Scav

More advanced and thicker (in some cases). CR2 hull and turret designs are inefficient.

As Cold War had "ended", the need for improved frontal KE protection was significantly less with most tank losses during the Gulf War happening from friendly fire and RPG/mines/IEDs. They didn't even implement thermal viewer for the commander as cost cutting measure and there are no remarks about improved base armour in any sources (compared with earlier prototypes). Just because they can't stop a round that only entered service in 1998, doesn't mean they can't stop anything. They have their own requirements, M1A2 is probably designed to defeat M829A1 at some velocity to simulate WP rounds. CR2 is likely designed to defeat L26 at some velocity to simulate WP rounds. Nations tend to use their own ammunition to test their tanks, unless they use STANAG testing procedures.

What makes you think M1A2 and SEPs are protected against DM53? They couldn't even resist some LKE2 prototype during Swedish trials. ISD ≠ armour from this date. Yeah, they were never up-armoured significantly apart from IED/RPG protection, which doesn't mean they didn't need it. You expect and assume way too much. There were no real armour upgrades between Challenger batches. 50mm of KE protection extra comes from the 25mm thick mounting plate for ROMOR... M1 hull didn't provide 400mm RHAe. Only about 350mm. BRL-2 is a misnomer, M1A1/IP use the same armour arrays as M1, just with a higher thickness on the front of the turret. Stillbrew is just cast steel + rubber damper.

Some sources state only light skirts were changed, some state both were changed. I tried finding a leopard 2A5/6 with the Danish style of heavy skirt, but haven't been able to. The German/Dutch heavy skirts on A5/6 are notably different than those of the Danish tanks and they look identical to images of C tech heavy skirts. Pictures of the TVM also don't show the inside sadly... If someone can find images of the Strv 122 heavy skirt when it's de-mounted, that would be very nice. They could still be different of course, even with identical appearance, but at least there ought to be a reason for it.

