Scav

From same event in Singapore, Leo2SG

 
 

   Imagine Chieftain here with his "oh my god, the tank is on fire!"

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

I have a hard time believing that an array less than 700mm thick can stop DM43 when at the same time it supposedly defeats K-5 + T-80UD turret armour.
DM43 doesn't seem to have any built in mechanism for dealing with heavy ERA, it's a light, thin rod that goes very fast, so unless it simply didn't trigger the K-5, it wouldn't be much better at defeating it than DM33 apart from the extra velocity and length.
M829A1 was defeated by K-5 on a T-80U, M829A1 is longer than DM33, heavier, but slower, so it's probably only slightly worse than DM43.
 
Was this on the cheeks from the front, or the cheeks from the side?
Did it actually trigger the K-5?
 
That is the area that I mentioned...
It's right at the edge of the internal cavity.
 
The hulls were used to carry relatively new turrets and weren't part of the "main reaction force", obviously these hulls were outdated yet not upgraded, definitely because of costs.
Plastics don't go bad from one day to the next, it's a gradual process and for what those hulls would be used, it was probably not considered worth the money, a lot of these vehicles would be later on sold as training vehicles or additional equipment to countries such as Turkey, Greece, etc...
 
There's plenty of sources making no mention of internal armour changes, yet talking about the new additional armour (which is said to be "fourth" generation or "D technology" armour).
The only other source I've managed to find that corroborates the packages being replaced is one that talks about third generation armour (AKA, C tech), and this is from the armor magazine...
Rolf Hilmes is the only one that seems to mention "D" main armour being used, and I cannot find this book anywhere (at a reasonalbe price) to confirm.
 
Rolf Hilmes makes mistakes just like every other author, it's entirely possible he mixed the letters up or intended to say the armour was changed to "C" instead of "D".
Here he says HOT penetrated 800mm ( @Wiedzmin found info indicating otherwise), Milan penetrating 500mm (it's slightly more), TOW 600mm (430mm for the original one), I-TOW 860mm (real one around 600mm).
 
He also claims this is what the Merkava front hull looks like, even though it doesn't appear to be correct.
 
Yes, he's an excellent author, but that doesn't mean he's always right or doesn't make mistakes.
 
As for the add-ons changing, you can clearly see the turret add-ons changed quite a bit from TVM to 2A5.... I don't need to point that out.
 
Between 2A4 (B tech) and 2A5 turret there's a 3.6t difference, which means 2.1t are unaccounted for when we exclude the wedges.
There's also the new mantlet with multiple parts (probably a decent weight increase), changing of the optic placement (which means slightly more armour there), the EWNA, spall liner, perhaps a slightly changed turret roof, new storage baskets at the rear, radio in the old hydraulic pump area (which was removed), etc.
Quite a lot of changes, if they account for all the weight difference, I don't know, but it's hard to say without knowing the numbers.
 
He can easily make a mistake by meaning to point out that add-on modules are D tech and accidentally also saying the internal ones are too.
There's like 4 other books that I have, which make no mention of changed internal armour, but do mention the add-on modules and the tanks using old turrets.
Atleast two of these also make mention of new skirts being adopted (which is a very insignificant thing and only relates to batch 6/7 hulls, not batch 8 hulls).
 
If they were doing this to "maximise" protection level, then why didn't they adopt the hull add-on too?
Even a B tech hull with add-on would be better than a normal C tech hull.
 
Because in 1991 they would have the add-ons ready?
Obviously before that time, they wouldn't necessarily know what they'd look like.
Batch 8 in multiple books is stated to only change the skirts, not the main armour.
You'd think main armour would be more important to mention, especially if it came with a weight increase like you propose is the reason for the "missing" weight between 2A4 and 2A5.
 
There's even one book that was made before the 2A5 was finalised and shows the "2A5" to be a 2A4 with improved armour...
This shows that even at this point there was confusion on what exactly the 2A5 would be.
 
Every book so far mentions that in the 6th batch there was new armour introduced as well as new skirts, why would they omit this for the 8th batch if that was the case again?
 
Yet, not one book mentions the armour itself being changed in the 8th batch.
 
Not one mention of internal armour changes.
 
