Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

A "stepped plate" won't change anything, while being rather weight-inefficient and covering pretty much no arc (the side armor and the mantllet lack "stepped plates").

Why wouldn't it?
It would prevent shrapnel, small projectiles and possibly even APFSDS from riding up the armour and continuing to hit the cupola or whatever's behind it.

Spoiler

dQ3DuOWoaQk.jpg

The Brits found this to be an issue on the Chieftain, so it makes sense that these plates could prevent it and serve such a purpose.

 

23 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

If you believe the stepped plates were added for protecting the cupola of the loader (even though that doesn't make sense) how do you draw conclusions about the underlying base armor?

 

The frontal armor of the Leopard 2 overlaps the turret ring, so it has to be accessed from the top. The side armor (as discovered by noisy Leopard 2 users trying to improve their own tank industry) can be replaced from the bottom. The mantlet armor was replaced and most definetly the armor at the EMES-15's gunner's sight (which required major redesign, so no "stepped plates").

You mean the side armour that was cut open from above?

Spoiler

Image result for Leopard 2 factory

If they for some reason decided to increase the height of the modules (like you propose by saying they didn't bother with adding a single plate on top to cover the three different modules, yet they are somehow taller than the ones on the 2A4) then why wasn't this done for the sides?

 

I don't get it, why would this one composite package be taller than the rest and stick out?
Why would this one package not be covered by a single plate to smooth it over?

And even weirder is why it was only done on the back of the composite package and also covered the area behind the composite package....

If those stepped plates indicate there's composite right underneath then they extended the composite package backwards and left an area infront of them.....


Maybe I'm misuderstanding what you meant, but those plates definitely do not cover the entire composite package...

Spoiler

Turret armor left side

 

There's a decent amount of space between the loader's optic and the turret front interior wall, yet these stepped bits go right up to it.

(It's a 2A4, but the loader's periscope didn't change)

Spoiler

leopard_2e_spanish_105_of_192.jpg

So.......

 

No, I don't think it has anything to do with the armour package honestly.

 

47 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

According to a Canadian solider, a Leopard C2 surived a hit by an unspecified RPG on the gun mantlet in Afghanistan (or rather a "volley"). This photo is supposed to show the result:

o2gRBoP.gif

Is that the fuse of the warhead stuck in the mantlet?
Boy, that was lucky, that mantlet is thin as all hell.....

 

Spoiler

leopard_1a5_abl_59_of_81.jpg

leopard_1a5_abl_60_of_81.jpg

leopard_1a5_abl_61_of_81.jpg

I imagine they can put something in there, but it's still rather little material in the way of that RPG....

He's right to smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

PG-7V,

i'm interested only in hull front, so i think it's only PG-7V proof, but why the added only 36mm on UFP(6mm steel + 30mm "box") and 134mm to LFP...

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

AFAIK there is a further layer (of ceramics?) added ontop of the UFP, as shown here.

there is 3 main detail on hull front(no overlap), all of them 36mm thick, LFP 134mm thick, don't have turret modules at the moment

PmpBWSyx2sw.jpg

the one you makred as a "EFP protection" is a toolbox(there is 2 toolbox, one on left and one on right side) "module F700 tool box Drawing No.: 564 570 000 0"

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

AFAIK there is a further layer (of ceramics?) added ontop of the UFP, as shown here.

maybe this is what inside of 30mm "box"

Share this post


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

i'm interested only in hull front, so i think it's only PG-7V proof, but why the added only 36mm on UFP(6mm steel + 30mm "box") and 134mm to LFP...

