Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, BaronTibere said:

 

I think you're giving yourself too much credit here as well.

 

Nobody said he's not a lunatic that he's a reliable source but he said something rather important that can't just be dismissed. CR3's inner shell will be welded, and to make it the same/similar to that of the CR2 is the dumbest thing possible, retaining old weaknesses at the mantlet and RWS port and optic port which is present on the current demonstrators which would make Rheinmetall faint at the size of them. Therefore a new design must be put on it. Drummond by quote said something suspicious but it didn't come from nowhere. There are possibilities as to what he actually means, one could be that what he said is truly what is happening and the other could be that he has misspoke/misinterpreted what he was told, the degree of which we will have absolutely no clue of until further details are released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

 

DEF STAN 95-26 is based on RARDE 823. Both have the same mechanical requirements, chemical composition and tempering method. Also 95-26 links directly to 823.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Korvette said:

Nobody said he's not a lunatic that he's a reliable source but he said something rather important that can't just be dismissed.

 

I'm neither dismissing what he's said (entirely) or making any predictions on how the CR3 will look, but I am actually reading what he writes and identifying the rather obvious errors. There's no evidence that the CR3 turret construction will be based on the Revolution (aside from the bustle ammo storage, which does seem leopard-like), which is an upgrade for a 2A4 turret. If Rh was given the go ahead for a new turret design without constraints to the dimensions like LEP was, you're correct that retaining the CR2 geometry would not be ideal (and I never claimed this) but it would be equally silly to adopt a the geometry and construction from an unrelated tank and it certainly has nothing to do with the turret ring size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m probably speaking outside my expertise, but since the Cr3’s gunner sight is on top of the tank’s roof, and not cut out from the turret front, the turret would have more in common with the 2A5 than the revolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

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.

 

I couldn't find them for free. There is one Google search result pointing to a German FTP server, but the file on the actual server was deleted some time ago. All other sources seem to ask for more money than I am willing to spend on that matter. Could you provide a link to the public available versions?

 

I believe the outcry regarding the use of DEF STAN 95-25 steel (specifically on Twitter by people like Damian) is exaggerated. DEF STAN 95-25 is the successor to IT90G, which covered the same hardness ranges and dates back to WW2. The Chieftain's cast steel turret and hull used steel made according to IT90G and reached an average hardness of 260 to 280 HB, i.e. they remained at the upper spectrum of the standard. I believe that Challenger 2's turret also covers the upper spectrum of hardness specified in DEF STAN 95-25. The difference to DEF STAN 95-26 is just 25 HB, which I would consider negible. The difference in armor protection will be a minimal.

 

However the impact on other aspects such as weldability/manufacturability might be much bigger. You really don't want to heat up a nine tonnes piece of steel every time before and after welding something to it. As RARDE 823/DEF STAN 95-26 steel was only used for the Stillbrew armor (or at least this is the only confirmed usage, whereas Chieftain relied on IT90G steel and Challenger 1 also on DEF STAN 95-25), one has to wonder if there were facilities capable of producing large air-hardened casting of such size,

I also don't think that the quality of DEF STAN 95-25 steel is an issue. The hardness is average for cast steel. US tanks used softer steel (220 HB steel as tested on a M48) until 1978 before switching to 270-280 HB steel. The Soviets also used 260-280 HB cast steel, i.e. roughly comparable in protective qualities to DEF STAN 95-25.

 

My understanding is that the casting of the Challenger 2's turret is quite thick, although I must admit that the informations regarding the exact turret geometry and plate thickness of the Challenger 2 turret remain largely unknown to me. The Challenger 1 also seem to have quite a thick steel casting based on the weight and size of the turret, and this was even increased on the Challenger 2. I believe comparing cast armor grades to the steel grades used for thin RHA plates makes not much sense. DEF STAN 95-24 defines for Class 1 and 2 steel grades with a thickness of above 100 milimeter a hardness of at least 255 HB and UTS of 850. There wouldn't be a noteworthy difference in protection when using a welded steel turret made of such plates, but such a turret might end up heavier (or more complicated to manufacture and more expensive) due to the fact that casting allows using much more variable material thickness.

 

While DEF STAN 95-24 Class 4 high-hardness steel would also be available in the relevant thickness, this is specifically stated to be hardly weldable and thus is not suitable for the inner citadel of a turret to which all sorts of things (including all mounting points for the Dorchester composite armor) need to be attached. American RHA (according to the MIL-1250 standard) at similar thickness also does not seem a better solution, as the hardness range for plates with a thickness of 4 to 6 inches is just 241 to 277; the backplate of the Abrams' hull armor array might not be any better than the turret casting of the Challenger 2.