BTW, I recalled something, TL 2350-001 is a specification for armour steel that existed in the 70s, predating C tech and seemed to have been used in 70s to come up with bulging plate armour. Yep. C tech was also probably marketed to Switzerland as they ended up getting it. Not sure why they would base their naming off of it, seems very random to change language just for this. Exactly why I think it makes absolutely 0 sense to build trial vehicles with an armour scheme you don't intend to adopt in the first place. Never mind propose an armour scheme to a potential customer if you don't intend to use it youself. Spielberger does give a weight of 55.15t later in the book, it was perhaps a typo. Hilmes also provides the 16t empty weight and so does the Swiss tank website (it seems they mostly provide weight for B tech tanks and only did so for the total weight in the beginning, bit strange but whatever) There were some other people/places, but I can't recall them. Combat weight increase of 990kg seems very reasonable: 300kg=15x21kg 120mm rounds 225kg= 3x75kg crew ~100kg for the 7.62 ammo and boxes ~350kg left for other equipment, helmets, boots, self defense weapons.. I don't mean the whole skirt, but certainly inserts inside the skirt could be. The skirts themselves consist of a fiberglass/aramid material. There are several versions of the D tech skirts BTW, there's the initial ones with the fiberglass/aramid structure and low instep, there's the composite ones with the higher instep and then even later steel ones with a higher instep. (pictures just for illustration) Yes, so wouldn't the "supposed" ceramic technology make sense to use then? Also, there are definitely more factors at play that prevent their use. Unfortunately... I did not save anything other than this image and can't recall specifics. But yes, there are always adverts claiming "future improvements". It's a very common trope, in particular just look at all the nano ceramics stuff they claimed 15 years ago, almost all of which seems to have remained at the lower end of the KE threat scale. Likewise there are a lot of other proposed upgrades with new technology that have taken their sweet time to be implemented. I don't doubt there is lab experiments that show potential, but that's where it seems to remain for the large part. If it were included I would at least expect another diagram showing roof protection levels, though it might've been off-page I suppose. Just seems a bit odd to mix that in with the "KE threat". Probably a result of not wanting to post information that isn't publicly available elsewhere. BTW the 55000kg weight isn't lower than first production model leo 2s, it's actually just the "combat weight". I have a page of a leo 2A1NL manual that states the combat weight is 55t and the maximum allowable weight 55.15t. The mufflers probably aren't included simply because they're not used all the time, though as I said, the weight can vary even between tanks of the same model, which isn't all too surprising. Leo 2 went through a lot of changes between A0 and A4, yet the weight is still listed as the same. Wait, where does Hilmes mention this? It's not in the section of Krapke's book, he only mentions the 60.51t weight there (and doesn't change it for TVM). I checked Heute und Morgen and it's not there either. Trying to find as much of this as possible. Yup, it's quite frustrating, just trying to get a discussion going to compile all possible information. Wasn't that the point of KWS3 and later NGP though? Taking things one step at a time with a reasonable amount of mature development seems much more in line with their service adoptions, rather than rushing and trying to get the absolute best possible. And being able to defeat LKE2 (some version of it at least), seems more than sufficient for whatever the Soviets were expected to bring to the table in the foreseeable future until KWS3 or later upgrades roll out. If that was the case, then I would have expected them to upgrade the hull armour as well (outside of the add-on). But yeah, value for money... It was also tested with a lower threat on the Swedish version, at least if I understand you correctly. But yes, as I said, I didn't see much difference. Visual inspection of the TVM also looks incredibly similar to that of the Strv 122 for example (or 2E/HEL for that matter). It's mostly the turret add-ons that seem different, in particular the sections at the corner and sides (where we also see the biggest difference in the testing results). I honestly doubt those weights were accurate, probably just a ballpark number, I mean exactly 500kg? They also didn't include the side add-ons, just the front ones and the side ones only weighing 200 each seems a bit odd, although not impossible. Y-567 056 (2A4) was the basis for TVM 2 Mod TVM max was Y-907 792 and TVM min was Y-907-793 (on display now in Munster). KVT was Y-582 391 TVM max became Leopard 2A6EX DEMO 1 and there is an image of it with in the TVM config but with L55 gun, I believe it later became the DEMO 2 and after that PSO (possibly the basis for the EMBT 2 now?) Hilmes gives a different explanation, which I can't explain with the picture evidence of TVM Max with L55 and later as 2A6EX... Not sure what became of IVT, it seems to have been used for future "C2" trials between the US and Germany.

No idea, impossible to really know for sure.

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008. We can't really say for sure what it refers to, especially because both the 1st generation and third generation are missing, never mind a potential 4th. It's a dead end so far as information goes, at least until someone can look at the specification and what it says. This? Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x). Never seen E tech specifically being referred to, but it does seem like KMW is moving away from IBD/Rheinmetall and trying to develop/use more of their own products. It's especially interesting that they introduced this on PSO and the presentation even shows it tested for PSO, but the actual vehicle retained the heavy hull roof add-on. Then on their slide showing "duel config" and "PSO config" there is a difference, but on A7V they use the light add-on, which makes absolutely no sense... 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. Perhaps it's a way to distinguish it from armour kits like the K-1 ERA on T-72A/B. But my main point with this was that he says this in his KVT chapter and refers to KVT. Which seems incredibly odd considering KVT retained the B tech armour.... He might be getting ahead of himself or making some small errors, but I try not to assume he makes too many of those without an indication. That's also what I thought initially, but it seems rather odd to me that Spielberger mentions them in the same breath. 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. Not saying it's impossible that TVM was C + D-whatever, but it just seems incredibly weird and unlikely. 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. Well to be fair, 1.5t isn't a lot... I have talked to some tankers that had the opportunity to load up their vehicles on a scale during shipping (Abrams tankers) and one of them told me his tank was close to 2t lighter than the weight often referred to when empty... I also don't see how the heavy skirts could be lighter, considering there's now an extra part to it. Never seen much regarding C tech in general, it was quite "short lived" in service outside of Switzerland. Sorry, I meant the large periscope in front of the TC, I often get them mixed up. ....What...? Another Britain moment or was there more to it? Those values seem extremely scuffed, but thanks for the picture, hadn't seen this before. CAWA is the only one I've seen actual "results" for, the TCA is requestionable as only some references are found and none of the citations. 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. Most of the papers involve small scale tests. 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. If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go. But production vehicles seem to be lacking them and I doubt HEAT protection is the only reason. Somehow I doubt this was still the plan in 1995 when they started retrofitting tanks, also if the reason was weight penalty, wouldn't that also mean adopting a heavier D tech armour package in the turret is off the table..? 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. In regards to worst tank being upgraded first, that's exactly what I mean when I suggest that they used B tech turrets for the base and still upgraded them with C tech rather than using C tech as a base. Retains the most combat potential with the (2nd) least effort/cost. Just seems like somebody didn't want to bother graying out cells TBH (they needed an intern ), otherwise I would have expected them to also gray out B and C for "Vors. modul". I also just think they're different amounts or types of add-on armour, I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart. 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. They definitely would have used different add-ons, but at the same time, some of the increases seem a little bit excessive to just be a result of an add-on module. 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). The nr 2 turret attack can probably be ignored as a result of the measuring method (that threat doesn't reach beyond 700m, so any number beyond this is not exactly definitive or known). There can also be slight variances in where the hits occurred, for example the sight aperture location might give substantially different results than the armour section below it. Maybe we'll just have to wait another 10-20 years for the actual answers.