My guess is that the LFP is thinner (50mm) and has less angle. Definitely strange though. Still, hull front is quite inferior compared to metal polymer blocks on T-55M/T62M, which can at least make the tank immune up to PG-7VS and resistant to VL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

ull front is quite inferior compared to metal polymer blocks on T-55M/T62M

EwXvtTPq3oA.jpg

2fKvoqQ2nwQ.jpg

 

sides maybe better( maybe because fuel tanks + 80mm armor and spacing could give some protection on T-62, i gave a quote from the british report as an example, but it’s not detailed, and unclear it’s just a fuel tank or a complex structure.  ) but durability of kit debatable

 

old CG grenades is 300-350mm pen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About this Leopard-1 upgrade... UFP is curious... Maybe I fail to understand some very obvious thing, but my conlcusion... Does the UFP make any sense at all? Ok, we have a 6mm cover plate, 30mm box, then 70mm armor, all at 60 degrees.  Thats 212mm LOS. How on earth can that protect against ANY RPG except RPG-2? This armor is absolutely hopeless against the ancient (1969) PG-7M. And I very much doubt it can do anything even against the oldest PG-7V. That thing has 260mm penetration. Unless the 30mm box has some magic contents, I do not see how it can be effective. Yes I fully know this is a very simplistic approach, but I do not know much about Mexas armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Unless the 30mm box has some magic contents, I do not see how it can be effective

NERA or ERA. a single 3/3/3mm thick ERA plate at that standoff would likely protect against PG-7V, and 30mm is probably enough to cram in 2 NERA layers back to back. The gap to the 70mm RHA plate is standoff.

That's one option, anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, heretic88 said:

About this Leopard-1 upgrade... UFP is curious... Maybe I fail to understand some very obvious thing, but my conlcusion... Does the UFP make any sense at all? Ok, we have a 6mm cover plate, 30mm box, then 70mm armor, all at 60 degrees.  Thats 212mm LOS. How on earth can that protect against ANY RPG except RPG-2? This armor is absolutely hopeless against the ancient (1969) PG-7M. And I very much doubt it can do anything even against the oldest PG-7V. That thing has 260mm penetration. Unless the 30mm box has some magic contents, I do not see how it can be effective. Yes I fully know this is a very simplistic approach, but I do not know much about Mexas armor.

 

It's quite possible that so thin version of MEXAS is quite effective at Leopard 1 against shaped charges with up to 310mm penetration.

Without any ERA or NERA.

 

But I think the main purpose of that add-on could be protection against 40 x 365mm APFSDS which lacks in case of standard Leo 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 5:40 PM, Scav said:

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....

 

7Me81j1.jpg

 

According to the Brits, Type D base armor is a thing.

 

Share this post


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

According to the Brits, Type D base armor is a thing.

You don't honestly think that out of ~700mm LOS (60° arc....) they can get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE right?

Even assuming this is from direct front that 1200mm CE is just absurd in combination with the already very high 600mm KE.

 

Not to mention the supposed "no weight penalty".....


This most probably refers to the wedges, those can reach the figures quite comfortably, and considering this is an early statement they were probably being carefull with their estimates.

The date even corresponds with 2A5 adoption and not the 1992 leopard 2A4 batches.

 

But to think this talks about some kind of internal armour is ludicrous, what are they using? Fairy dust?

 

D type exists, sure, but in what form is the question.

Share this post


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

This most probably refers to the wedges, those can reach the figures quite comfortably, and considering this is an early statement they were probably being carefull with their estimates.

The date even corresponds with 2A5 adoption and not the 1992 leopard 2A4 batches.

 

But to think this talks about some kind of internal armour is ludicrous, what are they using? Fairy dust?

 

You are getting ridiculous :rolleyes: It literally says Type D armor was offered as drop-in packs for the turret, not as external armor modules.

 

West-Germany offered this to persuade the British Army to buy the Leopard 2A4 as Chieftain replacement and later buy the Type D armor modules as retro-fit option, an offer made after the Leopard 2 with Type C prototype armor failed to meet the claimed protection (stopping 120 mm DM23 from 200 m distance) in 1987 in front of an audience including a British delegation (the British opinion on these firing trials was posted earlier by Wiedzmin).

This solution was rejected by the British Army, because even with the projected protection level (i.e. the claimed 600 mm RHAe vs KE), it still was considered to fail at meeting the required protection levels due its the ballistic holes (gunner's sight weakspot and large size of the gun mantlet). Only then the Leopard 2A5 with re-designed gun mantlet and external armor modules started coming in focus. The Challenger 2 was apparently required to reach 500 mm RHAe vs KE and 800 mm RHAe vs CE; which then was uprated (or an increase was at least considered) to 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 900 mm vs CE.

