Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Seems like someone took official source and made additional story of it's own to it.

 

[militarysta]

Yes, poor Coyote Eh -those tank was in estern (but not only) sources killed by Kornet, Metis, BM22, BM42, RPG-29, IED bla bla bla.
:-/

 

[Damian]

Interesting.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian

Remember when I had wrote that Altay have turret idea copied from Leopard-2A4?

There is video from Altay presentation and it proof it - turret TK, gunner, TL position, ammo store, eletronic and clima - all is copied from Leo-2.


Most interesting pict:

hull:

turret: please take look at ammo store - just like in Leopard-2...and placed part for electronic and other:

Last picture - wery rare - open special armour cavity - thickness looks similar to the Leopard-2:
(Strv.122


hull again:

Altay looks like copied turret concept from Leopard-2 and placed on hull whit slighty better (thicker) front armour.
IMHO turret ammo takes not 15 rounds like in Leo-2 but 18-19 rounds.

 

[Damian]

Well it can be understood why they copied Leopard 2 turret design, they allready are making significant upgrade to the Leopard 2's, so I doubt that they didn't take a look in to it's guts.

 

[winton]

Re: Mk-1 fcs..

Seems pretty old tech. do the words on the dials glow at night?

I think most of the world left those flick switches behind decades ago.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Mk-1 fcs..

I think most of the world left those flick switches behind decades ago.

Do you like to share some more info on this ??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

M1A1 Gunner Sight..

M1A2SEP Gunner Sight

Arjun MK1 gunner sight

 

[winton]

no integrated fire control, too many wires and pipes all over the place - not tidy. should be tucked away with some farings or firewall

Everything written in english when only 5% of population can read english.

M1A1 tanks are 80s tech. For modernity look at the leopard 2 which I think this tank is trying to copy.

got any pictures of the commanders position?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

no integrated fire control, too many wires and pipes all over the place - not tidy. should be tucked away with some farings or firewall

That is how tanks are..

Everything written in english when only 5% of population can read english.

Whoever told you so he is unfortunately very illiterate to say at least..

M1A1 tanks are 80s tech. For modernity look at the leopard 2 which I think this tank is trying to copy.

Leo 2 ? what Leo 2 type ?

got any pictures of the commanders position?

Posted here somewhere in the thread..

 

[Damian]

If someone make any conclusions about FCS only on how switches look like, then it is funny.

M1A1 tanks are 80s tech.

It depends on variant, M1A1HA use the old FCS from 1980's, but M1A1SA or M1A1FEP use the exactly same FCS as M1A2SEP, which is XXI centry tech.

Everything depends on vehicle variant.

 

[hest]

Swiss Leopard 2A4 modernisation, early 90s, with improved frontal armour and 140 mm gun

Is there more information on this upgrade, and if bigger chamber and ammunition dimensions of new gun required deep modifications in construction?

 

[Damian]

As far as I know actually Swiss 140mm gun used smaller ammunition than American, German, British or French solutions, this is because Swiss Army wanted Human loader, while the rest seen human loader as unable to load decent 140mm ammunition.

Small comparision to the US solution.

You can compare a huge american 140mm APFSDS with 120mm APFSDS round.

 

[hest]

About Leopard 2A6 and on

There was some criticism regarding performance of these new versions, about added weight of frontal armour wich reduced tank balance (thus some users partially renounced uparmouring hull ?) , and adoption of new L/55 gun with accuracy problems

It is known that additional lenght of gun contributes negatively to it's control, being more susceptible to movement, etc, but stabilisator used in Leopard 2A6, E-WNA was first adopted in Leopard 2A5 version for older L/44 gun (it was not changed ?) so indeed there could be problem with accuracy as no measures were taken.

 

[Damian]

There were problems with gun stabilization (not armor), longer and heavier gun had initial problems with accuracy, it was long time ago solved. There are no problems currently, although L55 still can make some problems when tanks are fighting in urban terrain, like any long barrel main gun.

Americans had similiar problems with L55 M256E1 in the past, they also solved them, but in the end they decided that more logical step than replacing gun, will be improving ammunition. I think that Americans seen the most optimal lenght of gun as L48 or L50, it is not too long and too short, and with good ammunition, they allready reached or even outperform longer guns than L44.

 

[hest]

As far as I know actually Swiss 140mm gun used smaller ammunition than American, German, British or French solutions, this is because Swiss Army wanted Human loader, while the rest seen human loader as unable to load decent 140mm ammunition.

Small comparision to the US solution.

You can compare a huge american 140mm APFSDS with 120mm APFSDS round.

So all NATO 140mm munition was unitary (including Swiss ?)

I am interested on wheter adoption of bigger chamber and projectiles required deep modifications, change of crew location and element rearrengement, or if internal space was sufficient to perform relatively simpler changes.

 

[Damian]

So all NATO 140mm munition was unitary (including Swiss ?)

No, as far as I remember there were attempts for both one piece (unitary) and two piece ammunition. Swiss however used smaller rounds so human loader could handle them inside vehicle.

I am interested on wheter adoption of bigger chamber and projectiles required deep modifications, change of crew location and element rearrengement, or if internal space was sufficient to perform relatively simpler changes.

Swiss solution was simplest, no deep modifications were required, however it was also probably the least capable solution. Americans and Germans considered to rather redesign hull and design new turret with autoloader, or design a completely new tank. I seen drawings of modernized French Leclerc with 140mm and enlarged bustle with autoloader, dunno what British planned for their future tank.

 

[hest]

There were problems with gun stabilization (not armor), longer and heavier gun had initial problems with accuracy, it was long time ago solved. There are no problems currently, although L55 still can make some problems when tanks are fighting in urban terrain, like any long barrel main gun.

Americans had similiar problems with L55 M256E1 in the past, they also solved them, but in the end they decided that more logical step than replacing gun, will be improving ammunition. I think that Americans seen the most optimal lenght of gun as L48 or L50, it is not too long and too short, and with good ammunition, they allready reached or even outperform longer guns than L44.

I know about those problems, but if it is true that in Leopard 2A6 new stabilisator was not adopted for longer gun (using older one for 2A5) then reported accuracy issues are real.

 

[methos]

I know about problems related to mentioned accuracy issues and modifications needed, but if it is true that in Leopard 2A6 new stabilisator was not adopted for longer gun (using older one for 2A5) then reported accuracy issues are real.

Leopard 2A5 got already a new gun stabilization designed for the L/55, the Leopard 2A5 tank was made so that only the gun had to be changed for upgrading to Leopard 2A6; recoil mechanism, FCS, stabilization etc. all was improved/changed and is the same on both Leopard 2A5s and Leopard 2A6s.

 

[hest]

No, as far as I remember there were attempts for both one piece (unitary) and two piece ammunition. Swiss however used smaller rounds so human loader could handle them inside vehicle.

Swiss rounds were unitary or two-piece ?

Swiss solution was simplest, no deep modifications were required, however it was also probably the least capable solution. Americans and Germans considered to rather redesign hull and design new turret with autoloader, or design a completely new tank. I seen drawings of modernized French Leclerc with 140mm and enlarged bustle with autoloader, dunno what British planned for their future tank.

That is the point, on current times upgrades will be implemented on existing models, so that is why I asked if additional dimensions did not affected internal and elementary configyration significantly, as otherwise deep redesign is unlikely to be performed.