Challenger II & Leclerc Armor for SB

[dejawolf]

well, since the abrams series uses AD-XX of various makes mixed with plexiglass, and dorchester is supposed to be an "improved" chobham type, silicon carbide seems likely

[Paul Lakowski]

OK lets put Challenger and Leclerc to bed for now and focus on the immediate list.

 

The biggest "real" requirements currently are medium vehicles, in

descending order of importance

 

- Eagle IV

- All kinds of Piranha (but especially Piranha III and IV)

- CV90/35

- Centauro

- ASCOD Pizarro

- CV90/40-C

- CV90/40-B

- ASCOD Ulan

- Leopard 2A6M and Canadian version with SLAT armor

 

 

Also of long-term interest

- AMV

- Boxer

- Puma

- BMP-T, Achzarit, Nemera

- Dingo

 

 

Heres the list for Steel Beast that I need to focus in the short run.

 

On the LAV-III Jeff D pointed out that the base armor is 1/4 inch hard steel and not 1/2 inch hard steel as I originally worked out.

 

Heres what I have on Centauro....

 

CENTAURO Light tank destroyer [AFV] [front mounted engine] [Tentative]

400 of these tank destroyers have been manufactured for the Italian armed forced in the early 1990s. This light tank weights 24,000kg and mounts a NATO 105L52 tank gun with 40 rounds including APFSDS , HE & HEAT rounds. JANES reports the armor to be protected all round from 14.5mm API and frontally from rounds upto 20mm AP. Traditionally this means an allround protection level of 5.5 cm KE and frontal resistance of 7cm KE. More resently ERA has been deployed with this AFV when on UN missions and a energetic [perforated steel appliqué wrapped in fibre ] is mounted around the turret and side hull.This is reported to add 4000kg to the tanks weight. The basic turret looks like a miniture LEO-1A3 turret with spaced armor. To that end the turret is reported to be around 7 tons and the volume looks like 5.0m^3 volume with a frontal profile of 1.5m² , compared to LEO-1A3 which is 12 tons mass with a 5.7m^3 volume and a 1.9m² frontal profile. Since the gun is the same 105mm [3 tons and internal 1 ton] , the armor mass compares 8 tons [LEO-1] to 3 tons [Centauro], suggesting the armor mass is ~ 0.37 x 1.14 x 1.27 = 54% of the armor mass.

 

 

That means the Centauro turret armor mass should be ½ of the LEO-1A3. The LEO-1A3 turret armor is about 16cm steel [& 35-40cm airgap] through the front turret and ~ 4.2cm steel [ & 6cm airgap] through the side turret with 4.8cm rear steel mass. The armor on the LEO-1A3 is reported to be triple hardness steel. Frontal armor = 2cm VHS plus 9cm airgap and 3cm triple hardness backplate @ ~ 52° compounded angle , while the side & rear armor is 1cm VHS and 8cm airgap with 1.5cm Triple hardness steel @ 20°. The ‘ spaced armor’ should add ~7/0cm + 0.7d to the side HEAT resistance and 11/1cm+ 0.7d frontal armor .The addition to KE should be add 1.3-6.2cm [1.45 cm HMG API - 3.2cm sheathed] to the side KE armor with 2.6-10.4cm added to the frontal KE armor [2cm APFSDS -> 4cm sheathed]. That’s results in…

 

Estimated all round protection level

3cm API= [4.2cm x 0.75 + 0.63d] = 5cm [30mm]

2cm APDS= [4.2cm x 0.8 + 1.1d ]= 5.6cm[30mm]

HMG [12.7/14.] = [ 4.2cm x 0.87 + 0.9d] = 5cm [14.5mmAPI]

1.5cm APFSDS= [4.2cm x 0.9 + 1.2d ]= 5.6cm[25-30mm]

HEAT protection level = [2.5 x1.8 + 7/0cm] = 11/5cm + 0.7d

 

Estimated frontal protection level

Vs 1cm -1.5cm APFSDS [12.5cm x 0.95 + 1.3d] = 14cm

Vs 2cm APFSDS [12.5cm x 0.9 + 1.3d] = 14cm

Vs 3.2cm sheathed APFSDS = [12.5cm x 0.6 + 2.6d] = 16cm

HEAT protection level = [12.5 + 11/1cm+ 0.7d] = 23/13cm +0.6d

 

When deployed on missions this AFV has been seen with external appliqué and with an internal spall liner. The spall liner should add 1cm KE and 3cm HEAT resistance, while the turret appliqué adds 2cm perforated steel plate wrapped in fibre material , mounted about @ 52 ° frontal and 20° flank. This should offer an erosion of 1.2cm plus spaced plate effect [x 1.6 x 1.6 ]allround , while the 2cm & spaced plate frontal. The HEAT addition should be 23cm plus 22cm side standoff or 32cm front standoff, plus 1.5d.

