Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Singapore's Leopard 2SG apparently fitted with Elbit COAPS Commander's sight, said to be capable of identifying targets at up to 11.5km (2.3x2.3m?) in night conditions.

http://elbitsystems.com/media/COAPS_2016.pdf

 

No, the flyer says "11.5 /5.1/2.3 (DRI)". DRI stands for detection, recogntion and identification. The detection range ("There is something!") is 11.5 kilometres. The recognition range ("This is a vehicle!") is 5.1 kilometres and the identification range ("This is a T-72!") is 2.3 kilometres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I directly translated from an Hebrew-language defense website, so "detection" and "identification" can easily mix up. Should've noticed it before typing it in, so that's my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.6.2017 at 4:23 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Singapore's Leopard 2SG apparently fitted with Elbit COAPS Commander's sight, said to be capable of identifying targets at up to 11.5km (2.3x2.3m?) in night conditions.

http://elbitsystems.com/media/COAPS_2016.pdf

18588672_10154337159131059_4461346665243

 

 

1703914_-_main.jpg

"The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is continuing to improve the combat effectiveness of its fleet of ex-Bundeswehr Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs) with new capabilities, with the most recent addition revealed to be a commander's panoramic sighting system.

At least two upgraded Leopard 2A4 MBTs - which are operated by the Singapore Army under the designation of Leopard 2SG - featuring the new system, called the Commander's Open Architecture Panoramic Sight (COAPS) were exhibited in public at the Army Open House 2017 (AOH 2017) event from 27-29 May.

"COAPS is part of the SAF's effort to upgrade the Leopard 2SG since 2010," the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) revealed to Jane's in an 18 June statement. "Other ongoing upgrades include [the installation] of battlefield management system (BMS), crew compartment cooling system, auxiliary power unit [APU], reverse camera, internal vehicle electronics, and fire-control system [FCS] modifications."

Singapore Army personnel with whom Jane's spoke to at AOH 2017 said the new sighting system is supplied by STELOP. The company is a subsidiary of Singapore Technologies (ST) Electronics, which is the advanced electronics and communication development arm of local defence prime ST Engineering. However, industry sources told Jane's that STELOP is manufacturing COAPS under license from Israel's Elbit Systems Electro-optics (ELOP), which has been offering the system on the international market since it was launched in March 2010.

According to Elbit's specifications, COAPS is a modular dual-axis stabilised sight aimed specifically at armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) and MBT applications. Based on an open architecture design, it can be configured with different sensors, including 3-5 µm or 8-12 µm thermal imagers, day and night charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras, and eye-safe laser rangefinders, to suit mission requirements."

 

- Jane's IHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on Militarium.net's facebook, they didn't say where the photographs were taken.

 

ZAVtnVN.jpg

WlU6Anv.jpg

 

 

 


Crew = 4
Height at top of PERI R17A3 = unreadable
Length = 10.97m
Width = 3.76m
Combat Weight = 63.5t
Empty Weight = 61.5t
Military Load Class = 70
Maximum Speed (forward) = 68km/h
Maximum Speed (reverse) = 31km/h
Trench Crossing = 3m
Climbing = 1.1m
Gradient = 60%
Side Slope = 30%
Wading = 1.2m
Deep Wading = 2.25m
Fording = 4m
Ground Clearance (front/rear) = .54m/.50m
Cruising Range (road) = 340km
Cruising Range (offroad) = 220km
Fuel Capacity = 1,160 Liter

Main Gun
Manufacturer = Rheinmetall
Type = Rh 120 smoothbore
Caliber = 120mm
Caliber Length = 55
Elevation = -9 to +20
Rate of fire = 9 rounds/min

Coaxial Machine Gun
Type = MG3A1
Caliber = 7.62mm x 51
Elevation = -9 to +20
Rate of fire = 1,150 rounds/min
Muzzle Velocity = 820m/s

Air Defense Machine Gun
Type = MG3
Caliber = 7.62mm x 51
Elevation = -10 to +75
Rate of fire = 1,150 rounds/min

Smoke Discharger System
Manufacturer = Wegmann
Caliber = 76mm
Number of Launchers = 16

