Jump to content

Abrams Side Armor


lavictoireestlavie

Recommended Posts

Have you heard the saying a picture says a thousand words?

Allow me to explain more clearly the concept of the frontally mounted engine:

[ATTACH]12886[/ATTACH]

Now, as Damian90 has pointed out, the Merkava has no credible main armour array, so the critical hit demonstration is the common outcome.

However, if you were to use M1A2 standard armour as the main protection you can now see how this concept has merit.

Rather than the crewmen containing the spall, and leading to life long medical care and paperwork, the engine rebuffs or contains the spall.

The mechanics get a real live training exercise, and more importantly the crew don't need to learn how to use prosthetic limbs.

Pictures.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IMHO from what I seen, "naked" Challenger 2 have large weak spot at lower front hull surface, there is no composite armor there, only on glacis plate.

Leclerc have both surfaces protected by composite armor, at least model of front hull protection tested in Sweden sugests so.

strv_ny-19.jpg

Your picture represents the top portion of the glacis.

Lower front hull of Leclerc looks to be similiary protected like Leopard 2 and M1, approx 600-650-700mm thick, but it seems that there is also additional protection for glacis plate, most likely because it is inclined less extremely than in case of Leo2 and M1, so it needed to be made thicker to compensate.

Disapointed.

Apparently the tank expert just stir up the shit on internet and copy/paste the results on other forums. No scientific approach.

I expected from you to analyse the layout of the interior and come up with some hypothesis.

My comparision with the naked Challenger 2 wasn't there for no reason.

If we put aside the obvious differences in the overall layout and thicknesses, the protection of the lower hull rely nonetheless on a single layer of plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djawolf

Merkava design have also one problem more. Large internal volume which makes it weight inefficent compared to protection levels it's offers.

Even if it is comfortable, I think I would reduce that comfrot to the levels of standard NATO tanks, but have lighter and more mobile vehicle.

It is interesting that Merkava Mk2 weights approx 60 metric tons, while having worse protection than Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 weighting below 60 metric tons.

IIRC, one of the rationales for having the rear compartment and access door (which contribute to the volume) was to permit the vehicle to remain at or near a firing position while ammo is reloaded through the door (rather than the turret hatches), meaning that the crew members or logistics guys conducting the re-stocking are at least in defilade behind the crest. This was consistent with its envisaged usage in a predominantly "defensive" role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to summarize everything that has been said:

1) The Merkava 1-4 large lower glacis offers poor KE (less than 300 mm RHAe) and mediocre CE protection (about 500-700 mm RHAe), very similar to the basic Challenger 1 and 2. The upper glacis seems to offer decent protection against KE and CE rounds (500+ mm RHAe).

2) The Merkava 4 seems to offer superior protection against CE projectiles along the hull sides, compared to the Leopard 2a4-2a6, M1A1 HA, M1A2 SEP, Leclerc s2/s3.

3) Mobility kills would be a regular occurance in all Merkava type tanks, when dealing with with any 500+ mm RHAe CE/KE projectiles.

4) The best way to use a Merkava type tank is a in a prepared defensive position where the vehicle can at least go hull down. A strategy that should also be used by Challenger 1 and 2 tanks.

5) The Merkava 1 and 2 is inferior to both the Leopard 2a4 (1987) and M1A1 HA (1988) in protection (particularly the hull), firepower and mobility.

6) A potentially large heat signature at the front of the vehicle could make a Merkava a prominent target through an enemy FLIR.

Feel free to correct me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, one of the rationales for having the rear compartment and access door (which contribute to the volume) was to permit the vehicle to remain at or near a firing position while ammo is reloaded through the door (rather than the turret hatches), meaning that the crew members or logistics guys conducting the re-stocking are at least in defilade behind the crest. This was consistent with its envisaged usage in a predominantly "defensive" role.

After reading I too have come to this same conclusion with the front mounted power pack, and the read door resupply. It has been written that although the on board ammo allotment is low, there is reports of ammo being packed in the rear for a longer fight, being small arms or main is unclear, however having the option to carry more ammo is useful option in certain missions. The armour and its layout is unknown ,and persons saying they know are uncredible, we can come close, but the actual configuration is still a "best guess" for now.

After all the bad mouthing of this design it has held its ground over a number of wars, I fail to see this being a bad engineering it if were such a poor design as some would like to believe.:icon_frown: a different approach would have been sought, the Israels/USA are not stupid.

In the end I still would prefers a Merkava 4 over any Russian tank.:men_ani::men_ani:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disapointed.

Apparently the tank expert just stir up the shit on internet and copy/paste the results on other forums. No scientific approach.

I expected from you to analyse the layout of the interior and come up with some hypothesis.

