Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 7/17/2019 at 9:17 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

 

That Franco-German patent is the oldest one which about using ceramics in armor. Younger patents (like Rheinmetall's from 1982) claimed to use only ceramics in aluminium package with air gaps between the layers. But ceramics with FRP placed before may be present in Ariete tank.

 

Quote

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.

 

And why this anti-radiation layer used aramid fibers to reinforce? Why this layer placed between two steel layers was able to stop 40x365mm AP from 100m?

 

Quote

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.

 

Rather NERA / NxRA + ceramics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 3:29 PM, Scav said:

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

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.

 

It's very possible.

 

On 7/17/2019 at 3:29 PM, Scav said:

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

 

Hahaha. Ceramics really depend on spall liner placed before the next layers. And size of tiles. But it's really easy to create ceramic armor with good multi-hit capability.

Share this post


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

That Franco-German patent is the oldest one which about using ceramics in armor. Younger patents (like Rheinmetall's from 1982) claimed to use only ceramics in aluminium package with air gaps between the layers. But ceramics with FRP placed before may be present in Ariete tank.

 

What? I've seen patents from 1958 suggesting to use ceramic as part of tank armor and I wasn't even looking for the oldest one. The drawings posted previously are from a 1973 patent... so how can a 1978 patent be "the oldest one"?

 

1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

And why this anti-radiation layer used aramid fibers to reinforce?

 

It didn't. There is not a single mention of aramides, but poly-amides were tested as dampening material.

 

1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

Why this layer placed between two steel layers was able to stop 40x365mm AP from 100m?

 

Because the outer steel plate was able to stop the 40 mm AP round? Read the text. It clearly states that the intention of the patent is provide a solution to anti-radiation layers breaking when the main armor is hit by non-penetrating projectiles. With simpler systems (as for example fitted to the MBT 70 tank), the anti-radiation layer can shatter when the armor is hit, as these layers are not made of very flexible materials capable of absorbing shocks without breaking - so even with anti-radiation layer tanks are still more vulnerable to neutron bombs than to ballistic impacts. The firing tests at Meppen mentioned in the patent were conducted to simulate the stress of non-penetrating hits. Steel plates of different thickness were utilized, as thinner plates bulge more and are therefore more likely to damage/destroy the anti-radiation layer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wRX1xS1_bQY.jpg

1974 requirements

-105mm KE

-120mm KE

-120mm HEAT

YtLqB0f_3yk.jpg

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700

 

1977-78 requirements

dd8h75slPOU.jpg

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

18Xiwe4aW0o.jpg

 

mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?

 

79BuKjqYo9E.jpg

 

1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)

 

-120mm DM23

- HOT

D_bhA1V2ziM.jpg

rrbq4SDxcA4.jpg

and once again

 

sMdg1NP7AMQ.jpg

 

HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.

 

as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.

 

british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...

 

for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 

 

 

firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, thanks. So Germany assumed that the future 115 mm APFSDS could defeat as much armor as the 120 mm DM13 prototypes, while the US assumed it would only be on par with the old APFSDS rounds designed for the MBT-70...

 

56 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour,

 

Could you elaborate?

 

 

Share this post


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

Could you elaborate?

  

wNBI9eUPzCs.jpg

czpg31aqLnM.jpg

v6DQFcxf1fM.jpg

 

5,45x39 7N6 10 meters, author of "trials" claimed that this was ceramic plate, it was SK4 class with aramid screen IIRC, there was some other test with similar(i think) plates and this "pink filler"

 

of course maybe he get it wrong(class etc?)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is not made by a German company, but rather a British subsidiary of an American one...it is just a ceramic plate insert purchased during the 1990s for the German contingent during KFOR. There are various other supplier for ceramic armor in Germany.

Share this post


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

hm, so it's UK made plates ?

Yeah there are still some "Bristols" in some Units but these are the new ones and the ones i got in Wüstentarn and later Flecktarn.
Inf-Mod.jpg

 

And yes they are modular. No one used the collar or the "Sackschutz"/Groinprotection.
And the plate inserts are fucking thick and massive.