Ammunition Capacity
120mm rounds for main gun = 37
7.62mm x 51 = 4,250
76mm smoke grenades = 16
Hand Grenade DM51 = 4
Signal ammunition = 26
9 x 19mm = 480

Primary Sight
Manufacturer = Krupp-Atlas-Elektronik
Type = EMES 15A2 primary stabilized sight with integrated Nd:YAG laser rangefinder and passive thermal sight
Magnification = 12x

Thermal Sight
Manufacturer = Carl Zeiss
Type = Thermal sight integrated into the EMES 15A2 primary sight used by the gunner and commander
Magnification = 12x (narrow field of view) and 4x (wide field of view)

Panoramic Periscope
Manufacturer = Carl Zeiss
Type = PERI R17A3
Magnification = 2x, 8x

Thermal Sight
Manufacturer = Airbus Defense and Space
Type = ATTICA with three fields of view

Auxiliary Sight
Manufacturer = Leitz
Type = FERO Z18A7
Magnification = 8x

Rear View Camera
Design = CCD black and white
 

Engine

Manufacturer = MTU

Type = 12-cylinder MB873 Ka501 four-stroke, pre-chamber, multi-fuel, diesel engine, turbocharger and intercooler

Output = 1,100kW at 2,600rpm

Displacement = 47,000 cubic centimeter

 

Transmission

Manufacturer = Renk

Type = HSWL-354/3

Design = Hydrodynamic shifting, reversing and steering transmission

Number of gears = 4 forward gears / 2 reverse gears

 

Final Drive

Manufacturer = Zahnradfbrik Friedrichshafen (ZF)

Type = P25000

 

Suspension = Torsion bar suspension with return rollers, friction dampers and hydraulic bump stops

 

Track

Manufacturer = Diehl Defense Land Systems (now belonging to KMW)

Design = Connector track with replaceable track pads

Type = 570 FT

Number of track pads = 82 per side

 

NBC protection system

Manufacturer = Drager-Piller

Design = Compact system with coarse dust, gas and suspended solids filters

 

Fire warning and suppression system

Design = Four steel bottles filled with nitrogen

Activation = Automatically with fire wires or manually. Always two bottles are emptied at the same time.

 

Fire suppression system (crew compartment)

Manufacturer = Kidde-Deugra

Design = Four bottles with DeuGen-N fire suppression agent

Activation = Automatically via four detectors inside turret

 

Air-conditioning and preheating system

Design = Heating device with combustion chamber and heat exchanger

 

Modular crew compartment cooling system

Cooling capacity = 3-6kW

 

Electrical system

Generator = Rotary current 28V 20kW

Number of batteries = 6

Voltage/capacity per battery = 12V/100Ah

 

Radio System = 3x SEM 80/90 radios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data comes from the Tankograd booklet on the Leopard 2A7 and it seems to contain a few errors (e.g. ground clearance not including the mine protection plate...). The author of the booklet is Ralph Zwilling, who seems to be mainly focused on photography (at least judging by his excellent website).

 

Currently 37 rounds of 120 mm ammunition is normal, due to the shock-proof ammunition rack in the hull taking up more space, eliminating the lowest row (for five rounds) of the previous ammo rack. This is accepted due to the new rack preventing the ammunition from exploding in case of a mine/IED blast. Based on statements from US tank crews, the M1A1/A2 Abrams is often operated without filling the hull ammo rack, so depending on version it has either 34 or 36 rounds of main gun ammo.

 

PS:

ZpN_qhhYtW4.jpg

Qatari Leopard 2A7s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question.

 

On Leopard 2s with the additional roof armor like the Strv122, is that an access panel in the front on the hinges? I had someone try to tell me it was storage space.

 

X9R0t7j.jpg

Share this post


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

Question.

 

On Leopard 2s with the additional roof armor like the Strv122, is that an access panel in the front on the hinges? I had someone try to tell me it was storage space.

 

The frontal section of the Leopard 2's roof is sloped and thicker, supposedly 70 mm thick, because it has to resist incoming APFSDS rounds to such a degree, that they shatter and ricochet. In this area the additional "roof armor" double acts as a storage box with relatively thick coverplate. The proper roof armor covers only the flat section of the roof, which is has thinner base armor (est. 20 to 40 mm).

