SH_MM Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 27 minutes ago, Laviduce said: Not sure if this has been shared before but Auto_Tracking brought it to our attention on the WT forum. I am not sure whether it is authentic or not: See here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 42 minutes ago, SH_MM said: See here: So the diagrams are fakes ? :c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Laviduce said: So the diagrams are fakes ? :c The drawings are "fake", but the data is taken from actual declassified documents (~ with a bit of estimated performance regarding the change of armor protection at an angle). The drawing of the "Challenger 2" is based on the "improved Challenger 1" requirements. Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, SH_MM said: The drawings are "fake", but the data is taken from actual declassified documents (~ with a bit of estimated performance regarding the change of armor protection at an angle). The drawing of the "Challenger 2" is based on the "improved Challenger 1" requirements. Thank you, that sucks a bit! Also, would you know where the Leclerc protection info (350-430 mm KE for turret) is coming from and if they are legit or not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Laviduce said: Thank you, that sucks a bit! Also, would you know where the Leclerc protection info (350-430 mm KE for turret) is coming from and if they are legit or not ? @Molota_477 said that this data is from a real British document, which I believe to be true - but I haven't seen it. He has posted lots of snipplets from declassified British documents on his Weibo blog/page, like for example the MBT 80 concepts: Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 5 hours ago, SH_MM said: Looking at the bustle, one-piece ammunition were considered at that time ? British data about the Leclerc protection level don't reflect what we can find in the two French books dedicated to this MBT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Sovngard said: Looking at the bustle, one-piece ammunition were considered at that time ? Unitary 110 mm ammunition was used as projected armament of some 1970s British tank projects, but they later switched to split 110 mm and then to the old 120 mm ammunition. 1 hour ago, Sovngard said: British data about the Leclerc protection level don't reflect what we can find in the two French books dedicated to this MBT. Literature hasn't proven to be very accurate regarding protection levels and often relies on exaggerated generalizations - if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different. But the British documents are likely refering to a concept/prototype version of the Leclerc, which should be kept in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 7 hours ago, SH_MM said: if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different. Well, acually it was higly immune against 3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22, etc couse multi partial penetrator whit tungsten sub-rod (or rather tungsten slug) behave in special armour very diffrent then monoblock tungsten rod. So if some sources claimed that DM23 overpas 420mm RHA it's "diffrent" RHA eqivalent then 410 mm RHA for 60 deg and 450 mm RHA for 0 deg. achivale for BM26 whit lon steel penetrator whit tungsten slug before fins. The game changer where 3BM32 and 3BM42 - but both where intoroduced in to serial production in 1987 and 1988 and before SU colapse there where not produced in really huge numbers. And remember that in your country the special armour where replaced during F6 in all Leos no less then twice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heretic88 Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 Yes but what about the 3BM29? It entered service in 1981, and used a DU core. Probably not a monoblock rod, but even if not, I think it would still have improved performance over the 3BM26. May be enough to defeat M1 and Leo-2 . Why is this round such a mystery btw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, heretic88 said: Yes but what about the 3BM29? It entered service in 1981, and used a DU core. Probably not a monoblock rod, but even if not, I think it would still have improved performance over the 3BM26. May be enough to defeat M1 and Leo-2 . Why is this round such a mystery btw? You'r writing about this: ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 The sectioner's curse of assembling the sabot backwards strikes again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heretic88 Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Militarysta said: You'r writing about this: Is this the 3BM29 (Nadfil-2)? I heard its internal construction is unknown. Isnt this an 3BM26 instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 Well, we havn't so mucht options: Looking on right top APFSDS-T series (from LEFT to right): 3BM32 and 3BM32 cut-view 3BM42 and 3BM42 erly prototype cut-view 3BM29??? 3BM26 cut view 3BM22? 3BM9? 3BM15 whit no cut-viev This two round difrences are interesting: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 12 hours ago, SH_MM said: Literature hasn't proven to be very accurate regarding protection levels and often relies on exaggerated generalizations - Admittedly, but Marc Chassillan isn't a mere historian. 12 hours ago, SH_MM said: if you believed old German books from the 1980s and 1990s, Leopard 2 was invulnerable against Soviet 115 mm rounds and most types of 125 mm APFSDS; but we know reality is quite a bit different. It depends if you are referring to their 1960s/70s steel penetrators or their 1980s/90s monobloc penetrators. The former weren't good against multilayer composite armor arrays. 