Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Scav said:

IIRC XM827 was supposed to be DU which at this point was probably superior due to alloys being better, might explain the difference?

 

The there were tungsten and DU versions of the XM827 during development, but the DU version was prefered in the end (still canceled in favor for the M829 though). Likewise the US Army tested WHA and DU versions of the XM833. The article from the ARMOR magazine doesn't mention any materials, but it also includes one mention of the M735A1 (with DU penetrator).

 

At the time, DU alloys could probably achieve better performance, but the 120 mm DM13 should be better than the M735 APFSDS and its M735A1 sub-variant, simply based on physics.

 

18 hours ago, Scav said:

Could you potentially give a link or something?

 

It is availabe on the website of the German patent office, the European patent office, Google patents and many more

 

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=2234219C1&KC=C1&FT=D#

 

18 hours ago, Scav said:

95% tungsten seems on the low end, would explain why they thought a more complex shape was necessary...

 

Actually it seems that modern tungsten heavy alloy penetrators are usually made with a slightly smaller tungsten content, in some cases as low as 90%. This way it is possible to create alloys with more ductility and/or strength.

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

14 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The there were tungsten and DU versions of the XM827 during development, but the DU version was prefered in the end (still canceled in favor for the M829 though). Likewise the US Army tested WHA and DU versions of the XM833. The article from the ARMOR magazine doesn't mention any materials, but it also includes one mention of the M735A1 (with DU penetrator).

 

At the time, DU alloys could probably achieve better performance, but the 120 mm DM13 should be better than the M735 APFSDS and its M735A1 sub-variant, simply based on physics.

Yeah, in that paper where they discuss the advantages of DU vs tungsten they include performance of DU and WHA XM774 and XM833 IIRC.

https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.pdf
Pg22

 

21 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It is availabe on the website of the German patent office, the European patent office, Google patents and many more

Thanks!
I was hoping for some penetration or atleast % numbers of efficiency but I guess that was asking too much :/.

Still, good find!

 

48 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Actually it seems that modern tungsten heavy alloy penetrators are usually made with a slightly smaller tungsten content, in some cases as low as 90%. This way it is possible to create alloys with more ductility and/or strength.

Huh, interesting, though such a thing is stated in the document I mentioned above, I just haven't seen any alloy specifics on the more modern penetrators.

Would a jacketed tungsten rod not partially solve the issue by using a steel jacket?

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

1596568117_Challenger2vsM1A2.thumb.jpg.f

 

This is a snipplet from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. Dick Taylor of the RTR.

 

Apparently the M1A1 HA's DU armor results in about 15% better protection against APFSDS ammunition compared to the Challenger 2, but offers a lot lower protection against HEAT munitions. Given that the M1A1 HA's turret appears to have approximately 600-660 mm vs KE (estimated 30° arc and direct from the front), that would put the Challenger 2 at 510-560 mm vs KE (this figures would match the earlier documents form the Challenger 2 design phase asking for 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull). The Challenger 1 was designed to reach a protection level of 500 mm vs KE on turret and 275 mm vs KE on the upper hull front, but according to a footnote in the same book reached only 480 mm vs KE on the turret and 340 mm vs KE on the hull.

The Leopard 2 was apparently not only offered with the B armor configuration (as tested in the UK), but it was at least proposed with the C and D armor generations aswell (protection level of the latter armor type not being disclosed to the UK). It seems that the text on the right mentions protection figures in milimeters for the Leopard 2A4 with Type B and Type C armor configurations, but that is unfortunately cut off. The Leopard 2A4 (with Type B armor) was rejected for its poor armor, worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew vs KE.

 

Does anybody have this book? I wonder if it is worth the read, because other snipplets I've seen seem to feature quite a lot of bias (i.e. tests of Challenger 2E in Greece).

 

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

Does anybody have this book? I wonder if it is worth the read, because other snipplets I've seen seem to feature quite a lot of bias (i.e. tests of Challenger 2E in Greece).

 

Good but not exceptional, the work is somewhat uneven, providing good details on the Omani Challenger 2 but very few about the engine and the ammunition, for example.

 

It's complementary to the book of Simon Dunstan.

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

1596568117_Challenger2vsM1A2.thumb.jpg.f

 

This is a snipplet from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. Dick Taylor of the RTR.

