Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The new Danish Leopard 2A7DK's arriving at Oksbøl (Note the addition of further protection to the front hull, upper & lower.):

b92d29305755803e226b7c7686c40b03.jpg

313e7a7336c28db14c94e7b7e3b57a8b.jpg

a0b00d0f274f15e712cc1da1268450a8.jpg

f40a11b9ca7f3d57cfec2d33a8c68689.jpg

 

These tanks came fully equipped with:

-  New 3rd Generation ATTICA FLIR imagers for commander & gunner

-  New added front, side & bottom hull armour

-  New 120mm L55A1 gun

-  New APU

-  New digital turret traverse control unit 

-  New displays for gunner & commander 

-  Updated drive train

-  Updated suspension

-  Spectus driver's cameras, front & rear. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any additional armor on the Leopard 2A7DK except the stronger mine protection kit of the Leopard 2A7. The Danish Leopard 2A5DK INTOPS variant already added the lower hull applique armor (aswell as the side armor), while the upper hull armor was fielded as part of the initial Leopard 2A5 (DK) upgrade.

 

Only a small number of INTOPS were made, IIRC they utilize AMAP of the former IBD Deisenroth rather than the MinePRO system developed by RUAG on behalf of the LEOBEN community (and used by Canada, Germany, Qatar and Sweden). No idea if this was related to costs, protection level or the rush in which the INTOPS upgrade had to be implemented (the Leopard 2A6M's mine protection kit requires a lot of time consuming changes).

 

2Kly5hw.jpg

oiqcogX.jpg

qFyMBw1.jpg

 

On the Leopard 2A7DK, they seem to have just added the newer 2A7's mine protection kit and kept the lower hull plate of the INTOPS. On the original Leopard 2A7DK prototype, this is even more visible, as the plate seems to have the original two bolts of the INTOPS variant:

p0FUMSp.jpg

 

The new tank has three bolts (and still has no SPECTUS), suggesting that there was some change, but maybe this was not one of the original INTOPS tanks and it was fitted with the lower hull applique for the first time.

 

Only sixteen Danish tanks will see the full upgrade, the rest of them will receive partial improvments only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INTOPS stands for International Operations (as far as I know) and is a name given to the Danish Leopard 2A5 upgrade for use in Afghanistan (mine protection kit, Barracuda camouflage, air conditioning unit, slat armor, etc.).

 

SPECTUS is a night vision system for the driver using thermal cameras and image intensifiers (and if required fuzing both images together) made by Hensoldt. It has been adopted on the Leopard 2A6MA2 and is part of the Leopard 2A7V upgrade. As one can see in the photographs, the Danish Leopard 2A7 tanks do not feature the SPECTUS system.

 

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/optronics/spectus-drivers-sight-system/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Danish commander here talks about the additional side hull armour on the 2A5DK (He talks about the difference between the tank in question and the one used on operations which weighes 68 tons):

 

 

The armour he is talking about:

T1k5FAO.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant additional armor on the Leopard 2A7DK compared to the 2A5DK. I unintentionally wrote 2A5DK in the first sentence, I corrected this.

 

I also wrote, which should have made the mistake obvious:

  

48 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Danish Leopard 2A5DK INTOPS variant already added the lower hull applique armor (aswell as the side armor),

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Pardus said:

A Danish commander here talks about the additional side hull armour on the 2A5DK (He talks about the difference between the tank in question and the one used on operations which weighes 68 tons):

 

The armour he is talking about:

T1k5FAO.png

 


68 metric tonnes? That’s about on par with Abrams!

Share this post


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

I meant additional armor on the Leopard 2A7DK compared to the 2A5DK. I unintentionally wrote 2A5DK in the first sentence, I corrected this.

 

I also wrote, which should have made the mistake obvious:

  

 

 

 

No worries, my post wasn't even directed at you.

 

The 2A7DK is supposed to have or get the increased side hull armor seen in the 2A5DK unloading picture as well, but probably only for operational use.

