Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

@Scav
Why did they want the reduction in weight?

 

And how does the MILAN and 105 APFSDS compare to soviet munitions?

 

I.e against which soviet threats was it protected against?

 

Can you post the full documents or the source for those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now looks that Germans downgrade KE protection between 1976-1978 to keep weight level whit the same SC protection.

It's interesting couse there are doc. showne that erly Leopard 2 had 350mm vs monoblock WHA KE and 700mm vs SC but considering those plans (5.III.1976) we have on projectile path no less then 428mm RHA and no less then 4 NERA bulging plates.

 

Looks like 2A0 was seriously downgraded in this part (KE) to save weight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also confused by the high amount of steel along the line of sight. Assuming the bulging plates are also made of steel (rather than some type of light metal alloy such as aluminium), that's 450 mm steel at the turret front cheeks (I am assuming that the center portion does not feature Beulblech add-ons, given that they aren't shown in the blueprints).

That is valid for the minimum LOS thickness of the turret front, i.e. at an angle of 35°. The LOS from the front is ~22 per cent larger, which would lead to more than 540 mm steel along the LOS - even if the armor was made of pure RHA without any additional layering effects, the protection  level would be on the same level as the MBT 80 with a combat weight of nearly 68 metric tons!

 

So there seem to be multiple options:

  1. The armor might have been downgraded to reduce weight. That also would explain the change in minimum LOS at the turret front from 710 mm to only ~680 mm (rough estimate based on the horizontal slope measurements done on a drawing). However the weight reduction document ("25. Sitzung der AG SBWS KPz LEOPARD 2") mentioned by @Scav clearly says that armor protection should remain unchanged (see page 3 and 4). So if there was any reduction in armor weight, armor efficiency must have been improved to negate this fact.
  2. An alternative interpretation to the "armor protection remaining unchanged" could be related to the reference threat: maybe the new armor - despite providing less overall protection - could stop the reference threats at the same range & distance, as the heavier armor package shown in the drawing, which was "overkill".
  3. The armor blueprint/descriptions discovered by @Wiedzmin might show a rejected candidate that has little/nothing to do with the actual armor of the Leopard 2 production vehicle, although it honestly fits all the descriptions I've seen in public sources.
  4. The drawing might be wrong in some way?

 

I've estimated - based on available weight figures of the special armor (which are kind of rough) and the 3D model made by @Laviduce - that the Leopard 2's turret front armor should weigh as much as ~350-360 mm steel armor, assuming weight is evenly spread between hull armor, turret front armor, turret side armor and gun mantlet. Assuming the turret side armor and gun mantlet armor of the Leopard 2 series variant stayed identical to the Leopard 2AV, the frontal armor of the turret and hull should become "denser" (I calculated a ratio of 0.331 to 1 between weight of special armor and weight of steel with equivalent volume, but the side armor reaches only a ratio of 0.262 to 1), so I can only assume that it is higher than 360 mm.

 

Leo2A1_Vol_Study.jpg.7800c44858a37cc5dee

Unless monobloc penetrators such as the M111 Hetz are somehow capable to reduce the weight efficiency of the Leopard 2's turret armor to less than 1.0 vs KE, I can only assume that the stories about "Leopard 2 reaches only 330-350 mm vs M111 Hetz APFSDS" are either focused on a larger frontal arc or including hull/mantlet armor.

 

Another issue is that the weight limit of the turret supposedly was always set at 17 metric tons according to Paul-Werner Krapke. The empty weight of the Leopard 2's series turret is 15.5 metric tons, a full turret likely approaches that limit. So how could the Leopard 2AV have so much thicker armor while staying on roughly the same weight (17.4 and 17.65 metric tons fully loaded)?

 

 

Is the weight of the Leopard 2AV (or its armor) specified in one of the documents, @Wiedzmin? Does it mention the desired protected frontal arc? The side armor is so thin, it only reaches similar LOS at 15° slope!

 

2 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Why did they want the reduction in weight? 

 

The weight limit for the Leopard 2 was specified as 55.15 metric tons after 1974. Before 1974, it was specified at MLC 50 (ca. 47.5 metric tons). The Leopard 2AV weighed much more, because designers didn't focus that much on the weight goal. I.e. in 1976 it was reported by an US General during a hearing at the Congress that the Leopard 2 weight more than 60 metric tons. However a German report from 1977 specifies the weight of the heavier Leopard 2AV prototype as 57.920 kg.

 

2 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

And how does the MILAN and 105 APFSDS compare to soviet munitions?

