Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'leopard 2'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Outer Rim
    • Open Discussion
    • Aerospace
    • Naval Discussion
    • Mechanized Warfare
    • Ballistics Science Discussion
    • Infantry Tools & Tactics
    • Dr. Strangelove's Nuclear Palace
    • Biosciences
    • History, Culture, and Archaeology
    • Fiction & Entertainment
    • Computers, Software, and Tech Support
    • Historical Warfare
    • Sturgeon's Contests

Blogs

  • Of IS-7s and Other Things
  • Archive Awareness
  • Unstart's Blog
  • The Sherman Blog
  • U-47

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Found 3 results

  1. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Nice promo of the Rheinmettal Leopard 2. In this case polish Leopard 2PL: Leopard 2PL in english was describe in this exelent site: http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/09/updates-on-pt-16-and-leopard-2-pl.html ============ Now in polish military press im publishing article about Leopard-2 estimatous protection and it's modernisation. Conclusion propbly will not be suprising - Leopard 2A0-A4 was very good protected against soviet erly and middle 80's ATGMS and KE rounds. My own estimatous (based on multiple sources - some public open some not) is giving Leopard -2A0-A4 sucht protection level: 450-500mm RHA vs KE up to 860mm RHA vs HEAT Since 96 tank from 6 btach (2A4) protection was improved but it's difficult to estimatous. What is funny - I have very strong evidence that in 1994 german special armour (thick as Leopard-2A4 front) was able to stop LKE I (DM43) round from 2000m, so whit circa 640-700mm RHA penetration (@60. plate)... Helenic Leopard-2A6HEL whintstand 28 shots from 120mm APFSDS... etc.
  2. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Hello Everyone, I have the strong impression that the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret seems to have a KE resistance of around 400-500 mm and a CE resistance of around 700 - 800 mm. based on: The P. Krapke threat diagram: The R. Hilmes estimate: 450 mm RHA KE: The Armed Forces Journal: 400 mm RHA KE / 700 mm RHA CE: P. Lakowski estimate using the established LOS thickness values: 495 - 590 mm RHA KE / 700 - 830 mm RHA CE: Militarysta estimate: 450-500mm RHA KE / 860mm RHA CE: The armor protection requirement for the first Leopard 2 prototype: Inside the crew compartment (turret and hull): 1. Secure against 105 mm x 617 HK (APDS), fired from a distance of 800 m from a horizontal frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting from ground level up to 1154 mm. (This effectively means the glacis/upper front hull turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the sponson area and side turret). 2. Secure against 90 mm x 602 HK, fired from a distance of 1500 m from a horizontal frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the side hul area and side turret). 3. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 100 m from a horizontal direction all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis and lower front hull as well as turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from ground level going up.(This effectively means the side hull area and side turret). 4. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 500 m from with an impact angle of 20 degrees (from the horizonal) all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 650 mm from ground level going up.(Side hull covered by the side skirts and side turret). 5. Secure against 155 mm high explosive shells, splinters/shrapnel from a height of 10 m above the engine deck. This image also helped: Could any of you give me some feedback and tell me what you guys think ? Thanks in advance!
  3. Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded. The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres. The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated. The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew. The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions. Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2. Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say: Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×