SH_MM Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Going back to the RUAG Leopard 2 MLU: 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: Met749 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoon Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Leopard 2NG, maybe in Syria? Nguyen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Well, that doesn't look good... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted January 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 @UP. Not so bad, mostly it's BS talk about Leo-2 losses. My point of view: From Daesh drone: 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:Both destroyed tanks look like after air strike not like ATGM victims. Back to the tanks - those leo hit by artilery:again: two captured by ISIS and burned: 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 propablyIt's not the and becouse we have unlucky tank hit by Metis-M: 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:uper one hit by Fagot/Konkurs in turret bustle side: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: second tank from "twins" hit by Fagot/Konkurs:minor damage to be hones: 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... :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I wonder what the exact reason for this is? Weight saving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I guess money savings are main reason. And lack of serious experience in Turkish army departments that are responsible for purchasing equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 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: Leo-2: So we have then: M1:400mm RHA vs KE750mm 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. SH_MM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 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: 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: (that's what seems to be the most likely assumption) Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August. 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): 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! Militarysta, Met749 and Nguyen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 @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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 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: (that's what seems to be the most likely assumption) Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August. 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). Luckily I took a photo of the actual add-on modules on the same day: 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. SH_MM and Nguyen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted January 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 After waths all ISIS video, all photos, drone video, satmaps and other -my conclusion on one picture. Ramlaen, Collimatrix and Bronezhilet 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted January 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 BTW: fire angle captured on ISIS videos: Despite M60T-Fagot and Leo-2 and ACV-15 hit by Metis-M near hospital - all fire from sides... Bronezhilet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 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. 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). 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. Collimatrix, Nguyen and LoooSeR 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Is the 2A4 turret capable of being modified into a 2A7 or does it require being outright replaced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 @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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 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. Wiedzmin from the Otvaga forums has found a document from the Leopard 2AV development on weight reductions. 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. Nguyen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militarysta Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 @UP Hull front, whit fuel tank inside. Rest of this document claimed that fuel tank inside was US idea and in Leo-2 and older - was replaced by armour block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Is that a fuel tank behind the front armour? because it looks like a fuel tank - it has the same oval-ish access hatches as the other things that look like fuel tanks in the sponsons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Yes that's a fuel tank of the Leopard 2AV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 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 : chebuRUSHka 1 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.