Turkish designed and made MBT Altay displayed. Here's the video.

[Beny Karachun]

It has its flaws- frontal hull armor is flat, any modern tank will be able to kill its crew
Cannon breach is flat- a simple shell will render the tank useless
It cannot fire ATGMs, it cannot defend itself from top attack ATGMs with its in development AKKOR APS, Its only advantage against *part* of modern tanks is its speed.

 

[Beny Karachun]

@cabatli_53 , where are you savior? This Hurshid clown multiplied like a bacteria on forum again.

What?

 

[Penguin]

It has its flaws- frontal hull armor is flat, any modern tank will be able to kill its crew

Have you looked at images fo the French LeClerc mbt at all? Or the South Korean K2? Or the Japanese Type 90? They all suck, right?

Cannon breach is flat- a simple shell will render the tank useless

The cannon breach is on the inside of the vehicle. Were you perhaps referring to the gun mantlet?

I notice a whole bunch of modern tanks with (relatively) flat mantlets... Leo2, Type 90, LeClerc, K1, K2, Abrams. But these all suck, right?

It cannot fire ATGMs,

Sure it can. If you choose Lahat as an option (has nothing to do with the tank, just uses a gun barrel to launch, and a few additions to the tank systems. Likewise, the RUssian manage to put 9K116-1 Bastion not just in their 100mm cannon (T-55) but also on their 115mm cannon (T-62) called 9K116-2 Sheksna. The 9M117 missiles were identical, as in the towed version; however, the 115 mm version had additional guiding rings. How hard do you think it would be to find a way to make a russian cannon launched ATGW compatible with a NATO 120mm cannon?

But seriously. Neither can Abrams, or Challenger or Leopard 2, so those all suck, right?

it cannot defend itself from top attack ATGMs with its in development AKKOR APS,

If so, then Iron Fist sucks just as badly.

Its only advantage against *part* of modern tanks is its speed.

And that's why Merkava 4 has a big as US licence built copy of a German 1500 hp tank engine, to get it's top road speed up to 64 km/h. Mk 1 and Mk2 managed 50km/h...

LeClerc and Leo2 and M1A1 do 72km/h (M1A2 is slower).
Altay does 70 as does RoK K2 and Japan's Type 90 and Type 10.

 

[Penguin]

Here's how flat mk 4 Merkava turret really is, under modular shell.

 

[50cent]

cabatali can u post its thermal camera result I mean stills from altay thermal camera view

 

[Beny Karachun]

Have you looked at images fo the French LeClerc mbt at all? Or the South Korean K2? Or the Japanese Type 90? They all suck, right?

The cannon breach is on the inside of the vehicle. Were you perhaps referring to the gun mantlet?

I notice a whole bunch of modern tanks with (relatively) flat mantlets... Leo2, Type 90, LeClerc, K1, K2, Abrams. But these all suck, right?

Sure it can. If you choose Lahat as an option (has nothing to do with the tank, just uses a gun barrel to launch, and a few additions to the tank systems. Likewise, the RUssian manage to put 9K116-1 Bastion not just in their 100mm cannon (T-55) but also on their 115mm cannon (T-62) called 9K116-2 Sheksna. The 9M117 missiles were identical, as in the towed version; however, the 115 mm version had additional guiding rings. How hard do you think it would be to find a way to make a russian cannon launched ATGW compatible with a NATO 120mm cannon?

But seriously. Neither can Abrams, or Challenger or Leopard 2, so those all suck, right?


If so, then Iron Fist sucks just as badly.

And that's why Merkava 4 has a big as US licence built copy of a German 1500 hp tank engine, to get it's top road speed up to 64 km/h. Mk 1 and Mk2 managed 50km/h...

LeClerc and Leo2 and M1A1 do 72km/h (M1A2 is slower).
Altay does 70 as does RoK K2 and Japan's Type 90 and Type 10.

Armor wise, those tanks suck! Not sloping the armor makes the tank heavier and not as efficient as a sloped one.
Don't think that if a tank is American or Japanese or French or just called as a modern tank is good.

Yes, I meant the gun manlet.

The Leopard 2A4 sucks armor wise, but the A5 and higher? they are excellent from the front


The AKKOR is a copy of the Iron Fist, and the Iron Fist wasn't good enough for the Israeli army, they chose the Trophy, which is better in any way.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Here's how flat mk 4 Merkava turret really is, under modular shell.

UNDER the modular shell, you wont see one going to the battlefield without it.
And the second picture its without any armor, there is the turret cover itself, made out of wood, they out more armor on it, and then the shell.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Have you looked at images fo the French LeClerc mbt at all? Or the South Korean K2? Or the Japanese Type 90? They all suck, right?