A FAQ in english
SK4+ Standard per the website:
"Similar confusion is caused by the term ‘SK4+’. What is meant here in most cases is the Russian-made 7.62 x 54 R VMS/HK-Brand B32.  The speed as special protection is specified in the German protective vest standard as 860 +-10 m/sec. Based on our experience it would already be possible to stop a single shot of this calibre with a high-quality SK4 panel. Assuming the specification of firing 3 shots at the panel as per the German standard, the panel structure needs to be designed accordingly."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to notice that there is some importnat misunderstand in draw whit Leo 2 shelling and table whit result.

 

In table shoot No. 11 and 12 are describe as "Vertical" and "Normal" but on draw whe have given angle of impact:

55 and 85 degree.  The only logical explanation "mirracle" that turret sides at 25 and 30. where resistant against DM23 and HOT and front not (in the strongest part in fornt of the loader)  is that in table is  mistake and indeed both hits in lef turret side where at anfgle placed on  draw - 55 and 85 degree. In sucht scenario penetration is absolutly normal due to extreem small LOS.

 

IMHO from this raport we can take quite good for Leopard 2A0 and 2A4 picture of the armour protection in middle 80s'. It was more then enought against WarPac ATGM's all types (including Sthurm-S)  and just enought to stop 3BM15, 3BM22, and meybe even 3BM26/29. But obviously against 3BM42 andd 3BM32 it was not enought. But both round had DOI in 1987 and 1988 as I remeber couse problem whit large scale production in CCCP.   

 

BTW - @Scav -  as You see - You get the realible source ;)  whit some question marks of course :-)

Share this post


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

In table shoot No. 11 and 12 are describe as "Vertical" and "Normal" but on draw whe have given angle of impact: 

55 and 85 degree.  The only logical explanation "mirracle" that turret sides at 25 and 30. where resistant against DM23 and HOT and front not (in the strongest part in fornt of the loader)  is that in table is  mistake and indeed both hits in lef turret side where at anfgle placed on  draw - 55 and 85 degree. In sucht scenario penetration is absolutly normal due to extreem small LOS. 

 

Penetration at "normal" means perpendicular impact angle to the armor plate, so the 85° impact angle makes sense. The gun was probably placed a bit too far to the side, thus it didn't hit the turret front at a perpendicular angle (i.e. 90°). I believe the impact angle written next to the HOT impact on the left-hand turret side is also supposed to say "85°", it is just hardly readable due to poor hand writing.

 

The fact that the turret armor was penetrated by the DM23 isn't surprising, given the impact location and the limited LOS there (orange line):

jMVau2R.png

 

Overall protection seems quite good. The gunner's sight weakspot was penetrated, but only barely so that a spall liner (or maybe the electronics of the gunner) would have stopped the residual penetration, crew would stay alive. Hull seems to be worse, but again all penetrations are "unlucky". Shot 5 (KE round at hull front) split the weldline, so it seems it hit the edge of the hull armor module rather than the center. Shot 6 (KE round at left-hand hull side) missed the armor skirt. So only one penetration by HOT (shot 1) seems to be "normal"/"fair".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, yes, it's seems resonable as explanation.

 

It's funny when we realize that all "big 3" NATO tanks have quite simmilar armour protection:

 

M1

turret:

400mm vs KE

750mm vs CE

Hull:

350mm v KE

750mm vs CE (+ hull fuel tanks protection) 

 

Leo 2A0-A4

Turret and hull:

350mm vs KE

700mm vs CE

 

CR1 Mk.1

turret:

435mmvs KE 

700mm vs KE

hull:

300mm vs KE

580mm vs CE

 

BUT - we must consider that NATO countries on trials hadused monoblock long WHA and DU rods not semi-partial steel whit tungsten slug (sub rods) like BM15 BM22 etc. So in reality 350mm for Leopard 2 was mucht more then performnce WarPac 125mm ammo -before 3BM32 and 3BM42 of course...

Share this post


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

 

Penetration at "normal" means perpendicular impact angle to the armor plate, so the 85° impact angle makes sense. The gun was probably placed a bit too far to the side, thus it didn't hit the turret front at a perpendicular angle (i.e. 90°). I believe the impact angle written next to the HOT impact on the left-hand turret side is also supposed to say "85°", it is just hardly readable due to poor hand writing.

