Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

addition to previous page, 1st part of firing trials

 

 

Geschwindigkeitsmessungen

Bestimmung der V2 durch Extraploation.

 

Schussentfernungen

 

115 m fuer Typ D und E

2 kal. abstand fuer Typ A,B und C

 

A - 5’’  brl precision shaped charge 

B - 4,2’’  brl precision shaped charge 

C - 3,2’’ brl precision shaped charge 

D - 105mm APFSDS xm579e4 at striking velocity of 4858 ft/sec 

E - apc-m.(br412d mod) at striking velocity 3150 ft/sec

^^^ US requirements, what was penetration for all SC at 2 cal. stand-off i don't know, i only have british 127mm S4 charge, which give 580-590 at 250-300mm stand-off.

 

uteiKohgKGQ.jpg


 

Deutmaterial

  1. 1’’ dicke PSt-Bleche (MIL-S-13812-B) mit Brinellhaerte 340 kp/mm2

  2. ¼’’ dicke PSt-Bleche (nur bei Versuch 20)

Deutbleche wurden nicht bei allen Versuchen verwendet.


2. Einzelprotokolle 12.10.76

 

Beschussprotokoll

Schuss Nr.1 Vers. Nr.1

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 40

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 1080mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        360mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = LBoR(Leicht Beule ohne Riss?)

 

Schuss Nr.2 Vers. Nr.2

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 40

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 1110mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        600mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum glD(glatter Durchschuss) 15mm 

Durch die HL-Druckwelle wurde die Abdeckplatte uber dem tank in der kettenabdeckung eingedruckt 

 

13.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.3 Vers. Nr.3

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: B 4,2’’ 106mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 175 mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        470 mm von unten 

Ergebnis: Kampfraum= OM

 

Schuss Nr.4 Vers. Nr.4

Ziel : Linke Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 80 mm von unten

        365 mm von links  

Ergebnis: Kampfraum= OM

 

14.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.5 Vers. Nr.5

Ziel : Turm Links, Trennstelle Front/Seite (Profil und Schweissnaht)

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 150 mm von unten

      0 mm von links  

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD 18mm

Deutplatte glD 20mm

Deutplatee BoR(Beule ohne Riss?) (10mm tief)

Die Kettenabdeckung wurde(trotz Abdeckung mit einer 25mm dicken Platte) eingedtuckt, der Tank wurde beschadigt.

15.10.76

Schuss Nr.6 Vers. Nr.6

Ziel : Rohrblende, Frontseite

Flankwinkel: 0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 120 mm von rechts

        135 mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD 25mm

Splitterwirkung auf der Kampfraum-Ruckwand; maximale Eindringtiefe der Splitter ca=5mm, Wirkungskreis der Splitterwirkung ca. 500x500mm.

Es wurde kein Deutmaterial verwendet 


 

Schuss Nr.7 Vers. Nr.9

Ziel : Rechte Wannenseite (Kettenschutze)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenschurze

        375mm von vorn

        300mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

Merkmale Wannenseitenblech aussen: 110mm lang/10mm tief

 

18.10.76

Schuss Nr.8 Vers. Nr.10

Ziel : Rechte Wannenseite (Kettenschutze)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenschurze

        400 mm von vorn

        60mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = BoR 2(nicht sichtbar)

Merkmale Wannenseitenblech aussen: 110mm lang/21mm tief

Schuss Nr.9 Vers. Nr.8

Ziel : Kettenabdeckung, vorn rechts(Bereich Nische Fahrerluke)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   45mm vorn unten

        180 mm von Niche Fahrerluke(vorderes Blech)

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

 

Schuss Nr.10 Vers. Nr.7

Ziel : Rechte Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 45

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   230 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        75 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

 

19.10.76

Schuss Nr.11 Vers. Nr.11

Ziel : Rechte Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   550 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        315 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM


 

Schuss Nr.12 Vers. Nr.12

Ziel : Rechte Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   555 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        515 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

Schweissnaht zum Turm-Dachblech 900mm lang gerissen Senkrechte Schweissnaht (links von Treffer) 760mm lang gerissen 

 

21.10.76

Schuss Nr.13 Vers. Nr.13

Ziel : Zieleintichtung des Richtschutzen

Flankwinkel: 0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  Jm Linken Drittel des Gehauses 

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD

Nur leichte Markierungen am Turm-Ruckwand. Die Schildzapfenwand wurde gegen dier Rohrblende gepresst (Rohrblende bleibt jedoch beweglich) Rissbildung siehe Skizze

 zojVfbzf4b8.jpg

Anm(Aum?). Die Schutzklappen waren beim schuss geiffnet.