The cannon breach is on the inside of the vehicle. Were you perhaps referring to the gun mantlet?

I notice a whole bunch of modern tanks with (relatively) flat mantlets... Leo2, Type 90, LeClerc, K1, K2, Abrams. But these all suck, right?

Sure it can. If you choose Lahat as an option (has nothing to do with the tank, just uses a gun barrel to launch, and a few additions to the tank systems. Likewise, the RUssian manage to put 9K116-1 Bastion not just in their 100mm cannon (T-55) but also on their 115mm cannon (T-62) called 9K116-2 Sheksna. The 9M117 missiles were identical, as in the towed version; however, the 115 mm version had additional guiding rings. How hard do you think it would be to find a way to make a russian cannon launched ATGW compatible with a NATO 120mm cannon?

But seriously. Neither can Abrams, or Challenger or Leopard 2, so those all suck, right?


If so, then Iron Fist sucks just as badly.

And that's why Merkava 4 has a big as US licence built copy of a German 1500 hp tank engine, to get it's top road speed up to 64 km/h. Mk 1 and Mk2 managed 50km/h...

LeClerc and Leo2 and M1A1 do 72km/h (M1A2 is slower).
Altay does 70 as does RoK K2 and Japan's Type 90 and Type 10.

Oh, and also, the Merkava isn't designed to drive on the road, but on ruff terrain.

 

[Penguin]

Armor wise, those tanks suck! Not sloping the armor makes the tank heavier and not as efficient as a sloped one.

While it is true that the more angled an armor plate, the thicker is it to the incomping round.

Which is why on e.g. the Leo2 the left and right front turret armor is angled backwards, but stands up straight. much like on Abrams. Challenger armor also angles backward that way but in addition 'leans back' i.e. angles in 2 directions . So, angling is used on these tanks.

You should furthermore recall that you got those chunky designs such as Abrams and Leo2 and Challenger due to the advent of difficult to form composite compound (rather than spaced) armors (e.g. Burlington, Chobham, Dorchester in UK. See http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.nl/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html ). Inside these chunky armor blocks, there are a variety of armor plates - sometimes of varying materials and sometimes with filler material between the plates - placed at an angle. So, same as with the Merkava 4 turret, outside looks can be deceiving.

The original Leo2 prototype (still using spaced armor rather then compound composite armor)

Merkava modular armor 'insides'

Multiple spaced armor versus multiple layer composite compound armor.

Challenger 2 turret without its Dorchester armor modules bolted on

Don't think that if a tank is American or Japanese or French or just called as a modern tank is good.

Really? My, I always though they were. Silly me.

Yes, I meant the gun manlet.

Just checking to see we are on the same page.

The Leopard 2A4 sucks armor wise, but the A5 and higher? they are excellent from the front

A5 and higher are all in principal upgraded A4s. That is, underneath the new wedge shape outer look of Leo 2 A5 is still the same basic vehicle. It just has a bit of spaced armor added on.

See http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/

These spaced armour modules defeat a hollow charge prior to reaching the base armour, and causes kinetic-energy penetrators to change direction, eroding them in the process; it does not form a shot trap, since it does not deflect the penetrators outwards to hit the hull or turret ring.

The 2A7+ has modular add on armon on turret front and sides, and hull front and sides, for better protection in ubran settings.

The AKKOR is a copy of the Iron Fist, and the Iron Fist wasn't good enough for the Israeli army, they chose the Trophy, which is better in any way.

It is actually not the whole story. The Israeli MOD didn't have a preference for Trophy. Rather, it wanted Iron Fist and Trophy combined into one system and Rafael was to lead that effort but IMI didn't want to be subordinated to Rafel and so quit. This has very little to do with the qualities of the systems in queston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)

US Army Selected IMI Systems' APS Technology
The Iron Fist Light (IF-L) Technology, developed by the Israeli company, was selected for key elements of the Modular Active Protection Systems Layered Demonstrator
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/us-army-selected-imi-systems-aps-technology

US Army Testing Israeli Trophy System
The US Army realized the need for an active defense system. Hence, examining Rafael's Trophy system
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/us-army-testing-israeli-trophy-system

Iron fist can't be all that much poorer than Trpohy then, can it?

 

[Penguin]

UNDER the modular shell, you wont see one going to the battlefield without it.
And the second picture its without any armor, there is the turret cover itself, made out of wood, they out more armor on it, and then the shell.

You don't have to attempt to explain modular armor to me.
However, I was unaware wood was used in the Merkava.