 

9TrDNxT.jpg

 

To complement the aesthetics, at the left and right of the new roof armor section, additional storage boxes are installed ontop of the side armor of the turret. There are some photos showing the storage boxes open on a Swedish Strv 122, but I cannot find them ATM.

 

On the Spanish Leopardo 2E, the frontal storage box was shortened for some reason, so a small portion of the turret roof (above the breech block of the gun) seems to be exposed:

Leopard-2A6EX-Tank-Roof-Armor-on-the-Leo

 

PS: found one

Stridsvagn+122+(14).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to get fucken angry polish PT-91 manufactory and other T-72 lovers.

Polish army hard data about MTBF for polish 30 old yers Leopard 2A4 and 20-25 old yers PT-91:

ZYHHsFP.jpg

 

yJvOdm8.jpg

 

EDIT:


data above are from ALL 128 polish Leopard 2A4 and for 144 PT-91 tanks (68% PT-91 fleet in army) during 2,5 yers exploatation

 

Yes, T-72 is crap.

yes, PT-91 is crap too

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone,

 

I have the strong impression that the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret seems to have a KE resistance of around 400-500 mm and a CE resistance of around 700 - 800 mm. based on:

 

 

The P. Krapke threat diagram:

 

1417808518-leopard-2-armor-capabilities.

 

 

 

The R. Hilmes estimate: 450 mm RHA  KE:

 

UEv5UO1.jpg.cfb77ed664ce5d3478166acfa138

 

The Armed Forces Journal: 400 mm RHA KE / 700  mm RHA CE:

 

sttyeNS.jpg.a453c77ae2cb7ea4dd4840d04740eEvPRNx.jpg.2d6a3ae693bb8ccd193868844893

 

P. Lakowski  estimate using the established LOS thickness values:  495 - 590 mm RHA  KE  / 700 - 830 mm RHA  CE:

 

Leo2A0_Paul_Lakowski.jpg.3e2fede28a6e14a

 

Militarysta estimate:  450-500mm RHA KE  / 860mm RHA CE:

 

Leo2_estimate_Militarysta.jpg.ad9f0d6623

 

The armor protection requirement for the first Leopard 2 prototype:

 

t1uoAow.jpg.dde0df049f33e5dc52afb983b422

 

Inside the crew compartment (turret and hull):

 

1. Secure against 105 mm x 617 HK (APDS), fired from a distance of 800 m from a  horizontal  frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting from ground level up to 1154 mm. (This effectively means the glacis/upper front hull turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the sponson area and side turret).

 

2. Secure against 90 mm x 602 HK, fired from a distance of 1500 m from a  horizontal  frontal direction within the frontal  +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the side hul area and side turret).

 

3. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 100 m from a  horizontal direction all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis and lower front hull as well as turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from ground level going up.(This effectively means the side hull area and side turret).

 

4. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 500 m from with an impact angle of 20 degrees (from the horizonal) all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from  ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 650 mm from ground level going up.(Side hull covered by the side skirts and side turret).

 

5. Secure against 155 mm high explosive shells, splinters/shrapnel from a height of 10 m above the engine deck.

 

Leopard2protection_coverage2.jpg.5f170ee

 

This image also helped:

 

59b56a57aeaca_PanzerungLeopard2Generatio

 

Could any of you give me some feedback and tell me what you guys think ? Thanks in advance!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't mind people creating new topics, but there were the German military vehicles topic and a Leopard 2 topic in the top four at the time this thread was started. There already have been places to ask your question!

 

Given that half the photos have been posted in these topics, some of them for the first time (like my screenshot of Dipl.-Ing. R. Hilmes' presentation at the Panzermuseum in Munster), and  the armor protection level of the Leopard 2 has already been discussed in these, you probably could have saved a few Bytes of database space. Reading the topics might have taken some time, but you might have learned something new in there.

 

Rolf Hilmes doesn't estimate any protection level, his values represent the weight of the tank's armor (roughly 3.5 metric tons per square-metre or about as much as 450 mm thick steel plate would weigh). That's why his presentation only includes one value rather than two values (i.e. for KE and CE). As composite armor is designed to provide more protection per weight, one should assume that a higher level of protection might be achieved. In one of his books, he mentions that the much newer M1A2 Abrams' armor might have a mass efficiency of 1.35 to 1.88 versus kinetic energy penetrators (APDS, APFSDS) and 2.7 to 3.7 agianst shaped charges; in this case he estimated the values based on the armor weight, size and an estimated protectiton level.

