Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Pardus said:

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.

 

That is one of the ways how slat armor can defeat older RPGs - by crushing the shaped charge cone before the fuze is initiated. A big factor regarding the RPG-7 is however the fact that the fuze is connected via cable with the warhead, that runs along the cone-shaped tip and can be cut/torn by slat armor. Various types of slat armor claim a effectiveness of 60-80%, slat armor doesn't guarantee defeating even an old RPG-7 depending on impact angle & location.

 

Slat armor is designed to be lightweight, it can be easily deformed or broken. On ATGMs, the fuze construction is different and warhead is usually placed at a greater stand-off distance (either by moving it behind the guidance section, by adding a loner stand-off probe or by a combination of both solutions).

 

The RPG-7 has a very small fuze section at the top, which is very likely to slip inbetween the bars of slat armor without setting it off. That is not the case with older ATGMs - take a look at the original TOW variants: the whole aerodynamic tip acts as fuze; it cannot be defeated by slat armor before the warhead is fuzed.

16584713546_72286c5eb7_o.jpg

 

That is a construction principle common with older ATGMs. The early variants of MILAN, HOT, Konkurs, etc. all follow the same design principle.And that is not the only problem. On many ATGMs parts of the guidance are placed in front of the warhead. There is much more mass between the shaped charge cone and the slat armor, which will result in it being deformed and falling to crush the cone.

 

13 hours ago, Pardus said:

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.

 

No. The Leopard 2AV has the same requirements for side armor protection as the later Leopard 2 series production models. As a matter of fact a declassified 1977 report - which was posted in this topic some pages earlier - called for an investigation on reducing the side armor thickness (without compromising the protection level) during the transistion from the Leopard 2AV prototypes to the Leopard 2 series production model.

 

The requirement to stop the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance was already set for the original Leopard 2 prototypes with MLC50 weight limit and spaced armor only - though back then it was limited to the crew compartment only. The early Leopard 2 prototypes has 10 mm thick side skirts and 29 mm thick base armor at the sides of the crew compartment. This was sufficient to meet the protection requirement.

 

The side armor of the Leopard 1A3's new welded turret was also required to defeat th 20 mm DM43 HK round at 100 m distance (the earliest Leopard 1 variants only managed to resist at 300 m distance). The Leopard 1A3's turret side is formed by a 12 mm exterior plate with higher hardness and a 35 mm plate of medium hardness steel. This is more than what is found on the Leopard 2's hull side (early prototyes, Leopard 2AV and series production model), but only due to the limited space.

 

The Leopard 2AV was designed to resist the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance along the crew compartment in the area covered by the side skirts (12 mm + 30 mm base armor). The lower section was designed to resist the same round from the same distance, but counting the drivetrain elements (road wheels, suspension elements, shock-absorbers, road wheel bases/mounts) as part of the armor.

The engine compartment was designed to resist the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 500 m distance only (due to its thinner sponson and base armor), but the lower half still resisted the same round from 100 m distance when counting the drivetrain elements as part of the armor scheme.

 

The 20 mm DM43 round was a Hartkern (APCR) design with a brittle tungsten-carbide penetrator. Like all APCR rounds, it looses a lot of its penetration capabilities against spaced armor, as the tungsten-carbide core breaks apart and is deformed.

 

13 hours ago, Pardus said:

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

 

 

This tank was penetrated by the RPG, it just didn't hit the munition or fuel systems. The side armor of the M1 Abrams hull in that area is just 1.09 inches (27.7 mm) thick (+ 9-10 mm skirt).

The only place where protection against a RPG hitting the hull of the Abrams at a perpendicular angle was specified, is the right side at the hull ammo storage. To defeat the 81 mm shaped charge warhead that the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory used to simulate RPGs, 2.47 inch (62.73 mm) thick base armor is used in combination with a heavy ballistic skirt (65 mm thick composite/NERA sandwich).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1976  Leopard 2AV armour(all from declassified reports), bustle spaced armour(12+30) also used on serial Leopard-2 tanks.

Interesting, from when is this document? Seems to be a very early array.     It doesn't matter how a layman, an enthusiasts or even a member of a tank crew rates the survivability of

Regarding weight reduction:

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The requirement to stop the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance was already set for the original Leopard 2 prototypes with MLC50 weight limit and spaced armor only - though back then it was limited to the crew compartment only. The early Leopard 2 prototypes has 10 mm thick side skirts and 29 mm thick base armor at the sides of the crew compartment. This was sufficient to meet the protection requirement.

