Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 

Unless something has changed, Forsvaret does not have any plans to buy a new MBT before the MGCS. Budget issues. 

 

No, for some time now, the plan has been to select a new MBT around 2025. The budget is the reason why it's not happening sooner.

 

Look up Project 9360 on page 13 of this document: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/7635ac0d48d44fc180fac57f58be7518/faf-2019-2026-english---final.pdf

 

Quote

Only thing considered is buying basically CV90s with 120mm. 

 

 

This option has been discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The German parliament has approved two planned acquisitions of equipment for the German military (every acquisition worth more than €25 million has to be approved by parliament) with a combined worth of €428 millions. One of these contracts is for the upgrade of 101 Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A6MA2 to a configuration "similar" to the Leopard 2A7V. Exact upgrades haven't been revealed, aside of that improved optics, new radios and modifications to the FCS (likely for DM11) will be part of it. The upgrade process is to last until 2026.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwegian Army orders 6 Leopard 2 based AVBLs from KMW: 

 

 

 

It's not the end for the Leo 1 platform in the Norwegian Army, though, as the NM217 ARVs will be updated and kept in service alongside the new Wisent 2 ARVs.

Share this post


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

Are they going for Wisent 1 ARV as an upgrade of the NM217?

 

Not sure, but I’m leaning towards ‘no’. According to the future acquisitions document, the scope of the light and medium recovery capacity project will be about 100-250 million NOK or 12-30 million USD, but that sum does not only include the NM217 but also a new light ARV based on the M113. So, unless the Wisent 1 upgrade is very very cheap, I’m thinking that the upgrade will probably be more limited in scope. I’m not sure that the NM217 need the extra capacity of the Wisent 1 upgrade either now that the Wisent 2 is here to take over the heavy recovery missions where the NM217 has struggled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wisent 2 ist for Leopard 2 but the K9 Thunder ist too heavy for NM217. So upgrade might make sense.

 

CV90 and M113/M577 could be supported by MN217 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

 

Interesting points:

Mantlet weighs 640kg

Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc.

They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30.

Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37096&page=50

Quote

That was Greece with the Leopard 2A6. They shot twenty rounds against a single turret, one of it reached the crew compartment through the (reinforced) gunner's sight area. The composition of the armour was changed, weight increased slightly (IIRC by some 40 kg only), then the armour was capable of resisting said ammo.

Quote

Against Israeli 120 and 125 mm and without the wedge-shaped spaced armor, IIRC.

Quote

The Greek tests were done using the CL-3143 APFSDS made by Israeli Military Industries, which has an approx. 705 mm long projectile and a muzzle velocity of 1,705 m/s when fired from the L/44 gun. It is also known as the M322 APFSDS-T and has been sold to Sweden (Slpprj 95), Italy, Spain and Turkey. Aside of the CL-3143, the CL-3105 HEAT-FS round was utilized, which is also known as the M325 round and is essentially identical to the German DM12 and US M830 HEAT-FS rounds. The sources I have seen do not mention any sort of 125 mm rounds.

I've been looking for the original source on this for ages, short of buying the Greek magazine that detailed some parts of the Hellenic trials, nothing has come up.

Anyone know more about this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

We have dedicated thread for Turkish AFVs.

You sure this isn't a better thread? :P

 

Also, I genuinly hope that add-on package is an april's fools joke 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scav said:

You sure this isn't a better thread? :P

 

Also, I genuinly hope that add-on package is an april's fools joke 

1)No, as most interesting part of this vehicles is Turkish-made ERA.

 

2) Yes, naked Leo2A4 is better than Leo2A4 with ERA in situation of local conflict with insurgents, everybody knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

1)No, as most interesting part of this vehicles is Turkish-made ERA.

Just a joke.
 

1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

2) Yes, naked Leo2A4 is better than Leo2A4 with ERA in situation of local conflict with insurgents, everybody knows that.

