Only mentioning is not enough, developers need to know what it looks like and where it is located so they can implement it.
Only sources 2-5 in that report are actually meaningful, source 1 is meaningless, and developers do not prefer Russian documentation for NATO tanks, they used Swedish test documentation
It is located in the modular armour package. We can’t know anymore than this without physical access to one of those armour modules.
So will official government data be ignored?
Do you know of Swedish test results that are better than Russian data? There was even an actual ballistic test.
Developers based on this material when implementing NATO tanks.
Turrets use the same composite armor as hulls, there is no reason they have better factors, This was the same for the UK evaluation.
The Swedish trials used an early prototype of the Leclerc and an M1A2 Abrams without DU armour. All sources give an estimation of 650-700 KE. So even though the Swedish trials used an early prototype, these figures would still confirm the estimations we have presented.
I misspoke. A Leclerc in which its development had not matured would be more accurate than an ‘early prototype’. Nevertheless, what was used in the Swedish trials was not a final product.
All but the US in that test used the same composite armor as the domestic version, and the UK evaluations highlighted a significant lack of KE protection.
Also, there is no early composite, the configuration is the same all the way up to SXXI. Even the SXXI has the same configuration except for the titanium plates.
All sources give an estimation of 650-700 KE. These figures would still confirm the estimations we have presented. There is even a spot of green on the turret in the graphs. The hull armour is not even presented in the Swedish trials’ data and it would probably be closer to 700 KE given its more uniform shape.
Additionally, we must consider this source:
This is from a reputable Polish magazine which states that the Leclerc in the Swedish trials was plagued with issues and when the Leclerc’s armour was tested by the UAE (a nation which used a final product) it was able to withstand an APFSDS round otherwise capable of penetrating 640mm of RHA at 2000m. This would fall in line with the 650-700mm KE. I can add this source to the bug report if you would like.
“All but the US”
I didn’t read it properly, my bad:)
Last I knew the Swedish conducted the trial with an early version of the Leclerc that was considered a preproduction.
Photo for the armor test was taken on April 20, 1993, It’s hard to call it an early version
Sorry I might be off topic right now but even if we don’t have better composite armor value… where are the titanium plates for ghe SXXI
I apologise for this bluntness. But I find it very egregious of you to claim that you are more knowledgeable about the specificities of a tank than qualified experts and engineers, some of whom whose job it was to assess the capabilities of foreign tanks for the Russian government.
At the end of the day, you have no certain way of knowing whether what the Swedish tested was used in the final product.
It is the developer’s decision not to use Russian sources for NATO vehicles, if you want to change it, please find a non-Russian source
What of the Polish source that I have included in my previous reply?
Also, are NATO sources not used for Russian tanks?
So the Russian source that says that it’s integrated into the modular armor, is considered not good enough? Because we’re back to the fact that the MoD won’t allow statements that come out and give the specifics.
We already have a possible composition of the splinter lining that isn’t in Russia. So you’re just gatekeeping the report because we can’t give a non-Russian source for that specific part of the report…
That test mentioned in the magazine doesn’t explain under what conditions the rounds were protected, which is a similar situation in Japan, where there are differences in interpretation between developers and users as to what conditions were tested.
Only used if NATO countries have actually evaluated Russian vehicles. Not used if it is an estimate.
How are they integrated? What is the size of the lining? What is the shape? If we don’t know any of this and just forward a report that says the lining exists, developers will reject report.
If it’s integrated common sense dictates that it has at least the same coverage as the composite.
Because we’re back to the fact that the requirements are so strict for something that’s classified. We can only give details that can best reflect what it actually is.
weren’t link provided which said 35% improved protection
Is it possible to get a response from the developers on the validity of the sources and their concerns with it?
You still have not responded to this: