Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

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

Ah, thanks, didn't know it was for Milan/HOT, which is for which?
 

Share this post


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

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?

 

The Leopard 2AV has full turret protection over a 50° arc, just like the Abrams according to British documents. The Leopard 2/3 has protection over a 60° arc. The series production Leopard 2 also has full turret protection over a 60° arc according to the Swedish leaks (or KMW was at least providing protection values for the 1979 model Leopard 2 from -30° to +30° from the turret centerline).

 

15 hours ago, Scav said:

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

 

Rolf Hilmes wrote that the base turrets of Leopard 2 tanks upgraded to the 2A5 configuration were modified with "D" technology armor. There was a German armor package capable to resist the 120 mm LKE1 (DM43) APFSDS without wedges offered as upgrade option to Leopard 2A4 users during the 1990s. There is more evidence that base armor in "D" technology was created than otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

gbdxdYRPc-4.jpg

maybe my misunderstanding 

 

Based on the following image, the "Type D" armor is refering to the follow-up armor package to the "Type C" armor tested in 1987:



14433_2000.jpg


Type B: 350 mm vs KE along the frontal arc,

Type C: 410-420 mm vs KE along the frontal arc,

Type D: not revealed, still in development at the time

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

not all versions of 2AV has heavy ballistic skirts 

 

Btw. the report on the 1977 meeting regarding weight of the Leopard 2AV mentions a weight of 735 kg for the proposed heavy ballistic side skirts (Kampfschürzen) of the Leopard 2AV. This seems a bit too much for the Leopard 2 series skirts based on my knowledge. Did one of the 2AV versions you've seen look like this (from a German patent):

 

eP6kJQm.png

 

Share this post


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

Rolf Hilmes wrote that the base turrets of Leopard 2 tanks upgraded to the 2A5 configuration were modified with "D" technology armor. There was a German armor package capable to resist the 120 mm LKE1 (DM43) APFSDS without wedges offered as upgrade option to Leopard 2A4 users during the 1990s. There is more evidence that base armor in "D" technology was created than otherwise.

I still disagree on this topic.

Besides, who says C tech can't stop DM43?

If that red graph from the Swedish files is C tech (pink matches with B tech and yellow with B + D-2, no place for "plain" D tech), then it sports roughly 550mm on the front of the turret, which might be sufficient against DM43.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Based on the following image, the "Type D" armor is refering to the follow-up armor package to the "Type C" armor tested in 1987:

And D tech was probably ready by the point the UK trials were held, which was in 1990-1991 (IVT was tested during this period and used D tech wedges on B tech base).

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Btw. the report on the 1977 meeting regarding weight of the Leopard 2AV mentions a weight of 735 kg for the proposed heavy ballistic side skirts (Kampfschürzen) of the Leopard 2AV. This seems a bit too much for the Leopard 2 series skirts based on my knowledge.

As I mentioned previously, ex-loader told me one guy can't (easily) lift those skirts up and that they weigh in the region of 100kg, 6x100kg +attachment method and the front + rear bits could just about reach this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 6:42 PM, Scav said:

I still disagree on this topic.

Besides, who says C tech can't stop DM43? 

If that red graph from the Swedish files is C tech (pink matches with B tech and yellow with B + D-2, no place for "plain" D tech), then it sports roughly 550mm on the front of the turret, which might be sufficient against DM43. 

 

I say that Type C armor cannot stop DM43 based on the available information. DM43 has a 600 mm long penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s. It should be enough to deal with armor supposedly having troubles with DM23 at close ranges. The LKE1 prototype nearly defeated the frontal armor of a simulated T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 ERA, i.e. "over 700 mm RHA", if one does care about such figures.

 

If the Leopard 2A5 kept Type C base armor, why did the Germans use old turrets from the earliest batches to create them? They could have just kept the old turrets and only modified the area around the EMES 15. But they didn't. Also why would Rolf Hilmes lie?

The image from the Swedish leaks shows five different colored areas in the graphs, suggesting there are five armor configuration. Unless you argue that these are refering to different configurations of add-on armor, there is one color without representation.

I agree with you that the yellow graph matches the "German model" (Type B armor with Type D add-on modules), but please take a look at the blue area.

It has less armor protection at 50% than the "German model", but much greater coverage with higher protection. This means that this armor somehow covers less area (like lacking the hull add-ons), but is better than Type B + Type D add-ons in terms of average coverage between 85% and 30%. If you pay attention to the gradients at the end of the graph, it becomes obvious that the yellow area would have higher protection at below ~25% coverage, i.e. a better turret front armor (if the gradients do not change). In other words the armor package represented by the blue graph covers less area and has weaker turret front armor, but higher protection at other areas. How is that possible in your opinion?

 

The only explanation aside the existence of a Type D base armor package (for which there are sources claiming that it existed) or multiple types of add-on armor, which however were never mentioned by any source and never has been spotted. Both TVMs use the same armor, the KVT was made with mock-up modules only.

 

On 7/22/2019 at 6:42 PM, Scav said:

As I mentioned previously, ex-loader told me one guy can't (easily) lift those skirts up and that they weigh in the region of 100kg, 6x100kg +attachment method and the front + rear bits could just about reach this.

 

That is an anecdote and hardly a source. Tank crews do not take of the skirts by themselves on a regular basis and without uusing a scale, I doubt that he can distinguish between 75 kg and 100+ kg.

 

@Wiedzmin, I have found a theory about the different steel types mentioned in the Leopard 2AV docs. Letter codes used for construction steel might be the explanation:

  • hh: gehärtet - high hardness
  • sh: geschält - hot rolled steel, turned (for extra smooth surface - might be an advantage when used in NERA?)
  • W: wetterfest - weather resistant
  • V: vergütet - steel with high UTS
  • C: kaltgezogen - cold rolled

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

 

I say that Type C armor cannot stop DM43 based on the available information. DM43 has a 600 mm long penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s. It should be enough to deal with armor supposedly having troubles with DM23 at close ranges. The LKE1 prototype nearly defeated the frontal armor of a simulated T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 ERA, i.e. "over 700 mm RHA", if one does care about such figures.

 

If the Leopard 2A5 kept Type C base armor, why did the Germans use old turrets from the earliest batches to create them? They could have just kept the old turrets and only modified the area around the EMES 15. But they didn't. Also why would Rolf Hilmes lie?

The image from the Swedish leaks shows five different colored areas in the graphs, suggesting there are five armor configuration. Unless you argue that these are refering to different configurations of add-on armor, there is one color without representation.

I agree with you that the yellow graph matches the "German model" (Type B armor with Type D add-on modules), but please take a look at the blue area.

It has less armor protection at 50% than the "German model", but much greater coverage with higher protection. This means that this armor somehow covers less area (like lacking the hull add-ons), but is better than Type B + Type D add-ons in terms of average coverage between 85% and 30%. If you pay attention to the gradients at the end of the graph, it becomes obvious that the yellow area would have higher protection at below ~25% coverage, i.e. a better turret front armor (if the gradients do not change). In other words the armor package represented by the blue graph covers less area and has weaker turret front armor, but higher protection at other areas. How is that possible in your opinion?

