TWMSR

Some K1A1 with an ammo carrying turret bustle concepts for a presentation by GDLS on the "K1 Compartmentation Of All 120mm Ammo". Document is undated.
 

Pz58 firing trials
 
https://www.recherche.bar.admin.ch/recherche/#/en/archive/unit/29378223
 
and a lot of others in swiss archives 

Since twitter only embeds the first post of a thread for non-registered users, here's something from the Swiss evaluation of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 (1981):
 
 
 
 
 

update on turret
 

 
 

something like that, can't tell more accurately 

Mk.3 side skirts filler 

Im not yet fully convinced that the lines are just simple weld lines. Thats why I initially brought this up.
In the center the blocks are directly welded with a smooth finish.

On the outside they are cut into the steel and then filled - non of the lines have any visible typical weld patterns (though could be covered by thick layer of paint). Butt joints like these also usually bulge out of the plate - instead being embedded. Why is the pattern irregular (but also identical on all tanks)?

If they are strongly welded together, why would there be two additional bolts to strap all the four blocks together?
That's why I wondered if these might be crumple zones to allow for some minimal shift of the blocks to feed more material against a penetrator. I wonder if that could work for thicker blocks like these, maybe someone could simulate it.

Anyway lets leave it at this, discussing it further would be unnecessary.

The blocks are around 360-370mm thick based on my current estimate. Each section including the joint lines is 100mm, with the last block being a bit thinner, around ~60-70mm.

Gunner side is 542kg - Loaders side is 389kg (@ TWMSR)

 
 What makes you think that the gunshield is some aluminum alloy? Its definitely some sort of tempered metal.

Here a short animation displaying the parts

The model is based on a mix of 3D photogrammetry scans of the entire turret and schematics, but still needs some fine tuning.
 

The probblem is that neither Spielberger nor Lobitz talk about the base armor being C-Technologie/3rd generation armor. As I wrote, I believe there to be two conflicting definitions:
one counting special armor beginning with the Leopard 2 production version one earlier also counting something else (potentially just simple spaced armor or some prototype armor arrays) as first generation  
 
The show the Bionix as example of "2nd generation medium protection", not heavy protection. The SuperAV/ACV is shown with two different medium protection generations, because the composition of the armor has changed and was improved. This is also shown in the earlier slides with the light protection. Light protection of the second generation was just large white ceramic tiles (most likely aluminium oxide) that were glued to what seems to be rubber. The third generation light protection used smaller tiles (10 x 10 cm) of unknown composition. The fourth generation light protection uses nano-ceramics ("NANOTech-Keramikmodul") based on silicon oxide (at least that's what the color suggests) with even smaller, hexagonal size.
 
For the SuperAV/ACV, initially the third generation medium protection was used to deal with IEDs. It was later upgraded to/replaced by fourth generation protection making use of newer/more optimal materials at similar size.

Likewise for the Boxer A2 of the Dutch Army, the armor modules were replaced using lighter ones that provide the same protection. Visually there is no difference.
 
 
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.
 
 
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).
 
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).
 
 
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:
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 "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...
 
 
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.
 
 
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...
 
 
 
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.
 
 
Not on a series production model.
 
 
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.
 
 
 
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:
 

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.
 
 
I 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.
 
 
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...

Photos showing the K2 armor thickness, taken by someone in Poland.

Frontal armor seems rather inconsistent (at least in front of the gunner's sight). Basically only achieves consistent protection when seen directly from the front and ranges from ca. 650 mm (directly next to the gun mantlet) to ca. a maximum of 850 mm. Also I am not sure if the element to which the radar panels are mounted is actual armor; it is attached with bolts from the front, but there is also a welding seam at the top. At 30° angle, armor thickness can range from <100 mm to 630 mm.
 
Not a very consistent protection.

Turret side armor is 50 mm thick, seemingly a simple steel plate. Additional ERA can be attached to the stowage boxes.
 

Side skirt armor. 50 mm baseline armor plus ERA panels (25 mm ERA + 25 mm backplate).

Rear hull, 30 mm steel.
 

M48 
 

On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight.
 
I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states.


 
A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.

ADEX 2023 has started. 
 
There aren't too many photos floating about yet with specific vehicles and displays photographed in detail but there's a few photos sets out there already showing some new, and old, things. 
 
