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.

 

2 hours ago, Volke said:

The bustle ammo rack is isolated, it is using system known as CABIS- Containerised Ammunition Bin (with) Individual Shutter, rest of the ammo is also placed in CABIS derived fireproof containers

 

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.

13 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Maybe those are different submodels? One with GLs and missiles, another is normal vehicles.

 

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.

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

However, this still does not answer the question of whether there were several add-on armor solutions. You showed some alternative readings, but I think these are incorrect. If the D-3 would mean the combination of D-1 (in this reading: internal armor) and D-2 (in ths reading: add-on armor), it would be represented as a combination of the D-1 (pakette) and D-2 (Vorsatz-module), not as „D-3”.

 

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.

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

However, my main argument remains unanswered. The protection level of the „german” and „swedish” version turrets are the same from same angle of attack. It implies there is no difference between the base armor. But it (same protection level from same angle of attack) is not true in the case of the hull. So, the only possible answer for it is that there were two versions of (at least) the hull add-on armor.

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°.

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

except that in the case of the hull they kept the C-tech armor. It seems quite logical that they did not want to use different internal armor in the hull and turret.

 

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?

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

This?

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x).

 

Then again, the Type C armor was directly marketed to the UK. Maybe that's when it got its name.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Integration could refer to the need for the vehicle to be properly prepared and modified to even accept them; you can't just weld/bolt the add-ons to any existing vehicle.

 

Would be an odd way of saying. Prepared for/adapted to makes more sense.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Likewise, it seems even stranger that the proposed armour configuration of TVM to the Swedes was listed as B + D-2 if that wasn't the case.

I don't think they would intentionally offer a worse solution than they are testing and intend to use themselves, AFAIK the objective of LEOBEN has always been to maintain a maximum possible amount of standardisation whenever possible.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Nice pictures, but I don't think we can necessarily use this as proof?
For all we know, radios or other equipment may have already been demounted.

Krapke mentions the project leader of the turret developer adamantly refusing to exceed a 17t limit for the turret.
This rhymes with the 16.99t figure I have found for a combat loaded turret.
There's several other sources that also give 16t for an empty turret with armament.
2AV turret with EMES-15 sat at 17.4t fully loaded.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

The Soviet welded turrets seems mostly a result of utilising new steels and transitioning to an RHA structure rather than a cast structure, multi-hit performance is going to be problematic.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

The ceramic in MEXAS likely refers to the skirts, the D tech light skirts seem to have involved at least one version with some kind of insert in the fiberglass/aramid composite structure.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go.

 

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".

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, both TVM and TVM 2 had MLC70 marking, so does 2A5, I don't deny there's a difference there, but it seems a bit odd to use that as the reason.

 

That's the reason stated by Hilmes.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart.

 

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Well...

• I don't think it would be cheaper, let alone weigh the same, which would also mean the difference between A5 and A4 turret can't be because of D tech, nor can it be used to prove as such
• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?
• UK docs are from a year or several years before KVT/TVM, we don't have all of them and they were told in secrecy with very few details
• Things might've changed between 1987 and 1989, perhaps they realised the goals were far too much to ask from an internal armour package, perhaps they just found a better way of doing things in a more practical way
• Brit documents are kind of notorious for misrepresenting the facts, overestimating their own equipment, underestimating foreign equipment or generally just missing the ball.

If C tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why is Pz 87 heavier?
If D tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why would 2A5 turret have "unexplained" weight increase apart from the things I have listed previously?

Something doesn't add up, there is never a free lunch and when it comes to armour, all the recent revelations keep me sceptical of any "weight neutral" increase in protection, particularly if they are large and with no thickness increase.

 

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!

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

In case of the glacis attack, to me it seems the hull add-on modules of the Strv 122/TVM don't differ nearly enough to explain an "80mm" difference (I realise the actual threat only reaches 700mm).

 

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)?

 

 

4 hours ago, speziale said:

Do anybody know what was the weight of the turret add-on armor (w/o roof armor)?

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, speziale said:

And we also have to note that TVM 2 (this was built in "Mannheim configuration") already had a wegde shaped turret side armor in contrast to the TVM Max or the KVT.