 

The only explanation aside the existence of a Type D base armor package (for which there are sources claiming that it existed) or multiple types of add-on armor, which however were never mentioned by any source and never has been spotted. Both TVMs use the same armor, the KVT was made with mock-up modules only.

 

 

That is an anecdote and hardly a source. Tank crews do not take of the skirts by themselves on a regular basis and without uusing a scale, I doubt that he can distinguish between 75 kg and 100+ kg.

 

@Wiedzmin, I have found a theory about the different steel types mentioned in the Leopard 2AV docs. Letter codes used for construction steel might be the explanation:

  • hh: gehärtet - high hardness
  • sh: geschält - hot rolled steel, turned (for extra smooth surface - might be an advantage when used in NERA?)
  • W: wetterfest - weather resistant
  • V: vergütet - steel with high UTS
  • C: kaltgezogen - cold rolled

 

 

 

I have the answer for @Wiedzmin to the different steel types and old dude @SH_MM is completely wrong with his theory:

The letters are used in the old German specification for armour steel TL-2350-0001 for different hardnesses where W is 400 to 450 HBW, V is for 440 to 490 HBW and C is for 340 to 390 HBW. The letters hh and sh are not German abbreviations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, why are you boys always discussing the pretty old stuff of Leopard 2 AV? Only two, to my knowledge, had been built. Nowadays we are talking about Leopard 2 A7V! So the "7" should be taken into discussion!

Share this post


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

I have the answer for @Wiedzmin to the different steel types and old dude @SH_MM is completely wrong with his theory:

 

As I wrote, I found this theory - it is not mine. I posted on a German-speaking forum and one of the moderators suggested this could be the appropriate abbreviations. Thanks for providing the correct explanations.

 

1 hour ago, Gun Ready said:

BTW, why are you boys always discussing the pretty old stuff of Leopard 2 AV? Only two, to my knowledge, had been built. Nowadays we are talking about Leopard 2 A7V! So the "7" should be taken into discussion!

 

Because it will take some 40+ years until actual blueprints and reports regarding the ballistics tests of the Leopard 2A7(V) will be declassified, the Leopard 2AV is as modern as it gets when it comes to declassified reports from the Bundesarchiv.

 

Also three Leopard 2AV hulls (PT19, PT20 and PT21) and four turrets were built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

 

I have the answer for @Wiedzmin to the different steel types and old dude @SH_MM is completely wrong with his theory:

The letters are used in the old German specification for armour steel TL-2350-0001 for different hardnesses where W is 400 to 450 HBW, V is for 440 to 490 HBW and C is for 340 to 390 HBW. The letters hh and sh are not German abbreviations.

 

 

interesting, thank you and how about "x" ?

 

Z6dUHdu.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Z6dUHdu. jpg

 

 

turret of L2AV, i hope i managed to avoid mistakes(if there any i will later re-upload corrected version), too complicated scheme, packages A,B,C,D same 190mm packages with special armour, but there is no 12mm plates package.

 

GwZM7Ze1GPE.jpg

GwDoRntZkQ8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5HcTq.jpg

 

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

4avEKzZ.jpg

there is no any words about 105mm DM23 and P.B, and there is no initial requirement for +-30 arc as i posted real requirements earlier, Milan is not 103mm and there is no info about how tests was done, static or live fire with real ATGW etc

Share this post


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

 

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

(...)

there is no any words about 105mm DM23 and P.B, and there is no initial requirement for +-30 arc as i posted real requirements earlier, Milan is not 103mm and there is no info about how tests was done, static or live fire with real ATGW etc

x2

I don't understand why is reson to make sucht draws based on data not avaible in this specyfic sources. IMHO better idea will be ad "based on multiple sources" itp No there is risk  that somebody will take this picture as orginally report draw.

Share this post


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

5HcTq.jpg

 

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

4avEKzZ.jpg

there is no any words about 105mm DM23 and P.B, and there is no initial requirement for +-30 arc as i posted real requirements earlier, Milan is not 103mm and there is no info about how tests was done, static or live fire with real ATGW etc

 

3 hours ago, Militarysta said:

x2

I don't understand why is reson to make sucht draws based on data not avaible in this specyfic sources. IMHO better idea will be ad "based on multiple sources" itp No there is risk  that somebody will take this picture as orginally report draw.

To clarify this point, I post these schemes in weibo for easy illustration purpose, I don't want to post original source pics because the weibo platform is a place full of marketing accounts, if you do not make any process in your posts then they will turn into other peoples money, that's what I dont want to see,and my blog is non-profit account, I only post message to my readers and if any one is interested in details can make comments below posts or PM me.

In short, it is made by environment.

 

As for MILAN, I know its core dia is 95mm, if you mean this point why you don't stress HOT isn't 136mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the old German specification for armour steel (TL 2350-0001): The allocation to hardness is the following

A, R and D   250 to 300

B                   310 to 360

C                   340 to 390

E                   400 to 450

X                   370 to 420

W                  400 to 450

V                   440 to 490

L                    250 to 300

Now @Wiedzmin you can perform the analysis for the old Leopard 2 AV.

Share this post


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

 

u81goXwqtcc.jpg

 

 

So for the Leo 2A5 and up, they just weld the old EMES hole closed? I thought I remembered something about “whole new turrets” or a “deep rebuild” of the 2A0-4 turrets to get them to 2A5 level. 

Share this post


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

So for the Leo 2A5 and up, they just weld the old EMES hole closed? I thought I remembered something about “whole new turrets” or a “deep rebuild” of the 2A0-4 turrets to get them to 2A5 level. 

 

There is a deep rebuild. It is not just as simple as welding the old front of the EMES 15 shut. The sight is raised, but a new armor module is inserted below it. The gun mount is redesigned with two hinged armor modules and a thinner mantlet. All armor modules are replaced with the latest generation of armor technology (Type D armor according to Hilmes), the FCS, TZF and PERI are replaced/upgraded, a spall liner is added on the interior, the hydraulic systems are replaced, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, guys life is funny...

Some user here meybe remeber DFI and 2012 or 2013 when one user from russia had describe "erly leopard 2 armour". I had draw (very inperfect :/) armour scheme of this armour based on his description:

 

C20NDfF.jpg

 

 

Most peoples there ignored this descripsion as fake etc.  And now the funny part - it's almoust exatly B&V armour choosen finnaly  for Leopard 2A0. The changes area minimal - and armour in above layout is suitable for hull. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

I say that Type C armor cannot stop DM43 based on the available information. DM43 has a 600 mm long penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s. It should be enough to deal with armor supposedly having troubles with DM23 at close ranges.

Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23?

Spoiler

D_bhA1V2ziM.jpg

Hull was penetrated once, which is entirely reasonable given that my estimates based on the Swedish leaks suggest around ~425mm on the UFP for C tech, DM23 should be sufficient for this, by contrast, only shot number 12 penetrated the turret cheek and this was most likely because it exited the main armour array into the gun area before it hit the back wall.

According to my previously mentioned estimates, the turret front is around 550mm, though I have to point out that even then the percentages don't reach the values from the Swedish leaks, indicating that it could be slightly higher than this.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

The LKE1 prototype nearly defeated the frontal armor of a simulated T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 ERA, i.e. "over 700 mm RHA", if one does care about such figures.

