Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I figured you would know.

Do you have any information on EMES-13? It's a fascinating idea.

1405198010-capture-d-ecran-2014-07-12-a-

The information on the EMES-13 is scarce. It was developed by the German company Leitz and is an opto-electric rangefinder with a base length of only 350 mm. it is using electronic systems to continously measure the distance. When the target appears in the sights of the gunner, a press on the "range" button will deliver the range data after approximately one second of time. The optical signal is somehow converted into an electric signal, which is used calculate the parallactic angle and range. An electronic component (I guess a hybird computer) is used to controll an actuator in order to minimize the parallactic angle (when the angle is zero, the range data is calculated). The actuator is essentially a lense that is moved along a path (probably some sort of rail), each position of the lense is corresponding to an electric signal, so that the electronic component is always knowning at which position the lense is located.

The range calculated range can be accessed in form of an analog signal (iirc. this means that the gunner can see the target at proper range measurement without overlapping images from the optical rangefinder) aswell as a electronic signal for the fire control system. According to German sources, the EMES-13 is a lot more accurate than a manual optical rangefinder operated by a human, which allowed a signifcant reduction in size (from 1,720-2,000 mm to just 350 mm base length). The EMES-13 can measure in the visible spectrum of light or in the thermal imaging spectrum. Compared to a laser rangefinder, the system works passive and cannot be detected (via laser warning sensors) by the the target.

The EMES-13 was more expensive than other options, also repesentatives from the Leopard 1 user states (which were interested in potentially purchasing the Leopard 2) dislike the system as being unncessary and complex (compared to laser rangefinder). Supposedly some of them called it a "steamboat with sails". There apparently also were some other issues with the development, which is why it was considered a more risky option compared to adopting a LRF.

For the Leopard 2 five fire control systems were considered:

  • EMES-12 - manual optical rangefinder with 1,720 mm base length; tested on the early Leopard 2 prototypes, adopted on the Leopard 1A4 and some parts were used on late export Leopard 1A3
  • EMES-13 - automated optical rangefinder with 350 mm base length
  • EMES-13A1 - EMES-13 converted to using a laser rangefinder
  • EMES-14 - PERI commander sight fitted with laser rangefinder (not sure if this meant the commander was responsible for ranging or a second PERI would have been installed at the turret front for the gunner)
  • EMES-15 - developed in corporation with Hughes, originally intended for the Leopard 2AV only

The decision to fit the EMES-13 to the turrets 20 and 21 was made on 13.6.1975, but the development of a laser variant was decided at the same day. On 28.6.1976 the decision was made to fit turret 21 with the EMES-15, while turret 20 should be equipped with EMES-14 or EMES-13A1. Turret 20 was fitted with EMES-13A1 on 26.11.1976; it was considered cheaper than EMES-14 and was ahead in the development. It also was considered possible to later "upgrade" the EMES-13A1 to the original EMES-13 configuration by eliminating the LRF for the automatic optical system. On the 3.6.1977 the EMES-15 was chosen for the series production version of Leopard 2, mainly for being cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting MM,

 

But just a few things:

 

 

The optical signal is somehow converted into an electric signal, which is used calculate the parallactic angle and range. An electronic component (I guess a hybird computer) is used to controll an actuator in order to minimize the parallactic angle (when the angle is zero, the range data is calculated). The actuator is essentially a lense that is moved along a path (probably some sort of rail), each position of the lense is corresponding to an electric signal, so that the electronic component is always knowning at which position the lense is located.
 

 

A easy way of tracking the position of the lens would be to hook it up to a variable resistor.  The further out the lens moved, the higher resistance would be created. The resistance can then be  converted to a analogue electric signal, which could vary from 4-20mA. Usually, you can have 255 states from a analogue signal. 256 being 0 or or 0m in this case. So if each state equals 100m the analogue signal could in theory contain measurements up to

25 500 m. 

 

 

The range calculated range can be accessed in form of an analog signal (iirc. this means that the gunner can see the target at proper range measurement without overlapping images from the optical rangefinder) aswell as a electronic signal for the fire control system.

 

Are you referring a analog electric signal here?  And if so, did you mean a digital electric signal when you said electronic signal?

 

 

Mvh

Xoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you referring a analog electric signal here? And if so, did you mean a digital electric signal when you said electronic signal?

My understanding is, that the author meant an optical signal (light) when he wrote about an analog signal in the original source. About the electronic/electric question, the term "electric" might be more correct than electronic. Honestly I had to google when writing the previous post, because I wrote "electric", "electrical" and "electronic" all in the same passage. The wikipedia article on signals included the term "electronic signals", hence I went with this.