Why use English? Keramik -> K Dunno, then D would refer to... what exactly? It's still bulging plate armour, so why not use B-2 or something? Strange ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Eh, well.... Armour advances usually far outpace the implementation of them, as we can see from Germany not adopting add-on until 2019 and even now they only adopt the "light" hull roof add-on which was developed for use against RPGs, yet even Lobitz' most recent book he claims the hull was up-armoured to the level of the turret. I don't doubt the 2A7V uses a new insert as that slide shows, but what technology it is is anyone's guess. Using a ~30 year old armour technology and claiming it's the latest doesn't sound very smart. seems rather strange to me I agree. Or maybe... Brits simply had different idea of what "impressive" constitutes and had different result in mind. I think Chobham in general is quite lacking against KE in all forms we've seen. The myth of British armour has been debunked quite a few times now... Without knowing the actual results it's hard to say.

DM43 wasn't fielded, but it was adopted. This is likely a bit older information and estimates for the T-series. They seem to be advertised numbers, not normalised in tests.

They all make a lot of tiny mistakes here and there, Lobitz Gesamtwerk is full of translation errors. Lobitz also mentions the hull being up-armoured to the level of the turret, but at the same time says that the hull roof add-on is "light".

He states: "For the conversion to 2A5, the oldest turrets were taken and modified with the most modern D technology into KWS turrets." Previous to this he never even mentions the internal armour packages, only the add-on modules. If he was going to include the turret inserts, I would have expected him to specify this separately and state so directly, not with a generic "modified with D tech" which most likely refers to the add-on modules as he doesn't specify those either. I've asked many native Germans speakers and very few take this to mean that the internal packages were changed to D tech, especially when the context is taken into account. It's the third letter of the alphabet and it's stated numerous times that D tech is the fourth generation of armour technology, I don't see what other number could possibly be attributed to it. Leo 2 did have different armour packages before B tech, in the form of spaced armour on the Keiler series or a different array on the 2AVs, any one of these could be the "1st generation". Also, I don't think it necessarily contradicts it existing, as an internal armour package, but the evidence for it is incredibly meager and whenever D tech is referred to by reputable sources it's pretty much always mentioned to be add-on armour. It's hard to prove something doesn't exist, because if it doesn't you won't find any proof of it.... It's entirely possible and IMO quite likely that the initial plan was to have D technology as an internal armour package like the Brits claim in those documents relating to C tech testing, but then the idea and concept changed and we see that in 1988/9 they were going to use it as add-on armour instead. C tech entered service in 1988, 6th batch was the first to receive it from the 97th vehicle on and the batch started being delivered in Jan 1988 and lasted until May of 1989. The time difference between them is perhaps not "3" years but already by 1991 KVT and TVM were running around in an "almost ready" configuration. If you are going to count from the time that they started developing the armour, then you'll have to use 1976 for B tech, 1984 for C tech and 1987 for D tech... 600/420 is a 43% increase and 1200/750 is a 60% increase, I used 780mm but it's still a lot more than 30 and 37%. Either way, significantly higher increases than between B and C, where they spent more time to develop it. It is revolutionary for internal armour changes, especially if you assume the part about "no weight penalty" to be true. The DU armour package on M1s added around 2 tonnes of weight to an array that was quite poorly optimised against KE (not particularly efficient), and did so only on the front of the turret, it didn't include the hull, it didn't include the turret sides, just the turret front. The original M1 was only protected against XM579/XM735 (if that) and the armour array is essentially MBT-70 layout but with a thinner backplate (4" vs 5") and a much larger space between the front and rear plate, including the NERA package for HEAT protection and spacers. The M1A1's armour without DU is the same except with an increase in NERA array thickness, no armour technology change. So going from an armour style that relies primarily on the front and rear plate + spacing to defeat incoming KE threats, with the NERA doing relatively little (the steel plates in the sandwiches are quite thin), to an array that now includes DU plates as thick as 5/8ths of an inch, there can be a very big increase in KE efficiency due to the significantly bigger role the internal package plays and the substantially increased density. There is no such density change in D tech (according to the Brit sources). I did not include his book because a friend asked him directly about this, he answered with "the information is based on wide variety of sources. The hull of the 2A7 and Leguan look very much like the 2A7V, the external changes like glacis armour and catcher are easily seen.". He doesn't provide any source for the internal D tech because it doesn't come from KMW or anyone in the industry, it is likely