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

BTW, it is also possible that the Germans decided to use the B-technology turret for the L2A5 upgrade because they wanted a uniform program with the Dutch, who, on the other hand, only had earlier series tanks. And by the way, the TVM 2, which was the final prototype of the Leopard2A5, was rebuilt from the previous KVT vehicle.

 

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.

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Then why does not only Spielberger state this, but also Lobitz who is the project lead?

 

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

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

There may be a difference in how IBD calls these armours, they also start with "2nd generation" in their powerpoint and use the Bionix as representation of 2nd generation armour and the same MRAP/APC hull as both 3rd and 4th generation armour with no visible differences.
Multiple inconsistencies in their presentation that we can't overlook.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Yeah, but this is circumstantial evidence, I tried looking this up earlier and that is all I could find, no explanation given, no other information.
While I agree that 12 years seems like a long time, it also says that steel from the 2nd generation was published in 2008....

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

It also doesn't mention 1st generation or third generation or even 4th generation armour.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I will also point out that the add-on armour for the leopard 2A4M in that KMW slide is also called "Beulblechtechnologie".
But I think we both know it isn't "B tech".

 

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).

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

But he literally does state so?
"Integriert" = "integrated"
I did ask native German speakers what they thought and they agreed he says integrated, I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted.
The second part is a separate sentence and he mentions them for chronological reasons as in "this is the first time in the service history of leopard 2 that external add-ons are used".
Also, we can't forget that he is talking about KVT here, not TVM nor Leopard 2A5 and we know for a fact that KVT retained B tech internal armour.
The Swedish trials indicate that TVM also used B tech internal armour (and I made this connection previously).

 

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:

1. 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
2. "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...

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I honestly don't see how it would make any sense to build KVT from a 5th batch vehicle, then upgrade the internal armour to D tech, have it weigh 60.5t combat weight and then later build TVMs based on 8th batch vehicles and downgrade the armour to B tech and somehow weigh either 60.5t (assumption) or 62.5t.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

There is only a single picture claiming 15.5t while every secondary source says 16t and there is at least one source giving 16.99t for a "combat ready" turret.

 

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...

 

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Also, that's comparing to B tech turret, not C tech which 2A5 likely uses.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

The "tippvisier" has been added

 

Not on a series production model.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, where did you find this DM23 test?
Or is that from the comparison between US/UK plates and TL plates?

 

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.

 

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I sincerely doubt the efficacy of "ceramics" against KE, this is at least one point where I agree with the British when they there is no test on record to show it's performance as being particularly good (yes they say appliqué).

 

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:

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

The simple fact that they dropped the hull add-on for cost reasons, makes it highly unlikely that they improved the turret armour beyond the requirement by utilising a completely new armour package.

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

If the original purpose was to take the oldest tanks with B tech and upgrade them to a higher level while retaining their base protection, so as to minimise costs and maximise amount of tanks with a higher level of protection both for the hull and turret, then why would they suddenly degrade the hulls (not using hull add-on) while at the same time further improving the turret?

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

At the same time, you are assuming they mean internal packages.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I see no reason why upgrading to C tech from B doesn't make sense or is impossible for 2A5, we've already agreed that even B tech can be used in KWS turrets as a base.

 

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!

10 hours ago, Sheffield said:

And for the last part, the book by Ralph Zwilling which unequivocally confirms the Leopard 2A7V had received new internal armour modules for the hull using the "latest D-technology", by extension corrobrating the existence of D-technology as an internal armour array as well:

 

 

 

He however made a small mistake, from what I can tell the "Duell-Bugdachschutz" isn't optimized for "tank duels".

I wrote a rather detailed answer yesterday but accidentally closed the wrong tab and the forum didn't save it... so I'll try to make this short.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

So no direct mention of the technology used?

 

Based on the description I was given, no.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

KVT was weighed at 60.5t, but max weight was listed as 62.5t
Note how D technology is mentioned only for the add-on armour modules and is listed as the "4th armour technology.

