Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Apparently British tank designer's solution for more KE protection is using more steel. According to the following excerpt, the cast steel shell for the Challenger 1 turret had a weight of 7,500 kilograms.

 

Untitled.jpg

 

In case of the Challenger 2, the contractor for the turret shell, i.e. William Cook Defence, claims that it is a single piece casting with a weight of more than 9,000 kilograms!

9OHNoDj.png

TVm05ZB.png

 

The casting also nicely showcases the weakspots caused by the gunner's sight and the loader's sight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Apparently British tank designer's solution for more KE protection is using more steel. According to the following excerpt, the cast steel shell for the Challenger 1 turret had a weight of 7,500 kilograms.

 

Untitled.jpg

 

In case of the Challenger 2, the contractor for the turret shell, i.e. William Cook Defence, claims that it is a single piece casting with a weight of more than 9,000 kilograms!

9OHNoDj.png

TVm05ZB.png

 

The casting also nicely showcases the weakspots caused by the gunner's sight and the loader's sight.

 

Not to mention the hull itself has steel literally everywhere covering nooks and crannies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Apparently British tank designer's solution for more KE protection is using more steel. According to the following excerpt, the cast steel shell for the Challenger 1 turret had a weight of 7,500 kilograms.

 

Untitled.jpg

 

In case of the Challenger 2, the contractor for the turret shell, i.e. William Cook Defence, claims that it is a single piece casting with a weight of more than 9,000 kilograms!

9OHNoDj.png

TVm05ZB.png

 

The casting also nicely showcases the weakspots caused by the gunner's sight and the loader's sight.

 

 

Meanwhile cast steel used in Challenger 2 (made according to DEFSTAN 95-25) is a lower quality than the one used in Stillbrew Chieftain and possibly Challenger 1 too (made according to RARDE 823 aka DEFSTAN 95-26).

 

Hc5aROC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Meanwhile cast steel used in Challenger 2 (made according to DEFSTAN 95-25) is a lower quality than the one used in Stillbrew Chieftain and possibly Challenger 1 too (made according to RARDE 823 aka DEFSTAN 95-26).

 

The quality for DEFSTAN 95-25 CHA is really impressively poor, it's on par with that used for making the pattons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CR3 turret is apparently just Rheinmetall's Revolution turret:
 

 

 




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

 

On 5/24/2021 at 6:31 AM, Newtonk said:

Ah, ok then, now I'm really curious as to those other "several camouflage experiments" and what those look like. Thanks for the reply, I'll keep searching... 



Ea8CiuD.jpg
zZSVqqc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Meanwhile cast steel used in Challenger 2 (made according to DEFSTAN 95-25) is a lower quality than the one used in Stillbrew Chieftain and possibly Challenger 1 too (made according to RARDE 823 aka DEFSTAN 95-26).

 

Hc5aROC.png

 

Compare with data from http://btvt.info/5library/vtp_1953_bronja_m26_m46.htm - in particular this chart.

Spoiler

unknown.png

DEF STAN 95-25 grade castings have hardly changed material formulation and quality from WW2 era US castings. Which the Soviets lambast heavily in that piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, David Moyes said:

CR3 turret is apparently just Rheinmetall's Revolution turret:

 

Drummond might be the worst possible source for this. I believe the relation to the revolution is about the internal layout and stations (although even then the exact equipment is not the same) including the gun and ammo storage, not the physical turret construction. Drummond is either senile or just spreading misinformation these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Properties of cast turret carcasses of Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are not crucial for protection of those tanks. It is the last layer of armour array and it is not supposed to stop full-scale attack but to intercept residual jet or penetrator that would pierce special armour modules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last layer (especially thick one) is influential for protection of whole package - in this case placed in front of this cast. Using well made RHA, well made CHA or badly made CHA (not only package) determines if the penetrator or jet even reach the last layer. These few per cents of difference which are important for tankers' lifes.

 

In another case it would prove that armour blocks aren't even attached to the turret but they levitate in the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate your first point? How would you define the part of CH2 turret carcass in the process of defeating penetrator or jet?

 

Could you also elaborate your second point? What would prove what?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, David Moyes said:

CR3 turret is apparently just Rheinmetall's Revolution turret:
 

 

 




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

 



Ea8CiuD.jpg
zZSVqqc.jpg

"National Pride" LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those sights should be buried in the armor block, so I don't think it's too much of a weak spot. Also it's early similar to my own turret design.

 

Also so are we saying that the Challenger 3 has a Leo turret made to look like Challenger 2 because... bongs? LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sten said:

Those sights should be buried in the armor block, so I don't think it's too much of a weak spot. Also it's early similar to my own turret design.

 

Also so are we saying that the Challenger 3 has a Leo turret made to look like Challenger 2 because... bongs? LMAO

The armor blocks themselves around the sights is thinner and maybe even not even there as shown by construction photos.

5 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

 

Drummond might be the worst possible source for this. I believe the relation to the revolution is about the internal layout and stations (although even then the exact equipment is not the same) including the gun and ammo storage, not the physical turret construction. Drummond is either senile or just spreading misinformation these days.

