Serious can anti missile kaputt M1 mbt w passive n reactive armours?

[zhihau]

Heinz Guderian would be proud of our panzers

I thought the dessert fox was Erwin Rommel?

 

[pakchewcheng]

already gotten............n nothing to do w Trump

Langjiao! US of A only just getting APS as they never got this.
Their balls dropped when they saw GL5 APS being demonstrated and they know their Abrahm tanks with depleted Uranium and special Chobham armour will die against Chinese and Russian tanks and they quickly buy Jowdie system as stop gap.
They still have not installed what they bought. So to say they already gotten is fucking bullshit

ERA is like using handline and phone that goes round and round when you dial as compared to a good Xiami that I am happily using.
And you buggers talk and talk of ERA like that is a magic solution.
Langiao again


Below The Turret Ring


Monday, October 9, 2017

M1A2 SEP v3 prototype fitted with the Trophy APS
Trophy is a hardkill active protection system (APS) developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It uses four flat radar panels supplied by the IAI Elta Group to detect incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Once the vector and velocity of an incoming projectile have been tracked and it reaches the interception distance, a MEFP countermeasure - i.e. multiple explosively formed penetrators - is fired at it, penetrating the projectile mid-air, damaging and detonating its warhead before it strikes the vehicle. Shaped charge warheads as found on the overwhelmig majority of current ATGMs and RPGs loose nearly their complete penetration power when the shaped charge liner is damaged. Studies have shown that a single perforation of the shaped charge liner by a metal fragment reduces the penetration power by more than 70% - the shotgun-like cloud of fragments created by Trophy's MEFP countermeasure should perforate the warhead multiple times and detonate it several metres away from the vehicle, leaving essentially no leftover penetration capacity.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the US Army will adopt the Trophy APS in a larger scale: this is just an urgent material request, the United States still are interested in developing and fielding a common modular active protection system (MAPS) architecture, which is planned to combine softkill and hardkill systems and could make use - due to its modular approach - of multiple different countermeasure types derived from currently available APS designs. It should however be noted that urgent material requests sometimes are used by the militaries of different countries to circumvent longer trials and - in some cases - also competition. However the latter doesn't seem to be the case with the US Army opting for Trophy. The US miltiary has been citing the maturity of the system as a key factor speaking for it. Unlike the other APS types tested by the US military, Trophy has been fitted to operational combat vehicles such as the Merkava 4M MBT and the Namer armored personnel carrier (APC) of the IDF.


Obligatory cheeky "it's like a force field" graphic

Before ordering Trophy, the US Army apparently found some issues when trying to integrate the components of the active protection system into the M1A2 Abrams MBT. A key factor were weight imbalances, which also were affecting the turret's performance as reported by Inside The Army in early September. At the end of August the Trophy APS had only been tested on a stationary tank, however the full tests representing several real-life scenarios including firing at a moving tank were expected to last only 30 additional days.
The Trophy-equipped M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams MBTs are meant for equipping the US Army units in Europe. The advancements of Russian miliary technology and the increased aggression related to the annexion of Crimea has given the US Army a reason to focus on ground vehicles and symmetric conflict capabilties again. Like the Trophy APS, the US Army choose to upgrade a number of Stryker ICV to the new Dragoon variant just to not be outmatched in Europe by the Russian military. Furthermore the basic Stryker ICV variant will be fitted with Javelin launchers, while a number of options are being considered for short-range air defence (SHORAD).


