Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Militarysta

Recommended Posts

I figured you would know.

Do you have any information on EMES-13? It's a fascinating idea.

1405198010-capture-d-ecran-2014-07-12-a-

The information on the EMES-13 is scarce. It was developed by the German company Leitz and is an opto-electric rangefinder with a base length of only 350 mm. it is using electronic systems to continously measure the distance. When the target appears in the sights of the gunner, a press on the "range" button will deliver the range data after approximately one second of time. The optical signal is somehow converted into an electric signal, which is used calculate the parallactic angle and range. An electronic component (I guess a hybird computer) is used to controll an actuator in order to minimize the parallactic angle (when the angle is zero, the range data is calculated). The actuator is essentially a lense that is moved along a path (probably some sort of rail), each position of the lense is corresponding to an electric signal, so that the electronic component is always knowning at which position the lense is located.

The range calculated range can be accessed in form of an analog signal (iirc. this means that the gunner can see the target at proper range measurement without overlapping images from the optical rangefinder) aswell as a electronic signal for the fire control system. According to German sources, the EMES-13 is a lot more accurate than a manual optical rangefinder operated by a human, which allowed a signifcant reduction in size (from 1,720-2,000 mm to just 350 mm base length). The EMES-13 can measure in the visible spectrum of light or in the thermal imaging spectrum. Compared to a laser rangefinder, the system works passive and cannot be detected (via laser warning sensors) by the the target.

The EMES-13 was more expensive than other options, also repesentatives from the Leopard 1 user states (which were interested in potentially purchasing the Leopard 2) dislike the system as being unncessary and complex (compared to laser rangefinder). Supposedly some of them called it a "steamboat with sails". There apparently also were some other issues with the development, which is why it was considered a more risky option compared to adopting a LRF.

For the Leopard 2 five fire control systems were considered:

  • EMES-12 - manual optical rangefinder with 1,720 mm base length; tested on the early Leopard 2 prototypes, adopted on the Leopard 1A4 and some parts were used on late export Leopard 1A3
  • EMES-13 - automated optical rangefinder with 350 mm base length
  • EMES-13A1 - EMES-13 converted to using a laser rangefinder
  • EMES-14 - PERI commander sight fitted with laser rangefinder (not sure if this meant the commander was responsible for ranging or a second PERI would have been installed at the turret front for the gunner)
  • EMES-15 - developed in corporation with Hughes, originally intended for the Leopard 2AV only

The decision to fit the EMES-13 to the turrets 20 and 21 was made on 13.6.1975, but the development of a laser variant was decided at the same day. On 28.6.1976 the decision was made to fit turret 21 with the EMES-15, while turret 20 should be equipped with EMES-14 or EMES-13A1. Turret 20 was fitted with EMES-13A1 on 26.11.1976; it was considered cheaper than EMES-14 and was ahead in the development. It also was considered possible to later "upgrade" the EMES-13A1 to the original EMES-13 configuration by eliminating the LRF for the automatic optical system. On the 3.6.1977 the EMES-15 was chosen for the series production version of Leopard 2, mainly for being cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting MM,

 

But just a few things:

 

 

The optical signal is somehow converted into an electric signal, which is used calculate the parallactic angle and range. An electronic component (I guess a hybird computer) is used to controll an actuator in order to minimize the parallactic angle (when the angle is zero, the range data is calculated). The actuator is essentially a lense that is moved along a path (probably some sort of rail), each position of the lense is corresponding to an electric signal, so that the electronic component is always knowning at which position the lense is located.
 

 

A easy way of tracking the position of the lens would be to hook it up to a variable resistor.  The further out the lens moved, the higher resistance would be created. The resistance can then be  converted to a analogue electric signal, which could vary from 4-20mA. Usually, you can have 255 states from a analogue signal. 256 being 0 or or 0m in this case. So if each state equals 100m the analogue signal could in theory contain measurements up to

25 500 m. 

 

 

The range calculated range can be accessed in form of an analog signal (iirc. this means that the gunner can see the target at proper range measurement without overlapping images from the optical rangefinder) aswell as a electronic signal for the fire control system.

 

Are you referring a analog electric signal here?  And if so, did you mean a digital electric signal when you said electronic signal?

 

 

Mvh

Xoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you referring a analog electric signal here? And if so, did you mean a digital electric signal when you said electronic signal?

