tanks/vehicles Experimentaleintwicklung Kampfpanzer Keiler (leo 2 EARLY, EARLY prototype)

[Solid_Snake01 974]

43 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with top tier MBTs...

Besides, the Top tier SPAAGs have nothing to do with potential new top tier MBTs. Japan is lacking an SPAAG at rank V atm, and they are getting sth that fits...

Actually i think they are concerned about the Hull of the Type 87 is composite armor and the Type 87 will be consider the first tank with composite armor in the game Mai was not to happy with them putting in the Type 87 in the game.

 

On 2/13/2017 at 9:35 AM, arczer25 said:

with protection equivalent of 130mm/68 degree you can forget even using Sabot (expect for Chieftain at mid/close ranges against unangled T-64), only thing that ATM can defeat it frontal armor somewhat reliably are 600mm+pen ATGM

You do realize Gaijin will be adding the latest L7 105mm ammo to counter the T-64 right.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

17 minutes ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

You do realize Gaijin will be adding the latest L7 105mm ammo to counter the T-64 right.

 

But I want a new tank to research

 

And guess what, here it is: 

http://warthunder.com/en/news/4512-development-type-87-the-japanese-gepard-en/

Edited February 15, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with top tier MBTs...

Besides, the Top tier SPAAGs have nothing to do with potential new top tier MBTs. Japan is lacking an SPAAG at rank V atm, and they are getting sth that fits...

there where other options but gaijin decided to implement that. in the way of the samurai forum mai_waffenträger showed alternatives

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

36 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

there where other options but gaijin decided to implement that. in the way of the samurai forum mai_waffenträger showed alternatives

 

I wouldn't know about any, and I can't find Mai's post atm.

 

Anyways, considering, that APFSDS rounds may not fragment enough upon penetration, I think that the Kpz Keiler would be the best alternative to the APFSDS round-solution to potentially counter the T64.

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

You do realize Gaijin will be adding the latest L7 105mm ammo to counter the T-64 right.

 

Now that would just be complete overkill.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

3 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Now that would just be complete overkill.

M735 should be enough for the T-64 if any new ammunition must be added, as far as I know.

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Mercedes4321 said:

M735 should be enough for the T-64 if any new ammunition must be added, as far as I know.

 

It may be too much though considering it's on the same level as M111 Hetz. Should be careful with that.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

11 hours ago, Nope said:

It may be too much though considering it's on the same level as M111 Hetz. Should be careful with that.

 

Just to clarify: The M111 Hetz was developed by the Israelis after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in order to defeat T64s and T72s. Am I correct?
 

[arczer25 5,202]

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Just to clarify: The M111 Hetz was developed by the Israelis after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in order to defeat T64s and T72s. Am I correct?
 

primary issue is that T64/T72 needs to be perfect head-on (or exposing side), any additional angling can cause troubles as error margin is quite small.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

9 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

primary issue is that T64/T72 needs to be perfect head-on (or exposing side), any additional angling can cause troubles as error margin is quite small.

 

So ,the Hetz would not pen if the foe is at a slight angle?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[Solid_Snake01 974]

15 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

M735 should be enough for the T-64 if any new ammunition must be added, as far as I know.

I was thinking 105mm L7: M774 APFSDS-T Range 3000 meters  RHAe 440mm, velocity 1509

T-64 and T-64A and B has the same armor protection

 Armour Protection:
Frontal Turret Armour: 280mm-450mm vs KE, 330mm-510mm vs HEAT
Frontal Hull Armour: 200mm-340mm vs KE, 200mm-420mm vs HEAT

13 hours ago, Nope said:

 

It may be too much though considering it's on the same level as M111 Hetz. Should be careful with that.

No the depleted uranium M900 APFSDS-T is overkill with a Range of 4000 meters with RHAe 650mm and a velocity 1505.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Solid_Snake01

[Nope 10,634]

31 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

So ,the Hetz would not pen if the foe is at a slight angle?

 

That would be silly given how slope coefficients on monobloc APFSDS works as well as how compound angles work.

 

6 minutes ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

I was thinking 105mm L7: M774 APFSDS-T Range 3000 meters  RHAe 440mm, velocity 1509

T-64 and T-64A and B has the same armor protection

 Armour Protection:
Frontal Turret Armour: 280mm-450mm vs KE, 330mm-510mm vs HEAT
Frontal Hull Armour: 200mm-340mm vs KE, 200mm-420mm vs HEAT

No the depleted uranium M900 APFSDS-T is overkill with a Range of 4000 meters with RHAe 650mm and a velocity 1505.

 

I would not use those armor values first off given where they most likely come from. Nor would I use those penetration values.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

6 minutes ago, Nope said:

That would be silly given how slope coefficients on monobloc APFSDS works as well as how compound angles work.

 

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. And since that particular topic is something you can't just read up on the internet that easily, you could actually be helpful and explain, instead of being a pretencious elitist.

[arczer25 5,202]

22 minutes ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

I was thinking 105mm L7: M774 APFSDS-T Range 3000 meters  RHAe 440mm, velocity 1509

T-64 and T-64A and B has the same armor protection

 Armour Protection:
Frontal Turret Armour: 280mm-450mm vs KE, 330mm-510mm vs HEAT
Frontal Hull Armour: 200mm-340mm vs KE, 200mm-420mm vs HEAT

No the depleted uranium M900 APFSDS-T is overkill with a Range of 4000 meters with RHAe 650mm and a velocity 1505.