The problem here is that Spielberger is wrong in calling "D-Technologie" the "fourth armor technology generation". He likely saw that "D" is the fourth letter of the alphabet and assumed that this means that "armor in D technology" equates to "fourth generation armor". This is obviously wrong as "B-Technologie" was originally an abbreviation of "Beulblechtechnologie".

 

There are however several reasons why this is not the case. First of all, "Panzerung in B-Technologie" is the first generation of special armor. This is confirmed e.g. by a 2009 article written by Dieter Haug, a "protection expert in the Armament Directorate of the German MoD" (i.e. the BWB/BAAINBw), called "Development of Protection Technologies". In this article, the author clearly states "[...] led to the development of first generation spaced laminated composite armours, like the German “Bulge Plate Armour” (B-Technology) for MBT Leopard 2 and the British 'Chobham Armour' for the UK MBT Challenger and the US MBT M1 Abrams." Published in the same Wehrtechnischer Report as this article is also one written by by IBD Deisenroth's Dipl. Phys. Michael Rust explaining the development of AMAP armor. There he states: "The latest technologies in advanced passive armour are based on the experiences gained with the so-called „3rd-Generation“-Protection installed on platforms like the Leopard 2, STRV 122, Fuchs (Rheinmetall), LMV (Iveco), ASV (Textron), CV90 (BAE Systems) and LAV Stryker (GDLS). With the results of intensive research and development in material sciences the 4th generation of passive armour was introduced and has now been applied to platforms".

 

In other words, according to IBD, MEXAS-M and MEXAS-H are so-called third generation armors while only AMAP is a fourth generation armor. This is furthermore confirmed by a presentation held by IBD in the 2013 FKH symposium (the same symposium where Ralf Ketzel included the slide showing the Leopard 2 protection development in his presentation), which mentions as examples of tanks with "Schwerer Schutz 3. Generation" (heavy protection of the third generation) the "Leopard 2 A5, A6, MBT 122, Leopard 2 A6 Greece and Leopard 2 A6 Spain" as well as the Leopard 2 A4 N. N. (which is from my understanding this thing) with a Leopard 2A4 from the late production lot (heavy skirts from "C technology armor") being shown as the starting point for the parallel upgrades in the graphic. Note that IBD only produced the add-on armor, so the "D tech" add-on armor is considered third generation armor by IBD as well.

 

Furthermore, there is the Technische Lieferbedingungen (TL) 2350-0010 - the delivery conditions of the Bundeswehr for "Sonderpanzerungen II. Generation". The only edition of this standard was issued in April 1990; while it is common for these to be only published some time after a vehicle was adpoted, i.e. the Leopard 1 was made with armor steel according to a preliminary version of TL 2350-0000 because the standard was fully approved later thanks to the slowness of bureacracy, I do have serious doubts that it took 12 years for the TL to be issued, hence the "armor in C technology" being second generation armor; subsequently the "armor in D technology" being third generation armor.

 

Even Spielberger himself calls "D-Technologie" the 3. Schutzversion (third version of protection) at another place, specifically refering to the side skirts in "D-Technologie":

 

 

Last but not least, Krauss-Maffei itself has noted that third generation armor entered service in 1991, which coincides with the last production batch of the Leopard 2A4, featuring at least side skirts in "D-Technologie". Second generation armor entered service in 1988, matching the date of introduction of the Leopard 2A4 with "C-Technologie armor".

 

(I see that @speziale also has pointed that out).

 

So we have established that first generation armor is B-Technologie (according to Dieter Haug of the German MoD's BAAINBw and Krauss-Maffei's graphic above), that second generation armor is C-Technologie (based on the graphic above and the date of TL 2350-0010) and that third generation armor is D-Technologie (Spielberger's mention of the D-Technologie skirts, IBD's article from Michael Rust in 209 and their 2013 presentation at the FKH symposium).

 

The key issue is that there either seem to be two ways of counting generations (with B-Technologie either being first generation armor or second generation armor) or D-Technologie covering two generations (maybe internal armor/D-1 and external modules/D-2).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Lobitz mentions the same and also refers to the add-on modules as "integrated":

No, he doesn't refer to the add-on modules as "integrated". The English translation is misleading. He says "Die Schutzpakete waren in D-Technologie ausglegt ([...]) und je nach Stelle integriert (Turmfront/Fahrgestell) oder aufgesetzt (Turmdach). Erstmal gab es Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell, [...]".