that he found it here on the internet. Lobitz on the other hand does not state this D tech internal change and he is Leopard 2 project lead, while Zwilling is merely a tank enthusiast (a good one, but not a reliable source). Lobitz is Leopard 2 project lead and he states D technology is "similar to 4th generation armour". I would trust him more than other sources and think it's close enough. KMW states a bunch of weird things at times, a lot of it is marketing and perhaps not completely accurate, but only meant to give rough ideas of improvements. For example, in that slide about protection they state the protection against KE did not improve between 1980 and 19985, then it improved again in ~1996 and again in ~2001 and yet again in ~2007. This doesn't match reality and should just be taken as a rough representation of the increases in threat and thus improvements in armour over time. I have only seen one, the British document. If you have more, please do link them. Then why does not only Spielberger state this, but also Lobitz who is the project lead? As well as several others. 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. 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.... It also doesn't mention 1st generation or third generation or even 4th generation armour. Yes as I have said, there are a lot of inconsistencies, many others call it 4th generation. I honestly don't think we can, there are far too many inconsistencies and the context for many of the mentions isn't the same, there is a possibility yes, but there is also a possibility that it's the other way around. 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, and there isn't a single source that doesn't contradict another in some way. 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). 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. Yes, there are discrepancies and I did point those out, but the armour offered to the Swedes and the tank which they tested supposedly came with B + D-2. I explained why I think this is the case, but perhaps I didn't word it properly. Yes there are "differences" according to that table, however in the same book a little bit later the weight of both KVT and TVM is presented to be equal. Lobitz also mentions that the approximate weight increase was 7t for KVT, which would also put it at 62.5t. There are several such discrepancies and I think they have to do with the "maximum weight" and "combat weight" as I had stated previously. Sometimes one is used over the other. Either way I do not see how it would make any sense to: Build TVM as trial vehicle for the 699 tank batch with different armour than they would use on the 699 tanks. Send TVM to Sweden with different armour (higher) and offer a lower armour package. Retain B internal armour on KVT but change TVM internal armour from C to D. Vaguely mention the installation of D internal for KVT while it only weighed 60.5t. If KVT was indeed fitted with D internal armour as you say, then why do you also say that it has B internal armour? IVT was sent to Sweden as part of the IFIS trials, not related to the main trials to choose a tank and it certainly would be strange to use it for the armour comparison. Swedes also call B + D-2 as "German solution" which indicates this is the solution they are planning to use for their production lot. This at least matches the earlier plan to upgrade 699 tanks with a more modest upgrade of just adding the add-ons and not improving the main armour outside of raising EMES and the narrow mantlet. Yes and this could be any number of armour arrays, there is no hard proof it is D tech as you've admitted. It might even be a generic test to optimise LKE1 for all we know. As you no doubt know, in that KMW presentation from 2013 there are pictures of a PG-7V being tested against the hull roof add-on, they specifically mention it is a leopard 2 PSO armour for the hull roof, I would at least expect something similar with the LKE test if it was indeed meant as drop in package, but instead it's just "special target". I don't see why not? So if you think KVT uses B tech base because it is based on a 5th batch vehicle, then you must also assume TVM uses C tech because it's based on an 8th batch vehicle, not "D tech". However, it's clear that the original internal armour hardly matters because B + D-2 is a possibility and one the Swedes tested, presumably because it was offered in the form of TVM. The armour needs to be changed a bit anyway, the raising of the EMES for example. Any internal armour tech can probably be used, at least if it makes any sense, you wouldn't use an armour optimised solely for HEAT for example... Yeah, there is a lot of confusion and contradicting statements, but you have to admit that nobody explicitly says the internal armour was upgraded with D tech either. 16t of empty weight for a B tech turret. 