Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

[Ramlaen]

7 minutes ago, Akula_941 said:

DU stronk

 

Seems funny in context of which armor package those numbers are supposed to represent.

[Bronezhilet]

So basically Damian is having a meltdown.

 

What a shock.

[Waffentrager]

 

 

Should have done proper background checking before jumping to conclusions about what I found online.

 

 

 

[Karamazov]

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language 

 

[Militarysta]

 

 

 

[SH_MM]

26 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language

 

 

You can see the armor thickness in the photo above. This is the Challenger 2 tank located at the Bovington Tank Museum.

 

52 minutes ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level? Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

The Swedish documents suggest that the Leopard 2 with the original armor package has at least 300 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at ~63% of its surface, at least 340 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 50% and at least 400 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 20% of the surface. The Japanese data seems to confirm this, but there still should be some places with at least 400 mm vs KE.

 

[Militarysta]

1 hour ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

 

Sure but it's not consist whit values from Lindstorm and FMV:

Leopard 2A0-A4 ( till 1988) for +/- 30. from longitiudal axis:

20% front area more then 400mm RHA

30% front area circa 380mm RHA

ca 50% 300-350mm RHA

 

 

[Karamazov]

20 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

You can see the armor thickness in the photo above. This is the Challenger 2 tank located at the Bovington Tank Museum.

thank you

[Mighty_Zuk]

Should be just a 76mm steel plate. It didnt need protection according to the Brits (which makes sense) so they just made it strong enough to carry the weight of things like dozers and mine plows. Theres also a driver's manual I've seen a long while ago that shows it, but I dont have it anymore.

[Waffentrager]

12 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level?

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

[Xlucine]

Bear in mind that a chally 2 in theatre entry garb will have a block of composite "stuff" over the lower front plate, and used to have ERA there

[Andrei_bt]

6 hours ago, Akula_941 said:

in short, people crys, shouting , cursing, claiming this whole file is fake, Abrams 900mm vs KE,DU stronk, USA win.

 

any link? Will be funny to look )

[Karamazov]

 

1 hour ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

any link? Will be funny to look )

 

something nearby true from latest swedish tank tender's report. but I think you saw it. It is necessary to clarify which M1 model

[Monochromelody]

10 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

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 camera or sth. else. 

 

 

[Waffentrager]

13 minutes ago, Monochromelody said:

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

 

 

 Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..

[Bronezhilet]

12 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

3 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

 Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

[Waffentrager]

6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

 

Mitsubishi has a few collections of the TK-X project from the Type90 to planned Type10 projection. This snipbit wasnt with the ones I have, but was found online. It's clear the style is from the same source. Just the one posting seems to have used similar numbers of armour to their advantage and tried censoring the rest to prevent reading in-context, or just failed to get what it said. It's clear at least one more is around that's public. Just not about the protection but built in tech instead. It'd be very welcomed. Especially when they seem to love comparing it to the T-90. 

[Bronezhilet]

13 hours ago, Monochromelody said:

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 camera or sth. else.

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

Also you can say bullshit and fuck on this forum, welcome to the club.

[Waffentrager]

13 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

 

Aye, did some digging, this is the chart's header. The original piece specifically labels it as the tanks sighting comparison. Lists 3 alternate options and which was better fit. Just the normal dont trust what you find online at face value. Just coincidentally has identical numbers mentioned about armour elsewhere.

 

[SH_MM]

19 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

If these protection values would be representing the actual Leopard 2 and if these were actually based on tests with the 120 mm DM33/JM33 ammunition, then it most likely would mean that the Leopard 2 would reach a (slightly) higher protection level against older types of APFSDS ammunition. The 120 mm DM33 APFSDS was specifically optimized to defeat multi-layered armor, against which older designs of APFSDS were found to be rather insufficient. According to a patent from Rheinmetall, a special tip design developed in the mid-1980s allows to increase the penetration against multi-layered armor, specifically such armor designs with "bouncy"/elastically mounted steel plates. The NERA arrays used on the Leopard 2 could be described as such armor - the German text speaks of "komplizierten Mehrschichtpanzerungen" ("complicated multi-layered armor arrays") and "federnd aufgehängten Panzerplatten" ("resiliently mounted armor plates"). The moving metal plate(s) of a NERA sandwich can be described as "Federblech" or "Beulblech" in German, with the armor of the Leopard 2 being called "Beulblechpanzerung" (bulging-plates armor) and "Lamellenpanzerung" (the latter term is used by the Austrian Bundesheer).

 

 

According to conservative estimations during the development of this new tip design, the penetration performance of the APFSDS ammunition could be increased by more than 10% against certain special armor arrays. So a measured protection value of 380 mm RHAe - if this reflected the Leopard 2's claimed protection against the 120 mm DM33 APFSDS - could very well be 400-440 mm steel-eqivalent protection against older rounds such as 120 mm DM23, Zakolka, Vant, Mango, etc.

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

[Waffentrager]

8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

 

 

It's clear the text hidden has nothing to do with armour. Blatant out of context shot taking numbers similar to armour and censoring the text.

 

8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

 

The use of the Rheinmetall gun choice for the Type90's development didnt happen untiil 1988, after the first trial tanks were built. It was a late swap from their own 120 to using a cheaper Rheinmetall. Likely right after was their own round based on the DM33 was conducted leading to the introduction of the tank.

 

I don't know when. Japan does bring up the topic of western comparisons, and even including numbers matching that of the western contemporaries. It would either be clear intel sharing - or just random accurate presumptions. But based on the data they mention on the T-90 project, it seems it could be either or. 

 

[Militarysta]

On 13.03.2018 at 5:52 PM, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

 

 

You are unlucky - in Wroclaw city where I live there is big LG corp factory whit many Korean Managers. And preatty close there is TAKATA and Toyota big factories.

Funny I know people who know both - Korean and Japaneese language. And I had ask them about this whit kindly ask for translate.

It cost me a lunch. 

 

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

 

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

GTFO!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jägerlein]

29 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

 

GTFO!!!

sry it was too tempting...

[Belesarius]

48 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

Snipped for brevity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

[Waffentrager]

2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

 

Well - I did jump to conclusions without doing the proper looking into before sharing what's found online just because at first glance it matches with other material. So albeit harsh words, I did sort of earn the needed-backlash.