StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

[2805662]

Qatari KF-41 Lynx? 

 

https://twitter.com/jeremybinnie/status/1075008024136306689?s=21 

[Zadlo]

Hungary buys 44 Leopard 2 and 24 PzH 2000 from KMW stocks

[heretic88]

6 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

Hungary buys 44 Leopard 2 and 24 PzH 2000 from KMW stocks

 

This appeared in our local media, and isnt certain that it is true. But I really hope it is, because our T-72As are very old, and are in bad condition. (altough they should serve later as second line tanks). PzH 2000 would be even more of an improvement, because all we had currently is some D-20 towed guns, about 4-6 in working order. (the idiots retired the 2S1 and 2S3 back then, and retained the D-20...)

[123]

1

[123]

1

[N-L-M]

I thought they got their first A7Vs in 1917

[Zadlo]

35 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

 

This appeared in our local media, and isnt certain that it is true.

 

The source is MTI (Hungarian main press agency).

[SH_MM]

On 11/29/2018 at 10:48 PM, Scav said:

If so, would it be possible even plausible that it is indeed 800mm not taking into account angle because of a flat add-on ?
Like on the leopard 2 with the 140mm:

  Hide contents 



 

Btw. according to Rolf Hilmes, the Swiss add-on armor developed by RUAG for the Panzer 87WE was optimized for protection against handheld anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7 rather than against kinetic engery penetrators. For anti-KE purposes the Swiss could have adopted the Leopard 2A5 instead, as they (together with Germany and the Netherlands) funded the development of the 2A5 upgrade.

 

 

On 12/11/2018 at 6:20 PM, Scav said:

Well, the way I see it there's two options: either he had good info regarding the upgrades carried out (he mentions base armour being upgraded in the 1988 model which AFAIK is confirmed) or he didn't have good info and guessed based upon other authors and pictures, in which case he might not have known that the 1991 models had improved internal armour too.

But considering he specifies that the internal armour was upgraded in the 1988 model while saying only the skirts were upgraded for the 1991 model, I would think he does actually have decent info.

 

Without knowing his sources, there is nothing but speculation. In general there seems to be some copying going on (different authors either use the same source or are basing their statements on other authors). Krauss-Maffei could have simply revealed at the time that the Leopard 2A4 from 1988 started to feature new and improved armor. In the end the tank was still being offered on the export market - including to the British tank program. The Leopard 2 from 1991 however entered service at a time when the Leopard 2A5 was in development and marketed to Britain and Sweden.

 

One fact to consider is that nobody specified that only the skirts were changed - they might be the only visible change. While Lobitz book is rather detailed, he isndoesn't list all changes for each variant that are sometimes mentioned by other authors.

 

One can argue that the fact that Lobitz doesn't mention a change in the base could imply that it wasn't changed, but that is the only argument that I've seen against the existence of a "D" technology base armor coming from you. 

I'd consider it a fact that there is a "D" technology base armor package for multiple reasons including that the Leopard 2A5 turrets for Germany feature "D" technology base armor. The Krauss-Maffei data delivered to Sweden includes a table which by formatting implies that "D" technology base armor exists (and it also includes three different sub-variants of it, labelled "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3"). A graphic from the same documents shows a flat-sided Leopard 2 with the three dates 1979, 1988 and 1991 corresponding to the armor packages. Last but not least an armor package was offered to different operators of the Leopard 2 with "B" generation armor during the 1990s, which could stop the LKE1 APFSDS at 2,000 m, but didn't include a add-on module.

 

On 12/11/2018 at 6:20 PM, Scav said:

I recall seeing a picture of a leopard 2 skirt somewhere with "holes" under the surface, not sure if that was the early variant or a later one. 

I doubt those skirts can offer more protection than the frontal armour even if it's at, let's say, a 15° angle.  

 

The light skirts consists of perforated steel plates sheathed with rubber. The light skirts are ~12 mm thick.

 

The turret applique armor kit for the Leopard 1A1A1 uses such perforated steel plates with a thickness of 5 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm. It is possible that the skirt armor consists either of one or two 5 mm perforated steel plates or there also was a 10 mm perforated steel plate.

 

 

You can see the rubber-covered perforations at the right side of the following image.

