Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 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.

 

 

:)

 

My offcial statsment is this:

"Całość powyższych szacunków można zawrzeć w wartościach odporności między 450 a 500 mm stali przeciw amunicji kinetycznej oraz prawdopodobnie aż do około 850 mm stali przeciw amunicji kumulacyjnej dla wersji Leoparda 2 od 2A0 do „wczesnego” 2A4"

translate:

All possible estimatous based on sevral facts can be put in to armour values between 450 and 500mm RHA vs APFSDS and propably up to 850mm RHA vs HEAT - for Leopard 2 version  between 2A0 and erly 2A4.

Share this post


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

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.

 

Yyyy BS?

 

Armour block behind EMES-15 optic is 660mm thick. It's more then T-64B, T-72M1, T-80B turret armour (for 30.degree from longitiudal axis) - so it's hard do name it as "weak spot".

Place under EMES-15 optic is the same thic as right side - but whit just "space" for EMES-15. And i mesured it by myself. So rally - amrour protection for left snd right turret side is the same.

Gun mantled mask is far far understimated - it 420mm thick + "weige" after it. An only mask weight 630kg(!) (without gun, coaxial MG, itp -just only shield):

b94fa15b3242f.jpg

 

 

 

And when we compare this gun mantled mask dimensions and weight (ca 630kg) and known special armour features in compare to simple RHA weight

then gun mantled mask have protection between 230-270mm RHA vs KE and circa up to 460-540 vs CE...

+

steel plate after it of course

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Yyyy BS?

 

Armour block behind EMES-15 optic is 660mm thick. It's more then T-64B, T-72M1, T-80B turret armour (for 30.degree from longitiudal axis) - so it's hard do name it as "weak spot".

Place under EMES-15 optic is the same thic as right side - but whit just "space" for EMES-15. And i mesured it by myself. So rally - amrour protection for left snd right turret side is the same.

Gun mantled mask is far far understimated - it 420mm thick + "weige" after it. An only mask weight 630kg(!) (without gun, coaxial MG, itp -just only shield):

b94fa15b3242f.jpg

 

 

 

And when we compare this gun mantled mask dimensions and weight (ca 630kg) and known special armour features in compare to simple RHA weight

then gun mantled mask have protection between 230-270mm RHA vs KE and circa up to 460-540 vs CE...

+

steel plate after it of course

 

 

You are correct, in my estimates i had overestimated the size of the EMES15 channel by about 130 mm, shrinking the space that could be used by composites. So the turret front is more uniform than in my initial estimate. I will make further adjustments. Either way, even with my "low" estimates , this gives the Leopard 2A0-2A0 turret  superior KE resistance compared to the M1 turret. I am strongly convinced that the KE resistance of the early Leopard 2 is between the 420-570 mm RHAe for the left turret and right turret front within the 0-30 degree frontal arc.  I will prepare an updated and more detailed diagram soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here one can see the different thickness of the two turret cheeks:

R2YPFGg.jpg


Note. The left cheek armor module (840-860 mm thickness) is nearly flush with the gun trunion. The right cheek armor module is about 200-300 mm thicker!

 

ZdBrZxz.jpg

 

Different view. The upper armor is part of the 640-660 mm thick armor block behind the gunner's sight.

 

5 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Either way, even with my "low" estimates , this gives the Leopard 2A0-2A0 turret  superior KE resistance compared to the M1 turret.

 

M1 Abrams turret provides protection equal to 400 mm steel armor vs APFSDS ammunition according to declassified documents. The protection against shaped charges is 750 mm.

mCwf2NU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Here one can see the different thickness of the two turret cheeks:

R2YPFGg.jpg


Note. The left cheek armor module (840-860 mm thickness) is nearly flush with the gun trunion. The right cheek armor module is about 200-300 mm thicker!

 

ZdBrZxz.jpg

 

Different view. The upper armor is part of the 640-660 mm thick armor block behind the gunner's sight.