 

Estimated all round protection level

3cm API= 5cm & 1cm [1.2 x 0.72 + 4.1] = 11cm [30mm]

2cm APDS= 5.6cm & 1cm [1.2 x 0.8+ 4.6] = 12cm[30mm]

HMG [12.7/14.] = 5cm & 1cm [1.2 x 0.85+ 2.9] =10cm [14.5mmAPI]

1.5cm APFSDS= 5.6cm & 1cm [1.2 x 0.9+ 4.2] = 12cm [25-30mm]

HEAT protection level = 4.5cm & [+2.3 +3.5+ standoff-12/2] = 22/13cm + 2.0d

 

Estimated frontal protection level

Vs 1cm APFSDS = 12cm & 1cm [ 2 x 0.92+ 3.3d]= 17cm

Vs 1.5cm APFSDS = 12cm &1cm [ 2 x 0.9+ 3.3d]= 18cm

Vs 2cm APFSDS = 12cm & 1cm [ 2 x 0.88 + 3.3d] = 20cm

Vs 3.2cm sheathed APFSDS = 12cm 1cm & [2 x 0.7+ 4.4d] = 28cm

HEAT protection level = [12.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 19/9cm+ 2.0d] = 38/28cm +2.0d

 

 

The hull of the centauro is ~ 19 tons and occupies a volume of roughtly 15m^3 [6.1 x 1.3 x 2.5]* 0.75. Compared to other known 19 ton mass vehicles that’s ~17% more armor mass than the French EBR armored car. Its reported the 2-4cm thick spall liner is now installed inside this AFV and the overall hull armor looks like its spaced, which is reinforced by the bolt on hull configuration.

 

Glacis 7cm SHS that’s ~ 1.1cm SHS @ 80° [ 0.75/0.8t/d] 1.2 or 8/8cm [APDS/API] & 10cm HEAT

Bow spaced two 2cm SHS & gap @ 45° [ 0.85/0.9t/d] 6.7/6 1.9/2.4 = 8cm [APDS/API] & 20/13cm+ 0.7d HEAT

Side & rear 2cm or two 0.9cm SHS plates@ 30° & 20cm gap? [1.75 +1.23/ 1.75]= 3-3.5cm [APDS/API] & 10/5cm+ 0.7d HEAT

 

With the spall liner over the AFV and a 2cm perforated appliqué [iRA] bolted on to the glaics or mounted about ~ 8 inches from the rear half AFV [ side and rear], this leads to a new protection level.

 

Glacis ~ 1.1cm SHS plus 2cm IRA appliqué @ 80° [ 0.75/0.8t/d] or 15/15cm [APDS/API] & 25cm + 1.5d HEAT

Bow spaced two 2cm SHS & gap @ 45° [ 0.85/0.9t/d] 6.7/6 1.9/2.4 = 8/8cm [APDS/API] & 20/13cm+ 0.7d HEAT

½ Side hull [front] Centauro armor plus 4cm liner [3.3 +1.23/ 1.75]= 4.5/5cm [APDS/API] & 14/8cm+ 0.7d HEAT

½ Side [rear] & rear hull = Centauro plus 4cm spall liner & IRA [3.3 + 1.1 + 5.6/ 6]= 8cm [APDS/API] & 20/10cm+ 2.0d HEAT

[CV9030FIN]

Heres the list for Steel Beast that I need to focus in the short run.

The biggest "real" requirements currently are medium vehicles, in

descending order of importance

 

- Eagle IV

- All kinds of Piranha (but especially Piranha III and IV)

- CV90/35

- Centauro

- ASCOD Pizarro

- CV90/40-C

- CV90/40-B

- ASCOD Ulan

- Leopard 2A6M and Canadian version with SLAT armor

 

AFAIK eSim games has already modelled CV9040A/B/C and CV9035 to SB Professional...I've used those...

 

I'am quite sure that info has came from BAe trough users and that you are not allowed to publish it on the net...I don't know your connections to eSims, but frankly I am bit worried if eSims lets you publish all this data they gather in net...after all also FDF is eSims customer

Edited February 9, 2009 by CV9030FIN

[Paul Lakowski]

AFAIK eSim games has already modelled CV9040A/B/C and CV9035 to SB Professional...I've used those...