 

Apparently the M1A1 HA's DU armor results in about 15% better protection against APFSDS ammunition compared to the Challenger 2, but offers a lot lower protection against HEAT munitions. Given that the M1A1 HA's turret appears to have approximately 600-660 mm vs KE (estimated 30° arc and direct from the front), that would put the Challenger 2 at 510-560 mm vs KE (this figures would match the earlier documents form the Challenger 2 design phase asking for 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull). The Challenger 1 was designed to reach a protection level of 500 mm vs KE on turret and 275 mm vs KE on the upper hull front, but according to a footnote in the same book reached only 480 mm vs KE on the turret and 340 mm vs KE on the hull.

The Leopard 2 was apparently not only offered with the B armor configuration (as tested in the UK), but it was at least proposed with the C and D armor generations aswell (protection level of the latter armor type not being disclosed to the UK). It seems that the text on the right mentions protection figures in milimeters for the Leopard 2A4 with Type B and Type C armor configurations, but that is unfortunately cut off. The Leopard 2A4 (with Type B armor) was rejected for its poor armor, worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew vs KE.

 

Does anybody have this book? I wonder if it is worth the read, because other snipplets I've seen seem to feature quite a lot of bias (i.e. tests of Challenger 2E in Greece).

 

according to most reliable sources M1A1HA / M1A2 have a protection of 600 mm in the frontal arc of 60 degrees.

this means that Challenger 1 and 2 has a protection of ~ 500 mm in a 60 ° frotal arc.

 

480 mm is if I correctly understood the speech about protection for special armor, which experienced for Challenger 1. But about the glacis a lot of questions. 275 mm probably without special armor. Ie just some steel plates. 340 mm probably with the "Light" Chebham version.

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

What was the British rationale for not liking the ammo storage in the turret?

 

The Brits way the Brits modeled things, any non-kinetic parts of ammo that are hit are likely to kaboom and take out the machine, and so ignoring the fact that the ammo is separated in an armored compartment, ignoring that in frontal hits that the rear of the turret is the hardest thing to penetrate in a tank (as you have to punch through the *entire* turret) the Brits said that hull-bottom stowage for live ammo segments has the least chance of being hit. This is technically true comparing the amount of frontal area in which it is theoretically possible to hit the ammo, but this is ignoring the facts that the hull is less armored & that they can't separate off the ammo storage behind bulkheads with their stowage arrangement.

 

Due to the ammo separation it's virtually impossible to K-kill an Abrams by hitting the ammo, while a Chally 2 was K-killed when a friendly HESH shell hit an open hatch... and the blast detonated the hull ammo stowage.

 

TL;DR - The Brits judged purely by amount of frontal area ammo is stowed in, irrespective of how armored or safe that area is. By that logic, T-72s have the safest ammo stowage of any modern tank...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 1:23 PM, SH_MM said:

The Challenger 1 was designed to reach a protection level of 500 mm vs KE on turret and 275 mm vs KE on the upper hull front, but according to a footnote in the same book reached only 480 mm vs KE on the turret and 340 mm vs KE on the hull.

Well, yes and no.

Spoiler

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Challenger 1 protection

Challenger 1 in this case refers to the Challenger 1 and not Challenger 1 Mk 1 as a lot of people seem to think.

They say it's only able to stop T-72 tank rounds at ranges above 1km, now they supposedly rated the 125mm at 460mm DU and later in 1981 they rated the tungsten 125mm at 475mm.

Spoiler

pasted%20image%200%20(4)_a0ca159c91df075

I do have to point out how this table seems quite inaccurate or atleast inconsistent, even if it just refers to the hull armour, both the T-64 and T-72 reach higher than 270-290mm.

 

So, personally I'd put the turret more at around 470mm or so and the hull at 325 against WP ammo, against long rods.... it's going to be less than this.
 

On 11/27/2018 at 1:23 PM, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2A4 (with Type B armor) was rejected for its poor armor, worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew vs KE.

I've noticed that as well, they for some reason think the 2A4 was poorer armoured than the stillbrew chieftain, something I find quite funny.
The hull is obviously superior on the leo 2 and the turret especially in the frontal 60° is also superior or at the very least equal.
 

