Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Willy Brandt

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Scav in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  2. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Belesarius in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  3. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from alanch90 in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  4. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Zyklon in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  5. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Militarysta in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  6. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from heretic88 in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  7. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Lord_James in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  8. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Zadlo in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  9. Funny
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Sovngard in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    *Damian on suicide watch*
  10. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Sovngard in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    @Xlucine @Serge @Ramlaen
    From the Tankograd Booklet on the PUMA:

     

     
     
     
     
  11. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Lord_James in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    @Xlucine @Serge @Ramlaen
    From the Tankograd Booklet on the PUMA:

     

     
     
     
     
  12. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Ramlaen in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    @Xlucine @Serge @Ramlaen
    From the Tankograd Booklet on the PUMA:

     

     
     
     
     
  13. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from skylancer-3441 in Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)   
    @Xlucine @Serge @Ramlaen
    From the Tankograd Booklet on the PUMA:

     

     
     
     
     
  14. Tank You
    Willy Brandt reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    The weight figure is from spring of 1991, when the KVT's mobility tests were made, so it already featured the actual armor modules (which it received in 1990). Five tonnes of wood (at least the cheaper sorts of wood that grow in Germany) would also have a much greater volume than the simulated add-on armor modules.
     
     
    You are speculating, the Swedish leaks say nothing like that. They say that the German model - such as the model that Germany wants to buy - has Type B base armor. That they analysed the TVM (rather than relying on armor modules and informations supplied by Krauss-Maffei) or that the German model would be equal to the TVM is never stated there. 
     
    According to Hilmes, only constant "nagging" of the German army lead to the construction of "hybrid tanks" (i.e. combining hulls from the last production batches with upgraded turrets) with maximized protection, before that a cheaper option was considered. Given that the "German model" in the Swedish leaks has better hull armor than the Leopard 2A4 with Type C armor, what does this tell us about the turret armor...
     
     
    That is because these are prototypes. The Swedish leaks show the side armor of the wedges to be identical between the German model (which you claim to be the TVM, which had flat sides during the Swedish trials) and the Swedish model. Both have the flat sides based on the thickness visible in the top-view. The sloped wedges were first added to the TVM 2 mod., developed between 1991 and 1992. The main focus of the TVM 2 mod. was weight and cost reduction in order to stay within the weight limit agreed upon by the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland during a conference in Mannheim (hence it was called the Mannheimer Konfiguration). This didn't improve protection, but downgraded protection (by e.g. removing the hull and turret roof add-on armor modules), i.e. it doesn't make sense to speculate that the turret add-on armor was improved over the original TVM 2 configuration with flat-sided wedges.
     
     
    Prototypes of the Leopard 2A5 were completed at the time, but the decision to eliminate the Leopard 2 from the competition was already made years earlier. We know from declassified UK documents (aka government reports) that "Leopard 2 won British trials" is a lie.
     
     
    The add-on armor at the turret and hull doesn't have different thickness. If you read R. Lindström's presentation and the old version of his website (via web archive), you'll notice that he never stated that the add-on armor of the Leopard 2 was replaced/improved. He only stated that all tanks were tested with armor developed by Åkers Krutbruk and IBD Deisenroth. A short look at the old website of Åkers Krutbruk (via web archive) reveals that they acquired the MEXAS licence from IBD Deisenroth.
     
    The term "swedish armor" by itself doesn't mean "they replaced the add-on armor with identical looking one, which somehow happens to be better despite having the exact same dimensions and weight" nor does it mean that the actual armor was developed by Sweden, given that Åkers had the licence for MEXAS. It can also mean that this was the armor chosen for Sweden.

    That said, Hilmes suggest that the main changes in survivability between the Leopard 2A5 of Germany and the Stridsvagn 122 is the hull, i.e. among other facts that it features spall liners, supposedly some titanium elements for weight saving and the hull and roof add-on armor modules. According to a Danish tanker (Denmark choose the Leopard 2A5DK based on the Swedish trials, after they were given access to the test data), the side armor of the hull is different between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122.
     
     
    That's the thing with RHAe: It is depending on the exact interaction between armor and projectile: there is no way to estimate the performance of modern ammo just by looking at one single generic RHAe figure. E.g. when fired from the L/55 smoothbore gun, the DM53 can defeat certain armor arrays that reach 1,000 mm RHAe against older types of APFSDS ammo, despite it being only able to defeat 700 mm steel armor.
     