 

 

M1 Abrams turret provides protection equal to 400 mm steel armor vs APFSDS ammunition according to declassified documents. The protection against shaped charges is 750 mm.

mCwf2NU.jpg

Thank you very much for the images.

 

Is the first image a Leopard 2A4 or a Leopard 2A5/6 ?   It looks like a 2A5/6 turret to me with the roof and side wall liners.   I was aware of the size differenze and that the total LOS thickness of the area below the cutout for the EMES-15 is about 1000-1100 mm.  I just incorrectly sized the EMES bay by about 150+ mm. I am currently working on a 3D model of the turret and i will incorporate the changes accordingly.

 

BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.

Share this post


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

BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.

 

I show You a magic trick:

 

1) https://www.google.pl/

2) tags: Leopard 2 armour EMES 15

3) WOOOHA:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Leopard+2+armour+EMES+15&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLw6a9u73WAhUmSJoKHWgoCL0Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=635

all what You ask!

 

Magic!

Share this post


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

Is the first image a Leopard 2A4 or a Leopard 2A5/6 ?  

 

Doesn't make a difference, internally the armor blocks end at the same places. The first photo shows a Polish Leopard 2A5 (ex-German). The second photo is taken from a factory, when 2A4 turrets were upgraded to the 2A5 standard. This turret upgrade in this case is pretty much finished.

 

17 hours ago, Laviduce said:

BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Do you mean something like this?

tPagW7C.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Amazing magic trick that i, sadly, have already tried with no luck :-/

2 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some LEO2A6FIN pics: 

 

https://imgur.com/a/HT1Fw

 

Thank you for the pictures, there are some things i have not seen before.  :3

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Doesn't make a difference, internally the armor blocks end at the same places. The first photo shows a Polish Leopard 2A5 (ex-German). The second photo is taken from a factory, when 2A4 turrets were upgraded to the 2A5 standard. This turret upgrade in this case is pretty much finished.

 

 

Do you mean something like this?

tPagW7C.jpg

 

Yes, something along those lines but where the bottom of the EMES-15 bay is visible. The first image is the closest to what i am looking for.   Either way , i do not think the EMES will extend much further past the bottom edge of the cylindrical optical channel as seen in the 2nd image.    I wonder if the upper edge of the circular opening is touching the lower edge of that 650 mm block or if there is a noticeable gab.

 

Share this post


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

 

Yes, something along those lines but where the bottom of the EMES-15 bay is visible. The first image is the closest to what i am looking for.   Either way , i do not think the EMES will extend much further past the bottom edge of the cylindrical optical channel as seen in the 2nd image.    I wonder if the upper edge of the circular opening is touching the lower edge of that 650 mm block or if there is a noticeable gab.

 

 

934eb217793c5.jpg

 

812e90c9aaa3a.jpg

 

 

 

3b5aad99e12c4.jpg

 

c28299858d600.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

...

1. Thank you guys, those STRV 122  pictures were the ones i was looking for.  I would need to aks you for another favor thou. Would you guys know the actual length of the hull ammunition rack of the Leopard 2? Also , do you have any images that show if the rounds are totally enclosed in the  ammo rack tubes?   I would think that the entire round, KE or othertowerwise, would totally fit into the tube with only the base of the round (~5-10 mm) sticking out at the end. Since most of these 120 mm rounds are abou 980 mm in length i would assume the loaded rack not to be  much longer than 1020 mm. Either way , any feedback would be appreciated.

 

2. What kind of LOS estimates would you guys give the leopard 2 glacis. I am getting the impression that is about 620 mm on average.

 

3, Do you guys have any estimates on the The Leclerc's glacis LOS thickness ?  It seems to be  around 500-550 mm, followed by the fuel tank of unknown thickness (100 - 200mm?), which then is followed by the ammuntion drum (around 1000 mm in length)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) hull ammo rack is placed at sucht angle in to longitiudal axis. And rack lenght is <1050mm

2) I had mesured it twice on two diffrent Leos-2A4 and it's 600-620mm LOS.