 

What I meant in my previous post regarding the skirts + side armor at 15° providing more protection than the frontal armor is not related to the light skirts. According to Lobitz, both heavy ballistic and light skirts are made in "D" technology for the Leopard 2A4 from 1991. This means that the frontal section of the side armor should be able to stop 120 mm APFSDS rounds with 700 mm penetration and 143 mm single shaped charge warheads with 1,000 mm penetration (1,270 mm protection during ballistic tests) along the frontal 30° arc - given that the frontal turret armor of a Leopard 2A4 with "C" technology armor array is supposedly equivalent to only 500-550 mm steel vs KE (based on the Swedish leaks) and 420 mm steel along the frontal 60° arc. There would be quite a disbalance in armor protection, given that the Leopard 2's hull (and apparently most hulls) aren't designed with the same protected frontal arc as the turret!

[heretic88]

2 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Do you have any info if the Hungarian Army is looking into cooperations with other Nations?
Like the Dutch, Poles, Czech, and French are having with Germany?

Well... Turkey!   Not long ago, Erdogan visited us, and in the news it was announced that hungary will cooperate with turkey in some "military affairs"... No details unfortunately...

[123]

1

[Scav]

26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Btw. according to Rolf Hilmes, the Swiss add-on armor developed by RUAG for the Panzer 87WE was optimized for protection against handheld anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7 rather than against kinetic engery penetrators. For anti-KE purposes the Swiss could have adopted the Leopard 2A5 instead, as they (together with Germany and the Netherlands) funded the development of the 2A5 upgrade.

That's odd.... why would they want RPG-7 protection the turret front and sides? (sides is more understandable)

 

28 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Without knowing his sources, there is nothing but speculation. In general there seems to be some copying going on (different authors either use the same source or are basing their statements on other authors). Krauss-Maffei could have simply revealed at the time that the Leopard 2A4 from 1988 started to feature new and improved armor. In the end the tank was still being offered on the export market - including to the British tank program. The Leopard 2 from 1991 however entered service at a time when the Leopard 2A5 was in development and marketed to Britain and Sweden.

 

One fact to consider is that nobody specified that only the skirts were changed - they might be the only visible change. While Lobitz book is rather detailed, he isndoesn't list all changes for each variant that are sometimes mentioned by other authors.

I guess we'd need a second source to confirm.

 

30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

One can argue that the fact that Lobitz doesn't mention a change in the base could imply that it wasn't changed, but that is the only argument that I've seen against the existence of a "D" technology base armor coming from you. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

I'd consider it a fact that there is a "D" technology base armor package for multiple reasons including that the Leopard 2A5 turrets for Germany feature "D" technology base armor. The Krauss-Maffei data delivered to Sweden includes a table which by formatting implies that "D" technology base armor exists (and it also includes three different sub-variants of it, labelled "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3").

The formatting would also imply there's add-on modules of B and C tech though, something I don't consider likely.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

A graphic from the same documents shows a flat-sided Leopard 2 with the three dates 1979, 1988 and 1991 corresponding to the armor packages.

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).

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The turret applique armor kit for the Leopard 1A1A1 uses such perforated steel plates with a thickness of 5 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm. It is possible that the skirt armor consists either of one or two 5 mm perforated steel plates or there also was a 10 mm perforated steel plate.

Noticed they were similar too, I think 25mm + 25mm is likely given the rather low weight of about 110kg.

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

What I meant in my previous post regarding the skirts + side armor at 15° providing more protection than the frontal armor is not related to the light skirts. According to Lobitz, both heavy ballistic and light skirts are made in "D" technology for the Leopard 2A4 from 1991. This means that the frontal section of the side armor should be able to stop 120 mm APFSDS rounds with 700 mm penetration and 143 mm single shaped charge warheads with 1,000 mm penetration (1,270 mm protection during ballistic tests) along the frontal 30° arc - given that the frontal turret armor of a Leopard 2A4 with "C" technology armor array is supposedly equivalent to only 500-550 mm steel vs KE (based on the Swedish leaks) and 420 mm steel along the frontal 60° arc. There would be quite a disbalance in armor protection, given that the Leopard 2's hull (and apparently most hulls) aren't designed with the same protected frontal arc as the turret!