According to this page:

Spoiler

Image result for throw of the dice by stéphane mallarmé,accompanied by separate sheet with translation by anthony hartley, plate 12 in the portfolio shaped poetry (san francisco: arion press, 1981)

The stillbrew package in 1985 only managed to resist L23A1 (I assume it's L23A1, L23 is also possible) only at 1km, penetration for L23A1 according to another book (maybe the same one, but I think it's about the Challenger 1) is around 460mm.

So, ~450mm of KE protection at the tested spots isn't far off let alone superior to the 2A4's ~430mm which was achieved by firing what looks to be DM53 at it.

Spoiler

xNAFPmz.jpg

Right hand one was used for turret testing according to that slide and it looks an awful lot like DM53, the left one looks like DM33.

 

So, considering L23A1 is notably worse than DM53, I think it's safe to say it would  do worse against a 2A4 turret than DM53 and the protection given by the armour would "increase" as a result.
 

All of that is from a stricly frontal attack, the sides of a 2A4 are also fitted with spaced armour and the LOS of it would reach around 620-640mm if hit at a 30° angle.

The Stillbrew chieftain on the other hand ranges from ~160mm at the front corners to ~86mm at the flat turret sides, neither of these seem really better than what the 2A4 has to offer.

 

I also have to point out that it seems the Brits didn't realise that long rods actually perform better at angles than against flat armour, so to the left of the gun (from our POV) is only 120mm cast + ~60mm rubber + 125mm steel at 60°, which against a long rod won't perform as well as the right side which is 150mm cast + 60mm rubber + 150-215mm steel.

So in effect, the left side of the turret is quite a bit weaker than the right hand side despite probably having similar LOS values.

That's also why I consider the statement in the outer right column of that picture to be quite naive:
Reposted image for easier reading:

Spoiler

yOmGVG3.jpg

Quote

With it varying from 480mm to 540mm; however the final design was considered sufficient to stand a good chance of resisting the Soviet successor 125mm round (tungsten monobloc and sheathed staballoy, which was postulated as being able to penetrate around 530mm point blank).

So, despite their own round already penetrating it from 1km or so and the protection being quite inconsistent, they think it'll stop future 125mm long rod ammo?

L23A1 is already a little bit worse than 120mm DM23 in terms of raw performance, 3BM32 and 3BM42 I highly doubt will have any issue with this armour at most combat ranges.

So either they didn't think the Soviets couldn't make better ammo than they did, or they didn't understand that long rods perform better against sloped armour and LOS being equal doesn't translate to the afforded protection being equal.

 

Either case seems likely IMO, especially considering their track record of underestimating/misjudging Soviet ammunition.

 

 

Anyway, I think we need to stay critical even of their official documents as they seem to be wrong or inconsistent in quite a few cases.

 

3 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

TL;DR - The Brits judged purely by amount of frontal area ammo is stowed in, irrespective of how armored or safe that area is. By that logic, T-72s have the safest ammo stowage of any modern tank...

Yup, just like their preferance for not having a unitary sight, they seem to often come to the wrong practical conclusions.

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

480 mm is if I correctly understood the speech about protection for special armor, which experienced for Challenger 1. But about the glacis a lot of questions. 275 mm probably without special armor.

 

The way the sentence mentioing this is phrased, the 480/340 mm are the actual protection achieved by the Challenger 1 tank with Chobham special armor. The 500/275 mm are the design goal from a time, when the Challenger 1 was still in development.

 

2 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

What was the British rationale for not liking the ammo storage in the turret?

 

If you read through this topic, there is a snipplet from a British report on the M1 Abrams (the M1 Abrams was considered as an alternative to the Challenger 1), which mentions that most of the initial tests with the "safe" ammo separation actually failed, apparently because the bulkhead was not strong enough to deal with the pressure in the split seconds before it was successfully lowered via the blow-off panels.

 

Other than that, the Abrams' turret ammo storage increases the frontal profile while at the same time requiring additional armor at the turret sides (due to the fact that such a large quantity of the total ammo load is located within a single place; one does not want a single RPG to take away essentially the complete ammo loadout of a MBT). The British - and the Germans - believed that putting more ammo in the well-protected frontal section of the hull was desirable.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

I do have to point out how this table seems quite inaccurate or atleast inconsistent, even if it just refers to the hull armour, both the T-64 and T-72 reach higher than 270-290mm. 