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. I don't think there is a 2.49t difference between combat load and "empty".... Also, that's comparing to B tech turret, not C tech which 2A5 likely uses. The light ballistic skirts are very heavy when I tried lifting them, couldn't see much difference between those and the perforated ones (both from a leo 1A5BE and 1BE, but should be the same). The change in mantlet is going to be a big increase in weight, that little mantlet and block behind it are already 195kg and have a big hole for the barrel in it. The two blocks on either side are probably solid material and are going to weigh significantly more than the 345kg remaining (when comparing to B tech, because we don't have numbers for C tech). I specifically didn't compare just the turrets because we have no point of reference to properly compare them, while we do have a comparison to the whole tank in the case of the Pz 87. We should not forget that the turret roof and other parts have been altered significantly: there is a lot of "cosmetic" armour over the armour cavity cover plates the commander's hatch is ever so slightly raised (larger square raised section) The "tippvisier" has been added Added two large eyelets and mounting points for the changed mantlet blocks EMES was raised and now needs it's own "doghouse" PERI was changed, it's significantly bigger FERO was changed (probably not significant, but it does need it's own armoured cover) Turret bustle has more storage baskets and also has to offset the weight added to the front of the turret at least somewhat. Then there are the mounting points for the add-on armour itself, let's look at the size of it all here: BTW, in that weight for the turret without add-on armour elements, I doubt they removed the mantlet, never mind the mantlet blocks. Liner probably adds a few hundred KGs, but the armoured hubcaps and all the changes I indicated previously probably add significantly more. Well KVT had the mockup in 1989 and only after this had the real ones, it's possible it refers to that. He also puts KVT and TVM at the same weight later, so... I agree. Mostly meant this as an indication of how different the armour protection was. After all, if you assume that DM43 (LKE1) was stopped by D tech whereas C tech could barely stop DM23, the difference in protection must be quite large BTW, where did you find this DM23 test? Or is that from the comparison between US/UK plates and TL plates? 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). Also, it seems to me these predictions aren't from the UK, but rather that the Germans themselves claimed this level of protection. Brits merely inferred that C tech contains ceramics, tho actual evidence remains sparse. The only ceramics type of armour I've seen so far is when the DPM restored the TVM and a picture displays some glass-like blocks that look like they could've been for the roof armour based on their shape. It might refer to certain steel structures or something... The whole ceramics thing seems to be a left-over from the old days before we had better information regarding modern composites, IBD with their nano-ceramics for example show charts that only reach up to and including stanag level 4. I tried looking up this "tandem ceramic armour" to no avail sadly. There still would be, by using old turrets instead of newer ones the remaining 2A4 vehicles retain a higher level of protection, using C turrets and B hulls instead of B turrets and B hulls. While 2A5s would meet the threat regardless (although the hull did not). 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. 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? Well.... Lobitz doesn't state B tech, he compares it directly to Leopard 2A5, not 2A4. So unless you think 2A5 uses B tech I don't see why he would compare it to that. At the same time, you are assuming they mean internal packages. I think we should all assume nothing except the most basic and conservative ideas. I didn't state it was purely the result of improved add-on armour. Merely pointing out that the TVM modules are clearly different from the ones eventually adopted, I also think that it is likely a combination of both. But it doesn't make sense that it is going from B to D. Going back to the original plan vs what happened: 699 "TVM" B + D-2 -> ~40° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 30° arc on hull 229 2A4 C tech -> 50-60° arc for turret and hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) ~1222 2A4 with B t ech -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?) Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, most combat potential retained Most expensive option 350 "2A5" D + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?) 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?) 350 "2A5" D + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?) 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?) Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential lower than first option. Second most expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, but somehow turret improved beyond needed? 350 "2A5" C + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?) 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?) Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential equal to first option Third most expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, turret improved slightly to meet requirement. 350 "2A5" C + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) 1971 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?) Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential lowest of all options Least expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, C tech 2A4s used as base to further reduce cost. Options 2 and 4 don't make any sense, second one because the turret is improved way beyond what the (original) requirement calls for without increasing combat potential and the latter because the combat potential in the whole fleet is reduced. Option 3 is a good compromise, retaining more combat potential with the reduced funds available and doesn't make silly trades like trading hull add-on for overkill turret protection increase. 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.

