Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I am not sure how it is done for Leopard 2 components, but I have seen entire cast or welded assemblies heated up and quenched at once in appropriately massive facilities. This image of a Panzer 68 hull being Quenched at Thun always comes to mind.

 

Welding plates post heat-treatment is very difficult without making the zone around the weld weak. It is usually preferred in metallurgy to weld before heat treatment and then do it all together.

Wow, that's huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worth nothing that other German authors (like Lobitz)  claim that the 8th batch already got D-technology armor (at least in certain spots like the light side skirts). That would alsoo explain why a graphic from the Swedish documents shows the third generation armor being used since 1991:

 

Panzerung+Leopard+2+Generationen.png

 

(The eight batch was made between January 1991 and March 1992. The final tank was handed over to the German army on the 19th of March).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

It is worth nothing that other German authors (like Lobitz)  claim that the 8th batch already got D-technology armor (at least in certain spots like the light side skirts). That would alsoo explain why a graphic from the Swedish documents shows the third generation armor being used since 1991:

 

Panzerung+Leopard+2+Generationen.png

 

(The eight batch was made between January 1991 and March 1992. The final tank was handed over to the German army on the 19th of March).

Yes, i read about that too. Spielberger also talked about those D-technology based side skirts but i never had anyone go any deeper into the subject matter than Hilmes. Looking at the chart I also think it is possible that D technology Leopard 2A4 turrets were produced that early (1991-1992).

 

On the other hand, this diagram could just have been part of the Krauss Maffei information brochures sent to Sweden after the request-for-information (RFI) was sent to Germany in November of 1991. Answers were received no later than March 1992. This image might actually show a projected introduction of the 3rd generation armor package in response to the future soviet tank (FST->T-90).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to this:

On 11/2/2016 at 10:05 PM, Militarysta said:

May I ask You - dy You have any other confirm about NERA and MEXAS? It's really interesting in case Leopard 2PL shape.

 

Leopard-C2-MEXAS-of-B-Squadron--Lord-Str

1THF6q7.jpg

YdFZp1k.jpg

g5TtD4q.jpg

 



YmTgjpx.jpg

eTBqjk3.jpg

h0LYKTh.jpg

 

XdPw87y.jpg

 

x5GurMd.jpg

 

BP6NCbN.jpgyVAeMwq.jpg

 

niPopRu.jpg

C290s9v.jpg

0NJIwFd.jpg

 

Glacis plate seems to be a single layer of reactive armor with rather thick backwards moving plate. If there is anything behind the NERA sandwich, it is removed when attaching a dozer blade or mine clearing system. Turret armor seems to be three NERA layers at the side sections although mantlet probably has only one sandwich plate at the upper section.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest estimate. Oddly enough, according to the Lindstroem presentation on page 53, the right front of the Leopard 2 is better protected than the left.  I incorporated this in this estimate. Any feedback would be appreciate.

 

Leo2A1_estimate3_KE

  

Leo2A1_estimate3_KE_3

 

leo2_B_side_KE_resleo2_B_front_KE_differenceleo2_B_front_aspectsleo2_B_front_turret_sectionsleo2_B_side_hull_thicknessesleo2_B_gun_mantlet_trunnionleo2_B_front_turret_roof_LOSleo2_B_front_hull_concept

 

 
  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Already adressed in other discussions. The conclusion is rather simple: it's not a reliable source, given the various incorrect statements in the article.

 

As for your new protection estimate: that doesn't fit to the armor coverage. If ~19% of the total frontal surface should have at least 400 mm protection, then you cannot remove half of the area with this protection level from the previous model. That the right side of the turret is better protected is hardly a suprise given that the armor there is thicker and the armor block behind the EMES-15 will result in a much higher LOS path for flank shots hitting the upper half of the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Already adressed in other discussions. The conclusion is rather simple: it's not a reliable source, given the various incorrect statements in the article.

 

As for your new protection estimate: that doesn't fit to the armor coverage. If ~19% of the total frontal surface should have at least 400 mm protection, then you cannot remove half of the area with this protection level from the previous model. That the right side of the turret is better protected is hardly a suprise given that the armor there is thicker and the armor block behind the EMES-15 will result in a much higher LOS path for flank shots hitting the upper half of the turret.

Thank you for the feedback!  What do you mean by this statement?  It does not seem that i removed that much from my previous model. I just balanced the greater KE resistance to the other turret face given what we currently know , more or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 6:35 PM, Laviduce said:

Any feedback would be appreciate.

 

if you take a closer look at the measurements of mantlet done by Militarysta, you will understand that there is no 420, or 400, or even 390mm in it for example...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 11:12 PM, TokyoMorose said:

Welding plates post heat-treatment is very difficult without making the zone around the weld weak. It is usually preferred in metallurgy to weld before heat treatment and then do it all together.

