No steel apligue can be slab sided or angled, but ceramic cannot be angled. The Leo does not use ceramics the Gemrans felt it was too expensive and that HEAT rounds were not the only threat. When Chobham was invented HEAT was public enemy number 1 after Yom Kippur. Later ceramics wer eimproved to withstand KE as well as CE rounds in various ways. The US went with heavy DU alloyed rods and 2nd generation tiles, the British created a 3rd generation of ceramics.very interesting! so the merk basically features alloys and NERA? why do you think they went for this approach, and not the ceramic one? also, the leo2 is slab sided, (A4 mark) so if i read you correctly, the a4 armour was ceramic based, and you were referring to the wedge on the A5 as the steel applique, which is an add on.
Israel does not have the industry to support armored ceramics. Steel appligue is almost as effective (but heavier), cheaper, and easier to produce and work with.
Hogwash, the Abrams can hit the 2x4" post tha tholds up the gunnery targets at 2000M. Itwas an article 15 offence to do it, but there is a reason it had that penalty attached. Tankers were doing it on purpose to show case their skills. Like the special suspencion its just jingoism.well the israelis wouldnt release the actual figures, but it became a flame war on tanknet- y'know the usual US subsidizes israel and the IDF is showing off by goldplating its eqpt stuff..the key things said to make the merk3/4 FCS unique are that it actively takes into account the unique attributes of the tank itself, ie minute differences in its behaviour, historical record, and stuff like that and end result is that if you feed in these parameters, the FCS "learns" over time..the israeli tankers were categorical that it was the most advanced system of its kind, with most parameters still classified, and that it was far superior to the M1A2 FCS, and the Chally system is basically similar to the M1s, in terms of performance..so, my comment/s.
the Chally is heavier than the Abrams which accounts for the more heavily protected sides while retaining frontal protection equiv to the Abrams. But yes otherwise you understood me right Abrams- Massive frontal protection and mobility Chally- Massive all around protection Leo2- Decent protection all around and mobilitythe chally features frontal protection equivalent/ greater to abrams (bar the latest SEP) provided whom one reads..so they just made a mobile pillbox then, if i read you correctly? and the US concentrated more on frontal armour and mobility, whereas the Leo did likewise, but skimped a wee bit on armour for even more mobility..
All three were designed at around the same tiem to counter the T-72/ T-64 threat using new technology to over come numbers. But even though the national goals were similar the tactical considerations differed.