This means that "[t]he protection modules were designed in D technology and depending on location integrated (turret/hull) or put on (turret roof). For the first time, there were add-on modules for the turret and hull."

 

There are two parts here: first, the D-Technologie armor was integrated into turret and hull (integrated = installed into the structure of turret and hull) and put onto the turret roof (due to there being no internal cavity, it was not "integrated" there) and then the add-on modules are mentioned separately.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

It would also indicate that the TVM was using B + D-2 armour, same as the KVT with the weight difference that is noted by the Swedish trials perhaps being the result of utilising the "maximum combat weight".

 

How does this indicate that the TVM was using "Panzerung in B-Technologie"? I don't see how you came to that conclusion. As you said yourself, the IVT (KVT with additional measuring equipment) was send to Sweden for trials. This tank had obviously "B technology" armor as the KVT was based on a Leopard 2A4 from the fifth batch, i.e. before the "C technology" armor was adopted.

 

The TVMs however have different internal armor than the KVT based on the table that you included in the post:

Subsequently, if the KVT uses "B technology" base armor and the TVMs have different base armor, then they cannot have "B technology" base armor. That is also obvious given that the two TVMs were based on Leopard 2A4 tanks from the eight batch (which was built with "D-Technologie" side skirts and at least "C-Technologie" internal armor).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Nobody can quite agree on the specifics, but they all seem to think that D technology is the "4th armour technology" and that the base armour on 2A5 was improved a bit, but not with this new armour technology, instead they either just call it "improved", "reinforced" or "third generation armor".

 

They don't all think that "D technology" is "4th armor technology". That is not shown there. The problem is simply the following:

Lobitz and Scheibert call "D-Technologie" the fourth generation armor technology, but they don't state that the internal armor is third generation or C-Technologie. Hilmes doesn't mention any armor generations and only talks about the turrets being modified with "D-Technologie" and the hulls being "C-Technologie". Spielberger calls D-Technologie both "the third protection version" and "fourth generation armor technology". Van Oosbree mentions "third generation armor" but no "fourth generation armor" and doesn't state that third generation armor would be in "C-Technologie".

 

There is not a single source clearly stating either that "C-Technologie" is "third generation armor" or that internal armor was a generation older than the add-on armor modules. Only Spielberger implies something like that, be he also calls D-Technologie both the third and fourth generation/version, showing that he might mix up two different definitions.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

as would be expected from this supposed "D tech" insert that could on it's own stop LKE1, if we are to believe such a thing exists.

 

I mean, you posted a photo of an armor array without add-on module stopping LKE1...

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

But if we take the weight of the KVT (B tech base) and compare it to that of a 2A4 (B tech base), there is a 5.5t difference, 1.3t as a result of the turret roof add-on, 1.1t for front hull armour and less than 1.4t without other add-on modules, leaves us with more than 1.7t that is "unexplained".

 

Just look at the turret alone. The Leopard 2A4 turret has an empty weight of 15.5 tonnes. The Leopard 2A5 turret - without add-on modules - has a weight of 18.4 tonnes. That's 2.9 tonnes of unexplained weight, not 1.7 tonnes. The EWNA  is lighter than the old systems it replaces (also the case with the light ballistic skirts in D-Technologie, but those are irrelevant for the turret). The changes for moving PERI R17 and EMES 15 were likely rather small, given that the main purpose was to move them so that the add-on module's coverage remains large.

The new gun mantlet results in a lower weight (3,210 kg vs 3,655 kg) which likely does not fully offset the hinged armor. Leaving the spall liners, which are hard to estimate. For the M113A3, the spall liners (and all other changes) resulted in less than a tonne of weight being added - and that has a much larger internal surface area than a Leopard 2 turret. IMO there is still unaccounted weight, estimating the weight of the hinged armor based on thickness, frontal profile & the density of steel as well as adding some exaggerated number like 900 kg for the spall liners still leave "leftover" weight.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Regarding KVT and TVM, they were supposed to be representative of the eventual 2A5, so B+D-2 makes sense for both and the differences between these in public sources never include internal armour packages.

