Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

So much "hate" between them

Three powerful forces.  Love Hate and cold hard cash.  Cash wins always.  :)  In this case, french cash.  There was/is real hatred tho I am told a recent death in the family is seen as likely to improve the relationship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DIADES said:

and the reliability issues, the spares issues, the accuracy and cadence issues, the stall during pivot turn issues. yeah.

Do you have any sources you can share?

The reliability of the computers was the single biggest issue that keeps coming up but supposedly its gotten far better with the vjtf23 version though i didnt get to talk with any end user of that version yet.

Spare parts are afaik just the german army not buying them in sufficient quantities and is the same for our leo2s for example

The accuracy ive only ever hard during its prototype phase being an issue. Any actual end user ive talked to had nothing but praise for it as long as the computers keep working.

And ive never heard of stalling issues. Even in Tank driver school where id expect this to come up even more from the drivers to the instructers ive never heard that mentioned even once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Serge said:

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

 

Well, Ajax carries no dismounts and Ares just four, so there are no problems with the Puma's available space.

Ares.jpg

 

Even if Puma replaced the Warrior, it wouldn't be a dramatic issue. The US Army also transports 8/9 men squads with the Bradleys, which only provide seating for seven dismounts... they just distribute the squads on multiple vehicles.

Spoiler

a137e0_2b74ca6c2c7d48468bfdac859137e199~

 

2 hours ago, DIADES said:

and the reliability issues, the spares issues, the accuracy and cadence issues, the stall during pivot turn issues. yeah.

 

The immature state of the Puma at its adoption would have make it a perfect fit for the British Army :D

 

However nowadays complaining about it is bogus. Software updates (as well as the German MoD actually starting to order spare parts and awarding maintenance contracts... :rolleyes:) have made it more and more reliable. Relability now has reached 60% and is getting even better (as the updates have not been rolled out to every vehicle, the HLI will also start Puma maintenance and there finally is starting to be a stock of spare parts).

 

Accuracy and cadence issues are non-existant. Just look at the demonstration to the Czech Republic in 2017 regarding accuracy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Puma is IFV, and AJAX is a CFV to replace CVR(T). Warrior IFV would be replaced with Boxer APC. If British Army decide to change its CFV to Puma, it means there needs a new variation of Puma that is specialized to Reconnaissance and do not carry person.

 

Maybe the easiest way to solve this problem is just devlop Boxer mounting 40mm CTA, similar to the Boxer CFV version which Australian Army adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boxer seems like an obvious choice. But given British idea of "reconnaissance" (no extra sensors carried on the Ajax, no extra powerful radios on Ajax and commander's optic has to be removed when fitting an RWS), one simply could leave the dismount compartment of a Puma empty and call it a day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Well, Ajax carries no dismounts and Ares just four, so there are no problems with the Puma's available space.

Ares.jpg
 

I was considering the size of soldiers. 
it was designed to carry 85% of a population, not 95%. 
So, the troop compartment is too low. 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Even if Puma replaced the Warrior, it wouldn't be a dramatic issue. The US Army also transports 8/9 men squads with the Bradleys, which only provide seating for seven dismounts... they just distribute the squads on multiple vehicles.

  Reveal hidden contents

a137e0_2b74ca6c2c7d48468bfdac859137e199~

The worst organisation. 

They have better to purchase a Lynx. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serge said:

I was considering the size of soldiers. 
it was designed to carry 85% of a population, not 95%. 

 

The seats have been altered to increase available space. Originally Puma was designed to support dismounts with a height of 1.84 meters (i.e. 75% of the German male adults), the altered seats raise this to 1.89 meters height. The seats of commander, driver and gunner are designed with space for 1.91 meters tall soldiers (i.e. 91% of the German male adults).

 

The British population is a bit shorter, current data suggests that 91% of the British male adults have a height of 1.86 meters or less and 98% have a height of 1.91 meters or less. Another factor in which the Puma fits better to the UK than to Germany... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Definitely impacting burst grouping.

If it makes the brits feel any better. They are still on par with Russian's BMP-T because they didn't realize that the muzzle gas from one 30mm would push the barrel of the other and vice versa causing the guns to spray wildly past ~800m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atokara said:

If it makes the brits feel any better. They are still on par with Russian's BMP-T because they didn't realize that the muzzle gas from one 30mm would push the barrel of the other and vice versa causing the guns to spray wildly past ~800m.

There is no such vehicle as BMP-T.

They realise that, but don't care as main aim of BMPT is UVZ profits support vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 6:09 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

 

Comparison of armour steel based only on hardness is a bad comparison.

 

There are five factors important for armour steel:

1. YS

2. UTS

3. elongation

4. impact strength

5. hardness

 

Why hardness is on the 5th place? Because it is responsible only for penetrator's erosion and if the penetrator has tendency to mushrooming during initial penetration. But the second case is important in ceramics. Meanwhile the function of yield strength is to show how good energy is absorbed by steel. Tensile strength is indirectly related to hardness. Elongation is useful in NERA designs (exactly in bulging plate design) and when the plate is strong sloping in order to richochet the penetrator. And impact strength is a test which shows the absorption of energy by tested material.