 

As for the protection levels: this is obviously the projected protection, given that the document is from 1987/1988. One has to be careful with the claimed performance, as West-Germany didn't want to reveal anything without a MoU. It might have been the talk of a single soldier/scientists that was considered enough. The late Leopard 2A4 and the variant of the Leopard 2A5 placed in service (not accounting the add-on armor modules) were heavier than the Leopard 2 with Type C armor. There is however one variant of flat/internal armor that was offered in the 1990s as upgrade option of old Leopard 2A4 variants that could stop the LKE1 APFSDS. The claimed HEAT protection is awefully close to HOT-2 at opimal stand-off...

 

Btw. while the Brits assessed the Type B armor to provide protection equal to 350 mm steel against KE rounds, they also said that according to Germany it stopped 125 mm steel APFSDS (with WC slug), which according to the Brits could penetrate 380 mm of steel armor at 1,000 m and 420 mm point-blank. So protection is very variable, always depending on what round is used as reference. DM23 (with 420 mm RHA penetration at 200 m) was considered to be equal to Soviet 125 mm tungsten APFSDS with 475 mm penetration into steel point-blank and 440 mm at 1,000 m.

 

 

In terms of technology, it is possible to achieve such a major gain in protection while staying at a comparable weight. The Leopard 2's Type C armor was tested eight years after the Type B armor entered service and increased KE protection against monobloc tungsten penetrators by 20%. The Type D armor was expected six/seven years after the trials of Type C armor, so a similar increase in armor protection per weight might not be impossible. According to a declassified British documents, the Challenger 1's Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of 1.3 against APFSDS rounds. If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36.

 

On 9/13/2019 at 11:12 AM, Wiedzmin said:

btw is there any description why swedish and danish L2 uses different kind of side skirts than germans and dutch(i remember about swedish report, but...) ?

 

Never seen any description, but it is either a different protection requirement or related to different width limitations of the railway cars (folding down armor panels vs completely unmounting them to reduce width even further).

 

On 9/5/2019 at 9:19 PM, Zadlo said:

But I think the main purpose of that add-on could be protection against 40 x 365mm APFSDS which lacks in case of standard Leo 1.

 

Unlikely. First of all, one does focus protection requirements on enemies - when the MEXAS package for the Leopard 1 was designed (as part of the Canadian KFOR contingent), only Sweden had 40 mm APFSDS rounds, while Russia was still using 30 mm AP.

 

Secondly: in the 1990s Sweden still used the Mk 1 40 mm APFSDS from Bofors, penetration was just 120 mm at 1,500 m. Adding just 10 mm of steel would probably make the hull proof against this round point blank.

 

A few years ago, the armor kit for the Leopard C2 was still marketed by IBD Deisenroth as part of its AMAP-IED product line, i.e. the second level of AMAP-IED:

raLLyTn.png

cJtUdN4.png

 

Likely the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C1 and C2 was designed to stop PG-7V and TMRP-6 EFP mines, i.e. the threats feared by NATO during KFOR.

 

 

On 9/5/2019 at 11:18 AM, heretic88 said:

Does the UFP make any sense at all? Ok, we have a 6mm cover plate, 30mm box, then 70mm armor, all at 60 degrees.  Thats 212mm LOS. How on earth can that protect against ANY RPG except RPG-2? This armor is absolutely hopeless against the ancient (1969) PG-7M

 

No, you are incorrect. The 212 mm LOS is not accounting the empty space between box and glacis plate. Poland has produced NERA module consisting of three sandwich plates capable of completely stopping a PG-7V round, which is mounted on the UFP of the up-armored Rosomak. If the 30 mm box contains two NERA sandwiches, then it is likely capable of reducing penetration of a shaped charge by such an amount that the steel hull can deal with the rest.

 

Share this post


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

No, you are incorrect. The 212 mm LOS is not accounting the empty space between box and glacis plate.

Yes, it makes sense then. Do you know how thick the armor array, including the air gap?

Share this post


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

Poland has produced NERA module consisting of three sandwich plates capable of completely stopping a PG-7V round, which is mounted on the UFP of the up-armored Rosomak.

