Scav

Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new". Brand new would be M60 -> M1

Strawman argument..... As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret". So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.

Ha, right, so that should include things you say. There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out. That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed. Also, since when is pointing out typical marketing quotes "utter bullshit"?

@SH_MM Don't bother with him, he just likes trolling for the sake of trolling.

Could be, doesn't appear to be a final design, though it's no PL-01. If they did rework parts of the turret, they could've done away with the toilet and other unnecessary items, possibly lowering the profile and having extra room on-top, though I would question the location of the optics then.

Is it just me or does this new turret feature additional armour? That's either a shitty fit and finish, or a roof add-on module.

Atleast it uses a modern gun.... and isn't 75 tonnes fully upgraded....

I found them a little bit confusing and perhaps a little too little detail as well. I think the diameter of the penetrator matters with this kind of test though: http://www.j-mst.org/on_line/admin/files/09-04151_2076-2089_.pdf Velocity also matters and I think having a thicker projectile means some kind of "overmatch" could take place, for both of these DM13 works quite well. The Brits might've been right, but I think there's more to it than what we can see from these tests. In any case, there's a good reason why Germany upgraded the UFP of leopard 2s (only on 2A7Vs but, some earlier versions for other countries had it too). Odd that the US hasn't done the same. Still think it's a more efficient layout than what the Challenger 1/2 use. edit: you can also see in that research paper that the hardness of the target plate matters, if the leopard 2 had a HHA hull roof that might've increased the protection by quite a bit. OK, so I asked him again, he said it was 12cm total with the add-on, I thought it was odd too (I probably misunderstood). More info: roof was 26mm over crew compartment, add-on on LFP was 80mm + 5-10mm of air + 30-40mm base armour. UFP was 30-40mm base + 5-10mm air + 50mm add-on. So, I was mistaken and it was 120mm total, excuse me. edited the wording, don't want my German friend to go all 1939 on me

I don't think the slug type APFSDS as used on early 115 and 125mm ammo would have an easy time with the turret of either of these (specifically leo 2) as the slug would leave the penetrator body when hitting the first plates after which it would be much easier to defeat. To be fair, 3BM26 kinda fixed part of this and 3BM28 is thought to be a DU long rod. The guy that told me about them said they were from a bribery inquiry on the trials. (Maybe it wasn't CIA, but some internal agency dealing with it) Yeah, but I don't think that much changed for the mantlet specifically, I read something about the roof armour being changed but not much more. There's ofcourse the hull armour change as well. Yep, and it seems like they preferred CE protection if we look at the later MBT-80 requirement. Yeah, I came to the same conclusion. Do you remember what Russian book that was? I've been looking for info such as this. Interesting. Yep, I know, but you can see that it could be easily confused by people who don't speak German as a primary language (I had to do a double take as well).

@SH_MM So I finally managed to get my hands on the book Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2 by Spielberger thanks to a friend. I found that he actually mentiones only skirt changes with the 8th batch but he words it in a way that makes it look like new integrated armour: "Schürzenpanzerung" looks and sounds a lot like "Schützenpanzerung" (if that's even a word), perhaps some authors misread this and used it themselves? In any case, he does specifically mention that only the skirts changed (interestingly, both the heavy and light ones). For the 6th batch he does specifically mention new base armour though:

So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before? My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures: They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries). Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.

Not against CE atleast. I don't doubt they also use plastics or rubber, but I don't think it's in the same manner as the UK or US, we can kind of see that with the add-on for later models, the steel layers are thicker while the plastics (or whatever it is) are thinner compared to the style used on the M1 for instance. And how long does that take compared to something like on the M1 or leo 2. No? Over 60% of the frontal surface is protected against 300mm KE or more, that leaves just shy of 40% under 300mm, LFP accounts for around 20% while the hull roof accounts for 11%, block under mantlet accounts for 2%, driver's hatch for about 1%, that combines into around 34% of the total surface that's pretty much confirmed to be under 300mm KE. The mantlet isn't 5% of the total surface, it's around 12%. So if the mantlet was also part of this "under 300mm KE" area, the area protecting against 300mm or more would only be around 55%, not 60-63%. Besides, that makes little sense in the first place, the mantlet would need to be hollow and just an empty shell for such low values to be possible. I'd love to see as much as possible on "Chobham". In specific, I'm looking for these pages: And any others from similar reports (or the same one).

