The Leopard 2 Thread

[Xoon]

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.

[SH_MM]

 

Turret down position.

[SH_MM]

Leopard 2A6M2 with ELIAS and SPECTUS:

 

 

https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/12/verbeterde-leopards-voor-duits-nederlandse-pantserbataljon

 

 

http://www.janes.com/article/80374/dutch-german-tank-battalion-receives-first-leopard-2a6ma2

[Steelninja333]

A small gallery of Leopard 2A6FIN sideskirt photos, taken on the FDF 100-years day 4.6.2018 by me: https://imgur.com/a/83RepaQ

[Laviduce]

Some information on the armor package types on the German Leopard 2s:

 

 

[SH_MM]

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:

 

 

(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).

[Laviduce]

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:

 

 

(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).

[SH_MM]

wrong topic, please delete

[SH_MM]

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.

 

 

 



 



 



 

 

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.

 

[Laviduce]

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.

 

  

 

 

 

•  

[Laviduce]

Diagram from an Aselsan research paper dealing with gun tube vibrations (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914716301234?via%3Dihub):

 

 

[Laviduce]

Something that should make us think:

 

 

[SH_MM]

 

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.

[Laviduce]

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.

[Wiedzmin]

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...

 

 

[FORMATOSE]

Did the A-technology ever existed ? Considering that the B-technology composite armor belonged to the first generation.

[2805662]

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....

[Laviduce]

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.

[Pardus]

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:

 

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!

 

 

[Laviduce]

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:

 

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.

[Pardus]

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:

 

 

Would be nice to get that one cleared up.

 

 

[Laviduce]

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:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Pardus]

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:

 

[Laviduce]

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:

 

 

 

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 ?

[Wiedzmin]

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.

]

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