Scav

15 minutes ago, arakami said:

@Scav 

"They have their own requirements... Nations tend to use their own ammunition to test their tanks, unless they use STANAG testing procedures."

 

In ballistic tests they typically use their own rounds to measure the rounds effectiveness or to estimate theoretical armour effectiveness, when designing their tanks level of protection they like to take into consideration current and future penetrators from other powers. Yes, every tank has their own requirements - that wouldn't quite explain how the Leopard 2A5 or M1A2 Abrams, tanks with comparably advanced and thick composite arrays, tanks with comparably heavy weights - could be significantly better armoured than the Challenger 2.

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

2 hours ago, arakami said:

@Scav I'm aware of Stillbrew's composition as am I of the ROMOR mounting plate. "ISD ≠ armour from this date.", I am also aware of that. They wouldn't stop developing armour composites past 1990, they'd keep doing so until the Challenger 2s production, then into possible upgrades for acceptance into service, and then even beyond. Is it not possible that between the inception of the Challenger 2 Prototype in 1989/surrounding armour tests/early production units, and its entry into service in 1998... A newer armour composite could have been developed and later employed on in-service units, through retrofitting of even possibly early production units before their acceptance into service. That would annul the armour composites tested in and around 1990 donned by pre-production/prototype units and also possibly even the armour composite donning early 1993 production units. Is that not likely? That would certainly be frugal, those older composites would not yet be in mass production and little effort would be needed to ready the newer designs for production and installation.

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).
 

2 hours ago, arakami said:

Otherwise thank you for information regarding the Abrams, details are nice. I'm aware that the M1A1 turret was thickened compared to the M1, I thought the M1A1s turret was also upgraded through the use of a denser composite - no? Anyway, what tanks do we think are proof against DM53 around the turret, if not for the Abrams or Challenger? Certainly if the Wests' heaviest MBTs are not, none would be. Perhaps the superior engineering of the Germans would permit their turret so. When the 2A5 entered service in 1995 then, its level of protection would be lightyears ahead of contemporary MBTs - by 30 odd years, as the armour upgrades to make the Abrams and Challenger proof against DM53 are only just rearing their heads. Yeah, I can't reason that. Are NATO tanks just unable to stop APFSDS rounds, even where they are best protected? I'd need more convincing.

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.

6 hours ago, arakami said:

@FORMATOSE Challenger 2 entered service in 1998, only about a year before the SEP V1 and a good half-decade after the M1A2 base. DM53 entered service shortly after in 2005, and would have been likely within the 'growth margin' of rounds that the Challenger 2s armour could defeat. Assuming the M1A2 and/or SEP V1/2 are protected against DM53 from the turret front, I can't imagine the Challenger 2 would not be - especially as the Challenger 2, as with the Abrams tanks, have not been up-armoured since. It would have donned similarly advanced composite armour and armour just as thick as that of the Abrams; it is also slightly heavier.

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.

 

 

7 hours ago, arakami said:

Similarly I would expect the hull array of the Challenger 1 to be able to stop DM23, a round that entered service in 1982 versus 1986 for the Challenger 1 Mk.2. I've seen that first image you've attached and remain unconvinced, I'd love to hear the documents title. Those figures coincide with premature estimates made for the Challenger 1 during the late 1970s presumably measuring a tank that would have used a lesser advanced composite type. I immaturely hope that it incorrectly cited Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 1, or pre-production estimate protection figures for what it thought was Mk.1 Batch 2 or Mk.2/Mk.3 figures, and simply added 50mm KE protection to account for the additional armour package of the Mk.3. Documents can cite incorrect information, after all - especially when citing other sources or older documents for protection figures, and not measuring those protection figures themselves.

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...
 

7 hours ago, arakami said:

I hope to discover measurements of the LOS thickness of the CR1 hull array, to be able to compare its thickness with that of the 1980 M1 Abrams which was about 700mm~ thick and provided about 400mm KE protection. Presumably the Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 2, Mk.2 and Mk.3 also used a composite armour more capable and akin to BRL-2 of the M1A1 rather than the BRL-1 of the M1. In-between development of the armour donning the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and the entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.2 - there were a number of advancements made in British and Western composite array development that I cannot see the British not exploiting. Stillbrew would don the Chieftains after entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and as the Challenger 1 Mk.2 entered service, for example. Does anyone have measurements of the thickness of the CR1 hull and turret array?

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.

