Armour penetration and repeated hits.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Yeah, and I think he doesn't know what he is talking about.

You just found that out?

[Andreas]

No, but I felt an urge to just say it.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... I heard a Dutch LTC, in charge of MOUT training, say that he had a lot of fun telling the Dutch Army higher ups that they made a mistake by getting some upgunned Leos. Apparently they found in MOUT training exercises that the long gun basically meant the tank couldn't traverse well enough. Kinda like two guys rolling around trying to kill each other. Which would you rather have, a cavalry sabre or a 4" steak knife?

Steve

[stoat]

I still rely on that poptart.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... forgot about that one! Frosting and all

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just to clear things up, if they have not already been cleared up by those above.

The Leopard 2A4 is the late ‘70s model with first generation Chobham armour. Resistance against kinetic energy rounds, long-rod penetrators, is around 600-700mm. With the shorter L44 gun.

The Leopard 2A5 is the up-armoured, mid ‘90s armour, version. Resistance to long-rod penetrators said to be around 900-1000mm. But same L44 gun as the A4 model.

The Leopard 2A6 is the A5 as above but with the newer, long, higher pressure L55 gun. The higher pressure is not achieved by having a higher peak chamber pressure. It is achieved by having the maximum, initial higher chamber pressure maintained further down the barrel. So in the L55 gun the pressure near the breach is the same as in the L44 gun, but three-quarters of the way down the barrel the pressure in the L55 gun is still far closer to the peak pressure than in the L44 gun where it will have greatly declined.

The Challenger 2 is the equal of the Leopard 2A6, and would indeed wipe the floor when up against Leopard 2A4s. The Challenger 1 is the contemporary of the Leopard 2A4.

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The US M1A2 has armour in the same ball park as the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A5/A6, but still only the lower pressure L44 gun. All sides have in fact taken 140mm high pressure guns to maturity, did so over ten years ago, but feel no need to deploy them in the current environment. If there was ever any threat of war against a fully industrialised nation, all would re-equip with the 140mm guns. The Chinese and Russians both have new, big gun, tanks in development.

[roqf77]

well the challenger 2 has second generation chobbam armour. and have so far not sold the rights to any other nation. Results are classified but it is more effective than chobbam mark 1 with and without uranium inserts in the new abrahms.

So with equal thickness it is tougher. plus i know a few people who were deployed in iraq so i do indeed know what i am talking about. it is you flaming knives andreas and whoever who do not know what you are talking about. but hey believe what you want to believe.

[roqf77]

plus the rifled gun on the challenger 2, has a cromium lined barrel and its round has a larger du dart which is also longer than the rounds used in both the leopard and abrams.

[Andreas]

So how is the newest Abrams massively superior to the Leo 2A4 then?

When did the newest Abrams fight the Leo 2A4 in Iraq?

[roqf77]

it didnt. but it doesnt take a genius to figure it out. look im not starting a flame pit here. if you have a real problem with me take it to e-mail.

[Andreas]

No thanks. I take Kip's word for the Challenger 2, but I doubt that your mates in Iraq would be able to comment meaningfully on either of these questions if that is their qualification, since I am also not aware of any Challenger 2 vs. Leo 2A4 encounters there.

As for the Abrams, I'll wait for someone with a clue to come by and comment.

[roqf77]

thats fine. but they know more about the challenger 2 more than your or kip ever will. you believe what you want too. after all its what your good at.

[Sergei]

What about their mechanical reliability and cost-effectiveness? Whenever there's a Panzers vs. Shermans debate, these and many other qualifications are brought up.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by roqf77:

thats fine. but they know more about the challenger 2 more than your or kip ever will.

So what kind of expertise do they have on the newest Abrams and the Leo 2A4 that enables them to make such comparisons?

[roqf77]

i cant tell you. that would be telling andreas. important military stuff. things you dont know.

any way its all a matter of opinion, as all information is classified. i just have it on some authority, from someone involved that i know persoanly. i can take the fact that you dont belive me, you need to take a chill pill and calm down. your tensing yourself into an early grave.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by roqf77:

i cant tell you. that would be telling andreas. important military stuff. things you dont know.

Oh shure, a chav like you would have any access to anything important. Please, entertain us some more!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What about their mechanical reliability and cost-effectiveness? Whenever there's a Panzers vs. Shermans debate, these and many other qualifications are brought up.

From a bit of reading I've done, Challenger 2 is one of the most reliable - provided people fit the right environmental kit to it - but the most expensive, being as the production run to date is only 425 gun tanks, compared to Leopard 2 and M1s that total thousands each.

roqf77:

Tankies know what the vehicles are like to operate, but I wouldn't expect them to know armour protection levels. According to the declassified documents I've read at the PRO, that sort of thing is usually Secret.

