SH_MM

Most likely because the M1150 isn't designed with KE protection in mind. Passive armor seems to be limited to stop RPGs, hence the additional ERA ontop of that array. I wonder if it is identical to the turret bustle side armor of a contemporary M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP v2.

M1150 ABV armor: Edit: already posted in US armor thread by @Jackvony

Since twitter only embeds the first post of a thread for non-registered users, here's something from the Swiss evaluation of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 (1981):

So the "Leopard 3" is moving along. This is not the MGCS or Panther, but a new program (or at the moment, just a study) as a back-up to the MGCS. According to Welt, the German government has a awarded an R&D contract to Rheinmetall, but Rheinmetall itself lists the project as a joint-venture (see above)... so likely KMW is also included. Little is publkicly known about the project, but Rheinmetall CEO Papperger believes that "many" Panther technologies such as the 130 mm L52 and autoloader will find its way into it.

This was only developed for the Arjun Mk 2/later Mk 1A. Original Arjun had no CABIS.

Glorious Arjun's frontal hull armor via @Wiedzmin on Otvaga. Very T-72M1-esque.

Can't rule that out, but tanks with the same turret numbers (for example you can see the tanks numbered "107" and "108") can be seen in different parades with and without GLs/MANPADS/ATGMs. Same applies to the Ch'ŏnma.

Sŏn'gun-915 tanks. The grenade launchers were replaced by a KPVT again. MANPADS and ATGM launchers are missing as well.

No, KNDS does not say that: https://www.knds.de/en/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/main-battle-tank/leopard-2-a7/ Whoever faked that is retarded.