Bei Zerlegung des Panzers beobachten: War Schuss 13 durch Schuss 12 vorbelastet ?

 

Schuss Nr.14 Vers. Nr.14

Ziel : Linke Wannenseite(3.Kettenschurze)

Zielpunkt wurde von 1. auf 3. Schurze verlegt, weil sonst Kette im Strahlbereich

Flankwinkel: 20

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenshurze 

  320mm von vorn

250mm von oben

(Distanz zwischen Aufschlag und Durchslag = 2350mm)

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = glD 25mm

Sekundarwirkung

Linkes Tankgehause durchschlagen

12mm tief in Ruckwand(Triebwerksraum) eingedrungen

Schurze weitgehend zerstort, je 3 Schrauben der Schurzenhalter abgerissen

 

Anm(Aum?): Der Schuss wurde nicht gewertet, weil der Kampfraum nicht getroffen wurde

 

22.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.15 Vers. Nr.14R (Weiderholung)

Ziel : Linke Wannenseite(1.Kettenschurze) nicht nicht verschraubt

 

Flankwinkel: 20

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  1. Kettenshurze 

  150mm von vorn

265mm von oben

 

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = OM

Die Schurze wurde weitgehend zerstort. Der HL-Strahl durchdrang die Stützrolle und wurde zerstort (auf der Aussenseite des wannen seiten bleches wurden nur Kleine spritzer festgestellt)

 

Schuss Nr.16 Vers. Nr.15

Ziel : Mittlere Wannen-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel:0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 

    350mm von rechts

125mm von oben

 

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = OM

(Keine ausseren Beschadigungen) 

[/spoler]

 

p.s weird evaluation criteria "we accept /we don't accept it" 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Beschussprotokoll

Schuss Nr.1 Vers. Nr.1

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 40

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 1080mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        360mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = LBoR(Leicht Beule ohne Riss?)

 

Schuss Nr.2 Vers. Nr.2

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 40

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 1110mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        600mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum glD(glatter Durchschuss) 15mm 

Durch die HL-Druckwelle wurde die Abdeckplatte uber dem tank in der kettenabdeckung eingedruckt 

 

13.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.3 Vers. Nr.3

Ziel : Linke Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: B 4,2’’ 106mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 175 mm von vorn(Schweissnaht)

        470 mm von unten 

Ergebnis: Kampfraum= OM

 

Schuss Nr.4 Vers. Nr.4

Ziel : Linke Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 80 mm von unten

        365 mm von links  

Ergebnis: Kampfraum= OM

 

14.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.5 Vers. Nr.5

Ziel : Turm Links, Trennstelle Front/Seite (Profil und Schweissnaht)

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 150 mm von unten

      0 mm von links  

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD 18mm

Deutplatte glD 20mm

Deutplatee BoR(Beule ohne Riss?) (10mm tief)

Die Kettenabdeckung wurde(trotz Abdeckung mit einer 25mm dicken Platte) eingedtuckt, der Tank wurde beschadigt.

15.10.76

Schuss Nr.6 Vers. Nr.6

Ziel : Rohrblende, Frontseite

Flankwinkel: 0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 120 mm von rechts

        135 mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD 25mm

Splitterwirkung auf der Kampfraum-Ruckwand; maximale Eindringtiefe der Splitter ca=5mm, Wirkungskreis der Splitterwirkung ca. 500x500mm.

Es wurde kein Deutmaterial verwendet 


 

Schuss Nr.7 Vers. Nr.9

Ziel : Rechte Wannenseite (Kettenschutze)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenschurze

        375mm von vorn

        300mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

Merkmale Wannenseitenblech aussen: 110mm lang/10mm tief

 

18.10.76

Schuss Nr.8 Vers. Nr.10

Ziel : Rechte Wannenseite (Kettenschutze)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenschurze

        400 mm von vorn

        60mm von oben

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = BoR 2(nicht sichtbar)

Merkmale Wannenseitenblech aussen: 110mm lang/21mm tief

Schuss Nr.9 Vers. Nr.8

Ziel : Kettenabdeckung, vorn rechts(Bereich Nische Fahrerluke)