As for Hilmes' claim of D technology in the turret base (the one I could find on the web):
Translation: "For the conversion to the Leopard 2A5, the oldest turrets (1-4th batch) are taken and modified with the most modern D-technology into KWS-turrets.
He doesn't mention the add-ons in this sentence specifically, and thus he treats the entire turret including add-ons as the same thing, which could either mean both the add-ons and the internal armour is "D tech" or he is referring to the add-ons only.
It could be interpreted both ways.
I wouldn't exactly call this definitive evidence.
 
Is there another time he talks about this?
 
Anyway, I think it's evident that if many (if not all) authors mention with the 6th batch that the base armour + skirts changes, they would do the same for the 8th batch if  it was the case.
No author mentioning the base armour being changed in the 8th batch, either means no author knew about this (but then how/why did they know about the 6th batch change?) or it means it simply didn't happen.
 
Protection requirement was to defeat DM53, either from the L55 or the L44.
L44 was proven to be met in the Swedish leaks, and if we are to trust the rumours regarding the Greek trials, perhaps also with the L55.

I doubt the price of the hull add-on would be more expensive than this "magical" D tech for the turret base.
 
Along with a complete redesign of the turret for the 140?
 
So, you're telling me that somehow less than 700mm of LOS can defeat an APFSDS capable of defeating 700mm+ RHAe?
Even when the M1A2 with 2t DU can only do 600mm RHAe out of ~760mm LOS, and even the T-80U with K-5 supposedly only barely stopped this round?
 
It would need to use something similar to K-5 but better, which I highly doubt.
Souds like magic fairy dust to me.
 
You lost me there, how does the armour not looking the same, with different angles, different thicknesses (LOS) mean it isn't different?
The Swedes specifically mentioning "their" armour (different add-on) performed better and was made (in coorperation) by the same company that made the initial wedge design (IBD)?
 
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/
Hmm, even former UK tank officer seems to agree however....
 
The UK trial was to be held in 1990 but was delayed due to the Gulf War, and ended up happening in 1991, when the IVT and perhaps even the TVM were already completed....
So, yes, it's actually quite probable the Leopard 2 Improved won the trial itself (Swedes considered it better than the M1A2, doubt the UK would think otherwise), this also means they (probably) did get the info about the protection of D tech.
Which would be the only area where the leopard 2 improved would not be automatically considered better than Challenger 2.
 
And as we "know" from the Greek trials, the rest is vastly better, with a good possibility of the armour also being better.
The one big difference between these two in terms of survivability is the ammo in the turret...
That could be the sole reason the survivability on CR2 was considered superior, not exactly more important than all the other benefits of the leopard 2.
 
And as I pointed out, Hilmes can make mistakes too.
 
Perhaps because it didn't get changed?

You're missing the fact that the angles are different compared to the TVM....
The sides on the TVM are flat, the wedges on the front are slightly differet too and don't have the cut-outs.
All the pictures are relevant as all of them talk about the add-on armour, but not at all about the base armour, just like no book seems to talk about the base armour of the 8th batch being different yet mentioning the skirts are....
 
If nobody talks about the armour changing, despite them mentioning it before on a different variation, maybe it's because nothing got changed?
In the same manner that nobody mentions the UFP armour on the T-54 getting changed or remaining the same on the T-55, evidently this is because it didn't get changed.
 
Except the Swedish leaks say so....?
TVM was sent over and was the tank they analysed, it was made of the 8th batch, yet apparently had B tech base.
Unless you think they actually sent over the KVT, despite several sources saying otherwise.
 
Is that the weight with wooden mock up modules or actual armour modules?
 
Yes, they are, atleast several books mention them being heavier.
 

Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23?
Hull was penetrated once, which is entirely reasonable given that my estimates based on the Swedish leaks suggest around ~425mm on the UFP for C tech, DM23 should be sufficient for this, by contrast, only shot number 12 penetrated the turret cheek and this was most likely because it exited the main armour array into the gun area before it hit the back wall.
According to my previously mentioned estimates, the turret front is around 550mm, though I have to point out that even then the percentages don't reach the values from the Swedish leaks, indicating that it could be slightly higher than this.
 
Yes, and how did it "nearly" defeat it?
As we can see from this:
Even DM33 did a decent enough job and managed to punch through parts of the K-5 (to the right of the gun), so we really need more details.
Besides, the two protection types are completely different, not sure how you can compare them 1 to 1.....
 
