Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
4 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Chieftain Enigma conversion in 1/35 scale, is this a genuine proposal for the MBT?

https://dragonbadger.co.uk/product/chieftain-heavy-armour-conversion-in-1-35-scales-3d-print/

 

 

This was a proposal to up-armor the Chieftain using Burlingon (Chobham) armor in the late 1960s. The shape of the turret resulted in really poor armor coverage, hence the idea was abandoned in favor of developing a new variant of the Chieftain with built-in Burlington armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenger 3:

According to RBSL and the Integration Project Manager, Challenger 2s upgraded as part of LEP will be called Challenger 3.
The two former teams (BAE-General Dynamics and Rheinmetall) have been merged under 'Team Challenger 3'.

tLMdjvR.jpg
https://rbsl.com/capabilities/tracked-vehicles/challenger2

UtFZEwd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Challenger 3:

According to RBSL and the Integration Project Manager, Challenger 2s upgraded as part of LEP will be called Challenger 3.
The two former teams (BAE-General Dynamics and Rheinmetall) have been merged under 'Team Challenger 3'.

tLMdjvR.jpg
https://rbsl.com/capabilities/tracked-vehicles/challenger2

UtFZEwd.jpg

Let’s wait for the formal announcement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lots of interesting details in there. New modular armour design at Porton Down (a Dstl site)? I assumed the armour would be some form of AMAP given Rheinmetall's lead on the project but I guess not.

 

They also hint at a powerpack upgrade and indicated the weapon is at the same level as the new Leos and Abrams - seems more L55A1 than 130.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Yeah i noticed that too. Wasn't expecting to see the Dorchester getting replaced. Guess that the new armor is going to be called "Port Down armor".

 

I'm suspecting the new armor is only on the new turret. When they mention upgrading the family of vehicles like CRARRV they mention only mechanical changes. Which would make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new armour could also theoretically be used in the lower glacis and side add-on packs.
Powerpack has been known for a while but to what extent isn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's in the Boxes?

M3a8Gip.jpg
 

Spoiler

4dvKJKK.jpg
76k9Jod.jpg
YcBO8Df.jpg
 

 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vickers Mk4

GS8jpbH.jpg
 

Quote

Royal Ordnance Factory Main Battle Tank (Prototype NOP4030/3) at the British Army Equipment Exhibition in Pegasus Village, Aldershot.
Date taken: 23 June 1980



https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-royal-ordnance-factory-main-battle-tank-prototype-nop40303-at-the-176456853.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I've been saying that these are just storage boxes for two years. Thanks for posting the photographic evidence here ;):)


The boxes with ribbing are storage.
Full length + height module configuration is armour. Except for the front right modules which appear to be storage + armour:

k8IeIPf.jpg

Armour configurations:

bOPJR3u.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when the PSO kit is installed, are all contents of the storage boxes dropped - or is there a reason why the PSO kit includes net armor and slat armor :rolleyes:

 

There is additional armor for the hull sides. That this armor is not installed ontop of the storage boxes (or the new armor also acts as storage boxes) is debatable given the light-weight anti-RPG system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you open the modules? 
There's no doors on individual modules and the tops are bolted. The entire module array is bolted together and only the side skirt sections have hinges
To access the supposed top storage you would have to lift and hold the entire array:

QNLec5r.jpg

I imagine that the logic with PSO fit is that the vehicles would be operating closely from FOBs and not need as much autonomy. 

Early renders showed vehicles covered entirely in slat armour and equipment bolted onto the hull:

LbjDFFc.jpg

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
       
       
       
       
       
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?
       
       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...