Stryker testbed fitted with the Iron Curtain APS
The US Army is still working on testing the Iron Fist APS from Israeli Military Industries and the Iron Curtain APS, the latter setup was designed by the US company Artis following a DARPA contract. Artis has fitted the Iron Curtain APS to a Stryker vehicle, testing is expected to last until the mid-December, when the US Army will decide wether to purchase this system or install another APS on the Styker - in general the Trophy active protection system is also available for the Stryker and it would be beneficial to reduce the number of new APS types to be purchased by the military, as this would easen up logisitics and lower costs; however Trophy's MEFP countermeasure is considered to be less than ideal for use on APCs and IFVs. The Trophy APS was installed on the M1 Abrams tank earlier due to funding being available already in 2016.
The United States also planned to test the Active Defence System (ADS) from ADS - Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsysteme mbH, a joint-venture of the German companies Rheinmetall and IBD Deisenroth Engineering, but didn't have the budget to fund testing of all system at the same time. It is currently not known when or if the ADS will be tested by the US Army - that all depends on the budget. As reported by Defense News, the US Army is still interested in at least another system - understood to be the ADS - but couldn't afford to test four different APS types simultaneously. If the US Army had the budget, it would be testing it now. Rheinmetall approached the US Army after negotiations with the other three contenders were already underway, but demonstrated the system's capabilities multiple times in Europe. In the latest known demonstration, which happened at the end of June in Sweden, the ADS managed to defeat six out of six ATGMs fired at a vehicle. In a previous test in May 2017, two RPGs fired from a very short range were stopped by ADS, while it was proven that the sensors ignore smaller threats such as 7.62 mm bullets.
Rheinmetall suggested to fit the the ADS to the Stryker, but the US choose to test the Iron Fist APS on the Bradley instead. Due to the Bradley's limitation regarding electrical power, available space and weight budget, testing the adoption of the Iron Fist APS - probably in the light configuration - was favored to this plattform. First proper tests of the Iron Fist APS on the Bradely are still several months away, as the vehicle needs to be upgraded first.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

The Chinese happily copied the Terrex APS when they stole it for those few months

??

 

[OrLanChowHorFun]

why don't they go the other direction ?................instead of hard armour................put really thick slabs of rubber instead................rockets and shells will bounce off the rubber............

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Langjiao! US of A only just getting APS as they never got this.
Their balls dropped when they saw GL5 APS being demonstrated and they know their Abrahm tanks with depleted Uranium and special Chobham armour will die against Chinese and Russian tanks and they quickly buy Jowdie system as stop gap.
They still have not installed what they bought. So to say they already gotten is fucking bullshit

ERA is like using handline and phone that goes round and round when you dial as compared to a good Xiami that I am happily using.
And you buggers talk and talk of ERA like that is a magic solution.
Langiao again


Below The Turret Ring11


a genius is borned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hip hip boleh

Monday, October 9, 2017

M1A2 SEP v3 prototype fitted with the Trophy APS
Trophy is a hardkill active protection system (APS) developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It uses four flat radar panels supplied by the IAI Elta Group to detect incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Once the vector and velocity of an incoming projectile have been tracked and it reaches the interception distance, a MEFP countermeasure - i.e. multiple explosively formed penetrators - is fired at it, penetrating the projectile mid-air, damaging and detonating its warhead before it strikes the vehicle. Shaped charge warheads as found on the overwhelmig majority of current ATGMs and RPGs loose nearly their complete penetration power when the shaped charge liner is damaged. Studies have shown that a single perforation of the shaped charge liner by a metal fragment reduces the penetration power by more than 70% - the shotgun-like cloud of fragments created by Trophy's MEFP countermeasure should perforate the warhead multiple times and detonate it several metres away from the vehicle, leaving essentially no leftover penetration capacity.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the US Army will adopt the Trophy APS in a larger scale: this is just an urgent material request, the United States still are interested in developing and fielding a common modular active protection system (MAPS) architecture, which is planned to combine softkill and hardkill systems and could make use - due to its modular approach - of multiple different countermeasure types derived from currently available APS designs. It should however be noted that urgent material requests sometimes are used by the militaries of different countries to circumvent longer trials and - in some cases - also competition. However the latter doesn't seem to be the case with the US Army opting for Trophy. The US miltiary has been citing the maturity of the system as a key factor speaking for it. Unlike the other APS types tested by the US military, Trophy has been fitted to operational combat vehicles such as the Merkava 4M MBT and the Namer armored personnel carrier (APC) of the IDF.