 

The fact that the turret armor was penetrated by the DM23 isn't surprising, given the impact location and the limited LOS there (orange line):

jMVau2R.png

 

Overall protection seems quite good. The gunner's sight weakspot was penetrated, but only barely so that a spall liner (or maybe the electronics of the gunner) would have stopped the residual penetration, crew would stay alive. Hull seems to be worse, but again all penetrations are "unlucky". Shot 5 (KE round at hull front) split the weldline, so it seems it hit the edge of the hull armor module rather than the center. Shot 6 (KE round at left-hand hull side) missed the armor skirt. So only one penetration by HOT (shot 1) seems to be "normal"/"fair".

It should be noted that the CE with 136 mm is the HOT1 and should not be confused with the HOT2 which has 150 mm in SC warhead caliber an therefore another penetration performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

It should be noted that the CE with 136 mm is the HOT1 and should not be confused with the HOT2 which has 150 mm in SC warhead caliber an therefore another penetration performance.

But more or less we known a lot about HOT1 performances in two independent sources:

 

e5PW4jq.jpg

 

ntcgXfA.png

 

Pardon - HOT 2 in Meppen test is present :/

 

Share this post


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

It's funny when we realize that all "big 3" NATO tanks have quite similar armour protection:

 

IMO you are overestimating the M1 Abrams' armor based on all available source. There is a statement from CIA that "one version of the M1 turret is rated" at 400 mm vs KE, but it doesn't specify which version (M1A1 was in development at the time) nor wether this is the protection along the frontal arc or just directly from the front. Other US sources (Zaloga and that article written by a US Major comparing Soviet and US military hardware) put the tank's armor at 350 mm for the turret. The British FVRDE got data for the XM1 FSED prototype (when they considered buying the M1 Abrams as alternative to the MBT 80 and Challenger 1), and concluded that frontal armor was just 320 to 340 mm vs KE.

 

  • M1 Abrams (1980, 54.45 tonnes) turret frontal arc: 340 mm vs KE, 650-700 mm vs HEAT
  • Leopard 2 (1979, 55.15 tonnes) turret frontal arc: 350 mm vs KE, 700 mm vs HEAT
  • M1IP Abrams (1984, 55,34 tonnes) turret frontal arc: 380 mm vs KE, 900 mm vs HEAT
  • Leopard 2A4 (1988, 55.15 tonnes or 56.6 tonnes?):  turret frontal arc: 420 mm vs KE, 750-800 mm vs HEAT
  • Challenger 1 (1983, 59,95 tonnes or 62.5 tonens?): turret frontal arc: 435 mm vs KE, 700 mm vs HEAT

 

The M1 Abrams had the best all-round protection against shaped charges, with crew compartment being designed to withstand simulated RPG-7 at 45° angle and ammunition storage to resist the same threat at 90°, but roof armor was less resistant to 155 mm artillery fragments than the other two tanks (at the crew compartment at least). Challenger 1 had the worst hull armor, Leopard 2 the worst turret side armor, but best hull side armor, if the turret side armor remains unchanged from Leopard 2AV.

 

The M1 Abrams was tested against the worst round (XM579E4), while the Challenger 1 was likely tested against the best round (XL23A1 APFSDS).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe You have right but the only quite good source is this single CIA raport about erly M1 protection. And FMV raport whit explanation in shape : M1A1HA turret mixed whit M1 hull.  Im really far for trusting Zaloga, Osprey publishing etc for obvious resons... 

 

Despit I have my own - Damian - sources about Abrams and despite his personality propably he known the best in CEE about M1 (of cource as civilian can not military).

Of course i know this problem:

DkWP5lW.jpg

 

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

 

 

Share this post


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

Maybe You have right but the only quite good source is this single CIA raport about erly M1 protection. And FMV raport whit explanation in shape : M1A1HA turret mixed whit M1 hull.  Im really far for trusting Zaloga, Osprey publishing etc for obvious resons... 

 

Despit I have my own - Damian - sources about Abrams and despite his personality propably he known the best in CEE about M1 (of cource as civilian can not military).

Of course i know this problem:

DkWP5lW.jpg

 

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

 

 

Rolf Hilmes gives a turret mass of around 19000 kg for the original M1 tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Rolf Hilmes gives a turret mass of around 19000 kg for the original M1 tank.

 

Interesting - if is only 15 500 vs 19 000kg so 18% then I seriouslyl doubt if there is mucht RHA layers in M1 then in Leo2A0-A4 turret. In sucht case bigger KE protection in M1 then in Leo2A0 look less possible for me...

Share this post


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

And FMV raport whit explanation in shape : M1A1HA turret mixed whit M1 hull. 