Again, there are so many different possibilites. Maybe D-1 is just the skirt armor (as fielded on the Leopard 2A4 tanks from the eight batches), D-2 is the add-on armor and D-3 is the internal armor. We don't know anything concrete, so seeing the existence of D-1, D-2 and D-3 as proof for there being multiple add-on packages mounted in the same place (or as proof for there being only one add-on package) doesn't make sense. I don't understand your conclusion here. If the "same protection level" is provided from "the same angle of attack", then that also would imply that the add-on armor is identical aswell, wouldn't it? I think you are refering to location number 2 on this slide, where shot #921162 against the "Swedish solution" and shot #930701 against the "German solution" provide very similar results (820 mm @ 0° and 817 mm @ 0°. But location number 1 (shot #921161 and shot #930687) also hit the frontal armor of the turret through the applique armor close to location one, yet it provided a quite significant performance difference. That just means that the armor - regardless of it being the base armor or the add-on armor - behaves differently when hit at an angle. For the other turret side (shot 7), Sweden noted an even larger performance difference, claiming that the "German solution" could only stop the 120 mm APFSDS test round and 165 mm warhead when hit directly from the front. So the left turret front might be vulnerable even at 10°. Why is does this seem "quite logical"? I cannot think of a single reason to keep the internal armor of hull and turret identical, when weight limits forbid upgrading the hull. What advantage does having the same internal armor in hull and turret provide? Why did that not matter for the Leopard 2A4 hybrids receivng the turrets of the converted hulls? As you can see on the BAAINBw's official page, the TL 2350-0000 is still valid. There even were two new editions (the last one from August 2023) since the your list was generated. It is hardly strange to have multiple editions, it is just steel (Panzerstahl, II. Generation = armor steel/RHA of the second generation). They just add new manufacturing techniques (welding techniques like e.g. laser welding) or steel grades that were developed. Steel doesn't change too much, so publishing a new TL likely makes no sense. The British DEF-STAN 95-25 for example is from WW2 (I.T.90) translated into the new document format and was used for the CR2 turret. That's from militärfahrzeuge.ch, isn't it? I remember seeing something on the official Swiss Army website that probably acted as source for militärfahrzeuge.ch. Then again, the Type C armor was directly marketed to the UK. Maybe that's when it got its name. Would be an odd way of saying. Prepared for/adapted to makes more sense. There is nothing suggesting that the "proposed armor configuration for Sweden" was identical to the TVM's armor. At the time of the Swedish trials, Germany still wanted to upgrade earlier tanks with the add-on armor and keep the tanks with newer internal armor in service. LEOBEN had three users back then, one with tanks featuring "C technology" base armor on most of its tanks, one exclusively with "B technology" base armor and Germany. The weight of the turret without ammunition and crew is 15,500 kg. That is how much it weighed in the factory, before the optics, hydraulic pump, secondary armament, main gun, etc. was removed. 16.99 tonnes doesn't seem realistic. militärfahrzeuge.ch claims 16,000 kg for the turret. 16.99 tonnes would leave only 38.16 tonnes for the hull, that would mean that the Leopard 2 hull is lighter than the Abrams' hull despite its power pack (engine + transmission + fuel) weighing 10% more than the Abrams' and featuring much thicker armor and heavier tracks. Spielberger listing a weight of 16.99 tonnes also lists a total combat weight of 55,500 kg for the Leopard 2A4... Pretty much every other source including official ones list a weight of 55,15 tonnes. The 17 tonnes weight limit existed during development, resulting in the two prototypes weighing 57,920 kg (with EMES 13) and 57,670 kg (with EMES 15) in early 1977 with turrets weighing 17,650 kg and 17,400 kg. Hull weight was 40,720 kg. Changes leading to an overall weight reduction worth 2,067 kg were proposed, but only changes resulting in 1,143 kg weight reduction were approved. The following aspects were to be considered for further weight reductions: changes in materials, especially for parts not contributing to armor protection. Armor protection was to remain unchanged (105 mm KE/38 and Milan ATGM) reduction of structural plate thickness by 2-3 mm the proposed but not accepted weight reductions should be investigated BWB was tasked to investigate the size and impact of the imbalance moment regarding possible changes in the gun drives and stabilizers the TZF 1A1 was to be replaced with a new backup sight (this became the FERO) So all "new" changes being investigated would affect the turret weight. The article from @Andrei_bt's page that I linked two contains two drawings of Soviet ceramic armor that was meant for the welded turrets and developed in tandem with them. I doubt that ceramic armor is used in the skirts. According to Rolf Hilmes, ceramic is not suited for skirt armor, as the skirts will touch the ground when travelling offroad through mud/uneven terrain or hit trees/bushes/rocks. In such a case, the brittle ceramics would crack result in a loss of protection capabilities. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that MEXAS on the CV9030 uses perforated steel for the skirts: The improved light skirts of Leopard 2 ("D-Technologie") seem to be made of fibre-reinforced plastic, on earlier models they were made of rubber with perforated steel plates embedded into. Yes, it would... if there only would be an add-on armor module that is by design highly effective against shaped charges and also provides some additional KE protection... Given that you have posted a photo of armor tests showing an armor array stopping LKE1, you probably also have seen the presentation on ammunition development that was part of the same "advert for upgrades" folder... look at the graph predicting the anti-KE armor development there. It clearly contains an area labelled "Keramik". That's the reason stated by Hilmes. It is possible thar roof protection was included and it is possible that roof protection was excluded. We cannot really rule either out. The chart in the middle might not even be from the same page/folder as the other two. There are lots of factors at play. The whole issue with the weight is really messy and convoluted. Do we actually have a proper/official source that the second and third batches of Panzer 87 are heavier? Or is that only militärfahrzeuge.ch and two articles of the Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift talking about the Panzer 87WE. Why is the Panzer 87WE just as heavy as the late Panzer 87 pre-WE? Does the electric turret drive perfectly negate the weight of the added rear driving camera, digital screens and the PERI R17A2 which has an additional armored cover not found on the Leopard 2A5? Why does the militärfahrzeuge.ch list the weight of the early Panzer 87 as 55,000 kg - lower than the first production model Leopard 2 - despite the vehicle supposed to be fitted with 260 kg worth of engine mufflers? And how does the militärfahrzeuge.ch only list one weight for the turret (16,000 kg) for all three Panzer 87 (early, late and WE) models? Why does Spielberger list the "series production" Leopard 2's weight at 55,550 kg rather than the 55,150 kg found elsewhere? And why does he list a "maximum combat weight" of 62,500 kg for th KVT and TVM, when Rolf Hilmes specifically mentions that the combat weight of the KVT is 60,500 kg vs 62,500 kg for the TVMs? All of this doesn't really make sense. The statement of the "weight neutral armor" doesn't come from me, its from Hilmes and the British documents. But those are subjective (are less than 2.5% of additional weight "neutral") or predictions for future developments. To add insult to injury, the British documents list a weight of 55 tons for the Leopard 2A4 with "C technology" armor! Because armor in "C technology" might not have been suffice based on the German predictions for the future? We know that "third generation armor" fielded/ready in 1991 - regardless of this being "improved C technology" or "D technology" was the FST tank. FST-1 would be just the T-80U, FST-2 and FST-3 tanks remained NATO predections for the future (just as the "T-95"). For countering the FST-3, Germany had the requirement for a 140 mm smoothbore gun in the Panzerkampfwagen 2000, Leopard 2 KWS III and later the NGP. One thing of note is that according to the graph, the "glacis" section seems to be the module covering the composite armor location 1 and 2, KE shots #930205 and #930692. The upper hull module covering the thin steel section/upper front plate was only tested on the Swedish version... maybe because it was just steel and thus identical (in case the add-on armor was identical)? The two frontal modules weight 1,000 kg according to an old sign put up by the Dutch during a public display. That's however causing lots of issues with the turret weights cited in the manuals according to @Scav. The TVM 2 is the TVM Max after being converted to the final configuration. This was done before the trials in Sweden started and just shows that the side armor shape was a typical change going from prototype to series model. No, the TVM2 is the TVM Max. TVM1 is the TVM Min. These are just different designations according to Hilmes. The KVT was turned into the IVT, the TVM 2 was modified into the TVM 2 mod. (corresponding to the series production model) starting in 1992 and finished in Spring of 1993. In Fall of 1993, the Swedish trials started.