 

 

The only real alternative - that depending on point of view might be better - is using thinner plates for the turret citadel, i.e. with a thickness of just 40-50 mm and incorporate multiple steel (or alternatively ceramic) layers into the composite armor array.

 

____

 

@Korvette and @BaronTibere regarding Nicholas Drummond: I don't think that calling him senile, a lunatic or assuming that he is a malevolent intent is correct. He makes mistakes, as everyone does. He is just not as involved into the technical aspects of tank development (but rather focuses on the tactical and political side of things, where he acted as witness to the UK parliament's defence committee on different issues). Most likely somebody from Rheinmetall told him that the companies' Challenger 2 LEP offer was based on the MBT Revolution concept and he assumed that this means a Leopard 2 turret is used. IIRC at DSEI 2017 the Leopard 2 Revolution was displayed and Rheinmetall made such comments towards the press (i.e. Jane's, etc.).

 

That doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 turret is used, as the MBT Revolution is a modular upgrade concept (just like the Evolution armor concept on which it is based) using Rheinmetall-made components. There is also the Revolution/Evolution upgrades of the Marder IFV, the SEP 8x8, the Stridfordon 90, the T-72 and many other vehicles, though most of them exist only as prototypes or CAD-based proposals.

 

 

14 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

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.

 

That is assuming that the turret ring diameter wasn't reduced on the Challenger 1 or Challenger 2. In case of the Abrams, it was reduced to 83 inches (from 85 inches) during development, but in a later stage of development again increased to 85 inches.

 

  

14 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

Both of which are slightly larger than that of Leopard 2,

 

The Leopard 2's turret ring diameter is stated to be 2,200 mm in Paul-Werner Krapke's book. That would be slightly more than 85 inches.

 

2 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

will be based on the Revolution (aside from the bustle ammo storage, which does seem leopard-like), which is an upgrade for a 2A4 turret.

 

The MBT Revolution is a modular upgrade suited for a wide variety of vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2's turret ring diameter is stated to be 2,200 mm in Paul-Werner Krapke's book. That would be slightly more than 85 inches.

 

Good to know, I was using Ogorkiewicz who gives the leo 1 and 2 at 1980mm and the M60/M1/Chief/CR1/CR2 at 2159mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

Drummond is neither senile or a lunatic, he is a salesman and 'influencer' paid to promote a product.


Drummond appears to be just your typical public relations rep. He probably just spouts what he’s been told, whether it’s true or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever he says, it's not from nowhere. What he means however may require interpretation. He could horrifyingly be right or be somewhat misleaded in the statement but the statement as I said exists and it could bare good or bad news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Drummond is neither senile or a lunatic, he is a salesman and 'influencer' paid to promote a product.

Agreed - for KMW.  For those outside Germany.  KWM and Rheinmetall hate each other.  Expect no truth from one commenting on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true indeed but it is fair to say that almost every user/customer is complaining about Rheinmetall grapping all coins they can get and doing quite hard sales practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DIADES said:

Agreed - for KMW.  For those outside Germany.  KWM and Rheinmetall hate each other.  Expect no truth from one commenting on the other.

 

Rheinmetall wanted to buy KMW and nearly succeeded, if the German government didn't intervene. So much "hate" between them... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
Waiting for the UK to just say fuck it and go all in on Boxer.

Or just ask Rheinmetall pretty please a discount price for Lynx. Its the only sensible solution at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside of the budget issues, the Puma would be the perfect solution for the British military, as it is optimized for air-transportablity via A400M. In that sense it would fit much better to the British Army than the German one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Aside of the budget issues, the Puma would be the perfect solution for the British military, as it is optimized for air-transportablity via A400M. In that sense it would fit much better to the British Army than the German one...

 

Doesn't Ajax have a manned turret and seven men strong squad? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajax doesn't have troop transport, its set up with the turret and armor makes it too heavy to fit troops. The Boxer however can do that job, honestly they might as well go full Boxer it's the cheapest solution for the cheapest military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Aside of the budget issues, the Puma would be the perfect solution for the British military, as it is optimized for air-transportablity via A400M. In that sense it would fit much better to the British Army than the German one...

Yes. And they will carry 85% of the infantry. The 15% left will follow running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoonDust said:

I still hold the position that the Brits should just buy Abrams and Bradley’s. Just because I think that would be hilarious. 

Funny yes but unless Britain somehow just finds a couple billion dollars to spend on a whole new project, literally impossible to do at this point.

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...