 

I'am quite sure that info has came from BAe trough users and that you are not allowed to publish it on the net...I don't know your connections to eSims, but frankly I am bit worried if eSims lets you publish all this data they gather in net...after all also FDF is eSims customer

 

If you are refering to the armor estimates for the Centauro above, they are my estimates, done before. The armor estimates for the CV90 are also mine from before...but these are very rought estimates and need cleaning up.

 

BTW The list is no secrete, some info on these systems must be kicking around the internet.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Paul Lakowski

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

well, since the abrams series uses AD-XX of various makes mixed with plexiglass

 

(ahem) What is the source's authority?

[RETAC21]

For Pizarro, the protection is steel designed to take 14.5mm AP ammo shot from 500m frontal, 7.62 AP ammo all around from 0m. For defence against 30mm AP at 1000m it could mount additional steel armor at the front and it could take reactive armor too.

[Ssnake]

AFAIK eSim games has already modelled CV9040A/B/C and CV9035 to SB Professional...I've used those...

Sure, but how good are the preliminary estimates about them?

Just because it works acceptably so-so, it doesn't mean there sin't room for improvement.

 

I'am quite sure that info has came from BAe trough users and that you are not allowed to publish it on the net... I don't know your connections to eSims, but frankly I am bit worried if eSims lets you publish all this data they gather in net...after all also FDF is eSims customer

We're soliciting for estimates here, we're not publishing data.

And Paul's connections to eSim Games (as well as those of other TankNetters) can be read up in the credits of SB Pro PE, as well as in some of the software documentation.

[CV9030FIN]

Sure, but how good are the preliminary estimates about them?

Just because it works acceptably so-so, it doesn't mean there sin't room for improvement.

We're soliciting for estimates here, we're not publishing data.

And Paul's connections to eSim Games (as well as those of other TankNetters) can be read up in the credits of SB Pro PE, as well as in some of the software documentation.

 

I won't comment on the first part, sorry!

 

On the second part. I was just interested that IF some Army would pay say XX XXX € to get lets say CV90XX to modeled properly to SB Pro IOT use it better in gunnery training AND would give info about (that by the way is not the user country who can decide if this info can be given to third party...) real protection levels, how fast it would end up to TN...?

Edited February 9, 2009 by CV9030FIN

[Paul Lakowski]

I won't comment on the first part, sorry!

 

On the second part. I was just interested that IF some Army would pay say XX XXX € to get lets say CV90XX to modeled properly to SB Pro IOT use it better in gunnery training AND would give info about (that by the way is not the user country who can decide if this info can be given to third party...) real protection levels, how fast it would end up to TN...?

 

 

I dont recall ever getting real information on armor from anyone, anywhere, or any time. Are 'staff targets' issued for AFV contracts secret?

[CV9030FIN]

I dont recall ever getting real information on armor from anyone, anywhere, or any time. Are 'staff targets' issued for AFV contracts secret?

 

Can you clarify what you mean by "staff targets"?

 

Generally: The manufacturer with holds right in deal papers to be heard before any info other that general performance figures are delivered to third party or published. As an example of info that manufacturers approval is needed are Armor arrangements (measurements, possible layer structure and materials) and exact penetration data of ammo types (also other penetration related data such as ricochet angels of AP ammo) . General info is thought to be info such "protects against 30mm AP" or "penetrates BMP-series of IFV's from front"

[Ssnake]

I was just interested that IF some Army would pay say XX XXX € to get lets say CV90XX to modeled properly to SB Pro IOT use it better in gunnery training AND would give info about (that by the way is not the user country who can decide if this info can be given to third party...) real protection levels, how fast it would end up to TN...?

1. Gunnery training does not necessarily require the disclosure of armor protection data to us, e.g. if the intended training targets aren't supposed to shoot back at all. It becomes relevant only as soon as the software is also used for tactical eduction and some sort of wargaming purposes. Said Army X may actually not be interested in that part of the training (not saying that this was the case here, just that it could happen, in theory).
   
2. Whether or not an army trusts our discretion or not, is up to them
   
3. Whether eSim Games would leak confidential info to the interwebs is up to us, but obviously it would be harmful to our long-term business interests
   
4. Steel Beasts Pro is based almost exclusively on publicly available information and the "educated guesses" of fellow TankNetters.
   Apparently this is good enough so that confidential info needs not to be given to us
   
5. This however means that there is a necessity for us to re-evaluate estimations from time to time if new info is coming to light.
   

