Voodoo Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 Yeah, the velcro ismost likely for the SAAB Barracuda nets. But the mounts for the add-on armor doesn't really match with the Leopard 2A4M CAN though, as seen here: I really don't know anything about the turret in my original post. It could be something bought after the Leopard 2 contract, but the rest of the vehicles are from the Netherlands. Collimatrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 Do you happen to know where said turret is located? The number painted on white to the turret is common for Swiss Leopard 2 tanks: That should imply the turret was actually used for one of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes, which featured add-on armor (that was not purchased for production vehicles). One of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes was used to test SAAB's Barracuda (again not purchased): However I am not sure how the lack of camouflage painting and mounting points for some of the equipment (RWS, Galix smoke grenade launching system) can be explained... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 It is located in Norway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 Btw, if you take a look inside emes15 sight gap, you will see ground from the hole(small rectangular hole on turret bottom) for cooling of emes15 iirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 13 hours ago, Voodoo said: It is located in Norway. Okay, that makes it harder to find out any details. It could be that for some reason one of Panzer 87 WE prototypes' turrets ended up in Norway (maybe for cold weather trials or they later sold the prototype without add-on armor for conversion into support vehicles like ARVs, bridge-layers or engineering vehicles). Alternatively it could be a Norwegian prototype; Norway tested the SAAB Barracuda camouflage on at least two tanks. Maybe Norway wanted to test mounting slat armor to the Leopard 2A4 turret and hence added the mounting points. The Leopard 2A6M CAN uses a different arrangement of mounting points (i.e. only two rows of rectangular mounting points each with two holes for bolts), but the difference might be a result of different supplier for the slat armor and/or the different shape of the tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoon Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 Turret number matches the army's posterboy: Leopard 2 121 Allfader: Might have been used to test new armor for the upgrade program: Krieger22, Laviduce, SH_MM and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 29, 2018 Report Share Posted July 29, 2018 On 7/11/2018 at 2:49 PM, SH_MM said: 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). A few more photos. I didn't know that the armored vehicle restoration group of the German tank museum has its own facebook page. The tank is in driving condition. Laviduce and Serge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Quote Poland to upgrade 14 more Leopard 2A4s to Leopard 2PL standard Krzysztof Kuska, Gdansk - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly 31 July 2018 Poland will upgrade 14 more Leopard 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2PL standard, PGZ confirmed to Jane's on 30 July. Poland's Armament Inspectorate (AI) signed the PLN300 million (USD82 million) deal with PGZ Zakłady Mechaniczne Bumar-Łabędy on 20 June. Reports of the deal appeared in the Polish media on 26-28 July. The upgraded tanks are scheduled to be delivered in 2021. The original deal to upgrade 128 Leopard 2A4s was signed on 28 December 2015 and included an option for 14 more tanks, which was exercised by the AI, raising the total price to around PLN2.7 billion. In addition to increasing the number of tanks to be modernised, the upgrade package will be changed to give the tanks new capabilities. https://www.janes.com/article/82106/poland-to-upgrade-14-more-leopard-2a4s-to-leopard-2pl-standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 Austrian General Robert Brieger announced that the current configuration of the Leopard 2 (the Leopard 2A4Ö) can ot be supported (supplied with spare parts) anymore in the (near) future. Therefore Austria has to upgrade or scrap the Leopard 2A4 fleet, the latter seems to be unlikely. Last year Austria reactived 16 Leopard 2A4Ö tanks (bringing the active fleet from 40 to 56), which originally were meant to be cannibalized for spare parts. https://twitter.com/Bundesheerbauer/status/1024014240032714752 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted September 7, 2018 Report Share Posted September 7, 2018 PERI R17 of an Austrian Leopard 2A4 without armored cover during maintenance: Mainframe of the Leopard 2A4's digital ballistic computer: Spanish Leopard 2A6E with slat armor: Laviduce, Zyklon, LoooSeR and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zadlo Posted September 25, 2018 Report Share Posted September 25, 2018 I don't know if it suits better to this or MGCS' thread. I've found that MTU started (or would start) to develop new, 1325 kW version of MT 883 engine. But if this engine reaches a prototype or production status, it has to be paired with HSWL 354 or another, brand new transmission in powerpack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pardus Posted September 26, 2018 Report Share Posted September 26, 2018 Does anyone have detailed & sourced specifications for the Leopard 2's EMES-15 sight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägerlein Posted September 27, 2018 Report Share Posted September 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Pardus said: Does anyone have detailed & sourced specifications for the Leopard 2's EMES-15 sight? Some basics: https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/hensoldt/Datenblätter/En/0714_SL_0817_9_GPG_EMES_15_EN_LoRes.