12 hours ago, SH_MM said: But the British documents are likely refering to a concept/prototype version of the Leclerc, which should be kept in mind. Unfortunately, this excerpt is undated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heretic88 Posted June 21, 2019 Report Share Posted June 21, 2019 19 hours ago, Militarysta said: Looking on right top APFSDS-T series (from LEFT to right): Well, then there is this... I dont know if its correct or not. The one in the right is definitely prototype, it stil has the old style sabot. http://soviet-ammo.ucoz.ru/index/125_3vbm11/0-91 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted June 23, 2019 Report Share Posted June 23, 2019 Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones. 2805662, Clan_Ghost_Bear, N-L-M and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted June 24, 2019 Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 2 hours ago, David Moyes said: Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones. That... that is impressively pointless. I'd wager by the time you've built the limited run of new hulls you're nearing the total cost/vehicle as the Ajax but while still being limited to ye olde chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted June 24, 2019 Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 Some heads should roll for the wasted £400m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted June 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 8 hours ago, alanch90 said: Some heads should roll for the wasted £400m Not exactly. A lot of money went to develop and buy the turrets, and then qualify them for use. All that is left to do is buy more ASCODs and that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 24, 2019 Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 15 hours ago, David Moyes said: Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones. There is this thing called an Ajax... It's being built in the UK... It has an IFV variant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted June 24, 2019 Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted June 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2019 30 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: There is this thing called an Ajax... It's being built in the UK... It has an IFV variant... Wonder if the Ajax with all its recon capabilities could detect its existence, and inform the MoD. Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 1, 2019 Report Share Posted July 1, 2019 Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL)https://rbsl.com Quote PRESS RELEASE 1 JULY 2019 RHEINMETALL AND BAE SYSTEMS LAUNCH UK BASED MILITARY VEHICLE JOINT VENTURE – RHEINMETALL BAE SYSTEMS LAND Rheinmetall and BAE Systems have today launched a new, independent UK-based joint venture (JV) for military vehicle design, manufacture and support – known as Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). Headquartered in Telford in the West Midlands, the JV will sustain around 450 jobs across the UK and is well positioned for future growth. RBSL intends to play a major role in manufacturing the Boxer 8×8 for the British Army’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) programme and other strategic combat vehicle programmes, while also providing support to the British Army’s in-service bridging and armoured vehicle fleets. Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt said: “This announcement is a clear vote of confidence in the UK’s defence industry as a world-leader in designing, supplying and supporting military vehicles. “This exciting venture clearly demonstrates how Defence sits at the heart of the prosperity agenda. Its benefits will be felt in the West Midlands and across the UK defence supply chain, creating jobs, boosting exports and guaranteeing our technical skills base into the future.” RBSL will draw on Rheinmetall’s broader military vehicle technologies combined with the additional capabilities and systems brought to the Joint Venture by BAE Systems’ Land UK business, such as Trojan, Terrier, Warrior, military bridging and the AS90 self-propelled artillery system. RBSL will have the potential to create hundreds of additional UK jobs, both in Telford and the wider supply chain. Peter Hardisty, formerly of Rheinmetall UK, has been appointed as Managing Director of the new company. He said: “RBSL is a new business drawing on the significant strengths and expertise of both BAE Systems Land UK and Rheinmetall. Our employees in Telford, Bristol, and Washington (UK) have a valuable skill set and extensive experience in combat vehicle engineering. With new orders, we shall be able to sustain these capabilities and expand over the coming years, seeking new opportunities in the UK and overseas.” The new management team that will lead RBSL into the future also includes Carrie White as Finance Director and Phil Simon as Operations Director, both of whom join from BAE Systems. Regulatory approval for the joint venture was granted on 13 June 2019. Background information Rheinmetall Defence is one of the world’s leading makers of military vehicles and systems. In the United Kingdom the Group is already present in the form of Rheinmetall Defence UK and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles UK. These two businesses are well-established suppliers to the British Ministry of Defence. They assist Her Majesty’s Armed Forces in a number of areas, including vehicle systems, ammunition and technical support. For many decades BAE Systems has been the UK’s premier land systems manufacturer and source of technical support. BAE Systems companies have produced the Challenger 2 main battle tank, the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle as well as the Terrier combat engineering vehicle. BAE Systems Land UK is currently supporting the British Ministry of Defence and British Army in maintaining and upgrading the operational effectiveness of the UK’s combat vehicles and systems. It has over 400 employees devoted to military vehicle systems, primarily in Telford in the West Midlands. Excluded from the Joint Venture are activities of BAE Systems Land UK in the field of weapons and ammunition in Great Britain, as well as the CTAI project with Nexter. For more information, please contact: Oliver Hoffmann Head of Public Relations Rheinmetall AG Tel.: +49-(0)211-473 4748 oliver.hoffmann@rheinmetall.com https://twitter.com/TotherChris/status/1145636029531086853https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rheinmetall-and-bae-launch-joint-vehicle-design-venture/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 Challenger 2 Upgrade Decision Will Not Be Made Until 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 What a mess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.