Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HAKI2019 said:

 

Doesn't seem like it's the same tank HAKI, as that one features add on armour around the angled part of the lower hull too, which the other one did not.

Share this post


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

Back to the problem,I guess the A7V brodean area of patch compared to the A7.

is there any more photos ? because this could be addon only on exhibition sample, as proposed option, but still not used on serial tanks for example

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know warthunder is not equal to the real world,just curious whether it is very far from the truth .

 

 The hull side without composite shirt of L2A5 in game world:

UP part:35mm+10mm

low part:20mm/43 degr =equal to 32mm

 

M1A2

UP part:27.6mm+6mm

low part :30mm

 

ZTZ 96:50mm+8mm rubber skirt

According to the some chinese military forums ,the 14.5mm DGJ02 penetrate 20/50 derg at 1000m.(I do not know whether it is true).

I confirm 50mm hull side of ZTZ96 is real,ZTZ99 and ZTZ99A may have same protection in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WT is definitely not equal to the real world. Lot's of stuff missing on the Leopard 2, including the gun trunnion and lots of LOS thickness for the mantlet and cheeks.

 

Glacis plate (82 deg) is also only 35mm in WT, where'as it's 45mm in real life. Turret roof is 40mm in WT and again 45mm in RL.

 

As for the hull side below the sponsons, I think it's 45mm based on the requirement for adoption, i.e. immunity from 20mm DM43 @ 100 m. But others in here are saying 30mm based on the rejected 2K & 2AV prototypes. None of us know for sure however.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

As for the hull side below the sponsons, I think it's 45mm based on the requirement for adoption, i.e. immunity from 20mm DM43 @ 100 m. But others in here are saying 30mm based on the rejected 2K & 2AV prototypes. None of us know for sure however.

Sorry to jump in your discussion but you repeatedly asked others for proofs backing their statements while you haven't presented any sort of proof yourself. 

Share this post


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

Sorry to jump in your discussion but you repeatedly asked others for proofs backing their statements while you haven't presented any sort of proof yourself. 

 

Sorry but no. I'm not the one making blanket statements as to what the hull side thickness is. On the contrary I am saying not of us know as we don't have the plan drawings, yet since we do know one of the adoption requirements we can atleast make a reasonable guess, hence the 45mm figure as this would be sufficient to protect reasonably well against DM43 at 100 m.

 

In short 45mm is what I think it is, not something I claim it to be. And I base this assumption on the evidence available.

Share this post


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

 

I'm not the one claiming it is 30mm, period. I am saying not of us know as we don't have the plan drawings, yet since we do know one of the adoption requirements we can atleast make a reasonable guess.

You're caiming it's around 45 mm without any proof as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beer said:

You're caiming it's around 45 mm without any proof as well. 

 

No, I am not claiming it is 45mm, I am saying I think it  must be around 45mm based on the adoption requirement, which is the only clue we have to go by.

 

There's big difference between saying "It IS 45mm!" and "I believe it is 45mm based on this".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2020 at 4:56 AM, Pardus said:

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.

 

Based on what source? Actual penetration values of 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T rounds are much lower, the Rheinmetall-Oerlikon PBM090 penetrates 35 mm at 60° NATO at 1,000 m distance. Given that these rounds do not loose any significant amount of penetration against sloped plates (more or less, they gain a bit of extra-performance), assuming that the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS seems questionable.

 

There is a big difference between something being "supposed" (according to questionable internet sources) to offer a certain level of performance and the actual performance. The M1A2 was supposed to provide protection equal to 960 mm of steel armor according to Paul Lakowski's "estimates", yet its actual protection level at the turret front seems to be just 600 mm steel-equivalent protection based on more recent/reliable sources.

 

9 hours 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?

 

German Leopard 2A7 also has increased hull side armor:

 

020g.jpg

 

Yet the Leopard 2A6M has the no add-on armor at the hull sides:

028g.jpg

 

9 hours ago, Pardus said:

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. 

 

You keep saying that. Do you have any proof that the Leopard 2K and Leopard 2AV failed to meet the specified protection requirements? I doubt that.

 

The Leopard 2K/early Leopard 2 PT tanks ceased to exist because of changed protection requirements, not due to the inability to meet the original ones (actually all early Leopard 2 PT models were over-weight to meet the protection requirements). The Leopard 2AV also did not fail to meet the specified protection level. According to Paul-Werner Krapke, the Leopard 2AV met all US-American and all West-German protection requirements after the redesign of the hulll in 1976.