Drummond literally works for the companies in charge of this project. If he knows anything at all it’ll be this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Zadlo said:

Meanwhile cast steel used in Challenger 2 (made according to DEFSTAN 95-25) is a lower quality than the one used in Stillbrew Chieftain and possibly Challenger 1 too (made according to RARDE 823 aka DEFSTAN 95-26).

 

Hc5aROC.png

 

Negative. The DEF STAN 95-25 is the successor the IT90G standard used for the Chieftain base turret and hull. DEF STAN 95-26 was first issued in 1997, i.e. a long time after Stillbrew and Challenger 1. RARDE 823 was issued in 1985, after Challenger 1 production. The table apparently lists only excerpts from DEF STAN 95-25 and DEF STAN 95-26. DEF STAN 95-24 has multiple classes of armor steel defined (depending on thickness and application) - I'd assume that this is also the case with DEF STAN 95-25 and 95-26. The German TL 2350-0002 for cast armor steel also defines multiple "grade classes" for the steel.

 

1 hour ago, Korvette said:

Drummond literally works for the companies in charge of this project. If he knows anything at all it’ll be this. 

 

He does PR for KMW. The Challenger 3 is a project by Rheinmetall. He is not involved with it and likely made a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

He does PR for KMW. The Challenger 3 is a project by Rheinmetall. He is not involved with it and likely made a mistake.

KMW also probably knows where Leo 2 turrets are going, he's not fully out of the picture from the whole project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the Revolution turret is now an original IP and no longer based on the Leo 2 turret? 
A wholly owned turret solution by Rheinmetall?


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


Side turret ballast:

WOeV9vI.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Negative. The DEF STAN 95-25 is the successor the IT90G standard used for the Chieftain base turret and hull. DEF STAN 95-26 was first issued in 1997, i.e. a long time after Stillbrew and Challenger 1. RARDE 823 was issued in 1985, after Challenger 1 production. The table apparently lists only excerpts from DEF STAN 95-25 and DEF STAN 95-26. DEF STAN 95-24 has multiple classes of armor steel defined (depending on thickness and application) - I'd assume that this is also the case with DEF STAN 95-25 and 95-26. The German TL 2350-0002 for cast armor steel also defines multiple "grade classes" for the steel.

 

You can find 95-25 and 95-26 publicly available. It does not specify multiple grades in terms of any physical, ballistic, or chemical properties. The specs listed in that image are the sole acceptable bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a few possibilities with what Drummond says, and a fallacy.

 

If we look back to the video of the Challenger 3 reveal or the 'contract signed' media that was recently released, the entire of the turret looks reasonably similar to that of the old CR2, you can see the old style mantlet with the L94 inside of it, the angular turret cheeks in the inner shell, but the inclusion of a bustle rack, and digitizing/cleaning the turret. It wouldn't make too much sense that its somehow a leo 2 revo turret if presumably the interior we've seen is quite similar to the CR2

 

One possibility is that actually new turret that will appear on production line is simply fully new and simply bares a resemblance to Leo 2 and CR2 and that the new turret but is based on what is designed with things such as the Leo 2PL/SG in that the AMAP modules on the turret are what is now the 'new' modularity of the turret for the CR3 but instead using whatever came out of Porton Down, and that the carcass will be similar to that of the CR2 but welded.

 

The other is that the new turret that will be revealed is infact simply the Leo 2 revo turret. From a budget standpoint it doesn't seem too far fetched from the British to attempt to just cheap out and have Rheinmetall recycle an old design and polish it a bit with some new things and that Drummond is having an old man moment and is instead saying that the production models will be what he described. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're giving Drummond far too much credit.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Drummond has been repeating this line about the revolution lately and this tweet really drives it home. Now the CR2 inherited its turret ring size from the CR1, who inherited it from Cheiftain. The turret ring size of chieftain is, afaik, identical to that of the M60 because in the 50s and 60s the US and UK thought it would be a great idea if their new tanks could swap turrets. Why they thought that I don't know, however what it means is that the Abrams and CR2 should in theory have the same size turret rings. Both of which are slightly larger than that of Leopard 2, as Leopard 2 inherited it's turret ring size from Leopard 1 - presumably owing to the origins of the Leopard 2 program. So why he thinks that it's smaller is beyond me. I do believe the original LEP requirement was to maintain the existing turret dimensions, as the original requirement didn't call for a new gun or additional armour, which is presumably why Rheinmetall's LEP proposal looks fundamentally the same as a CR2 turret.

 

I think he was told or read something along the lines of Rheinmetall basing it off the revolution and he's taken that at face value and assumed it meant the physical turret. While the rear end of the LEP/CR3 probably shares leopard 2 physical features I don't believe this relation really has anything to do with the turret shell. Have a read over Rh's page on the revolution and you'll see that the entire point was about the guts of the turret, the systems and is described as a modular upgrade suite. If anything on the CR3 is going to be based on the Revolution, my money would be on everything but the turret shell. I think LEP/CR3 is the systems of the Revolution with some adaptation to more agreeable MoD suppliers (namely Thales) and compatibility with the UK's GVA.

 

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1408.php

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...