 

That doesn'T make sense: It has been reported that the basic M1 hull is not capable of supporting the weight of the M1A1 (HA) turret, which is why only M1IPs and M1A1s were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. The suspension cannot support a weight of 62 tonnes without being upgraded. The M1A2 offered to Sweden must have been based on the improved M1A1 hull.

 

1 hour ago, Militarysta said:

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

 

The turret of a Leopard 2A4 has an empty weight of 15,500 kg (as seen in footage shot inside a KMW facility during the upgrade process from Leopard 2A4 to Leopard 2A5). The empty weight of a M1A2 turret is 21,622 kg.

 

Unless all additional upgrades (including switching the M68E1 tank gun with the 120 mm M256 smoothbore gun, adding 1,995 kg depleted uranium armor and upgrading the size of the turret cavities during the M1A1 upgrade) added only 1,122 kg (which is impossible), the value 20,500 kg is incorrect for an empty M1 Abrams turret. It seems likely that the weight value stated by Rolf Hilmes is correct - or closer to being correct.

 

The M1 Abrams has thinner frontal armor (~740 mm LOS from the front vs 860 mm LOS from the front), but thicker side armor. It is longer, wider and thus has a much greater internal volume and a larger armored surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 1:53 PM, SH_MM said:

But that is not made by a German company, but rather a British subsidiary of an American one...it is just a ceramic plate insert purchased during the 1990s for the German contingent during KFOR. There are various other supplier for ceramic armor in Germany.


Meggitt PLC is British. Bristol Armour, M. Composites and M. Aerospace are located in the UK.
The US subsidiary is Meggitt Defense Systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wiedzmin Thanks for posting those.

 

Couple of things I'd like to point out:

Spoiler

wRX1xS1_bQY.jpg

Leopard 2/3?
Did they actually perform tests, if so, what tank is this really?
I've seen some references to it before, so I really wonder what this thing is or if it was made.

 

Leopard 2 AV turret is rated to stop 120mm KE at 1500m in a 25° arc, but the hull has the same distance but without arc?
Why, wouldn't the hull be weaker considering the armour there was thinner and the turret(front) was quite beefy?

Unless this is really talking about the entire turret, including the sides and at 25° the sides become quite weak, which is why the turret is only rated for 1500m...?
 

Doing some quick calculations on the drawing you provided earlier: side turret is (30+4) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + 40 = 128mm of steel (assuming bulging plates are steel and not something else).

128mm @ 65° = 302mm LOS..... with airgaps and increase in protection from that, 350mm is plausible.

 

Perhaps this is why the turret is rated at 350mm?

Maybe if the angle was lower (15°), the turret would be rated "higher"?

Based on 2AV armour scheme, this definitely seems possible, is also somewhat backed up by US/UK stating armour protection is "unbalanced".

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?

Unlikely, leopard 2AV was only finished by 1976 (US trials), in 1974 they were still testing pt 14.

Most probably Milan was for leopard 2AV and series production and was at normal stand-off (so higher than 530-580mm of protection).

 

Spoiler

79BuKjqYo9E.jpg

Spall liner?????
Never seen any mention of this in leopard 2 before 2A5.

 

Skirt plates are probably early ones, according to friend of mine (loader 2A4) those weigh around 100kg or so, later ones seem to weigh more.

 

They say armour is designed to defeat threats over 60° frontal arc, but earlier German report states 50° and not 60° for 2AV, did they get info, or did they assume and make it up themselves?

136mm HEAT is HOT-1, penetration around 800m, potentially 900mm (claim from person I trust, probably optimum stand-off).

 

They "assess" armour protection, they did not get direct info and simply estimated it based on things they could see (holes taped over??)

They think multi-hit capability is not good, but if leopard 2 armour had that much steel, it will be better than NERA arrays in M1 as it has more structural strength......

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

 1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)

Did they say D tech?
Because only C tech was introduced in 1988......

Doubt D tech even exists for main armour, seems to only be referred to for skirts or wedges.

 

Spoiler

D_bhA1V2ziM.jpg

rrbq4SDxcA4.jpg

Interesting,  shot nr 1 penetrated at 30° and penetrated 80mm backing plate (extra protection for driver I assume?), but shot nr 2 at slightly steeper angle didn't penetrate other side with no reinforcement....

