Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Damian90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/13/1990
  1. http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/8/1308.pdf Interesting, it seems that ERA used by many vehicles, among them US M2 IFV's, M1 MBT's and Stryker FoV, provides protection against 30mm APFSDS rounds. http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf And there brochure about Trophy active protection systems.
  2. In my opinion the reason for such design were weight restrictions. Same case in M1 or Leopard 2, where both LFP and UFP could be protected by special armor, yet it would probably significantly increase weight above original requirements.
  3. So, yeah, why not to discuss this extremely interesting subject. I will start with Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, and with their armor protection, as it's very unusual design and very interesting one. Let's start with Challenger 1 composite armor distribution. The composite armor thickness of turret is actually very good, and armor is also well sloped. However in this case I see one weakness, turret itself is modified Chieftain design made from cast steel, as we know, cast armor steel offer from 5 to 15 % less protection than rolled armor steel. Challenger 1 interior. Hull protection is different than in Leopard 2 and M1. In Challenger 1 composite armor is placed on the UFP, not the LFP, thus the LFP itself is a weak zone protected only by 80-100mm rolled homogeneus armor. What is important to note, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 front armor design is direct descendant of various Burlington armor upgrades for the Chieftain, for example Chieftain 800/900 had similiar front hull armor distribution. Now let's move to Challenger 2 turret, it's a new design however it's made from cast components to which later a rolled steel plates are bolted on. We can see part of the turret and hull manufacturing process on this video. One other interesting subject is the vehicle weight. Challenger 1 is rated to weight around 62 metric tons, and Challenger 2 is rated to weight 62.5 metric tons, but this seems wrong. Challenger 2 is slightly larger (taller turret) and also uses more advanced "Dorchester" armor, which should be heavier than "Burlington" armor used in Challenger 1, and in all other MBT's in general, more modern armor is heavier. However nowhere I am able to find reliable data about Challenger 1 weight to make this clear. Of course it is possible that "Dorchester" uses more weight efficent materials like Titanium to keep the weight on the same level, while increasing protection levels. Anyway, hope everyone finds this interesting, perhaps it will help ESim to make further improvements to SB, and hopefully we gonna discuss this fascinating subject further.
  4. XM1069 AMP changed designation to XM1147 AMP. As for CROWS, problem with CROWS size was solved with CROWS-LP. It seems US Army is very happy with it. Now they are working on solving some problems with M829A4 accuracy, it seems that it is some software bug than hardware bug and perhaps it's solved now. And also also further working on new armor and other improvements. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/army/2016m1a2sep.pdf As for Trophy HV, this is how it will be most likely installed.
  5. Well, the armor design is always constantly evolving. Heck there are now some suspicions that the M1A1's armor array was completely different than the one used in M1. Some sort of blind spot is M1IP, because either it used the same armor type as M1, just with thicker turret front, or used the same armor array as M1A1. It's unclear which theory is closer to the truth.
  6. M1 series. Then Merkava series and Challenger 1 & 2.
    Absolutely great mission!
  7. Armor diagram shown by @lavictoireestlavie is wrong, as it combines armor thickness of the M60 hull with turret of the M60A1/A3 that have armor thickness of the M60 turret.
  8. I know it's not a Leopard 2, but rather curious example.
  9. Well, it's not really surprising that a Leopard 2 can and will lost it turret due to ammo cook off. Besides crews incompetence, which is one thing, one should seriously look at the problem of ammo storage, and in future a proper, safe ammo storage should be mandatory for every new design.
  10. Ah thanks for clearing this because somewhere I seen information it's LRF. Yeah I was wrong @IndustrialDonut Jartsev is right.
  11. For 9K119 Refleks and 9K120 Svir systems, they use laser range finder for guidance.
  12. Sure thing, I am just curious. These are more or less 50mm plates, and US always used steel plates for weight simulators, we could seen first example with MBT-70.
  13. He can, altough it will be replaced with Low Profile CROWS whish is around 50% smaller than M153 CROWS-2.