 

You're misleading two designs.

Poles created NERA modules for BRDM-2 which consists of only two sandwiches. Add-on armor mounted on Rosomak uses composite similar to one used in soft inserts in ballistic vests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

You're misleading two designs.

Poles created NERA modules for BRDM-2 which consists of only two sandwiches. Add-on armor mounted on Rosomak uses composite similar to one used in soft inserts in ballistic vests.

 

The armor module to protect the driver against RPGs is NERA.

 

 

KZxBIlH.jpgOD5kfIp.jpg

 

Share this post


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

 

The armor module to protect the driver against RPGs is NERA.

 

With glass-filled polypropylene or polycarbonate? Are you sure? These are not elastomers. 

 

FpIQoeN.png

Share this post


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

With glass-filled polypropylene or polycarbonate? Are you sure? These are not elastomers. 

 

No need for elastomers. Glass itself can be used as interlayer material for NERA - see "Glass Armour and Shaped Charge Jets", Dr. Manfred Held, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 23(1998). A 1 and 2 inch thick glass plates can be used to create the desired bulging effect with 3/4 inch steel plates. Given that PGR 20 is used as spall liner, it likely has a decent level of

 

Polycarbonate is very hard, but also very elastic - which is why it is used for riot shields and ballistic windows. If it was only hard, these would shatter on impact. Polypropylene and polycarbonate have a lower young modulus (ca. half of it) than ebonite (aka "hard rubber"), a material which is still elastic to a certain degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my article about 2AV armour.

 

Many thanks for all peoples who help me whit this subject ;-)

 

2AV armour:

Turret armour citadele:

evEnBpM.jpg

 

 

turret special armour:

4cHcn75.jpg

 

 

 

hull in 1st version:

IIqAI2S.jpg

 

 

 

B&V test station, simmilar armour was choosen for 2A0:

mMuEOTX.jpg

 

 

 

Compare wester and estern tank but important notice - in my article is almoust exatly the same as @SH_MM mentioned above:

Quote

Btw. while the Brits assessed the Type B armor to provide protection equal to 350 mm steel against KE rounds, they also said that according to Germany it stopped 125 mm steel APFSDS (with WC slug), which according to the Brits could penetrate 380 mm of steel armor at 1,000 m and 420 mm point-blank. So protection is very variable, always depending on what round is used as reference. DM23 (with 420 mm RHA penetration at 200 m) was considered to be equal to Soviet 125 mm tungsten APFSDS with 475 mm penetration into steel point-blank and 440 mm at 1,000 m

 

Compare:

3P465M4.jpg

 

 

And  AT weapons and sevral APFSDS munition:

kn5YTyT.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

You are getting ridiculous :rolleyes: It literally says Type D armor was offered as drop-in packs for the turret, not as external armor modules.

That could easily have been a mistranslation or error on the part of the Brits writing it down.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

West-Germany offered this to persuade the British Army to buy the Leopard 2A4 as Chieftain replacement and later buy the Type D armor modules as retro-fit option, an offer made after the Leopard 2 with Type C prototype armor failed to meet the claimed protection (stopping 120 mm DM23 from 200 m distance) in 1987 in front of an audience including a British delegation (the British opinion on these firing trials was posted earlier by Wiedzmin).

This solution was rejected by the British Army, because even with the projected protection level (i.e. the claimed 600 mm RHAe vs KE), it still was considered to fail at meeting the required protection levels due its the ballistic holes (gunner's sight weakspot and large size of the gun mantlet). Only then the Leopard 2A5 with re-designed gun mantlet and external armor modules started coming in focus. The Challenger 2 was apparently required to reach 500 mm RHAe vs KE and 800 mm RHAe vs CE; which then was uprated (or an increase was at least considered) to 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 900 mm vs CE.

As if Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were devoid of ballistic holes.... that driver's hatch, lack of a gun mantlet on CR1 (with thinner composite armour behind it as well), TOGS hole on the side and equally large challenger 2 mantlet they ended up adopting....

Where exactly do you see that information? Are there more pages that weren't posted?