1 hour ago, speziale said:

But based on your logic, it is hardly understandable, why just the light skirt was changed on the last 75 tanks, if KMW stated that D-tech armor had been ready in 1991? To be honest it would be more logical if they change at least the heavy skirt elements as it was the weakest area of the armor from 30 degree of angle of attack (in other words: it gave the lower edge of the protecion level in 60 degree frontal arc).

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.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

That's from militärfahrzeuge.ch, isn't it? I remember seeing something on the official Swiss Army website that probably acted as source for militärfahrzeuge.ch.

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

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.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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..

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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:

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)

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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...

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.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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".

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.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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".

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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?

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.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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?

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.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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!

Yup, it's quite frustrating, just trying to get a discussion going to compile all possible information.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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...
 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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)?

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).

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, jojoisgood said:

So what armor do you think the blue and green use ?yellow is B + D2 add-on and. What about blue and yellow ?

No idea, impossible to really know for sure.

26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

You are mistaken - the fourth edition of the TL for second generation armor steel was published in 2008. Earlier editions existed long before that. This patent for example mentions a November 1990 edition of TL 2350-0000.

 

There was however only one edition for TL 2350-0010. Btw. you can simply search the TL register at the Bundeswehr's official website.

 

Yes, I know that, but I can only speculate for reasons. Maybe the TL 2350-0010 is only listed because it expired and the TLs for third and fourth generation special armor remain fully classified (including title). Maybe there was a TL for second generation armor as the design was made/developed by a state-owned facility without production capacities, while the other armor generations were developed by companies and are thus their intellectual property? There are lots of potential reasons, but I don't think that wild guesses will help much.

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.

 

 

28 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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).

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).
 

30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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).

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...
 

34 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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...

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.

 

39 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

 

42 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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...

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.

 

53 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

57 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Not on a series production model.

Sorry, I meant the large periscope in front of the TC, I often get them mixed up.

 

59 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

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.

....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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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:

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The upgrade of the hull armor was still planned, it was just re-scheduled to 2008  - when the new 140 mm turret was supposed to be adopted, requiring further changes to the hull.

 

The hull add-on armor was directly not removed for budgetary reasons, but due to the weight limit. The weight limit was indirectly caused by the budget, as there was not enough funding to replace the SLT 56 tank transport truck with trailer.

 

The worst tank always gets upgraded first, because having lots of tanks that are "good enough" is better than having some tanks that are "unusable" and some tanks that are "good". This was the modus operandi of the German Bundeswehr during the Cold War and the reason why the M48 got passive night vision (PzB 200) before the majority of the Leopard 1 tanks, etc.

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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...

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.

 

1 hour 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.

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.

19 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

That's not really a good argument for it being the case. Do we know what the letters *actually* refer to? Couldn't C simply refer to "Ceramic".

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)_/¯

 

21 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

Neither do I, and I agree that the evidence is pretty meager, but at the same time I refuse to believe Germany has not advanced past the C-technology on their newest MBT (2A7V).

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

26 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

I'm of the opinion that this is simply inconclusive.

I agree.

 

27 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

You're right on that, sorry. The British documents from Nov 1990 state that D-technology was about as efficient as "Developed CA" armour, what that Developed CA was isn't exactly known to me, but it could possibly refer to early Dorchester armour (which would give us a better image of D-tech's performance, this being closer to ~500mm RHAe KE in an arc, rather than the previously assumed ~600mm RHAe KE in an arc, this would result in a ~20% performance increase, certainly not impossible).

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.

17 minutes ago, Zach9889 said:

 

Penetration figures correspond to:

CR1, 430-530mm - L23A1/L26A1

T-72, 480mm - BM-42

T-80, 530mm - BM-32

M1A1, 690mm - M829A1

Leo 2A4, 605mm - DM43(?)

 

Why was there a distinction between T-72 and T-80? I'm not clear on which projectile for the Leo 2A4 was assessed. The performance seems too high for DM33, and AFAIK DM43 was never fielded by Germany.

 

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.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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

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".

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

The quote from Hilmes directly states turrets from batches 1 - 4 received "D-technology", but at the same time it makes a distinction that for other vehicles upgraded to Leopard 2A5 standard, turrets equipped C-technology were mated with B-technology hull; this is a contradiction to the idea "D-technology" only and solely refers to the add-on modules (because otherwise he'd have stated "D-technology turrets were mated with B-technology hulls" etc).

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.

 

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

What are the sources that state C-technology = third generation armour array? Since this would indicate that serial production Leopard 2s had a different package before B-technology & C-technolgy, and up to date I've yet to see a single mention of it.