 

If you ignore this chart:

 

This also suggests that KVT and TVM had different add-on modules, though it might be a reference to some being excluded at times (initial mock-up based on KVT only had turret modules).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

The claimed armour improvements between B, C and D tech also don't make much sense.
From B to C there is ~10 years time and a weight increase (~1.5t, I have never seen sources that claim there isn't) to go along with a ~20% improvement in KE and HEAT.
Then from C to D there is ~3 years time to go along with a whopping ~45% protection increase in both KE and HEAT?

 

All protection values we have are British estimates that are in general of a rather poor nature. The Brits concluded that the "Type C" armor/"Panzerung in C-Technologie" offers 410-420 mm RHAe of protection, because "Penetration was variously quoted as 400 mm or 410-420 mm RHA equivalent". That leads a lot of issues including the fact that there is no fixed definition for RHA. I.e. if the "600 mm figure" was given/estimated using British RHA and the 410-420 mm figure is from German tests, then the difference is a lot smaller than 180 mm. 120 mm DM23 also managed to defeat the NATO heavy single target (150 mm steel with a hardness of 260-300 kp/mm² which is rather close to British DEF-Stan) sloped at 71.5° (effective thickness: 472 mm) at a range of 1,300 metres. Even taking into account that performance against sloped armor is better, it points to better performance than 410-420 mm at 200 metres. Hence why I would put less faith in subjective numbers.

 

Furthermore we have to remember that we only have performance predictions from the UK for the "Type D" armor, not any concrete info regarding actual final performance. Arguing with time frames is also not the best solution IMO. The development of "C technology" armor didn't start in 1979, it was initated based on studies made in 1984.  So there weren't ten years, but one still has to wonder what "breakthrough in technology" was discovered between 1988 and 1991, assuming the British values are correct.

 

Last but not least, the US ARL also managed to improve the KE protection performance of one of their ceramic arrays by 33% over an existing ceramic array. Given that the "Panzerung in C-Technologie"/"Type C" armor introduced ceramic elements according to the UK, there might have been a lot of potential for further improvements...  but 42-45% seems to be rather unrealistic.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

We should apply Occam's razor, the most logical explanation is simply that a few typos were made and that 2A5 likely uses C tech turret with D tech add-ons.

 

That is not the most logical explanation. If "C tech" armor is used in the turret, then there wouldn't be a reason to use turrets from old batches (1st to 4th batch) for the Leopard 2A5 upgrade in Germany. They were intentionally used so that the "C tech" armored turret could remain in service on the Leopard 2A4 "hybrids". This was only possible as the internal armor of the Leopard 2A4 was being replaced during the upgrade to the Leopard 2A5 standard.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

think these weigth figures are also very uncertaint. For example, in the „famous” british document the germans stated that the D-tech armor „can be fitted as drop-in packs to the existing turret and hull of Leopard 2 with no weight penalty”.

 

That was a prediction. Predicitions don't necessarily match the reality, just look at the CR2 for example.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

if u compare the protection levels from same angles (e.g: „blue” 2 for both the GER and SWE version, or „pink” 11 and 6 for SWE and GER version, respectively), you can see that the „german” and „swedish” solutions’ protection level are same. Which implies – and it is also logical if you want to compare the effectiveness of the add-on armors – that in this test the „swedish” armor configuration also had a „B”-tech interior armor package.

 

And it seems quite logical that the armor configurations that were tested are shown on the slide in question (with the 5 colour lines). So, if the Leopard 2 with B-tech base armor was tested with 2 versions of add on armor, it seems logical, that this result was shown on the slide. So, that is why i think that the blue line is the B-tech armor with the „swedish” ( or Mexas-H) add-on.