Obligatory cheeky "it's like a force field" graphic

Before ordering Trophy, the US Army apparently found some issues when trying to integrate the components of the active protection system into the M1A2 Abrams MBT. A key factor were weight imbalances, which also were affecting the turret's performance as reported by Inside The Army in early September. At the end of August the Trophy APS had only been tested on a stationary tank, however the full tests representing several real-life scenarios including firing at a moving tank were expected to last only 30 additional days.
The Trophy-equipped M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams MBTs are meant for equipping the US Army units in Europe. The advancements of Russian miliary technology and the increased aggression related to the annexion of Crimea has given the US Army a reason to focus on ground vehicles and symmetric conflict capabilties again. Like the Trophy APS, the US Army choose to upgrade a number of Stryker ICV to the new Dragoon variant just to not be outmatched in Europe by the Russian military. Furthermore the basic Stryker ICV variant will be fitted with Javelin launchers, while a number of options are being considered for short-range air defence (SHORAD).


Stryker testbed fitted with the Iron Curtain APS
The US Army is still working on testing the Iron Fist APS from Israeli Military Industries and the Iron Curtain APS, the latter setup was designed by the US company Artis following a DARPA contract. Artis has fitted the Iron Curtain APS to a Stryker vehicle, testing is expected to last until the mid-December, when the US Army will decide wether to purchase this system or install another APS on the Styker - in general the Trophy active protection system is also available for the Stryker and it would be beneficial to reduce the number of new APS types to be purchased by the military, as this would easen up logisitics and lower costs; however Trophy's MEFP countermeasure is considered to be less than ideal for use on APCs and IFVs. The Trophy APS was installed on the M1 Abrams tank earlier due to funding being available already in 2016.
The United States also planned to test the Active Defence System (ADS) from ADS - Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsysteme mbH, a joint-venture of the German companies Rheinmetall and IBD Deisenroth Engineering, but didn't have the budget to fund testing of all system at the same time. It is currently not known when or if the ADS will be tested by the US Army - that all depends on the budget. As reported by Defense News, the US Army is still interested in at least another system - understood to be the ADS - but couldn't afford to test four different APS types simultaneously. If the US Army had the budget, it would be testing it now. Rheinmetall approached the US Army after negotiations with the other three contenders were already underway, but demonstrated the system's capabilities multiple times in Europe. In the latest known demonstration, which happened at the end of June in Sweden, the ADS managed to defeat six out of six ATGMs fired at a vehicle. In a previous test in May 2017, two RPGs fired from a very short range were stopped by ADS, while it was proven that the sensors ignore smaller threats such as 7.62 mm bullets.
Rheinmetall suggested to fit the the ADS to the Stryker, but the US choose to test the Iron Fist APS on the Bradley instead. Due to the Bradley's limitation regarding electrical power, available space and weight budget, testing the adoption of the Iron Fist APS - probably in the light configuration - was favored to this plattform. First proper tests of the Iron Fist APS on the Bradely are still several months away, as the vehicle needs to be upgraded first.

BAGUS!!!!!!!!!!!

why don't they go the other direction ?................instead of hard armour................put really thick slabs of rubber instead................rockets and shells will bounce off the rubber............

 

[OrLanChowHorFun]

BAGUS!!!!!!!!!!!

use rubber good idea, right ?...............

 

[pakchewcheng]

KICKING UP

 

[pakchewcheng]

Warning to mudland and chinkland to not fuck with us. The SAF's armour is more than enough to utterly destroy you. Heinz Guderian would be proud of our panzers.

Gunner Corporal Heng already warned that he will engage and destroy you if you dare fuck with the SAF.

More likely than not, China will sell Chinese MBTs to Malaysia, and equiped with APS.
and sell to them Chinese anti aircraft systems HQ-9, 4th generation AA, equivalent to S-300s
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hq-9.htm

China will not sell their HQ 9A , HQ9B or 9C or HQ-10 as that too advance and they want to keep that for themselves.