 

The EMES-15 sight and the associated FCS of the original Leopard 2 (aswell as the FCS of the Leopard 1A4) use hybrid computers. Hence I am not sure if the signals of the EMES-13 were digital electric signals or some sort of analog electric signals, which were converted to digital by the FCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Rolf Hilmes the Leopard 2's armor has a weight of about 3.5 metric tons per square metre. This is equal to a 446 mm thick steel plate (the slide incorrectly says 450 mm). The exact version of the Leopard 2 tank is not mentioned, but based on the weight and the image, it is supposed to be a Leopard 2A4 or earlier.
 
UEv5UO1.jpg

Given that composite armor of the Leopard 2 is supposed to include high-hardness steel and ceramics (both materials feature a higher weight efficiency against KE), the protection against (conventional) APFSDS shouudl be at least 500 mm, probably more.

 

However it would be interesting to know if the weight of the hull armor and turret armor is identical or not. The thickness of the hull armor is obviously lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the engine deck of something that appears to be a Leopard 2 at the right side of the image. 

 

So, does this mean:

3 Leopard 2s hit by enemy ATGM, 1 with a ammunition cook off in the turret.

3 captured Leopard 2s, one supposedly recaptured along with a BMP.

1 completely destroyed Leopard 2, either by explosives or ammunition cook off in the hull.

 

This amounts to 7 Leopard 2s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How you know that the destroyed Leopard 2 wasn't among the earlier ones hit by ATGM or among the captured ones? It wouldn't be the first time that the IS terrorists blow up captured tanks for propaganda purposes (the have done this with at least two M1 Abrams tanks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How you know that the destroyed Leopard 2 wasn't among the earlier ones hit by ATGM or among the captured ones? It wouldn't be the first time that the IS terrorists blow up captured tanks for propaganda purposes (the have done this with at least two M1 Abrams tanks).

 

I see the engine deck of something that appears to be a Leopard 2 at the right side of the image. 

 

So, does this mean:

3 Leopard 2s hit by enemy ATGM, 1 with a ammunition cook off in the turret.

3 captured Leopard 2s, one supposedly recaptured along with a BMP.

1 completely destroyed Leopard 2, either by explosives or ammunition cook off in the hull.

 

This amounts to 7 Leopard 2s.

I never sad that it drove over a IED or something like that.  What I am saying is that it looks a lot like someone detonated a explosive on or inside the vehicle. And most likely it was destroyed for propaganda purposes. 

 

Also, all know ATGM hits that I know of according to you did not cause a catastrophic kill. This is why I did not include that option.  Also, since the turret appears to just have been shoved off, rather than flying through the air, I actually doubt it was a ammunition detonation that got it.

 

I got one theory about the burned down Leopard 2. On tank-net someone mentioned that a VBIED was used to disable the Leopard 2s, so could it be that the VBIED rammed into the side of the Leopard 2 and detonated, ripping it's turret off to the side and igniting it's ammunition load?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact they managed to capture a tank and IFV is mind boggling. And these guys are NATO?

 

 

Leopard just proving again that it's at least as vulnerable to the common battlefield's threats as any other tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never sad that it drove over a IED or something like that. What I am saying is that it looks a lot like someone detonated a explosive on or inside the vehicle. And most likely it was destroyed for propaganda purposes.

Ah okay, so I misunderstood your previous post.

 

qmaAxxq.jpg

Leo-72 in Syria.

According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.

I have no accurate info on this particular Leo. Is there any video or photo confirmation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that it is just destroyed with unknown weapons in unknown situation. I doubt that ISIS destroyed it after firefight, they usually are doing pretty high-quality video (judging by Abrams destruction clips) of such things for PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah okay, so I misunderstood your previous post.

 

According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.

I am now sure that this is BS. Look at ISIS footage - snow is everywhere. This photos shows no snow, that turretless Leo was destroyed noticeable earlier than ISIS assault happened. Very likely ATGM hit results and photo also likely to be made by Turkish/FSA member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now sure that this is BS. Look at ISIS footage - snow is everywhere. This photos shows no snow, that turretless Leo was destroyed noticeable earlier than ISIS assault happened. Very likely ATGM hit results and photo also likely to be made by Turkish/FSA member.

 

I don't know what footage you have seen exactly, but the one of captured equipment in snow I have seen showed only one tank. ISIS supposedly captured three tanks, so seeing one in snow doesn't mean that none of the others was destroyed by a Turkish F-16.

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.
×