Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Well, if you want to keep the tank around for an additional 42 years, I guess then investing into a deeper modernization of the Leopard 2 makes sense. However by 2030-2035 a proper next-generation main battle tank should be available.

In fact, I’m considering second hand market. I don’t think the German army will keep Leo-2 but, the stock of tanks is so large and its basic capabilities are so good, it won’t desapear quickly.

 

Quote

 One also could use a next-generation engine based on the MT890 family as used in the Puma. A V12 variant of the Puma's MT892 would be 50% smaller (in terms of volume) and reduce fuel consumption by 10%.

 

mm5z1Nn.png

 

This low-profile turret was designed in the 1980s, but it was never used due to issues with the NBC protection system. I.e. to keep a high gun depression, the gun needed to move through the roof, which would mean that a much stronger NBC protection system is required (a larger opening means more clean air will exit the vehicle, so more air has to be filtered by the NBC protection system and moved into the vehicle to create an overpressure).

Artillery depression creates opening ?

I was convinced the roof was articulated. So the rapide increase of the internal air volume will dive the needed overpressure. And, there is more sealing problems to cope with. 

Quote

1YwAifn.png

Leopard 2 hull (shortened, only six roadwheels + MT883 engine and Renk HSWL 295TM) with such a loow profile turret.

 

W9gzmyJ.jpg


Same as above, but with Leopard 2A5-style add-on armor. Length of the hull is reduced by ~1 metre, height of the turret by ~20-30%. However the price for such an upgrade would be probably close to buying brand new Leopard 2 tanks.

Such proposal were made in a period where no add-on armor was considered. The gain was obvious but, as you already noted, this is no more so interesting. 

If you want a turret, you have the French T21 :

1411842484-t72-t21.jpg

 

I don’t think turret exchange is interesting because it’s very expensive and one needs long evaluation.

My proposal is much more limited, less risky but it adress very tricky daily threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5.1.2018 at 9:59 PM, Xoon said:

The idea would be to use the space for extra ammunition. Meaning, adding for example 15 more rounds. By separating them with a firewall into 2-3 sections, you could avoid heavily armoring the bustle and losing all your ready ammunition. This would weight up for the lost rounds in the mine protection kit.

 

No, that doesn't work. The Abrams already has two separate compartments, yet it needs thick bustle armor. Unless the firewall is extremely thick, it is not guaranteed that it will stop a round from penetrating both ammo compartments.

 

On 5.1.2018 at 10:17 PM, Serge said:

I don’t think the German army will keep Leo-2 but, the stock of tanks is so large and its basic capabilities are so good, it won’t desapear quickly

 

Well, they would replace the tank after enough next-generation MBTs are in service. So by 2040-2050; if the Leopard 2 by that time is still acceptable counter to the new tanks that Russia, China, etc. have accepted into service then.

 

On 5.1.2018 at 10:17 PM, Serge said:

If you want a turret, you have the French T21 :

 

The French turret suffers from being a "bulge turret". As the gun is not allowed to move above/through the roof (as in case of the German proposal), there is a "bulge" added to the roof; without this the gun depression would be limited (breech block would hit the roof). This bulge is essentially unarmored and causes the turret to offer no size reduction compared to the Leopard 2 turret - at least not in height. It has a slightly smaller frontal profile, but when seen from the side the bulge is exposed and can be hit.

 

eIUyqAK.jpg

 

That's why the German design - if a decent NBC protection solution has been found - is better. Alternatively one could accept a really low-profile turret comparable to the Stryker MGS turret or the Falcon II turret from the Jordanian KADDB; these however again would offer lower protection against threats hitting the sides.

 



Leo2A_turret_concepts.jpg.aa0b9142f5195f2VtfeFg.png

latest?cb=20140220033419vts-1.jpg

 

 

21 hours ago, Serge said:

found this :

 

13240851905_9a731e2dd5_k.jpg.ec91e7d48d5

 

I am not sure that this is accurate, but it might be close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That's why the German design - if a decent NBC protection solution has been found - is better. Alternatively one could accept a really low-profile turret comparable to the Stryker MGS turret or the Falcon II turret from the Jordanian KADDB; these however again would offer lower protection against threats hitting the sides.