 

This is from the late 1970s, there was still quite a lot of development going on before the Shir 2 tank became the Challenger 1 (one difference being the improved turret armor of the latter), while NATO didn't know much about the Soviet tanks.

 

The hull of T-64 and T-72 were believed by the British to feature only 100 mm steel sloped at 68.5° as frontal armor (which is 272 mm steel along the line-of-sight), a major underestimation.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

I've noticed that as well, they for some reason think the 2A4 was poorer armoured than the stillbrew chieftain, something I find quite funny.

 

The statement about the Leopard 2's turret armor being worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew is directly focused on frontal protection (i.e. when being hit straight on) against kinetic energy penetrators of the turret front. The Leopard 2 apparently has 400-450 mm (depending on location), with the gun mantlet potentially being worse armored (~350 mm; at least that seems to be the conlcusion of the analysis done by @Laviduce) - so the Chieftain with Stillbrew seems to be quite a bit better armored.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

So, ~450mm of KE protection at the tested spots isn't far off let alone superior to the 2A4's ~430mm which was achieved by firing what looks to be DM53 at it. 

  Reveal hidden contents

xNAFPmz.jpg

Right hand one was used for turret testing according to that slide and it looks an awful lot like DM53, the left one looks like DM33.

 

So, considering L23A1 is notably worse than DM53, I think it's safe to say it would  do worse against a 2A4 turret than DM53 and the protection given by the armour would "increase" as a result.
 

All of that is from a stricly frontal attack, the sides of a 2A4 are also fitted with spaced armour and the LOS of it would reach around 620-640mm if hit at a 30° angle.

 

The 120 mm DM53 APFSDS round did not exist at the time of the Swedish tests and certainly wasn't delivered to Sweden. The photograph most likely shows a test projectile made only for the evaluation.

 

The data for the Leopard 2 tanks apparently comes from Krauss-Maffei and likely does not reflect what Sweden was able to test (it would be very odd to let Sweden fire its APFSDS rounds and shaped charges at every possible armor package ever made for the Leopard 2, if they are only interested in the latest one(s)).

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

So either they didn't think the Soviets couldn't make better ammo than they did, or they didn't understand that long rods perform better against sloped armour and LOS being equal doesn't translate to the afforded protection being equal.

 

The extract from the book regarding Chieftain''s armor already shows that the British underestimated the performance of Soviet rounds, it says that (in 1981) the penetration of the T-72's 125 mm gun was estimated to be 420 mm for steel penetrators and 475 mm for tungsten penetrators point-blank at normal (aka 0 meters, 90° impact angle). The United States also underestimated the performance of the Soviet 125 mm gun and ammunition, one could say they did that to an even greater extent.

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

The 120 mm DM53 APFSDS round did not exist at the time of the Swedish tests and certainly wasn't delivered to Sweden. The photograph most likely shows a test projectile made only for the evaluation.

Well, it would've been a prototype if anything, but the similarity is too striking for it to be a coincidence, perhaps it was just a round with the same function and rough dimensions.
 

13 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The data for the Leopard 2 tanks apparently comes from Krauss-Maffei and likely does not reflect what Sweden was able to test (it would be very odd to let Sweden fire its APFSDS rounds and shaped charges at every possible armor package ever made for the Leopard 2, if they are only interested in the latest one(s)).

If this is true, then I agree, but I don't know for sure.

 

14 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The extract from the book regarding Chieftain''s armor already shows that the British underestimated the performance of Soviet rounds, it says that (in 1981) the penetration of the T-72's 125 mm gun was estimated to be 420 mm for steel penetrators and 475 mm for tungsten penetrators point-blank at normal (aka 0 meters, 90° impact angle). The United States also underestimated the performance of the Soviet 125 mm gun and ammunition, one could say they did that to an even greater extent.

Yep, it seems only Germany fully realised the 125mm potential (atleast looking at the Krapke threat diagram) although the leo 1 part probably isn't correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Molota_477 said:

What page is the data of 480/340 on? 

 

I don't know, this is what I have read in another discussion on another website. As I said I don't own the book yet. I might have mistaken the values from a random discussion with a footnote from the book, which says that the Challenger 1 mounted armor providing "equivalent amounts" to 430 mm for the turret and 315 mm for the hull.

