General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

What i did when i meet leopard 2A4 close and personal.

Well i brought rulers.. piece of paper, pen and camera.. and start doing my job.

This is the Leopard in question.


What i did ?


What's being measured ?
Loader's sight turret armor


Commander and gunner part :


Oh and i'm also measure thickness of the gunsight/commander's sight cover


Turret side part :


Lower hull part :
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q84/s720x720/1551515_10201129605146566_1307777015_n.jpg


And some other parts like side skirts, gun mantlet and rear of the turrets. The results was well... might be doubtful considering i measure using my old piece of ruler and take no account of angles (Which however can be easily found using 1/cos@*Physical thickness while @ is the angle in radians) But it give me at least some idea that "it's not as thick as what some internet guys claimed"

Another thing is that i measured parts that i could measure... can't do a thing for others like say.. roof and all of my figures are for physical thickness... can't say a thing about the cobham filler inside.. So my figures might be worthless.

Hmm result of my measurements as follows :

Turret front part (loader side) : 617 mm
Turret (Commander & Gunner side) Behind the sight :535 mm
Thickness of the sight's cover : 12 mm
Side of the Turret : 285 mm
Rear of the Turret : 25 mm
Gun Mantlet : 500 mm
Roof of the gun mantlet : 70 mm
Side skirt add on armor : 110mm
Lower frontal hull :40 mm


Hmm that's all.. What's left now is to repeat the measurement..which quite long from now since cavalry batalyon near my city has not received any leopard yet (That one i measured was the 1st batch.. 2 arrived.. 1 however is rumoured to be returned to Germany for some unknown reason)

Nice work.

Didn't Damien claim his friend measured it and got over 800mm for the turret, weld to weld?

So much for that.

TR1 wrote:Nice work.

Didn't Damien claim his friend measured it and got over 800mm for the turret, weld to weld?

So much for that.

Alot of what Damien said on mp.net was odd to be honest.

TR1 wrote:Nice work.

Didn't Damien claim his friend measured it and got over 800mm for the turret, weld to weld?

So much for that.

Thanks.   

Yes.. I read such claims including this image Damian & His friend's claim , in one of Tank thread debate here (where Mindstorm "having fun" with both of them)Mp.net and tank.net.


I was lucky that Indonesian Leopard 2 was showcased during the event.. So i took my ruler and rollin. I measured the armor weld to weld too but none yield figures close to 800 mm or 890mm... But rather some 617mm and 535mm. So Lord Harkonnen and one Tank.net guy's figure was closer to reality   

Too bad all i have to take photos was quite lousy cellphone camera.

You might wanna post your findings on Tank.net, see what our Polish friends have to say !

Interesting findings...thanks  

nice work...
Though im a bit surprised they just let you measure it, isnt it kind of OPSEC given its your country's best tank?

Though im a bit surprised they just let you measure it, isnt it kind of OPSEC given its your country's best tank?

There is software that can calculate dimensions in a photo.

I am sure they would have stopped him when he got out his core sampler kit though ...

TR1 wrote:You might wanna post your findings on Tank.net, see what our Polish friends have to say !

Done.. now let the mess begin.

Stealthflanker wrote:

TR1 wrote:You might wanna post your findings on Tank.net, see what our Polish friends have to say !

Done.. now let the mess begin.

You da man.

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Nice work.

Didn't Damien claim his friend measured it and got over 800mm for the turret, weld to weld?

So much for that.

Alot of what Damien said on mp.net was odd to be honest.

Yep Damien is a major bullshiter and Leopard 2 fanboy. Typical Polish complex - now that they got some Western toys (doesn't matter that they are a 'junior member' and aren't trusted with the very latest ones); they seek to play down and sling mud at all the Soviet gear they had before (no offense As-Saiqa)

I mean I respect that his knowledge is clearly far superior to my own; but there are just some advantages of Russian armour that are impossible to argue with either way; such as the lower profile - yet Damien as a way to avoid admission of such things tries to play them down through the myth of the all-powerful, perfect modern FCS and so on; or harp on about what tank Polish servicemen 'prefer' (as if it's any sort of decisive factor). Might have been someone else actually who was talking about that one.

Yeah, he is a double standard hypocrite despite some knowledge of military matters.

Especially when it comes to figures of RHA he always calls the ridiculous figures of simulations for military from this one ridiculous site like on Wikishmedia article about Leo2a6 with the ridiculouse figure of 1960mm RHA for the turret.

Well unsurprisingly.. the 840mm fan labeled my findings as incorrect.

I may missed something but 20 cm of discrepancies is well may not be the case.

All needs to be done now is of course repetition.

They claim you measured the wrong angle, not the same orientation as the Poles did.....but I am going to take a wild guess and say you are competent enough to compare the same measurement angles, and still got a far lower value?

Keep fighting the good fight (truth).

Stealthflanker wrote:Well unsurprisingly.. the 840mm fan labeled my findings as incorrect.

I may missed something but 20 cm of discrepancies is well may not be the case.

All needs to be done now is of course repetition.

Can we have the link to where they claim you are incorrect and don't know how to measure?

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:Well unsurprisingly.. the 840mm fan labeled my findings as incorrect.

I may missed something but 20 cm of discrepancies is well may not be the case.

All needs to be done now is of course repetition.

Can we have the link to where they claim you are incorrect and don't know how to measure?

inbound.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?s=08f5a61bf90003b52596f3f2a9fba6c3&showtopic=36233&page=4

Fighting for truth and curiousity is yes i'm willing to do.. but obviously i'll have to strengthen myself first.

flamming_python wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Nice work.

Didn't Damien claim his friend measured it and got over 800mm for the turret, weld to weld?