My understanding is, that the author meant an optical signal (light) when he wrote about an analog signal in the original source. About the electronic/electric question, the term "electric" might be more correct than electronic. Honestly I had to google when writing the previous post, because I wrote "electric", "electrical" and "electronic" all in the same passage. The wikipedia article on signals included the term "electronic signals", hence I went with this.

 

The EMES-15 sight and the associated FCS of the original Leopard 2 (aswell as the FCS of the Leopard 1A4) use hybrid computers. Hence I am not sure if the signals of the EMES-13 were digital electric signals or some sort of analog electric signals, which were converted to digital by the FCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Rolf Hilmes the Leopard 2's armor has a weight of about 3.5 metric tons per square metre. This is equal to a 446 mm thick steel plate (the slide incorrectly says 450 mm). The exact version of the Leopard 2 tank is not mentioned, but based on the weight and the image, it is supposed to be a Leopard 2A4 or earlier.
 
UEv5UO1.jpg

Given that composite armor of the Leopard 2 is supposed to include high-hardness steel and ceramics (both materials feature a higher weight efficiency against KE), the protection against (conventional) APFSDS shouudl be at least 500 mm, probably more.

 

However it would be interesting to know if the weight of the hull armor and turret armor is identical or not. The thickness of the hull armor is obviously lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I see the engine deck of something that appears to be a Leopard 2 at the right side of the image. 

 

So, does this mean:

3 Leopard 2s hit by enemy ATGM, 1 with a ammunition cook off in the turret.

3 captured Leopard 2s, one supposedly recaptured along with a BMP.

1 completely destroyed Leopard 2, either by explosives or ammunition cook off in the hull.

 

This amounts to 7 Leopard 2s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you know that the destroyed Leopard 2 wasn't among the earlier ones hit by ATGM or among the captured ones? It wouldn't be the first time that the IS terrorists blow up captured tanks for propaganda purposes (the have done this with at least two M1 Abrams tanks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you know that the destroyed Leopard 2 wasn't among the earlier ones hit by ATGM or among the captured ones? It wouldn't be the first time that the IS terrorists blow up captured tanks for propaganda purposes (the have done this with at least two M1 Abrams tanks).

 

I see the engine deck of something that appears to be a Leopard 2 at the right side of the image. 

 

So, does this mean:

3 Leopard 2s hit by enemy ATGM, 1 with a ammunition cook off in the turret.

3 captured Leopard 2s, one supposedly recaptured along with a BMP.

1 completely destroyed Leopard 2, either by explosives or ammunition cook off in the hull.

 

This amounts to 7 Leopard 2s.

I never sad that it drove over a IED or something like that.  What I am saying is that it looks a lot like someone detonated a explosive on or inside the vehicle. And most likely it was destroyed for propaganda purposes. 

 

Also, all know ATGM hits that I know of according to you did not cause a catastrophic kill. This is why I did not include that option.  Also, since the turret appears to just have been shoved off, rather than flying through the air, I actually doubt it was a ammunition detonation that got it.

 

I got one theory about the burned down Leopard 2. On tank-net someone mentioned that a VBIED was used to disable the Leopard 2s, so could it be that the VBIED rammed into the side of the Leopard 2 and detonated, ripping it's turret off to the side and igniting it's ammunition load?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never sad that it drove over a IED or something like that. What I am saying is that it looks a lot like someone detonated a explosive on or inside the vehicle. And most likely it was destroyed for propaganda purposes.

Ah okay, so I misunderstood your previous post.

 

qmaAxxq.jpg

Leo-72 in Syria.

According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah okay, so I misunderstood your previous post.

 

According to a German newspaper, this Leopard 2 was destroyed by a Turkish F-16 after being captured by the IS.

I am now sure that this is BS. Look at ISIS footage - snow is everywhere. This photos shows no snow, that turretless Leo was destroyed noticeable earlier than ISIS assault happened. Very likely ATGM hit results and photo also likely to be made by Turkish/FSA member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am now sure that this is BS. Look at ISIS footage - snow is everywhere. This photos shows no snow, that turretless Leo was destroyed noticeable earlier than ISIS assault happened. Very likely ATGM hit results and photo also likely to be made by Turkish/FSA member.

 

I don't know what footage you have seen exactly, but the one of captured equipment in snow I have seen showed only one tank. ISIS supposedly captured three tanks, so seeing one in snow doesn't mean that none of the others was destroyed by a Turkish F-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...