 

It was believed that the 105 mm KE38 round would perform similar to the future Soviet 115 mm APFSDS round, while the MILAN was meant to simulate future Soviet ATGMs.

 

2 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Can you post the full documents or the source for those?

 

 

Share this post


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

Is the weight of the Leopard 2AV (or its armor) specified in one of the documents

nope,  i will add more about L2AV, one tip, "complex super-duper structure" doesn't mean that it's good, or even "not so bad", it can be just non optimal(you have a lot of steel, but overall protection level not very high)

 

for example Blohm & Voss uses much simpler structure for L2/3 and L3 with same protection requirements as L2AV(or even look on T-62 with addon plates), and i think serial L2A0/4 get that structure, because L2AV is nightmare to produce... 

 

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

btw, maybe you can translate all parts of weight reduction ? since i uploaded this on otvaga no one tried to translate it full...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heared some days ago that Diehl has developed a new Z track that has the same characteristics as the old one but with 400 kg less. Weight reduction is still a big topic for many Leopard users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 1:56 PM, Sovngard said:

What were the protection requirements again ?

 

105 mm APFSDS fired from the German smoothbore gun and the MILAN 1 ATGM ?

 

105MM APFSDS-Smoothbore gun....

 

wut? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 8:07 AM, Willy Brandt said:

@Scav
Why did they want the reduction in weight?

And how does the MILAN and 105 APFSDS compare to soviet munitions?

I.e against which soviet threats was it protected against?

Can you post the full documents or the source for those?

I don't have the full document unfortunately, just these bits that others have posted before:

Spoiler

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

 

These are all the bits I've found on the web, not sure if others have more, you can probably ask @Wiedzmin for those.

 

Milan depends on the source, pretty sure I've seen UK reports saying 530 or 580mm, I'll look for that in the meantime.

 

Weight reduction is fairly simple, as sent over to the US, leopard 2 did not comply with the maximum weight set forth by the agreement between the US and Germany, this IMO isn't a big deal considering the leopard 2 was using heavier tracks than the XM1 (which ended up using very similar ones on the M1A1) and it was using a larger gun.

Still, Germany seemed to still think it was too much and opted to optimise and rearrange some things.

 

105mm APFSDS is some proto version of DM13, SP15 had some stuff on it: https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/

Seems to largely compare to a beefed up 3BM9 if you ask me (performance wise), though design looks more like 3BM42.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 9:19 AM, Militarysta said:

Well now looks that Germans downgrade KE protection between 1976-1978 to keep weight level whit the same SC protection.

It's interesting couse there are doc. showne that erly Leopard 2 had 350mm vs monoblock WHA KE and 700mm vs SC but considering those plans (5.III.1976) we have on projectile path no less then 428mm RHA and no less then 4 NERA bulging plates.

 

Looks like 2A0 was seriously downgraded in this part (KE) to save weight.

Who says it was?

It seems more likely to me that the graph we got from the Swedish leaks wasn't just talking about frontal armour protection but the entire profile instead, which would ofcourse lower the overal protection quite a bit.

From the things I've found, nothing indicates a loss of protection for the turret, nor hull (though the hull isn't specified to remain the same, just that it still complies with requirements).

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

I am also confused by the high amount of steel along the line of sight. Assuming the bulging plates are also made of steel (rather than some type of light metal alloy such as aluminium), that's 450 mm steel at the turret front cheeks (I am assuming that the center portion does not feature Beulblech add-ons, given that they aren't shown in the blueprints).

That is valid for the minimum LOS thickness of the turret front, i.e. at an angle of 35°. The LOS from the front is ~22 per cent larger, which would lead to more than 540 mm steel along the LOS - even if the armor was made of pure RHA without any additional layering effects, the protection  level would be on the same level as the MBT 80 with a combat weight of nearly 68 metric tons!

To be fair, it uses vastly more steel and overal higher thickness than the plates inside the arrays of M1 or Shir 2/protos, while the front and backplate aren't quite as thick.

Which pretty much confirms to me that unlike with "normal" chobham, the actual "NERA" sandwiches (or in this case, mostly just spaced steel plates with a small liner/bulging plate on the back) are meant to largely affect KE protection, as they are not only thicker, but mostly made of steel instead of very thin layers of steel + thicker rubber/plastics.

 

Likewise, it explains why the HEAT protection wasn't as good per LOS as on the M1's turret for instance.

It does seem like there's a lot of steel though.... more than I expected (I think around 428mm LOS worth).