 

The early skirts were not solid though, but a "ventilated" steel rubber combo, which I doubt would affect 20mm DM43 HK much. Penetration performance of the 20mm DM43 is afterall over 50mm at 1.5 km.

 

Hence I seriously doubt 30mm is the thickness of the Leopard 2A0->'s hull side. I know it was 29mm in the in 2K, but it was also rejected. 

 

Also are you sure the Abrams side is only 27mm thick around the crew compartment? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your information is incorrect. DM43 cannot penetrate 50 mm of armor-grade steel at 1.5 kilometers distance. In fact it cannot even defeat 50 mm steel armor at 1,000 m (the DM63 APDS round is required to achieve this).

 

The non-ballistic skirts of the Leopard 1 and earlier Leopard 2 variants used perforated armor (Lochbleche) to decrease weight.

 

27 minutes ago, Pardus said:

Also are you sure the Abrams side is only 27mm thick around the crew compartment? 

 

On the left side, the section extending up to the center of the turret ring has a thickness of 1.18 inches (29.98 mm) at the lower half of the hull and 2.47 inches (62.7 mm) at the upper half of the hull. Everything located behind the turret ring has a thickness of 1.09 inches (27.7 mm) except for the rearmost section (around the drive sprokets) which has a thickness of 1.12 inches (28.44 mm) based on declassified schemes of the hull construction of a US M1A1.

 

The right side of the hull is heavier protected due to the location of the hull ammo rack with the heavy ballistic skirts and the heavier base armor extending to behind the turret ring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be considered immune to 20mm DM43 HK which can penetrate over 50mm, within 500 m atleast, will require more than 30mm of base side armour + 12mm steel rubber "Lochbleche" skirts. To be classifed as "immune" afterall requires 100% certainty of protection. 

 

Hence why I've always suspected 45-50mm as the hull side thickness decided upon for the production version, esp. since skirts don't cover everything, and it would be damn embarrasing to lose an MBT to something as simple as a ZPU equipped technical (14.5x114mm AP can penetrate 40mm RHA @ 100 m) 

 

On a sidenote, shouldn't atleast the 2A0-4's hull construction drawings be declassified soon'ish as well? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 7:17 PM, SH_MM said:

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

 

Apologies for the late answer to this, but the Danish governement actually decided in late 2018 that all 44 tanks will recieve the full upgrade.

 

https://www.berlingske.dk/nyheder/forsvaret-faar-flere-og-bedre-kampvogne-men-det-bliver-dyrt

 

To translate:

"All 44 tanks are now to be upgraded to the same high standard, where'as the plan initially was to make due with fewer" (16 out of 44)

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

Well to be considered immune to 20mm DM43 HK which can penetrate over 50mm, within 500 m atleast, will require more than 30mm of base side armour + 12mm steel rubber "Lochbleche" skirts. To be classifed as "immune" afterall requires 100% certainty of protection. 

I found these numbers for DM43: 

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

BMP-1 hull resisted this frontally. 

 

Source: (I dont know how reliable it is)

https://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

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

I found these numbers for DM43: 

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

BMP-1 hull resisted this frontally. 

 

Source: (I dont know how reliable it is)

https://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

 

I used those numbers a lot of time, never had problems in forums where people knew their stuff with those numbers.

Those meaning that DM63 will penetrate at @ 1000 meters ~70mm at 90 degr.

 

Be care-full though warthunder's specialists with numbers straight from the main user the Bundeswehr! Will not let you pass!

 

 

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

I found these numbers for DM43: 

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

BMP-1 hull resisted this frontally. 

 

Source: (I dont know how reliable it is)

https://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

 

Yeah the BMP-1 frontal hull is also very well sloped (80 deg upper, 57 deg lower), and APCR does not deal well with sloped armour to begin with.

 

Anything less than 45mm at 90 deg simply wouldn't pass as immune to 20mm AP, and would even be vulnerable to Russian 14.5mm HMGs.