Why would you need NBC protection. Would the design want to still have people in the turret and not in a seperate compartment like the T-14? Or do they want still want a loader to manual load rounds but in a smaller turret?

Share this post


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

Well, they would replace the tank after enough next-generation MBTs are in service. So by 2040-2050; if the Leopard 2 by that time is still acceptable counter to the new tanks that Russia, China, etc. have accepted into service then.

Considering the second hand market, some armies don’t want the top of the technology because they simply can’t afford purchasing it. 

By 2030, plenty of countries would be pleased to receive Leopard-2. Look at Finland. They just received A6s. What about Austria and they A4 ?

Finland is still ruling BMP-2 whatever the Russian standard is. Why didn’t they continue to purchase batches of CV-90 ?

 

Tanks are not only useful to fight against others tanks. In both Australia and Canada, interest in tanks came back during war in Afghanistan. 

 

Quote

 

The French turret suffers from being a "bulge turret". As the gun is not allowed to move above/through the roof (as in case of the German proposal), there is a "bulge" added to the roof; without this the gun depression would be limited (breech block would hit the roof). This bulge is essentially unarmored and causes the turret to offer no size reduction compared to the Leopard 2 turret - at least not in height. It has a slightly smaller frontal profile, but when seen from the side the bulge is exposed and can be hit.

 

eIUyqAK.jpg

The Nexter TMBT is more obvious to show the bulge :

1024px-Turk_Leclerc_Detay.JPG

This kind of architecture can be find whenever you need to keep low the turret without the complexity of an articulated roof. 

But, such a turret is still lighter than an A7 one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Why would you need NBC protection. Would the design want to still have people in the turret and not in a seperate compartment like the T-14? Or do they want still want a loader to manual load rounds but in a smaller turret?

I don’t know the doctrine of the German army but there are two aspects :

- you can consider the simple technical aspect. This way, their is no opposition to automatic loader. 

- but you must remained the tank crew is fulfilling tasks all around the clock. And it’s easier to rest with a four men crew. 

 

Two more details :

- it’s possible to have both 4 men crew and auto-loader ;

- the troop commander’s got troop commander’s tasks, so a 3 men crew becomes a 2 men crew very often. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the French design is better on this one. When you have a permanent "bulge" instead of a hatch, it's completely resistant to environmental damage. A hatch is not as well protected because when mud starts flying everywhere or the rain starts pushing dirt (leaves etc) between the hatch openings, it can clog it up the whole thing and in an extreme situation get it stuck when elevating the gun, or usually just be a nightmare to maintain (clean).

 

Even if you put an elastic cover it's bound to get ripped so again a pain to replace or maintain.

 

The downside of the French bulge is not really there because the peripheral equipment already contributes much more significantly to the turret profile. RCWS, crew operated MGs, panoramic sight, gunner sight, etc etc stand taller than the bulge so they negate its issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/01/2018 at 5:06 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe the French design is better on this one. When you have a permanent "bulge" instead of a hatch, it's completely resistant to environmental damage.

When designing the turret armored structure, like the chassis one, you must avoid ballistic holes and ricochets. But your facing something specific : decapitation. 

This is why there must be no crew compartment bulge over the roof ligne. A very good exemple is the M-60 cupola wich is very dangerous. 

Quote

A hatch is not as well protected because when mud starts flying everywhere or the rain starts pushing dirt (leaves etc) between the hatch openings, it can clog it up the whole thing and in an extreme situation get it stuck when elevating the gun, or usually just be a nightmare to maintain (clean).

 

Even if you put an elastic cover it's bound to get ripped so again a pain to replace or maintain.

You’re right. But there are a few other things. 