Yes, and how did it "nearly" defeat it?
As we can see from this:

Spoiler

unknown.png

Even DM33 did a decent enough job and managed to punch through parts of the K-5 (to the right of the gun), so we really need more details.

Besides, the two protection types are completely different, not sure how you can compare them 1 to 1.....

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

If the Leopard 2A5 kept Type C base armor, why did the Germans use old turrets from the earliest batches to create them? They could have just kept the old turrets and only modified the area around the EMES 15. But they didn't. Also why would Rolf Hilmes lie?

He may not have lied at all, just made a mistake.

The reason why I'd use the earliest turrets possible is that they would be in the most need for refurbishment and if there were plastics utilised in the turrets (which would seem to be the case if they used NERA or atleast some form of it), then it might've degraded the most and be in need of replacement.

By that same logic, they would've needed to refurbish the entire turret and that would mean taking out the armour inserts and replacing the degraded parts, obviously the steel itself would've been fine and could be reused...

If there is such a thing as D tech main armour and if it did provide a noticeable protection increase over C, it would've been substantially more expensive than B tech and I frankly doubt that they would upgrade the base armour of the turret to an even more potent armour type if the turret already achieved it's protection goals with B tech as a base.
It would've made much more sense to adopt the hull add-on instead as this would bring the entire tank up to spec and would probably cost less as well.

 

Also, considering B + D-2 already achieves remarkable levels of protection and the D-2 got changed for a better version in the Mannheim specification, C tech as base would've already made it pass the requirement, let alone some type of even further improved base armour....

C tech offered an improvement of 20-35% over B, with add-ons I'd imagine that gap would increase further (comparing B + add-on and C + add-on), so why would there be a need for a D tech base?

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

The image from the Swedish leaks shows five different colored areas in the graphs, suggesting there are five armor configuration. Unless you argue that these are refering to different configurations of add-on armor, there is one color without representation.

I agree with you that the yellow graph matches the "German model" (Type B armor with Type D add-on modules), but please take a look at the blue area.

It has less armor protection at 50% than the "German model", but much greater coverage with higher protection. This means that this armor somehow covers less area (like lacking the hull add-ons), but is better than Type B + Type D add-ons in terms of average coverage between 85% and 30%. If you pay attention to the gradients at the end of the graph, it becomes obvious that the yellow area would have higher protection at below ~25% coverage, i.e. a better turret front armor (if the gradients do not change). In other words the armor package represented by the blue graph covers less area and has weaker turret front armor, but higher protection at other areas. How is that possible in your opinion?

IMO:

Pink -> B tech ("confirmed")
Red -> C tech (indicated by circumstancial evidence)
Yellow -> B + D-2 ("confirmed")

Blue -> B + D1/3

Green -> C hull + D1-3, B(or C) turret + D1-3

 

Not entirely sure when you mean by blue having less protection at 50% than the "German model"?
At 50% it has around 650mm protection while yellow ("German model" I guess?) has 525mm.

I don't think you can just extrapolate the gradients beyond what the graph shows from the ones that come before, as you can see from the yellow, graph, the gradients can change drastically.

Plus, I don't see how a normal 2A4 with D main armour could possibly reach the levels of protection that B + D-2 show, the LOS simply isn't good enough.

 

Rather, I think that the reason for blue merging with yellow left of 400mm is because it ( the add-ons) don't cover as much of the tank as D-2 does, possibly because the LFP or some other small area isn't quite as covered.

Or, it could be that they actually match and the gradients are equal at this point....
In any case, I think the additional protection blue offers over yellow has to do with the hull protection, more so than turret protection.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong and blue indicates they utilised C tech for the hull as base as well as different add-on, which would also explain the gap.

 

They might even throw us a curveball and utilise different add-ons for both hull and turret, we don't know.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

The only explanation aside the existence of a Type D base armor package (for which there are sources claiming that it existed) or multiple types of add-on armor, which however were never mentioned by any source and never has been spotted. Both TVMs use the same armor, the KVT was made with mock-up modules only.

You can quite clearly see that the add-on which got adopted on the Strv 122 or 2A5s is quite different compared to the TVMs, the turret is most notably different.

The hull could also be different, thicker plates perhaps, that wouldn't show up on pictures unless you get a close up and compare them directly.

 

Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

 

What is most curious though, is that some sources claim the base armour of the TVM was changed:

Spoiler

unknown.png

But we know that the TVM had B as base..... yet was made of an 8th batche vehicle.

So, that begs the question: did some authors confuse this info and think that the 2A5  also received these changes? Not realising that on the TVM it was probably a change from C to B.....?

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

That is an anecdote and hardly a source. Tank crews do not take of the skirts by themselves on a regular basis and without uusing a scale, I doubt that he can distinguish between 75 kg and 100+ kg.

Yes, it's an enecdote, just like how another loader lost one of his skirts on a 2A6 and went looking for it on the range with another crewmate.

It's still interesting.

 

On 7/27/2019 at 5:33 PM, Gun Ready said:

BTW, why are you boys always discussing the pretty old stuff of Leopard 2 AV? Only two, to my knowledge, had been built. Nowadays we are talking about Leopard 2 A7V! So the "7" should be taken into discussion!

Always useful to go back and look at the origins, it'll always be relevant to know the baseline.

 

On 7/28/2019 at 1:45 PM, Wiedzmin said:

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

On 7/28/2019 at 2:11 PM, Militarysta said:

x2

I don't understand why is reson to make sucht draws based on data not avaible in this specyfic sources. IMHO better idea will be ad "based on multiple sources" itp No there is risk  that somebody will take this picture as orginally report draw.

x3

Yeah, I agree, it'd be nice if we wouldn't adapt schemes and make "fake" ones.

 

On 7/28/2019 at 12:06 PM, Wiedzmin said:

Link broken unfortunately.

 

22 hours ago, Lord_James said:

So for the Leo 2A5 and up, they just weld the old EMES hole closed? I thought I remembered something about “whole new turrets” or a “deep rebuild” of the 2A0-4 turrets to get them to 2A5 level. 

2A5s for the Netherlands and Germany were old turrets that were refurbished, for Strv 122, Leopard 2HEL and Leopard 2E brand new turrets were made (no ammo hatch on the side).

They pretty much had to cut up the entire turret though, and supposedly even then some additional changes were made later on in tanks like the leopard 2HEL or E.

 

8 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Most peoples there ignored this descripsion as fake etc.  And now the funny part - it's almoust exatly B&V armour choosen finnaly  for Leopard 2A0. The changes area minimal - and armour in above layout is suitable for hull. 

Did I miss something?
The B&V armour did get chosen for 2A0?
 

Share this post


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

Some user here meybe remeber DFI and 2012 or 2013 when one user from russia had describe "erly leopard 2 armour". I had draw (very inperfect :/) armour scheme of this armour based on his description:

 

The source of this claim is a 2006 Russian book citing a Soviet intelligence report about this armor being tested during the 1970s.

 

However it doesn't add up, when looking at the thickness and weight. The author either confused angles or only provided data for a part of the armor array (i.e. only one module of multiple?). The side turret armor mentioned in the same paragraph by the Russian author is a lot thicker than what was considered for the Leopard 2AV according to Wiedzmin.