 

I suspect the 2A7DK also comes with D-tech internal modules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The add on side hull armour looks pretty thick, so if the lower hull side armour is already 50mm (which I believe is the only realistic figure to meet the 20mm AP immunity requirement), then that would bring the lower side hull up quite abit in thickness. With the additional 12mm steel skirts and air gap that should provide pretty good protection vs most RPGs.

Share this post


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

is the 68 tonnes including slat armor?

 

Pretty sure it's without. One Danish tanker I talked to says the weight was slightly over 70 tons fully equipped in Afghanistan, which I take as being when with the slat armor and barracuda camo/insulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't quite understand though is why the Danes didn't also opt for the available added turret side protection offered with the 2A7+:

e4705ad2af21ccd9e351de99378cbfca.jpg

 

Will also be interesting to see when KMW decides to install the MTU 883 powerpack in the Leopard:

7tULbxh.jpg

 

 Would allow for a lot of the systems in the turret to be moved down into the hull, making room for a bigger turret ammo rack, as well as the removal of the hull ammo storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 4:11 AM, Pardus said:

The add on side hull armour looks pretty thick, so if the lower hull side armour is already 50mm (which I believe is the only realistic figure to meet the 20mm AP immunity requirement), then that would bring the lower side hull up quite abit in thickness. With the additional 12mm steel skirts and air gap that should provide pretty good protection vs most RPGs.

 

Unlikely. The reinforced hull armor was adopted as part of the mine protection kit and is most likely designed to deal with EFPs, that can easily defeat the tank's side armor (a low-grade 100 mm EFP warhead can penetrate more than 80 mm steel). EFPs cannot be stopped by slat armor and the simpler types of light-weight reactive armor, so adopting a heavy add-on solution makes sense. For stopping RPGs, the armor thickness is too low.

 

The up-armored Danish Leopard 2A5 variant was fitted with slat armor in Afghanistan and given that slat armor works only against the weaker types of RPGs, this shows that there wasn't any confidence in the upgraded hull dealing with RPGs.

 

tumblr_p7vlr5VrYf1w636mro1_1280.jpgc9ed5d9bfccc9dbbf6d9669f7acd082e.png

 

18 hours ago, Pardus said:

Pretty sure it's without. One Danish tanker I talked to says the weight was slightly over 70 tons fully equipped in Afghanistan, which I take as being when with the slat armor and barracuda camo/insulation.

 

The Forsvaret lists the Leopard 2A5DK with enhanced mine protection/hull side armor at 66 tonnes:

https://www2.forsvaret.dk/nyheder/overige_nyheder/Pages/SidstekaliberskudmedLeopard2A5.aspx

 

This would imply that the 68 tonnes include the slat armor and Barracuda MCS.

 

5 hours ago, Pardus said:

What I don't quite understand though is why the Danes didn't also opt for the available added turret side protection offered with the 2A7+:

 

The Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations variant proposed by KMW had totally different turret add-on armor designed with reduced frontal protection for weight savings. The Leopard 2A4M CAN is based on this concept. The (initial?)Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations had full frontal armor, but no add-on armor options for the side.

 

The Bundeswehr decided to opt for a mixed solution, which resulted in the Leopard 2A7 as we know it - it has interfaces to mount additional armour elements on hull and turret; these are only mounted on demand.

2000_2000_matched__paevsm_2018061515.48.

 

The Danish tank has the same interfaces.

  

4 hours ago, Serge said:

It would be too complex. 

 

Was already done with the Leopard 2A6 EX. It had a new, shortened hull as a result of using the EuroPowerPack. It might be a bit more complex to adapt the existing hull to the new engine, but it certainly is not impossible.

Share this post


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

The Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations variant proposed by KMW had totally different turret add-on armor designed with reduced frontal protection for weight savings. The Leopard 2A4M CAN is based on this concept. The (initial?)Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations had full frontal armor, but no add-on armor options for the side.