    Unlike claimed by you, LKE1/DM43/OFL-1/KEW-A1 was designed with optimizations against special armors and ERA. That's why the round is still in use today and even has been ordered just this year by Taiwan for their future M1A2 tanks. That it performs better against Kontakt-5 than M829A1 is no wonder, because it has a thicker rod (26 mm) and is made of tungsten, which has a higher stiffness than DU, i.e. it is less likely to be deformed/shattered by heavy ERA.
     
    For the sake of this discussion, lets ignore "Leopard 2A4 with Type D armor" discussion. We had that often enough and not moved past. You'll say "but the books mention it was only the skirts that were Type D armor", I'll point out that that the books do not say the base armor remained unchanged/old. You'll argue with the weight of the M1A2, I'll point out that the late Leopard 2A4's weight has been stated as 56.5 metric tons by multiple source and that it has a much narrower turret... this goes on and on and we won't find a consensus.
    So let's move on and ignore the Leopard 2A4 for a few moments:
    - Even if the Leopard 2 from 1991 still was fitted with Type C armor, this doesn't change the fact that there could have been Type D/fourth generation base armor as mentioned by Hilmes. It remains a fact that a flat, box-shaped armor module was able to resist LKE1/DM43 without the penetrator reaching the last ~quarter of the armor array and that this was offered as upgrade option to several countries operating older versions of the Leopard 2 (which is why I know about this: the relevant documents were classified at a relatively low level because said countries didn't buy the armor upgrade, so informations could be leaked even by lower levels of the respective armies) Maybe this armor was never fitted to the Leopard 2A4 as base armor - this doesn't change the fact that the Leopard 2A5/Stridsvagn likely has such base armor, based on its weight.
     

    Yes, but it would have been a new turret rather than a redesign.
     
     
    At the time this was written, it might have been perfectly reasonable to assume that the designation would changed, based on the history of the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, which had received lots of new designations even for less deep modernizations/upgrades.
     
     
     
    The KVT has a combat weight of 60.51 metric tons including 1.3 metric tons roof armor, ~1.2 metric tons hull armor (est.) and a bunch of additional components that didn't make it into the series model. This means that the naked KVT (i.e. the tank without add-on armor modules) weighed less than 56 metric tons. The Leopard 2A5 as formerly operated by Germany and currently operational in Poland has a weight of 59.7 metric tons or roughly 58.2 metric tons without add-on armor modules at the turret. The KVT mounted more new components than the series production model, has the same changes regarding mantlet and gun sight placement, also has the EWNA (which btw. is supposed to be lighter than the previous hydraulic system), spall liners (incl. spall liners in the hull), the new storage boxes, the new track skirts, etc,
     
    Comparing the Leopard 2A5 to the Leopard 2A4 with Type B armor doesn't make sense, given that we do not know the exact weight of the non-armor changes - e.g. how much each change beside the turret add-on armor adds to the weight difference. Hardened steel roadwheel caps, spall liners, EWNA, the rear drive camera, the extended storage boxes made of aluminium, etc. all are unknown factors. These factors are irrelevant for comparing the KVT with Type B base armor and the series production model (with apparently Type D base armor), as there likely wasn't any change in weight regarding them (aside of the fact that the KVT mounted a few additional components like the suction ventilation system for the engine and the compartmentalized hydraulic system).
     
    It is very simpple to see that the 2.1 metric tons weight differences that you seem to have identified cannot be attributed to the EWNA, storage boxes, spall liners, etc.: the KVT weighed only 60.51 metric tonnes. A naked KVT minus 2.1 tonnes "unaccounted weight" would end up lighter than the Leopard 2A0 from 1979! Btw. the weight difference between an empty Leopard 2A5 turret and an empty Leopard 2A4 turret is 4.25 metric tons, not 3.6...
     
     
    The plan was to have hulls with Type C armor + add-on armor along the road. That's better than Type B armor + add-on armor.
     
     
    Sure, every author makes mistakes. But you are just speculating on him exactly making a difference at this place. Your examples for his previous mistakes are also bad. You are using his original book from 1984 and argue that it is wrong without even having a proof that the sections your criticize contain any errors.