Sinkapore want to take them on?

ROTFFLMFAO!

 

[pakchewcheng]

For those that think Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) can handle RPGs and HEATs, Tandom RPG will take them out.
RPG-29 was in used since 1989.

You sleeping in some cave with those mullahs who think laundramat must not be used by infidels to keep that pure for good muslims is it?
Now you know APS is the way to go?

At least for the time being. Even now, there are RPGs to try to defeat APS. (RPG30)
Like the non ending story of the spear that cut all shield and the shield that stop all spears.
And which comes first, chicken or the egg?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

RPG-29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RPG-29

RPG-29 launcher with PG-29V rocket

Cartridge PG-29V tandem rocket
TBG-29V thermobaric rounds
Caliber 105 mm (4.1 in) barrel
65 and 105 mm (2.6 and 4.1 in) warheads
Muzzle velocity 280 m/s (920 ft/s)
Effective firing range 500 m (1,600 ft)
800 m (2,600 ft) (with tripod and fire control unit)[5]
Sights Iron, optical, and night sights available with ranges up to 450 m (1,480 ft); automated day and day-night sights with laser rangefinder[5]
Blast yield 750 mm (30 in) RHA
600 mm (24 in) RHA after reactive armor effects
1,500 mm (59 in) Reinforced concrete or brick
3,700 mm (150 in) Log and earth fortification
The RPG-29 "Vampir" is a Russian rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher. Adopted by the Soviet Army in 1989,[6] it was the last RPG to be adopted by the Soviet military before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The RPG-29 has since been supplemented by other rocket-propelled systems, such as the RPG-30 and RPG-32. The RPG-29's PG-29V tandem-charge warhead is one of the few anti-tank weapons that can penetrate the frontal hulls of Western composite-armored main battle tanks.[7][8]

Description[edit]
The RPG-29 is a shoulder-launched, unguided, tube-style, breech-loading anti-tank rocket system with a range of 500 meters. The light weapon is designed to be carried and used by a single soldier. On the top of the launch tube is a 2.7×1P38 optical sight.

When launched, the missile deploys eight fins as the rocket leaves the launcher, stabilizing the rocket during flight, up to a range of 500 meters.[9]

Two projectiles are available for the weapon:

• The TBG-29V thermobaric anti-personnel round.
• The PG-29V anti-tank/anti-bunker round has a tandem-charge HEAT warhead for defeating explosive reactive armor (ERA). This warhead is standardized with that of the PG-7VR round fired by the RPG-7V rocket launcher.[10] The comprises two charges—an initial small charge triggers any reactive armor. If ERA or cage armor is absent, this charge strikes the main armour. Behind the primary charge, a much larger secondary shaped charge bursts at the rear of the initial warhead and projects a thin, high-speed-jet of metal into the armour compromised by the first charge. PG-29V is capable of killing hard targets, including tanks with ERA.

The RPG-29 is unusual among Russian anti-tank rocket launchers in that it lacks an initial propellant charge to place the projectile at a safe distance from the operator before the rocket ignites. Instead, the rocket engine starts as soon as the trigger is pulled, and burns out before the projectile leaves the barrel.

On the bottom of the tube is a shoulder brace for proper positioning along with a pistol grip trigger mechanism. A 1PN51-2 night sight can be fitted.[11]

History[edit]
The RPG-29 was developed during the late 1980s, following the development of the RPG-26, and entered service with the Soviet army in 1989. It has recently seen intermittent use by irregular forces in the Middle East theater, including in combat against U.S./U.K. forces during the Iraq War, and the 2006 Lebanon War, when it was used against Israeli forces.