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

That also would explain the change in minimum LOS at the turret front from 710 mm to only ~680 mm (rough estimate based on the horizontal slope measurements done on a drawing).

Hang on, because I think there might be some confusion here, @Militarysta provided us with excellent pictures pretty much proving that the LOS from the front is 860mm without question, on most drawings and pictures I've found the angle of the cheeks wouldn't be enough to reach 860mm if we assumed a perpendicular 680mm LOS.

For reference, the angles I've measured seem to hover around 35-37° , if we assume 36° (bit of an odd number IMO), for 860mm LOS you'd need around 696mm base LOS.

If we take 35° this would increase to 704mm base LOS.

IMO, that seems closer than 680mm.

 

So, was there really a change in LOS?
Comparing pictures, I can't tell and it would seem rather odd to change it by such an insignificant number.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

An alternative interpretation to the "armor protection remaining unchanged" could be related to the reference threat: maybe the new armor - despite providing less overall protection - could stop the reference threats at the same range & distance, as the heavier armor package shown in the drawing, which was "overkill".

As in a more efficient design or perhaps higher quality steel?

That's quite likely.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

The drawing might be wrong in some way?

I prefer to see the original, though I understand if Wiedzmin can't give us that.

Would be a real shame though, I'd love to see that.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

but the side armor reaches only a ratio of 0.262 to 1), so I can only assume that it is higher than 360 mm.

The side seems to be quite thin honestly, around 120mm of steel for ~320mm of LOS.

Probably also why the US complained about unbalanced protection, the side probably can't stop an RPG-7 fired perpendicular, though it might from a frontal angle.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2AV weighed much more, because designers didn't focus that much on the weight goal. I.e. in 1976 it was reported by an US General during a hearing at the Congress that the Leopard 2 weight more than 60 metric tons.

I'm pretty sure they were using imperial tons, metric tonnes would be written differently and the XM1's weight was also listed higher than what it is in metric.

 

On 7/15/2019 at 7:00 PM, SH_MM said:

Regarding weight reduction:

Welp, guess I should've scrolled down first before writing.

 

Thanks for those other pics tho, I couldn't find them anymore.

Share this post


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

I

  Reveal hidden contents

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

Unbenannt.png

 

Who says it was?

 

 

The same document as quoted by Laviduce here:

There are detaild Leopard 2 armour test description  - visited by British delegation in 1987.  And there is test description vs DM23 and HOT.  More or less whole document is about Cheftian replacment. The most interesting part about CR1 armour was removed (but armour values in mm RHA are given there) , but there are pure gold about Leo 2, including:

1) erly Leo 2 protection

2) late Leo 2 protection

3) sugestion (confirmed by myself on our factory Leos book) that armour upgrade was done during german factor F6 rebuild

4) information that Germans swicht from NERA to ceramis in late 1980's armour

etc

Of course I cant put it here for multiple resons. But it's the same archive discover as Paweł Przeździecki "orgins of the burlington" . 

 

ps. And my freind found sevrall patents about german armour, special armour whit anty radiation cover and...frencht patetn whit sucht armour. Of course there are very partial data but interesting a lot - mostly by data range :-)

 

Frencht patent:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/52/aa/faeb40bb130747/FR2646231A1.pdf

 

And german:

Patent no:
DE 2927381 A1
2927382

https://pastebin.com/LYi4KYfB?fbclid=IwAR3YdI3YlnzGakBHuoALvVgrckxBngRjpY54asqyOCYh4ic_r5IfUbYdI2g

https://pastebin.com/xEEpHnGm?fbclid=IwAR1grt-pCTaHOCCxu5KNFnELi3I5a_eIHIQcFyOrwz_PgcPC4D5N_2O4Nmk

Look at dates.

 

For me looks like 2AV armour  was downgraded or replaced by other solution in L2A0 - but knowing "hard data" from this british report from 1987 and numering RHA layers in  2AV armour scheme we know that protection vs KE was downgraded in circa 25% (maybe 30)! And propably CE protection was keeped.  Propably @Wiedzmin have right and for cost production or weight resons Germans choose NERA layout in 2A0 too but mucht lighter and simpler. And I have confirmed in sevral sources that in end 1980's Germans swicht from NERA to ceramis whit famous Nera wedges only in KWS. 

What is funny - in end of 1980's

Germans - cermaics in Leo 2 

Soviet - ceramisc in T-80U late and UD

US - propably in HA  and HC (+ NERA in outher layers)

even Polish start to developed CAWA-2 armour

1970's NERA ----> 1985/1990 Ceramisc ----> ??

