Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laviduce

  1. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    I am getting the impression that they are talking about the tanks pictured above (Stillbrew Chieftain Mk10, Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4 (early), M1A1, Vickers Mk7/2) The picture seems to have been taken some time in 1990. According to the Challenger 2 book by Osprey the Leopard 2A4 and the other contestants were "current production models". As we know; the latest models of these tanks were the Chieftain Mk11, Challenger 1 Mk3 (minus ROMOR armor), Leopard 2A4 with 2nd gen. special armor, M1A1 HA, Vickers Mk 7/2. There is at least 1 problem with this statement. The Leopard 2A4 pictured above seems to be one of the Leopard 2A4s that still features the 1st generation special armor. If take a closer look at the heavy side skirt mountings we see that they seem to correspond to the earlier models not the latter vehicles (vehicle 97+ batch 6, batch 7 and batch 8) as seen below. Batch 8 Leopard 2A4: It seems that this protection feature above the heavy side skirts was dropped in post 1992 Leopard 2A4s.
  2. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Leopard 2A1 ---- 55,15 tons Leopard 2A4 ---- 56,5 tons Leopard 2A5 ---- 59,7 tons Leopard 2A6 ---- 60,1 tons Leopard 2A6M ---- 62,3 tons Strv 122 ---- 62,5 tons Leopard 2E ---- 63 tons Leopard 2A7+ ---- 67,5 tons M1 ---- 54,5 tons M1A1 ---- 58 tons M1A1 HA ---- 61,3 tons M1A2 ----- 62 tons M1A2 SEP ---- 63,1 tons (up to 65 tons)
  3. The Leopard 2 Thread

    I was thinking that such a hit would definitaly damage or destroy the hydraulic pump. You really think the pump is undamaged ?
  4. The Leopard 2 Thread

    How about this?
  5. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Although it is a work in progress, any constructive criticism and/or feedback to enhance or correct the model would be greatly appreciated!!!
  6. The Leopard 2 Thread

    This confuses me even more. Rolf Hilmes explicitly states that the combined mass of the hull and turret chassis including special armor inserts accounts for 48 % of the entire weight of the 55t Leopard 2. This comes to about 26,5 t In the Spielberger book the combined weight of the basic hull and turret (Panzerwanne and Trumgehäuse) are given at 21 t. Would Hilmes be off by 5,5 t (20+ %) ?
  7. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Some more information on the mass distribution of the Leopard 2: R. Hilmes gives the following mass distribution: Total System Weight: 55.150 kg Electronic components: 3.860,50 kg - 7 % Powerpack + full fuel tanks: 8.548,25 kg - 15,5 % Running Gear (.i.e: tracks, suspensions, wheels, etc.); 11.857,25 kg - 21,5 % Bare hull and turret with composite armor inserts: 26.472 kg - 48 % Weaponry (main gun, Coax MG, etc.): 4.412 kg - 8% (not sure whether or not this includes the gun mantlet or not.) W. Spielberger/ Oberst Icken gives the following values: Turret mass without ammunition+equipment: 16.000 kg Turmgehäuse/Turret Shell: 8.910 kg Hull mass without ammunition+equipment: 37.800 kg Panzerwanne/Hull Shell: 12.100 kg Total hull and turret shell mass: 21.010 kg Main Weapon System (120 mm RH gun) without mantlet: 3.100 kg 1. The bare hull and turret mass is stated to be around 26.472 kg with composite armor inserts. The empty turret and hull shell has a combined mass of 21.010 kg 2. This let's me believe that the composite armor in both the hull and turret has a total mass of 5.462 kg.
  8. The Leopard 2 Thread

    From P. Krapke: -------------------------------------------------------- Total weapon assembly Weight without mantlet: 3100 kg Weight with mantlet (Leopard 2AV): 4290 kg ---------------------------------------------------------
  9. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Thank you, these pictures do help !
  10. The Leopard 2 Thread

    This is a compilation of properly scaled drawings that might be of interest:
  11. The Leopard 2 Thread