When it comes to the Leopard 2's armor protection, he cites "estimates from the internet": 570-630 mm steel-equivalent protection (RHAe) at the turret front, 500-550 mm steel-equivalent protection at the UFP, and 350 mm at the LFP. The protection against shaped charges is equivalent from 350 to 1,100 mm of steel armor depending on location. It is worth mentioning that Hilmes studied engineering and worked at the German Army office for military acquisition (BWB, nowadays BAAINBW) as a referent for tank technology before retiring.

 

Paul-Werner Krapke also worket at the BWB, but several years before R. Hilmes. He was the leitender Baudirektor (sometimes translated as construction director or project manager) during the Leopard 2's development. The graphic showing how the Leopard tanks would compare to the T-62 and T-72 is taken from his 1986 book and has no further explanation about the utilized ammunition. In theory it might be based on any Soviet APFSDS until the 3BM-32 Vant with a cited average penetration of 560 mm steel at 0° and 2,000 metres distance and the 3BM-42 Mango with an average penetration of 500 mm under the same circumstances. It is also possible, that the 125 mm APFSDS was simulated using German ammunition (either the 120 mm DM13 or DM23). At least the Leopard 2AV's armor was apparently tested using a 105 mm smoothbore gun (as used on the earlist ten Leopard 2 prototypes). The Leopard 2AV was also tested against the MILAN ATGM (~650 mm penetration).

 

 

Paul Lakowski's whole concept for estimating armor protection is flawed, starting by the input data and the arbitrarily imagined armor array. His values and the hypothetical armor arrays used to generate these, have been proven to be false. He supposedly made a newer version of all/most his armor estimates, but they are not available to public.

 

PS: The Leopard 2K's spaced armor has little to do with the later tank.

 

DSUfs5Q.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 1:18 PM, Militarysta said:

How to get fucken angry polish PT-91 manufactory and other T-72 lovers.

Polish army hard data about MTBF for polish 30 old yers Leopard 2A4 and 20-25 old yers PT-91:

ZYHHsFP.jpg

 

 

 

EDIT:


data above are from ALL 128 polish Leopard 2A4 and for 144 PT-91 tanks (68% PT-91 fleet in army) during 2,5 yers exploatation

 

Yes, T-72 is crap.

yes, PT-91 is crap too

 

 

 

And a wheeled vehicle will clobber anything with tracks, although apparently the Rosomaks are a bitch to work on based on their repair time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Welcome to SH, @Laviduce!

I agree with SH_MM, so I merged the topics.

Hello and thank you !

 

SH_MM:

Quote

when it comes to the Leopard 2's armor protection, he cites "estimates from the internet": 570-630 mm steel-equivalent protection (RHAe) at the turret front, 500-550 mm steel-equivalent protection at the UFP, and 350 mm at the LFP. The protection against shaped charges is equivalent from 350 to 1,100 mm of steel armor depending on location. It is worth mentioning that Hilmes studied engineering and worked at the German Army office for military acquisition (BWB, nowadays BAAINBW) as a referent for tank technology before retiring.

 

Did you ever consider that this might be referring to the Leopard 2A4 and not the Leopard 2A0-A3?  With the Leopard 2 vs. T-72 comparison in his latest Kampfpanzer book, I would find no reason why he would not refer to the Leopard 2A4 instead of the older Leopard 2A0-A3 versions.

 

SH_MM:

Quote

 

Paul-Werner Krapke also worket at the BWB, but several years before R. Hilmes. He was the leitender Baudirektor (sometimes translated as construction director or project manager) during the Leopard 2's development. The graphic showing how the Leopard tanks would compare to the T-62 and T-72 is taken from his 1986 book and has no further explanation about the utilized ammunition. In theory it might be based on any Soviet APFSDS until the 3BM-32 Vant with a cited average penetration of 560 mm steel at 0° and 2,000 metres distance and the 3BM-42 Mango with an average penetration of 500 mm under the same circumstances. It is also possible, that the 125 mm APFSDS was simulated using German ammunition (either the 120 mm DM13 or DM23). At least the Leopard 2AV's armor was apparently tested using a 105 mm smoothbore gun (as used on the earlist ten Leopard 2 prototypes). The Leopard 2AV was also tested against the MILAN ATGM (~650 mm penetration).