 

I think you are making too many leaps of faith here. The table showing the graph with the five colors, i.e. the table in the center of this slide was most likely supplied by Krauss-Maffei:

Why? The graphics on the left and right of it are also supplied by Krauss-Maffei (German text). Sweden neither has the data for showing the frontal arc armor coverage/protection of all the various Leopard 2 models (unless supplied by Krauss-Maffei) and had no interest in plotting such data (what is the gain of plotting that, if you only buy one configuration?). Furthermore the English labelling for the graph contains common "German mistakes" (hyphen between "KE" and "Performance", spelling every noun with a capital letter, because that's how spelling in Germany works).

 

If that assumption is correct - and I don't see any evidence speaking against that -, then the graph cannot contain any data of a "Swedish armor" that was developed after Krauss-Maffei's offer. Thus - if there is "Swedish applique armor" - it is not shown in the graph.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

And if the blue line is the B-tech base armor with the „better” (Mexas-H) add-on armor

 

All add-on armor for the KVT, TVM and Leopard 2A5/2A6 is MEXAS-H. Between 1989 and 1991, Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth exlusively worked on R&D contracts for the German BWB (nowadays BAAINBw), i.e. the German military materiel/procurement office. Between 1990 and 1998, they worked on contracts regarding protection materials for the BWB.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

The share of the protected area at least 400mm is the same in the case of the yellow and the blue line. (and the green line in the case of „at least 350mm protection”)

 

No, I am pointing out that you are speculating. Due to how the graph is plotted (wiht solid colors), it cannot be said if the blue line has the same coverage for <400 mm protection or not. The gradient of the graph might be constant.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

I can not follow u. There were definitely 2 versions of add-on armors which were tested and compared during the swedish trial. (These called in the presentation „german” and „swedish” solutions. I know the „swedish” solution actually was the Mexas-H developed by the IDB Diesenroth.)

 

MEXAS-H is used on both tanks.

 

There were two different armor solutions tested: the "German solution" (which we know is "B tech" base armor and "D-2" add-on armor) and the "Swedish solution" (which we don't know what it is made of). You are assuming that the difference between these two solutions is the add-on armor, but we have no source stating that. It could be the same add-on armor with different base armor. As a matter of fact, we have clear statements that the Stridsvagn 122 used better internal armor than the "B technology"):

 

 

The "German solution" used "B tech" base armor, because back then the German Army planned on upgrading 699 older Leopard 2A4 tanks to what would become the 2A5 configuration. These tanks would have the "B tech" base armor due to their age, while the newest Leopard 2A4 tanks (with "C technology" base armor and in some cases "D tech" skirt armor) would remain without armor upgrades.

 

Lindström's presentation shows Krauss-Maffei supplied tables with "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" but we have zero context for that. Developing multiple armor packages with different protection levels doesn't really make sense if there is only one specific requirement. "D-1" could be just turret add-on modules, "D-2" could be turret and hull modules, "D-3" could be turret, hull and roof modules - or it could be something completely different. "D-1" could be internal armor, "D-2" could be add-on armor and "D-3" could be a combination of both. We don't know due to the lack of context. You are just assuming that this means that there were three different sets of add-on armor.

 

14 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, there is a difference for the turret, the arc of protection is higher for the "Swedish" solution (they're all made by IBD anyway).
The difference can be easily seen on the wedges of the TVM in comparison with those of 2A5/Strv 122

 

That is just speculation. The KVT/IVT and TVMs used prototype versions of the armor, the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122 use the refined version for production. We havbe zero proof that the refined version for production is the "Swedish" solutionlooks different  or that there is a difference in protection between the "Swedish solution" and the "German solution" is the result of different add-on armor. Lobitz clearly cites improved integrated armor packages as a difference between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122, thus the Strv 122 had better base armor. The CAD models used in the Swedish protection analysis also show an identical side armor shape:

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Scav said:

Not these images?

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

22 hours ago, Scav said:

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

20 hours ago, speziale said:

 

Purple: B-tech armor

Red: C-tech armor 

Yellow: B-tech armor+"original/german" add-on armor

blue: B-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor (I think it beacuse this composition was tested on the Swedish trial to compare the "german" and "swedish" versions of the add-on armors)

Green:  C-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor ( I think it beacuse this seems logical based on the tested armor combinations. But there is no indication for that this armor composation was actually tested, so I think this armor composation was the choosen/propsed for the Strv122)

 

So, I think the Strv122 has C-tech base armor.