    1. Thank you guys, those STRV 122 pictures were the ones i was looking for. I would need to aks you for another favor thou. Would you guys know the actual length of the hull ammunition rack of the Leopard 2? Also , do you have any images that show if the rounds are totally enclosed in the ammo rack tubes? I would think that the entire round, KE or othertowerwise, would totally fit into the tube with only the base of the round (~5-10 mm) sticking out at the end. Since most of these 120 mm rounds are abou 980 mm in length i would assume the loaded rack not to be much longer than 1020 mm. Either way , any feedback would be appreciated. 2. What kind of LOS estimates would you guys give the leopard 2 glacis. I am getting the impression that is about 620 mm on average. 3, Do you guys have any estimates on the The Leclerc's glacis LOS thickness ? It seems to be around 500-550 mm, followed by the fuel tank of unknown thickness (100 - 200mm?), which then is followed by the ammuntion drum (around 1000 mm in length)
  12. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Amazing magic trick that i, sadly, have already tried with no luck :-/ Thank you for the pictures, there are some things i have not seen before. :3 Yes, something along those lines but where the bottom of the EMES-15 bay is visible. The first image is the closest to what i am looking for. Either way , i do not think the EMES will extend much further past the bottom edge of the cylindrical optical channel as seen in the 2nd image. I wonder if the upper edge of the circular opening is touching the lower edge of that 650 mm block or if there is a noticeable gab.
  13. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Thank you very much for the images. Is the first image a Leopard 2A4 or a Leopard 2A5/6 ? It looks like a 2A5/6 turret to me with the roof and side wall liners. I was aware of the size differenze and that the total LOS thickness of the area below the cutout for the EMES-15 is about 1000-1100 mm. I just incorrectly sized the EMES bay by about 150+ mm. I am currently working on a 3D model of the turret and i will incorporate the changes accordingly. BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.
  14. The Leopard 2 Thread

    You are correct, in my estimates i had overestimated the size of the EMES15 channel by about 130 mm, shrinking the space that could be used by composites. So the turret front is more uniform than in my initial estimate. I will make further adjustments. Either way, even with my "low" estimates , this gives the Leopard 2A0-2A0 turret superior KE resistance compared to the M1 turret. I am strongly convinced that the KE resistance of the early Leopard 2 is between the 420-570 mm RHAe for the left turret and right turret front within the 0-30 degree frontal arc. I will prepare an updated and more detailed diagram soon.
  15. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Hello and thank you ! SH_MM: Did you ever consider that this might be referring to the Leopard 2A4 and not the Leopard 2A0-A3? With the Leopard 2 vs. T-72 comparison in his latest Kampfpanzer book, I would find no reason why he would not refer to the Leopard 2A4 instead of the older Leopard 2A0-A3 versions. SH_MM: Luckily the T-62 is also displayed. Since this book was published in 1986 it would probably refer to the most advanced 115 mm APFSDS round of the time, the 3BM-28 from 1978. This lets me believe that the diagram refers to a T-72 round of the same time period. The prime candidate would be the 125 mm 3BM-22 from 1974. The diagram below is my KE resistance estimate for the Leopard 2A0-2A3 based on the initial Leopard 2 protection requirements, the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimate, Hilmes comments and diagrams. The orange and blue areas vary between 360 and 320 mm RHA KE resistance. The EMES 15, gunners periscope, and EMES 15 optical channel contribute primarily to these inconsistent values. I considered the left turret cheek the most heavily armored part of the turret. The 500 mm area covers only a relatively small area on the right turret front. I do not think they would consider such a small area necessarily the "toughest part of the turret" because it covers a relatively small area of the turret front. The diagram would overall satisfy the intial Leopard 2 protection requirements , the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimates, Hilmes comments and diagrams. The diagram would also explain the dissatisfaction of the US and UK concerning the uneven armor distribution of the Leopard 2. I will keep refining the diagram and my model and add RHAe CE values to it as well. SH_MM: With his LOS values being already off at the beginning, i figured that he might be "overestimating" certain values and be a bit off with other values.
  16. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Hello Everyone, I have the strong impression that the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret seems to have a KE resistance of around 400-500 mm and a CE resistance of around 700 - 800 mm. based on: The P. Krapke threat diagram: The R. Hilmes estimate: 450 mm RHA KE: The Armed Forces Journal: 400 mm RHA KE / 700 mm RHA CE: P. Lakowski estimate using the established LOS thickness values: 495 - 590 mm RHA KE / 700 - 830 mm RHA CE: Militarysta estimate: 450-500mm RHA KE / 860mm RHA CE: The armor protection requirement for the first Leopard 2 prototype: Inside the crew compartment (turret and hull): 1. Secure against 105 mm x 617 HK (APDS), fired from a distance of 800 m from a horizontal frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting from ground level up to 1154 mm. (This effectively means the glacis/upper front hull turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the sponson area and side turret). 2. Secure against 90 mm x 602 HK, fired from a distance of 1500 m from a horizontal frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the side hul area and side turret). 3. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 100 m from a horizontal direction all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis and lower front hull as well as turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from ground level going up.(This effectively means the side hull area and side turret). 4. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 500 m from with an impact angle of 20 degrees (from the horizonal) all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 650 mm from ground level going up.(Side hull covered by the side skirts and side turret). 5. Secure against 155 mm high explosive shells, splinters/shrapnel from a height of 10 m above the engine deck. This image also helped: Could any of you give me some feedback and tell me what you guys think ? Thanks in advance!