280-315mm on turret (a around gun mantlet

 

) and 180mm on hull armor (lower plate) are quite small areas, turret is generally ~400mm+ to immune (round cannot reach turret interior).

 

still values are not exactly accurate (T-64B don't have the same armor as T-64A/T-64), at last T-64 have around 130mm/68 effective upper front plate from that you need to evaluate slope performance of APFSDS.

 

16mm applique was enough to protect from Hetz even at short ranges.

 

20 degree compound angle give at 68 degree add 2 to 70 degree, 30 degree additional 1 (to 70)

Edited February 16, 2017 by arczer25

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. And since that particular topic is something you can't just read up on the internet that easily, you could actually be helpful and explain, instead of being a pretencious elitist.

 

I guess I could elaborate on compound angles. Basically, a plate sloped back 68 degrees from vertical with a side angle of 20 degrees will achieve... 1 degree more sloping overall. That will do nothing to increase the armor effectiveness. Combine that with my statement on monobloc penetrators and the T-64 is still butter against M111 Hetz.

 

4 hours ago, arczer25 said:

280-315mm on turret (a around gun mantlet

  Reveal hidden contents

) and 180mm on hull armor (lower plate) are quite small areas, turret is generally ~400mm+ to immune (round cannot reach turret interior).

 

still values are not exactly accurate (T-64B don't have the same armor as T-64A/T-64), at last T-64 have around 130mm/68 effective upper front plate from that you need to evaluate slope performance of APFSDS.

 

16mm applique was enough to protect from Hetz even at short ranges.

 

20 degree compound angle give at 68 degree add 2 to 70 degree, 30 degree additional 1 (to 70)

 

One thing to note is that APDS is more affected by composite armor than monobloc APFSDS.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, Nope said:

I guess I could elaborate on compound angles. Basically, a plate sloped back 68 degrees from vertical with a side angle of 20 degrees will achieve... 1 degree more sloping overall. That will do nothing to increase the armor effectiveness. Combine that with my statement on monobloc penetrators and the T-64 is still butter against M111 Hetz.

 

Thank you very much.

I take it, that the composite component, that is non RHA is not much more effective at an angle because its density is way lower?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Thank you very much.

I take it, that the composite component, that is non RHA is not much more effective at an angle because its density is way lower?

 

It doesn't work that way. What seems to add to KE resistance is by disturbing the penetrator through heterogeneous environments. An APDS projectile would go through the steel, but with STEF having different physical properties the penetrator is likely to tilt, where it is then met by another steel plate, which is made worse by the damage caused to the penetrator along with the inferior angle the penetrator is at.  It also affects APFSDS, but to a lesser degree. This is just my interpretation of how this works though.

 

However, generally a composite plate is inferior against KE compared to RHA of similar volume. However, in the case of the T-64, STEF is less dense, so obviously the composite plate would weigh less than the steel plate by a considerable margin.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Nope

[Retry 7,363]

52 minutes ago, Nope said:

However, generally a composite plate is inferior against KE compared to RHA of similar volume. However, in the case of the T-64, STEF is less dense, so obviously the composite plate would weigh less than the steel plate by a considerable margin.

Arguably, this is one reason why tanks have burgeoned in size: One needs to take up more volume (but not necessarily weight, depending on the density of the composite material) to gain sufficient protection against the current biggest threat.

[Kocyra 5,742]

Perhaps 105 keiler would be better balanced, with later APFSDS rounds to deal with T-64 or T-72 Ural

[Nope 10,634]

47 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Perhaps 105 keiler would be better balanced, with later APFSDS rounds to deal with T-64 or T-72 Ural

 

The 105mm smoothbore is not that far behind the 120mm smoothbore from what I can tell. Later APFSDS would be serious overkill.

[Kocyra 5,742]

12 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Just to clarify: The M111 Hetz was developed by the Israelis after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in order to defeat T64s and T72s. Am I correct?
 

It entered service in 1978 I believe, that's pre soviet invasion. I think it was built after yom kippur war to garuntee penetrations

2 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The 105mm smoothbore is not that far behind the 120mm smoothbore from what I can tell. Later APFSDS would be serious overkill.

Isn't the 105 an L7A3?

[Solid_Snake01 974]

13 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Perhaps 105 keiler would be better balanced, with later APFSDS rounds to deal with T-64 or T-72 Ural

That will work the T-64 has a 115mm gun anyway 105mm can still do the job.

12 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Isn't the 105 an L7A3?

Yes

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

That will work the T-64 has a 115mm gun anyway 105mm can still do the job.

Yes

 

Then we don't need a Keiler after all, the Leopard 1A3 would be almost the same vehicle. Chassis and engine are differend...

 

The main selling point of the Keiler is its gun.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[Nope 10,634]

14 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Isn't the 105 an L7A3?

 

Not in this case. The Keiler was armed with the 105mm smoothbore or 120mm smoothbore.

[Kocyra 5,742]

6 hours ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

That will work the T-64 has a 115mm gun anyway 105mm can still do the job.

Yes

 

4 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Not in this case. The Keiler was armed with the 105mm smoothbore or 120mm smoothbore.

Now I'm confused. What kind of 105 was it?