Oh, and also, the Merkava isn't designed to drive on the road, but on ruff terrain.

Oh, and Leo2 or Ariete or Abrams etc were designed just for asphalt roads and smooth terrain? Come on.

Would you agree power to weight ratio has something to do with max road speed?
(27hp/t for Leo2 / Abrams and 23hp/t for Merkava 4 and <20 hp/t for Challenger 2)

For max terrain speed, the quality of the suspension also counts. Merkava has modelled on the Chieftain/Challenger suspension. That too is a tank not so fast on road but nimble in the field.

I believe the Challenger does 40km/h and Leo2 does 45km/h in terrain and the Abrams 48km/h versus 55km/h for Merkava 4, Ariete and LeClerc.

 

[Beny Karachun]

While it is true that the more angled an armor plate, the thicker is it to the incomping round.

Which is why on e.g. the Leo2 the left and right front turret armor is angled backwards, but stands up straight. much like on Abrams. Challenger armor also angles backward that way but in addition 'leans back' i.e. angles in 2 directions . So, angling is used on these tanks.

You should furthermore recall that you got those chunky designs such as Abrams and Leo2 and Challenger due to the advent of difficult to form composite compound (rather than spaced) armors (e.g. Burlington, Chobham, Dorchester in UK. See http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.nl/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html ). Inside these chunky armor blocks, there are a variety of armor plates - sometimes of varying materials and sometimes with filler material between the plates - placed at an angle. So, same as with the Merkava 4 turret, outside looks can be deceiving.

The original Leo2 prototype (still using spaced armor rather then compound composite armor)

Merkava modular armor 'insides'

Multiple spaced armor versus multiple layer composite compound armor.

Challenger 2 turret without its Dorchester armor modules bolted on

Really? My, I always though they were. Silly me.



Just checking to see we are on the same page.


A5 and higher are all in principal upgraded A4s. That is, underneath the new wedge shape outer look of Leo 2 A5 is still the same basic vehicle. It just has a bit of spaced armor added on.

See http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/

These spaced armour modules defeat a hollow charge prior to reaching the base armour, and causes kinetic-energy penetrators to change direction, eroding them in the process; it does not form a shot trap, since it does not deflect the penetrators outwards to hit the hull or turret ring.

The 2A7+ has modular add on armon on turret front and sides, and hull front and sides, for better protection in ubran settings.

It is actually not the whole story. The Israeli MOD didn't have a preference for Trophy. Rather, it wanted Iron Fist and Trophy combined into one system and Rafael was to lead that effort but IMI didn't want to be subordinated to Rafel and so quit. This has very little to do with the qualities of the systems in queston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)

US Army Selected IMI Systems' APS Technology
The Iron Fist Light (IF-L) Technology, developed by the Israeli company, was selected for key elements of the Modular Active Protection Systems Layered Demonstrator
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/us-army-selected-imi-systems-aps-technology

US Army Testing Israeli Trophy System
The US Army realized the need for an active defense system. Hence, examining Rafael's Trophy system
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/us-army-testing-israeli-trophy-system

Iron fist can't be all that much poorer than Trpohy then, can it?

"Which is why on e.g. the Leo2 the left and right front turret armor is angled backwards, but stands up straight. much like on Abrams. Challenger armor also angles backward that way but in addition 'leans back' i.e. angles in 2 directions . So, angling is used on these tanks."
the Leopard 2A4 turret "cheeks" are thick, but where the gun is at, the armor is very thin for modern APFSDS rounds, just 420mm LOS

I am not complaining really about the Challenger 2 or the Abrams, I am more complaining about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4, Type 90 and such
look at their hulls, its completely flat, 90 degrees, easily penetrated

"You should furthermore recall that you got those chunky designs such as Abrams and Leo2 and Challenger due to the advent of difficult to form composite compound (rather than spaced) armors (e.g. Burlington, Chobham, Dorchester in UK. See http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.nl/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html ). Inside these chunky armor blocks, there are a variety of armor plates - sometimes of varying materials and sometimes with filler material between the plates - placed at an angle. So, same as with the Merkava 4 turret, outside looks can be deceiving."
I would like to see that other than with the Challenger 2.
I talked about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4 and the Type 90. the Abrams and Challenger designs are fine.
After the projectile (ATGM for example) explodes, it will penetrate everything it touches
The point of angled armor "from the start" and without a flat armor and then angled plates inside is to make the missile bounce off the target (Which is unlikely) , or moving it to a degree that will do nothing.

"A5 and higher are all in principal upgraded A4s. That is, underneath the new wedge shape outer look of Leo 2 A5 is still the same basic vehicle. It just has a bit of spaced armor added on."
the A5's armor is much better, that's the only bad thing about the A4 when it was created, its armor wasn't angled well.

"It is actually not the whole story. The Israeli MOD didn't have a preference for Trophy. Rather, it wanted Iron Fist and Trophy combined into one system and Rafael was to lead that effort but IMI didn't want to be subordinated to Rafel and so quit. This has very little to do with the qualities of the systems in queston."
Yes, it did have a preference for the Trophy on the tanks, as it could destroy many missiles at once, had more elevation and had faster reaction, the Iron Fist was a "lower grade" APS, designed more for lighter vehicles, as the Trophy was more expensive and heavier.

the US Army already ordered the Iron Fist, just 2 days ago.

the point of trophy is to insure 100% protection against many missiles at once and against top attack missiles, also telling the tank where it was shot from.

 

[Barbaros]

"Which is why on e.g. the Leo2 the left and right front turret armor is angled backwards, but stands up straight. much like on Abrams. Challenger armor also angles backward that way but in addition 'leans back' i.e. angles in 2 directions . So, angling is used on these tanks."
the Leopard 2A4 turret "cheeks" are thick, but where the gun is at, the armor is very thin for modern APFSDS rounds, just 420mm LOS

I am not complaining really about the Challenger 2 or the Abrams, I am more complaining about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4, Type 90 and such
look at their hulls, its completely flat, 90 degrees, easily penetrated

"You should furthermore recall that you got those chunky designs such as Abrams and Leo2 and Challenger due to the advent of difficult to form composite compound (rather than spaced) armors (e.g. Burlington, Chobham, Dorchester in UK. See http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.nl/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html ). Inside these chunky armor blocks, there are a variety of armor plates - sometimes of varying materials and sometimes with filler material between the plates - placed at an angle. So, same as with the Merkava 4 turret, outside looks can be deceiving."
I would like to see that other than with the Challenger 2.
I talked about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4 and the Type 90. the Abrams and Challenger designs are fine.
After the projectile (ATGM for example) explodes, it will penetrate everything it touches
The point of angled armor "from the start" and without a flat armor and then angled plates inside is to make the missile bounce off the target (Which is unlikely) , or moving it to a degree that will do nothing.

"A5 and higher are all in principal upgraded A4s. That is, underneath the new wedge shape outer look of Leo 2 A5 is still the same basic vehicle. It just has a bit of spaced armor added on."
the A5's armor is much better, that's the only bad thing about the A4 when it was created, its armor wasn't angled well.

"It is actually not the whole story. The Israeli MOD didn't have a preference for Trophy. Rather, it wanted Iron Fist and Trophy combined into one system and Rafael was to lead that effort but IMI didn't want to be subordinated to Rafel and so quit. This has very little to do with the qualities of the systems in queston."
Yes, it did have a preference for the Trophy on the tanks, as it could destroy many missiles at once, had more elevation and had faster reaction, the Iron Fist was a "lower grade" APS, designed more for lighter vehicles, as the Trophy was more expensive and heavier.

the US Army already ordered the Iron Fist, just 2 days ago.

the point of trophy is to insure 100% protection against many missiles at once and against top attack missiles, also telling the tank where it was shot from.

What a typical Israeli prick, stuck in their 90's rhetorics, thinking they know everything.

 

[Beny Karachun]

What a typical Israeli prick, stuck in their 90's rhetorics, thinking they know everything.

I know more than you Turkish cunt, go back to your country

 

[Penguin]

I am not complaining really about the Challenger 2 or the Abrams, I am more complaining about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4, Type 90 and such
look at their hulls, its completely flat, 90 degrees, easily penetrated

As you can see from the already posted image below, Leo2 front hull isn't 'flat'. It is an complete insert of compound laminate armor. As you can see, it is not a square box, but a shaped item. You have no idea how it looks on the inside. The image below also shows that the turret front actuall is angled, in 1 dimension. This type of armor in not there to deflect rounds (and there for not angled for that purpose) but to stop rounds. It's superior stopping power against heat or APFSDS penetrators comes from the composition of the armor (e.g. whether it uses layers of DU or tungsten or other, and what's beteween the layers) , not its thickness per se (which is what is affected by angling).

I talked about the Leclerc, Leopard 2A4 and the Type 90. the Abrams and Challenger designs are fine.

Both Abrams and Leo2 use the British Chobham/Burlington armor. Some Abrams also have DU.