1187995418_Page1.thumb.jpg.8a19c7d83cb87

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

 

I don't know, this is what I have read in another discussion on another website. As I said I don't own the book yet. I might have mistaken the values from a random discussion with a footnote from the book, which says that the Challenger 1 mounted armor providing "equivalent amounts" to 430 mm for the turret and 315 mm for the hull.

1187995418_Page1.thumb.jpg.8a19c7d83cb87

"Equivalent amount" might refer to the mass of special armor which mounted on MBT-80 and provide 480mm protection for turret and 430mm for front hull:

14662_2000.jpg

Note the endnote"6"

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Molota_477 said:

"Equivalent amount" might refer to the mass of special armor which mounted on MBT-80 and provide 480mm protection for turret and 430mm for front hull:

 

I don't think that it refers to mass of the special armor. Note that the following document seems to list the MBT-80 with "430 mm+" protection, while also listing the effective hull armor thickness of Centurion and Leopard 1 (implying that the figures for the other tanks might also be hull armor).

 

pasted%20image%200%20(4)_a0ca159c91df075

 

In documents from 1969 and 1970, it is already mentioned that Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of above 1.0, so 430 mm steel-equivalent mass should provide a noteworthy larger amount of armor protection. It also would be odd to mix figures in milimeters with tons (for the applique armor) without even specifying that the milimeters is meant to be steel-equivalent mass.

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

steel-equivalent mass

Yes, I misread it before, so it makes sense that the ''up armour'' Challenger 1's turret can obtain up to 500mm protection against some specific KE rounds while the thickness of steel-equivalent mass only 430mm.I think the same theory also is appropriate for the glacis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

14433_2000.jpg

 

It seems that the British documents use values for protection along the full 60° frontal arc.

 

The minimum thickness of the Leopard 2 turret cheek armor along the frontal arc is roughly 660 mm.

860/660*350 = 456 mm

860/660*420 = 547 mm

 

That matches the current interpretation of this graph from the Swedish documents:

kDGjKnO.png

 

Furthmore there is the statement about the M1A1 HA's DU armor providing 15° more protection than the Dorchester armor of the Challenger 2. Given that the former is believed to provide 600 mm protection vs KE along the frontal arc based on the Swedish documents (or about 660 mm from straight on assuming that the armor efficiency stays the same regardless of horizontal slope), this would put the Challenger 2 at 510 mm (560 mm head-on) vs KE. The protection requirement for the turret was armor equivalent to 500 mm steel vs KEPs (along the frontal arc?).

 

Even more so, the Brits believed the M1 Abrams to feature turret armor providing 340 mm equivalent protection vs KE along the frontal arc. That would be equivalent to 392 mm vs KE from head-on. A CIA document puts the M1 Abrams' turret at 400 mm vs KE.

 

 

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

 

It seems that the British documents use values for protection along the full 60° frontal arc.

 

The minimum thickness of the Leopard 2 turret cheek armor along the frontal arc is roughly 660 mm.

860/660*350 = 456 mm

860/660*420 = 547 mm

 

That matches the current interpretation of this graph from the Swedish documents:

 

 

Furthmore there is the statement about the M1A1 HA's DU armor providing 15° more protection than the Dorchester armor of the Challenger 2. Given that the former is believed to provide 600 mm protection vs KE along the frontal arc based on the Swedish documents (or about 660 mm from straight on assuming that the armor efficiency stays the same regardless of horizontal slope), this would put the Challenger 2 at 510 mm (560 mm head-on) vs KE. The protection requirement for the turret was armor equivalent to 500 mm steel vs KEPs (along the frontal arc?).

 

Even more so, the Brits believed the M1 Abrams to feature turret armor providing 340 mm equivalent protection vs KE along the frontal arc. That would be equivalent to 392 mm vs KE from head-on. A CIA document puts the M1 Abrams' turret at 400 mm vs KE.

 

 

Interesting, I think in the case of the Challenger it doesn't refer to added protection equivalent but actual LOS thickness of the entire package.

As for the number of the leopard 2, B seems more or less correct, not sure about C though, it's definitely interesting that it keeps coming back that C tech had this much added over the first variants, the weight increase doesn't seem like it would be enough, perhaps they managed this by using very "light" materials such as ceramics and replacing some steel with lighter alternatives?

Maybe they replaced the entire array and made it more efficient with higher hardness or something?