 

Share this post


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

There are detaild Leopard 2 armour test description  - visited by British delegation in 1987.  And there is test description vs DM23 and HOT.  More or less whole document is about Cheftian replacment. The most interesting part about CR1 armour was removed (but armour values in mm RHA are given there) , but there are pure gold about Leo 2, including:

Are these the values quoted by the Haynes CR2 manual?
If so, they didn't specify turret or hull, nor what arc.

Unless they give detailed info on what part achieves what protection, it might not mean the protection was reduced at all.

They could just be using a different way of presenting the same info or even more likely, are just generalising the info and boiling it down to one single RHA value even though the original info does not.

 

I have to point out the similarity between those values (350 and 420mm) and the protection achieved on 50% of the profile for the leopard 2 leaks from Sweden:

Spoiler

unknown.png

Excuse the quick markings, but you can see here that 350mm and 420mm line up pretty well with the 50% area covered mark....

Unfortunately we don't know if Germany gave the UK this slide when they did their trials in the late 80s to early 90s, but considering the similarity between the data and the small timegap between the Swedish and British trials, I think it's quite likely that the middle slide was originally made for the UK and afterwards was repurposed and set over to the Swedes.

That could also explain why it's actually three slides and why the middle one looks slightly darker and is also in English as opposed to the other two being in German.

 

But as you can see, there's various ways in which the information could be interpretted, and seeing how there's absolutely no indication the frontal turret armour was touched or changed in those pictures @SH_MM posted earlier, I don't see why you think they all of a sudden decreased the frontal armour by ~100mm while also keeping the weight the same....

 

The hull was changed and some other small bits were made thinner or lighter by using aluminium, but there's simply no mention of the turret front being changed, so if this diagram from Wiedzmin is indeed talking about 2AV, that is most likely also the armour that ended up on series leopard 2.

 

7 hours ago, Militarysta said:

For me looks like 2AV armour  was downgraded or replaced by other solution in L2A0 - but knowing "hard data" from this british report from 1987 and numering RHA layers in  2AV armour scheme we know that protection vs KE was downgraded in circa 25% (maybe 30)! And propably CE protection was keeped.  Propably @Wiedzmin have right and for cost production or weight resons Germans choose NERA layout in 2A0 too but mucht lighter and simpler. And I have confirmed in sevral sources that in end 1980's Germans swicht from NERA to ceramis whit famous Nera wedges only in KWS. 

What is funny - in end of 1980's

Germans - cermaics in Leo 2 

Soviet - ceramisc in T-80U late and UD

US - propably in HA  and HC (+ NERA in outher layers)

even Polish start to developed CAWA-2 armour

1970's NERA ----> 1985/1990 Ceramisc ----> ??

Regarding ceramics.... the Swedes tested that in the early 90s and they didn't seem impressed:

Quote

The idea was also that Strv 2000 would use a large proportion of ceramics in the protection structure. The fact that the total proportion of ceramics would amount to several tonnes in each tank made one the so-called Protection Ceramics project started up in 1988. For a couple of years, trials were made with many different types of ceramic - Al 2 O 3 (alumina), B 4 C (boron carbide) and TiB 2 (titanium boride) - but despite a wide participation from Swedish industry, FOA and FMV, it did not get much more than a mediocre reference framework.

http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm

 

So either it was used in conjunction with the already existing armour without replacing large parts, or they were using different ceramics which the Swedes didn't know about.

 

Either way, ceramics don't offer great multi-hit capability and that's something NATO specifically seems to care about quite a bit.

So if they did use it, I highly doubt it's in large quantities or forms the base of the armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scav

Are these the values quoted by the Haynes CR2 manual?

?

 

If so, they didn't specify turret or hull, nor what arc.

In case Leopard 2 eacht single hit is describe whit angle and ressult - including behind armour effect... so IMHO it's rather accurate. Despit fact that DM23 and HOT warhed are mentioned in the same document.

 



I have to point out the similarity between those values (350 and 420mm) and the protection achieved on 50% of the profile for the leopard 2 leaks from Sweden:

(...)

It's possible but eacht shoot is describe whit angle of atack. But yes, there are very simmilar values 350 and 420

 

 



But as you can see, there's various ways in which the information could be interpretted, and seeing how there's absolutely no indication the frontal turret armour was touched or changed in those pictures @SH_MM posted earlier, I don't see why you think they all of a sudden decreased the frontal armour by ~100mm while also keeping the weight the same....