Arguments ex cathedra are pretty weak. I know people who work on all sorts of military projects, but I couldn't tell you anything about the performance of any particular project. Nor would I, even if I did know, unless it was in the public domain anyway.

[roqf77]

sergei. im a chav? well i cant sya what id do and do not know. either way i think you and andreas need to grow up.

i dont claim to kow anything about you and andreas, but hey im not childish enought o make snap prejudgements about the content of someone's character.

[flamingknives]

You don't have to say what you do or do not know. It's pretty clear that typing isn't your friend *

NB: The smiley

[Andreas]

Originally posted by roqf77:

i cant tell you. that would be telling andreas. important military stuff. things you dont know.

any way its all a matter of opinion, as all information is classified. i just have it on some authority, from someone involved that i know persoanly. i can take the fact that you dont belive me, you need to take a chill pill and calm down. your tensing yourself into an early grave.

Thanks. I needed that laugh. Well, we come back to my previous judgement. You don't know what you are talking about. My guess is that the chaps you believe you have your information from also don't know much about what you are talking about.

[roqf77]

and vice versa. but thankyou for proving my point about you being childish.

[roqf77]

flamingknives. i agree, im dyslexic and have just gotten back form work. so no typing clearly isnt my friend lol.

moon steve whoever lock this now please, its gotten beyond off topic its actualy turnig into a peng thread.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

sgtgoody, remember we are trying to think of pretty much everything while we make the engine so we don't have any surprises later on. Horses, reactive armor, laser weapons, whatever... we need to be thinking of this stuff so we don't box ourselves in with the basic code structure.

Reactive armor has a nasty habit of rendering the vehicle (and nearby infantry) useless. The main purpose is to protect the crew and at least give the vehicle a chance of at least retreating under its own power. Of course, not all reactive packages are created equally. Likewise, if you have no reactive armor on your topside and you get shot at with a top attack ATGM... lot a good it does! Actually, Javelin and LOSAT missiles aren't bothered by Soviet/Russian style reactive armor.

We are planning on allowing vehicle systems damage. So yeah, in theory you could find your tank drivable, but no turret traverse. But we'll just have to see how much we get in right away and how much will wait to later.

Steve

In a desperate attempt to get the topic back on track, I went back to the last on topc post (it was on P2)

Javelin, like most modern HEAT rounds is a tandem warhead. The first (smaller one) clears away the the ERA - some are even clever enough to do this without detonating the ERA - allowing the second a clean shot at the bare armour.

Modern AT weapons like going in straight lines - the object of advanced armours is typically to deflect a portion of it, which will dramatically reduce the effectiveness. This works on long-rod penetrators too. It doesn't work so well against LOSAT because there's enough KE in it that it would defeat a tank if it were travelling sideways.

Which brings me to another point. Will we see modelling of damage caused by non-penetrating rounds? By the time you start getting 122mm AT rounds this is a real problem. Even if there's no spall, the impact can damage sights, weapon traverse and really mess up the crew. What's more, it's cumulative. 500 hits on 500 tanks might not damage anything, but 5 on one tank could cause real problems for all the gubbins inside it.

Finally: HESH. One thing this is very good for is ripping any applique armour off whatever it hits. This has given me another idea...

[undead reindeer cavalry]

sorry for taking this thread so off track.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The Leopard 2A4 is the late ‘70s model with first generation Chobham armour.

Leopard 2A4 is not just a vanilla 1979 version with better armor (which is not Chobham BTW), but includes stuff like a much improved FCS.

The Challenger 2 is the equal of the Leopard 2A6, and would indeed wipe the floor when up against Leopard 2A4s.

Leopard 2A6 isn't that much different from Leopard 2A4, both can KO the other one just fine.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Undead reindeer cavalry posted,

“Leopard 2A6 isn't that much different from Leopard 2A4, both can KO the other one just fine.”

In fact they are hugely different . Have both different armour and different guns. Different optics, weight different amounts and so on…

They come with the same “metal box”, but that is about it. The latest versions of the A6 have different an engine to the A4 as well . Do not be confused by the fact that both are called Leopard 2s. They are the result of technology that matured twenty years apart, and it shows. In the same way the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are very different in terms of their capabilities.

When you say they “can KO each other just fine”…depends what you mean. It is true that the muzzle energy from a L44 gun, about 9.5 m/joules by the way, is so great that any tank may have systems fail as a result of a strike. However, the L44 gun on the A4 cannot penetrate the front armour of an A6.

The L55 gun on the A6 can “just” penetrate the front armour of the A4. The L55 gun having a muzzle energy of 13.5 m/joules.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.