2003 Iraq War[edit]
The RPG-29 is believed to have been used in skirmishes against U.S. and British forces during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq.[12] An RPG-29 round was reported in August 2006 to have penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power.[13]

On August 25, 2007 a PG-29V hit a passing M1 Abrams in the hull rear wounding 3 crew members.[14] On September 5, 2007, a PG-29V hit the side turret of an M1 Abrams in Baghdad, killing 2 of the crew and wounding 1, and the tank was seriously damaged.[15]

In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that another M1 Abrams tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.[12][16] The US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into insurgent hands.[17]

2006 Lebanon War[edit]
During the conflict, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated that the RPG-29 was a major source of IDF casualties in the 2006 Lebanon War.[18] A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry denied that Russia had supplied arms directly to Hezbollah.[19] Shortly before the end of the conflict the Russian Kommersant magazine acknowledged through anonymous sources the possibility of a weapons transfer between Syria and Hezbollah during the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.[20]

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

bagus stuff................how were those M1 armoured?

 

[pakchewcheng]

bagus stuff................how were those M1 armoured?

The RPG-29 is believed to have been used in skirmishes against U.S. and British forces during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq.[12] An RPG-29 round was reported in August 2006 to have penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power.[13]

On August 25, 2007 a PG-29V hit a passing M1 Abrams in the hull rear wounding 3 crew members.[14] On September 5, 2007, a PG-29V hit the side turret of an M1 Abrams in Baghdad, killing 2 of the crew and wounding 1, and the tank was seriously damaged.[15]

In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that another M1 Abrams tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.[12][16] The US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into insurgent hands.[17]

M1 Abrams primary armour is Chobham armour . A composite armour, described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal framework and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators.

Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead.[1] Because the ceramic is so brittle the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth—as it would be when penetrating a metal—but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a vicious circle as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection".This mechanism—using the jet's own energy against it—has caused the effects of Chobham to be compared to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in Non-Explosive Reactive Armor: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration. All versions of Chobham armor have incorporated a large volume of NERA plates either behind hard external armor to weaken the attack, or in front of the rest of the armor array intended to catch the remnants. This is another factor favouring a slab-sided or wedge-like turret: the amount of material the expanding plates push into the path of an attack increases as they are placed closer to parallel to the direction of that attack.

In addition, M1 also got a belt of depleted uranium on the composite armour. M1 Abrams tanks also got ERA plates as well

But they are now shitting in their pants and trying to include APS by buying from Jowdie and using chewing gum and sealing wax and strings to fit that on their Abrams.

 

[Papsmearer]

Warning to mudland and chinkland to not fuck with us. The SAF's armour is more than enough to utterly destroy you. Heinz Guderian would be proud of our panzers.

Gunner Corporal Heng already warned that he will engage and destroy you if you dare fuck with the SAF.

Please don't insult Heinz Guderian's name.

 

[Papsmearer]

All this talk about anti tank guided missiles and active protection systems is meaningless unless tied into the discussion of our Leo 2SG.

The SAF Leo 2s were purchased from the German Army used as alleged replacement for the AMX-13. The model bought was an older model, the A4. The SAF upgraded it to the Leo Evolution package using IBD Diesenroth. Upgrades include additional belly armour, roof and rear armour, using IBD’s AMAPs appliqué modular armour. If the SAF had waited a couple of year more, they could have gotten the Rheinmetall Revolution upgrade, which is superior to the IBD Evolution upgrade by a factor of 2 or 3. But, ST has to give business to IBD, so you go with the company that gives you kickbacks.

The Evolution upgrade package does not include ERA (explosive reactive armour….the bricks that you see on tanks) nor Active Protection System. Will they need it? Almost certainly, and I am thinking the APS is already in the works and will be installed soon. Before everyone goes google eyes over the APS, some points to consider.