 

 

 

Luckily the T-62 is also displayed. Since this book was published in 1986 it would probably  refer to the most advanced 115 mm APFSDS round of the time, the 3BM-28 from 1978. This lets me believe that the diagram refers to a T-72 round of the same time period. The prime candidate  would be the 125 mm 3BM-22 from 1974. The diagram below is my KE resistance  estimate for the Leopard 2A0-2A3 based on the initial Leopard 2 protection requirements, the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimate, Hilmes comments and diagrams.

 

Leo2_me_KE.jpg.cb9396133277958f8ad12205a

The orange and blue areas vary between 360 and 320 mm RHA KE resistance.  The EMES 15, gunners periscope, and EMES 15 optical channel contribute primarily to these inconsistent values. I considered the left turret cheek the most heavily armored part of the turret. The 500 mm  area covers only a  relatively small area on the right turret front. I do not think they would consider such a small area necessarily the "toughest part of the turret" because it covers a relatively small area of the turret front. The diagram  would overall satisfy the intial Leopard 2 protection requirements , the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimates, Hilmes comments and diagrams. The diagram would also explain the dissatisfaction of the US and UK concerning the uneven armor distribution of the Leopard 2. I will keep refining the diagram and my model and add RHAe CE values to it as well.

 

SH_MM:

Quote

Paul Lakowski's whole concept for estimating armor protection is flawed, starting by the input data and the arbitrarily imagined armor array. His values and the hypothetical armor arrays used to generate these, have been proven to be false. He supposedly made a newer version of all/most his armor estimates, but they are not available to public.

 

 

With his LOS values  being already off at the beginning, i figured that he might be "overestimating" certain values and be a bit off with other values.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Did you ever consider that this might be referring to the Leopard 2A4 and not the Leopard 2A0-A3?  With the Leopard 2 vs. T-72 comparison in his latest Kampfpanzer book, I would find no reason why he would not refer to the Leopard 2A4 instead of the older Leopard 2A0-A3 versions.

 

The author clearly wrote that he is comparing the very first version of the Leopard 2 to the T-72M, because both tanks entered service in Germany (in the Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic respectively) in the same year. He makes a mistake by including photos and descriptions of the original T-72 hull armor though.

 

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Luckily the T-62 is also displayed. Since this book was published in 1986 it would probably  refer to the most advanced 115 mm APFSDS round of the time, the 3BM-28 from 1978. This lets me believe that the diagram refers to a T-72 round of the same time period. The prime candidate  would be the 125 mm 3BM-22 from 1974.

 

No, you are making assumptions for which you have no source. That is a very unscientific approach. As mentioned previously, the German military used a 105 mm APFSDS fired from a smoothbore gun prototype to simulate the performance of Soviet 115 mm APFSDS during the development of the Leopard 2AV. This is mentioned in official documents from the time of the development. So why do you ignore that and simply assume that the German Army had exact information of all Soviet ammo types in the middle of the Cold War? That makes no sense.

 

You also make a big mistake when it comes to graph from Krapke's book. You are assuming that "frontal" means "directly hit head-on" rather than it being a reference to the frontal arc. In fact in the second edition of his book (with addendum by R. Hilmes), the graph is located on page 59. On page 60 is a graphic showing the protected frontal arc of the Leopard 2! You are assuming too much, which negatively affects the value of your result.

Furthermore you assume that he meant a very specific spot (with small overall size) on the tank's surface, when talking about the "am stärksten gepanzerte Stelle am Turm". This is extremely unlikely, because such information holds little to no military value other than giving the enemy an idea what is needed to defeat your tank. I'd rather assume that his graph is showing the required level of armor protection and the description is meant to reflect that weakspots (maybe the gunner's sight or the gun mantlet, definetly the openings for the auxiliary sight and the MG) are not protected to the same level. It is possible that this graph means "the German Army demanded protection against a 125 mm APFSDS fired from 1,500 m distance along the frontal 60° arc".