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pardus Posted September 27, 2018 Report Share Posted September 27, 2018 10 hours ago, Jägerlein said: Some basics: https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/hensoldt/Datenblätter/En/0714_SL_0817_9_GPG_EMES_15_EN_LoRes.pdf That's the boresight tool, I need official info on the EMES-15 primary sight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted October 10, 2018 Report Share Posted October 10, 2018 Leopard 2RI production line. Gun Ready 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Ready Posted October 10, 2018 Report Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, SH_MM said: Leopard 2RI production line. It's the Unterlüss production line, isn't it? And the foreground chassis with glacis add-on, hatch and mounting plates for side armor looks like for Leopard 2PL, or? Edited October 10, 2018 by Gun Ready Typing error, recognition to Indonesian MBT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted October 10, 2018 Report Share Posted October 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Gun Ready said: It's the Unterlüss production line, isn't it? And the foreground chassis with glacis add-on, hatch and mounting plates for side armor looks like for Leopard 2PL, or? Dude says it's 2RI, not PL. It's also noticeable that it cannot be the PL because the PL only features turret applique, while the hull armor remains unchanged. These are very clearly equipped with hull applique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 One of these is not like the others. Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: One of these is not like the others. Zucc can you post another photo? Of course I can. Apparently it goes way back to at least 2011: http://www.defence-point.gr/news/νέες-επιτυχείς-βολές-του-leo2-a4-με-πυροβόλο Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted November 16, 2018 Report Share Posted November 16, 2018 So, based on the Swedish documents, I made a quick "rough" visual of what the red graph is supposed to represent (if it was a theoretical C tech leopard). Graph: Spoiler The red graph in the middle is rumoured to be C tech. From that graph I made this: Spoiler Couple of notes: I made the roof 350 though I don't have "sources" for this, I assumed ~45mm roof thickness (not exact ofcourse). I doubt the LFP was changed, same with the hull roof and the area under the mantlet. The rest is fairly self explanatory, I neglected the 550+ values because frankly, I don't fully know where to put them and as we can see from the leo 2 improved turret model, the swedes considered the area directly around the mantlet weak, so I'm not sure if thats an artifact of their modelling or.... One of my friends has also pointed out the relatively minor weight difference between the variants, 55.15t for B and 56t for C, so I consider it very much possible that graph doesn't even represent C tech. I'm open for suggestions and input. @Laviduce I'm not sure how you made your model, maybe you could help me out with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pardus Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 Scav, The front hull roof should be between 40-45 mm thick (hatch is 30mm), which is 287-323mm LOS alone. So 250mm is too low there. Also keep in mind that the hull nose module covers part of the highly sloped hull roof area. I've attached a more detailed illustration of the hull armour below: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 43 minutes ago, Pardus said: The front hull roof should be between 40-45 mm thick (hatch is 30mm), which is 287-323mm LOS alone. So 250mm is too low there. Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page. Though, I'll see if I can adjust it. 45 minutes ago, Pardus said: Also keep in mind that the hull nose module covers part of the highly sloped hull roof area. I've attached a more detailed illustration of the hull armour below: Yeah... I know, the problem is that the LOS goes down the further up you go, guess I can estimate just how far up it goes. Still, that means it'll have less protection than the flatter part, so I'll have to calculate that as it's own section and I'm not sure wether it would be more effective (due to the initial slope) or less effective. Coupled with the question of inert spots (turret sides as pointed out by someone else), this would raise the protection value even more, making it even less likely that it represents C tech. I mean.... 850kg is not enough added weight for such a massive increase in armour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pardus Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 As for the mantlet area, it's complex to colour code due to all the different parts: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pardus Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scav said: Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page. Though, I'll see if I can adjust it. There is this picture which shows that the hull roof is noticably thicker than the hatch (how much ofcourse is anybody's guess, but I think 40-45mm sounds reasonable based on the photographic evidence): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.