Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

i am really exhausted my feet are killin me first i will try google pics if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!

M-60TM with Pulat (Zaslon-L) APS in active duty unit, probably being moved to Turkish-Syrian border.  

On 4/20/2019 at 7:10 AM, Stimpy75 said:

and here in english



p.s. end of april i will be at IDEF 2019.....will make a looooot of pictures and videos..will share them here too


6 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

ATGW vehicles from FNSS




and different versions of Pars 8X8


  Reveal hidden contents





CBRN version





I realized, while writing this, that those pictures could not have been from IDEF... 


anyway, it’s nearing the end of April, and my excitement for close-up pictures of a developing arms industry’s toys is rising! 


Good luck and have fun while there! And don’t get arrested for getting to close to the vehicles :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain what in their opinion a guided missile offers to a tank, that would be important enough to eat up some of the space for HE-MP and APFSDS shells?


IMO, the maximum level of guidance should be minor unpowered, wing/fin-enabled course correction similar to the one done for mortars or artillery shells. But is it sufficient within the kinetic envelope of unguided tank shells?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope,this version at IDEF is the one which is going to be produced by BMC. first 150-250 will use MTU engine and renk transmission and afterwards turkish engines/transmission(so we hope, which are still under developement)


they even have an export order from Qatar (OK BMC is 49% Qatar owned! no suprise here!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

first 150-250

Any idea about the rate at which they'll be produced? That number can convincingly be argued to be anywhere from 1 year (150 at very high rate, excluding prototypes), to 10 years (250 at low rate plus a year or two for production prototype testing) of production line time.

On that note, how many tanks is the Turkish military looking to replace with the Altay when all is said and done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a little bit research

İn 2020 15 tanks will be produced

and in 2021 another 25

After these 40 vehicles the new ones will get domestic engine/transmission

The first batch of 250 will be delivered very quickly. Qatar has also ordered 100 Altay s.

So planning/wishing looks good,but we have to wait for next year how realistic that will be. 

Complete 1000 are planned in 4 batches with each batch new version like a la Armata is planned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 11:53 PM, N-L-M said:

Any idea about the rate at which they'll be produced? That number can convincingly be argued to be anywhere from 1 year (150 at very high rate, excluding prototypes), to 10 years (250 at low rate plus a year or two for production prototype testing) of production line time.

On that note, how many tanks is the Turkish military looking to replace with the Altay when all is said and done?

50 tanks per year sounds like a good rate. You keep production running for at least 20 years and you still get to re-equip units fairly quickly.

5 years per batch is also a good amount of time to develop new kit for the tank and certify it. 


Deviate too little from the 50 mark and you get odd numbers of tanks per year. Deviate too much and you get messy development. So 50 makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

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 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.
    • By Belesarius
      Cobra's on the hunt again.
    • By Belesarius
      Someone who was once regarded as a moderate reformer getting an ego and arresting 16 year olds as political prisoners.
      Power corrupts.

  • Create New...