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

10 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Damn brother thanks for the help,but the armor besides the cannon sketch is wrong ,that armor doesn't line up turret face armor it should be sticks out

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

19 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

And also I think the left side and right side thickness is different 

I think maybe right side is >440? https://lurl.cc/XGKg6

 

You are including parts of the turret front armor which is located next to the mantlet and not covered by the "hinged modules". You can see that the frontal armor doesn't overlapp with the mantlet modules here:

 

 

Poorly made sketch:

 

4 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Maybe D tech hull have KE protection around 575mm, and it is against swedish C1 APFSDS（ The predecessor of dm53？）  I think it have performance similar to newest round like DM73 DM63 M829a3 etc

 

The "C1 APFSDS" was likely a special trial round used for the ballistic trials in Sweden, given that the shaped charge warheads also were purpose-made trial charges. Given that the velocity of the 120 12 C1 projectile used in the Swedish tests is nowhere stated, it is impossible to compare its performance directly to modern APFSDS rounds.

 

The "D tech" base armor/drop-in package for the Leopard 2A4 was at least tested against the LKE1 APFSDS (120 mm DM43 prototype) at 2,000 metres range. If this was the requirement for protection isn't yet known to me, but it barely stopped the round (visible bulge at rear plate).

 

4 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Same as the additional armor of leopard, if the B tech have 370mm protection 750-370 =380

Maybe it will have 955mm of protection against those round ?

 

Again, it doesn't work like this.

• while your video games do not simulate that, the definition of "RHA" or "armor steel" is differing per country. You are mixing values from different sources with some primary school math.
• performance of armor is always dependent on ammunition. The same round will provide different penetration values in "RHAe" when fired against different armor arrays, likewise an armor array will provide different protection values in "RHAe" when hit by different rounds. You are using values for the (hull) armor in B-technology generated using a certain round and distracting these from protection values generated by armor in B-technology with add-on module against a different round... that doesn't work. The base armor might have provided more/less protection against the second test projectile.
• last but not least there are different standards for measuring protection/penetration. I.e. when is an armor array considered penetrated (Do cracks in the armor count as penetration? Does there need to be a hole large enough to shine light through?, etc.) and how is penetration measured (Is it measured against a semi-infinite steel target or is it measured in terms of full perforation? etc.)

E.g. the German Army and the Rheinmetall don't really use RHA values, but usually measure protection/penetration in terms of "it can stop round X at range Y" and " it cannot stop round X at range Y".

 

3 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Did leopard 2a7v have upgraded turret front armor ?

And did strv122A have hull D tech armor ?

Leopard 2a7v without mine protection is 64.1 heavier than strv122 62.5tons but 2a7v don't have additional roof armor but have l55a1 cannon and upgrades side turret armor D tech hull so where did that 1.9tons come from? Upgraded the front turret armor ?

 

The Leopard 2A7V has improved armor in the hull at least, though there isn't any official statement regarding the turret armor. The Leopard 2A6 HEL, the Leopardo 2E, the Leopard 2A7Q and Leopard 2A7HU all have improved "D tech" armor over the Stridsvagn 122. The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

 

There is not Leopard 2A7V without mine protection. The mine protection is built in and cannot be removed. Thus any weight value for the "Leopard 2A7V without mine protection" is speculation or actualll belongs to the baseline Leopard 2A7.

 

As for the weight difference between the Stridsvagn 122A and the Leopard 2A7V, the Leopard 2A7V has:

• an auxiliary power unit
• two air conditioning systems
• upgraded hull side protection
• different tracks
• upgraded optics and new driver sights
• different final drives
• the IFIS C4I system and upgraded/changed radios including the SOTAS-IP
• more external stowage racks/boxes
• a modified fire supression system
• the longer L55A1 gun
• different hull frontal armor at least (potentially also different turret armor)
• a mine protection kit including torsion bar retention brackes, decoupled ammo racks, a belly armor plate

So there are a lot of factors that can add or remove weight compared to the Stridsvagn 122.