    Yes, HOT didn't penetrate 800 mm with built-in stand-off, but it can penetrate that much armor at optimal stand-off (based on the British interpolation of test firings conducted at different stand-off). I posted the graph earlier in this exact topic:

    Between 6 and 7 calibers stand-off distance, the HOT ATGM should reach about 800 mm. This is also the value which is listed as penetration for HOT at the WTS Koblenz, which is run by the Bundeswehr. It doesn't represent battlefield conditions, but that is likely a value used by its manufacturer to appraise the system ("up to 800 mm penetration"). In his original book, Hilmes provides sources for pretty much everything he claims (unfortunately he stopped doing that after working for the BWB, because a lot of his sources weren't public). Merkava 1's armor layout is sourced from an Israeli source and it is clearly stated that it is a sketch. Maybe he made an error when drawing the sketch due to an incorrect understanding of the translation, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as you are using a book from the 1980s citing tons of sources to discredit his statements about a program where he was actually involved in...
     
     
    The author from the article of the ARMOR magazine is a Dutch freelance photographer called Gerard van Oosbree. He has no authority on the matter. The source he cites for the the replacement of the base armor is a brochure written by a German journalists. It is not bad, but hardly an authority in itself.
     
    A contemporary special of a German military magazine on the Leopard 2A5 written by Michael Scheibert, a Bundeswehr officier who served 73 years before retiring and wrote numerous articles on German military hardware, tactics and other military related topics wrote in regards to the armor: "Einbau von Schutzpaketen neuer Technologie im Turmgehäuse und Anbau von Vorsatzmodulen an der Front und an den Flanken des Turmes;" (Integration of protection modules [made with] new technology into the turret structure and addition of external add-on modules at the front and flanks of the turret). He furthermore mentions that despite using the newest (!) armor technology, the weight of the Leopard 2A5 had to be increased to nearly 60 metric tons to meet the demanded protection levels. Newest armor technology doesn't sound like Type B armor from 1979...
     
     
    There was only a photograph of an armor module representing the turret front, it included the ERA. No photograph of the armor module after penetration, but a sketch comparing the penetration depth of LKE 1 and LKE 2 prototypes against the turret armor. Based on the sketch, both rounds passed through the simulated Kontakt-5.
     
  15. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Serge in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Book on Puma in english and available as a PDF
  16. Tank You
    Willy Brandt reacted to SH_MM in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    I am also confused by the high amount of steel along the line of sight. Assuming the bulging plates are also made of steel (rather than some type of light metal alloy such as aluminium), that's 450 mm steel at the turret front cheeks (I am assuming that the center portion does not feature Beulblech add-ons, given that they aren't shown in the blueprints).
    That is valid for the minimum LOS thickness of the turret front, i.e. at an angle of 35°. The LOS from the front is ~22 per cent larger, which would lead to more than 540 mm steel along the LOS - even if the armor was made of pure RHA without any additional layering effects, the protection  level would be on the same level as the MBT 80 with a combat weight of nearly 68 metric tons!
     
    So there seem to be multiple options:
    The armor might have been downgraded to reduce weight. That also would explain the change in minimum LOS at the turret front from 710 mm to only ~680 mm (rough estimate based on the horizontal slope measurements done on a drawing). However the weight reduction document ("25. Sitzung der AG SBWS KPz LEOPARD 2") mentioned by @Scav clearly says that armor protection should remain unchanged (see page 3 and 4). So if there was any reduction in armor weight, armor efficiency must have been improved to negate this fact. An alternative interpretation to the "armor protection remaining unchanged" could be related to the reference threat: maybe the new armor - despite providing less overall protection - could stop the reference threats at the same range & distance, as the heavier armor package shown in the drawing, which was "overkill". The armor blueprint/descriptions discovered by @Wiedzmin might show a rejected candidate that has little/nothing to do with the actual armor of the Leopard 2 production vehicle, although it honestly fits all the descriptions I've seen in public sources. The drawing might be wrong in some way?  
    I've estimated - based on available weight figures of the special armor (which are kind of rough) and the 3D model made by @Laviduce - that the Leopard 2's turret front armor should weigh as much as ~350-360 mm steel armor, assuming weight is evenly spread between hull armor, turret front armor, turret side armor and gun mantlet. Assuming the turret side armor and gun mantlet armor of the Leopard 2 series variant stayed identical to the Leopard 2AV, the frontal armor of the turret and hull should become "denser" (I calculated a ratio of 0.331 to 1 between weight of special armor and weight of steel with equivalent volume, but the side armor reaches only a ratio of 0.262 to 1), so I can only assume that it is higher than 360 mm.
     

    Unless monobloc penetrators such as the M111 Hetz are somehow capable to reduce the weight efficiency of the Leopard 2's turret armor to less than 1.0 vs KE, I can only assume that the stories about "Leopard 2 reaches only 330-350 mm vs M111 Hetz APFSDS" are either focused on a larger frontal arc or including hull/mantlet armor.
     