Leo2 mantlet: 420mm armor block + 240mm light alloys mounted frame for gun + around mounted points between 80 and (mostly) ~230mm RHA metal plates. Thanks for this solution whole gun mantled mask area where protected well against early 1980s . Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2A4 is 420mm (42cm) thick and it has multilayered build. It's weight is equal 620kg.
APFSDS and HEAT munitions penetration this area by 3BM15 or early BK-15 round was rather questionable, and low possible to achieve. Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask was immune against BMP-1 main armament 2A28 Grom low pressure gun whit HEAT rounds, and Maliutka ATGM.
Physical thickness of the loaders turret part frontal armor is incredible (in the end of the 1970s) 860mm LOS. Armor back plate (metal plate ending whole special armor cavity) is made from 60mm RHA plate made from high hardness steel, frontal plate is probably the same thick. Between them is cavity (circa 740mm) for special armor module. This special armor module can by quickly replaced by cutting upper (roof) plate and change whole module. Similar process takes in 1991 in M1 Abrams case circa 30 min for one module (one box whit special armor module inside).

Such big thickness was necessary due to Burlington style special armor features -this kind of the armor needs a lot of space. 860mm LOS thickness was the biggest on whole world until M1A1 went in to service in the end of the 1980s.

The tank commander is protected by 660mm thick special armor block in front of his face. Now this area (behind EMES-15 main sight optics block) is consist as weak area but in almost whole 1980s is hard to agree with such statement 660mm LOS is space bigger then in most tank's in those era (except M1 Abrams) and should allow (by using more heavy armor components) to achieve similar to the left side (loaders) protection.

Thickness of the armor in front of the gunner position is the same as on the left turret side so 860mm but whit different layout: the first armor cavity gap for EMES-15 and WBG-X components the second armor cavity. So whole thickens is close to 1100 mm (110cm) including this gap.

Crew compartment turret sides are protected by 310 mm thick armor, so for 30 degree from turret longitude axis it's give almost 620mm LOS protection what was pretty big value in whole 1980s. Now such value seems to be not enough and Leopard-2A5 have NERA modules on turret sides, and almost all available Leopard-2A4 modernizations consists additional armor module for better protection of this area which doubled it's thickness.

Hull frontal armor is protected by 640 mm LOS thick special armor module. Only in it's the lower part it have smaller thickness circa 400 mm. Such value was more then enough to achieve significant protection in 1980s, but in 1990s all Leopard-2 modernization consist (except German ones) additional NERA armor to protect frontal hull armor.

Upper glacis plate is 40mm thick and slopped at 7 degree (so 320 mm RHA). Such slopped and height hardness RHA plates was more the enough against 1980s APFSDS ammo and imperfect HEAT warhead igniters (detonators) due to rebound. But introduce in 1990s long-rods and improved igniters in HEAT warhead forced cover this area in almost all Leopard-2 modernization (except German ones) by thick NERA modules (Leopard-2A5DK, Strv.122, Leopard-2A6E/HEL, etc).

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm

Abrams turret side.

the A5's armor is much better, that's the only bad thing about the A4 when it was created, its armor wasn't angled well.

You still don't get it: It was angled to the extent that that kind of armor could be angled. You can continue to repeat that the armor wasn't angled well but you still haven't provided any documentation to support your claim that the armor is poor (for that or another reason) compared to contemporary tanks and you haven't put forward any supported suggestion of how it could have been angled differently. So, my conclusion remains: you don't get it and the 'easily penetrated' claim only holds if you put a 1980s Leo2A4 against an MBT with todays ammunitions. In short: bs.

Yes, it did have a preference for the Trophy on the tanks, as it could destroy many missiles at once, had more elevation and had faster reaction, the Iron Fist was a "lower grade" APS, designed more for lighter vehicles, as the Trophy was more expensive and heavier.

Support your claims with source references, for starters.

the point of trophy is to insure 100% protection against many missiles at once and against top attack missiles, also telling the tank where it was shot from.

And if Iron Fist was designed before those criteria came into place, naturally it would not be able to meet those criteria. A moving objective is not the same as system flaw.

You apparently are unwilling to look at and consider the intercompany rivalries here. Fine, that's your prerogative.

Gents, mind the language. I would prefer civilized discussion on content.

 

[Natan]

The Israeli MOD didn't have a preference for Trophy. Rather, it wanted Iron Fist and Trophy combined into one system and Rafael was to lead that effort but IMI didn't want to be subordinated to Rafel and so quit.

It is still somewhere down the road, not too far. As IMI no longer being IMI, but rather IMI Systems LTD that is going to be sold to Elbit, apparently.