Without trying besides hard with the introduction, I apologize in advance for the last very low activity on the site, which was caused by both individual matters and writing articles for another needs. Nevertheless, I do not intend to quit my blog activity, although I do not exclude that articles will appear here little frequently than before. So I will now decision on to today's topic. Very interesting things came from the Swedes. 1 FMV worker accidentally declassified information from the Swedish tender for the successor of the celebrated Stridsvagn 103. In this tender the Americans from M1A2 Abrams, Germany with Leopards 2A4 and 2 Improved and the French with the fresh AMX Leclerc at the time, as well as the anticipation of a direct comparison of the above tanks with the T-80U and the well-known T-72M1 which went to Sweden from East Germany. As a consequence of the trials, the winner was Leopard, who entered the equipment of the Swedish army under the designation Stridsvagn 121 (i.e. Leopard 2A4) and Stridsvagn 122 (Leopard 2 Improved). Although this presentation is almost 6 years old, it is only now that the Swedish have leaked delicate data. There's a lot more out there, but I think you'll find it interesting:
These are the parameters of the immunity of the M1A2 Abrams tank armor, which was then put up for tender in Sweden. He lost there to a German very distant cousin and 1 of the parameters Abrams was expected to yield to Leopard was armor. With the Swedes, we already know what armor was mentioned in M1. At this point, however, it must be added that these are Abrams parameters from Export Armor Package (i.e. the export version), alternatively than Abrams from dense Armor Package (used in the American Army). specified U.S. Abrams sells to all abroad customers and specified a package is most likely independent of what kind of client these tanks are sold to - whether it is Iraq or Australia's more friendly. We, too, if we were curious in buying an M1, would receive an armored tank from the Americans. Therefore, in analysing the above graphics, it can be noted that Abrams's export armour is much weaker than could have been assumed. The values are very akin to what the M1 versions developed in the first half of the 1980s offered. - they usage a composite armor called Burlington (also known as Chobham) as armor. For comparison, modern Abrams usage the already mentioned EAP and HAP, but this information may prove that EAP is de facto the old Burlington. In addition, the opposition offered by fuel tanks of 700 mm thickness, located just behind the hull's front armor, has not been taken into account. Taking into account their M1A2 armour level, the EAP is as follows: - hull front (fuel tanks) - 455 mm RHA vs APFSDS, 1065 mm RHA vs HEAT - hull front (weakened region in front of driver) - 350 mm RHA vs APFSDS, 750 mm RHA vs HEAT - hull front (top plate) - most likely 350 mm RHA vs APFSDS and HEAT - hull sides - 80 mm RHA vs APFSDS, 380 mm RHA vs HEAT - Tower front - 600 mm RHA vs APFSDS, 900 mm RHA vs HEAT - Tower sides (at the tallness of the basket) - 480 mm RHA vs APFSDS, 750 mm RHA vs HEAT - Tower sides (at the tallness of the ammunition warehouse) - 380 mm RHA vs HEAT For the 1990s, M1A2 Abrams in the export version was nevertheless a very well-armoured tank against threats from PPK and anti-tank grenade launchers, however, the hull armor left much to want for the then utilized kinetic anti-tank missiles. The armoring of the hull front at the level of 455 mm RHA (meaning de facto comparable to Tough and worse than Pendecar for the same sphere) does not defend Abrams from an effective hit with 3BM44 Mango, which is the primary T-64 and T-72 anti-tank rocket east of Bug for 3 decades. As far as the tower is concerned, this 1 would only quit erstwhile hitting with newer 125 mm caliber missiles (the families of the Pig and the Vacuum). On the another hand, Abrams' armor (even export) against cumulative missiles is effective adequate against all existing anti-tank measures of russian origin in the 1990s (the leading ones are RPG-29 and Metys-M). However, at present specified armor would not defend against hitting from Cornet or fresh dense anti-tank grenade launchers specified as RPG-30. But that armor wasn't designed against them either. The very good armor of the sides of the tower, which is definitely an evenant (on the plus side) among the primary tanks of the 1990s, is besides a very hard nut to crack for 85 and 100 mm caliber ammunition, which at the end of the Cold War formed the basis for arming armored troops and anti-tank artillery of the states of the Warsaw Pact. The word for digression can be seen that contrary to the appearance of PT-91 hard was not in the 1990s as badly armored tank as could be judged. True, at the time the peculiar contribution was based on sand cartridges and glass fibre, effects on the plus generated reactive armor ERAWA, and the rear part of the cast tower is 1 large weakened zone, capable of penetrating 25 and 30 mm caliber shells, but inactive our designers were able to keep up with their own means and capabilities at the time of planet trends in MBT armor. After all, only 1 of the many parameters determining the superiority of 1 armored structure above others was raised here, so the uncovering that Abrams is simply a bugle will be besides far-reaching and lying. It can be seen that Swedes are highly tolerant not only of spiritual and sexual minorities, but besides of top secret information. So thank you, Captain Sweden. * Oh, my God * In fact, a presentation with delicate data disappeared from the net a week after its publication in May 2016. Just like the author. But there's nothing missing on the Internet.