    Another issue is that the weight limit of the turret supposedly was always set at 17 metric tons according to Paul-Werner Krapke. The empty weight of the Leopard 2's series turret is 15.5 metric tons, a full turret likely approaches that limit. So how could the Leopard 2AV have so much thicker armor while staying on roughly the same weight (17.4 and 17.65 metric tons fully loaded)?
     
     
    Is the weight of the Leopard 2AV (or its armor) specified in one of the documents, @Wiedzmin? Does it mention the desired protected frontal arc? The side armor is so thin, it only reaches similar LOS at 15° slope!
     
     
    The weight limit for the Leopard 2 was specified as 55.15 metric tons after 1974. Before 1974, it was specified at MLC 50 (ca. 47.5 metric tons). The Leopard 2AV weighed much more, because designers didn't focus that much on the weight goal. I.e. in 1976 it was reported by an US General during a hearing at the Congress that the Leopard 2 weight more than 60 metric tons. However a German report from 1977 specifies the weight of the heavier Leopard 2AV prototype as 57.920 kg.
     
     
    It was believed that the 105 mm KE38 round would perform similar to the future Soviet 115 mm APFSDS round, while the MILAN was meant to simulate future Soviet ATGMs.
     
     
    https://pdfhost.io/v/jY6D6ZUv7_Leo2AV_77pdf.pdf  
  17. Tank You
    Willy Brandt reacted to Wiedzmin in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    1976  Leopard 2AV armour(all from declassified reports), bustle spaced armour(12+30) also used on serial Leopard-2 tanks.
  18. Tank You
    Willy Brandt reacted to Scav in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    2AV
     
  19. Tank You
    Willy Brandt reacted to Beer in Czechoslovak interwar bits   
    Hello guys,
    I think that possibly some of you might be interested in our interwar Czechoslovak stuff. For starter I've decided to share with you a wonderful online document about our fortification system. At the very beginning I'd like to say that I have nothing common with its creators. It's just an incredible gem that deserves to be shared with you. If you know it, sorry for that, nevertheless I think most of you don't. Since I am new here I will not waste your time debating what if scenarios. Don't worry.  
     
    Well, enough of talking. What I want to share with you is a massive interactive map of our fortification system containing nearly 11 thousand objects with information about every single one of them. You can switch on even such crazy details like cable networks or construction facilities used for building of the fortifications. The map is directly linked with an online database of the fortification buildings where more than 2000 objects are listed with detailed description (plans, 3D models, photos, weapons, crew, important dates, recent state etc.). Unfortunately this database is only in Czech language but it can be a great source of information for you anyway (especially when linked with the map). The good thing is that the map alone supports other languages and you can easily switch them.  
     
    This is the base view where I have already switched on all objects. You can change background map type, information etc. on the left side and visualise everything what You want to see on the right side. 
     
    Let's zoom in a little bit. Here You can see one of the strongest fortified places - a valey at Králíky in north-east Czechia. As you can see the object marks have different shapes, colours etc. The shape is matching the menu on the right side. Triangles are concrete pillboxes vz. (mark) 36. Small circles are pillboxes vz. 37. The letter inside means type of the object (with one firing post, two on each side, angled one etc.). The color can be decoded from the information table in the bottom right corner. Basically it shows whether the object was actually built, if it was later destroyed or the works were only started or even not so. The heavy objects are the large circles. The numbers have also a meaning. It's a resistance class (1 -> 2 -> I -> IV from the lowest to the most resistant). 

     
    You can switch on also the ground plans of the artilery groups (fortresses with underground network between the casemates). You can see it here (fortress Hůrka). 

     
    You can also switch on the firing lines. Here You can see heavy artilery coverage of the most fortified section of the line (the sad thing is that no heavy artilery pieces were installed by the time of Münich crisis - but lets leave such details aside for now). 

     
    You can switch on the firing lines even for the pillboxes as you can see here on the example from the souther border. Nearly all Czechoslovak objects were built for side fire having superheavy resistance frontal walls with stone and earth covers. 

     
    If You zoom even more and switch for satelite map you get something like this. In this case the red color shows anti tank 47 mm guns and the blue color is 7,92 mm (sometimes double) heavy machine guns of a heavy separated casemate (possible use of light machine guns in observation cupolas is not marked). The grey color shows vz.26 light machine guns of the neighbouring pillbox. 