All that put aside, protection values of medium and light vehicles are either a joke from the perspective of MBTs because they can all be obliterated at any range. Or they are limited to HMG protection with some additional protection in the frontal sector against "popular medium caliber autocannons" (typically 30mm AP from BMP-2). The really interesting figures are from which range a certain caliber protection is given, where there may be weak points, what the RPG/HEAT protection level is, and above all what the designers did to minimize post-perforation and secondary damages. This can hardly be modelled in an analytically correct model under real-time conditions, so even if we had access to all this info it would still be useless to a large degree.

 

In short, we at eSim Games don't even want to know this kind of info because it is of little value to us but creates a big liability with respect to information management. BAE offered info to us under the condition of highly restrictive NDAs which were satirical even, given that the whole point of our development was to make the CV90 available to the public. Of course we refused to sign this nonsense with its absurd penalty fees and received no info in return.

 

Just as well, TankNet can fill the gap, I'm sure.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Ssnake

[CV9030FIN]

In short, we at eSim Games don't even want to know this kind of info because it is of little value to us but creates a big liability with respect to information management. BAE offered info to us under the condition of highly restrictive NDAs which were satirical even, given that the whole point of our development was to make the CV90 available to the public. Of course we refused to sign this nonsense with its absurd penalty fees and received no info in return.

 

Thanks, this is the info I was after. And personally I have nothing against eSim games or any reason to believe that they have/would have leaked anything. I suspect if you work at eSim Games, you know why I asked these questions...but lets keep that between us two!

[DB]

I would have expected that a military customer who had access to vulnerability information that was relevant to the training need being met by a product such as SB would be quite capable of putting a requirement for that information to be user-configurable.

 

That way, they would have no need to disclose data to the SB team at any time.

[Ssnake]

That's one aspect. Another is that this would create an additional workload on the instructor base, and open the door for possible abuse or misconfiguration. Finally there is the question of interoperability with other nations, e.g. if Sweden and Australia want to perform a session of a multinational scenario they want to be sure that there are no discrepancies between both nations' versions.

 

Ultimately the question is, what is the desired fidelity to meet certain training goals. Apparently for crew training and basic wargaming needs a solution that is based on the best guesses of the TankNet community (or at least some of its more prominent representatives in this sub-forum) is "good enough". SB Pro is not and has never been intended to be a crystal ball to predict the outcome of future battles in some form of quantitative statistical analysis. Every example of wargames about which I am aware, including those that underwent a formal VVA, have failed miserably at predicting the future even when it came to just a broad assessment of the likely outcome. Operational Analysis predicted a defeat of the Vietcong for 1971, and 100,000 coalition casualties for ODS. War is about as chaotic as the weather. There are repeating patterns here and there, and there still is so much based on sheer chance that any attempt to predict the outcome of more than a setpiece of a tactical vignette is folly, IMO.

 

So, what an el cheapo tool like SB Pro can do is to create a synthetic environment that adds a bit of immersion to the same lessons that we tankers have been taught for decades, that you are more vulnerable in the flanks and rear (d'oh!) and that the same applies to the enemy (oh really?). We want to reward the crew that attacks from a flanking position, and punish the crew that isn't paing attention to their flanks. We want to reward precision gunnery, and we want to stress the crews with information overload (while hiding crucial other bits of the tactical picture) so that they learn to filter relevant information from the chaos around them. Finally, our goal is to show that luck plays an important role (but that it doesn't totally dominate things). The last two parts - dealing with information overload under condition of the fog of war, and the acceptance of chance and friction as inevitable elements of battle - are catering to the educational aspect of SB Pro. For the training part, SB Pro is a part task trainer, and a particularly cost-efficient one at that.

No, you can't train everything with it and you're not supposed to, but being the Iron seven of your golf bag of training tools you may discover that it is surprisingly versatile. A Leatherman can't replace a workshop, but you'll find it near indispensable once that you get accustomed to it in your pocket. That's what SB Pro is - no more... and no less.

[DB]

Not sure why there's a frown - perhaps I should have noted that you wouldn't necessarily be so interested in public sourced data if your professional customers had said "don't bother, we have those numbers."

 

personally, I'm more interested in the interoperability thing - how big as simulation does SB scale to?

[Ssnake]

Battlegroup / battalion task force is probably the upper practical limit. Some of our customers have tried it at brigade level, and the good news is that there is still "something" being simulated. But I think that the fidelity will go down the drain simply because all orders must be given at platoon level so you'd either need an insane amount of operators to run your execise (BOTH sides...) or the orders become so cursory and the reliance on computer control logic so large that the result might still work as a stimulus for a brigade level CPEx, but then again you could do that with other games and sims and maybe even without computer support just as well if you're not really interested in the actual results, just the command process.