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.

[Zadlo]

According to KMW, Leopards 2A7+ for Hungary will be newly produced. PzH 2000 also.

[123]

1

[SH_MM]

On 12/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, Scav said:

That's odd.... why would they want RPG-7 protection the turret front and sides? (sides is more understandable) 

 

The RPG-7 is only mentioned as an example threat, it is more meant as protection against all types of hand-held anti-tank weapons. Hilmes mentioned different hand-held anti-tank weapons and the RPG-7 (with warheads capable to penetrate more than 600 mm steel after ERA) multiple times in this chapter. The Swiss military operates a variant of the Panzerfaust 3 with 124 mm warhead, which can likely defeat the frontal armor of the original Panzer 87. Also the frontal arc might be designed to resist ATGMs too.

 

Note that the Leopard 2A5 in the Swedish tests (both German and Swedish model) couldn't survive a Carl-Gustav round with 420 mm penetration. The M1A2's side armor also is only capable to resist RPGs with 380 mm penetration at the turret bustle; the turret sides at the crew compartment are thinner.

 

On 12/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, Scav said:

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 armor weight of the M1A1 Abrams increased by less than 907 kilograms according to Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams (The empty weight of the M1IP - with identical armor to the M1A1 - is 907 kg higher than the empty weight of the M1 Abrams. The M1IP didn't only introduce the improved armor but also other changes, hence the "less than").

 

The M1A1 HA added 4,400 lbs of weight according to the weight "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command, this is just ~1,995 kg. Apparently the adoption of the heavier T158 tracks raised the weight of the M1A1 from 120,000 lbs to 130,800 lbs, thus creating the illusion of a much larger weight gain for the M1A1HA (which always uses the T158 tracks) due to incorrect comparisons with the M1A1 with T156 tracks.

 

As discussed earlier, the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 might have a combat weight of 56.5 tonnes (or about 1,350 kilograms more than the previous model).  It might feature titanium and tungsten within its armor array (according to rumors mentioned by different authors, the late Leopard 2A4 - so either the model with "C" technology armor or the one with "D" technology armor - makes use of these materials).

 

On 12/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, Scav said:

The formatting would also imply there's add-on modules of B and C tech though, something I don't consider likely.

 

Yes and no. It wouldn't make sense to create such armor, but it would likely be possible to create such. Note that German authors always talk about "B", "C" and "D" technologies, this might be relating to the fact that each letter refers to a concept/change of "material generations". For example we know that the late batches of the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A5 use harder steel than the original model.

 

I think the formatting suggests at least one overlap (otherwise what's the point of that table format), not that every armor/technology generation was used for both Pakete and Vorsatzmodule.

 

On 12/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, Scav said:

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.

 

The hull was likely not designed for full 30° protection (same case with the Abrams).

 

____________

 

Regarding Hungary:

Before signing the contract, a Hungarian delegation visited German military facilities. They showed lots of interested in the IDZ soldier system and the Puma IFV.

 

 

[Serge]

 

 

37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Regarding Hungary:

Before signing the contract, a Hungarian delegation visited German military facilities. They showed lots of interested in the IDZ soldier system and the Puma IFV.

Poor countries are always interested in things they can’t afford. 

Visiting a foreign country with free lunches is always a pleasure. 

[Scav]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Note that the Leopard 2A5 in the Swedish tests (both German and Swedish model) couldn't survive a Carl-Gustav round with 420 mm penetration. The M1A2's side armor also is only capable to resist RPGs with 380 mm penetration at the turret bustle; the turret sides at the crew compartment are thinner.

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.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The armor weight of the M1A1 Abrams increased by less than 907 kilograms according to Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams (The empty weight of the M1IP - with identical armor to the M1A1 - is 907 kg higher than the empty weight of the M1 Abrams. The M1IP didn't only introduce the improved armor but also other changes, hence the "less than").

Sorry, meant M1A1 -> M1A1HA.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The M1A1 HA added 4,400 lbs of weight according to the weight "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command, this is just ~1,995 kg. Apparently the adoption of the heavier T158 tracks raised the weight of the M1A1 from 120,000 lbs to 130,800 lbs, thus creating the illusion of a much larger weight gain for the M1A1HA (which always uses the T158 tracks) due to incorrect comparisons with the M1A1 with T156 tracks.