I was referring to how it looks, those colours are horrendous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Polish defence news website Defence24, the project OMBT (Optimizing Main Battle Tank) Leopard 2 is moving along. This is a project from the European Defence Agency (EDA) of the EU, which aims to upgrade all existing Leopard 2A4 tanks within the inventory of its member states to a more modern configuration. Previously it has been reported that KMW is offering the EU to upgrade these tanks to the Leopard 2A7EU configuration and suggested, that the EU should buy all the tanks and then lease them to its member states to simplify contract matters. Apparently the final decision to which version the Leopard 2A4 tanks will be upgraded during the OMBT Leopard 2 program hasn't been made yet. After the OMBT Leopard 2 program, similar programs might be started for other tanks or AFVs within the inventory of EU member states. In May 2019 a number of meetings/conferences between the national defence industries will be held in order to start a cooperation for the OMBT Leopard 2 program between KMW and local companies.

 

Aside of upgrading, improving maintenance and training also is also part of the OMBT Leopard 2 project.

 

KMW has officially announced that it has been contracted to upgrade the 101 Leopard 2A6 tanks of the German mentioned previously in the topic. The exact content of the upgrade remains unknown, but KMW mentions the among others, the fire control system, optics and chassis (maybe including hull applique armor module?) will be improved.

 

On 4/2/2019 at 6:20 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Own development. Roketsan is a local armor maker with its own R&D.

 

The question remains how much of it is locally developed. The deals when buying the M60T Sabra and when choosing the K2 Black Panther as base for the Altay tank both included technology transfer.

 

 

Share this post


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

The question remains how much of it is locally developed. The deals when buying the M60T Sabra and when choosing the K2 Black Panther as base for the Altay tank both included technology transfer.

I don't see the relevance in this question. The technology transfer was done about 15 years ago. Roketsan has shown it can at least make adjustments to existing armor, which takes a great deal of expertise as well. These various ERA modules look nothing like those IMI supplied to them for the Sabra, and eventually every development of any kind of technology at least to some extent bases itself on some hard founded technology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^additional information: mantlet couldn't be salvaged/saved, they're working on a new one but had a deadline, so instead they put a camo net over the mantlet to cover it up.

This is TVM MIN as indicated by the license plate (Y 907 793)

Spoiler

unknown.png

TVM MAX was Y 907 792:

Spoiler

unknown.png

Y 907 794 was the last 2A4 from 8th batch.

 

If Y 907 792 was indeed MAX (as indicated) then how come an 8th batch, modified 2A4 had B tech internal armour + D-2 add-ons as shown in the Swedish trials?

That would mean they changed the inserts to B tech (huh, cost maybe?) when they did the conversion, or these two tanks were B tech from the start (doesn't make much sense).

There's a third option:

KVT (modified 5th batch), which was converted to IVT, was also "shown" to the Swedes (for the IFIS), perhaps the Leopard 2 "Improved" slide talks about that one?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

 

However, if the TVM indeed did use B + D-2 and was the "German solution" we see in the Swedish comparison, then the improvement in armour might just be down to the add-on and not a better internal armour.

Turret add-on definitely changed, hull one we don't know about.

So, turret was a rather small improvement, but hull was ~80mm on upper hull/roof (82° AoA means you'd only need an additional 11mm RHA for the add-on thickness).

 

Did they mess up with the indicated armour, or does a B tech leopard 2 with add-on reach these numbers?
 

As previously posted in this thread:

Spoiler

2c277d93d0e47.jpg

28mm sandwich + 71mm air + 28mm sandwich @ 65° = ~950mm protection against CE.

Looks quite similar to the wedges for leopard 2A5.

 

2A5 prototypes: 1720mm-1850mm CE protection on turret from 0° front

-950mm from wedge = 800-900mm for main turret armour

B tech requirement: Milan 1 or 600mm+ CE (probably 650-700mm from front)

That leaves 250-100mm which isn't explained, could be due to airgap allowing the jet to disperse more before hitting the main armour.

 

If we assume these armour arrays (or similar ones) were used in the wedges for leopard 2A5  and that the 250-100mm discrepancy can be explained or falls within margin of error, then it does seem plausible that B + D-2 = Leopard 2 "Improved" and that 2A5 uses B tech or a modified version thereof as base armour.