 

FYI, KVT was built in 1989, so it's entirely possible they initially thought they could make the D armour an internal package and only in testing realised they couldn't do it without adding more armour externally.
Besides, how would you explain that massive increase in protection in barely 3-4 years time when a much smaller increase (B to C) took much longer and (atleast according to the Brits) failed?

 

Regarding the required protection values: in the Hayne's manual for CR2 the author remarks that the M1A1 Block 2 (M1A2) with DU had 15% better KE protection than the CR2 over a narrow frontal arc.

Judging by the Swedish trials we can guesstimate the protection of M1A2 at around 600-640mm for the turret front, so CR2 would be around 510-540mm.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

As for the protection levels: this is obviously the projected protection, given that the document is from 1987/1988. One has to be careful with the claimed performance, as West-Germany didn't want to reveal anything without a MoU. It might have been the talk of a single soldier/scientists that was considered enough. The late Leopard 2A4 and the variant of the Leopard 2A5 placed in service (not accounting the add-on armor modules) were heavier than the Leopard 2 with Type C armor. There is however one variant of flat/internal armor that was offered in the 1990s as upgrade option of old Leopard 2A4 variants that could stop the LKE1 APFSDS. The claimed HEAT protection is awefully close to HOT-2 at opimal stand-off...

So, you're saying this is them guessing.
Then why do you also point out that it "could stop LKE1", that would be an even higher protection figure.

 

Where did you read that late 2A4s were heavier than C tech ones?
Finding information on any late 2A4s, including C is hard enough, let alone getting a comparison between the 1988 and 1991 models.

Only info I could find was data on the Pz 87, most of which were C and it weighs around 56.5t.

 

HOT-2 does not reach 1200mm, that's HOT-3.

HOT-2 maxes out around 1000mm.

 

Putting this into perspective: M1A2 had 2t of DU added to bump the protection up from around 400-450mm (still "debated") to 600-640mm (while CE remained the same if not slightly decreased), out of 939mm LOS.

That's only for the turret front mind you, not even including turret side or hull front.

Yet, somehow, this new armour package that comes at "almost no weight penalty", barely four years after the latest armour package, reaches 600mm and 1200mm CE out of 860mm LOS while also including a protection increase for turret side and hull front?

 

Without actual proof this is pretty incredulous.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

Btw. while the Brits assessed the Type B armor to provide protection equal to 350 mm steel against KE rounds, they also said that according to Germany it stopped 125 mm steel APFSDS (with WC slug), which according to the Brits could penetrate 380 mm of steel armor at 1,000 m and 420 mm point-blank. So protection is very variable, always depending on what round is used as reference. DM23 (with 420 mm RHA penetration at 200 m) was considered to be equal to Soviet 125 mm tungsten APFSDS with 475 mm penetration into steel point-blank and 440 mm at 1,000 m.

Did I miss some pages?
Where was this listed?

 

I mean, naturally different types of ammunition react differently to certain armour types, but I fail to see how 400mm+ steel can result in less than that in actual protection.

The steel APFSDS rounds were very poor against any form of composite armour compared to actual long rods, so it wouldn't surprise me that even 3BM26 failed to penetrate M1 frontal armour, let alone CR1 or leopard 2.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

In terms of technology, it is possible to achieve such a major gain in protection while staying at a comparable weight. The Leopard 2's Type C armor was tested eight years after the Type B armor entered service and increased KE protection against monobloc tungsten penetrators by 20%. The Type D armor was expected six/seven years after the trials of Type C armor, so a similar increase in armor protection per weight might not be impossible. According to a declassified British documents, the Challenger 1's Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of 1.3 against APFSDS rounds. If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36.

If the 1991 batch was D tech, there was only 3-4 years between C and D, and the increase wouldn't be 20% but 43% (600/420).

I severely doubt that 1.3x efficiency against APFSDS rounds, perhaps they're talking about steel or tungsten slug APFSDS, but certainly not tungsten/DU alloy long rods from the mid 80s.


Where did you read that it was rejected...?
Bit at a loss for words here, is there some other place more information gets published?

Quote

If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36.