 

As far as distributed exercises are concerned, much will depend on the kind of internet connection at your disposal. SB Pro is pretty lag tolerant for a virtual sim but still, if packet loss occurs discrepancies among clients are inevitable and must somehow be resolved without re-sending the information since it's a real-time simulation after all.

 

 

 

I wonder if we shouldn't split this thread, and move the latest contributions somewhere else.

[Ssnake]

Not sure why there's a frown

Never looked at it as an icon of discontent, rather as a "here comes a serious answer" kind of symbol.

[dejawolf]

wiki says this about leclerc armour:

 

The hull and the turret are made of welded steel fitted with modular armour, which can be replaced easily for repair or upgrades over the years. The French army in the late seventies rejected Chobham armour as being overly specialised in its optimisation to defeat hollow charge-weapons; it therefore opted to develop a steel perforated armour system, comparable to that on the early Leopard 2. When the Leclerc was introduced in the early nineties this was still considered adequate, due to the larger thickness of its modules compared to the armour of other modern western tanks, made possible — for a given weight limit — by the compact design of the tank as a whole. However during the nineties standards for tank armour protection increased, as exemplified by the Leopard 2A5, its main rival on the export market, being fitted with an additional spaced armour system. Thus it was decided to follow the Germans (Leopard 2A4) and British (Challenger 2) in their application of a titanium-tungsten system, which was introduced to the Leclerc in 2001, in Batch 10. The inner spaces are filled with NERA.

[Typhoid Maxx]

Considering I’m truly no expert on modern western armour arrays, do forgive my intrusion –

 

But I thought Dorchester armour was supposed to be suspended nuggets of DU in some “filler” medium.

 

Can’t for the life of me remember where – on what forum on the internet - I picked it up…or who posted it…but I do recall the poster that gave me that impression also waxed lyrical that the Challenger II turret was a British development originally intended for the Leo II (presumably for a British purchase of Leo II’s…you must forgive me. Age and one too many knocks to the head have adversely affected my recall) and more that I paid no attention to/did not understand/care about.

 

I trust all this has been soundly debunked on this forum at some point, correct?

[Ssnake]

Well, we recently saw declassified document scans here that showed how the information transfer of the British Dorchester armor technology to Germany got started, and, after an initial hesitation, was also adopted by the US. So, it wasn't designed with the Leo 2 in mind, but gladly accepted for it (especially after Yom Kippur, in spring 1974, when the whole armor concept was redesigned).

[Typhoid Maxx]

Well, we recently saw declassified document scans here that showed how the information transfer of the British Dorchester armor technology to Germany got started, and, after an initial hesitation, was also adopted by the US. So, it wasn't designed with the Leo 2 in mind, but gladly accepted for it (especially after Yom Kippur, in spring 1974, when the whole armor concept was redesigned).

 

Thank you - interesting, and fills out my background on the subject some.

 

I wasn’t suggesting (nor was it inferred, as I remember) that the Dorchester armour was designed with the Leo II in mind, but rather that the British Challenger II turret was initially intended/designed with the Leo II in mind – at least by Britain, and that this was brought up in a conversation in which Dorchester armour was specifically discussed.

 

(Note for clarification: not a claim I am making, simply relating something remembered from a conversation on some remembered from years back on the internet…this is all from the hallowed school of “heard it of some bloke”).

 

This, I believe, is the outer limit of my ability to contribute to this topic.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Maxx

[Stuart Galbraith]

Apologies for thread necromancy, but It seem more convenient than starting again. Has there been any more estimates on Challenger 2 since this was first put up? Im working on a mod project for Armored Brigade, and I was just wondering if any new information or thoughts have come forward.

[methos]

According to British sources, Challenger 2's turret front showed to be less resistant to APFSDS rounds when compared to the M1A1 HA/M1A2 Abrams.

 

 

Then there is an older document from the FVRDE, which actually pre-dates the Challenger 2 development, including a Challenger II and a Challenger III concept - how much Vickers Defence System followed this concepts when developing the Challenger 2 is not known:

 

[RETAC21]

No annex B? oooh...

 

Aren't protection levels rather low?

[methos]

No annex B? oooh...

 

Aren't protection levels rather low?

 

Annex B is only relevant for the Challenger 1 and the Challenger II and III concepts, not necessarily identical to the Challenger 2 tank:

Edited February 20, 2019 by methos