Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

CR2's failure should have shown Britain that their procurement was flawed. 

Nimrod's failure should have shown that.

Warrior failing officially but not Ajax should have sparked a lot of eyebrows being raised.

 

CR1's inadequate performance should have shown that.

 

What's Ajax gonna do? All the MoD is going to do now is to play victim like they always did and wait until the heat dies off and do it again.

 

They're dumb, and it's fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soq3iQ7.jpg

 

"The data from the trial suggests up to an 80% drop in detection with the naked eye abs hand held optics.
We also tested it against other sensors but that’s not for twitter.
One of the hypotheses was “it’s possible to spoof AI and create delay in the targeting cycle”."


Sources:

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GDLS UK has announced that it will be providing verbal evidence to the Defence Select Committee on July 20. Also released ahead of the testimony is their written evidence: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/37866/html/

 

Quote

Ajax is developed in the UK to meet more than 1,000 requirements and provides the highest levels of survivability, lethality and mobility, along with the most modern and capable sensor suite and digital systems.   Extensive trials and testing is highly progressed and provides the evidence that demonstrates the full capability:  Ajax has completed over 60,000km of design proving trials and fired over 4,400 rounds of the CT40 cannon.   Progressive training is underway for British Army crews using the advanced training simulators delivered to British Army training centres.

 

No other vehicle is available at this level of maturity to meet this requirement.

At this rate my suspicion is that in short order, this will be the case because nobody sane will want anything to do with British cavalry scout vehicle programs after this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

(Removed)

 

A questionable person has yet again thrown out some photos and schematics.

Measurements are far from accurate (in the hundreds of mm).

 

Utilizing a more realistic and accurate estimation and utilizing the true length of the L94 barrel (703mm), the armor is around 500-550mm LOS at most, considering the air gap between the yellow and blue pieces is equal in size to the yellow block (As shown in photo below), can be around 200, it leaves only approx. 300mm of LOS remaining for the blue piece due to the barrel length.

 

Also noting that the usage of a cylinder for the elevation rotor/gear instead of a regular trunnion, the thickness will vary and usually decrease depending on the height at which you measure from, being the thickest possible in the middle (Around the longitude of the coax barrel) while getting much thinner the higher or lower of that midpoint. Not only this but if the rotor pins continue through the rotor, it leaves a susceptibility of damage/jamming of the elevation gear in general, let alone that more than half of the construction utilizes regular RHA, heat/energy from a projectile can be a problem.

 

 

Spoiler

unknown.png?width=920&height=669

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Korvette said:

 

A questionable person has yet again thrown out some photos and schematics.

Measurements are far from accurate (in the hundreds of mm).

 

Funny how the "tip" of the coaxial machine gun is labelled with "150 mm", but is depicted longer than the "200 mm" of yellow armor ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Funny how the "tip" of the coaxial machine gun is labelled with "150 mm", but is depicted longer than the "200 mm" of yellow armor ;)

Yes lol.

 

However the scale in general of the schematic without any measurements are questionable, the air gap is depicted to be way too small and the front yellow piece weirdly conforming to the blue rotor is somewhat unusual and maybe even unfounded.

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

The coax tip is most definitely shorter than the front mantlet piece, but the air gap is most definitely the same size as the front mantlet piece, keeping in mind that the coax is also partially imbedded (by a few mm) into the gun trunnion/rotor itself, meaning that the amount of space here is highly stretched especially with the huge air gap. Some pixel measuring has to be done but utilizing the L94 barrel length it must be considered that at least around a third of the gun barrel length is spent free floating in air, only about sub 500mm of barrel length remans that is actually imbedded within armor, including the slope of the front mantlet piece and then the thickness of the trunnion, it's just embarrassing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly trust this source either but he does have access to the actual vehicle so its very possible and i dare say likely that at least some of these numbers are from actual measurements, and not scaled from the drawing. That said I wouldn't trust them without seeing his actual measurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BaronTibere said:

I don't particularly trust this source either but he does have access to the actual vehicle so its very possible and i dare say likely that at least some of these numbers are from actual measurements, and not scaled from the drawing. That said I wouldn't trust them without seeing his actual measurements.

If for some reason the L94 magically had a 1000mm barrel then you might as well have fitted a 50 cal in there. Half of all the measurements are entirely unfounded. The only thing I'd agree with is the measurements of the yellow pieces, both of which are incredibly inefficient usages of space due to the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have since removed the photo about my initial post, it appears the schematics are still classified and hasn't been approved at all for public release, I am however willing to answer some questions about the content if that's allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Korvette said:

If for some reason the L94 magically had a 1000mm barrel then you might as well have fitted a 50 cal in there. Half of all the measurements are entirely unfounded. The only thing I'd agree with is the measurements of the yellow pieces, both of which are incredibly inefficient usages of space due to the design.

 

He's said in the past that the L94 on the CR2 is slightly longer and posted this image a while back (horrible quality)

 

Spoiler

20200407_155737.jpg.df20ac4b0f634ea4f0f6

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaronTibere said:

 

He's said in the past that the L94 on the CR2 is slightly longer and posted this image a while back (horrible quality)

 

  Hide contents

20200407_155737.jpg.df20ac4b0f634ea4f0f6

 

 

Cutting away from the front tip you are left with around 34 inches of barrel length to be used, considering 5 inches of excess.

 

This would mean, that if it is accurate, SHMM's point is proven, the exceeding tip of the coax MG is most definitely longer than the front mantlet piece and that then, the air gap is even larger than what I initially made out to be. It would mean that the armor then hovers around 550mm LOS refuting my lower bound of 500mm LOS due to the cylinder being thicker than initially theorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Korvette said:

I have since removed the photo about my initial post, it appears the schematics are still classified and hasn't been approved at all for public release, I am however willing to answer some questions about the content if that's allowed.

 

Seems like he is getting a lot of attention now:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-challenger-tank-specs-leaked-online-for-videogame/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Spreading to communities entirely unrelated like a wildfire.

 

 

Anyways to switch the topic to something a little more bright. I did a bit of an analysis of the CR2 turret and its protection coverage.CR2_turret_area.jpg?width=937&height=669

I would like some feedback but imo this gives a pretty good insight to the tanks turret, I will be maybe working on a full analysis of the turret mantlet soon if I feel like it to see an accurate representation of its armor

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...