 

Leopard 2AV (rejected variant):

  • 30 mm steel + 4 mm bulging plate
  • 12 mm steel + 4 mm rubber + 4 mm bulging plate
  • 3 x (12 mm steel + 4 mm + 1.5 mm bulging plate)
  • 40 mm steel

For a total of ~130.5 mm steel, assuming the bulging plates are made of steel

 

Armor described by the Russian author (unless my notes are incorrect):

  • 3 x (25 mm high-hardness steel + 5 mm  rubber + 3 mm medium hardness steel)
  • 40 mm steel + rubber and medium hardness steel plate
  • 40 mm steel

This equals to more than 164 mm steel for the side armor.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23? 

 

In the table listing the firing results? Three out of six KE impacts resulted in bulges - aka a near penetration. Just a little bit more powerful ammunition (or a hotter environment, a shorter distance or a less optimal angle) and these could have turned into penetrations. The other three impacts resulted in penetrations - although as I noted earlier, these were unlucky/unfair shots based on the impact locations (not passing through whole turret array, hitting weld line on hull, missing the heavy side skirt module).

 

The DM43 APFSDS was stopped by the armor offered for the upgrade of Leopard 2A4 even before reaching the last layers of the array. So your estimate of 550 mm equivalent protection for the 860 mm thick frontal turret armor isn't sufficient to explain why less than 700 mm special armor stop the DM43.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

Yes, and how did it "nearly" defeat it?

 

It passed through the simulated Kontakt-5 ERA module, the outer steel plate, the composite module and through ~half of the back plate. This probably would represent probably 700-900 mm equivalent protection against the DM33 APFSDS in the Swedish graph - assuming that the highest relative protection levels are achieved in the areas covered by Kontakt-5.

 

Supposedly the main armor used by Germany to simulate the T-80U was actually based on the T-80UD prototypes with more effective ceramic inserts rather than the cellular polymere armor of the original T-80U model (at least this is confirmed for other German trials).

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

Even DM33 did a decent enough job and managed to punch through parts of the K-5 (to the right of the gun), so we really need more details. 

 

What? The red area is showing where the DM33 can penetrate the turret, there is zero overlap with the Kontakt-5 modules - except a tiny bit at the lower left side, where no composite armor is behind.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

The reason why I'd use the earliest turrets possible is that they would be in the most need for refurbishment and if there were plastics utilised in the turrets (which would seem to be the case if they used NERA or atleast some form of it), then it might've degraded the most and be in need of replacement. 

 

So... what about the hulls then? They also feature NERA, but they weren't refurbished and remained in use (Leopard 2A4 turrets with Type C armor were mounted on them). So somehow the old plastics didn't need to be replaced? There is not a single source stating that the original armor of the turrets was kept, there are sources directly saying it was replaced. Yet for some unknown reason you seem to think that the Type B armor was kept and there were multiple types of add-on armor, despite their being no proof and sources & facts directly contradicting you.

 

E.g. the turret of the Leopard 2A5 weighs 19 tonnes empty and about 20.5 tonnes full. The wedges weigh less than 1.5 tonnes according to the Dutch military (each turret front wedge weighs 500 kg; both side wedges should weigh less than a single front wedge, given the much lower thickness and low coverage). Where do you think the additional weight does come from? How can you say "the author probably made a mistake" when he specifically mention that the whole process (using old turrets and replacing their armor inserts, while using new hulls with already good armor) was done to maximize the protection level!

 

And why would KMW advertise an armor upgrade with a date (1991) , if it wasn't in service on any tank by that date (despite the year coincidentally matching the eight production batch of Leopard 2s, which are proven to at least have Type D armor skirts, but are not proven to have Type B or Type C base armor). Your theory about this refering to the Leopard 2A5 prototypes is incorrect, as the KVT received proper armor modules in 1990 (after two years of wooden mock-ups).

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

If there is such a thing as D tech main armour and if it did provide a noticeable protection increase over C, it would've been substantially more expensive than B tech and I frankly doubt that they would upgrade the base armour of the turret to an even more potent armour type if the turret already achieved it's protection goals with B tech as a base.
It would've made much more sense to adopt the hull add-on instead as this would bring the entire tank up to spec and would probably cost less as well. 

 

And you know the protection requirements ("goals") of the Germany army for the Leopard 2A5? No, you do not. Do you know the price for the armor modules (base armor and/or add-on)? No, you do not.

 

The hull armor upgrade was scheduled, if Russia didn't turn out to be friendly to the rest of Europe (until the annexion of Crimea) and NATO didn't expand eastwards, it would have been adopted.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

Plus, I don't see how a normal 2A4 with D main armour could possibly reach the levels of protection that B + D-2 show, the LOS simply isn't good enough.

 

LOS thickness alone is pretty irrelevant, it is a combination of multiple factors that matters.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

You can quite clearly see that the add-on which got adopted on the Strv 122 or 2A5s is quite different compared to the TVMs, the turret is most notably different. 


The TVMs were prototypes, not finished products. That's why the armor looks different, not because it is a different type/class of add-on armor. It was not finished and represented the state of development at the time.

 

As for your pictures - they are not really connected to the topic. The first three come from a really bad source, which includes multiple incorrect claims (such as the Leopard 2 "winning" the British Chieftain replacement program and only being rejected for political reasons, while British sources clearly state that there were multiple technical issues including the impossibility to integrate Dorchester into the Leopard 2A4 and the lack of protection provided by the German Type B and Type C armors. The author is a photograph, he doesn't have the required technical background (unlike people like Hilmes).

In the first photo, the text doesn't say anything about the base armor.

In the second photo, the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with a fabric cover at the edge of the wedge, which can be seen in numerous other photos in the book, this is the only reason why the armor looks odd.

Third photo just mentions that Strv 122 has additional roof and hull armor compared to the German configuration. The rest of the photos, like the previous ones, is not relevant to the discussion.

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

But we know that the TVM had B as base..... yet was made of an 8th batche vehicle. 

 

You always say stuff like that as if it was proven. We know for a fact that the Leopard 2 TVMs do not have Type B base armor, simply given the fact that they were based on Leopard 2 tanks from the eight production batch, while the last one to utilize Type B armor was the fifth.

 

The KVT with hull and turret modules (incl. 1.3 tonnes roof armor) had a combat weight of 60.51 tonnes. The TVMs weighed 62.5 tonnes (incl. the same roof armor). The series production model for the German army has a combat weight of 59.7 tonnes (more than the KVT without roof armor!).

 

3 hours ago, Scav said:

Yes, it's an enecdote, just like how another loader lost one of his skirts on a 2A6 and went looking for it on the range with another crewmate.

 

My understanding is that the heavy ballistic skirts of the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 are heavier than the ones used on the Leopard 2A4 (Type B armor) - they original ones were made to be folded up and were much thinner (110 vs 150 mm).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

In the table listing the firing results? Three out of six KE impacts resulted in bulges - aka a near penetration. Just a little bit more powerful ammunition (or a hotter environment, a shorter distance or a less optimal angle) and these could have turned into penetrations. The other three impacts resulted in penetrations - although as I noted earlier, these were unlucky/unfair shots based on the impact locations (not passing through whole turret array, hitting weld line on hull, missing the heavy side skirt module).