APS by its very nature is inherently dangerous to any nearby friendly infantry. The system uses a guided warhead to proximity detonate an incoming RPG round. Should the APS be successful, explosive fragments from the APS round as well as from an exploding RPG warhead will shower the surrounding area and hit any soldiers deployed around the tank. Therefore, if you are doing tank infantry cooperation and someone fires an RPG at the tank nearest you, you could be showered with shrapnel. In the context of Singapore’s area of operation where FIBUA is expected, a tank hit in the streets could have collateral damage to the escorting infantry. It will be as though someone tossed a grenade near the infantry. Something the SAF will not tell the soldiers if they ever deploy it.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

All this talk about anti tank guided missiles and active protection systems is meaningless unless tied into the discussion of our Leo 2SG.

The SAF Leo 2s were purchased from the German Army used as alleged replacement for the AMX-13. The model bought was an older model, the A4. The SAF upgraded it to the Leo Evolution package using IBD Diesenroth. Upgrades include additional belly armour, roof and rear armour, using IBD’s AMAPs appliqué modular armour. If the SAF had waited a couple of year more, they could have gotten the Rheinmetall Revolution upgrade, which is superior to the IBD Evolution upgrade by a factor of 2 or 3. But, ST has to give business to IBD, so you go with the company that gives you kickbacks.

The Evolution upgrade package does not include ERA (explosive reactive armour….the bricks that you see on tanks) nor Active Protection System. Will they need it? Almost certainly, and I am thinking the APS is already in the works and will be installed soon. Before everyone goes google eyes over the APS, some points to consider.

APS by its very nature is inherently dangerous to any nearby friendly infantry. The system uses a guided warhead to proximity detonate an incoming RPG round. Should the APS be successful, explosive fragments from the APS round as well as from an exploding RPG warhead will shower the surrounding area and hit any soldiers deployed around the tank. Therefore, if you are doing tank infantry cooperation and someone fires an RPG at the tank nearest you, you could be showered with shrapnel. In the context of Singapore’s area of operation where FIBUA is expected, a tank hit in the streets could have collateral damage to the escorting infantry. It will be as though someone tossed a grenade near the infantry. Something the SAF will not tell the soldiers if they ever deploy it.

VERY SAD THAT WE SPENT SO MUCH MONEY TO BUY MBT with technologies on the wane...The bastard who pushed like a SOB stays or used to stay in Yunnan Crescent wears afew strands goatie; knows shit but recognised by top donkeys in ST as CTO. The same bloke panicked when he received news that FU Deisenroth died that he took the first plane out to Bonn.......... nobody knows when he did there! But clearly he was wiping his arse and erase paper trails.......... I dun think IBD has the knowhow for ERA except for good connections with Bundeswehr, RM & ST and evil wheeling & dealing matching great negotiator D Trump. Many got rich but one died and many more are still counting their illicit gains. Not only the tyrant got away with Erected kelong PE but many others due to our rotten ways we manage our cuntry........no wonder it is called MINDEAF
A few shots from MY or RI tanks can put Leo to rest...........King Bhumipole

PS: the Leos were bought due to strong lobbying by IBD to ST K which was championed by the then SrVP... now CTO who has strong influence in MINDEAF! Money in personal acct and multi promotions!!

 

[Papsmearer]

Yeah, u have a point. To this day, I still don't understand the logic behind the purchase of the Leo 2s. The use of a 70 tonne tank in the narrow streets of Singapore and even neighbouring Malaysia defies logic, as well as the infrastructure like the bridges and roads needed for the tank to traverse. If the the Leos stick to the main highways of Malaysia and SIngapore, its fine, but invariably, they must enter the smaller towns and villages.

i know that when the PT-91s came into service up north, there were serious questions about whether the armour can be penetrated by our Tempest 105mm APFSDS rounds, even using the best available at that time. Almost certainly, the Tempest would be penetrated at all aspects by the 125mm gun of the PT-91 firing APFSDS. Of course, this Polish tank would have made swiss cheese out of the AMX-13. I think this was the impetus for the SAF to get a better tank. In terms of cost, the fire sale in Germany on the Leo 2 made it a no brainer, I suppose. But seeing that Malaysia only operates 48 PT-91, and we have over 100 Leo 2, its a gross overkill, I think. This small number of PT-91 could have been defeated easily by a combination of Apache helos with Hellfire and a our own new generation ATGWs. Tempest can still be used to destroy all other Malaysian armour, and probably still defeat the PT-91 at closer range.