 

As for Challenger 2, it seems that in the Hellenic tank trials the tank was critisised for it's poor hull protection and lack of roof protection, similar to the Leclerc in terms of protection, so ~550 wouldn't seem too far off, it's definitely worse than the M1A2 and leopard 2A5 as suggested.

 

I still need to find the original magazine where they talk about the trials though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greek article on the trials is just two pages long and doesn't go into detail about armor protection other than saying that the Leopard 2A5 had the best, followed by the M1A2 Abrams and that the Challenger 2's armor was disappointing, being merely better than the Leclerc. The CR2 features improved roof armor over the Challenger 1, it should be better than the Leclerc and Abrams in this regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 12:59 AM, SH_MM said:

 

I don't think that it refers to mass of the special armor. Note that the following document seems to list the MBT-80 with "430 mm+" protection, while also listing the effective hull armor thickness of Centurion and Leopard 1 (implying that the figures for the other tanks might also be hull armor).

 

pasted%20image%200%20(4)_a0ca159c91df075

 

In documents from 1969 and 1970, it is already mentioned that Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of above 1.0, so 430 mm steel-equivalent mass should provide a noteworthy larger amount of armor protection. It also would be odd to mix figures in milimeters with tons (for the applique armor) without even specifying that the milimeters is meant to be steel-equivalent mass.

Finally I found the document of GSR3572, the data of 480 and 430 only refer to the KE protection, but not the mass equivalent thickness, and there is a heaviest protection level up to 540mm.(But it is so heavy and very hard to offer full protection on hull under MLC70, while MLC60 or 55 tonnes only is a basic model without full protection on hull, note "full protection" means including side protecion within a limited angle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

Finally I found the document of GSR3572, the data of 480 and 430 only refer to the KE protection, but not the mass equivalent thickness, and there is a heaviest protection level up to 540mm.(But it is so heavy and very hard to offer full protection on hull under MLC70, while MLC60 or 55 tonnes only is a basic model without full protection on hull, note "full protection" means including side protecion within a limited angle. 

However, apparently this has little to do with Challenger 1. 

MBT-80 looks very promising, sad that the British could not start it in production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Liberator said:

540 mm Hull and turret or only turret? And what CE protection MBT-80?

 

Both hull(full protection, including front arc of 50°) and turret at 69 metric tonnes.

While combat weight at 64 tonnes——fully protected turret + hull protection without enough side armor(only front glacis).

 

The number of 540mm actually meams a specific KE threat which could penetrate up to 540mm RHA at 1km range(It was assumed as Soviet DU APFSDS M1980). MBT-80's Chobham armour was desired to defeat such threat after some meetings in 1978.

 

Besides these two heaviest schemes, there are also 2 correspondly intermedial schemes have 480mm protection level, but still too heavy, the full protection scheme weight 65 t, and the "only front protection on hull" version weight 62 t.

 

Note that all of these schemes are only on paper discussion.

 

And the level of 430mm RHA actually is the original requirement for MBT-80 before 1978. They thought it can be achieved within MLC60 which the turret is fully protected while the hull only has upper glacis.

 

As for CE threat, they specified the need of againsting 130mm caliber shape charge(also is front ±25° in azimuth).

 

That's all I have seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Molota_477 said:

 

Both hull(full protection, including front arc of 50°) and turret at 69 metric tonnes.

While combat weight at 64 tonnes——fully protected turret + hull protection without enough side armor(only front glacis).

 

The number of 540mm actually meams a specific KE threat which could penetrate up to 540mm RHA at 1km range(It was assumed as Soviet DU APFSDS M1980). MBT-80's Chobham armour was desired to defeat such threat after some meetings in 1978.

 

Besides these two heaviest schemes, there are also 2 correspondly intermedial schemes have 480mm protection level, but still too heavy, the full protection scheme weight 65 t, and the "only front protection on hull" version weight 62 t.

 

Note that all of these schemes are only on paper discussion.

 

And the level of 430mm RHA actually is the original requirement for MBT-80 before 1978. They thought it can be achieved within MLC60 which the turret is fully protected while the hull only has upper glacis.

 

As for CE threat, they specified the need of againsting 130mm caliber shape charge(also is front ±25° in azimuth).

 

That's all I have seen.

Yes, I read about this before.
It is interesting that for 130 mm CE. I know the parameters of 5 and 6 inch CE for testing, but for the first time I hear about 130 mm.

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...