 

The series production model is derived from the Leopard 2AV. The "AV" designation was simply dropped at a later stage, it is not an alternative development to the Leopard 2AV. The designation remained in use until 1977/1978. Paul-Werner Krapke wrote that between US testing and the series production of the Leopard 2, the hull front was re-designed to offer "better" protection compared to the Leopard 2AV (without qualifying the term "better"), he doesn't state anything regarding side armor.

 

7 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

is there any more photos ? because this could be addon only on exhibition sample, as proposed option, but still not used on serial tanks for example

 

You can see the add-on armor at the series production model for the German Army here: https://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a7/leo2.htm

Share this post


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

leo2_B_side_hull_thicknesses

 

 

That's not a plan drawing showing actual armour thickness Laviduce, hence very bad idea to make guesses based on that. The 10mm sponson armour being a prime example as that would be insane to have as the only cover for your fuel tanks, as that would allow regular smallarms fire to cripple your tank. So I'm sorry but there's no way those guesstimates are accurate.

 

To prove it you can observe pictures of the actual tanks sponsons opened up:

B3O8TF9.jpg

As you can see the plating at the back is more like 20mm thick (with another angled plate in behind where the tools are mounted) rather than a mere 10mm which would be even less than the initial Lochbleche skirts.

 

The section infront of the engine bay covering the NBC system & fuel tanks looks like a continuation of the Leopard 2K sponson protection scheme, with a 12mm + 30mm spaced array, as seen on the NBC hatch:

1tvx8Yn.jpg

 

 

Hence it's likely to look like this:

jo1a80E.jpg

 

The hull side continues up behind the sponsons in the crew area, and features another spaced array used for NERA inserts on later variants, and they also looks quite thick (again not present on the Hilmes cutaway, because it isn't a drawing meant to show armour thickness or layout):

4XLuWJb.jpg

 

Share this post


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

You keep saying that. Do you have any proof that the Leopard 2K and Leopard 2AV failed to meet the specified protection requirements? I doubt that.

 

The evidence is in the numbers as far as I'm concerned, 30mm of armour is not enough to reliably stop a 20mm DM43 at 100 m, it isn't even sufficient vs WW2 style 20mm APCR. 

 

And as we know the 2K & 2AV were both scrapped because they failed a number of unspecified criteria, and based on the adoption requirements my guess is side protection was one of the areas they failed to fully meet demands.

 

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2K/early Leopard 2 PT tanks ceased to exist because of changed protection requirements, not due to the inability to meet the original ones (actually all early Leopard 2 PT models were over-weight to meet the protection requirements). The Leopard 2AV also did not fail to meet the specified protection level. According to Paul-Werner Krapke, the Leopard 2AV met all US-American and all West-German protection requirements after the redesign of the hulll in 1976.

 

The series production model is derived from the Leopard 2AV. The "AV" designation was simply dropped at a later stage, it is not an alternative development to the Leopard 2AV. The designation remained in use until 1977/1978. Paul-Werner Krapke wrote that between US testing and the series production of the Leopard 2, the hull front was re-designed to offer "better" protection compared to the Leopard 2AV (without qualifying the term "better"), he doesn't state anything regarding side armor.

 

 

Rarely is classified information mentioned specifically, hence I wouldn't put much thought into that.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

You can see the add-on armor at the series production model for the German Army here: https://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a7/leo2.htm

 

thank you, interesting what was the main reason of addon 

 

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Do you have any proof that the Leopard 2K and Leopard 2AV failed to meet the specified protection requirements?

leave a man with his illusions lol

 

i can't understand such argumentation "i think/i doubt", there is archvies, if someone in doubt go to archvies find report pay money and show it, as for me as far as i get something new and interesting i post it, but there is a bunch of "i don't believe !111 and don't want to spend money on stupid archives because my opinion is more important!"...

Share this post


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

eave a man with his illusions lol

 

i can't understand such argumentation "i think/i doubt", there is archvies, if someone in doubt go to archvies find report pay money and show it, as for me as far as i get something new and interesting i post it, but there is a bunch of "i don't believe !111 and don't want to spend money on stupid archives because my opinion is more important!"...