Most photos come from these two posts: 
https://gall.dcinside.com/mgallery/board/view/?id=war&no=3650477&exception_mode=recommend&page=1
https://gall.dcinside.com/mgallery/board/view/?id=war&no=3650487&exception_mode=recommend&page=1
 
 

 
 
New model of the Next Generation Main Battle Tank
 
AS21 in the ROK Army camouflage 
 
Wheeled Armored Vehicle with a 30mm turret (Plus the K808 variant models that we've seen in previous years)
 
K2EX 
 
K-NIFV and the Common Tracked Family of Vehicles models that we've seen previously
 
A KLTV based vehicle with a UAS and RWS, still looking for more info on it.
 

GIAT vintage video from 1983 about French APFSDS : basic principles, manufacturing process, quality control, testing, beyond-armour effect, packaging. I find it very interesting.
 
https://imagesdefense.gouv.fr/fr/munitions-fleches.html

TOGS history 
 

There is a document on DTIC from 1987, where the probability of fuel fires after armor penetration was being investigated on the M2 Bradley, M113 and M1A1 Abrams tank (with diesel fuel, JP-08 was introduced in the Army later). The document is a technical report from the Ballistic Research Laboratory written by Antony E. Finnerty.
 
It is noted that the automatic fire suppression system (AFSS) of the M1A1 is not capable of supressing engine fires.
 
Depending on hit location and how much fuel is left inside the fuel tanks, the probability of incinerating the diesel stored in the Abrams with the first hit by a shaped charge is between 10% and 50%; the probabiltiy of a fire in the frontal fuel tanks was only 15% at 8°C ambient temperature and 25% at 24°C ambient temperature. These values are based on Soviet 125 mm HEAT rounds and might not be valid for more modern, larger calibre, HEAT warheads with tandem charges.
 
The probability of a fuel fire after penetration by a 125 mm APFSDS projectile is between 50% and 60% (at 8°C and 24°C ambient temperature respectively). Again this represents Soviet technology from the 1980s and might not be valid for modern APFSDS rounds.
 

The efficiency is determined by using a sample shaped charge against steel armor as reference (reference penetration is Pref), then using the same type of sample charge against the fuel tank (to determine the penetration into fuel Pfuel). The efficiency then is calculated using these factors.
 
If the fuel tank includes 25 mm front and 20 mm back plates of steel, and this is included in Pfuel, the efficiency will be exaggerated depending on the reference penetration of the sample charge. Let's say (just for this argument) that the reference shaped charge penetrates 180 mm, but it can be stopped by 25 mm steel + 680 mm of fuel + 20 mm steel. Then 680 mm of fuel provides as much protection as 135 mm steel. Now if somebody forgets the fact that there is a 25 mm coverplate and a 20 mm back plate, the efficiency of fuel will be exaggerated by 33%.

Some infographics on Karrar

 
 
Iranian take on Shtora

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.

Simon Tan passed away in May.

Simon Tan passed away in May.

Simon Tan passed away in May.

Simon Tan passed away in May.

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V/JDW
Jane's Defense Weekly issues from volumes 1 to 29 (1984-1998) available at RSL
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V/JIDR
JIDR issues between 1996-2007, available at RSL, were photographed again, now from cover to cover
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4VArmee - Motor
Swiss magazine Armee -Motor, issues from 1958-1970
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V/L'Armee
Issues of French army's magazine L'Armee from 1962-1970 
 
In some of those folders all full-page photos are renamed, but that's probably less then quarter of all pages and even smaller part of all folders
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/e8FD/JJQ1zgbtp
Jane's books - several issues of Jane's Weapon Systems, Air-Launched Weapons, Armour and Artillery, Land-Based Air Defence
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/home/Articles/РГБ/_books - книги
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/vmUD/FEAbpSENQ
Also, several books were photographed and uploaded - on 1969 Damansky border conflict, Soviet 1960s books on NATO armies armament, very recent book on development of AWD trucks from 1930s-60s, etc
 
In case anyone wants to download that, in case there's something happening with Mail.ru cloud availability in following days

CR2 mantlet, more or less 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060035213
 




 


 
some khald's, shir's etc, plate which is drilled look like UFP speical amror one, and look like Aluminum

Old Swiss report on the trials of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.