     
    You can click on every single object and you get available details. The first icon shows detailed lines of fire including realistic range. Bellow the L: L1 M ZN 3-4 means: Left side: L1 = 47 mm anti tank gun with 7,92 mm coaxial heavy MG; M = twin 7,92 heavy MG; ZN is I think type of the cupola but I'm not actually sure about it. The codes for the weapons are shown at the table in the lower right corner (you need to keep the cursor on the question mark). 

     
    The Second icon leads to a database of objects which is unfortunately only in our weird language. Anyway you can dig a lot of information from it as well (drawings, recent state, photos, exact location etc.).

     
     
    The best thing is that most of the objects still exist till today (all of those heavy ones). The Germans managed to destroy roughly 2000 light objects (and gain some 11000 tons of steels from them). They managed to damage also many heavy ones when they were testing weapons and tactics for the future use duirng the WW2. They even moved some cupolas (and of course the famous hedgehogs) to other fortifications along the Atlantic wall or elsewhere. Many of them are made into better or worse museums today (large quantity is private now). Huge number of them is just left alone and freely accessible for anyone. If you are more interested I can give you tips which ones to visit. On the Czech map portal You can use a mode panorama which is basically the same thing as Google street view but it's much more up to date and it's nearly everywhere where they got at least with a motorbike. Since the fortifications are also visible there, you check where they are for easier access. 
     


     
    If you are interested I can continue the fortification topic with some other information (I'm no historian but I have visited quite many of the objects myself and read some books about them). 
     
    OK, so this was my first post on the forum. I hope you find it interesting and maybe for some of you it can be a reason for a trip, who knows :-) 
     
     
     
     
  20. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Walter_Sobchak in Books About Tanks   
  21. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Zadlo in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    I can post screenshots of the article.
    And ESUT is a monthly magazine which has good connections into the industry and the Ministry.
    That why they have articles with 3/4th old facts and 1/4th of new information that you cant get anywhere else.
     
     


     

     

  22. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Ramlaen in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    I can post screenshots of the article.
    And ESUT is a monthly magazine which has good connections into the industry and the Ministry.
    That why they have articles with 3/4th old facts and 1/4th of new information that you cant get anywhere else.
     
     


     

     

  23. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from DIADES in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    I can post screenshots of the article.
    And ESUT is a monthly magazine which has good connections into the industry and the Ministry.
    That why they have articles with 3/4th old facts and 1/4th of new information that you cant get anywhere else.
     
     


     

     

  24. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from DIADES in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Another drip of information on upgrades and replacment for alot of Bundeswehr AFVs in the coming years.
     
    So the big thing first the Spz Marder is getting upgraded.
    Over 200 will be upgrade until 2025 with a new Thermal Imager for the Gunner, new night vision cameras for the driver, a new more powerful powerpack, a battlemanagment system and the
    same tracks as the Puma and off course Spike instead of MILAN.

    TSWA is still happening for Spz Puma with lethal and non lethal CS and Flashbang rounds (?)
    Wiesel is first getting upgraded with Spikes and then replaced by 2025 with a new "Airdeployable Heavy Weapon Carrier".
    A Mungo replacment is being looked into.
    Jägerbataillons are getting heavy Weapon Carriers so probably Boxer with a turret.
    A new Airdeployable Patform with Mortar System is due in 2027 to replace M113 and Lkw Wolf with the 120mm Mortar, so the Wiesel 2 with a Mortar probably.
    Boxer will receive an APS but no word on hard or soft kill.
     
     
     
  25. Tank You
    Willy Brandt got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Another drip of information on upgrades and replacment for alot of Bundeswehr AFVs in the coming years.
     
    So the big thing first the Spz Marder is getting upgraded.
    Over 200 will be upgrade until 2025 with a new Thermal Imager for the Gunner, new night vision cameras for the driver, a new more powerful powerpack, a battlemanagment system and the
    same tracks as the Puma and off course Spike instead of MILAN.

    TSWA is still happening for Spz Puma with lethal and non lethal CS and Flashbang rounds (?)
    Wiesel is first getting upgraded with Spikes and then replaced by 2025 with a new "Airdeployable Heavy Weapon Carrier".
    A Mungo replacment is being looked into.
    Jägerbataillons are getting heavy Weapon Carriers so probably Boxer with a turret.
    A new Airdeployable Patform with Mortar System is due in 2027 to replace M113 and Lkw Wolf with the 120mm Mortar, so the Wiesel 2 with a Mortar probably.
    Boxer will receive an APS but no word on hard or soft kill.
     
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...