 

The hull was changed and some other small bits were made thinner or lighter by using aluminium, but there's simply no mention of the turret front being changed, so if this diagram from Wiedzmin is indeed talking about 2AV, that is most likely also the armour that ended up on series leopard 2.

 

There are only two option in sucht way:

a) Swedish and "some" raport whit Leo 2 1987 fire trials is mistaken and erly Leo2A0 protection was mucht higher - acoding to 2AV - exatly 420mm RHA so Britts are wrong couse 1979-1988 and 1988 Leopard 2 have the same mm RHA vs KE and it was up to 420mm RHA. But this source rejected sucht opportunity in three mentioned parts including weight efficency vs KE and CE. 

b) Leopard 2A0 had verry difrent then 2AV armour.

 

 

Share this post


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

?

Spoiler

Image result for challenger 2 haynes manual leopard 2

Same values.

 

55 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

In case Leopard 2 eacht single hit is describe whit angle and ressult - including behind armour effect... so IMHO it's rather accurate. Despit fact that DM23 and HOT warhed are mentioned in the same document.

I'd love to see pictures or see more detail on that.

 

57 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

There are only two option in sucht way:

a) Swedish and "some" raport whit Leo 2 1987 fire trials is mistaken and erly Leo2A0 protection was mucht higher - acoding to 2AV - exatly 420mm RHA so Britts are wrong couse 1979-1988 and 1988 Leopard 2 have the same mm RHA vs KE and it was up to 420mm RHA. But this source rejected sucht opportunity in three mentioned parts including weight efficency vs KE and CE. 

b) Leopard 2A0 had verry difrent then 2AV armour.

Frankly, I don't trust the Brits when it comes to talking about tank armour of other nations, they've been wrong on many occasions and often downplaying armour of other nation's tanks.

Spoiler

Image result for MBT-80 armor

Here we can see the T-64 and T-72 being misjudged by a large amount even if we assume they refer to the hull armour.

T-80 is about right at 350mm even though T-72 and T-64 had practically the same armour at this point.

 

They also criticise certain aspects of tanks like XM1 and leopard 2, despite using that very same aspect or concept in their own "dreamtank" (MBT-80):

Spoiler

dOy_IvdfFX4.jpg

Image result for MBT-80 armor

Ammo in the back of the turret is frowned upon, yet they were planning to use it in the MBT-80.....

 

There's also the case of CR1's replacement, where people in charge of testing CR2, Leclerc, M1A2 and TVM all favoured the M1A2 or the TVM over the CR2, even going so far as to say they should atleast get the L44 if they opt for CR2.

Politics intervened and they got the CR2 with the L30, because they'd already done the test against M1A2 and TVM they opted not to send a CR2 to compete in the Swedish trials, probably out of fear to see it end last and draw their earlier decision into question.

 

Unless they have actual test results with confirmed threat and armour target, I will take whatever they say about other tanks with a grain of salt.

 

Anyway, I'd love to see more info from either Wiedzmin about this or from you on those firing trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 7:16 PM, Wiedzmin said:

for example Blohm & Voss uses much simpler structure for L2/3 and L3 with same protection requirements as L2AV(or even look on T-62 with addon plates), and i think serial L2A0/4 get that structure, because L2AV is nightmare to produce... 

 

I am under the impression, that the armor could be constructed out of three different "modules", which are then inserted into the cavity. Each module could be produced individually, potentially even by different companie - at least this is a rumor I've heard from former German Leopard 2 tank crews (i.e. each turret front holds three "Schutzpakete", which contain [potentially different types of] special armor).

 

Would be great to see the solution by Blohm & Voss, please post about it when you find time for it. Blohm & Voss made the armor for the Super M48 and Leopard 1A6, so regardless of wether their armor actually was used on the series production Leopard 2 tank, it should at least give us an idea about those tanks.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Milan depends on the source, pretty sure I've seen UK reports saying 530 or 580mm, I'll look for that in the meantime.

 

530 mm penetration at built-in stand off distance, up to ~620 mm possible in static tests.

 

XMR9GCq.jpg

 

20 hours ago, Scav said:

Likewise, it explains why the HEAT protection wasn't as good per LOS as on the M1's turret for instance. 

 

I wouldn't say that protection against shaped charge was likely worse per LOS (given that spaced NERA offers relatively low protection per thickness), but it was clearly worse per weight. The US noted after testing the Leopard 2AV's armor that the XM1's armor was "better" but this would be related to the "differences" in perceived threats.