3) lecelrc hull is really hard to estimatous. I had truied it without measure real tank:

c8d5c47ae0789.jpg

 

 

And here is mucht better job done by guy who was sitting in Leclerc:

3dcce46d20383.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard2_mantlet.jpg.c9424e4c175d271b827

 

From P. Krapke:

--------------------------------------------------------

Total weapon assembly

 

Weight without mantlet: 3100 kg

Weight with mantlet (Leopard 2AV): 4290 kg

---------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UP

this element weight 640kg

 

If you want You can assume how thick shoud be RHA place in this gun mantled mask  if you assume that this element weight:

a) ca 832kg (RHA vs KE as 1.3) 

b) ca 1280 (RHE vs CE as 2)

etc

:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more information on the mass distribution of the Leopard 2:

 

R. Hilmes gives the following mass distribution:

 

Total System Weight: 55.150 kg

 

Electronic components: 3.860,50 kg - 7 %

 

Powerpack + full fuel tanks: 8.548,25 kg - 15,5 %

 

Running Gear (.i.e: tracks, suspensions, wheels, etc.); 11.857,25 kg - 21,5 %

 

Bare hull and turret with composite armor inserts: 26.472 kg - 48 %

 

Weaponry (main gun, Coax MG, etc.): 4.412 kg - 8% (not sure whether or not this includes the gun mantlet or not.)

 

 

W. Spielberger/ Oberst Icken gives the following values:

 

Turret mass without ammunition+equipment: 16.000 kg

 

Turmgehäuse/Turret Shell: 8.910 kg

 

Hull mass without ammunition+equipment: 37.800 kg

 

Panzerwanne/Hull Shell: 12.100 kg

 

Total hull and turret shell mass: 21.010 kg

 

Main Weapon System (120 mm RH gun) without mantlet: 3.100 kg

 

 

 

1. The bare hull and turret mass is stated to be around 26.472 kg with composite armor inserts. The empty turret and hull shell has a combined mass of 21.010 kg

 

2. This let's me believe that the composite armor in both the hull and turret has a total mass of 5.462 kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Militarysta said:

 

 

Turret armour weight 8,9t (including ciitadele from RHA plates)

 

b863952ced7d9.jpg

 

 

 

 

This confuses me even more. Rolf Hilmes explicitly states that the combined mass of the hull and turret chassis including special armor inserts accounts for 48 % of the entire weight of the 55t Leopard 2. This comes to about 26,5 t

 

In the Spielberger book the combined weight of the basic hull and turret (Panzerwanne and Trumgehäuse) are given at 21 t. Would Hilmes be off by 5,5 t (20+ %) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw. when the Leopard 2A7V was developed, the German Army created a document with all desirable upgrade options and then investigated the possible upgrade paths - specifically in regards to schedule and the budget. This document already included several upgrades beyond the Leopard 2A7V, such as a harkill active protection system and automated tracking function for the optics. However by the assessment of the German military no currently available systems on the market would have the maturity/technical readiness level to become adopted now.

 

The current proposed features of a "Leopard 2Ax" (future upgrade after 2A7V, so essentially 2A8 or if adopted in several parts an even higher number) include:

  • 1,200 kW engine
  • active hardkill protection system
  • all round vision thanks to additional digital optics
  • automated tracking feature for the (main?) optics
  • improved ammunition
  • a remote weapon station

Essentially the Leopard 2 is meant to become equivalent to Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ADT, but with a more powerful engine and made by KMW as main contractor...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No automated tracking up until now? I'm surprised to be honest.

 

Either way, it's good they're going for an HMD solution in parallel to APS.

 

Is there a schedule for when a follow-up variant is set to be developed, either officially or through a pattern?

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.
×