 

In all of armour standards there are always two verified factors - hardness and impact strength. You've said that DEF STAN 95-25 cast steel and 4" thick MIL-DTL-12560 wrought steel offers the similar protection due to similar hardness. But it's not true. British cast steel requires absorption of at least 40 J during Charpy test. Standard doesn't define the temperature of samples so the conclusion is samples are tested in room temperature. Meanwhile 4" thick American wrought steel requires absorption of 55 (when steel has 300 HB) to 82 J (when steel has 250 HB) during Charpy test and at the same time samples must be cooled to -40 degrees. So in the effect American wrought steel protects a lot better than British cast steel because the first one absorbs the energy better than the second.

 

There are two better comparisons for DEF STAN 95-25 cast steel.

 

The first one is MIL-A-11356 cast steel which at 60mm of thickness (the same as CR2 turret base thickness) has hardness between 255 and 293 HB and required minimum impact strength between 35 J (for 293 HB cast) and 51 J (for 255 HB cast). That's comparable values.

 

The second one is civilian grade 'armour' steel called S690QL (made according to EN 10025-6 standard) which has YS >690, UTS 770 - 940, elongation >14% and Charpy impact strength 50 J at 0 degree Celsius or 30 J at -40 degrees. And even though that's a civilian structural steel it will perform better than British cast steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 2:14 PM, Korvette said:

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


I happen to know the man personally. He's a consultant, so in that sense yes he "works" for the companies. What he does not do is actually work on these projects, he's closer to an influencer.

I would, hmmm, treat Drummond a bit like one treats a fortune from a trailer park psychic. Maybe there's something there, if you do enough interpreting but, chances are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:


I happen to know the man personally. He's a consultant, so in that sense yes he "works" for the companies. What he does not do is actually work on these projects, he's closer to an influencer.

I would, hmmm, treat Drummond a bit like one treats a fortune from a trailer park psychic. Maybe there's something there, if you do enough interpreting but, chances are...

Applicable and understandable.

 

My main point is that while he has no technical bearing or direct indepth knowledge of things, he still has contacts and an agenda he is being told. So while he could just be saying something entirely wrong he didn't say it just to splurge something out there, in my opinion he's been told something here this time and he's said it, it again depends on who told him and is Drummond actually saying the thing he was told. Personally, I honestly wouldn't put it past Rheinmetall to do something wacky with the CR3 turret, the MoD has always been the worlds leading producer in project budget cuts and there's always going to be something f*cked in the end with whatever they put into service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zadlo said:

Comparison of armour steel based only on hardness is a bad comparison.

 

Yes and no. The problem is that DEF STAN 95-25 does not provide ranges for UTS, Charpy impact testing, elongation and yield ("Proof") strength, but only the specified minimums. The range of alloy compositions that are possible provides sufficient room for a wider range of different mechanical properties.

 

The Challenger 2's turret shell could reach the bare minimum of the UTS, energy absorption, elongation and YS. Then you are clearly right and it is a much worse solution than MIL-DTL-12560 steel. But it is alsom possible that it might have a comparable energy absorption during impact testing.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The problem is that DEF STAN 95-25 does not provide ranges for UTS, Charpy impact testing, elongation and yield ("Proof") strength, but only the specified minimums.

So does MIL-DTL-12560, except for class 3 (intended for weapons testing). 

The idea, of course, being that you wouldn't disqualify a batch of armor steel for being better than you wanted.

It's also worth noting that just like MIL-DTL-12560, DEF STAN 95 in its various updates defines several classes of armor steel, where the softer ones are required to have a higher Charpy impact energy than the harder ones, typically to better function in structural and blast loading.

 

One must be careful to not compare apples to oranges.

 

Also, for US cast armor, the relevant spec is MIL-A-11356, which also defines 2 classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Why bother?  Anybody but the French using the stuff?

 

For now yes, and even then it's not even exactly the same than the British one.

As I understood it, while France took the system that was developed as a whole, the UK choose to swap out a few subsystems to better suit their requirements (notably the feeding system) which caused a lot of integration problems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 9:11 PM, Korvette said:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-mod-was-offered-leopard-2-tanks-on-lease/

 

MoD explaining why they wouldn't buy leopard 2 in the 80-90s and won't do it again in 2021:


Ho ho! Just you wait! The old men in charge are going to cancel the new Challenger 3 turret upgrade “in preference for an in-house design (that will never exist)”, or “because it’s too expensive (and we can definitely spend that money better the next time, we promise)”. Maybe even both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Ho ho! Just you wait! The old men in charge are going to cancel the new Challenger 3 turret upgrade “in preference for an in-house design (that will never exist)”, or “because it’s too expensive (and we can definitely spend that money better the next time, we promise)”. Maybe even both. 

Under careful consideration in the House of commons defense committee and MoD, we've determined to modify the Challenger 3 program to instead opt for an 'off the junk yard' choice MBT in which we will then scrap all 408 built CR2 turrets and put a readily available, refurbished centurion and chieftain turrets onto the hulls and modify them to carry anti tank equipment and APS to handle the current and future threats.

 

Note: current and future threats is in the span from the 1960's through 1980s threats.

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...