When you want a good fire on the move capability, you must provide very smooth artillery freedom of mouvement inside the crew compartment. With an articulated roof, you will have resistance under a certain level of depression (the breech must rise it). This is incompatible with your search for efficiency. 

An other option is to provide a motorized roof. This way, the breech will go up and down without jotl. But the result is more weight, more volume, more complexity.

 

One the other hand, articulated roof is a good way to reach a very depression for hull down position and mountain warfare. But, at what cost ?

 

Quote

The downside of the French bulge is not really there because the peripheral equipment already contributes much more significantly to the turret profile. RCWS, crew operated MGs, panoramic sight, gunner sight, etc etc stand taller than the bulge so they negate its issues.

You must keep in mind the risk of decapitation. 

MBT design is a no compromise one. 

And beware of the shape of the Leclerc turret. The armored part is not the whole turret. It’s lower. Its shape is made for both thermal and radar mitigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7.1.2018 at 3:27 PM, Willy Brandt said:

Why would you need NBC protection. Would the design want to still have people in the turret and not in a seperate compartment like the T-14? Or do they want still want a loader to manual load rounds but in a smaller turret?

 

The low-profile turret design from the 1980s would see two men (commander and gunner) sit within the turret. A completely unmanned turret is not possible on the Leopard 2 hull without even more additional work. This proposal takes an unaltered hull (or a shortened hull with a smaller powerpack) and adds a low-profile turret.

 

A tank belonging to the VT-2000 testbed would have a completely unmanned turret with a two men crew (driver and a combined gunner/commander) in the hull.

 

On 7.1.2018 at 4:27 PM, Serge said:

By 2030, plenty of countries would be pleased to receive Leopard-2. Look at Finland. They just received A6s. What about Austria and they A4 ?

Finland is still ruling BMP-2 whatever the Russian standard is. Why didn’t they continue to purchase batches of CV-90 ?

 

These countries keep using old stuff, because they don't want to invest enough money for upgrades. Finland hasn't upgraded its Leopard 2 tanks in any way, just like Austria. I don't see a reason why they would decide to upgrade the ex-German Leopard 2A7/2A8/2A9 tanks, if they bought these in 2040/2050.

 

On 7.1.2018 at 5:06 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe the French design is better on this one. When you have a permanent "bulge" instead of a hatch, it's completely resistant to environmental damage. A hatch is not as well protected because when mud starts flying everywhere or the rain starts pushing dirt (leaves etc) between the hatch openings, it can clog it up the whole thing and in an extreme situation get it stuck when elevating the gun, or usually just be a nightmare to maintain (clean).

 

Even if you put an elastic cover it's bound to get ripped so again a pain to replace or maintain.

 

The downside of the French bulge is not really there because the peripheral equipment already contributes much more significantly to the turret profile. RCWS, crew operated MGs, panoramic sight, gunner sight, etc etc stand taller than the bulge so they negate its issues.

 

Every gun mantlet already has an opening in which rain and dirt could in theory leak. This is not a special feature of a low profile turret with the breech block penetrating the roof.

 

You are seeing the turret profile only regarding being easy to spot, but in reality it is mostly a matter of protection. Optics and a RCWS ontop of the roof won't matter, because there is no internal volume behind them. if you penetrate a RCWS with an ATGM, APFSDS round or RPG, then the crew will remain unharmed. If you penetrate the turret bulge, then the splash from the projectile and spall from the armor is in the crew compartment and will harm/kill the crew. Removing the bulge from the Leclerc would reduce the size of the gun mantlet by ~30%, the area of the turret sides that can be hit by ~40% and the area of the frontal profile with internal volume behind it by ~10-20%. It is the following question: do you want to have a larger turret with more weakspots or a smaller one with essentially none?

Share this post


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

It is the following question: do you want to have a larger turret with more weakspots or a smaller one with essentially none?