 

 

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

Well to be considered immune to 20mm DM43 HK which can penetrate over 50mm, within 500 m atleast, will require more than 30mm of base side armour + 12mm steel rubber "Lochbleche" skirts. To be classifed as "immune" afterall requires 100% certainty of protection. 

 

Hence why I've always suspected 45-50mm as the hull side thickness decided upon for the production version, esp. since skirts don't cover everything, and it would be damn embarrasing to lose an MBT to something as simple as a ZPU equipped technical (14.5x114mm AP can penetrate 40mm RHA @ 100 m) 

 

Again, you are too focused on penetration values against single layered (lower quality) steel armor. The Leopard 2 employs spaced armor providing a much higher level of protection.

 

The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were fitted with just 5 mm thick steel skirts on-top of 30 mm thick base armor (of much lower grade steel than used for making the Leopard 2) and could stop 14.5 mm AP rounds fired from less than 500 m distance. To assume that the Leopard 2 with 30 mm base side armor and 12 mm perforated skirts (which have more mass & smaller holes than the WW2 wire mesh skirts used on late PzKpfW IV tanks) would perform worse is silly.

 

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-219-0595-23,_Russ

 

The brittleness of the tungsten-carbide cores of the DM43 round made it much worse against spaced armor - and it always had to penetrate spaced armor - either the sponsons, the side skirts or the drivetrain components. Given that the Leopard 2AV was specified to stop 20 mm DM43 at 100 m and had just the previously mentioned armor configuration, it is clear without a doubt that this was sufficient (as the Leopard 2AV was over-weight due to all of its armor), hence it silly to pretend that armor thickness was increased on the series production model (which wasn't increased in any area).

 

14 hours ago, Pardus said:

On a sidenote, shouldn't atleast the 2A0-4's hull construction drawings be declassified soon'ish as well? 

 

No, why should they? Equipment is still being used.

 

13 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

 

That's fired from ths HS 820 gun though, which has a L/85 barrel rather than the L/100 barrel of Rh 202 used on the Marder.

 

8 hours ago, Pascal said:

Those meaning that DM63 will penetrate at @ 1000 meters ~70mm at 90 degr.

 

That is exaggerated. DM63 defeats less than 60 mm armor at 1,000 m distance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM

 

I don't think it's silly to believe the hull armour is 45-50mm at all, esp. considering that immunity to 20mm AP was required. That means complete protection even at point blank.

 

Also keep in mind that a noticable area of the Leopard 2's hull sn't covered by the skirts, hence 20mm DM43 AP would be able to sail through a 30mm plate here. 

 

As for the Leopard 2AV meeting the requirement, where is this established/mentioned? 

 

18 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

No, why should they? Equipment is still being used.

 

So is the Abrams.

 

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

I don't think it's silly to believe the hull armour is 45-50mm at all, esp. considering that immunity to 20mm AP was required. That means complete protection even at point blank.

 

Incorrect. The official requirement was to resist 20 mm Hartkern (APCR) rounds from 100 meters distance. Tests from a shorter distance were not conducted.

 

Also the requirements applied only to the hull upwards from 700 mm of the ground. Pretty much all of the area not covered by the skirts falling in the area for which the protection requirement was issued is covered by drivetrain elements, which were counted as armor (seen as integral to meeting the protection requirement, represented in the ballistics tests).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 1:58 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Incorrect. The official requirement was to resist 20 mm Hartkern (APCR) rounds from 100 meters distance. Tests from a shorter distance were not conducted.

 

Also the requirements applied only to the hull upwards from 700 mm of the ground. Pretty much all of the area not covered by the skirts falling in the area for which the protection requirement was issued is covered by drivetrain elements, which were counted as armor (seen as integral to meeting the protection requirement, represented in the ballistics tests).

 

Problem is that would have it fail the requirement as it leaves the area I was talking about completely vulnerable to 20mm AP,  incl. the hull ammo rack, failing the immunity requirement at 100 and even 500 m:

jxvvtAe.jpg

 

CdEHttr.jpg

 

20mm DM43 performance at 1 km:

uGKDYpN.jpg

 

This would become more problematic with the newer RHA skirts as they actually cover a bit less area:

Leopard_2A7_right_side.JPG

 

Hence I am still more inclined towards 45-50mm side hull armour above the 700mm line, where'as below that 30mm is possible as the hull is angled, plus there is no vital parts there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pardus said:

Problem is that would have it fail the requirement as it leaves the area I was talking about completely vulnerable to 20mm AP,  incl. the hull ammo rack, failing the immunity requirement at 100 and even 500 m:

 

No, because the real world is not a video game like Armored Warfare, War Thunder or World of Tanks. You are pretending that they took each armor plate of the hull and fired a 20 mm DM43 round with 90° impact at it.

