Most beautiful/ugly AFV?

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Yet almost all modern tanks have these "shot traps". Why is that?

The answer is that the velocity of modern APFSDS rounds are so high that they hardly ever ricochet - they either penetrate or shatter regardless of the angle of the armor. Plus, there isn't much to those wedges of armor - they serve to disrupt incoming rounds before they hit the main armor of the turret. Fin rounds go right through the outer shell.

From the Leo 2.

1638809328518.png


Here's a discussion on the matter.

Why do many modern tanks have shot traps?

Sloped armor was valuable since AP rounds would ricochet and HEAT rounds wouldn't fuse. Modern ammo is designed to defeat highly sloped armor, which is why the LEO 2 has an angular turret - it just wasn't seen as necessary.

1638810058963.png
 
Last edited:
Quick tale, Cyclops 2RTR trialed the S Tank in the early 70s. We weren’t too impressed. But as you say quite pretty!
There's a report from the trials conducted by 2RTR. (Need to have a brows on the interweb thingy).

If I remember correctly they used it as they would use a Chieftain/Centurion in BAOR when the tank was designed for the tight passes in Sweden.

Maybe an ideal tank for the Swiss as well but they were using the Centurion.
 
One comment on the s tank was that repeated firing from the same spot churned up the ground to an unacceptable extent. Because of the lack of even a limited traverse of the gun, the tank had to repeatedly move left and right and this added wear to the running gear.
 
There's a report from the trials conducted by 2RTR. (Need to have a brows on the interweb thingy).

If I remember correctly they used it as they would use a Chieftain/Centurion in BAOR when the tank was designed for the tight passes in Sweden.

Maybe an ideal tank for the Swiss as well but they were using the Centurion.
One comment on the s tank was that repeated firing from the same spot churned up the ground to an unacceptable extent. Because of the lack of even a limited traverse of the gun, the tank had to repeatedly move left and right and this added wear to the running gear.
I once had a yarn with one of our old’n’bold about the S trials. A few things stood out that determined it wasn’t a good fit for the northern German plains.
As pointed out, unless it was on a pre-prepared pad, it could dig its self in and put a lot of strain on the running gear.
Another problem that raised its head, was cross country driving. You had to drive in a slightly nose up attitude, as the barrel could stick itself into a bank.
Two things also stood out but from one source, the gas turbine main engine. The Chieftains IR could see them from miles away, heat signature was horrendous! The other, hot starts. Unless it was allowed to cool for around 15 min, the thing didn’t want to fire up. Not good if you need to bug out and stall it.
In their report, the Swedes weren’t very complementary about us, as they were hoping for sales. It would have been good down south in the Hertz mountains/ Black Forest.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
That fcuking shot trap is HUGE!!!!!! bounce a round off that lower mantlet armour and into the top of the hull.....job done.
Have you considered what type of armour it might be?

Look at the turrets of later Leopard 2s. They too have an arrowhead-shaped turret. (Hint: it's not solid but laminate.)


ETA: Just seen #264.
 

Proff3RTR

War Hero
Have you considered what type of armour it might be?

Look at the turrets of later Leopard 2s. They too have an arrowhead-shaped turret. (Hint: it's not solid but laminate.)


ETA: Just seen #264.
I know, but the sloped laminate armour is not the intended target you intend to hit with a shot trap, it’s the nice flattish bit of Hull top that you want to bounce your round into, the pointy bit can have all the laminate secret shit it wants, more the better if it helps ricochet your round down and into the hull top, end ex as they say.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Sloped armor was valuable since AP rounds would ricochet and HEAT rounds wouldn't fuse. Modern ammo is designed to defeat highly sloped armor, which is why the LEO 2 has an angular turret - it just wasn't seen as necessary.
Not so much that.

Sloped armour still gives you a greater armour basis - that is, thickness. The trouble is, you need lots of armour to defeat modern rounds.

Modern ceramic matrixes work best when square-on to the incoming round. You want the round to hit square.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I know, but the sloped laminate armour is not the intended target you intend to hit with a shot trap, it’s the nice flattish bit of Hull top that you want to bounce your round into, the pointy bit can have all the laminate secret shit it wants, more the better if it helps ricochet your round down and into the hull top, end ex as they say.
Unlike several here, I know what a shot trap is. You're not understanding how that arrowhead works. It's not a shot trap.

I put it to you that the Israelis are a bit good at armour design. Merkava vies with CR2 as the world's best-protected tank, and the Israelis have supplied us with armour packages. Bulldog and WRAP2 spring to mind for some reason.
 
Not so much that.

Sloped armour still gives you a greater armour basis - that is, thickness. The trouble is, you need lots of armour to defeat modern rounds.

Modern ceramic matrixes work best when square-on to the incoming round. You want the round to hit square.
True - I was giving the greatly simplified version. I find the design of armor arrays and modern penetrators to be be very fascinating, but it gets complicated very quickly.o_O
 
Far better looking than the riveted version, did we receive the cast hull version?
IIRC US use only for training and some were made into CDL's (Which did see active service at Remagen, spotting Wehrmacht combat swimmers)
 
Good point. Fortunately it's not a tank and not designed for AFV combat.
The story behind it is they converted old M60 hulls to carry the Tammuz missile system in the guise of tanks.
M60 hulls are flat plate glacis, thats got a rounded nose so M48 Based
 
APFSDS against highly angled armor - doesn’t ricochet until 83 degrees..

 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

NSP

LE
One comment on the s tank was that repeated firing from the same spot churned up the ground to an unacceptable extent. Because of the lack of even a limited traverse of the gun, the tank had to repeatedly move left and right and this added wear to the running gear.
As pointed out, unless it was on a pre-prepared pad, it could dig its self in and put a lot of strain on the running gear.
Erm, it had no traverse and was designed to use the tracks to traverse the gun and hydro-pneumatic suspension to elevate it. Also, it was equipped with a dozer blade specifically to allow itself to dig itself in and build it's own position. Ergo, the running gear was designed precisely to facilitate these things....?

Pretty much the only thing wrong with it was that it couldn't fire on the move, as far as I could tell back in my teens when I used to lap up all this technical stuff. Closed down it had a far higher acquisition and lay rate than a turreted tank such as the Leopard (which ultimately replaced it). Head-out was an entirely different matter, however, I recall reading.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top