Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

 Rheinmetall claims that the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution reaches a higher level of frontal armor protection than the Leopard 2A5 and would be on par with the Leopard 2A7 (at least this is what they told to Poland when competing against KMW for the Leopard 2PL program) - nobody knows if that is true.

 

Many military in Poland acually know that it's not true. Polish Leopard 2PL armour suck in compare to the "old" 2A5. The problem is not quality of Rheinmettal aditional armour but very waek basic Leopard 2A4 main armour  -it's less armoured vs KE then T-72M1 and against CE as PT-91 whit ERAWA-1 Of course there is ability to incarese protection level - but whit NEW main special armour and whit weight in circa 65 tones.

Share this post


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

 

This isn't known (to the public at least). Rheinmetall claims that the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution reaches a higher level of frontal armor protection than the Leopard 2A5 and would be on par with the Leopard 2A7 (at least this is what they told to Poland when competing against KMW for the Leopard 2PL program) - nobody knows if that is true.

 

The problem with Rheinmetall's upgrade is that the base armor of the Leopard 2 comes in different configurations and thus it depends on which variant is upgraded with Rheinmetall's solution.

 

The Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution comes with improved side armor, mine protection kit, roof armor, slat armor for the engine compartment and improved frontal armor, while weighing only 63-64 metric tons - meanwhile the Leopard 2A7 of the German army (no hull add-on armor,  no roof armor, but mine protection kit) weighs 63.9 metric tons. This means that either Rheinmetall's armor is a lot better than KMW's (which might be true to some extend, as it is thicker; when having two armor array of the same weight and similar technology, using more thickness can result in improved mass effectiveness) - or that Rheinmetall's claims are a bit too optimistic. It is probably a mix of both, at least in terms of multi-hit capability the AMAP package doesn't seem to perform too well.

 

If Rheinmetall's claims were correct, this would mean the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution is much better protected than the Leopard 2A7 for the same weight.

 

 

Because these systems look good on paper, but perform bad in tests. Germany tested at least three types of APS for the Leopard 2A7V in the last few years and found all of them lacking (in the eyes of Germany, the development has not been finished yet). A small number of Trophy APS systems is being purchased for the Leopard 2 tanks meant to participate at the VJTF, but only as a stopgap measure.

One great disadvantage of the Leopard A4 revolution is that the gunner's sight is not raised and the ballistic gap closed by an additional armour package. This is pretty bad for gunner's and commander's survivability if getting a hit in this weak area.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some news about polish Leo:

 

1) Leopard 2A5 have small upgrade during F6 in Poznań (Posen) WZM.5 factory rebuild:

https://www.wzm.pl/?p=4054

Yesterday it was open new and big repair plant for Leopard 2A5 - what funny - we have two copetitor factory in Poland:

Higt quality standard WZM.5 in Poznanń city who is repair all MTU and only Leo 2A5 and shitty Bumar - Labędy who's tryin to sucesfull complate 2PL program...

Both factories hate eacht other and try to "cut" cumpetitor on DoD level.

"Small modyfication" polish 2A5 includes: 

- 2x new thermal cameras (polish Asteria)

- 2x new machine gunes instetd MG3 without spare parts 

- new digital programed radio whit fast hoping

- abilities to use new amo

- other minor hanges - replaced crew evirnoments in case come pulpits (consoles?)

 

2) Leopard 2PL is slowly moving on - whole program have serious deley couse two problem:

- shitty quality of Bumar  job and other polish factories problems

- unexeptable problem whit Rheinmettal special armour modules - not in armour protection but in case module build and mounted on tank...

but

It is achive protection level requirment by army - so turret is able to stop 150mm.... SC warhed and modern long rods like KEW A2...DM63..M338...etc

More or lest army want's to have armour able to stop Kornet's Chriznatiema's and Swiniec1/2 and 2PL achive this protection level - and accoding to army "mucht beyond 2A5 level". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it will not be able. No way.

It's typical begging for money  from polish industry "oh gve give us money, we wil develped super--nex-gen-tank,plane, halicopter, ship" etc.

Polish PGZ and Bumar especialy will not developed anything like IV gen tanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

vQtdtP5.jpg

 

That's crazy fast, the same number of crew and a crane can change a power pack on a M60 in around 30-75 minutes, under 30 minutes if the crew want to do the job really fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pascal said:

 

That's crazy fast, the same number of crew and a crane can change a power pack on a M60 in around 30-75 minutes, under 30 minutes if the crew want to do the job really fast. 

pfff i saw a 15 min power-pack replacement in Leo 2A4 :D From stop movement to start movment whit new pp.

15 minutes :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qI4tCSiKIRQ.jpg

kTHGKBJjqZk.jpg

9C_M-6TxMrk.jpg

good photo showing gap between turret and hull

I7KlFmmL98Q.jpg

-rJBcmIfJA0.jpg

S4VFK4ogiik.jpg

MUYDELt-rNg.jpg

 

 

"https://www.flickr.com/photos/131561895@N06/27828646347/in/photostream/"

 

 

btw, this APFSDS displayed at WTD91, i think this is 105mm APFSDS for smoothbore(or early design of 120mm DM13, look at fins)

 

i think @SH_MM even posted patent for this APFSDS some time ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSW will co-produce Rheinmetall's 120mm and 155mm guns. It could be second company which wants to produce barrels there (after BAE) - and new gunbarrel factory with planned forging line can produce barrels with length up to ~11 meters.