Flankwinkel: 30

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   45mm vorn unten

        180 mm von Niche Fahrerluke(vorderes Blech)

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

 

Schuss Nr.10 Vers. Nr.7

Ziel : Rechte Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 45

Munition: C 3,2’’ 81mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   230 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        75 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

 

19.10.76

Schuss Nr.11 Vers. Nr.11

Ziel : Rechte Turm-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   550 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        315 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM


 

Schuss Nr.12 Vers. Nr.12

Ziel : Rechte Turmseite

Flankwinkel: 25

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:   555 mm vorn Schildzapfenwand

        515 mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

Schweissnaht zum Turm-Dachblech 900mm lang gerissen Senkrechte Schweissnaht (links von Treffer) 760mm lang gerissen 

 

21.10.76

Schuss Nr.13 Vers. Nr.13

Ziel : Zieleintichtung des Richtschutzen

Flankwinkel: 0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  Jm Linken Drittel des Gehauses 

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = glD

Nur leichte Markierungen am Turm-Ruckwand. Die Schildzapfenwand wurde gegen dier Rohrblende gepresst (Rohrblende bleibt jedoch beweglich) Rissbildung siehe Skizze

 zojVfbzf4b8.jpg

Anm(Aum?). Die Schutzklappen waren beim schuss geiffnet.

Bei Zerlegung des Panzers beobachten: War Schuss 13 durch Schuss 12 vorbelastet ?

 

Schuss Nr.14 Vers. Nr.14

Ziel : Linke Wannenseite(3.Kettenschurze)

Zielpunkt wurde von 1. auf 3. Schurze verlegt, weil sonst Kette im Strahlbereich

Flankwinkel: 20

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  3. Kettenshurze 

  320mm von vorn

250mm von oben

(Distanz zwischen Aufschlag und Durchslag = 2350mm)

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = glD 25mm

Sekundarwirkung

Linkes Tankgehause durchschlagen

12mm tief in Ruckwand(Triebwerksraum) eingedrungen

Schurze weitgehend zerstort, je 3 Schrauben der Schurzenhalter abgerissen

 

Anm(Aum?): Der Schuss wurde nicht gewertet, weil der Kampfraum nicht getroffen wurde

 

22.10.76

 

Schuss Nr.15 Vers. Nr.14R (Weiderholung)

Ziel : Linke Wannenseite(1.Kettenschurze) nicht nicht verschraubt

 

Flankwinkel: 20

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage:  1. Kettenshurze 

  150mm von vorn

265mm von oben

 

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = OM

Die Schurze wurde weitgehend zerstort. Der HL-Strahl durchdrang die Stützrolle und wurde zerstort (auf der Aussenseite des wannen seiten bleches wurden nur Kleine spritzer festgestellt)

 

Schuss Nr.16 Vers. Nr.15

Ziel : Mittlere Wannen-Vorderseite

Flankwinkel:0

Munition: A 5’’ 127mm HEAT

Trefferlage: 

    350mm von rechts

125mm von oben

 

Ergebnis: Triebwerksraum = OM

(Keine ausseren Beschadigungen) 

[/spoler]

 

p.s weird evaluation criteria "we accept /we don't accept it" 

 

 

 

Likely refers to “claimed compliance/performance” and “demonstrated compliance/performance” where demonstrated means either objective quality evidence is provided, or the compliance/performance is measured as required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 10:55 AM, SH_MM said:

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

 

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:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 


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

 

 

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

 

Hi, would you be so kind as to tell me to which publication corresponds the "page 35" that you attach? it has very interesting info regarding the British MBT selection program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 1:53 PM, Wiedzmin said:

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

 

Given that it was known in February 1977 how much weight could be saved by replacing the fuel tanks with "continous spaced armor", it is possible that this array did not incorporate a fuel tank anymore. The Leopard 2AV was trialed in Fall of 1976 by the United States.

 

1 minute ago, Fernando Wilson L. said:

Hi, would you be so kind as to tell me to wich publication corresponds the "page 35" that yuo attach? it has very interesting info regarding the British MBT selection program

 

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank - 1998 to present: Owner's Manual by Dick Taylor (ISBN: 9781785211904).