 

20 hours ago, Scav said:

If we take 35° this would increase to 704mm base LOS.

IMO, that seems closer than 680mm. 

 

Possible, my values were only estimates.

 

20 hours ago, Scav said:

Probably also why the US complained about unbalanced protection, the side probably can't stop an RPG-7 fired perpendicular,

 

Neither can the M1 Abrams at the side of the turret. Only the turret bustle was required to stop a simulated RPG at perpendicular impact angle.

 

20 hours ago, Scav said:

I'm pretty sure they were using imperial tons, metric tonnes would be written differently and the XM1's weight was also listed higher than what it is in metric.

 

I checked again, it was short tones (63.21 tons aka "nearly 64 tons") - this matches the weight values listed in the meeting SBWS AG KPz Leopard 2 meeting regarding weight reductions.

 

11 hours ago, Militarysta said:

3) sugestion (confirmed by myself on our factory Leos book) that armour upgrade was done during german factor F6 rebuild

 

Is there any more information about this? DId they receive the armor package with "C" technology, but retained the old side skirts? Or was it something different?

 

11 hours ago, Militarysta said:

4) information that Germans swicht from NERA to ceramis in late 1980's armour 

 

I don't believe they fully switched - but incorporated ceramics into the armor array. According to Frank Lobitz, the Leopard 2 from 1988 still uses NERA, the same has been hinted by other writes, iirc. Rolf Hilmes. Already in 1978 optimal solution (according to Franco-German patents) was a combination of NERA + multi-layered backplate incorporating ceramics.

 

The Soviets (and the Poles) could consider fully switching to ceramic armor, as the ERA provided sufficient additional protection against shaped charges. The Leopard 2A4 doesn't have ERA, so using only ceramic armor would result in a downgrade in protection against shaped charges unless using extremely exotic & expensive solutions (such as tungsten-carbide).

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

ps. And my freind found sevrall patents about german armour, special armour whit anty radiation cover and...frencht patetn whit sucht armour. Of course there are very partial data but interesting a lot - mostly by data range :-)

 

These are not really about armor. The patents show a test setup for comparing different materials to be used as anti-radiation layer on the inside of the tank. Between the actual armor and the anti-radiation layer a further material is added for dampening. The table at the end of the patent DE 2927381A1 shows the different behaviour of potential anti-radiation layer materials upon receiving the shock of a hit of the main armor.

 

11 hours ago, Militarysta said:


This is actually a German patent. Due to European law (there is no common patent law), companies have to register patents in all user countries where they want to make use of them (i.e. sell them or prevent their competitors from making use of the described inventions). It is focused on methods for mounting special armor modules to a steel shell (there is no word about the composition or function of the special armor), i.e. by using rails to mount the armor modules (broadly similar in concept to how the armor is mounted on the Challenger 1 prototype).

 

The Leopard 2 instead uses a monocoque design, where the semi-modular special armor modules are integrated into a steel shell.

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

1970's NERA ----> 1985/1990 Ceramisc ----> ??

 

2000s-2010 ----> NERA again? The Puma uses NERA for its frontal hull armor rather than ceramics, the Leopard 2 ADT/Revolution/PL also relies a lot on NERA (in addition to ceramics?). Chinese tanks and Israeli tanks are also still using types of NERA/NxRA/hybrid armor.

 

2 hours ago, Scav said:

Here we can see the T-64 and T-72 being misjudged by a large amount even if we assume they refer to the hull armour. 

 

This is not a problem of the Brits, it was shared incorrect estimates from NATO intelligences. T-64 was believed in the mid-1970s to have only a 100 mm thick glacis sloped at 70° and a ~250 mm cast steel turret, i.e. to be armor-wise only a minor upgrade of the T-62.

 

2 hours ago, Scav said:

Ammo in the back of the turret is frowned upon, yet they were planning to use it in the MBT-80.....

 

Not as much planning, but considering. They considered many different concepts for the MBT 80 and it was considered a trade-off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scav

 

Quote

Same values.

Yes, now I see - the Author must use the same raport. Interesting couse mentioned in this raport parts where more optymistic for Leo 2 the author mentioned in article.

And on second thought - you have right and possible that Britons downgraded  Leo 2 protection. More or less all asumptions in this raport are based on fire trials in 1987 when DM23 was shooted from 200m and HOT CE was fired. And there was simple recognition:  penetrated (+ behind armour effect) / not penetraed and indeed whole protection levels and mass eficency where based only in this recognition and German claims about swicht to cermics.