 

That is not how ballistic tests are being conducted, because that does not represent any relevant combat scenario. The lower section can only be hit at an angle in real combat conditions, hence the design takes this into account. That was already the case with the Leopard 2K.

 

On 2/24/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pardus said:

20mm DM43 performance at 1 km:

 

According to this Russian source, the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS round penetrates more flat armor than a 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T round. It's a poor source.

 

On 2/24/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pardus said:

This would become more problematic with the newer RHA skirts as they actually cover a bit less area:

 

The difference is negible. In combat it won't matter.

 

Or the protection requirements were altered, because it is clear that more modern 20 mm rounds (AP, APCR and APDS) can easily defeat the side armor.

 

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

No, because the real world is not a video game like Armored Warfare, War Thunder or World of Tanks. You are pretending that they took each armor plate of the hull and fired a 20 mm DM43 round with 90° impact at it.

 

That is not how ballistic tests are being conducted, because that does not represent any relevant combat scenario. The lower section can only be hit at an angle in real combat conditions, hence the design takes this into account. That was already the case with the Leopard 2K.

 

Sorry but at 100 m 20mm DM43 is not going to hit at much of an angle (couple of deg at most), and the requirement was that the armour was immune to 20mm DM43 at this distance, i.e. irrespective of impact angle, as in a real world combat condition projectiles can come from all sorts of directions as in the real world combat doesn't always take place on a level field where attacks can only come with difference in the horizontal.

 

I also see no reason to drop this requirement, if anything the requirement would become stricter with further advancements in same caliber cannon penetration power. Which is probably also why they later switched from the perforated skirts to the solid high hardness steel skirts to enhance protection even further. 

 

 

 

 

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

According to this Russian source, the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS round penetrates more flat armor than a 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T round. It's a poor source.

 

That I sincerely doubt, as 25mm Bushmaster APFSDS-T round is supposed to penetrate ~48mm RHAe @ 60 deg @ 1 km vs the 17mm of the 20mm DM63 at the same distance.

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

According to this Russian source, the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS round penetrates more flat armor than a 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T round. It's a poor source.

it's penetrating even more than 30mm 3URB8 APDS(3UBR8 is APDS not API-T and has 27mm/60deg at 1km and 12mm/60 at 4km according to the manufacturer claim) lol

 

 

  

5 hours ago, Pardus said:

as in a real world combat condition projectiles can come from

in real world you have tons of conventions and compromises and especially probabilities of a real hit, and there is no "ingenious german/soviet/american/anybody else design", if you try to research any tank(and not to prove your religious point of view for some games lol)  of any country you most likely come to a conclusion "wtf this piece of junk?! how it can be adopted in service?!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it's penetrating even more than 30mm 3URB8 APDS(3UBR8 is APDS not API-T and has 27mm/60deg at 1km and 12mm/60 at 4km according to the manufacturer claim) lol

 

By the very figures you just posted it is not (DM43 = 17mm vs 3URB8 = 27mm), also your figure matches the one on the chart for 1 km @ 60 deg quite well (27 vs 28mm).

 

37 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

in real world you have tons of conventions and compromises and especially probabilities of a real hit, and there is no "ingenious german/soviet/american/anybody else design", if you try to research any tank(and not to prove your religious point of view for some games lol)  of any country you most likely come to a conclusion "wtf this piece of junk?! how it can be adopted in service?!"

 

ad hominem attacks leads you nowhere, try to stick to the subject instead.

 

 

 

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

 

By the very figures you just posted it is not (DM43 = 17mm vs 3URB8 = 27mm)

DM43 is 8mm/60° (real pen 10mm/60° at 800 meters and 20mm/60° at 100 meters) at 1km

 

16 minutes ago, Pardus said:

 

also your figure matches the one on the chart for 1 km @ 60 deg quite well (27 vs 28mm).

 

you don't understand what you reading, do you ?