 

The DM43 APFSDS was stopped by the armor offered for the upgrade of Leopard 2A4 even before reaching the last layers of the array. So your estimate of 550 mm equivalent protection for the 860 mm thick frontal turret armor isn't sufficient to explain why less than 700 mm special armor stop the DM43.

I have a hard time believing that an array less than 700mm thick can stop DM43 when at the same time it supposedly defeats K-5 + T-80UD turret armour.
DM43 doesn't seem to have any built in mechanism for dealing with heavy ERA, it's a light, thin rod that goes very fast, so unless it simply didn't trigger the K-5, it wouldn't be much better at defeating it than DM33 apart from the extra velocity and length.

M829A1 was defeated by K-5 on a T-80U, M829A1 is longer than DM33, heavier, but slower, so it's probably only slightly worse than DM43.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

It passed through the simulated Kontakt-5 ERA module, the outer steel plate, the composite module and through ~half of the back plate. This probably would represent probably 700-900 mm equivalent protection against the DM33 APFSDS in the Swedish graph - assuming that the highest relative protection levels are achieved in the areas covered by Kontakt-5.

 

Supposedly the main armor used by Germany to simulate the T-80U was actually based on the T-80UD prototypes with more effective ceramic inserts rather than the cellular polymere armor of the original T-80U model (at least this is confirmed for other German trials).

Was this on the cheeks from the front, or the cheeks from the side?
Did it actually trigger the K-5?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

What? The red area is showing where the DM33 can penetrate the turret, there is zero overlap with the Kontakt-5 modules - except a tiny bit at the lower left side, where no composite armor is behind.

That is the area that I mentioned...
It's right at the edge of the internal cavity.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

So... what about the hulls then? They also feature NERA, but they weren't refurbished and remained in use (Leopard 2A4 turrets with Type C armor were mounted on them). So somehow the old plastics didn't need to be replaced? There is not a single source stating that the original armor of the turrets was kept, there are sources directly saying it was replaced. Yet for some unknown reason you seem to think that the Type B armor was kept and there were multiple types of add-on armor, despite their being no proof and sources & facts directly contradicting you.

The hulls were used to carry relatively new turrets and weren't part of the "main reaction force", obviously these hulls were outdated yet not upgraded, definitely because of costs.

Plastics don't go bad from one day to the next, it's a gradual process and for what those hulls would be used, it was probably not considered worth the money, a lot of these vehicles would be later on sold as training vehicles or additional equipment to countries such as Turkey, Greece, etc...

 

There's plenty of sources making no mention of internal armour changes, yet talking about the new additional armour (which is said to be "fourth" generation or "D technology" armour).

The only other source I've managed to find that corroborates the packages being replaced is one that talks about third generation armour (AKA, C tech), and this is from the armor magazine...

Rolf Hilmes is the only one that seems to mention "D" main armour being used, and I cannot find this book anywhere (at a reasonalbe price) to confirm.

 

Rolf Hilmes makes mistakes just like every other author, it's entirely possible he mixed the letters up or intended to say the armour was changed to "C" instead of "D".

Spoiler

unknown.png

Here he says HOT penetrated 800mm ( @Wiedzmin found info indicating otherwise), Milan penetrating 500mm (it's slightly more), TOW 600mm (430mm for the original one), I-TOW 860mm (real one around 600mm).

 

Spoiler

unknown.png

He also claims this is what the Merkava front hull looks like, even though it doesn't appear to be correct.

 

Yes, he's an excellent author, but that doesn't mean he's always right or doesn't make mistakes.

 

As for the add-ons changing, you can clearly see the turret add-ons changed quite a bit from TVM to 2A5.... I don't need to point that out.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

E.g. the turret of the Leopard 2A5 weighs 19 tonnes empty and about 20.5 tonnes full. The wedges weigh less than 1.5 tonnes according to the Dutch military (each turret front wedge weighs 500 kg; both side wedges should weigh less than a single front wedge, given the much lower thickness and low coverage). Where do you think the additional weight does come from? How can you say "the author probably made a mistake" when he specifically mention that the whole process (using old turrets and replacing their armor inserts, while using new hulls with already good armor) was done to maximize the protection level!

Between 2A4 (B tech) and 2A5 turret there's a 3.6t difference, which means 2.1t are unaccounted for when we exclude the wedges.

There's also the new mantlet with multiple parts (probably a decent weight increase), changing of the optic placement (which means slightly more armour there), the EWNA, spall liner, perhaps a slightly changed turret roof, new storage baskets at the rear, radio in the old hydraulic pump area (which was removed), etc.

Quite a lot of changes, if they account for all the weight difference, I don't know, but it's hard to say without knowing the numbers.

 

He can easily make a mistake by meaning to point out that add-on modules are D tech and accidentally also saying the internal ones are too.

There's like 4 other books that I have, which make no mention of changed internal armour, but do mention the add-on modules and the tanks using old turrets.

Atleast two of these also make mention of new skirts being adopted (which is a very insignificant thing and only relates to batch 6/7 hulls, not batch 8 hulls).

 

If they were doing this to "maximise" protection level, then why didn't they adopt the hull add-on too?

Even a B tech hull with add-on would be better than a normal C tech hull.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

And why would KMW advertise an armor upgrade with a date (1991) , if it wasn't in service on any tank by that date (despite the year coincidentally matching the eight production batch of Leopard 2s, which are proven to at least have Type D armor skirts, but are not proven to have Type B or Type C base armor). Your theory about this refering to the Leopard 2A5 prototypes is incorrect, as the KVT received proper armor modules in 1990 (after two years of wooden mock-ups).

Because in 1991 they would have the add-ons ready?

Obviously before that time, they wouldn't necessarily know what they'd look like.

Batch 8 in multiple books is stated to only change the skirts, not the main armour.

You'd think main armour would be more important to mention, especially if it came with a weight increase like you propose is the reason for the "missing" weight between 2A4 and 2A5.

 

There's even one book that was made before the 2A5 was finalised and shows the "2A5" to be a 2A4 with improved armour...

Spoiler

unknown.png

This shows that even at this point there was confusion on what exactly the 2A5 would be.

 

Every book so far mentions that in the 6th batch there was new armour introduced as well as new skirts, why would they omit this for the 8th batch if that was the case again?

Spoiler

27686366187_ff93b2c5e4_b.jpg

Hilmes makes a mistake here, batch 5 is NOT 2A3s, but 2A4s....

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

Image result for leopard 2 6th batch

 

Yet, not one book mentions the armour itself being changed in the 8th batch.

Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

Image result for leopard 2 8th batch

 

Not one mention of internal armour changes.

 

As for Hilmes' claim of D technology in the turret base (the one I could find on the web):

Spoiler

Leo2_hilmes_krapke_panzer_technologie

Translation: "For the conversion to the Leopard 2A5, the oldest turrets (1-4th batch) are taken and modified with the most modern D-technology into KWS-turrets.

He doesn't mention the add-ons in this sentence specifically, and thus he treats the entire turret including add-ons as the same thing, which could either mean both the add-ons and the internal armour is "D tech" or he is referring to the add-ons only.