My comparision with the naked Challenger 2 wasn't there for no reason.

If we put aside the obvious differences in the overall layout and thicknesses, the protection of the lower hull rely nonetheless on a single layer of plate.

What the hell you are talking about?

Leclerc obviously have a large armor cavity for lower front hull protection, and there is provision for some sort of composite for glacis plate.

Unless you and I differently understand glacis and lower front hull.

Have you heard the saying a picture says a thousand words?

Allow me to explain more clearly the concept of the frontally mounted engine:

Attachment 12886

Now, as Damian90 has pointed out, the Merkava has no credible main armour array, so the critical hit demonstration is the common outcome.

However, if you were to use M1A2 standard armour as the main protection you can now see how this concept has merit.

Rather than the crewmen containing the spall, and leading to life long medical care and paperwork, the engine rebuffs or contains the spall.

The mechanics get a real live training exercise, and more importantly the crew don't need to learn how to use prosthetic limbs.

The problem is that with front mounted engine, there are problems to place enough armor at hull front... at least within reasonable weight and size limits.

After all the bad mouthing of this design it has held its ground over a number of wars, I fail to see this being a bad engineering it if were such a poor design as some would like to believe. a different approach would have been sought, the Israels/USA are not stupid.

It is not poor design or bad engineering. It is inefficent design choosen by Israelis only because they did not had special armor technology at the time when Merkava was designed.

If Israels Tal design team would design Merkava having access to UK/US special armor development data, Merkava would probably be more similiar to M1, Leopard 2 or Challenger 1.

In the end I still would prefers a Merkava 4 over any Russian tank.

If I would have to fight in a war as tank crew member, I would choose no other tank as only M1, the only design that actually solves the problem of ammunition cook offs. And I seen too many photos of how crew members looks like after ammunition cook off to not be bothered about ammunition that is non isolated from crew compartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell you are talking about?

Leclerc obviously have a large armor cavity for lower front hull protection, and there is provision for some sort of composite for glacis plate.

Unless you and I differently understand glacis and lower front hull.

Go ahead a draw it as you understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You definately can't do thing by your own means...

As you've been able to see with the ballistic test mount, you can right away discard the second picture. Above all, it claims that it's a SXXI model where I only see a Tropicalised Leclerc with S1's armor thickness...

Regarding the first picture, it roughly shows how the upper armor is laid out.

It does shows anything regarding the lower section...

So

Leclerc have both surfaces protected by composite armor, at least model of front hull protection tested in Sweden sugests so.

Lower front hull of Leclerc looks to be similiary protected like Leopard 2 and M1, approx 600-650-700mm thick, but it seems that there is also additional protection for glacis plate, most likely because it is inclined less extremely than in case of Leo2 and M1, so it needed to be made thicker to compensate.

Remains wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You definately can't do thing by your own means...

Both drawings were done by my good collegues, why should I draw it again.

As you've been able to see with the ballistic test mount, you can right away discard the second picture.

I show the second one only for the sake of it being interesting. I hoped you will understand this.

Above all, it claims that it's a SXXI model where I only see a Tropicalised Leclerc with S1's armor thickness...

You know, sometimes people have problems with finding good drawing of exact vehicle to create such armor schemes. My collegue from Russia perfectly knew that it is tropicalised Leclerc drawing, but made armor scheme for Leclerc XXI that at the time he believed to look like this.

Regarding the first picture, it roughly shows how the upper armor is laid out.

It does shows anything regarding the lower section...

So. Remains wrong.

Then enlighten me with proper drawing, or photo. :heu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both drawings were done by my good collegues, why should I draw it again.

To show how YOU understand the whole thing!

I show the second one only for the sake of it being interesting. I hoped you will understand this.

It would have been interesting if it had good proportions or good armor estimations. I see none of this.

You know, sometimes people have problems with finding good drawing of exact vehicle to create such armor schemes. My collegue from Russia perfectly knew that it is tropicalised Leclerc drawing, but made armor scheme for Leclerc XXI that at the time he believed to look like this.

I don't think you would have had the same speech if it was somebody talking shit to your beloved M1 (showing of course M1 drawings claiming it was M1A2 SEP).

Then enlighten me with proper drawing, or photo. :heu:

Unfortunately, I can't otherwise I would break my NDA I made to have access to certain things.

Showing turret modules is quite simple since the main volumes are shown on a book publically published. The hull armor had been for quite a while a "mystery" since you can't guess how it is from the outside. It still is not really well documented since you can't place precisely the limits.

To end up this large offtopic moment (I'm now tired to talk so long about the Leclerc on an Abrams topic), I just wanted to clarify:

It's just a matter of where you shoot, just like the basic (bare?) Challenger 2.