It could, but then we'd solely be talking about the frontal armour, not including the sides etc, which is what the British appear to be talking about (hence the 350mm and 420mm).

That's what makes it appear to ridiculous, how can you get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE in a 60° frontal arc (what the Brits were using) when barely 12 years earlier they reached 350mm?

 

This is not even including the front of the hull.

Plus, the only reason why it that 2AV version could reach such high figures is that it had lots of steel in the array , which in turn takes up lots of space, this leaves little room for CE protection or fancy materials.

So, while you can technically reach 600mm KE, the CE protection in turn cannot also be so high.

That's specifically hard to do with passive armour, even more if they didn't use a completely new material (like ceramics which is claimed to be utilised on C tech).

 

The wedges on the other hand are an entirely different situation, here you have a (substantial) LOS increase along with materials optimised to work against CE (and the additional space also helps massively against KE).

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

Likely the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C1 and C2 was designed to stop PG-7V and TMRP-6 EFP mines, i.e. the threats feared by NATO during KFOR.

Definitely the most likely option here.

Share this post


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

Where exactly do you see that information? Are there more pages that weren't posted?

 

These are informations given by the person who posted the previous snipplet, supposedly based on the complete report(s).

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Then why do you also point out that it "could stop LKE1", that would be an even higher protection figure.

 

Because there is photographic evidence of an armor that was offered as drop-in replacement to several non-German Leopard 2A4 users (-> the only reason why this information was leaked) showing the armor stopping an undisclosed LKE1 at 2,000 m.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Where did you read that late 2A4s were heavier than C tech ones?

 

This is based on numerous sources (ranging from news articles, statements from militaries and articles published in professional military/defence magazines) listing higher weights than 55.15 tonnes specifically for the Leopard 2A4, sometimes while including photographs of a tank beloning to the last production lots.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

HOT-2 does not reach 1200mm, that's HOT-3.

HOT-2 maxes out around 1000mm.

 

At optimum stand-off (8 calibres aka 1.2 meters) HOT-2 reaches 1,200 mm penetration.

5rLkE6B.jpg

Build-in stand-off is just 220 mm, so penetration is a lot worse. But the Leopard 2 with the prototype version of Type C armor was tested against HOT-1 at optimal stand-off according to the British document (the West-Germans claimed a penetration of 750 to 800 mm steel, which is above what British tests at non-optimal stand-off showcased).

 

In German tests held in Meppen in 1985, the HOT-2 warhead achieved a penetration of approximately 1,150 mm at optimal stand-off distance:

5mKInpl.png

(HOT is actually HOT-2 and MILAN is actually MILAN-2)

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Yet, somehow, this new armour package that comes at "almost no weight penalty", barely four years after the latest armour package, reaches 600mm and 1200mm CE out of 860mm LOS while also including a protection increase for turret side and hull front?

 

Supposedly - and this might only speculation by the original source - the targeted 600 mm steel equivalent protection is only achieved along a 40° arc (+ 20 to -20 degree), just like the Leopard 2 KVT (Type B armor and wedges) managed to meet the required protection level of 700+ mm vs KE only at a 40° arc.

 

I know that a drop-in armor packaged stopped LKE1 when hit in such a way, that the LOS thickness of the armor array was ca. 800 mm (i.e. it was actually thicker, because cheaper steel was used to simulate the more expensive steel supposed to go onto the actual tank).

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Did I miss some pages?
Where was this listed?

wBVZbzv.jpg5vJW61J.jpg

This and a few statements between the lines/without direct source being posted. The range at which Leopard 2 (Type B) supposedly could defeat steel APFSDS was below 1,500 m.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

mean, naturally different types of ammunition react differently to certain armour types, but I fail to see how 400mm+ steel can result in less than that in actual protection.

 

Thinner steel plates at an angle might not be the most optimal solution against thick/long monobloc penetrators. There still is a so called "T/D effect" (at least this is the terminology used by Paul Lakowski), which has been observed in firings of larger projectiles against very thin plates resulting in a lower reduction in penetration performance than the thickness of the plate - i.e. an APFSDS with a 400 mm penetration power will penetrate more than 395 mm steel after traveling through a 5 mm steel plate.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

If the 1991 batch was D tech, there was only 3-4 years between C and D, and the increase wouldn't be 20% but 43% (600/420).