He may not have lied at all, just made a mistake.
The reason why I'd use the earliest turrets possible is that they would be in the most need for refurbishment and if there were plastics utilised in the turrets (which would seem to be the case if they used NERA or atleast some form of it), then it might've degraded the most and be in need of replacement.
By that same logic, they would've needed to refurbish the entire turret and that would mean taking out the armour inserts and replacing the degraded parts, obviously the steel itself would've been fine and could be reused...

If there is such a thing as D tech main armour and if it did provide a noticeable protection increase over C, it would've been substantially more expensive than B tech and I frankly doubt that they would upgrade the base armour of the turret to an even more potent armour type if the turret already achieved it's protection goals with B tech as a base.
It would've made much more sense to adopt the hull add-on instead as this would bring the entire tank up to spec and would probably cost less as well.
 
Also, considering B + D-2 already achieves remarkable levels of protection and the D-2 got changed for a better version in the Mannheim specification, C tech as base would've already made it pass the requirement, let alone some type of even further improved base armour....
C tech offered an improvement of 20-35% over B, with add-ons I'd imagine that gap would increase further (comparing B + add-on and C + add-on), so why would there be a need for a D tech base?
 
IMO:
Pink -> B tech ("confirmed")
Red -> C tech (indicated by circumstancial evidence)
Yellow -> B + D-2 ("confirmed")
Blue -> B + D1/3
Green -> C hull + D1-3, B(or C) turret + D1-3
 
Not entirely sure when you mean by blue having less protection at 50% than the "German model"?
At 50% it has around 650mm protection while yellow ("German model" I guess?) has 525mm.
I don't think you can just extrapolate the gradients beyond what the graph shows from the ones that come before, as you can see from the yellow, graph, the gradients can change drastically.
Plus, I don't see how a normal 2A4 with D main armour could possibly reach the levels of protection that B + D-2 show, the LOS simply isn't good enough.
 
Rather, I think that the reason for blue merging with yellow left of 400mm is because it ( the add-ons) don't cover as much of the tank as D-2 does, possibly because the LFP or some other small area isn't quite as covered.
Or, it could be that they actually match and the gradients are equal at this point....
In any case, I think the additional protection blue offers over yellow has to do with the hull protection, more so than turret protection.
 
Perhaps I'm wrong and blue indicates they utilised C tech for the hull as base as well as different add-on, which would also explain the gap.
 
They might even throw us a curveball and utilise different add-ons for both hull and turret, we don't know.
 
You can quite clearly see that the add-on which got adopted on the Strv 122 or 2A5s is quite different compared to the TVMs, the turret is most notably different.
The hull could also be different, thicker plates perhaps, that wouldn't show up on pictures unless you get a close up and compare them directly.
 
 
What is most curious though, is that some sources claim the base armour of the TVM was changed:
But we know that the TVM had B as base..... yet was made of an 8th batche vehicle.
So, that begs the question: did some authors confuse this info and think that the 2A5  also received these changes? Not realising that on the TVM it was probably a change from C to B.....?
 
Yes, it's an enecdote, just like how another loader lost one of his skirts on a 2A6 and went looking for it on the range with another crewmate.
It's still interesting.
 
Always useful to go back and look at the origins, it'll always be relevant to know the baseline.
 
x3
Yeah, I agree, it'd be nice if we wouldn't adapt schemes and make "fake" ones.
 
Link broken unfortunately.
 
2A5s for the Netherlands and Germany were old turrets that were refurbished, for Strv 122, Leopard 2HEL and Leopard 2E brand new turrets were made (no ammo hatch on the side).
They pretty much had to cut up the entire turret though, and supposedly even then some additional changes were made later on in tanks like the leopard 2HEL or E.
 
Did I miss something?
The B&V armour did get chosen for 2A0?
 

Coming back to the old German specification for armour steel (TL 2350-0001): The allocation to hardness is the following
A, R and D   250 to 300
B                   310 to 360
C                   340 to 390
E                   400 to 450
X                   370 to 420
W                  400 to 450
V                   440 to 490
L                    250 to 300
Now @Wiedzmin you can perform the analysis for the old Leopard 2 AV.

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

It looks like a T-80UE-1, so it kind of is a collection of spare parts to begin with.

Fresh from https://twitter.com/xmszeon

 
 

It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output).


 
Autoloader:

 
 
MBT 80 had central position for driver.

Regarding weight reduction:

2AV
 

Some my models
 
 

I found this and reposted this on the SB forum.
 
Interested in what others here think..
 
More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them.
 
So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. 
 
Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1.
 