At certain angles no matter how thick the lower plate is, I would rather be in a Merkava. Simply because at those angles, the projectile would end up in the transmission and spalls would remain within the engine compartment.

End of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To show how YOU understand the whole thing!

I do, unless you have problems with understanding what I write?

It would have been interesting if it had good proportions or good armor estimations. I see none of this.

It is interesting in the sense how Russians were understanding how Leclerc hull armor scheme is designed.

I don't think you would have had the same speech if it was somebody talking shit to your beloved M1 (showing of course M1 drawings claiming it was M1A2 SEP).

I would. There are really no good drawings of M1 tank either, and the ones that are avaiable, have wrongly drawed front turret weld lines indicating where composite armor is placed.

Funny thing is that Steel Beasts use textures with exactly the same error in where front turret weld lines are placed.

Unfortunately, I can't otherwise I would break my NDA I made to have access to certain things.

Showing turret modules is quite simple since the main volumes are shown on a book publically published. The hull armor had been for quite a while a "mystery" since you can't guess how it is from the outside. It still is not really well documented since you can't place precisely the limits.

It would be interesting to see photos of hull during welding process, it would definetely shed some light without breaking OPSEC if actuall special armor modules would not be there.

To end up this large offtopic moment (I'm now tired to talk so long about the Leclerc on an Abrams topic), I just wanted to clarify:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkLabor View Post

It's just a matter of where you shoot, just like the basic (bare?) Challenger 2.

At certain angles no matter how thick the lower plate is, I would rather be in a Merkava. Simply because at those angles, the projectile would end up in the transmission and spalls would remain within the engine compartment.

End of the story.

At certain angles of hit, even engine or transmission will not help... if anything.

A new (old) Aspect: A wise man said (I lost his Name over the Years) :

"Best Protection for a Tank is movement"

What about this?

Projectiles are faster than a tank. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-90 turret will traverse at 90 degrees in 5 seconds, so full traverse should take approx 20 seconds.

If this is what you mean by

coincidence to fire his Gun
.

However if you ask for how long it take for FCS to calculate everything, as I said, Russian sources says it is comparable with NATO tanks that have similiar capabilities. Unless you don't understand word "comparable"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It´s a bit difficult for a non native English Speaker to declare what coincidence mean in English, but I was sure you know this Term....

In my small Words: It´s the Time your FCS need to calculate were your Target is it what your FCS needs to hit the Target ( Speed of Target, Forehold, own Speed a.s.o.)

And, yes I know "Russian sources says it is comparable with NATO tanks that have similiar capabilities"

What should they say "Our Tanks are crap" ?

But can YOU prove it, I think you can´t. You can´t prove what you said the last 15 Pages!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is your personnal background about tanks?

In which tanks do have already put your ass in?

For me amx30, (b, B2, s) amx32, amx30, Leclerc (all versions), Leopard 1A5BE, leopard 2A4, T 55 AM2, T72A, M1A1, and almost all tanks of the armor museum of Saumur (except Merkava which is welded)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dejawolf, interesting.

It´s a bit difficult for a non native English Speaker to declare what coincidence mean in English, but I was sure you know this Term....

In my small Words: It´s the Time your FCS need to calculate were your Target is it what your FCS needs to hit the Target ( Speed of Target, Forehold, own Speed a.s.o.)

And, yes I know "Russian sources says it is comparable with NATO tanks that have similiar capabilities"

What should they say "Our Tanks are crap" ?

But can YOU prove it, I think you can´t. You can´t prove what you said the last 15 Pages!

Why we should not believe Russians? Because they are Russians? Because on Discovery Channel someone said their tanks are crap based on wars with Arab countries equipped with downgraded export variants?

Actually you have exactly same attitude towards Russians, as some Russian fanatics have towards westerners, no open mind, just "they are my enemy, so their tanks/planes/warships are crap". :)

But what is your personnal background about tanks?

In which tanks do have already put your ass in?

For me amx30, (b, B2, s) amx32, amx30, Leclerc (all versions), Leopard 1A5BE, leopard 2A4, T 55 AM2, T72A, M1A1, and almost all tanks of the armor museum of Saumur (except Merkava which is welded)

It is funny that to be treated by some people seriously, you need to sit inside something.

I have a whole bunch of T-55's and T-34's at my Academy grounds (I study at National Defence Academy in Warsaw), which I ocasionally visit in free time. Near Academy there is also 1st Armor Brigade with PT-91 tanks, however I did not had opportunity to visit them yet. Plus we could all see Leopard 2A4's from close up, also inside in Warsaw during Polish Armed Forces holliday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...