So the crusial is answer about DM23 and HOT warhed in 1987 capabilities

 

Quote

Frankly, I don't trust the Brits when it comes to talking about tank armour of other nations, they've been wrong on many occasions and often downplaying armour of other nation's tanks.

propably you have right BUT british sources are now the youngest (ca middle 80's) avaible. Germans archive ar open up to 1979 circa. Many polish historican and armour warfare analyst went to UK  and DE and searcht - mostly in 2WW subjects, but sometimes discovers are suprising.

 

@SH_MM

 

Quote

 


I am under the impression, that the armor could be constructed out of three different "modules", which are then inserted into the cavity. Each module could be produced individually, potentially even by different companie - at least this is a rumor I've heard from former German Leopard 2 tank crews (i.e. each turret front holds three "Schutzpakete", which contain [potentially different types of] special armor).

 

Would be great to see the solution by Blohm & Voss, please post about it when you find time for it. Blohm & Voss made the armor for the Super M48 and Leopard 1A6, so regardless of wether their armor actually was used on the series production Leopard 2 tank, it should at least give us an idea about those tanks
 

 

My friend found another german special amrour (B&V) patnet in Polish instytute - this time better. Layout was simmilar to 2AV posted by Wiedzmin, but:

moving plate have from 3 to 5mm thickens, and air gap after it have no less then 10 thickenss of it. Mas reduction was up to 15% (no specify what  mas reduction)

 

In sucht way 2AV armour had (on flying path) about two slopped NERA modules less - so 2x30mm at 30. so 120mm.  Maybe sucht solution was used in 2A0?

It gives (roughtly counting) ca 320mm RHA + spaced + moving plates effect. Maybe all give mithical 350mm RHA?. I know, weak asumptions based on weak sources but for me abondend 2AV armour in turret don't look resonable at all.

 

 

 

 

Is there any more information about this? DId they receive the armor package with "C" technology, but retained the old side skirts? Or was it something different? [/qyote]

Well it's problem couse old Panzer book where replaced by new polish (and stored) but in all old 2A4 german book is mentioned about F6 between 1989-1994 and welding in hull and turret. Semms to be this...again - no hard evidence just asumptions. Why welding on almoust new tanks?
 

 

 

Propably You have right - and this is most resonable  explanation. Maybe british raport is just mistaken couse all talks about  "ceramics" is based on two sentences...

 

 

All other known western solution included NERA or NxRA layers still... so...

Quote

 

 
I don't believe they fully switched - but incorporated ceramics into the armor array. According to Frank Lobitz, the Leopard 2 from 1988 still uses
NERA, the same has been hinted by other writes, iirc. Rolf Hilmes. Already in 1978 optimal solution (according to Franco-German patents) was a combination of NERA + multi-layered backplate incorporating ceramics.
 

Share this post


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

530 mm penetration at built-in stand off distance, up to ~620 mm possible in static tests.

Explains the difference in reported numbers, thanks for the pic.

 

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I wouldn't say that protection against shaped charge was likely worse per LOS (given that spaced NERA offers relatively low protection per thickness), but it was clearly worse per weight. The US noted after testing the Leopard 2AV's armor that the XM1's armor was "better" but this would be related to the "differences" in perceived threats.

Yeah, that's probably a better way of measuring it.

It's rather clear that the XM-1 would've been quite different in protection, from what I can tell, the entire turret front and side of the M1 was supposed to protect against this 81mm HHIW, and at perpendicular angles too as the Swedish leak suggests:

Spoiler

unknown.png

I strongly doubt the 2AV's turret side like the drawing from Wiedzmin would protect against that, probably only from a frontal angle around the crew, bustle wouldn't protect against anything but autocannons.

 

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Neither can the M1 Abrams at the side of the turret. Only the turret bustle was required to stop a simulated RPG at perpendicular impact angle.

Huh, why'd they do this then:

Spoiler

unknown.png

I assumed that was to indicate that it applied to the entire turret and not just the bustle?

There is less NERA there, but the base armour is also a lot thicker, 101mm thick or so.

Might not be sufficient, but it's probably still better than what the 2AV has.

 

23 hours ago, SH_MM said:

This is not a problem of the Brits, it was shared incorrect estimates from NATO intelligences. T-64 was believed in the mid-1970s to have only a 100 mm thick glacis sloped at 70° and a ~250 mm cast steel turret, i.e. to be armor-wise only a minor upgrade of the T-62.