 

16 minutes ago, Pardus said:

ad hominem attacks leads you nowhere

lack of understanding of the essence of the problem leads you nowhere, but as far as i can see it's more often leads you to tank games(even IL2 lol ?) forums where you whining about "german tank/shells/armour underestimated"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 12:10 AM, Pardus said:

the requirement

So what was the actual requirement?  Not "what do you think it was?" or what I think it was or whatever. What was actually contractually specified?  The actual words, in German.  Without that, there is no point discussing pass or fail.

On 2/25/2020 at 12:10 AM, Pardus said:

20mm DM43 performance at 1 km

against monolithic armour, not spaced = not relevant.

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

DM43 is 8mm/60° (real pen 10mm/60° at 800 meters and 20mm/60° at 100 meters) at 1km

 

And the "real" penetration at 90 deg and 100 m? To me it looks like it agrees well with the figures on the chart.

 

Mind you the Russian 14.5mm PTRS AT rifle could/can also penetrate up to 40mm at 100m 90 deg.

 

And by comparison WW2 German 20mm KwK30/38 APCR was good for 40mm @ 30 deg @ 100 m, equivalent to a good 55+ mm flat.

 

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

you don't understand what you reading, do you ?

 

I will concede that I did actually misread that one, somehow mixed up the 30 & 60 deg figures. 

 

Anyway here's the source (Russian) for the table I posted: 

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/298964.html

 

 

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

lack of understanding of the essence of the problem leads you nowhere, but as far as i can see it's more often leads you to tank games(even IL2 lol ?) forums where you whining about "german tank/shells/armour underestimated"

 

No idea what you're talking about, the only game forum I'm a member of is War Thunder (Same name), and WarGaming. I even announced I arrived from there with my first post here.

 

As for whining, I don't whine, on the WT forums I concentrate on highlighting inaccuracies, whilst here I focus on learning and discussing armour amongst what seems to be people more into the technical side of things than what you usually find on the gaming forums. And I am not stuck on any idea, on the contrary I'm completely open to reason, so if you can disprove anything of what I say you are always welcome to do so - I mean  you seem to believe you are an authority on the subject, and yet atm you're apparently more interested in ad hominem attacks rather than actually discussing the subject matter, and to me that is basically declaring out loud you have no valid counter argument. 

 

In short I'm here to discuss armour, not religion or politics. So how about we carry this on in a civil manner and stick to the subject of armour eh? 

 

4 hours ago, DIADES said:

against monolithic armour, not spaced = not relevant.

 

The Leopard 2's side hull below the sponsons isn't spaced armour, it's monolithic and there's a good chunk not covered by the skirts as illustrated. If this area was only 30mm thick it would extremely vulnerable to auto cannon attack, heck even 14.5mm fire up close.

 

Hence why I'm inclined to believe the side hull armour is around 45mm thick, i.e. same thickness of plate as the glacis and forward part of the turret roof.

 

The hull below the 700mm height is angled and covers no real vital parts, and as such it can be thinner, being 30 or maybe even just 20mm thick.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HAKI2019 said:

You are talking about the hull side?I saw a picture of A7.

Z7Klue_qosepTCPj6_4UhyjiN_ls_ygO6jQLEDJQ

so they finaly realized(german 2A7 or Denmark?) that 30mm not enough to stop modern threats even after thick side skirts ? any more photos?

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

so they finaly realized(german 2A7 or Denmark?) that 30mm not enough to stop modern threats even after thick side skirts ? any more photos?

 

1) Again where's the proof of 30mm hull sides for the 2A4-6? Leopard 2K drawings don't really matter as we know it failed the requirements, as did the 2AV. 

I'm not saying it's impossible for the hull side to be 30mm, but where's the proof? I sincerely doubt it based on the requirement to withstand 20mm DM43 at 100 m from 700mm height upwards, for that to be met 45mm hull sides are basically required. 

 

2) Already mentioned the increased hull side armour on the Danish A7DK's delivered recently  (As I said I spoke to a couple of the guys who tested & now operate them). And the Danes have had 2A5's operational with increased add on hull side armour for a long time, so it's not about them realizing anything just now. Now it seems like A7's simply come with it as part of the base armour now instead of an addon kit, which btw also covered the lower angled side.

 

 

 

 

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...