 

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

The orange and blue areas vary between 360 and 320 mm RHA KE resistance.  The EMES 15, gunners periscope, and EMES 15 optical channel contribute primarily to these inconsistent values. I considered the left turret cheek the most heavily armored part of the turret. The 500 mm  area covers only a  relatively small area on the right turret front. I do not think they would consider such a small area necessarily the "toughest part of the turret" because it covers a relatively small area of the turret front. The diagram  would overall satisfy the intial Leopard 2 protection requirements , the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimates, Hilmes comments and diagrams. The diagram would also explain the dissatisfaction of the US and UK concerning the uneven armor distribution of the Leopard 2. I will keep refining the diagram and my model and add RHAe CE values to it as well.

 

I am sorry, but this is just wrong and ridiculous. First of all, the thickest armored part of the tank is just below the gunner's sight, the orange area that you labelled with 320 mm protection. This armor is a lot thicker than the left turret cheek in order to negate the empty section in the center for the EMES-15 sight. I.e. excluding the gap for this optical device, both cheeks might have the same armor thickness. All your values are based on your personal opinion and invented without a source, I assume. How do you know that the armor composition behind the EMES-15 is identical to the armor composition at the left/right turret cheeks? In the end the engineers could have opted to design a different armor package (knowing that there is less volume), which is denser and provides more protection per volume (but is less weight efficient). That is a simple option you (and most people who want to pin-point exact values towards a tank for which they don't know the armor composition) ignore without even thinking about it.

 

The fact that the gun shield has avalue of 260 mm, but the steel element holding the gun-trunion already exceeds this thickness at place is also highly amusing.

wiege.bmp

 

 

I don't know what to make of you. You ignore the most important sources (please tell me how an armor package weighing as much as a 446 mm thick steel plate will offer only 320-420 mm steel-equivalent protection. That makes no sense), ignore the armor composition (both Hilmes and Krapke, who worked for the German government office responsible for tank development, claim that the tank's armor increases high-hardness steel that provides more protection per weight vs APFSDS ammo) and are very easy to come up with your interpretation of statements that are not clear. What is your motivation? Do you want to generate some armor chart for a video game? Is there are need for the Leopard 2 to be under-armored just for you to win an argument? Your drawing not satisfy the Leopard 2 protection requirements, nor Krapke's drawing, nor Hilmes comments. In fact @Militarysta estimated the protection as 410 mm RHA for the turret side when hit at 30°. The frontal armor is 570 mm according to his older estimate (510 mm when hit at 30°). His later estimate is at least 450 mm, but possibly 500 to 540 mm from the front.

 

The Leopard 2 has thicker armor than the M1 Abrams, it has heavier armor than the M1 Abrams, it is a smaller tank while weighing overall more. Still the M1 Abrams is confirmed to have 400 mm steel equivalent protection against KE (declassified US document). It is pretty much physically impossible that the Leopard 2 has less than that.

 

The US statements regarding the Leopard 2's armor are based on the Leopard 2AV prototype, which was bad. It didn't have a NERA array in the hull, but rather spaced steel armor layers with an integrated fuel tank (a suggestion made by the US Army) and it had no heavy ballistic skirts. The Leopard 2 hull was subsequently redesigned in 1977.

pt19-t19.jpg

 

I'd like to see a source regarding any statements from the US and UK regarding an "uneven armor distribution of the Leopard 2". Because I've never read about this, it smells like unreferenced internet forum discussion myths. The actual statements of the US defence comptroller regarding the Leopard 2AV's armor (based on the findings of the US evaluation in 1976) are: both countries perceive threats differnetly, thus they focus their armor development on different threats (implying the Leopard 2AV has better KE protection and the XM1 Abrams has better CE protection, based on the available sources such as the 125 mm APFSDS in Krapke's chart and the mentions of HHS) and that the Leopard 2AV was a rushed tank with bad armor implementation (there was an "haste with which the type of armor used on earlier versions of Leopard was modified to the special armor"). The XM1 Abrams had a greater portion of its surface protected by special armor, which is why it managed to take a greater amount of hits without serious damage.

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

×