Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Rohrkrepierer said:

@Pardus, I'm currently trying to get in contact with one of the authors of the paper to see if he can help me with a couple of things. Including this, and possible further information on DM23.

 

Sounds good Rohr!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just noticed the following:

m4vKuOR.jpg

 

Note: I think the six squares at the edge of the left sponson indicate the thickness of the plate here, which to me looks like ~30mm. This also makes the most sense in terms of protecting the fuel tanks from being ruptured by smallarms or HMG fire. To corroborate this theory there seems to be at least that amount of protection on the aircon system hatch: 

Spoiler

1tvx8Yn.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the six squares have to relate to the armor thickness of the hull side; they are part of the mounting mechanism for the side skirt elements.

 

2000_2000_matched__paevsm_2018061515.48.

Leopard 2A7 at Eurosatory

Share this post


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

I don't think the six squares have to relate to the armor thickness of the hull side; they are part of the mounting mechanism for the side skirt elements.

 

2000_2000_matched__paevsm_2018061515.48.

Leopard 2A7 at Eurosatory

 

I think they are the lower mounting points yes, however I still think they might indicate how thick the outer plate is going to be by how much they extend over the sponson floor. And again ofcourse it simply wouldn't make sense not to secure the fuel tanks (a critical component) from smallarms fire, as even 5.56 NATO green tip will penetrate 10mm of armour at 100m, 7.62 NATO AP 15mm,  and finally .50 BMG up to 22.2mm of FHA. 

 

Now since I seem to recall reading that the Leopard was designed to be immune to 20mm fire from the sides, I believe that indicates at atleast a 40-50mm RHAe protection for the fuel tanks, which could be achieved for example via a 12mm outer high hardness plate + a thicker 30mm one spaced behind it, just like on the 2K and 2AV and seemingly also exactly the type of protection fround on the aircon/filtration system hatch, i.e. a ~12mm outer plate with a ~30mm plate spaced behind it.

 

In summary since the Leopard 2K and 2AV both featured ample amount of spaced armour to protect their fuel cells, and since the NBC hatch on the Leo 2 actually features this same type of spaced protection, I think it's only logical that the production variant followed suit here or even slightly improved upon it for the fuel tank section.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An illustration of what I believe is likely the armour layout of the Leopard 2's sponsons:

Lj7dQSO.png

 

Again this is based on the Leopard 2AV and 2K protection scheme as well as the actual protection scheme present on the Leopard 2 at the NBC unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A close up picture of the rear turret bustle being worked on:

utfzsVP.jpg

 

Notice the lip formed by the plate overhang, what does this indicate? Is the turret bustle armour really not 90mm thick? or is the particular turret simply missing the inner wall plate at the moment of picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SM_HH,

 

That atleast seem to validate the use of an inner wall, and supposedly with NERA.

 

Would you happen to have information on the thickness of the hull below the sponsons? Narod.ru puts it at 50mm RHA, however are there any measurements to back this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it makes sense to ditch the somewhat limited Leo 2 upgrade envisioned in P5050 in favor of a better tank, there aren't really any reasons to postpone this until 2020-25 aside from budgetary reasons. The tanks that will show up in the Norwegian tank trials will almost certainly be the same ones that are available today (i.e. Leo 2A7V, M1A2 Sep v3, K2 Black Panther… maybe the LeoClerk though @SH_MM doesn’t think that’s likely), so we might as well pay up now, but sadly, Erna doesn’t seem to care all that much about NATO’s 2% goal, and is more interested in spending less oil money atm.

 

That said, the opposition parties have been pushing this issue for a while now, and there will be a final battle over this in the Storting next autumn, so there is still a glimmer of hope for those who want new tanks sooner rather than later, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I will be attending something called Åben Hede in Denmark tommorrow where the Leopard 2 will be doing some live exercises and you can walk around the tanks and so forth. If there's anything you guys want me to ask or achieve whilst there just let me know today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pardus said:

Alright guys, I will be attending something called Åben Hede in Denmark tommorrow where the Leopard 2 will be doing some live exercises and you can walk around the tanks and so forth. If there's anything you guys want me to ask or achieve whilst there just let me know today.

Can you ask them about the weights of the following:

 

Turret and stripped turret

Hull and stripped hull

Mantlet

Applique armor front turret and side turret

 

Has the EMES15 been replaced with an updated model ?

 

Have there been any armor insert updates ever?

 

Thank you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Laviduce, 

Disappointingly the people I were able to talk to when there simply didnt know the information you requested, and taking any measurements was rendered impossible by all the military personnel around. 

However I found out that there's a tank musuem nearby with a Leopard 2A4 on exhibition that I might be able to get access to and there are likely to be experts on the tank there too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pardus said:

Hello Laviduce, 

Disappointingly the people I were able to talk to when there simply didnt know the information you requested, and taking any measurements was rendered impossible by all the military personnel around. 

However I found out that there's a tank musuem nearby with a Leopard 2A4 on exhibition that I might be able to get access to and there are likely to be experts on the tank there too. 

Thats ok. Thank you, I appreciate your effort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard 2 KWS prototype (AFAIK one of the two TVM tanks, but could also be the IVT) being refurbished and repainted before going into a museum. It will probably go to the Panzermuseum Munster (or maybe is already there?), which has requested a replacement for the old Leopard 2A4 (because children and young adults would be used to the wedge-shaped turret armor of the Leopard 2).

 

KfQ149Ln-Kg.jpg

O4x3o9oj5oQ.jpg

lRowsPZ1JCc.jpg

Bag6_TqQw5o.jpg

Note the layered hatch construction: NERA spaced over the normal steel hatch

 

XRevu_qT1_I.jpg

 

Photos via the otvaga forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record:
The Leopard 2 A6M A2: 17 Tanks with radio equipment compatible to the Netherlands equipment. Still two letters to beat the M48A2GA2.
This upgrade was necessary since the 414th Panzer Battalion is subordinanted to the Netherland's 43 MechBrig. If necessary the radios equipment
can be switched back to german standards.

Source: Neue Version des Leopard 2 für die Truppe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 3:20 PM, SH_MM said:

Its from an old file containing lots of armor estimates from Paul L. and others, which were gathered from the early internet. The original source isn't stated.

thank you, is this file available ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I have been lurking this quality forum for a few months now, and finally got to sign up now. 

 

Can anyone give me any information on this turret? The one on the left has some attachment things and tape(?), while the normal A4 turret on the right doesnt. I can't really make any sense of it. Thanks!

 

2h7qex4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a Leopard 2A4M CAN turret without add-on armor modules.

 

ccd705d1a73e5a0edf2dc00e15226d73.jpg

 

AFAIK the "tape" are velcro attachments for the SAAB Barracuda camouflage system.

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.
×