It could be interpreted both ways.

I wouldn't exactly call this definitive evidence.

 

Is there another time he talks about this?

 

Anyway, I think it's evident that if many (if not all) authors mention with the 6th batch that the base armour + skirts changes, they would do the same for the 8th batch if  it was the case.

No author mentioning the base armour being changed in the 8th batch, either means no author knew about this (but then how/why did they know about the 6th batch change?) or it means it simply didn't happen.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

And you know the protection requirements ("goals") of the Germany army for the Leopard 2A5? No, you do not. Do you know the price for the armor modules (base armor and/or add-on)? No, you do not.

Protection requirement was to defeat DM53, either from the L55 or the L44.

L44 was proven to be met in the Swedish leaks, and if we are to trust the rumours regarding the Greek trials, perhaps also with the L55.


I doubt the price of the hull add-on would be more expensive than this "magical" D tech for the turret base.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The hull armor upgrade was scheduled, if Russia didn't turn out to be friendly to the rest of Europe (until the annexion of Crimea) and NATO didn't expand eastwards, it would have been adopted.

Along with a complete redesign of the turret for the 140?
 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

LOS thickness alone is pretty irrelevant, it is a combination of multiple factors that matters.

So, you're telling me that somehow less than 700mm of LOS can defeat an APFSDS capable of defeating 700mm+ RHAe?

Even when the M1A2 with 2t DU can only do 600mm RHAe out of ~760mm LOS, and even the T-80U with K-5 supposedly only barely stopped this round?

 

It would need to use something similar to K-5 but better, which I highly doubt.

Souds like magic fairy dust to me.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The TVMs were prototypes, not finished products. That's why the armor looks different, not because it is a different type/class of add-on armor. It was not finished and represented the state of development at the time.

You lost me there, how does the armour not looking the same, with different angles, different thicknesses (LOS) mean it isn't different?

The Swedes specifically mentioning "their" armour (different add-on) performed better and was made (in coorperation) by the same company that made the initial wedge design (IBD)?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

As for your pictures - they are not really connected to the topic. The first three come from a really bad source, which includes multiple incorrect claims (such as the Leopard 2 "winning" the British Chieftain replacement program and only being rejected for political reasons, while British sources clearly state that there were multiple technical issues including the impossibility to integrate Dorchester into the Leopard 2A4 and the lack of protection provided by the German Type B and Type C armors.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/

Hmm, even former UK tank officer seems to agree however....
 

Spoiler

CR2_Trial_3.png

CR2_Trial_4.png

The UK trial was to be held in 1990 but was delayed due to the Gulf War, and ended up happening in 1991, when the IVT and perhaps even the TVM were already completed....
So, yes, it's actually quite probable the Leopard 2 Improved won the trial itself (Swedes considered it better than the M1A2, doubt the UK would think otherwise), this also means they (probably) did get the info about the protection of D tech.

Which would be the only area where the leopard 2 improved would not be automatically considered better than Challenger 2.

 

And as we "know" from the Greek trials, the rest is vastly better, with a good possibility of the armour also being better.

The one big difference between these two in terms of survivability is the ammo in the turret...

That could be the sole reason the survivability on CR2 was considered superior, not exactly more important than all the other benefits of the leopard 2.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The author is a photograph, he doesn't have the required technical background (unlike people like Hilmes).

And as I pointed out, Hilmes can make mistakes too.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

In the first photo, the text doesn't say anything about the base armor.

In the second photo, the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with a fabric cover at the edge of the wedge, which can be seen in numerous other photos in the book, this is the only reason why the armor looks odd.

Third photo just mentions that Strv 122 has additional roof and hull armor compared to the German configuration. The rest of the photos, like the previous ones, is not relevant to the discussion.

Perhaps because it didn't get changed?

You're missing the fact that the angles are different compared to the TVM....
The sides on the TVM are flat, the wedges on the front are slightly differet too and don't have the cut-outs.

All the pictures are relevant as all of them talk about the add-on armour, but not at all about the base armour, just like no book seems to talk about the base armour of the 8th batch being different yet mentioning the skirts are....

 

If nobody talks about the armour changing, despite them mentioning it before on a different variation, maybe it's because nothing got changed?

In the same manner that nobody mentions the UFP armour on the T-54 getting changed or remaining the same on the T-55, evidently this is because it didn't get changed.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

You always say stuff like that as if it was proven. We know for a fact that the Leopard 2 TVMs do not have Type B base armor, simply given the fact that they were based on Leopard 2 tanks from the eight production batch, while the last one to utilize Type B armor was the fifth.

Except the Swedish leaks say so....?

TVM was sent over and was the tank they analysed, it was made of the 8th batch, yet apparently had B tech base.

Unless you think they actually sent over the KVT, despite several sources saying otherwise.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The KVT with hull and turret modules (incl. 1.3 tonnes roof armor) had a combat weight of 60.51 tonnes. The TVMs weighed 62.5 tonnes (incl. the same roof armor). The series production model for the German army has a combat weight of 59.7 tonnes (more than the KVT without roof armor!).

Is that the weight with wooden mock up modules or actual armour modules?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

My understanding is that the heavy ballistic skirts of the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 are heavier than the ones used on the Leopard 2A4 (Type B armor) - they original ones were made to be folded up and were much thinner (110 vs 150 mm).

Yes, they are, atleast several books mention them being heavier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 5:55 PM, SH_MM said:

tw. the report on the 1977 meeting regarding weight of the Leopard 2AV mentions a weight of 735 kg for the proposed heavy ballistic side skirts (Kampfschürzen) of the Leopard 2AV. This seems a bit too much for the Leopard 2 series skirts based on my knowledge. Did one of the 2AV versions you've seen look like this (from a German patent):

 

 

 
L2AV hull from a top, there is more problems with hull because there is not much detailed drawings of it + it changed during trials, side screen only drawed as a 3 spaced plate with total thickness of block 100mm(L2A4 have +- same side blocks)
 
for example hull front
 
Quote

As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire.

 


The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening.

The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes.

The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.

 

 
1,5mm bulging plate was drawed only for upper left side, but i think i similar for the right side because it's same structure 
njNSbRD.jpg
 
 
 
just delete space before "jpg"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Is that the weight with wooden mock up modules or actual armour modules?

 

The weight figure is from spring of 1991, when the KVT's mobility tests were made, so it already featured the actual armor modules (which it received in 1990). Five tonnes of wood (at least the cheaper sorts of wood that grow in Germany) would also have a much greater volume than the simulated add-on armor modules.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Except the Swedish leaks say so....?

TVM was sent over and was the tank they analysed, it was made of the 8th batch, yet apparently had B tech base. 

 

You are speculating, the Swedish leaks say nothing like that. They say that the German model - such as the model that Germany wants to buy - has Type B base armor. That they analysed the TVM (rather than relying on armor modules and informations supplied by Krauss-Maffei) or that the German model would be equal to the TVM is never stated there. 

 

According to Hilmes, only constant "nagging" of the German army lead to the construction of "hybrid tanks" (i.e. combining hulls from the last production batches with upgraded turrets) with maximized protection, before that a cheaper option was considered. Given that the "German model" in the Swedish leaks has better hull armor than the Leopard 2A4 with Type C armor, what does this tell us about the turret armor...