 

I also don't see why D-technology being a 4th generation add-on armour array would be contradictory to it also existing as an internal array either.

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.
 

 

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

C-technology entered service in 1987, according to the British docs, D-technology was to be ready for use by 1993/1994, that's 6 - 7 years for a ~30% increase in KE protection and ~37.5% increase in CE protection (420mm - > 600mm & 750mm - > 1200mm). Not really revolutionary all things considered, the US Army had produced an armour improving KE resistance by ~34% (400mm - > 600mm RHAe KE turret arc) in give or take 5 years (M1IP - > M1A1 HA). Their SC results were of course worse, but that was to be recitified with HAP-2 armour with British help in the following years:

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).
 

 

11 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:

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).

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

The picture is from a KMW presentation. And i think, the KMW knows much better than anyone who wrote a Leopard 2 book what armor type was the 3. generation.

The introduction dates of the 1. and 2. generation armors are also very telling. 1979- start of the serial production of the Leo2 with B-tech armor; 1988- serial production of Leo2 with C-tech armor. So the picture clearly refers to the interior armor' generations.

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.

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

and there are many sources and evidences for that the D-tech armor was existed/developed as a drop-in solution. I think the development of the add-on armor package within the KWS program, was simply independent from the development from the interior armor package development.

I have only seen one, the British document.
If you have more, please do link them.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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".

Then why does not only Spielberger state this, but also Lobitz who is the project lead?
As well as several others.
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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":

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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":

Yes as I have said, there are a lot of inconsistencies, many others call it 4th generation.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

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".

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

Yes, and there isn't a single source that doesn't contradict another in some way.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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:

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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

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".

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

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...
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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).

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...
 

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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?

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.
 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

hat 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.

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?

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As a matter of fact, we have clear statements that the Stridsvagn 122 used better internal armor than the "B technology"):

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.

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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" solution 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:

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.

1 hour ago, speziale said:

but on the other hand the third generation armor was definitely the D-tech.

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.

 

1 hour 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.) And these solutions had different protection values, especially in the case of the hull add-on. And we do not forget that the hull add-on armor was tested also on the M1 and the Leclerc tanks, so the hull add-on solution was not applied  exclusively on  the Leopard. As I mentioned earlier in the case of the turret there was no „measurable” difference between the „german” and the „swedish” solutions, so it is probably, that the wegde armor was the same in both cases. But it was not the case of the hull add-on. And on the mentioned slide there are D-1, D-2, D-3 add-on armor solutions.

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.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

So no direct mention of the technology used?
Bit unfortunate...
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

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).

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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).

Are you now able to post the images related to this?
 

Not these images?
 

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?
 

 

11 hours ago, Serge said:

Made my day. 
man powered loading of 120mm round beating an auto loader. 
I guess it was on a motorway, not on track. 

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.
 

14 minutes ago, Serge said:

For 30 years, yes. 

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.

14 hours ago, Serge said:

Because it’s optimistic to write : « 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. »

80’s tank (Leopard 2, M1, Challenger...) are limited to strictly fire on the frontal arc at low speed.

The only one able to really fire on the move on moving targets was the Leclerc MBT.

You actually believe that?

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Very optimistic. 

Why?

20 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Well remember that no tank had a full "fire on the move" capability until the 90s anyway. Mostly gun stabilization was a way to allow for a quicker firing sequence after coming to a full stop or was mostly limited to firing only in the frontal arc at a much reduced speed (see below at around 0:50) :

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...

On 5/26/2020 at 3:19 PM, Yoshi_E said:

You think the value Rheinmetall has given is wrong? I doubt that.

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

 

On 5/26/2020 at 3:19 PM, Yoshi_E said:

It also matches the recently measured weight on Pz 87. The barrel weight is commonly given, and known for all L44 and L55 variants.
I think its more likely that the system or the armor on the system was changed, or increased in weight since 1982.
E.g. the Turnunion there was not manufactured that precise in 1980, it should also be slightly smaller due to additional paint layer. Other changes could be the recoil system. The mount system for the MG was also changed.

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).

On 5/28/2020 at 12:01 PM, SH_MM said:

Shouldn't matter. The prototypes were built with weight simulators, not the actual armor packages. The different shape of the mantlet is related to the different guns mounted on the tank.

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

On 5/23/2020 at 1:44 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I summarized all weights here:
http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg
In most sources 3800kg or 3780kg is given (especially for more current version)

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.