 

If the Leopard 2 in 1991 had full Type D armor, then this would be a rather improbable increase in protection, but that is another topic. Expected readiness for series production was in 1993/1994, not 1991 - maybe the Type D armor was only ready for production in 1995, explaining the more than 2 tonnes weight difference between the "naked" Leopard 2 KVT and the "naked" Leopard 2A5:

  • KVT: 60.5 tonnes minus 3 tonnes for hull and turret roof applique armor minus ca. 1.5 tonnes for turret wedges = 56 tonnes "naked" weight (while mounting more new components)
  • Leopard 2A5: 59.5 tonnes minus ca. 1.5 tonnes for turret wedges = 58 tonnes "naked" weight
1 hour ago, Scav said:

Where did you read that it was rejected...?

 

That the Leopard 2AV armor shown by Wiedzmin was likely rejected has been stated in this very topic by Wiedzmin and Militarysta. Both said that Blohm & Voss created a simpler version of armor, that they believed ended up being selected for series production.

 

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Plus, the only reason why it that 2AV version could reach such high figures is that it had lots of steel in the array , which in turn takes up lots of space, this leaves little room for CE protection or fancy materials.

So, while you can technically reach 600mm KE, the CE protection in turn cannot also be so high.

That's specifically hard to do with passive armour, even more if they didn't use a completely new material (like ceramics which is claimed to be utilised on C tech).

 

Well, steel technology also evolved quite a bit. In the early 1990s steel combinations (i.e. THS) with a mass and thickness efficiency of 1.8 were tested by the Franco-German institute in Saint-Louis (ISL) according to an article published by members of the ISL in the European Forum on Ballistics a few years ago. This material has been claimed to be used in the Leclerc tank.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:06 PM, Militarysta said:

B&V test station, simmilar armour was choosen for 2A0:

mMuEOTX.jpg

 


Do you have a more detail description (what is the angle of the plates, the thickness of the plates and the composition - all NERA plates with thin backplate only)?

Share this post


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

Leopard 2A5: 59.5 tonnes minus ca. 1.5 tonnes for turret wedges = 58 tonnes "naked" weight

combat 59.9

empty 57.7

turret combat 21

empty turret 19.8

empty turret without add-on armour 18,4

 

2A4 in 1994

 

combat 55

empty 52

turret with gun 16

without 12.2

 

 Leo2A4 before 1994, and 2A0 could be even lighter than 52...

 

16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

that they believed ended up being selected for series production

it's only theory(in my case) because it looks logical and practical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 6:06 AM, Militarysta said:

 

kn5YTyT.jpg

 

One small issue, the M833 pen value appears to be pen against RHA plate at 2km @ 0 degrees not 60. 

 

Penetration calc  @ 60  seems to be about 410-420mm from the math and dimensions I have.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 9:23 AM, Scav said:

 

Putting this into perspective: M1A2 had 2t of DU added to bump the protection up from around 400-450mm (still "debated") to 600-640mm (while CE remained the same if not slightly decreased), out of 939mm LOS.

That's only for the turret front mind you, not even including turret side or hull front.

Yet, somehow, this new armour package that comes at "almost no weight penalty", barely four years after the latest armour package, reaches 600mm and 1200mm CE out of 860mm LOS while also including a protection increase for turret side and hull front?

 

 

 

I don't think it has been established with any certainty that the Swedish leaks represent HAP-1 or HAP-2 as opposed to a export armor package. 

 

US army magazine documents (which I don't place much faith in), place the CE rating of the M1A1 HA with HAP-1  around 1200 mm across the frontal arc vs 900mm in the Swedish tests. It is possible that a large trade off was made with an export armor package.

 

It could be that the Challenger 2 does get about 600mm vs KE across the frontal ARC and they are referencing its performance against  HAP-2 armor package, that would have a modest increases vs HAP-1 against contemporary long rods.. 690mm vs 640mm for example.

 

Or that the multi hit capability of the HAP-1/2 series is worse then the Challenger 2 solution. 

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...