Share this post


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

Given that it was known in February 1977 how much weight could be saved by replacing the fuel tanks with "continous spaced armor", it is possible that this array did not incorporate a fuel tank anymore. The Leopard 2AV was trialed in Fall of 1976 by the United States.

btw one more question

 

Schuss Nr.30 Vers. Nr.30

Ziel : Linke Turm- Vorderseite

Flankwinkel: 25 

Munition: E 100mm AP

Vz: 3128 ft/sec 953 m/s

Trefferlage:  Schuss ging 140mm zu weit nach links (immittelbar neben die Schweissnaht)

                      40 mm von links (schweissnaht)

                       200mm von unten

Ergebnis: Kampfraum = OM

 

Gerissene Schweissnahte:

Senkrechte Schweissnaht: von oben bis unten aufgerissen (max. 140mm breit)

Schweissnaht zum Turmdach: 570mm nach vorn

Schweissnaht zum Turmdach: 1580mm nach hinten

Schweissnaht zum Turmdrehkranz: vollkommen gerissen

 

Turmdrehring gebrochen

Turm lasst sich nur gewaltsam drehen

 

doest this mean that 100mm AP destroyed turret ring ? but turret can be turned with force or something like that ? 

 

 

and one more, turret front armour packs for 2AV - "Jalousiepanzerung", turret site - "Mehrfachschott" 

Share this post


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

doest this mean that 100mm AP destroyed turret ring ? but turret can be turned with force or something like that ? 

 

Yes, sort of. The 100 mm AP round broke the welding seam, which then jammed the turret ring. The turret still could be turned, but only using (external) force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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. 

Why would they analyse an armour package and do tests on it when that's not the armour package that is in the tank they are doing the other trials with?
They were sent the TVM for the trials, it makes little sense for them to test another armour package and not the TVM's, changes in module size and weight could affect mobility trials or even vision and other such things.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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...

"German model" being TVM (or KVT?) it has the add-on modules and thus shouldn't come as a surprise that it has better protection on both the hull and the turret.

Not quite sure what you mean to point out with this?

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

Those schematics are not detailed enough nor the same as those of the M1A2 where you can see the module being mounted (and not even that well), there being no difference doesn't mean much as they are not trying to represent the protection on the schematic itself, but merely using it as a way to indicate the location of the hits, like in that UK doc.

Spoiler

2482504_800.jpg?width=500&height=676

I think you'll agree that this is hardly an exact representation of the armour layout of a leopard 2A4.

 

It actually makes more sense to use slightly better modules than to change the base armour (with a very effective and probably expensive package as you have pointed out), as this would save costs and not add to them.

The wedges being flat would inevitably lead to different protection to the later bulged ones as the angle of impact would be different.

Fact is, we don't know what the "Swedish wedges" look like, but we do know that they were made in cooperation with IBD, the guys who made the first ones too.

Besides, how else can you explain the difference in protection?

10mm between the German model on the turret side and the Swedish model is too insignificant to be due to internal armour changes, same for the rest of the turret.

 

Only on the hull is there an 80mm difference for the glacis, which is too little of a difference for a change from B to C (~300mm to ~425mm) and even more so if we assume this "D" package was used instead of B....

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

And where are these reports?
Why else did the leopard 2A5 proto participate in the trials?

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

The changes are too small to be because they changed the internal armour from something like B to C.

And I never said the armour had to look identical, I think they actually tested modules similar to those on the actual 2A5 instead.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

That doesn't surprise me, there's the one slide that shows all the armour fitted to the Strv 122 compared to a normal 2A4 in yellow, it shows the side hull spaced elements being filled or changed.

Even the skirts were different between the 2A5 (some of which used the older C tech skirts) and the Strv 122 (which probably exclusively used the newer D tech skirts).

This amounted to an 80mm+ difference at 15-17.5°.

 

Strv 122 is actually quite likely to use C in both the hull and turret, as they were making brand new tanks anyway.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

Couple of issues with this:

  1. Entire projectile only weighs 4kg according to GD
  2. 26x600mm penetrator would have incredibly low density to achieve the 4kg total weight
  3. Some sources claim it was derived from DM33 and just upscaled or lengthened
  4. Germany didn't think it was sufficient and dropped it in favour of DM53
  5. Kotsch (a fairly decent source) states it isn't 26mm, which is most definitely correct based on pictures

Let's assume the penetrator weight alone is 3.6kg (fairly normal weight for the fin assembly etc), volume of the rod is 318.56cc, this means the density of the rod would need to be just 11.3(!)g/cc to achieve a rod weight of 3.6kg.....

This is WAY too low and thus unrealistic.

