Search results

  1. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II Because the madman responsible for the war and most major decisions regarding the German strategy had very stupid objectives and no idea about warfare at all.
  2. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    That is not really sure, Jane's reported something different, while the official article does not mention anything about new thermals for the gunner: Jane's might mix up some different things though, in July a news article form Cassadian reported that Germany, Canada and Denmark were buying...
  3. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    According to an older Jane's article, the Type 90/MBT-2000/Al-Khalid are estimated to have 600 mm thick turret armour and 450 to 470 mm thick hull nose/glacis armour.
  4. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    No. The dispersion is measured from the center of all impacts. The gunner does not necessarily aim at the center of the target, hence it is not 0.5 m dispersion, but the numbers provided in the image. You apparently don't know anything about these images, they are part of a trial to use U.S...
  5. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    There are many different factors to be taken into account other than the fire control system, like the ammunition or the crew skill. It could be that during the first three shots the gunner was aiming at the upper right corner of the tank, but he changed his aim point for the last shot. Then the...
  6. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    It's hard to find the actual thickness, but it's thicker than the original turret side armour (300 mm without backplate) and thinner than the track's width (635 mm). Based on very inaccurate scale measurement, the modules covering the hull sides should be at least 350 mm thick, the turret...
  7. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    The wedges in front of the Leopard 2A5 are about 700 mm thick according to a former German tanker. He also provided pretty accurate values for the rest of the tank which are very close to the measured armour thickness. The wedges consist of two layers of non-explosive reactive armour...
  8. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    No, he measured it. Unlike you, who simply claim that the armour of the Type 99A2 is thicker without having any source. It is not a T-72, it is a T-55M6. The T-55M6 is a Russian upgrade of the T-55 developed for export; the hull is lenghtened and fitted with new armour (ERA/composite), the...
  9. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    The whole vehicle shell was made of Aluminium. The British army tested a number of different vehicles with all Aluminium hulls and turrets for reducing the combat weight (it seems that the British had some more advanced techniques for welding very thick Aluminium plates). The FV4211 "Aluminium...
  10. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    The basic hull sides are already included (50 mm Aluminium). The Chieftain Mk 5/2 was physically much smaller (hull and turret length, height), carried much less fuel and ammunition and . The heavy weight of the armour is the reason for the higher level of protection. Yes, it is obivous. The...
  11. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    He could have stated that the armour was increased to classified levels, just like pretty much all other authors write about armour protection increasements. He didn't wrote anything about thicker or better armour. By your logic, we also could say that the protection requirements could have been...
  12. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Exactly. Hunnicutt, one of the authors who does mention every single detail in his book, forgot to mention that the protection levels were increased. Yes, the logical conclusion is very clear. Please take of your M1 Abrams fanboy badge for a moment and think about it logically: Please compare...
  13. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Sorry to destory your dreams, but that the XM1/M1 Abrams was designed with protection against 115 mm APFSDS "only" has been confirmed by two other sources. You should also read the whole chapter in Hunnicutt's book. The TACOM studies served as base of the requirements for the XM1 tank; the...
  14. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    According to KMW's official website, there are no radiating or explosive elements in the Leopard 2's armour. So probably no SLERA, but NERA/NxRA with highly optimized materials (like the materials developed by IBD).
  15. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    From what I see some parts of the NERA of the Merkava IV follows a different layout, more similar to the T-72B's bulging plates. There are thick outer plates and thin inner plates. I don't think that such assessments are correct. The relative protection provided by NERA (percentual values) is...
  16. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Not every combination of two NERA layers is able to achieve such a high level of performance, this is pretty much "best case NERA". It uses very thick plates (30 mm at 65° angle = 70 mm thick layers) of semi-hardened steel (1200 N/mm² = approx. 355 HB) which according to Lakowski already...
  17. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    @ttnt33 posted in post #7614 a link to the official catalogue from Rosoboronexport which provides the value 230 mm penetration at 2,000 m. Rosoboronexport is the Russian state-lead organization for exporting arms. So any further discussion about the penetration of Mango is really unnecessary...
  18. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    There is too much half-knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of hydropneumatic supensions. A hydropneumatic suspension does not guarantee a smoother ride, a badly made hydropneumatic suspension will be worse than a average torsion bar suspension regarding performance. The...
  19. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Exactly as I expected. Typical. I mention 2 research papers, 3 book titles and 2 further authors, but my post gets deleted with the note "Provide source to back up claims, Be civil and don`t put your words in other`s mouth, As you were ..". That's exactly the right way to discuss, Kunal :thumb:
  20. M

    Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Where are your references? Cannot see any... The claimed speed on road has nothing to do with the actual speed a tank will achieve in cross country drive (even if the terrain is a desert). Basing any assessment on these theoretical values is typical Wikipedia nonsense. That the fire power is...
Top