 

Suuure, what'ever you say champ ;)

Share this post


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

The evidence is in the numbers as far as I'm concerned, 30mm of armour is not enough to reliably stop a 20mm DM43 at 100 m, it isn't even sufficient vs WW2 style 20mm APCR. 

 

That is no evidence. You don't know the test conditions, you don't know what steel alloy was used and how effective it was against the 20 x 139 mm DM43 round. Technologically the differences between the DM43 and an APCR round from WW2 are probably smaller than the metallurgic advancments from PzKpfW III to Leopard 2.

 

The fact that both the Leopard 2K and the Leopard 2AV have only 30 mm of steel at the lower hull is rather an evidence that the West-German engineers saw this as either sufficient to stop the 20 x  139 mm DM43 under their test conditions or considered this requirement to be sacrificed in order to save weight. You make this seem as if you believed the designers of the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes were to dumb to realize that 30 mm of steel was insufficient (against a DM43 fired in your made-up test conditions) but then had an epiphany that 45 mm of steel armor was required - and somehow managed to implement that while saving about two tonnes of weight on the tank.

 

Suggesting that the series variant designed by the same people as the Leopard 2AV and designed to meet the same protection requirements as the Leopard 2AV has massively changed hull side armor is silly. Specifically given that frontal hull armor coverage was downgraded to save weight.

 

16 hours ago, Pardus said:

And as we know the 2K & 2AV were both scrapped because they failed a number of unspecified criteria, and based on the adoption requirements my guess is side protection was one of the areas they failed to fully meet demands.

 

Neither was scrapped and neither failed a number of unspecified criteria. Read a book.

 

The Leopard 2K was renamed Leopard 2 after the proposed variant with guided anti-tank missile launcher (XM150 firing Shillelagh missiles) was dropped. After the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection. That resulted in a re-design, which at the same time allowed to compete for the next-generation US MBT against the XM1 prototypes.

 

The Leopard 2AV was never scrapped, it just dropped "AV" after it was decided to continue the Leopard 2 development based on it rather than moving on with a complete new design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is no evidence. You don't know the test conditions, you don't know what steel alloy was used and how effective it was against the 20 x 139 mm DM43 round. Technologically the differences between the DM43 and an APCR round from WW2 are probably smaller than the metallurgic advancments from PzKpfW III to Leopard 2.

 

The fact that both the Leopard 2K and the Leopard 2AV have only 30 mm of steel at the lower hull is rather an evidence that the West-German engineers saw this as either sufficient to stop the 20 x  139 mm DM43 under their test conditions or considered this requirement to be sacrificed in order to save weight. You make this seem as if you believed the designers of the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes were to dumb to realize that 30 mm of steel was insufficient (against a DM43 fired in your made-up test conditions) but then had an epiphany that 45 mm of steel armor was required - and somehow managed to implement that while saving about two tonnes of weight on the tank.

 

 

No, never implied that. Difference is I've been talking about the requirements for the production version the whole time, whilst you've been mixing it up with the initial ones. The Leopard 2K & 2AV couldn't meet updated requirements, hence the 2A was born.

 

21 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Neither was scrapped and neither failed a number of unspecified criteria. Read a book.

 

The Leopard 2K was renamed Leopard 2 after the proposed variant with guided anti-tank missile launcher (XM150 firing Shillelagh missiles) was dropped. After the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection. That resulted in a re-design, which at the same time allowed to compete for the next-generation US MBT against the XM1 prototypes.

 

The Leopard 2AV was never scrapped, it just dropped "AV" after it was decided to continue the Leopard 2 development based on it rather than moving on with a complete new design.

 

I have Krapke's book thank you very much.

 

"neither failed to meet specifications" & "it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection"

 

I hope you see the conflict ;)

 

But hey man, like I said I'm not here to discuss religion or politics. I don't care wether the sides are 30mm or 45mm, I've expressed my opinion (45mm) and provided an argument for it, and you yours.  It's a pity some of you couldn't hold a good tone however, must say my respect for you has faded because of it. 

 

A wise man once said:

"Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it."

 

 

Share this post


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

religion

LOL, to far too many of us, this stuff is religion.  Points to you for remaining calm under fire.

 

In my view the discussion is hypothetical at best.  The truth lies in the factory drawings and in the formal requirements and the forma test reports.  Without those, all is speculation, interesting tho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now a little bit different. KMW started assembling the refurbished Leopard-2A4s for Hungary. These will be training tanks until the new A7s arrive. According to the article below the turret was installed on the first chassis on 28th february. The plan is to deliver all 12 A4s this year.