And what kind of tank philosophy you are following out of which reasons. Reducing the profile of a tank is for shure a desireable feature, but at what costs? And having a T-series like gun depression might be no problem in wide, open and especially flat areas but if you are a country in central europe, then you really want that -9 or -10° depression. A "large" turret with enough gundepression is still smaller than the tank which must show it`s hull to get it`s tube on the target.
And untill a clever solution is found, a tank design must make compromises in these points...unless HK would build Tanks - because no compromise! If such a buldge like on the french turret is a good solution might be another topic, but simply calculating the reduction of the surfaces without counting the drawbacks is a little bit iffy in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since March 2017 Turkey is interested in upgrading its Leopard 2A4 tanks with technology from Rheinmetall. Given the political tensions between Germany and Turkey (and other reasons), this deal has been blocked by the German government. Now as reported by the "Spiegel", the government might approve the deal.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesregierung-will-aufruestung-von-tuerkischen-leopard-panzern-genehmigen-a-1188730.html

 

What exactly is part of the deal has not been disclosed. Earlier news reports simply mention "protection systems". The Spiegel mentions "thicker belly plates to protect against mines and IEDs"  aswell as "additional sensor systems to protect against anti-tank weapons". The "Welt" reported in March 2017, that the Turkish military wanted to buy the ADS active protection system.

 

The whole deal is not approved yet and it is very controversial. Just two days ago, it was reported that Erdogan wanted to set free a German journalists (a number of German journalists with Turkish heritage have been arrested in Turkey, because Erdogan is no fan of free speech) if Germany approved more arms sales to Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess Erdogan wanted a good war against the Kurds to improve his standing but It might end up backfiring if the Turkish army show poor results like they did recently (not even mentioning the lives lost for the sake of his personal agenda).

Share this post


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

ATGM Konkurs from Kurds Perszmenga on Leo-2A4 back:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO even WNA-H22 hydraulic pomp will be not damage. Very lucky for crew. 

 

 

 

I was thinking that such a hit would definitaly damage or destroy the hydraulic pump. You really think the pump is undamaged ?

Share this post


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

I was thinking that such a hit would definitaly damage or destroy the hydraulic pump. You really think the pump is undamaged ?

 

With a bit of luck it just lost pressure, and it's stuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i might be stating the obvious but its quite interesting that any video of atgms being fired at leo2s seem to be aimed at the turret magazine even if the hull was actually visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, holoween said:

i might be stating the obvious but its quite interesting that any video of atgms being fired at leo2s seem to be aimed at the turret magazine even if the hull was actually visible.

 

Is the video taken from the same position as the person guiding the missile?  There could easily be a small hill or clump of grass hiding the hull from the firer's position.

I am not that knowledgeable about older ATGM guidance systems, but I would also guess that you want to keep wire-guided SACLOS missiles a certain height above the ground to reduce the chance of them clipping the ground or snagging or shorting the wires.  That would also argue for turret shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, we have seen in the past such engagement that they had consistently hit the turret rear. So sniping weakspots IRL is perhaps not far-fetched at all. And with such guidance it seems they are very well trained.

 

On paper it will not disable the tank as the Leopard has a hull ammo storage, but it may well panic the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to add to this this is the first hit we see on the right side of the turret rear and the first such hit that didnt get the ammo.

 

so if one designs a similar turret layout it might be a good idea to have the ammo at the very center with nbc systems, radios etc on both sides to prevent the ammo from being hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, holoween said:

to add to this this is the first hit we see on the right side of the turret rear and the first such hit that didnt get the ammo.

 

so if one designs a similar turret layout it might be a good idea to have the ammo at the very center with nbc systems, radios etc on both sides to prevent the ammo from being hit.

 

Random stuff won't stop neither an APFSDS nor a HEAT jet.

A broken long rod or a messed up jet they may help, but (mostly) intact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Random stuff won't stop neither an APFSDS nor a HEAT jet.

 

yea but make it less likely.

id like to actually see morew hits to the rear right before saying there is a pattern but so far every hit into the rear left has resulted in an ammunition cookoff and the one so far hitting the right side hasnt .

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

×