Yeah this is M1A1HA, same as M1A2, 650 20° arc.
Seems like an error so I’d ignore those.
That’s Gaijin estimating, most likely it’s a 20° arc of 600mm KE.
The power to weight ratios in that table are all a bit odd. But for the SR(L) 4026 column it is just listing the maximum allowable weight, and the desirable power to weight ratio. As I keep saying SR(L) 4026 is a requirement, not an actual tank.
Not entirely sure about that. I’ve been trying to track down the actual wording of SR(L) 4026, but no luck so far.
I’m not sure what explains the jump there. Later documents state that the M1A2 (with DU armour) is 650 mm KE over the frontal arc. So it might be that they made a mistake in the table and gave the M1A2 protection values to the M1A1. Or it might be that the addition of DU armour is what made the difference, meaning that the M1A1 HA and M1A2 have the same turret armour.
That’s it, M1A1HA and M1A2 have the same protection level
or could be a M1A1HA+ whatever that is
M1A1HA+ is in practice M1A1HC.
3 Likes
do you have more data?
Lol it has already everything and even more while Leclerc’s should got buff in everything absolutely from the armour to shell and speed.
And still have had no improvement or anything since this post. Challenger 2 complete firing sequence should consist of 3secs from the command to Load Sabot, to firing it should be 3secs that is how quick it can be reloaded and there’s multiple videos showing this.
The L27A1 needs a buff, that shell is specifically designed to rip through the frontal armour of modern Russian tanks and obliterate the crew compartment. They tested it recently on a up-armoured T72 at range and as described by the MOD “The round pierced the front plate, travelled through the tank where it then obliterated the crew compartment and auto-loader before exiting out the back of the engine”
The fact I can’t pen some of the earlier T-72s is insane.
And I thoroughly believe the frontal hull cheeks (left and right side of driver) is the same as the turret and shouldn’t be penned.
AND for what I think is the most important, the tank should not explode if an ammo bag is hit. They are in armoured storage bins and the ammo bags burn (80% chance of burning) if they are hit, not explode HOWEVER they added a glycol wet mixture to the ammo bins so when the bin is damage it releases the mixture smothering the charge bags so they shouldn’t even burn or explode at all. If they do catch fire it’s contained within that bin and can last hours before exploding. Tests in 60/70s show 10h of burning before any explosion.
1 Like
The stowage method primarily serves to delay catastrophic detonation so that the crew has enough time to bail from the vehicle under relative safety.
It’s fine that Gaijin treats it as a detonation, because the vehicle is knocked out of action anyways.
Source?
Also source?
1 Like
Funniest shit of one of british politics noted this to be T-72B3 xD
(EDIT: NVM IT"S WORSE THAN THAT)
Considering this is Rheinmetall’s footage firing the new smoothbore 120mm gun, it’s obviously not the testing Jack was talking about, which he states was for the L27 round. i.e fired from the old rifled gun and completely unrelated to the image you posted
Obviously, this is just to mock the british since one guy (UK Consultant on KNDS) on twitter stated DM63 was fired at T-72B3 while the very own video of that happening shows only T-72M
1 Like
Oh it was Drummond?
Man’s a moron. Carry on 😄
Yep, that one
That isn’t correct, the Challenger 2 doesn’t use glycol in the charge bins, and it is unfortunately not immune to ammunition explosions.
When Chieftain entered service in the 1960s it was armed with APDS ammunition, the charges for which which used a propellant known as NQ. On Chieftain these charges were stored charge bins containing pressurised glycol. The idea was that if spalling or a low energy projectile penetrated the charge bin the glycol would flood into the charges and try to prevent or reduce the ensuing fire. It was acknowledged at the time that a direct impact from a high energy projectile could in theory cause an NQ charge to detonate, rather than burn, in spite of the glycol, but this is never known to have happened.
This charge bin arrangement was carried forward into Challenger 1 Mk 1 & 2. Then in the early 1980 the L23A1 APFSDS ammunition was introduced into service Chieftain and later Challenger 1, this used a more powerful, but also much more unstable propellant known as AX.
In 1983/84 it was decided to conduct trials on the vulnerability of AX charges. It was discovered that if an AX charge was penetrated by even small fragments it would violently detonate on almost all occasions, in turn causing all the other charges in the vehicle to detonate. As a result of the charge bin detonation the tank would “disintegrate completely” with “parts distributed over several hundred meters”.
As a result of this discovery it was decided that the old glycol filled charge bins were no longer fit for purpose. The glycol charge bins were therefore replaced with armoured charge bins in later models of the Chieftain and the Challenger 1 Mk 3 (a number of CR1 Mk2’s were also retrofitted). The idea being that if you cannot stop the charge from detonating when penetrated all you can do is reduce the risk of penetration. It was still accepted however that a direct hit from a projectile (as opposed to spalling / fragments) would penetrate the armoured charge bin and destroy the tank.
As a result it was decided to cease development of CX (a new propellant with the same vulnerability issues as AX) and phase out the use of AX propellant in favour of DX. DX was more likely to burn rather than detonate when hit, but could still detonate if hit with enough energy.
The Challenger 2 is fitted with armoured charge bins and uses ammunition which utilises DX propellant. So if the charge bin is penetrated the charges will either burn or detonate, if it’s the former then the crew will want to get the hell out of the tank as quickly as possible, and if it’s the latter they’ll probably be dead.
7 Likes
So why do we see so many current serving and ex-serving tank crew saying they still use the Glycol Mixture? Theres another topic on here somewhere stating the challenger uses Glycol wet mixture still, if i remember although it was months ago they provided sources and diagrams for it.