So much for that.

Alot of what Damien said on mp.net was odd to be honest.

Yep Damien is a major bullshiter and Leopard 2 fanboy. Typical Polish complex - now that they got some Western toys (doesn't matter that they are a 'junior member' and aren't trusted with the very latest ones); they seek to play down and sling mud at all the Soviet gear they had before (no offense As-Saiqa)

I mean I respect that his knowledge is clearly far superior to my own; but there are just some advantages of Russian armour that are impossible to argue with either way; such as the lower profile - yet Damien as a way to avoid admission of such things tries to play them down through the myth of the all-powerful, perfect modern FCS and so on; or harp on about what tank Polish servicemen 'prefer' (as if it's any sort of decisive factor). Might have been someone else actually who was talking about that one.

Well Damian have defended Russian hardware as well, especially when some Pakistanis started calling Indian T-90 inferior to Al Khalid. He is biased but not like one famous Ukrainian fella:)

flamming_python wrote:

Alot of what Damien said on mp.net was odd to be honest.

Yep Damien is a major bullshiter and Leopard 2 fanboy. Typical Polish complex - now that they got some Western toys (doesn't matter that they are a 'junior member' and aren't trusted with the very latest ones); they seek to play down and sling mud at all the Soviet gear they had before (no offense As-Saiqa)

I mean I respect that his knowledge is clearly far superior to my own; but there are just some advantages of Russian armour that are impossible to argue with either way; such as the lower profile - yet Damien as a way to avoid admission of such things tries to play them down through the myth of the all-powerful, perfect modern FCS and so on; or harp on about what tank Polish servicemen 'prefer' (as if it's any sort of decisive factor). Might have been someone else actually who was talking about that one.

This... I find it fckin annyoingly how having very marginally better stuff like ammo, gun, armor, FCS etc. now suddenly outweighs the benefits of being able to afford 3 tanks vs two, having a significantly lighter vehicle, and only 3 crew etc. etc.

Guys,the Israelis keep designing these superb forward engined Merkavas  because they see crew survivability as a critical design element.Forward  mounted engine packages,transmissions all get in the way of incoming rounds(accidental armour),a good firewall separates the powerplant from the crew...survivability goes way up.Fears of excessive heat signature might be a latent admission of poorly designed powerplant modules but then spewing hot oil out the left side exhaust hasnt done much to allay heat signature either.Hopefully Armata does away with this rather primitive and stupid practice of generating smoke.It was a novel and useful idea in the 1950s through the early 80s,Thermal imaging has made a farce of it.

Don't see what's so special about the Merkavas

They are very heavily armoured with good crew survivability but they are also very heavy and have a manual loader which takes up more space and this therefore equates to more weight and a larger profile.

T-90 probably has lower crew survivability in case of penetration but it is far lighter, has an autoloading mechanism that never gets tired and in terms of actual armour per surface area unit I don't think there is much difference.

I was just responding to say that forward placement of the drive train in no way hinders a vehicle.The Merkava is like a Chieftain,too heavy to use most bridges,its size make urban manoeuvering a nightmare...and it is slow compared to most MBTS.It is a set piece defensive battle winner not a breakthrough or exploitation tank.As such it relies upon total air superiority,the added bonus that it hasnt really fought other tanks in quite a while adds to the mystique.

Pugnax wrote:Guys,the Israelis keep designing these superb forward engined Merkavas  because they see crew survivability as a critical design element.Forward  mounted engine packages,transmissions all get in the way of incoming rounds(accidental armour),a good firewall separates the powerplant from the crew...survivability goes way up.Fears of excessive heat signature might be a latent admission of poorly designed powerplant modules but then spewing hot oil out the left side exhaust hasnt done much to allay heat signature either.Hopefully Armata does away with this rather primitive and stupid practice of generating smoke.It was a novel and useful idea in the 1950s through the early 80s,Thermal imaging has made a farce of it.

Because the Merkeva has a rear door ramp, that means it's rear side is even thinner and more vulnerable than every other modern MBT in the world. Let's put it this way, the Merkeva's rear end is as vulnerable to penetration as Elton John's.

I concur ,its rear end is a huge vulnerability but Mekava IVwill not be readily outflanked ,it is a heavily armoured defensive tank(Saddam would have loved them).It will sit still and kill at extreme ranges like the old WW2 Elephant.A mobile bunker with infantry support because the Israeli airforce sweeps the sky clear everytime.

Pugnax wrote:I concur ,its rear end is a huge vulnerability but Mekava IVwill not be readily outflanked ,it is a heavily armoured defensive tank(Saddam would have loved them).It will sit still and kill at extreme ranges like the old WW2 Elephant.A mobile bunker with infantry support  because the Israeli airforce sweeps the sky clear everytime.

Even if what you say is true, it still wouldn't compensate for the lack of mobility and cost. A base model T-90 cost's somewhere in the ball park of $2-3 million, while the Merkava 4 is over $6 million, so theoretically speaking for every 100 Merkava 4 tanks purchased, you could purchase 200-300 base model T-90's, that means in a large scale tank battle between T-90's and Merkava 4's, you could have 2-3 T-90's engaging every 1 Merkava 4!!! I don't care how good your country's MBT is, that is too steep of odds to overcome!

The Russian MOD wanted a cost effective MBT, so they got the T-90, if they were willing to pay over $6 million per tank like Israel, U.S., Britain, Germany, or France than they could of easily gotten something like a T-95 which could of easily surpassed all other MBT's in virtually every category with the exception of cost.

The Armata MBT should be affordable due to economies of scale production of the Armata chassis, and at the same time be comfortably superior in just about all parameters to any current tank.
No need for an expensive T-95.