Ah, that would definitely explain the large difference, I didn't know about this, thanks for clearing that up.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As discussed earlier, the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 might have a combat weight of 56.5 tonnes (or about 1,350 kilograms more than the previous model).  It might feature titanium and tungsten within its armor array (according to rumors mentioned by different authors, the late Leopard 2A4 - so either the model with "C" technology armor or the one with "D" technology armor - makes use of these materials).

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.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yes and no. It wouldn't make sense to create such armor, but it would likely be possible to create such. Note that German authors always talk about "B", "C" and "D" technologies, this might be relating to the fact that each letter refers to a concept/change of "material generations". For example we know that the late batches of the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A5 use harder steel than the original model.

 

I think the formatting suggests at least one overlap (otherwise what's the point of that table format), not that every armor/technology generation was used for both Pakete and Vorsatzmodule.

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.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The hull was likely not designed for full 30° protection (same case with the Abrams).

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".

 

 

 

[Steelninja333]

@SH_MM I am pretty sure that the perforated plates of Leo2 side skirts are not made of metal, as evident in this picture: https://i.imgur.com/NcBlFnT.jpg The sideskirts in question are from a FDF Leo2A6.

[Xlucine]

7 hours ago, Toimisto said:

@SH_MM I am pretty sure that the perforated plates of Leo2 side skirts are not made of metal, as evident in this picture: https://i.imgur.com/NcBlFnT.jpg The sideskirts in question are from a FDF Leo2A6.

 

How so? that looks like rust to me

[Steelninja333]

it did not feel like metal to the touch at all, might be metal covered in some form of material, but not 100% metallic at the very least, the perforated material also seemed to be 1 piece per section of skirt, not divided into smaller pieces as on the leopard 1 turret add-on armor. If i remember correctly that was also shown on some of the pictures of destroyed turkish Leo2A4's Edit: seems like i was wrong on it being one piece: From the Leopard 2 thread looks like it is in the form of strips of material.

 

[Wiedzmin]

[Scav]

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:

Spoiler

I read on this forum that the picture above was user made from real data, anyone know more?

[SH_MM]

(I misread.)

[Scav]

So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before?
My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures:

Spoiler

LFP

UFP

Apparently it's the first prototype (and only remaining one).

Sideskirts (plain steel apparently)

Backdoor (add-on)

Roof armour

Door....

Not quite sure what this was

 

 

Apparently the base armour was 12cm (guessing LOS thickness for UFP and turret), all of this was add-on, spaced apart.

12cm total including add-on it seems.

 

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.

[Valryon]

@SH_MM Do you know what changes can we expect in next Leopard 2 upgrade? AMAP ADS, new engine, new ammo?

 

[SH_MM]

On 1/4/2019 at 2:18 PM, Scav said:

So, apparently the Swedes tested the Rheinmetall smoothbore 105:

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/

 

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances.

 

As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct.

 

Also interessting is the fact that they had a 32 mm projectile; is that a DM23 prototype? It retains its muzzle velocity for a longer period of time and penetrates more armor.

Btw: According to Krapke, the 105 mm smoothbore gun was abandoned, after a "performance-improved M735 round" fired from the L7 tank gun matched its lethality. That is the reason why some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were retro-fitted with rifled L7A3 guns in the last stages of Leopard 2 development.

 

On 1/6/2019 at 11:14 PM, Scav said:

Apparently the base armour was 12cm (guessing LOS thickness for UFP and turret), all of this was add-on, spaced apart.

 

That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules?

 

 

On 1/18/2019 at 12:22 PM, Valryon said:

Do you know what changes can we expect in next Leopard 2 upgrade? AMAP ADS, new engine, new ammo?

 

The planned features for the Leopard 2AX are:

• new engine with 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) output
• hardkill active protection system
• remotely operated weapon station
• 360° vision systems
• improved KE ammunition (KE2020)
• automated target tracking

If all these features will be adopted (if there is budget) and what exact parts will be chosen remains unknown. I'd say that the Rheinmetall ADS, KMW's FLW 200+ RWS and the Rheinmetall's SAS are some of the likely options.