Mighty_Zuk Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 9 minutes ago, methos said: You are aware that the driver's escape hatch also get its mine protection plate qualified to the same level of protection? Ahhh missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: So thanks, but for all the flaws of the MOD, they dont put tanks into service that are flamible deathtraps. We did learn something from the Sherman saga. These are long busted myths. 1, the Sherman wasnt worse in this regard than the Panzer IV, Panther, T-34, or any other tank. 2, T-64/72/80 were actually safer than most tanks in the 60s-70s (T-55, M60, Chieftain, etc.) Combat experience clearly shown that. (I think Bojan posted some detailed info about this a while ago) 3, there is no proof that the CR1/2 is safer than the T-72. It barely seen any combat at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 45 minutes ago, old_goat said: 3, there is no proof that the CR1/2 is safer than the T-72. It barely seen any combat at all. Armour is superior, but the design has not fared significantly better with modern threats compared to other tanks. In Iraq when front hull was hit with a RPG-29 it was penetrated and driver lost his foot. Another one was knocked out when hit by a 120 mm round fired by another Challenger 2. In Ukraine they have not been used much, but one was destroyed by AT missiles/UAVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) Barely any combat, other than 2 months of active combat operations in Basra, and 5 years counter insurgency in Al Amarah and Baghdad. And of course the hull spending 3 days trundling across southern Iraq. Once again, its rearranging the deckchairs to address arguments that wish to be made. The vehicle didint fulfill the prediction made, ergo there cant have been enough combat operations to make it happen. Even though, in my view, there was plenty of combat operations. It was certainly enough data to fulfill my prediction of what would happen, but nobody elses. I could have a good laugh about that, but Im pretty sure nobody else would see the funny side of it. 48 minutes ago, alejandro_ said: Armour is superior, but the design has not fared significantly better with modern threats compared to other tanks. In Iraq when front hull was hit with a RPG-29 it was penetrated and driver lost his foot. Another one was knocked out when hit by a 120 mm round fired by another Challenger 2. In Ukraine they have not been used much, but one was destroyed by AT missiles/UAVs. Id heard it was an Iranian made EFP (which they also used against the Americans, or so I gather), but Ill concede there was so little discussion about that, including photographs, its not a hill im going to die on. It certainly wasnt an RPG7, but something considerably more powerful. Edited April 2 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Canadian Leopard 1s with significantly less armour took part in Afghanistan over a longer period with fewer casualties. They had "plenty of action", whatever that means. This demonstrates that Leopard 1 has better protection than Challenger 2 against tanks and ATGMs! Or maybe due to the nature of the combat both tanks had few serious direct-fire anti-tank threats, and when attacked by direct fire, it was from RPGs, and the sides and rear were overwhelmingly preferred due to the nature of the weapon and the enemy. Who knows, it's such a coin toss on what it could be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) CR2 rotor Edited April 4 by Wiedzmin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 Yes, you can begin to see why we have so few candidates for Challenger 3 upgrades. We picked most of the fleet clean for spares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 IMHO such vehciles also can be upgraded. Turret is replaced anyway. Only hulls need overhauls and production of spare parts. Altough you see what happens with deindustrialization. Politicians should answer for such idiotic politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 1 hour ago, Damian said: IMHO such vehciles also can be upgraded. Turret is replaced anyway. Only hulls need overhauls and production of spare parts. Altough you see what happens with deindustrialization. Politicians should answer for such idiotic politics. Yes, they absolutely should, shouldnt they? The worst of it is, both of the major parties have done it. I can only hope looking down the barrel of a resurgent Russia, someone is up to learning some lessons. We can but hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkonnen Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 They are lowballing APDS (or maybe we were being overly optimistic...) but yes, those looks roughtly in line with what I was expecting. XL22 perhaps morphed into L23? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) Interesting that compared to the other document you posted, there are quite a few changes in values. I assume the one posted here is older than this one, @Harkonnen? M735 went from 410/380/345 to 380/350/320 while the prototype L64 went from just 420/390/350 to 445/420/383. Guess that shows that one should not rely on a single "snapshot" in time when looking at historical data of non-fielded ammunition. Also note that for the Leopard 2, the footnote (3) says (at least in the other table) "Results from Dec 76 firings at Meppen, but does not apply to Serial 1a." 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: They are lowballing APDS (or maybe we were being overly optimistic...) but yes, those looks roughtly in line with what I was expecting. XL22 perhaps morphed into L23? I don't think that they are not lowballing APDS, performance is in line with data from other countries. Edited April 13 by methos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 9 hours ago, methos said: nteresting it's 1979 report , part of values is estimated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said: it's 1979 report , part of values is estimated Is it available anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 11 hours ago, methos said: Interesting that compared to the other document you posted, there are quite a few changes in values. I assume the one posted here is older than this one, @Harkonnen? M735 went from 410/380/345 to 380/350/320 while the prototype L64 went from just 420/390/350 to 445/420/383. Guess that shows that one should not rely on a single "snapshot" in time when looking at historical data of non-fielded ammunition. Also note that for the Leopard 2, the footnote (3) says (at least in the other table) "Results from Dec 76 firings at Meppen, but does not apply to Serial 1a." I don't think that they are not lowballing APDS, performance is in line with data from other countries. I'm sure I've seen British estimates around 370RHA at muzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 3 hours ago, RETAC21 said: Is it available anywhere? Bovington museum sell all of those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Well, could someobody possibly consider scanning it please? All the stuff ive bought at Bovington ive scanned and hosted for the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 "Between Jan and Dec 2001, 45 Abrams tanks suffered fires during training, some were damaged, some were destroyed entirely. Over the tank's life at that point (22 yrs), there had been >600 fires - that's almost 10% of the fleet had..." https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/el/fire_research/Finnerty-Fires-Experienced-and-Halon-1310-Fire-suppression-systems-in-current-weapon-Systems.pdf An examination of data from peacetime fire incidents experienced by ground vehicles reveals several facets pertinent to this study. In Table 1, peacetime fire incident data for the M1/M1A1 tank for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and the fires six months of 1991 have been summarized. These data show that the AFES system was only activated 71 percent of the time for M1/M1A1 fires and was adequate to extinguish the fire by itself only 34 percent of the time. so how many tanks actually burned ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przezdzieblo Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Hard to tell. In that number there were not only dangerous fires but also small incidents. But there were both casualties and total losses. Number of fires seems to drop in 2000s, mostly because of change of maintenance procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 One of the reports for US Congress says that from 1985 to 1993 out of 4550 M1A1's produced, 41 were lost, obviously few were lost during 1991 ODS, but the rest are probably victims of fire accidents. I have no data about M1 and M1IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) https://disk.yandex.ru/d/m7gTe2IyKNN8Cw all presentation on M1 a lot of schemes etc Edited April 16 by Wiedzmin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 105mm HEAT pened turret side ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 interesting design changes in gun rotor, from M1 to IPM1(PV11 XM1 seems already had IPM1 type of rotor) and to M1A1 IPM1 had similar structure of rotor as M1A1, but lesser thickness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said: 105mm HEAT pened turret side ? Why not? IIRC initial HEAT protection requirement was whatever RPG-7 round they had at the moment, probably PG-7VM with ~300mm penetration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 (edited) 5 hours ago, bojan said: hy not? Depends on angle + doubt that it really was the 105mm heat and 120mm apfsds Leter codes i think was the same as leo2av trials, cause it used xm1 requirements for threats at that moment A - 5’’ brl precision shaped charge B - 4,2’’ brl precision shaped charge C - 3,2’’ brl precision shaped charge D - 105mm APFSDS xm579e4 at striking velocity of 4858 ft/sec E - apc-m.(br412d mod) at striking velocity 3150 ft/sec 81mm heat, 380mm pen at -+60 deg for turret crew compartment side , which later was dropped to -+45 deg arc iirc Edited April 18 by Wiedzmin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now