That's odd, as the US at this time considered T-72 to be better:

Spoiler

Image result for T-72 armor CIA

Before introduction of M774 (which means pre 1980) and M735 is considered to not be good enough even in a best case scenario and M735 had over 150mm of penetration at 60° at 800m.

That should be considered enough to defeat 100mm at 68° (or 70°).

Original T-64 layout was around 330mm against APDS like M392 and the immunity range was 500m or beyond according to Soviet requirement, M735 is a marked improvement over that round and thus should be capable of dealing with the original layout...

 

It seems like the T-72 in this scenario had it's armour rated at or above 300mm for the hull alone, turret likely being the same if not higher.

Quite a bit closer than the UK estimates, though they could just be using old and outdated ones and the US newer ones.

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Yes, now I see - the Author must use the same raport. Interesting couse mentioned in this raport parts where more optymistic for Leo 2 the author mentioned in article.

And on second thought - you have right and possible that Britons downgraded  Leo 2 protection. More or less all asumptions in this raport are based on fire trials in 1987 when DM23 was shooted from 200m and HOT CE was fired. And there was simple recognition:  penetrated (+ behind armour effect) / not penetraed and indeed whole protection levels and mass eficency where based only in this recognition and German claims about swicht to cermics.

So the crusial is answer about DM23 and HOT warhed in 1987 capabilities

Does it mention a simulated range for DM23?
Or is the 200m range the range they were also simulating?

If so, that's quite like the diagram of the T-80U turret from the Swedes where they also give a 200m version and a 2000m version.

Was that Swedish diagram actually German in origin? One of my contacts claimed the Germans had conducted some tests on T-80 as well, but I wasn't sure if they just had test results or actually conducted the tests themselves....

 

Thanks for the additional info.

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

propably you have right BUT british sources are now the youngest (ca middle 80's) avaible. Germans archive ar open up to 1979 circa. Many polish historican and armour warfare analyst went to UK  and DE and searcht - mostly in 2WW subjects, but sometimes discovers are suprising.

True, there's actually more UK documentation flying around than German, which I find quite funny.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leB9cZK.png

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Propably You have right - and this is most resonable  explanation. Maybe british raport is just mistaken couse all talks about  "ceramics" is based on two sentences... 

 

 

All other known western solution included NERA or NxRA layers still... so...

 

Ceramic armor was developed and tested already in the 1970s. For example, four layouts of ceramic armor were patented by Blohm & Voss in 1973 (!), yet the Leopard 2AV and first series variant likely used only NERA + spaced steel armor. It would be very odd to see them completely switch to NERA later.

 

Qj6SE8i.png

1 - steel

2 - plastic (optimal is a low density/foamed plastic to absorb the shock of impacts, preventing shattering of ceramics)

3 - steel (might be high hardness manganese steel according to the patent)

4 - ceramics

 

8 minutes ago, Scav said:

I assumed that was to indicate that it applied to the entire turret and not just the bustle? 

There is less NERA there, but the base armour is also a lot thicker, 101mm thick or so. 

Might not be sufficient, but it's probably still better than what the 2AV has. 

 

The requirement for the M1 Abrams protection (as stated in declassified British report) was protection against RPG-simulated shaped charge only at 45° at the crew compartment, perpendicular impact was only resisted at the turret bustle and on the right side hull ammunition rack.

 

Regarding your snipplet of the drawing:

unknown.png

 

The arrow appears to be indicating that on the right side of the line the crew area starts, not that the protection extends to that area. The protection value is clearly listed under the caption "BUSTLE".

 

11 minutes ago, Scav said:

That's odd, as the US at this time considered T-72 to be better:

 

That is from 1980. Some sort of big reveal about Soviet capabilities was discovered by NATO intelligences at some time in 1979-1980.

 

 

Share this post


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

Ceramic armor was developed and tested already in the 1970s. For example, four layouts of ceramic armor were patented by Blohm & Voss in 1973 (!), yet the Leopard 2AV and first series variant likely used only NERA + spaced steel armor. It would be very odd to see them completely switch to NERA later.

Interesting, any mention of what ceramics would be used?

 

13 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The arrow appears to be indicating that on the right side of the line the crew area starts, not that the protection extends to that area. The protection value is clearly listed under the caption "BUSTLE".

Ah, I'd figured that the arrow meant the protection applied to the rest of the crew compartment area as well, bit confusing to be honest, connecting the arrow to the bustle section threw me off.

 

17 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That is from 1980. Some sort of big reveal about Soviet capabilities was discovered by NATO intelligences at some time in 1979-1980.

So right after the UK's assessment.
 

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...