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

You're missing the fact that the angles are different compared to the TVM....
The sides on the TVM are flat, the wedges on the front are slightly differet too and don't have the cut-outs.

 

That is because these are prototypes. The Swedish leaks show the side armor of the wedges to be identical between the German model (which you claim to be the TVM, which had flat sides during the Swedish trials) and the Swedish model. Both have the flat sides based on the thickness visible in the top-view. The sloped wedges were first added to the TVM 2 mod., developed between 1991 and 1992. The main focus of the TVM 2 mod. was weight and cost reduction in order to stay within the weight limit agreed upon by the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland during a conference in Mannheim (hence it was called the Mannheimer Konfiguration). This didn't improve protection, but downgraded protection (by e.g. removing the hull and turret roof add-on armor modules), i.e. it doesn't make sense to speculate that the turret add-on armor was improved over the original TVM 2 configuration with flat-sided wedges.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

The UK trial was to be held in 1990 but was delayed due to the Gulf War, and ended up happening in 1991, when the IVT and perhaps even the TVM were already completed....

 

Prototypes of the Leopard 2A5 were completed at the time, but the decision to eliminate the Leopard 2 from the competition was already made years earlier. We know from declassified UK documents (aka government reports) that "Leopard 2 won British trials" is a lie.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

The Swedes specifically mentioning "their" armour (different add-on) performed better and was made (in coorperation) by the same company that made the initial wedge design (IBD)?

 

The add-on armor at the turret and hull doesn't have different thickness. If you read R. Lindström's presentation and the old version of his website (via web archive), you'll notice that he never stated that the add-on armor of the Leopard 2 was replaced/improved. He only stated that all tanks were tested with armor developed by Åkers Krutbruk and IBD Deisenroth. A short look at the old website of Åkers Krutbruk (via web archive) reveals that they acquired the MEXAS licence from IBD Deisenroth.

 

The term "swedish armor" by itself doesn't mean "they replaced the add-on armor with identical looking one, which somehow happens to be better despite having the exact same dimensions and weight" nor does it mean that the actual armor was developed by Sweden, given that Åkers had the licence for MEXAS. It can also mean that this was the armor chosen for Sweden.


That said, Hilmes suggest that the main changes in survivability between the Leopard 2A5 of Germany and the Stridsvagn 122 is the hull, i.e. among other facts that it features spall liners, supposedly some titanium elements for weight saving and the hull and roof add-on armor modules. According to a Danish tanker (Denmark choose the Leopard 2A5DK based on the Swedish trials, after they were given access to the test data), the side armor of the hull is different between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

So, you're telling me that somehow less than 700mm of LOS can defeat an APFSDS capable of defeating 700mm+ RHAe? 

Even when the M1A2 with 2t DU can only do 600mm RHAe out of ~760mm LOS, and even the T-80U with K-5 supposedly only barely stopped this round? 

 

That's the thing with RHAe: It is depending on the exact interaction between armor and projectile: there is no way to estimate the performance of modern ammo just by looking at one single generic RHAe figure. E.g. when fired from the L/55 smoothbore gun, the DM53 can defeat certain armor arrays that reach 1,000 mm RHAe against older types of APFSDS ammo, despite it being only able to defeat 700 mm steel armor.

 

Unlike claimed by you, LKE1/DM43/OFL-1/KEW-A1 was designed with optimizations against special armors and ERA. That's why the round is still in use today and even has been ordered just this year by Taiwan for their future M1A2 tanks. That it performs better against Kontakt-5 than M829A1 is no wonder, because it has a thicker rod (26 mm) and is made of tungsten, which has a higher stiffness than DU, i.e. it is less likely to be deformed/shattered by heavy ERA.

 

For the sake of this discussion, lets ignore "Leopard 2A4 with Type D armor" discussion. We had that often enough and not moved past. You'll say "but the books mention it was only the skirts that were Type D armor", I'll point out that that the books do not say the base armor remained unchanged/old. You'll argue with the weight of the M1A2, I'll point out that the late Leopard 2A4's weight has been stated as 56.5 metric tons by multiple source and that it has a much narrower turret... this goes on and on and we won't find a consensus.

So let's move on and ignore the Leopard 2A4 for a few moments:

- Even if the Leopard 2 from 1991 still was fitted with Type C armor, this doesn't change the fact that there could have been Type D/fourth generation base armor as mentioned by Hilmes. It remains a fact that a flat, box-shaped armor module was able to resist LKE1/DM43 without the penetrator reaching the last ~quarter of the armor array and that this was offered as upgrade option to several countries operating older versions of the Leopard 2 (which is why I know about this: the relevant documents were classified at a relatively low level because said countries didn't buy the armor upgrade, so informations could be leaked even by lower levels of the respective armies) Maybe this armor was never fitted to the Leopard 2A4 as base armor - this doesn't change the fact that the Leopard 2A5/Stridsvagn likely has such base armor, based on its weight.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Along with a complete redesign of the turret for the 140?


Yes, but it would have been a new turret rather than a redesign.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:
  Reveal hidden contents

unknown.png

This shows that even at this point there was confusion on what exactly the 2A5 would be. 

 

At the time this was written, it might have been perfectly reasonable to assume that the designation would changed, based on the history of the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, which had received lots of new designations even for less deep modernizations/upgrades.

 

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Between 2A4 (B tech) and 2A5 turret there's a 3.6t difference, which means 2.1t are unaccounted for when we exclude the wedges. 

There's also the new mantlet with multiple parts (probably a decent weight increase), changing of the optic placement (which means slightly more armour there), the EWNA, spall liner, perhaps a slightly changed turret roof, new storage baskets at the rear, radio in the old hydraulic pump area (which was removed), etc. 

Quite a lot of changes, if they account for all the weight difference, I don't know, but it's hard to say without knowing the numbers.

 

He can easily make a mistake by meaning to point out that add-on modules are D tech and accidentally also saying the internal ones are too.

There's like 4 other books that I have, which make no mention of changed internal armour, but do mention the add-on modules and the tanks using old turrets.

Atleast two of these also make mention of new skirts being adopted (which is a very insignificant thing and only relates to batch 6/7 hulls, not batch 8 hulls). 

 

The KVT has a combat weight of 60.51 metric tons including 1.3 metric tons roof armor, ~1.2 metric tons hull armor (est.) and a bunch of additional components that didn't make it into the series model. This means that the naked KVT (i.e. the tank without add-on armor modules) weighed less than 56 metric tons. The Leopard 2A5 as formerly operated by Germany and currently operational in Poland has a weight of 59.7 metric tons or roughly 58.2 metric tons without add-on armor modules at the turret. The KVT mounted more new components than the series production model, has the same changes regarding mantlet and gun sight placement, also has the EWNA (which btw. is supposed to be lighter than the previous hydraulic system), spall liners (incl. spall liners in the hull), the new storage boxes, the new track skirts, etc,

 

Comparing the Leopard 2A5 to the Leopard 2A4 with Type B armor doesn't make sense, given that we do not know the exact weight of the non-armor changes - e.g. how much each change beside the turret add-on armor adds to the weight difference. Hardened steel roadwheel caps, spall liners, EWNA, the rear drive camera, the extended storage boxes made of aluminium, etc. all are unknown factors. These factors are irrelevant for comparing the KVT with Type B base armor and the series production model (with apparently Type D base armor), as there likely wasn't any change in weight regarding them (aside of the fact that the KVT mounted a few additional components like the suction ventilation system for the engine and the compartmentalized hydraulic system).

