Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Going back to the RUAG Leopard 2 MLU:

 

c46957f6.jpg

 

RUAG's armor protection is based on German technology. To be more exakt, RUAG bought 51% of the stocks of the company GEKE Schutztechnik GmbH in 2009. GEKE/RUAG's armor is supposedly used on the Boxer (roof armor), Puma (roof armor, mine protection) and Leopard 2 (mine protection of 2A6M, supposedly also unknown armor for the Leopard 2A7+).

 

GEKE's armor technology includes ERA and NERA:

imgf0006.png00490001.png

imgf0003.png

00460001.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that doesn't look good...

 

C2oZgbNWgAAF_6H.jpg

C2oZgbZW8AExK18.jpg

C2oZgbWXgAEfeWa.jpg

C2oZgbZW8AExK18.jpg

C2oZgbMXgAAup3h.jpg

Photos via SyrianMilitaryCap from Twitter. I am still not sure, that these tanks weren't destroyed after being abandoned by the crew. Specifically the last photos are very odd; the hull ammunition apparently didn't detonate (otherwise hull UFP armor would be blown off), but the turret is detached from the hull without any major sign of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP.

 

Not so bad, mostly it's BS talk about Leo-2 losses.

My point of view:

 

From Daesh drone:
yMwgdnP.jpg

On top - SINGLE Leo-2 damage or mobility kill, then tank hit by motar/artilery, then two captured by ISIS and burned,
This top Leo looks finally this whit unkown second leo:
sUPqDVT.jpg
Both destroyed tanks look like after air strike not like ATGM victims.

 

Back to the tanks - those leo hit by artilery:
GzSe4Ey.jpg
again:
LtFJl45.jpg

 

two captured by ISIS and burned:

FZPIzJ0.jpg

At least 5 tanks destroyed near hospotal area:

1x artillery strike

2x burned after beaing captured

2x propably after air strike before botj have damaeg from ATGM propably

It's not the and becouse we have unlucky tank hit by Metis-M:
l01qC3F.png

Im more then sure that in this tank where KIA... but Im not sure -it can be one tank from hospital or...from "twins" below:

 

Famous "twins" hit by ATGM:
XO0djU1.jpg
uper one hit by Fagot/Konkurs in turret bustle side:
yGRyoB0.png
IMHO light hit, and this tank was destroyed by Turkey forces, or it's those tank hit by Metis-M -im not sure here.

Finnal efekt:
PdGme7B.jpg

 

second tank from "twins" hit by Fagot/Konkurs:
HKVi5o2.png
minor damage to be hones:
78kQoTU.jpg

 

So as we can see - shitty tactis, mostly ATGM to turret sides. Many captured tanks or destroyed after unable to evacuate.

It;s not problem whit Leo-2 but whit not existing C3 in Turks side... :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It;s not problem whit Leo-2 but whit not existing C3 in Turks side... :/

I heard same about T-72s many times. The problem is not only with Turish tank crews training and tactics, but lack of any kind of serious side protection on those Turkish Leos.

 

So as we can see - shitty tactis, mostly ATGM to turret sides.

And big number of hits to turret sides suggest that having giant turrets is not very good for a tank that is under fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed weight savings. The armor is already very heavy for them, and the Leo 2NG affords less hull side protection, while the 2PL gives up on any form of hull armoring. 

Probably why also neither of them bothers to armor the roof. The Leopard 2NG as it is, weighs 65 tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armoring tanks is always cost effective during wartime. A single tank's price can buy several dozen armor packs. So it's not that.

Besides, they're likely to receive a monetary boost from the Sultan.

Lack of experience? Surely they're functional enough to realize they're being mauled out there. And functional enough to make a single source purchase that requires no integration works.

It's just that not many approve of their way of thinking, as some may put it.

Erdogan is practically a Sultan now, and Turkey's not-so-successful invasion of Syria is seen as a non-necessary expansionism at the expense of the local populace. Germany just happens to be a strong supporter of the Kurds, as I understand.

Austria(?) recently announced that they refuse to provide technology for Altay's planned new engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a greate satisfaction couse somthing what was very possible form me, (even obvious) become true based on facts and hard data:

Leopard 2A0-A3 was better armoured then M1. Knowing mass (kg) on armour cubic m2 in Leo-2 and M1 it was almoust sure,

now we have some hard data:

M1:

mCwf2NU.jpg

 

Leo-2:

9zfbPpA.jpg

 

 

So we have then:

M1:
400mm RHA vs KE
750mm RHA vs CE

Leopard 2A0-A3:
450mm RHA vs KE*
około 800-900mm RHA vs CE**

 

 

* it'smass equiwalent - consedering way of working burlington style armour it shoud be multiple by even 1,1-1,2 do up to 500-540mm (!), again - fact about posibilities DM-13 to perforate Leo-2A0 armour form less then 1000m give us up to 500mm RHA value.