 

Based on pictures such as these:

Spoiler

DM43_OFL_F1_KEW-A1.png

Image result for DM43

Image result for DM43 APFSDS

We can deduce it is most definitely thinner than DM33, based on the known length and thickness of DM13 we can get a decent guesstimate at DM43's thickness, which is around 24mm on the non-threaded frontal part.

This would still mean a very, very low density, thus that is probably not the actual thickness but the jacket thickness.

Based on the weight, Kotsch's figures (admittedly quite a few of them are wrong, but DM43's are quite close to pictures), and similar rounds from this time period, it's likely that the actual rod thickness is around 20 or 21mm, with a jacket extending that to 24mm total.

This would not only make it more effective against composites than a monobloc round, but would keep the density of the core at a reasonable level.

Assuming the core actually weighs 3.4kg with the remaining 600g in the fins and jacket, that would give us a density of 18g/cc, totally reasonable and actually a density suggested in German patents before.


While the jacket would definitely help with structural strength of the rod while penetrating (even against K-5), I think they were instead trying to minimise the sectional density to prevent the K-5 from activating in the first place, add to this the increased velocity, and it might just be sufficient for K-5, though I personally doubt it was very effective.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

- 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.

It's entirely possible that they are referring to C tech, I strongly doubt it "only" had 425mm on the front of the turret as claimed by the brits, because it simply does not match the protection figures provided by the Swedish trials, nor does it make sense that the "improved" armour package didn't increase the frontal turret armour beyond B levels by any decent amount.

Looking at that proposed armour from B&V (is it actually fitted or not? @Militarysta kinda seemed to say that it was, but then you said it wasn't?....) the LOS thickness of the steel alone is more than enough to reach 425mm of protection in the frontal 60° arc of the front (again, excluding the side armour, it's obviously the weakest part of the turret).

 

So if they did end up increasing the frontal protection substantially (Swedish leaks indicate this), then it might just be C tech that stopped DM43.

Almost 20% of the frontal surface was equivalent to 550mm of RHA protection, it isn't a stretch to think the ballistic test was conducted to simulate a 2000m range, at which point the penetration of DM43 from the L44 would've been below 600mm at the vertical, possibly being defeated by an array equivalent to 550mm.

 

If there was a "D" tech main armour, I would seriously question how they managed to achieve substantially higher protection, with a LOS efficiency of around 0.85, compared to C tech, which came just three years prior....

That's not to mention the supposed increase in CE protection....

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

TOW is commonly known to be an error, HOT was indicated earlier, Milan same thing and the T-72 protection is also wrong as most sources say 300+ (350 for the 60-100-50 model).

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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...

He wasn't even being clear on what he meant, internal turret armour or add-on or both?
And he did make the 2A3 mistake which he should've had correct regardless, he's human and can make mistakes like the rest of them.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

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...

And did he have access to this kind of info?

Does he mention which generation or type of armour for both?
He could again be referring to C for the internal armour and D for the external armour.
Does he have any book on 2A4s etc?

 

So, one book says they changed internals, one magazine says the same and mentions third generation armour (C tech), then R.H makes a vague statement of turrets being modified with D tech.

Then there's 3 or 4 books that don't mention the internal armour being changed.

 

 

 

Edit:

Spoiler

CYFl6YRQAnI.png

That's a very complex armour configuration....
And did they use Gummi bears :P as spacers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

Leopard_2AV_Hull_armour_detail_explained

Did a quick calculation as to the steel LOS in the array, it's almost 400mm....?
FYI, the 15mm comes from the U-shaped blocks in the front, from the horizontal, it seems as if a projectile would hit one and clip another before exiting that part of the array, hence 15mm without the 2.6mm sheet metal plate at the back.

 

It's a rather impressive amount of steel, 393mm without even taking into account the effects of spacing etc, the 15° angled UFP is 81mm thick in steel or about 313mm LOS, then the glacis plate is ~323mm LOS.

 

All of this would be substantially better against KE than the XM-1s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 12:11 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Given that it was known in February 1977 how much weight could be saved by replacing the fuel tanks with "continous spaced armor", it is possible that this array did not incorporate a fuel tank anymore. The Leopard 2AV was trialed in Fall of 1976 by the United States.

 

 

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank - 1998 to present: Owner's Manual by Dick Taylor (ISBN: 9781785211904).

Thanks a Million!!  :-)

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...