IIRC Tankograd has evidence that suggests that  BRL-1 on the M1 uses titanium alloys with or in place of steel in the NERA array.  That would increase the ME, but not the TE against KE rounds no?
 

100mm/70deg - 3057meters
15mm-100mm/70deg - 1250-1290 meters
 
so "good against spaced armour" not good enough, but maybe better than nothing...

Yeah, for crews to use as a ladder. 

Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
(Quoting friend)
Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
 
Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
 
Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
(maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
 
So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
As previously pointed out in this thread.
This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
 
So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
 
Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
 
This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.

^additional information: mantlet couldn't be salvaged/saved, they're working on a new one but had a deadline, so instead they put a camo net over the mantlet to cover it up.
This is TVM MIN as indicated by the license plate (Y 907 793)
TVM MAX was Y 907 792:
Y 907 794 was the last 2A4 from 8th batch.
 
If Y 907 792 was indeed MAX (as indicated) then how come an 8th batch, modified 2A4 had B tech internal armour + D-2 add-ons as shown in the Swedish trials?
That would mean they changed the inserts to B tech (huh, cost maybe?) when they did the conversion, or these two tanks were B tech from the start (doesn't make much sense).
There's a third option:
KVT (modified 5th batch), which was converted to IVT, was also "shown" to the Swedes (for the IFIS), perhaps the Leopard 2 "Improved" slide talks about that one?
Seems a bit of a stretch.
 
However, if the TVM indeed did use B + D-2 and was the "German solution" we see in the Swedish comparison, then the improvement in armour might just be down to the add-on and not a better internal armour.
Turret add-on definitely changed, hull one we don't know about.
So, turret was a rather small improvement, but hull was ~80mm on upper hull/roof (82° AoA means you'd only need an additional 11mm RHA for the add-on thickness).
 
Did they mess up with the indicated armour, or does a B tech leopard 2 with add-on reach these numbers?
 
As previously posted in this thread:
28mm sandwich + 71mm air + 28mm sandwich @ 65° = ~950mm protection against CE.
Looks quite similar to the wedges for leopard 2A5.
 
2A5 prototypes: 1720mm-1850mm CE protection on turret from 0° front
-950mm from wedge = 800-900mm for main turret armour
B tech requirement: Milan 1 or 600mm+ CE (probably 650-700mm from front)
That leaves 250-100mm which isn't explained, could be due to airgap allowing the jet to disperse more before hitting the main armour.
 
If we assume these armour arrays (or similar ones) were used in the wedges for leopard 2A5  and that the 250-100mm discrepancy can be explained or falls within margin of error, then it does seem plausible that B + D-2 = Leopard 2 "Improved" and that 2A5 uses B tech or a modified version thereof as base armour.
 
Only thing that isn't entirely explainable is the (massively) increased KE protection.... but then again, even small impact angle changes (yawing LRP) can have massive consequences.

Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
(Quoting friend)
Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
 
Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
 
Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
(maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
 
So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
As previously pointed out in this thread.
This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
 
So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
 
Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
 
This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.

Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
(Quoting friend)
Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
 
Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
 
Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
(maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
 
So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
As previously pointed out in this thread.
This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
 
So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
 
Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
 
This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.

@Collimatrix @Mighty_Zuk @SH_MM @LoooSeR @Militarysta @Xlucine
 
 
 
 
Yeah I took 'some' liberties with the jet, but that mainly has to do with this being a rough first look at Nozh, I'll do a more properly shaped jet later.
 
 
tl;dw: Yes, a copper jet can cut through a wolfram penetrator but the jet is not nearly long enough.
 
Edit: This is also a frictionless simulation so the jet penetrating the steel plate doesn't slow it down at all. All in all, this is a best case scenario for Nozh.

Puma's powerpack:
MTU 10V 890 (MT 892) + Renk HSWL 256

Interesting points:
Mantlet weighs 640kg
Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.
They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.
Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.

Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
(Quoting friend)
Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
 
Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
 
Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
(maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
 
So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
As previously pointed out in this thread.
This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
 
So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
 
Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
 
This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.

Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend):
Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm)
(Quoting friend)
Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm.
 
Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular
From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see)  and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm.
 
Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed  same inner plate thickness.
(maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?)
 
So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull?
Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE.....

In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS):
Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish).
UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement:
As previously pointed out in this thread.
This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?).
 
So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?....
 
Anyway,  BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets.
Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE.
IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods.
 
This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.