Multiple sources state D tech = 4th generation armour. I think the slide you posted here is just different and meant for export or something, not meant to relate to the internal armour developments on a 1:1 basis, rather it's just to show that there is a continuous development of armour. It's not much of a "source" anyway, it lacks context and was probably made long before the trials themselves. 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 But yeah, it definitely seems like yellow graph = B + D-2, both have a very noticeable drop in % when going from 400mm to 500mm and end at about 30% (I said as much some years ago). It matches up pretty well.

So no direct mention of the technology used? Bit unfortunate... From what I've heard and seen written, the only "named" improvement has been the refinement of the hatches and utilising new steels in the construction of the vehicle, which the authors also mention could be used to reduce the weight without compromising on protection. The leopard 2E scandal of replacing titanium with steel in the roof add-on comes to mind. I think there's more to the story and we have to look at all the information we have, because there are quite a few discrepancies so far. Spoilers ahead. When you look at other nations like the US, Britain or even Russians, we don't see such large and rapid increases in armour without a radical change in density or use of ad-on armour modules. Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have actual documents stating it has D tech though (not the British docs please, we all know how reliable they are).

Are you now able to post the images related to this? Not these images? Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?

You mean the autoloader that had issues in Greek testing? This has nothing to do with accurately hitting a target on the move. Also, funny you should mention this, because that's something the Germans complained about during the US XM1 vs Leo 2AV trials. The test firings on the move were conducted on paved firing lines whereas in German testing this was usually done in all kinds of conditions, including rough fields. Regardless, I see you just want to keep moving goal posts when confronted with reality.

Hate to burst your bubble then, but it's incorrect. Even as early as the MBT-70 the independent stabilisation of the gunner's sight allowed accurate fire on the move up to around 40kph. This same type of system was adopted in an improved version on the Leopard 2 and it clearly showed to be able to accurately hit targets on the move at speeds of 40kph even at long ranges. In tests of the early 90s, this was further confirmed when M1A2 and Leopard 2 achieved the highest hit rates while on the move, beating out Leclerc in at least three trials. It has to be noted that M1 until M1A2 only featured a single axis stabilisation of the main sight, which meant that azimuth stabilisation was worse compared to the dual axis stabilisation introduced later in M1A2. I recommend you take a look at Ogorkiewicz tank technology book, specifically the fire control section, he mentions that tests with the XM-803 showed gun pointing errors did not exceed 0.4mils in azimuth and 0.2mils in elevation at 40kph. There are also plenty of test results available on the web.

You actually believe that?

Why?

