows the fuel filling port of front fuel system unit. 

 

According to a video record,

about JGSDF tank training in US, they refuel a Type-10 MBT on a fuel filling port of similar location. I assume they both have similar arrangements. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 630
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF In case you guys here cannot read Japanese: It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm" May be taken from a manual of digital came

I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources su

33 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

it's strange, report says that hull special armor weight 1249, so "A" part on scheme can't be fuel cell ? but without big fuel cell how far type90 can ride ? 

With a internal fuel capacity of 1272 litre, Type-90 can travel about 300-340 km.

Type-74 in comparison, can travel about 400 km when equipped with external fuel container. 

Exact data could depends on terrain and weather, especially in winter condition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

There might be some sort of spaced metal plates inside the fuel cell to improve its effectiveness as armor.

Hmmm!!! Just like Fuel Cell B, that surrounds the ammunition , fuel cell A could be a composite array that uses diesel fuel to complement its protective properties.

 

Type90_fh_fc.jpg.532e4aa1e4085c88e3b048e

Note: The front hull special armor is supposed to have  a mass of 1249 kg!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

 

Actually it is a well known idea used in "cells" armor developed by hydrodynamic institute of Siberian departament of academy of scince of USSR in 70s. http://btvt.info/5library/vot_yacheiki.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stierlitz.Dango said:

Fuel Cell composite armor is believable....

And talk about fuel cell armor,i've heard an interesting design. Few years ago Chinese enginner has built a special fuel cell composite armor which uses Oplot-M ‘s design as reference.

1Y0g7wH.png

With the similar principle, filling diesel in the cell wall structure actually worked like an ERA and successfully weakened a HEAT testing warhead which capable of penetrating 280mm to 160mm by only 20mm thick of fuel cell armor.

8QO0HpN.jpg

rLbchQG.png

TmD3LMC.jpg

More about how this works can be found in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281489377_Theoretical_Study_of_a_Diesel-Filled_Airtight_Structure_Unit_Subjected_to_Shaped_Charge_Jet_Impact

 

If you want the full paper, PM Me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

On 19.3.2018 at 5:36 PM, Alzoc said:

 

A geometric efficiency ratio of 6 for fuel?

Seems a bit high to me but maybe the chosen geometry allow that.

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

OqGTyzJ.png

 

From the article "Antiarmor - what you don't know could kill you" by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson. There are some errors in the data (M60A1 protection level, muzzle velocity of the M829A1 APFSDS, etc.), but it seems overall to be quite interesting.

 

 

Probably spaced in front of the reference plate. Normal NERA achieves an even higher "thickness efficiency" if you include the empty space...

 

 

But how valid is this chart ?  Do you think the values really correspond to the actual protection values ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 15.3.2018 at 2:01 PM, SH_MM said:

The British had some odd ideas about main battle tanks, although they wanted their MBT-80 to be more advanced in some aspects than the Challenger 2 currently operated by the British army...

  1. The lack of an indendepent sight for the commander was disliked
  2. The laser rangefinder of the M1 Abrams was incompatible with the thermal imager (?)
  3. For some reason the British military thought it was a bad idea to integrate daysight and thermal imager into a unitary optic
  4. The M1's fire control system resulted in a low hit probability (confirmed by statemens from US and German sources regarding the comparative trials of XM1 & Leopard 2AV)
  5. The armor of the M1 Abrams could be penetrated at ranges of 4,000 m by the 125 mm gun according to British estimates
  6. Storing ammo below the turret ring is/was seen as better than having a separated ammunition compartment at the rear of the turret because some US test proved that it might not always work with 105 mm ammo and wasn't tested with 120 mm; also the blast door needs to be open for reloading (silly complaint)

 

K7E4Sox.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SH_MM, some of the protection level bullets are familiar, some less so. 

 

More specifically:

 

It's a very nice summary, so I'd love to see the sources I'm missing that provide the additional specificity. My search terms may have failed me and I may have missed the links b/c I'm new to the site...

 

P.S. Greetings

  • On 3/1/2018 at 7:54 AM, SH_MM said:
    •  
    •  
    • That leaves us with the following (is there any easy way to add tables?):
    • Tank type
    • T-72
    • Leopard 2K
    • Leopard 2AV
    • (X)M1 Abrams
    • MBT-80
    • Weight
    • 41 tonnes
    • up to 47.5 tonnes
    • 56.935 tonnes
    • 52.6 tonnes
    • (?)
    • KE threat
    • 105 mm "next-generation" AP(FS)DS from 500 m along ±30° from the centerline
      14.5 mm - 20 mm AP allround (?)
    • 105 mm APDS from 800 m along ±15° from the centerline (turret only),
      90 mm AP(DS) from 1,500 m along ±15° from the centerline (hull),
      20 mm AP from 100 m (upper portions of the hull sides) or from 500 m at 20° (lower portion)
      14.5 mm AP from 100 m (engine comparment)
    • 105 mm APFSDS with 38 mm core diameter (ammo for the smoothbore gun?) along ±30° from the centerline,
      7.62 mm AP at 30 m (engine vents),
      14.5 mm AP all-round (20 mm AP at crew compartment?)
    • 115 mm APFSDS from 800 - 1,200 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round (?)
    • 125 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m range,
      14.5 mm AP all-round
    • CE threat
    • 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) at ±30° from the centerline
    • None
    • MILAN warhead
    • 127 mm HEAT warhead (TOW-1?) at ±25° from the centerline,
      81 mm HEAT at 45° (crew compartment)
    • (?)
    • Artillery threat
    • (?)
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10 m
    • 155 mm artillery fragments at 10-15 m,
      155 mm artillery fragments at 25 m (vehicle rear),
      no protection required (cover above the tracks at the engine compartment)
    • 95% protection against 155 mm splinters at 15 m (crew compartment),
      57% protection elsewhere
    • 155 mm splinters at 10 m
Edited by Olds
increased specificity, grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olds said:

 

SH_MM, some of these protection level bullets are familiar, some are not. Are these all definitely documented somewhere--some other thread with links or whatever--or is this a list from memory? (I don't mean that in a bad way :), but I'm curious just how definitive some of these items are).

 

P.S. Greetings

  •  

Welcome to SH Olds.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/4-a-beginners-guide-to-posting-on-sh/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is some info dealing with the protection requirement of the Chieftain of the 1980s:

 

Chieftain_protection_medium

 

 

This also makes me believe that the turret "cheek" armor protection of the Challenger 1 is 500+ mm RHAe against subcalibre KE threats. The Armed Forces Journal estimate of 580 mm RHAe and the British CR1 engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following diagram seems to show some old "weldlines" on the hull of a Leclerc prototype concept. Given the dimensions of the hull, nothing much seems to have changed between this prototype concept and the Leclerc Serie 1 hull.  This would give the front hull a LOS thickness of 600-620 640 mm, which conveniently falls within the limits of the earlier diagram:

 

Leclerc_prototype_concept_drawings

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laviduce said:

engineer "rumor" of 620 mm RHAe seem indeed plausible.

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

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

CR2 have lower KE protection than M1A1HA which have 600mm vs KE, so CR1 can't have 620 or 550, and if take some numbers from some british reports about CR1, it's hull front for example have less protection than Shir2 with it's "325mm"

 

but again, all this numbers useless if you don't know which round was used, on which striking velocity etc...

I also read that the CR2 was expected to have a KE resistance lower than that of the M1A1 HA. I think this came from a British assessment document.   Yet there is a problem , the British were aware of the threats posed by the 125 mm guns. There is little reason to believe that the British were not successful of reaching a protection level of 500 mm RHAe in the 60 frontal arc. This would translate to about 580 mm RHAe from the front. The M1A1 HA KE protection in the frontal 60 degree arc was stated to be around 600 mm RHAe. This would translate to a KE resistance of up to 690 mm directly from the front.

 

What we know:

 

CR1 - Armed Forces Journal estimate: 580 mm RHAe

CR1 -  Engineer Rumor:  620 mm RHAe

 

Average between the sources: 600 mm RHAe

 

M1A1 HA - multiple sources - up to 690 mm RHAe

 

CR2 - British document projection - below M1A1 HA level

 

This would give us:     600 mm RHAe < CR2 KE resistance < 690 mm RHAe      -> reasonable middle ground for the CR2 turret cheek armor from the front 650 mm RHAe

 

This would satisfy the requirement of the CR2 offering marginally inferior KE resistance compared  to the M1A1 HA but marginally superior KE protection compared to the CR1. Now 50 mm is not much of an improvement but it could still be true. 

 

The jump in KE resistance from the M1 to the M1A1 was also around 50 mm if we follow the given sources.  The increase in CE resistance was more significant, from 700 mm RHAe all  the way up to 1000 mm RHAe for the frontal 60 degree protection arc.

 

The CR2 could have followed the same idea, where an increase in CE protection was emphasized over an increase in KE protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

I note that in 10 pages, the Abrams, Leo 2 and even Challenger have had their defenders, but nobody has gone to bat for the Ariete.

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

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

 

Aren't the info available on it extremely sparse?

(Plus I don't know if we have an Italian member on the forum^^)

 

Doesn't help that most of it's systems have been designed indigenously, though that make it interesting.

 

There's a rumor that the goal was to produce a tank which was just able to overmatch a T-72B  both in protection and firepower and not more, to keep it cheap.

I don't know if it's true.

 

according to mysterious sources:

 

" ... In any case, the level of protection, in particular against APFSDS projectiles, remains the Achilles' heel of the vehicle, reaching 500 mm in the frontal arc of the turret (C1 Ariete), a thickness comparable to that of a Soviet T-72B of the 1980s  but lower than that of contemporaries M1 Abrams or Leopard 2. "

 

Yay !!!! :P

 

...wait a minute!!!! :o:what:

 

 source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13    :wacko::huh:

 

OM*G!  <_< 

 

The turret values might actually be correct but there is no way of practically veryifying it either way. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

 

:shitpostdiarrhea:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?
    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 


    • By Zadlo
      I'm interested how good K21 would be as a torch in engagements against North Korean armour with such a lot composites in a structure.
       


×
×
  • Create New...