 

https://honvedelem.hu/fooldal-kiemelesek/megkezdodott-a-magyar-harckocsik-osszeszerelese-nemetorszagban/?fbclid=IwAR2fOdPLL4CnGWveTUgs10U9NGVUPXks-S8RTsOhMeoLXLpmr0Ab5lGp-1I

 

20200304_Leopard_2A4-730x1024.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pardus

 

You sound like a broken record, repeating your mantra "Leopard 2 has 45 mm thick side armor, regardless of what you say."

 

There is no argument here, you have no sources, you have no arguments and you don't even have any explanation how this changed were implemented when saving about two metric tons of weight and a declassified 1977 report from the transistion time (from Leopard 2AV to Leopard 2 calling for a reduction in side wall thickness.

 

Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about. At first you claim that the Leopard 2 side armor is made of "ultra high-hardness steel", then suddenly 12 mm perforated skirts and 30 mm base armor are insufficient against protecting against 14.5 mm AP according to you. You also claimed that the Leopard 2 was to be immune against 20 mm APCR from point-blanc range, only to be informed that the protection requirement applied from 700 mm above the ground from 100 m range at the crew compartment and 500 m range elsewhere. And depsite the Leopard 2's side armor being made of UHHS steel, you suddenly decide that penetration performance against steel armor from WW2 matters as reference/"evidence" that the Leopard 2AV's hull armor is incapable of resisting 20 mm APCR rounds. And on a site note you expected slat armor to work against ATGMs...

 

You simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have made incorrect statements since the beginning of this discussion and only shifted arguments whenever you ended up being confronted with actual facts.You don't know the protective quality of the steel used for the Leopard 2 hull and you don't know the test criteria/test setup used to evaluate protection, yet you ignore these factors despite your whole point depending on them.

 

On 3/4/2020 at 12:03 AM, Pardus said:

The hull side continues up behind the sponsons in the crew area, and features another spaced array used for NERA inserts on later variants, and they also looks quite thick (again not present on the Hilmes cutaway, because it isn't a drawing meant to show armour thickness or layout):

4XLuWJb.jpg

 

The Leopard 2AV already had these cavities with multi-layered armor.

 

19 hours ago, Pardus said:

No, never implied that. Difference is I've been talking about the requirements for the production version the whole time, whilst you've been mixing it up with the initial ones. The Leopard 2K & 2AV couldn't meet updated requirements, hence the 2A was born.

 

There were no updated protection requirements between the Leopard 2AV and the Leopard 2. They simply dropped the "AV" designation and kept the same requirements.

 

19 hours ago, Pardus said:

"neither failed to meet specifications" & "it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection"

 

Again you fail to understand. You pretend that the Leopard 2K and the Leopard 2AV failed to meet the requirements that they were built for, e.g. by pretending that the Leopard 2AV would have needed 45 mm thick side walls at the hull. That is not true. 

 

The Leopard 2K met the protection requirements it was designed for, focus had to be put on other prototypes after new requirements were made. The Leopard 2AV met the protection requirements it was designed for and there were no new requirements calling for a higher level of protection.

 

20 hours ago, Pardus said:

I don't care wether the sides are 30mm or 45mm, I've expressed my opinion (45mm) and provided an argument for it, and you yours.  It's a pity some of you couldn't hold a good tone however, must say my respect for you has faded because of it. 

 

As proven by this discussion, you clearly do care about that. But you value your opinions over facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

You sound like a broken record, repeating your mantra "Leopard 2 has 45 mm thick side armor, regardless of what you say."

 

No, I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that 45mm is more likely in my opinion. I never once claimed it to be fact, and neither did I simply scuff & brush away anything you said as ridiculous the way you have done it to me.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There is no argument here, you have no sources, you have no arguments and you don't even have any explanation how this changed were implemented when saving about two metric tons of weight and a declassified 1977 report from the transistion time (from Leopard 2AV to Leopard 2 calling for a reduction in side wall thickness.

 

On the contrary I have an argument, which is that based on the logic that if immunity to 20mm DM43 was demanded above 700mm height then 30mm of armour wouldn't be enough. That's the main argument from my side.

