Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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

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:wacko: chalenger-2_9.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:wacko:

 

Ed5JzTj4TIo.jpg

 

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.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

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.

 



qNOwNaJ.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monochromelody said:

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

MI2pE8N.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

BWMti0D.png13_53.jpg

Japanese_APFSDS.jpg



9E8VT5h.png

D0aRI9Z.png

 

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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

guoGSH0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

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!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

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

 

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. :wacko:

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...