Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Recommended Posts

That video amuses me because the LeClerc behaves so oddly - and I don't mean in the fact it lost something it should have had down pat easily.


The thing is braking before it even hits the finish line, and the braking is inconsistent - the driver hits the brakes twice before actually committing to the stop full bore.


Who did they have driving that thing?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Round #2 was won by Leclerc:




Allegedly the first round which was won by the almighty Royal British Rolling Bunker was launched with engines off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Beer said:


Allegedly the first round which was won by the almighty Royal British Rolling Bunker was launched with engines off. 


Would make sense - the Hyperbar does take quite some time to get up to full temp & pressure, would also explain the rather jerky motion in the first race for the leclerc if the thing was still warming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Moyes said:

I'm guessing the awkward placement is because it's being built around a new turret shape. E.g:


I doubt that. There is no reason to assume the Trophy integration will be influenced by the possiblity to mount a 130 mm gun that the UK has no official plans to adopt. IMO it is more likely that the British Army wants the option to mount add-on armor on the turret sides without having large weakspots thanks to Trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:


IMO it is more likely that the British Army wants the option to mount add-on armor on the turret sides without having large weakspots thanks to Trophy.

That's what I meant.

Used the 130mm demonstrator as an example because I'm assuming the new add-on blocks will look similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That is not a MIV Boxer in the photo, but FFG's recovery module. So at least four Boxers will be displayed.

I’m going to hide behind a technicality: there’s a MIV on the RBSL stand adjacent their CR3 3 w/Trophy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
















New Challenger 2 Camo Test











Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

UK 120mm projectile & propellant procurement:


”21 October 2021


The CHARM 3 operational round (L27) was last procured in September 2001 and its associated propelling charge (L17) in November 2010. The CHARM 3 practice round (L29) was last procured in April 2009 and its associated propelling charge (L18) in February 2010.”



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.

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.


  • 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...