 

https://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=28446&fbclid=IwAR0uMHOMif0q6noiwSDY_hGLFIsdX8Xk-AdRXAqqlE5bXqoTFpRbo4I_1L0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Leopard 2, there are a few problems that have recently been revealed in an Austrian army magazine:

 

1. The SOTAS communication system from Thales was chosen by the German Bundeswehr and various other militaries as the new radio/communication unit for the Leopard 2. SOTAS has been integrated into the upgraded Leopard 2A6 models, the Leopard 2A7 and the new Strv 122C variant. However integration is troublesome, as the Thales SOTAS has been desinged in accordance with the US-American MIL-STD specifications rather than the German TL standards, which means it is more supsectible to small changes in operational voltage and fails to operate in all cases specificed by the TL standards (some commenters are suggesting that it also fails to meet all MIL-STD standards). The solution to this problem was adding an extra DC to DC converter between the electrical systems of the Leopard 2 and the SOTAS communication system.

 

2. Rheinmetall has announced that the production of the gun brake K600 will end. The K600 gun brake is used in older Leopard 2 models either in its original form (as hydraulic gun brakes with flammable hydraulic fluid) or the modernized form (as hydronpneumatic gun brakes with a  fluid filling consisting of water and glycol). This means that all users of old Leopard 2 models have to upgrade to the newer hydropneumatic K900 gun brake originally developed for the L/55 gun. This also allows firing more powerful ammunition such as DM53/DM63. While it is a reasonable upgrade, a lot of Leopard 2A4 operating countries are pissed that they have to spent money on upgrades.

 

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

maybe someone know what does "Beulblech" mean ? Bulging plate ?

 

Yes. That is the literal translation. "Beule" means "bulge" or "bump", while "Blech" is the German word for (metal) plate.

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes. That is the literal translation. "Beule" means "bulge" or "bump", while "Blech" is the German word for (metal) plate.

here what Leopard-2AV(and i think 2A0/4) mantlet armour look like in 1976 soon i will upload sort of "article" about Leo2 armour from 1974 up to 1987...

 

fQ9Q0Jo.jpg

weight of this one - 670+38 kg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 1:20 PM, HAKI2019 said:

Do you have source that the turnnion is solid?My friend think it is empty like leopard 1.

Swedish shooting table for leopard 2 lists gun parts and has the trunnion/gun cradle listed at 595kg.
Official Rheinmetall brochure for the L44 from 1982 has these weights:

Spoiler

unknown.png

630kg for mantlet, 1905kg for barrel, 1110kg for breech assembly (inc gun cradle).

Volume of gun cradle x density of steel gives very similar numbers as reported by the Swedes and indicates it's not hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Land Platforms

EDA to launch four-country talks on Leopard 2 upgrade and procurement after industry feedback

Brooks Tigner, Brussels - Jane's Defence Weekly
10 July 2019
p1116759_main.jpg
The EDA is preparing to launch a programme in 2020 for four member states to upgrade or procure Leopard 2A7 equivalents (photo of Greek Leopard 2HEL that will be modernised). Source: Hellenic Army

The European Defence Agency (EDA) awaits a last round of market feedback from industry before launching final consultations with member states Cyprus, Greece, Romania, and Spain to launch a programme in 2020 to modernise or procure Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT) fleets. The effort will aim at upgrading to Leopard 2A7 equivalents or acquiring them, according to the agency.

"We're aiming for maximum commonality among them as they upgrade their MBTs," an EDA source told Jane's on 8 July, adding that the programme will involve approximately 200 Leopard tanks, plus a purchase of a new tank battalion by Romania, with all the upgrade work worth "several hundreds" of millions of euros. The programme will include upgrade options for recovery, engineering, and bridging vehicle variants.

The four countries' Leopard tank fleets currently vary from the Spanish Leopard 2E and Greek Leopard 2HEL, which are equivalent to the Leopard 2A6 version, to Romania's ageing 2A5 model.

Following exploratory talks in 2018, after which a potential group of nine EDA countries interested in the upgrade idea shrank to today's four, the agency issued a preliminary market consultation (PMC) to industry in April 2019. It calls on the latter to propose the most economical technological solutions to bridge as many of the requirements as possible among the four countries.

The Leopard 2's two prime contractors - Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall - are expected to respond to the PMC request by offering a full capability approach, for which they have until 18 July. Noting that the four countries' requirements involve around 200 systems and sub-systems, the source said, "We hope to get commonality of 90% or more."

With its PMC feedback in hand, the agency will then hold two more meetings with the four national defence ministries with the goal of signing off on the programme in 2020, followed by first deliveries of upgraded tanks starting in 2022.

 

 

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/89806/eda-to-launch-four-country-talks-on-leopard-2-upgrade-and-procurement-after-industry-feedback

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...