 

Frontal protection looks enhanced if anything, not reduced on the 2A7+ Urban Operations (which was just an addon kit AFAIK).  So unless they removed internal NERA packages the frontal protection would still be at maximum, as the turret wedges are the same and the tank also features the extra upper hull protection.

 

http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280

 

Is there information that says they removed the internal NERA arrays on this model?

 

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Unlikely. The reinforced hull armor was adopted as part of the mine protection kit and is most likely designed to deal with EFPs, that can easily defeat the tank's side armor (a low-grade 100 mm EFP warhead can penetrate more than 80 mm steel). EFPs cannot be stopped by slat armor and the simpler types of light-weight reactive armor, so adopting a heavy add-on solution makes sense. For stopping RPGs, the armor thickness is too low.

 

The up-armored Danish Leopard 2A5 variant was fitted with slat armor in Afghanistan and given that slat armor works only against the weaker types of RPGs, this shows that there wasn't any confidence in the upgraded hull dealing with RPGs.

 

Well the entire side of the tank was fitted with slat armour, including the heavily armoured forward turret side, so I think the slat armor was merely added to make sure of proper protection vs  the newest anti tank missiles likely available to the Taliban. 

 

If we presume the added side armour provides another 50mm of ultra high hardness armor then the total hull side armour would be around 100mm thick, add in the 12mm skirt and ~500mm airgap and I don't think for example an RPG-7 would stand a chance against that. Newer tandem charges would be a problem though, something the slat armour would have some ability to deal with by breaking up the cone before impact with any flat surface.

 

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Forsvaret lists the Leopard 2A5DK with enhanced mine protection/hull side armor at 66 tonnes:

https://www2.forsvaret.dk/nyheder/overige_nyheder/Pages/SidstekaliberskudmedLeopard2A5.aspx

 

This would imply that the 68 tonnes include the slat armor and Barracuda MCS.

 

That does not say anywhere it is the weight with the added armour though.

 

If the tank truly weighed just over 70 tons in Afghanistan (according to that tanker), then I'm inclined to believe 68 tons is more likely. The tanker in the video I linked who mentioned 68 tons also never mentions the slat armour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pardus said:

If we presume the added side armour provides another 50mm of ultra high hardness armor then the total hull side armour would be around 100mm thick, add in the 12mm skirt and ~500mm airgap and I don't think for example an RPG-7 would stand a chance against that.

"RPG-7" is a bad generalization. I can imagine it protects against PG-7V or VM in some circumstances, but I think it is unlikely that even that armor can do anything against even the PG-7VS, which is sill ancient, from the early '70s. Also dont forget the impact angle, which is very important. At 30 degreees for example, this armor will stop PG-7V or VM, but at 90... I dont think so. This +50mm add on is purely against EFPs.

Share this post


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

"RPG-7" is a bad generalization. I can imagine it protects against PG-7V or VM in some circumstances, but I think it is unlikely that even that armor can do anything against even the PG-7VS, which is sill ancient, from the early '70s. Also dont forget the impact angle, which is very important. At 30 degreees for example, this armor will stop PG-7V or VM, but at 90... I dont think so. This +50mm add on is purely against EFPs.

 

I am talking purely if the side skirts are hit, in which case there's a ~500mm stand off between the RPG warhead going off and the ~100mm UHA underneath. If the side skirts are not hit, then ofcourse the RPG will punch straight through.

Share this post


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

Frontal protection looks enhanced if anything, not reduced on the 2A7+ Urban Operations (which was just an addon kit AFAIK).  So unless they removed internal NERA packages the frontal protection would still be at maximum, as the turret wedges are the same and the tank also features the extra upper hull protection.