I wouldn't consider it too low, not in comparison with the M1 for instance. M1 turret front (straight on): ~400mm KE or protection against 115mm APFSDS from 800m. Leopard 2 turret front (straight on): ~430mm KE, protection against 38mm HK (which I think now with that swedish report on the 105mm smoothbore with APFSDS is actually the 105mm DM13 APFSDS). And depending on what ammo they used to get these results, the difference could be bigger, if the leo 2 was tested using something like DM33, it would've fared better against older types of ammo, whereas with the M1, we don't know anything but that it was designed to withstand 115mm APFSDS (320-340mm according to some UK documents). Ofcourse, IMO, neither tank is sufficiently protected under 2000m against USSR contemporaries such as T-72M1 with 3BM26. I'm convinced it's not because of that, but because it's essentially a Chieftain with "chobham", it worked on Chieftain, why change it? Ofcourse, not denying that could've been the intent with the Chieftain's design (and therefore "extended" to CR1). According to some CIA document (which I've not had the pleasure of seeing myself, so take this with a grain of salt), the 2AV was winning against the XM-1 on most points, which is when they changed the rules and the XM-1 s tarted winning: Regardless of what happened, the trials weren't fair and the decision was long made for both countries. US wouldn't adopt a German tank, Germany wouldn't adopt a US tank. Yep, from everything I've been able to gather, CR1 seems to be a Shir 2 (with new suspension and FCS) which in turns is just a Chieftain Mk 5/2 with a decent engine/transmission. If you look at the armour arrangements on the FV4211 and Mk 5/2, it's basically identical to the CR1 with aluminium instead of steel. At minimum it's still 390mm, going off other pictures, sources say a weight between 595kg (that Swedish shooting table) and 680kg. There's atleast two sources that agree on the whole weight of the assembly, both Krapke and that Swedish table say 4290kg for entire gun mount and 3100kg without gun cradle and mantlet. I doubt the mantlet is hollow, that doesn't make any sense at all, but neither does a solid mantlet, that would make it ridiculously heavy (in the region of 1.2t). Aluminium doesn't make much sense either, titanium could be, but I would imagine that to be quite costly (though would lower the weight, to the point it might be solid and still only weigh ~650kg). Exact thickness doesn't matter much IMO, you can get equivalent steel thickness with the weight, height and width, though that still leaves the question how much spacing would improve the effectiveness. With the information available, I wouldn't consider the mantlet area weak, still going to disable the tank most likely, but atleast it's not tissue paper. Agreed, I'd add that everyone is biased to some degree, but when everything points to something being good, the bias argument is easily made against everyone that "supports" said good thing, maybe a little bit too easy. Damian is a different level though, that's clear bias, not "bias by liking something good". UK would believe that, they gave Germany a lot of info on it and from several of their research papers it seems they thought quite highly of themselves, "educating" the Germans in armour technology.... For Germany Chobham wouldn't have been the best choice, given how it's more optimal against CE whereas the Germans always preferred KE protection, Leopard 1A3 being an example. Their previous research like on the leopard 1A3, Keiler etc, used spaced armour, I don't consider it a stretch to think they saw what the UK did and simply were inspired by it, the depth of the armour package, mounting system, module design, things like that. So, a copy of Chobham? I don't think so. Seems more likely they only used some parts of it and still preferred spaced steel arrays with higher thickness instead of thin steel plates sandwiching plastic. They probably looked at the thickness of the armour package on the hull and applied "their" protection ratios of Chobham. Certainly wouldn't be the first time they make assumptions like that.

So, apparently the Swedes tested the Rheinmetall smoothbore 105: https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/ Quite interesting, I wonder how well it lines up with this: I read on this forum that the picture above was user made from real data, anyone know more?

To be fair, I think M829 seems to be often overestimated, I've seen a lot of pictures pointing out a 540mm long penetrator, but when I measure it it's often below 500mm, mostly around 490mm, ofcourse, those are just picture measurements, not actual ones. That combined with the tip that seems to be derived from M774, normal conical tip without any kind of break-off design (unlike DM33 which does seem to have a special one) would hamper performance against high angles. M829A1 still has that, but it's way longer so that will probably make up for it. When I put M829 through L/O with the picture measurements I get around 540mm at PB 60° and not at 2KM 60°. Do you know if that 40mm appliqué plate was the same HHA as on the T-72M1?