 

Only thing that isn't entirely explainable is the (massively) increased KE protection.... but then again, even small impact angle changes (yawing LRP) can have massive consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Scav said:

but then again, even small impact angle changes (yawing LRP) can have massive consequences.

and if you set SC charge on unoptimal focal distance you can stop jet pretty much by anything, yes, but real firing are main interest, not this "we can protect it from deathstar, but we have one smaaaal condition..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

and if you set SC charge on unoptimal focal distance you can stop jet pretty much by anything, yes, but real firing are main interest, not this "we can protect it from deathstar, but we have one smaaaal condition..."

Yep, AFAIK they didn't test tandem warheads either, those might stand a much better chance.

They did do real firing tests, but only against 3 different SC warheads and I don't know the difference between the two large ones (third is the Carl Gustav's 81mm charge).

 

Edit: checked again, the first charge is a 165mm charge (CE 165), second is a 143mm charge (CE 143 FFV) and the third is the 84mm charge (not 81mm as I previously said, apologies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Scav said:

Yep, AFAIK they didn't test tandem warheads either, those might stand a much better chance.

They did do real firing tests, but only against 3 different SC warheads and I don't know the difference between the two large ones (third is the Carl Gustav's 81mm charge).

 

Edit: checked again, the first charge is a 165mm charge (CE 165), second is a 143mm charge (CE 143 FFV) and the third is the 84mm charge (not 81mm as I previously said, apologies).

yes CE 143mm - 1000mm RHA, CE 84mm - 420mm RHA, and KE - 700mm, but all this doesn't have any sense because if tank doesnt penetrated with 1000mm level threat and you have 200mm of "unpenetrated LOS" it doesn't mean that you have 1200mm vs CE, which is seems to be the method used in swedish presentation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 12:18 PM, SH_MM said:

KMW has officially announced that it has been contracted to upgrade the 101 Leopard 2A6 tanks of the German mentioned previously in the topic. The exact content of the upgrade remains unknown, but KMW mentions the among others, the fire control system, optics and chassis (maybe including hull applique armor module?) will be improved.

 In 2017 a deal was signed to upgrade 68 Leopard 2 A4, 16 Leopard 2 A6 and 20 Leopard 2 A7 to A7V standard. While only the 68 A4 will be fitted with the L/55A1 because their gun must be changed anyways.
And now there is an additional contract to upgrade 101 A6 an A6MA2 to a standard "similar"1 to the A7V. Together 205 A7V or "alike", further 32 are mothballed to serve as a basis for future modifications like bridge layers.
Any idea what version(s)  the remaining 91 are (328 total -104-101-32) ?

 

 

 

1" 101 Kampfpanzert Leopard 2 der Varianten A6M A2 und A6 sollen auf einen ähnlichen Konstruktionsstand wie der der neuesten Version Leopard 2 A7V gebracht werden. Ziel ist eine Anpassung an den Leopard 2 

    A7V in Bezug auf Bedienung und Logistik. " (BMVg.de). The upgrade aims for an adjustment of the Leopard 2 A7V regarding the handling and logistics - sounds more like a A7V light than a similar standard. The deal

   for the fist 104 A7V was worth 113 million € and I'm still looking for numbers for the current 101 Vehicles since "Ausschussdrucksache 19(12)383" is not puplicly available how it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

yes CE 143mm - 1000mm RHA, CE 84mm - 420mm RHA, and KE - 700mm, but all this doesn't have any sense because if tank doesnt penetrated with 1000mm level threat and you have 200mm of "unpenetrated LOS" it doesn't mean that you have 1200mm vs CE, which is seems to be the method used in swedish presentation 

Possibly, not sure how exactly they measured it but I think it's reasonable to estimate protection if they took efficiency or remaining armour "type" into consideration.

Right now we don't know ofcourse, but I personally doubt they made major mistakes like assuming steel = NERA/whatever the composite uses or that remaining LOS = remaining protection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...