From about 2000 onward, the proliferation of cracks in the hulls of Australian Leopard AS1s meant that a repair methodology had to be developed & implemented. 

 

Not knowing anything about welding, I was amazed at the amount and duration of pre-work required. We’re talking days of applying heat to hulls before welding up the cracks. 

 

Pretty sure I have a copy of the engineering instruction laying around somewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

if you take a closer look at the measurements of mantlet done by Militarysta, you will understand that there is no 420, or 400, or even 390mm in it for example...

 

 

As far as i could see, the length of the upper part of the mantlet is about 510 mm, including the overhang.  The maximum thickness from the front to the back seems to be 420 mm not including the overhang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys, came over from the WT forums after I stumbled upon this site via google whilst searching for material on the Leopard 2 MBT.

 

I have some questions regarding the top armor of the Leopard, and I created this color map in order to split up each section:

6KbDMmB.jpg

 

My questions are:

a) did I section things correctly

b) what are the correct thickness values for each section

 

I read that the front part of the turret roof is 70mm thick angled at 7 deg over at narod.ru and by a former Leo crew member. Furthermore I can visibly see that the upper front hull is some ~10mm thicker than the 30mm thick drivers hatch.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Pardus said:

Hello guys, came over from the WT forums after I stumbled upon this site via google whilst searching for material on the Leopard 2 MBT.

 

I have some questions regarding the top armor of the Leopard, and I created this color map in order to split up each section:

6KbDMmB.jpg

 

My questions are:

a) did I section things correctly

b) what are the correct thickness values for each section

 

I read that the front part of the turret roof is 70mm thick angled at 7 deg over at narod.ru and by a former Leo crew member. Furthermore I can visibly see that the upper front hull is some ~10mm thicker than the 30mm thick drivers hatch.

 

Thanks!

 

 

a) I think the boundary of the green/yellow line should be at the Peri R17 level.

 

b) From a properly scaled Rolf Hilmes Leopard 2 cross section i get the following:

 

green: 40-45 mm max. I seriously do not understand how they can get 70 mm unless they include the spall liner on later Leopard 2s

orange: 15-20 mm. 20 mm was outlined in design change documents of the Leopard 2AV, IIRC.

red: up to 40 mm

yellow: 30 mm

cyan: 10 mm ? Looks really thin, does not show up well in the drawing for measurement.

yellow: 30 mm max.

 

Also, the turret bustle bottom seems to be 20 mm thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Laviduce!

 

I am wondering how they arrived at the 70mm front turret roof?  A leopard crew memeber said it was a 70mm slab of RHA stretching up until around the commander & loaders hatch. And the guy  at narod.ru apparently measured it at that thickness too?

 

In the tank he measured there doesn't appear to be a spall liner there:

 2cscuo0.jpg

 

Would be nice to get that one cleared up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pardus said:

Thanks Laviduce!

 

I am wondering how they arrived at the 70mm front turret roof?  A leopard crew memeber said it was a 70mm slab of RHA stretching up until around the commander & loaders hatch. And the guy  at narod.ru apparently measured it at that thickness too?

 

In the tank he measured there doesn't appear to be a spall liner there:

 2cscuo0.jpg

 

Would be nice to get that one cleared up.

 

 

You are welcome.  I am getting the impression that the area in question might have been thickened in parts in the Leopard 2A5 and later models.  Three deflector plates in front of the loaders periscope are clearly visible.

 

Leo%20MAINT%204.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's indeed a plausible explanation for the Leo crew member listing such a number (eventhough those add on pieces look a lot thicker ), but I don't understand how narid.ru got it so wrong then?

 

Also I've noticed that there's a form of turret guard spanning across the forward hull top that often seems to be overlooked:

t3WbCvp.jpg

nZyG6cr.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pardus said:

That's indeed a plausible explanation for the Leo crew member listing such a number (eventhough those add on pieces look a lot thicker ), but I don't understand how narid.ru got it so wrong then?

 

Also I've noticed that there's a form of turret guard spanning across the forward hull top that often seems to be overlooked:

t3WbCvp.jpg

nZyG6cr.jpg

 

 

 

I am not totally sure why there is such a significant discrepancy (40-45 mm vs. 70mm).  I made a serious effort to properly scale the drawings.  Concerning the turret ring guard, it should make a small but at least somewhat noticeable difference.

 

Also, has anyone figured out how and where the side turret special armor inserts terminate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Laviduce said:

As far as i could see, the length of the upper part of the mantlet is about 510 mm, including the overhang.  The maximum thickness from the front to the back seems to be 420 mm not including the overhang.

mDh1r3rqbsA.jpg]

maybe i'm wrong, but i don't see any "400+"mm varianst for this measure 

 

mantlet itself was designed long before Leop2A4, so it's level of protection could be very low, so i  doubt in your optimistic assessment 300mm vs KE 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      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.
×