 

Shot nr 5..... hole of 40x30mm but the ammunition used has a 32mm core....?
Are we sure they used DM23?
In 1987 DM23 would've been 4 years old and DM33 is coming out, DM33 is 28mm at it's widest point and seems to better fit the hole, and as we all know, monobloc APFSDS leaves bigger holes than core is wide....

 

Shot nr 6, it penetrated the highly angled plate? Or just the sponson side plate?
Earlier they say vertical for sponson side and they don't use NATO angles but the reverse, so 10° would be almost vertical and not almost horizontal....

 

Shot nr 9, interesting, so sight was not fitted..... otherwise they would've said that it "hit the sight" or something along those lines, did they know how much residual penetration was left? Why else would they leave that remark? Is this the base version of the armour or the improved version (which they claimed had spall liner)?

Shot nr 10/11, same comments as @SH_MM, if my earlier comment about sight being removed is correct, then maybe gun was also removed, leaving big open space for KE round to pass into before reaching crew compartment through "shortcut".

 

 

Shot nr 13, wait, so HOT was defeated at 60° impact on turret side?
That's actually quite decent.....

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...

 

for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 

Just an FYI, but the UK never received actual information about leopard 2 protection levels prior to the 1990s trials in the UK, and Vickers would definitely not have received that.

So, this is UK assessment based on visual inspection (with limited access it seems) and little bit of info from Germany.

 

It's entirely possible they misidentified the KE round or even didn't understand/properly interpret all the information given to them.

(I mean seriously, 2" thick spall liner?????)

 

On 7/20/2019 at 2:34 PM, SH_MM said:

Interesting, thanks. So Germany assumed that the future 115 mm APFSDS could defeat as much armor as the 120 mm DM13 prototypes, while the US assumed it would only be on par with the old APFSDS rounds designed for the MBT-70...

Information from the middle east regarding T-62 performance may have influenced that a bit, most rounds there were 3BM4 IIRC, not exactly up to standard for the USSR and that could have played a role in the US' estimations.

 

16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

IMHO from this raport we can take quite good for Leopard 2A0 and 2A4 picture of the armour protection in middle 80s'. It was more then enought against WarPac ATGM's all types (including Sthurm-S)  and just enought to stop 3BM15, 3BM22, and meybe even 3BM26/29. But obviously against 3BM42 andd 3BM32 it was not enought. But both round had DOI in 1987 and 1988 as I remeber couse problem whit large scale production in CCCP.   

Depends how good 3BM26/29 would be against multi layered steel armour like this, at angles above 15° the core would seperate from the body, although compared with 3BM22, this would happen slower due to core being in the tail.

Also, if "350mm" is for "minimum" of 50° frontal arc, that doesn't mean at 0° the turret would be ~400mm.

I think the poor side protection on the turret keeps the protection in the 50° arc down, and thus doesn't properly represent the turret protection.

 

14 hours ago, Militarysta said:

It's funny when we realize that all "big 3" NATO tanks have quite simmilar armour protection:

-snip-

More like:

  • M1

turret:

350mm vs KE (XM579E1)

750mm vs CE

Hull:

350mm v KE (XM579E1)

750mm vs CE (+ hull fuel tanks protection) 

 

Leo 2A0-A4

Turret:

350mm vs KE (DM13) turret side?

580mm+ vs CE (Milan 1)

Hull:

350mm vs KE (DM13)

580mm+ vs CE (Milan 1)

 

CR1 Mk.1

turret:

435mmvs KE (XL23, front?)

700mm vs CE 

hull:

300mm vs KE (XL23?)

580mm vs CE

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

19t for M1, 16.9t for 2A4 (combat ready, metric)

IDK if the 19t is in metric or US short tons.

 

But considering the size discrepancy between them......
Attempted to scale properly, comparison with M1A1.

Spoiler

M1A1_vs_leo_2_size.jpg

 

 

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

That doesn'T make sense: It has been reported that the basic M1 hull is not capable of supporting the weight of the M1A1 (HA) turret, which is why only M1IPs and M1A1s were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. The suspension cannot support a weight of 62 tonnes without being upgraded. The M1A2 offered to Sweden must have been based on the improved M1A1 hull.

Agreed, M1A2 offered was probably improved M1A1 with improved armour to get to HA levels of protection (same weight anyway).