In the local terrain, many advantages of a tank are muted and restricted. A gun that can fire accurately up to 4km is probably not going to be used for longer then 2km due to terrain. The speed and mobility of the tank is again restricted due to terrain and infrastructure, where it can be used maximally in the desert, it cannot be employed the same here. A ST designed 120mm tank on a Bionix chassis would have taken care of this requirement, or a purchase of an off the shelf 120mm light tank like the CV90120 by BAE. Well, I have given trying to figure out the SAF battle philosophy. All I can see is they are buying what ever crap that makes money for ST and does not matter if it fits the need or requirements of singapore.

 

[OrLanChowHorFun]

my idea for a tank is the best................thick slabs of rubber instead of armour - shells and whatever will bounce off it..............

then my tank will fire glass-encased shells containing acid...........acid will melt any armour, right ?

 

[zhihau]

then my tank will fire glass-encased shells containing acid...........acid will melt any armour, right ?

What do you use to hold your acid-filled ammunition? Glass? Would the container shatter when launched? Would be interesting to see a prototype working.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

my idea for a tank is the best................thick slabs of rubber instead of armour - shells and whatever will bounce off it..............

then my tank will fire glass-encased shells containing acid...........acid will melt any armour, right ?

tip the rounds w your dickhead......unstop

M1 Abrams primary armour is Chobham armour . A composite armour, described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal framework and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators.

Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead.[1] Because the ceramic is so brittle the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth—as it would be when penetrating a metal—but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a vicious circle as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection".This mechanism—using the jet's own energy against it—has caused the effects of Chobham to be compared to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in Non-Explosive Reactive Armor: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration. All versions of Chobham armor have incorporated a large volume of NERA plates either behind hard external armor to weaken the attack, or in front of the rest of the armor array intended to catch the remnants. This is another factor favouring a slab-sided or wedge-like turret: the amount of material the expanding plates push into the path of an attack increases as they are placed closer to parallel to the direction of that attack.

In addition, M1 also got a belt of depleted uranium on the composite armour. M1 Abrams tanks also got ERA plates as well

But they are now shitting in their pants and trying to include APS by buying from Jowdie and using chewing gum and sealing wax and strings to fit that on their Abrams.

I dun noe abt chobham armour but can guess its makeup. It has first layer of very dense material to reduce the destuctive KE. So it will depleted uranium. Next a layer to distort the standoff distance of shaped charge to render it much less effective. Last but not least the ceramic tile to fragment the projectile remians. The best material would be diamond w Moh hardness 10 but it is far too expensive. Boron carbide w MOH of 9.7 is next best but still too expensive and not easy to make. The happy compromise wud be SiC which very affordable.............all the layers are held together w super high tensile strength adhesive...normally propriety secret.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

What do you use to hold your acid-filled ammunition? Glass? Would the container shatter when launched? Would be interesting to see a prototype working.

can use Damien sperm....

 

[pakchewcheng]

I dun noe abt chobham armour but can guess its makeup. It has first layer of very dense material to reduce the destuctive KE. So it will depleted uranium. Next a layer to distort the standoff distance of shaped charge to render it much less effective. Last but not least the ceramic tile to fragment the projectile remians. The best material would be diamond w Moh hardness 10 but it is far too expensive. Boron carbide w MOH of 9.7 is next best but still too expensive and not easy to make. The happy compromise wud be SiC which very affordable.............all the layers are held together w super high tensile strength adhesive...normally propriety secret.

And for some reasons which are very reasonable to the designers of composite armour, air spaces are essential component part of the armour.
My knowledge restricted to Ctrl C-V.
I dare not ask them more details , as they may have to take me out after they tell me.

So why not you ask them instead.