The lifting eyelets are located behind the gun mount, so the overall thickness of the main turret armor at this location - including the "hinged element" - is less than 800 mm. There simply is no space for a 250 mm "composite armor module" or something similar.

 

 

51 minutes ago, jojoisgood said:

And also if you compare those two picture you can get 600mm LOS 

No, its not. Why can't you War Thunder people stop making stuff up?

This fits here better than into the British topic:

Comparison of hull armor of CR2 minimum requirement, CR1 (up-armored), T-72M1, T-80BV, M1A1 and Leopard 2. Some data is based on the manufacturer's claims, some of the data seems to be British estimates.

On 10/23/2023 at 4:29 PM, BaronTibere said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

SR(L) 4026 Documents floating around on twitter (would love the rest). 4026 is the Chieftain replacement program that would be fulfilled by CR2. Highlights are only 350KE/650CE for the front hull, a desire for 300KE on the turret roof (??), and the various proposed levels of CR1 upgrade (assuming this is prior to the culling of the CR1 fleet).

 

CR1 400 seems like they replace the turret with a CR2 turret

CR1 300, 200, 100 seems like varying levels of upgraded CR1 turret and CR1 MIN seems like basic upgrades to the existing turret only (CR2 gun control equipment seemingly optional and no other specific upgrades listed)

 

Penetration figures are seemingly at 60 degrees, point blank.

 

A bit more on the matter was posted on TankNet by Wiedzmin. There was a proposed upgrade for the turret armor to meet the increased protection requirement ("stretch potential"). Also more detailed CR1 protection estimates:

The "lower glacis" is the part of the hull covered by the special armor, the lowest section (only RHA) is described as "toe" armor. The add-on armor for the CR1 fielded during Gulf War increased the hull front to 350/700 mm vs KE/CE (i.e. section where ROMOR-A ERA overlap).

 

The side armor with Chobham armor modules was only protected against the most basic RPG-7 munitions. No wonder it was replaced on CR2 after a few months in Iraq with ERA.

 

Challenger 2 apparently had barely improved hull armor and somewhat improved turret armor - that is, if the upgrade was implemented and funded. Even with the upgrade, the increased requirement (600 mm vs KE) was not met.

 

 

On 1/10/2023 at 10:43 PM, Yoshi_E said:

This armor block is a one piece block with cutouts for a polymer at a 90% steel 10% polymer ratio, making 4 steel and 3 polymer layers.

 

However I find the use of the screws in this construction rather odd.

These bolts pass through the block and connect to something on its back. There is no threading on these bolts that interact with the steel block. They just pass through.

 

Does anyone know how the backside of this armor block looks like / whats attached to these bolts?

 

The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.

 

 

How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.

 

Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.

 

On 1/14/2023 at 4:28 AM, Pardus said:

Solid steel? I really dont see the necessity for that, considering:

 

It is solid steel.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 1:53 AM, Cheburashka said:

Are there any plans or is it even possible to mount Trophy APS on Leos like the 2A7HU or does it have to be factory incorporated like on the newly planned German 2A8?

 

That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

Swedish test shown that leopard 2 with B tech Hull plus MEXAS HEAVY Add on armor has 750mm of KE protection, so B tech is 350mm,that mean add-on armor have 400mm of protection ?and d tech hull have nearly 600mm of protection ,is that mean leopard 2a7v has nearly 1000mm of ke protection ?

 

That is not really how it works.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

and also wanna ask that is the armor besides the leopard gun shield thickness around 600mm just pure RHA armoror is it something else?

 

The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

Also wanna know did AMAP side armor have 600mm to 700mm of KE protection at 60°? I saw someone says that from war thunder advise of leopard 2 evolution, he said AMAP side have 750mm of CE protection (confirmed )and 600 to 700mm of KE protection,

 

Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

And also wanna ask why leopard 2a8 use trophy as APS not rheinmetall ADS,I think ADS is better It has ability to stop round going fast and doesn't need to care the distance .

 

Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

And did anyone know will leopard 2a7v equipped PSO side armor or the IBD AMAP side armor ?

 

It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, jojoisgood said:

Did the pso armor have same protection As AMAP?

 

No.