 

Share this post


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

Did they say D tech?
Because only C tech was introduced in 1988......

gbdxdYRPc-4.jpg

maybe my misunderstanding 

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

Did they actually perform tests, if so, what tank is this really?

there was many test rigs(mockups for firing trials) for L3 and L2/3

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

ull has the same distance but without arc?

not all versions of 2AV has heavy ballistic skirts 

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

128mm @ 65° = 302mm LOS..... with airgaps and increase in protection from that, 350mm is plausible.

spaced armour doens't work like "a+b+c" it can give both higher and lower levels of protection comapring to RHA of similar thickness 

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

(so higher than 530-580mm of protection).

530mm vs CE for 55 tonn tank is madness, this is almost level of object 172-2m (520mm vs CE for turret and hull), but again, i will post test firing on 2AV later, doesn't have much spare time 

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

Interesting,  shot nr 1 penetrated at 30° and penetrated 80mm backing plate (extra protection for driver I assume?), but shot nr 2 at slightly steeper angle didn't penetrate other side with no reinforcement.

brits wasn't allowed to examine all penetration, so some of this "80mm" etc, speculative conclusions based on inspection of tank after hits with sealed holes IIRC

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

Shot nr 5..... hole of 40x30mm but the ammunition used has a 32mm core....?

and ? you get deformed core, it can make hole any size you want 

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

It's entirely possible they misidentified the KE round or even didn't understand/properly interpret all the information given to them.

(I mean seriously, 2" thick spall liner?????)

bundeswehr doesn't have money at that time, but for trials you can insert diamonds inside tank if you want, because no one guarantees that someone will buy the offered options

 

as for "misidentified" etc i would advise not to build theories about the fact that "in fact there was a death star, and the tank is just wonderful and endured everything"

 

On 7/20/2019 at 6:37 PM, Willy Brandt said:

Yeah there are still some "Bristols"

what was german body armour plates(bulletproof, not flakvest's) at the time ? or there is none ?

 

12 hours ago, Scav said:

penetration around 800m

never was that high, all report gives 700-720.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

maybe my misunderstanding 

It seems they're referring to the wedges like on 2A5 etc, these would be introduced on the KVT in 1989:

Spoiler

unknown.png

It's not very well known, but KVT was already partially ready in 1989 and would be quickly converted to the IVT (which most pictures show).

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

there was many test rigs(mockups for firing trials) for L3 and L2/3

So, mostly experimental and just armour tests instead of an actual vehicle?

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

not all versions of 2AV has heavy ballistic skirts 

True, I guess I'd just expect them to write "0°" then.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

spaced armour doens't work like "a+b+c" it can give both higher and lower levels of protection comapring to RHA of similar thickness 

Yes, ofcourse, but considering the thickness of the plates, I doubt it ends up lower, most likely higher.....

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

530mm vs CE for 55 tonn tank is madness, this is almost level of object 172-2m (520mm vs CE for turret and hull), but again, i will post test firing on 2AV later, doesn't have much spare time 

Different requirements....
Plus, I meant more than 530-580mm, so probably around 600-650mm.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

brits wasn't allowed to examine all penetration, so some of this "80mm" etc, speculative conclusions based on inspection of tank after hits with sealed holes IIRC

Hm, so they weren't given this info, could explain some discrepancies.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

and ? you get deformed core, it can make hole any size you want 

Yes, but usually monobloc APFSDS leaves bigger holes than the core width, for it to leave a smaller hole it would've needed to be almost completely destroyed or broken up, just worth noting.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

bundeswehr doesn't have money at that time, but for trials you can insert diamonds inside tank if you want, because no one guarantees that someone will buy the offered options

as for "misidentified" etc i would advise not to build theories about the fact that "in fact there was a death star, and the tank is just wonderful and endured everything"

Thought it was worth pointing out.

Considering the brits weren't allowed to properly inspect the tank, there's a chance they weren't given the name of the round (or performance thereof).

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

never was that high, all report gives 700-720.

But is that with stand-off or without?

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

The 19 tons are metric tons.  When i present data I  always use SI/metric units.

Thanks, always good to double check ;)

Share this post


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

But is that with stand-off or without?

 

i posted graph from real tests of Milan and HOT warheads(rig even simulate spin of warhead during flight IIRC), 2CD - real stand off, 4CD and other optimal and not-optimal stand-off's

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...