** estimatous based on knowing relatio between "burlington style armour" protecion between CE and KE. Propably it shoud be number close to 850mm RHA in case Leo-2A0-A4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a greate satisfaction couse somthing what was very possible form me, (even obvious) become true based on facts and hard data:

Leopard 2A0-A3 was better armoured then M1. Knowing mass (kg) on armour cubic m2 in Leo-2 and M1 it was almoust sure,

now we have some hard data:

M1:

mCwf2NU.jpg

 

What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online?

But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976.

 

And here is my article about Leopard-2 armour, sorry it is in polish so "google translator", and coments under pictures are in BS version (just number of marks):

part I:

http://www.megafileupload.com/8i9c/Leopard_12R1_do_korekty.pdf

(chapter: "SZACUNKI" (estimates)

I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window.

 

 

___

 

I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP).

 

I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6:

u3kB4zE.jpg

(that's what seems to be the most likely assumption)

 

Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August.

StPSdQb.jpg

So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case.

 

Now let's take a look at the Leopard 2A7V demonstrator from Eurosatory 2016. In general the hull armor seems to have the same thickness as on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL, Leopard 2DK and Leopardo 2E (however the armor composition was most likely altered, the position and size of the bolts is different):

ubT9Ifh.jpg

The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Methos

What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online? But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976.

 

page 2:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00757R000100080007-6.pdf

:)

 

Yes, we were correc.

 

I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window.

Yes, stupid page, clik again in "free download" after reloade page.

Mirror:

http://www.filedropper.com/leopard12r1dokorekty

this lin shoud be OK -> "SZACUNKI" chapter

 

The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!

Yes, it's VERY possible couse poeples form KMW had claimed that hull fornt of Leo-2A7V is protected like turret front. eg: "on the same level" many peoples thinkt that is pure marketing but indeed - in sucht layout it can be true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP).

 

I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6:

u3kB4zE.jpg

(that's what seems to be the most likely assumption)

 

Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August.

StPSdQb.jpg

So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case.

The hatch receded a bit. The blue line you photoshopped is the top of the add-on modules, so the hatch takes about 2 cm from the total thickness, so that mechanism would be ~45 mm. The white line in the next picture is the edge of the side armour modules, which stay straight (this picture also shows the receding hatch).

a0b561d298.png

 

Luckily I took a photo of the actual add-on modules on the same day:

8Pnoo9s.jpg

With the very scientific method of measuring my thumb nail I can determine that the modules are 65-70 mm thick.

 

The side modules in this picture are 40-45mm thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GlL0QNU.jpg

XFVqF4G.jpg

xvniVYT.png

 

RUAG's Leopard 2 Midlife Upgrade (MLU). An interesting fact is that RUAG (or rather GEKE Schutztechnik GmbH, which was acquired by RUAG in 2009) has delivered the mine protection kits for the Leopard 2A6M/2A7, the Marder 1A5, the Puma IFV and the Boxer. The roof armor of the PzH 2000, the Puma and Boxer is also made by RUAG/GEKE.

This means that at least three companies are contracted for delivering the Puma's armor systems: RUAG for roof and mine protection, IBD Deisenroth with the passive ballistic and shaped charge protection, while the reactive HL-Schutz (formerly CLARA) armor is made by Dynamit Nobel Defence.

27518376492_0544d48b4b_h.jpg

Since 2015 an upgrade of the German Leopard 2A6M tanks to the Leopard 2A6M+ configuration is under way. The 2A6M+ designation is not official, but it is being used to distinguish non-upgraded and upgraded 2A6M tanks. The 2A6M+ upgrade includes the improved PERI R17A3 commander's sight (with third generation ATTICA thermal imager and eyesafe laser rangefinder), the SOTAS-IP communcation system (also adopted on the Puma IFV), and using the Deugra fire suppression system with the extinguishing agent DeuGen-N FE36 (the fire suppression system was originally removed on older tanks due to the Halocarbon-based extinguishing agents not meeting environmental protection standards). Furthermore new display panels are installed at the commander's and loader stations. The tank is also fitted with ultracapacitors, which deliver more energy at a faster and more stable rate.