 

The Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations was not just an add-on kit, but an alternative to the Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations. Previously the Bundeswehr had toyed with the idea of using Leopard 2A4 turrets (fitted with the armor kit developed by KMW for the Leopard 2 PSO demonstrator) and place them on upgraded Leopard 2A6M hulls during peace-keeping missions and combat operations in urban environments. When not used in such scenarios, the tank was to retain its better duel capabilities (stronger armor, longer gun barrel) by being fitted with the standard Leopard 2A6 turret.

 

Bild-10.jpg

This idea was rejected after some time for being cumbersome and uneconomic, so KMW decided to proposed two variants of an upgraded Leopard 2A6M tank (the Leopard 2A7+) optimized for different tasks; i.e. the Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations and Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations.

 

The Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations has different armor. I don't know if it uses the lighter internal armor package as Germany considered in the past by using a Leopard 2A4 turret, but the add-on armor is different. The wedge-shaped armor modules are not made of heavy NERA (there is a distinctive lack of bolts holding the sandwich plates together), they are single-layered and hollow - there is supposedly an option to add armor inserts if needed.

 

006.jpg

 

Identical add-on armor on the left cheek of the Leopard 2A4M CAN's turret.

 

16 hours ago, Pardus said:

Well the entire side of the tank was fitted with slat armour, including the heavily armoured forward turret side, so I think the slat armor was merely added to make sure of proper protection vs  the newest anti tank missiles likely available to the Taliban. 

 

Slat armor doesn't really work against anti-tank missiles.

 

16 hours ago, Pardus said:

If we presume the added side armour provides another 50mm of ultra high hardness armor then the total hull side armour would be around 100mm thick, add in the 12mm skirt and ~500mm airgap and I don't think for example an RPG-7 would stand a chance against that. Newer tandem charges would be a problem though, something the slat armour would have some ability to deal with by breaking up the cone before impact with any flat surface.

 

The side armor of the Leopard 2AV's lower hull is 30 mm steel - Germany used higher grade steel than other nations, but no ultra high hardness armor. Specifically given that the Danish Leopard 2A5 tanks are rebuilt early batch Leopard 2s, the hull armor isn't going to be made of the best possible steel.

 

Even the basic PG-7 can defeat five inches (127 mm) steel armor after detonating two feet in front of the target. This very poor performance is a result of the low production quality of the warhead. A modern hand-held anti-tank weapon (such as a RGW-60) with similar overall penetration capacity would likely retain more over distance.

 

16 hours ago, Pardus said:

That does not say anywhere it is the weight with the added armour though.

 

It has to be, given that the weight of the Leopard 2A5DK with add-on armor will be less than that of the Strv 122 (62.5 tonnes, but also including 1.3 tonnes of roof armor not fielded in Denmark).

Share this post


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

Slat armor doesn't really work against anti-tank missiles.

 

Well it's supposed to break up the cone of a HEAT warhead, so why not? If anything it should be effective versus any HEAT warhead.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The side armor of the Leopard 2AV's lower hull is 30 mm steel - Germany used higher grade steel than other nations, but no ultra high hardness armor. Specifically given that the Danish Leopard 2A5 tanks are rebuilt early batch Leopard 2s, the hull armor isn't going to be made of the best possible steel.

 

Even the basic PG-7 can defeat five inches (127 mm) steel armor after detonating two feet in front of the target. This very poor performance is a result of the low production quality of the warhead. A modern hand-held anti-tank weapon (such as a RGW-60) with similar overall penetration capacity would likely retain more over distance.

 

The 2AV must have featured thinner side armour as the Leopard 2A was supposed to be immune to 20mm AP, so that would rule out 30mm hull armour for the production version atleast. 50mm is the only thickness which would reliably protect you against the 20mm AP available in the 70's.

 

As for the RPG-7, I doubt it will penetrate 80-100 mm of armour 500mm behind a 12mm steel skirt, as was also demonstrated several times in Iraq & Afghanistan.

 

main-qimg-b7e346db786720e5d4e099795a81e0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of RPG-7 warhead types and those are produced by half of the people all over the Globe. I don't think it makes any sense to speak about it in general. 

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...