That's simply incorrect. AOS like cadillac-gage stabilisation did allow fire on the move capability, albeit in a limited fashion. However, vehicles like Leopard 2 and M1 (to a lesser degree) would have no issues firing on the move and were not limited compared to vehicles from the 90s. Once the "gun follow sights" FCS/stabilisation method was used, the accuracy was more than sufficient to reliably hit targets on the move. On the WP side similar systems were used as well.

https://imgur.com/a/xs5pgoN AMX-30 at the Gunfire museum. Rather inconsistent, the LFP, mid front plate and a small section of the UFP attached to the mid plate are all cast. The UFP is made up of about 5 parts, the section close to the nose/midplate, this is one big cast piece together with part of the LFP, then there's a middle section which is just under the driver's hatch, this seems to be made of rolled steel and only about 50mm thick as opposed to the ~65mm cast section, both of these are roughly at 68°. Then there's two plates next to and around the driver's hatch, this area is also 50mm thick but at about 75°, both of these are probably rolled steel but the one in which the driver's hatch sits has a cutout for the cast driver's hatch. This hatch is quite weird and has some cavities in the frontal portion where I wrote "15-20" because there seems to be some mechanism on the inside. For the driver's hatch itself there's about 40mm of cast steel, rather heavy (and perhaps grimed up). Around the turret ring it's a ~15mm plate, didn't get to check on the engine deck unfortunately. The rest of the hull is fairly "normal". The turret is a disaster frankly, the mantlet had lots of cavities and was very hard to measure, the whole roof including the bit above the mantlet is only 20mm thick, it's thickest parts are only around 45mm thick around the rangefinder, all the rest is less, generally between 40 and 30mm. Rangefinder itself is around 20mm for both the housing and the cover. I have pictures from the inside as well, the internal height was just 170cm for the loader, his station was rather "crowded and none of the periscopes he has access to are easy to use or see much, the deadzones are probably around 20m or so. Commander's seat is alright, his main periscope lacked the bottom mirror/periscope bit, but the 360° ones were all there, he has slightly better field of view than the loader, even for the loader's side, but the periscopes were at an uncomfortable height with no more adjustment on the seat to go up. The gunner's station is very cramped and the main FCS/sighting system wasn't present, he has a side looking periscope which is unusable unless you stand up (quite slippery floor even with boots!), the unity sight same thing and the seat had no real adjustment. His shoulder was right up against the (depressed) gun and the recoil guard will move with it, perhaps you would get used to it, but it seems rather worrying. Even though the gun seemed to be fully recoiled and elevated, it was quite difficult to get from one side of the vehicle to the other. Overall "ergonomics" seem to be almost an afterthought and the armour scheme is quite strange, some areas are not "bad" but many others are simply horrendous. That 20mm thick angled roof right above the mantlet for example.

Leopard 1BE measurements at Gunfire museum (July 22). Mantlet was not really doable due to time constraints. Leopard 1A5BE MEXAS light skirts were ~20mm, had a "plywood" texture, probably some type of aramid composite as it was quite heavy. LFP add-on thickness: 140mm UFP add-on thickness: 105mm Turret left side add-on was 260mm LOS, not including stand-off, only the vertical angle. The add-on on the hull was made of a single thin steel plate, about 6mm, with some kind of foam backer, probably PU foam, roughly 20-30mm thick and "brittle" to the touch. Variance of about 2mm due to paint etc. If anyone knows of a way to improve the chances to measure convex and rough surfaces with a TM-8818 and log them, feel free to share. @Wiedzmin I might go back for mantlet if needed...

The 3800kg weight is not given for the L/44 as on leo 2, but the LR version(s). Not sure, but could be that it's the same for this: https://web.archive.org/web/20061103224651/http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1448&lang=3&pdb=1 So, 150kg added.... From? Things that changed (MRS, MG mount) aren't very significant in weight. The Strv 121/122 doc has weights given for the 122 BTW, not the 121. Note on the Pz 87 site: they list 56.5t (presumably because their tanks are C tech).

Comparing proto to production, yes it will matter....

I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages. The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.