The probblem is that neither Spielberger nor Lobitz talk about the base armor being C-Technologie/3rd generation armor. As I wrote, I believe there to be two conflicting definitions: one counting special armor beginning with the Leopard 2 production version one earlier also counting something else (potentially just simple spaced armor or some prototype armor arrays) as first generation The show the Bionix as example of "2nd generation medium protection", not heavy protection. The SuperAV/ACV is shown with two different medium protection generations, because the composition of the armor has changed and was improved. This is also shown in the earlier slides with the light protection. Light protection of the second generation was just large white ceramic tiles (most likely aluminium oxide) that were glued to what seems to be rubber. The third generation light protection used smaller tiles (10 x 10 cm) of unknown composition. The fourth generation light protection uses nano-ceramics ("NANOTech-Keramikmodul") based on silicon oxide (at least that's what the color suggests) with even smaller, hexagonal size. For the SuperAV/ACV, initially the third generation medium protection was used to deal with IEDs. It was later upgraded to/replaced by fourth generation protection making use of newer/more optimal materials at similar size. Likewise for the Boxer A2 of the Dutch Army, the armor modules were replaced using lighter ones that provide the same protection. Visually there is no difference. You are mistaken - the fourth edition of the TL for second generation armor steel was published in 2008. Earlier editions existed long before that. This patent for example mentions a November 1990 edition of TL 2350-0000. There was however only one edition for TL 2350-0010. Btw. you can simply search the TL register at the Bundeswehr's official website. Yes, I know that, but I can only speculate for reasons. Maybe the TL 2350-0010 is only listed because it expired and the TLs for third and fourth generation special armor remain fully classified (including title). Maybe there was a TL for second generation armor as the design was made/developed by a state-owned facility without production capacities, while the other armor generations were developed by companies and are thus their intellectual property? There are lots of potential reasons, but I don't think that wild guesses will help much. Yes, you misunderstood me. From my understanding, the original armor was simply described as "Panzerung in Beulblechtechnologie" ("armor in bulging plate/NERA technology"). Due to the composition of the armor being highly classified and the German MoD not wanting to disclose the armor construction to anybody without proper security clearance, this was abbreviated as "Panzerung in B-Technologie". From what I remember reading online a few years ago, the next name ("C-Technologie") was apparently a "backronym" (i.e. the name was intentionally chosen with an English name to have a "C" at the beginning) with the "C" standing for "Ceramic-Composite". Something like that was stated on an the Swiss Army's description page for the Leopard 2A4/Panzer 87 but I cannot find it anymore with the Internet Wayback Machine. That is also the reason why Paul Lakowski (in his Armor Basics) and a lot of other TankNet members 15+ years ago believed that the initial Leopard 2 had no composite armor and only the Leopard 2A4 introduced "Chobham-like ceramic armor" (though as we know nowadays, Chobham isn't made out of ceramics). D-Technologie and E-Technologie (to which the Leopard 2A4M's armor in "Beulblechtechnologie") belong were simply named that way to follow the existing pattern. But I cannot prove that, because I cannot find the old article describing "C-Technologie" as "ceramic-composite-Technologie"). Btw. the new PSO add-on armor marketed/described as E-Technologie is patented and developed by KMW, it uses some interesting technique (coating the surface of the steel plates using zinc electrophoretic deposition) to solve some issues with NERA that we usually never hear of (i.e. connecting the elastic layer to the steel plates in such a way that it is a permanent connection, is resistant to environmental influences such as heat and wetness and doesn't negatively impact protection performance). Well, as a native German speaker I would answer with "integriert" means "integrated", but that doesn't necessarily help. I personally never would say "integriert" when attaching something to the outside of an object. The word is also often translated as "embedded", i.e. an "integrierter Speicherchip" would be an "embedded member chip". My main point is that he is IMO talking about two things: first Schutzpakete (protection packages) that were integrated into the turret and hull. Note that the Krauss-Maffei slide in Lindström's presentation uses "Pakete" (packages) in reference to the internal armor and "Vors. Modul" ("Vorsatzmodul", attachment module) in reference to the add-on modules "Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell", i.e. add-on attachment modules for hull and turret That's at least how I as a native German speaker would understand his writing. Otherwise he is using (by accident) the same nomenclature as Krauss-Maffei (Wegmann) but in a wrong way while also using the word "integriert" in another way than I would do. But again, who knows. There are lots of regional nuances in the choice of words. Maybe he is from Bavaria or another place where people don't write/speak correct German... The internal armor of the KVT was not upgraded. The internal armor of the TVM was likely never downgraded. KVT stands for Komponentenversuchsträger (component test bed), it doesn't need new internal armor as it was never meant to be identical to the prodution configuration. There is an old documentary from German TV channel N24; they show the Leopard 2A4 turret being upgraded to the 2A5/2A6 configuration. During that video, the turret of the Leopard 2A4 was lifted with a display reading "15.500 To". Its either this one or the first part: https://www.welt.de/mediathek/dokumentation/technik-und-wissen/sendung155731963/Der-Leopard-2.html (unfortunately not available at the moment due to N24 not paying license fees for some of the used imagery anymore) I have old screenshots from the movie... Except for the Swiss Panzer 87 being heavier, I have not seen any proof that the armor in C-Technologie is heavier. Rolf Hilmes even called the upgrade "weight neutral", but he is also the only one mentioning anything abnout the weight. So he might be wrong. Not on a series production model. Its related to the tripartite trials, but not from the same document as posted by Wiedzmin. In general one should not forget that the takeaway from the UK was to attribute the DM13 APFSDS (!) with 475 mm penetration at 1,000 metres based on the trials even though it only penetrated 226.9 mm @60° (454.8 mm) of British steel and only 192.1 mm @60° (384.2 mm) of German TL 2350 plate. There are tons of tests showing that ceramic armor works very well even against large scale APFSDS rounds and there are tons of examples of such armor being developed (including, but not limited to: Soviet armor for the welded turrets in the late 1980s, Polish CAWA-2, American Tandem Ceramic Armor, etc.). Various tests with full scale penetrators have shown "good" performance (<1.5 mass efficiency against KE). The biggest problem was/is that ceramics are much worse than NERA against shaped charges. ETEC Gesellschaft für technische Keramik even cited the Leopard 2 with "MEXAS system" as reference for its ALOTEC ceramic modules before the company was taken over by CeramTec: The upgrade of the hull armor was still planned, it was just re-scheduled to 2008 - when the new 140 mm turret was supposed to be adopted, requiring further changes to the hull. The hull add-on armor was directly not removed for budgetary reasons, but due to the weight limit. The weight limit was indirectly caused by the budget, as there was not enough funding to replace the SLT 56 tank transport truck with trailer. The worst tank always gets upgraded first, because having lots of tanks that are "good enough" is better than having some tanks that are "unusable" and some tanks that are "good". This was the modus operandi of the German Bundeswehr during the Cold War and the reason why the M48 got passive night vision (PzB 200) before the majority of the Leopard 1 tanks, etc. I am not assuming that "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" mean internal armor packages, I am just showing possibilities. Personally, I am assuming that "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" are just different amounts of the add-on armor being fitted. But I also believe there is "D tech" internal armor due different British documents (different due to their date) mentioning that and due to the they mean both, because Krauss-Maffei used a table in the documents given to Sweden: This layout just doesn't make a lot of sense, if "PAKETE" and "VORS. MODUL" are mutually exclusive. Because you'd buy older armor than what is available. If the claims mentioned in the British documents are anywhere close to correct (regardless of the order of magnitude of the performance), then "D tech" armor doesn't cost more and doesn't weigh more than the "C tech" armor. So why would you buy "C tech" armor in 1995, when "D tech" armor is available? Your theory only makes sense if the Germans lied to the UK or if the UK made up stuff...

+ Apparently the M1A1HA has "650 mm RHAe" turret frontal protection against KE rounds according to the UK. Note that this is limited only to the turret front modules, as the side armor was not improved. So over a 60° frontal arc, the tank still remained vulnerable to much weaker rounds. Also note the rate of fire for CR1: 3-4 rounds per minute!