Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/16/2021 at 9:16 PM, Korvette said:
 

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

 

unknown-6.png

 

there not much to "analyze" LOS without backplate us 700-ish so... mantlet is simple weakspot without any magic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Watching the mythology of Challenger 2 collapse finally after all these years has been deeply satisfying to me.

But muh heavy, muh chobham armor, muh resisting 70+ RPGs + Milan, muh... !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

unknown-6.png

 

there not much to "analyze" LOS without backplate us 700-ish so... mantlet is simple weakspot without any magic

It's definitely sub 700 no matter what.

 

The air gap far exceeds the LOS of the front mantlet piece of the set up with some basic measuring, and consider that you can see the diameter of the trunnion in the turret shell photos it's very mediocre, so sub 600mm effective LOS down to 550. The trunnion is probably cast too considering the shape...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Watching the mythology of Challenger 2 collapse finally after all these years has been deeply satisfying to me.

Won't collapse yet for a fair bit. So many are still holding onto that mantlet, the suspension making the tank mobile, the 'dorchester', the L27 being a mythical round, the LFP not being an existent target. A tank failing in trials is somehow okay but a tank 'failing' in combat is indicative of bad design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Korvette said:

Won't collapse yet for a fair bit. So many are still holding onto that mantlet, the suspension making the tank mobile, the 'dorchester', the L27 being a mythical round, the LFP not being an existent target. A tank failing in trials is somehow okay but a tank 'failing' in combat is indicative of bad design.

 

Idk man it seems to be largely falling apart to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Idk man it seems to be largely falling apart to me.

To anyone that's got even a remotely trained eye the CR2 was already atrocious, at least that's what I assumed, I was thinking more about the regular person still has that image probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Korvette said:

To anyone that's got even a remotely trained eye the CR2 was already atrocious, at least that's what I assumed, I was thinking more about the regular person still has that image probably.

 

Yeah you're right about that. Maybe I just hang out too much here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

i'm only about turret, mantlet is simple 50mm RHA(or even less) + rotor(cradle) which can't be much thciker than 200-250mm

 

img_0047.jpg

 

img_0048.jpg

 

img_0052.jpg

 

hbqkyAPaOIY.jpg?size=2326x2160&quality=9

 

those "v" shaped weldments on mantlet also strange...

 

c98LIkdWDdg.jpg?size=1814x1361&quality=9

 

LnmK5Pnk9qs.jpg?size=1814x1361&quality=9

 

IKS-XXcl77M.jpg?size=1100x618&quality=96

 

 

Oh I get it now. 
 

Very nice photos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah you're right about that. Maybe I just hang out too much here.

Though I still do see what you mean, I've noticed a lot of people sometimes realizing some of the infinite disadvantages the CR2 has on its belt compared to any other MBT, but not many people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

i'm only about turret, mantlet is simple 50mm RHA(or even less) + rotor(cradle) which can't be much thciker than 200-250mm

 

img_0047.jpg

 

img_0048.jpg

 

img_0052.jpg

 

hbqkyAPaOIY.jpg?size=2326x2160&quality=9

 

those "v" shaped weldments on mantlet also strange...

 

c98LIkdWDdg.jpg?size=1814x1361&quality=9

 

LnmK5Pnk9qs.jpg?size=1814x1361&quality=9

 

IKS-XXcl77M.jpg?size=1100x618&quality=96

 

 

 

Not sure I'm seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Not sure I'm seeing it.

Spoiler

unknown.png?width=1153&height=670

 

360mm cast armor + the front piece which is 2/3rds hollow so around -50-100mm RHA (hopefully RHA) sloped based on the photos wiedz posted, you get not enough armor to stop any soviet/russian round after the 90's into the 2000s and beyond. And a jammed elevation drive.

 

This isn't including that it basically takes up 1/3rd of the total turret face of the tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Oh sure I thought there was something else illuminating in those photos we hadn't established.

No it was just the mantlet he was outlining, I assume.

 

But in general what hasn't been established to be bad about the tank, it's quite hard to jeer the tank now sometimes since its all already known stuff.

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...