 

It is very simpple to see that the 2.1 metric tons weight differences that you seem to have identified cannot be attributed to the EWNA, storage boxes, spall liners, etc.: the KVT weighed only 60.51 metric tonnes. A naked KVT minus 2.1 tonnes "unaccounted weight" would end up lighter than the Leopard 2A0 from 1979! Btw. the weight difference between an empty Leopard 2A5 turret and an empty Leopard 2A4 turret is 4.25 metric tons, not 3.6...

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

If they were doing this to "maximise" protection level, then why didn't they adopt the hull add-on too?

Even a B tech hull with add-on would be better than a normal C tech hull.

 

The plan was to have hulls with Type C armor + add-on armor along the road. That's better than Type B armor + add-on armor.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Rolf Hilmes makes mistakes just like every other author, it's entirely possible he mixed the letters up or intended to say the armour was changed to "C" instead of "D".

 

Sure, every author makes mistakes. But you are just speculating on him exactly making a difference at this place. Your examples for his previous mistakes are also bad. You are using his original book from 1984 and argue that it is wrong without even having a proof that the sections your criticize contain any errors.


Yes, HOT didn't penetrate 800 mm with built-in stand-off, but it can penetrate that much armor at optimal stand-off (based on the British interpolation of test firings conducted at different stand-off). I posted the graph earlier in this exact topic:

XMR9GCq.jpg

Between 6 and 7 calibers stand-off distance, the HOT ATGM should reach about 800 mm. This is also the value which is listed as penetration for HOT at the WTS Koblenz, which is run by the Bundeswehr. It doesn't represent battlefield conditions, but that is likely a value used by its manufacturer to appraise the system ("up to 800 mm penetration"). In his original book, Hilmes provides sources for pretty much everything he claims (unfortunately he stopped doing that after working for the BWB, because a lot of his sources weren't public). Merkava 1's armor layout is sourced from an Israeli source and it is clearly stated that it is a sketch. Maybe he made an error when drawing the sketch due to an incorrect understanding of the translation, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as you are using a book from the 1980s citing tons of sources to discredit his statements about a program where he was actually involved in...

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

There's plenty of sources making no mention of internal armour changes, yet talking about the new additional armour (which is said to be "fourth" generation or "D technology" armour).

The only other source I've managed to find that corroborates the packages being replaced is one that talks about third generation armour (AKA, C tech), and this is from the armor magazine...

 

The author from the article of the ARMOR magazine is a Dutch freelance photographer called Gerard van Oosbree. He has no authority on the matter. The source he cites for the the replacement of the base armor is a brochure written by a German journalists. It is not bad, but hardly an authority in itself.

 

A contemporary special of a German military magazine on the Leopard 2A5 written by Michael Scheibert, a Bundeswehr officier who served 73 years before retiring and wrote numerous articles on German military hardware, tactics and other military related topics wrote in regards to the armor: "Einbau von Schutzpaketen neuer Technologie im Turmgehäuse und Anbau von Vorsatzmodulen an der Front und an den Flanken des Turmes;" (Integration of protection modules [made with] new technology into the turret structure and addition of external add-on modules at the front and flanks of the turret). He furthermore mentions that despite using the newest (!) armor technology, the weight of the Leopard 2A5 had to be increased to nearly 60 metric tons to meet the demanded protection levels. Newest armor technology doesn't sound like Type B armor from 1979...

 

On 7/31/2019 at 3:38 PM, Scav said:

Was this on the cheeks from the front, or the cheeks from the side?
Did it actually trigger the K-5?

 

There was only a photograph of an armor module representing the turret front, it included the ERA. No photograph of the armor module after penetration, but a sketch comparing the penetration depth of LKE 1 and LKE 2 prototypes against the turret armor. Based on the sketch, both rounds passed through the simulated Kontakt-5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUS1ck-hOHc.jpg

 

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"

25.04.75

it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 

 

 

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

but it can penetrate

it can't

sMdg1NP7AMQ.jpg

 

HOT

 

18Xiwe4aW0o.jpg

 

MILAN

 

and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

Share this post


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

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"

25.04.75

it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 

 

Nice. So the 1973 patent from Krauss-Maffei more or less shows the basic layout of the Leopard 2AV hulll armor, just simplified for the purpose of secrecy.

4wP66OT.png?1

 

PECO is a German company making bolts and stuff, they are specialized on making components (bolts, nuts, etc.) combining metal and plastics/polymers. So it seems that Krauss-Maffei used some of PECO's bolts and reinforced them with a further weld bead ("Schweissraupe").

 

23 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

it can't

 

Well, the whole story is a bit more complex IMHO. I don't say that HOT can penetrate 800 mm steel under battlefield conditions, but with increased stand-off distance in laboratory conditions. Your graphs are fantastic, but they are showing a limited amount of data points - the fact that HOT penetrates 780 mm at 4 charge diameters and 771 mm at 6 charge diameters does not mean that these two values represent the absolute maximum in achievable penetration, which one can see when interpolating the data points (rough sketch):

l4nYFiy.png

 

Does the green line reach 800 mm? IMO it would, but it likely isn't an exactly accurate representation of the issue. If one adds different steel types into the mix (shaped charges are also affected by steel hardness), temperature and air pressure and I see no issue with HOT reaching a penetration/crater depth of 800 mm. Also note that the British already label the axis of table with "mean depth of penetration" & "comparison of mean crater profiles with change of standoff".

For a company advertising its missiles, this can lead to a published penetration value of "up to 800 mm".

 

One also has to wonder how accurate published values have to be. Is saying "it penetrates 800 mm steel" for a missile that penetrates "only" 780 mm steel (= 97.5%) at 4 charge diameters wrong or is it an acceptable margin of error?

Share this post


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

imited amount of data points

this graph builded on trial data

 

9QFLUfCGj-o.jpg

 

crater - how deep jet get in to the stack, so for Rd no 1222 crater is 725mm long, as "clean penetration" you can count 9x76mm plates = 684mm for example

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

just simplified for the purpose of secrecy.

let's say it's not simplified, it shows another(later imho) type of armour, i will post it later

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

s a German company making bolts and stuff, they are specialized on making components (bolts, nuts, etc.) combining metal and plastics/polymers. So it seems that Krauss-Maffei used some of PECO's bolts and reinforced them with a further weld bead ("Schweissraupe").

just noticed, i messed up the marks for bolts and fasteners(handgrif)(need to swap makrs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside

 

As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.

 

this is description for this draw 

 

oPEcaPNoAV8.jpg

 

but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report

 

CYFl6YRQAnI.jpg

 

YrxTKBHNukY.jpg

 

as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 

 

eUo6qidH8YU.jpg

 

tank cut-away show fuel tank

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...