Only decent testing footage I've found: Does look rather minimal, but I still don't want to be near that when it goes off, though I guess most combat clothing/vests will protect the infantry. So, safe to say it's probably not lethal unless it hits the head/armpits with the larger fragments, but minor injuries are still very much possible it seems. I'd still prefer a proper analysis, but I guess we'll have to wait for that....

So, the numbers and the exact position of the "kvarts" core are incorrect?

The numbers or the layout?

Yes, exactly. If that explodes too, you'll have even more fragments that are directed at the tank (and around it). I still think having an APS is a good thing, but a good thought out implementation is needed, you can't just slap it on.

Yes, good point, merry Xmas everyone!

Were they tested with top attack ammo? Or multiple simultaneous hits? If it uses fragments to intercept the threat it'll inevitably have side-effects, maybe not to the point it "shreds" all nearby infantry, but probably still enough to injure infantry close to the vector of the intercepted thread. Also, I haven't seen any actual declassified testing with all the data available, just articles on "it works" which doesn't say a whole lot. If you do have that kind of data, I'd love to see it. Don't they still have a limited vertical arc?

APS' can fail, not to mention that few protect the tank against top attack ammunitions. Let's not forget that many MBTs including the leo 2 in German service are always supported by infantry, an APS that uses fragments to intercept threats can be very dangerous or even lethal for supporting infantry. That's why Germany has been keen on developing an APS that doesn't have these drawbacks, but this takes time and money. Also, not sure where I read this, but IIRC there was some trial that showed passive protection systems often only worked (reliably) with their own ATGMs, not enemy ATGMs.

The Turks modified the Leo 2's blast doors to remain open for "faster loading" according to a German instructor sent there, they also just had a coup like two or three years ago and a "cleansing" to accompany that... So yeah, they're not "good users" of Leo 2s. Most probably the same with the Saudi M1A2s and Iraqi M1A1s. I mean..... Challengers. Might as well consider the entire hull a weakspot.

You mean to the side of the turret? I would've been surprised if it could stop that honestly, the side is pretty thin despite the addon. Sorry, meant M1A1 -> M1A1HA. Ah, that would definitely explain the large difference, I didn't know about this, thanks for clearing that up. I think it's more likely to be the C model, especially if the armour upgrade was weight neutral yet still had a large armour improvement. Personally I don't think the table format means much, it's very little to go off so I very much hesitate to consider that evidence, in a similar fashion that I consider grammar (for documents, not necessarily books as they focus more on getting that correct) to be unreliable or or little significance. I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion (I want to be absolutely sure of things, I don't like making assumptions I can't back up with anything other than "logic" or "common sense"). But I'll definitely keep your points in mind. True, but that's pretty much my point, sure it's 700mm at 15°, but that's such a high angle you can probably reach the same protection level on the turret side, so I wouldn't consider that "out of line".

That's odd.... why would they want RPG-7 protection the turret front and sides? (sides is more understandable) I guess we'd need a second source to confirm. Well, another argument is that increasing the KE effectiveness even more is pretty difficult, especially considering it's already been increased just 3 years prior with a big jump in efficiency. It's possible, but you'd need to add quite a bit of weight (if the C tech variant was weight neutral, it would've need to already use many new materials and changed the entire array). I mean, if C tech already remained weight neutral and still increased KE protection by a good amount, for a similar protection increase the M1A1 got like a 3t weight increase, that's not even hull or side armour increase. The formatting would also imply there's add-on modules of B and C tech though, something I don't consider likely. Could very well be because it "looks" better, instead of having to use two different pictures, could also be that they didn't want to give away what it looked like (or weren't sure about which variant they'd adopt). Noticed they were similar too, I think 25mm + 25mm is likely given the rather low weight of about 110kg. 15° is a very accute angle though, nothing to scoff at. I think a 30° angle would be a better comparison, if you would look at the side turret at 15° I'm sure you'd get similar results.