Externally the Leopard 2A6M+ can only be distinguished from the small bulge created by the ultracapacitors and the spaced armor layer above the electronic compartments (afaik the SOTAS-IP is located there).

ultra-cap-2.jpg

 

Fifty tanks will be converted from 2A6M to 2A6M+, of which 48 will be operated by the German Army. Meanwhile there are current news on the 103 Leopard 2A4 tanks, which the MoD wanted to buy in since 2015...

While the upgrade of 84 Leopard 2A4 to the Leopard 2A7 configuration (or 2A7V configuration, if the development of the upgrade was finished and funding is possible) is planned for 2017, there is a major issue. The tanks are owned by the industry and no contract has been made yet! The main reason for this is Rheinmetall: the planed contract sees 1/3 of the work/money going to the company; however they want more, which KMW doesn't agree with. So KMW doesn't want any changes in the proposed contract, while Rheinmetall doesn't want to accept the current contrat. Honestly both sides have some arguments speaking for them, at least form a political and historical perspecitve.

KMW was (and still is) the main contractor for the Leopard 2 tank, it consists of the two companies that developed the hull (Krauss-Maffei) and the turret (Wegmann). The Leopard 2 has been the main product of KMW for a while, now with Rheinmetall winning export contracts (Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2RI), the profits are getting smaller. Rheinmetall is a much larger company (about eight times the employees of KMW) and has bought (among many other companies) MaK, which produced 45% of all Leopard 2 tanks.

 

In worst case this means that the Leopard 2A7 contract will be delayed so much, that the German elections in September will cause a time out (government might not want to approve it close to the elections) - depending on the outcome of the elections, it might be reduced or canceled.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

Yes, it's possible,

whole problem whit 2A4 mod to 2A6Ex and heavier variants it whit torsion bars and they mounted points in chassis - we have the same problem in Poland whit our 2A4.

Turret is fine - you can place there even 140mm :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Is the 2A4 turret capable of being modified into a 2A7 or does it require being outright replaced?

All of the initial German Leopard 2A7 were once (Dutch) Leopard 2A4 tanks. The Leopard 2A5-2A7 tank upgrades are however a bit more time- and work-consuming, because it requires a lot more work than simply adding external armor modules. Aside of working on the torsion bars, upgrading a 2A4 to a 2A7 also includes cutting open the roof of the armor modules, replacing the armor modules, raising the EMES-15 sight and fitting an armored "doghouse" around it, removing the PERI R17A1 and replacing it with the PERI R17A3, which is moved to a different position. The new mountings for the add-on armor have to be added and the gun mantlet mounting is altered. Then a large number of internal components has to be replaced (incl. the gun) and spall liners will be installed at the interior walls.

lsRGMFH.jpg

 

Wiedzmin from the Otvaga forums has found a document from the Leopard 2AV development on weight reductions.

OjxtorL.jpg

Accoding to this snipplet, the armor protection is designed against the Milan ATGM (600-650 mm penetration) and a 105 mm APFSDS round with 38 mm "core" (projectile most likely). No 105 mm APFSDS or APDS round with 38 mm core/projectile diameter entered service with the German Army, but there was an APFSDS round with 38 mm diameter for the 105 mm smoothbore gun of the original 10 Leopard 2 prototypes. This APFSDS round might be identical to the 120 mm DM13 APFSDS (same projectile diameter, same weight), but has a lower muzzle velocity. As there is no exact data on range and on which part of the tank is required to have this level of protection (hull front? turret front? 30° frontal arc?), this doesn't tell very much about the actual protection level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2017 at 8:55 PM, SH_MM said:

a 105 mm APFSDS round with 38 mm "core" (projectile most likely). No 105 mm APFSDS or APDS round with 38 mm core/projectile diameter entered service with the German Army, but there was an APFSDS round with 38 mm diameter for the 105 mm smoothbore gun of the original 10 Leopard 2 prototypes. This APFSDS round might be identical to the 120 mm DM13 APFSDS (same projectile diameter, same weight), but has a lower muzzle velocity. As there is no exact data on range and on which part of the tank is required to have this level of protection (hull front? turret front? 30° frontal arc?), this doesn't tell very much about the actual protection level.

Quantified data about this 105 mm smoothbore gun and its APFSDS are shown in the following table summarising the trilateral trials :

1487499193-trilateral-evaluation-1974-19

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.
×