 

If you have a report that says otherwise, heck even that side armour was decreased then I don't understand why you haven't posted it by now.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about. At first you claim that the Leopard 2 side armor is made of "ultra high-hardness steel", then suddenly 12 mm perforated skirts and 30 mm base armor are insufficient against protecting against 14.5 mm AP according to you. You also claimed that the Leopard 2 was to be immune against 20 mm APCR from point-blanc range, only to be informed that the protection requirement applied from 700 mm above the ground from 100 m range at the crew compartment and 500 m range elsewhere. And depsite the Leopard 2's side armor being made of UHHS steel, you suddenly decide that penetration performance against steel armor from WW2 matters as reference/"evidence" that the Leopard 2AV's hull armor is incapable of resisting 20 mm APCR rounds. And on a site note you expected slat armor to work against ATGMs...

 

"Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about" - What a way to start a sentence, you for sure aren't emotionally invested in this conversation at all ^_^ 

 

1) Never claimed that 12mm perforated steel + 30mm base armour is insufficient vs 14.5mm AP (a 12mm perforated steel rubber plate obviously doesn't provide as much protection as a monolithic steel plate though), what I've said is that there's a noticable portion of the Leopard 2's side hull which isn't covered by skirts and hence would likely be vulnerable to even 14.5mm AP if just 30mm thick.

2) Immunity to 20mm APCR was what I remembered as the requirement, you claim it is at 100m above 700mm height (you "informed" me no less, fancy stuff, we'll get back to that), which I completely accepted, but it's a pointless detail to make as it doesn't impact the argument I was making: i.e. 30mm of armour ultra high hardness, high hardness or regular RHA isn't going to be sufficient to guarantee immunity against 20mm DM43 based on the flat penetration figures I've seen for this round. It might just cut it vs 14.5mm if its UHHS, not sure.

3) I didn't "decide" that penetration performance of WW2 20mm APCR matters as reference, I mentioned it to illustrate that performance of modern 20mm APCR certainly wouldn't be worse than this.

4) Slat armour is supposed to break up HEAT warheads, so yes ofcourse it should also work against some ATGMs, it depends entirely on warhead type and hit location. Against a top attack only ATGM system side mounted slat armour obviously doesn't really matter.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Again you fail to understand. You pretend that the Leopard 2K and the Leopard 2AV failed to meet the requirements that they were built for, e.g. by pretending that the Leopard 2AV would have needed 45 mm thick side walls at the hull. That is not true.

 

Nope, once again never once said that. I said they were scrapped because failed to meet the requirements that the production version was built for.

 

If the requirement for the 2K & 2AV was for immunity to 20mm DM43 along the entire crew compartment and they fulfilled this requirement, then find me the statement were that is made and we're good. I've read through my own copy of Krapke & Hilmes book and found nothing suggesting this.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As proven by this discussion, you clearly do care about that. But you value your opinions over facts.

 

Incorrect, like I've said from the beginning I don't care what thickness the side hull is, and I do care about what is fact, but in case we don't know these facts (which is the case here) then I will concentrate  on what I think is most likely based on the limited information we have. And I can do that without calling anyone with a different opinion clueless or any other derogatory term in the process.

 

You on the other hand seem to only care about having people acknowledge everything you say as fact, and if they don't you will let personal insults rain upon them until they submit to what you deem factual. Which brings me to the obvious question of why you act like this? From where does this sense of authority & entitlement on the subject originate? What's the ethos here? Are you a former KMW employee? Do you work with the Leopard 2 on a daily basis etc? If so then I can understand that you feel you can speak with atleast some elevated authority on the subject (it still doesn't excuse your deplorable habbit of speaking down to people however), but otherwise I don't see how you can expect others to simply abandon their own opinion.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The Leopard 2AV already had these cavities with multi-layered armor.

 

Not sure why you point this out, I never said it didn't? 

 

I posted the picture in response to Laviduce's reliance on Hilmes drawing for guessing armour thickness, which is an exercise in futility as these drawings aren't meant to showcase armour layout or thickness, hence why they also don't show these cavities amongst many other things. 

 

Share this post


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

In my view the discussion is hypothetical at best.  The truth lies in the factory drawings and in the formal requirements and the forma test reports.  Without those, all is speculation, interesting tho!

 

I agree completely, and when speculating I think it's very important to be friendly & respectful about it, mostly because otherwise you end up looking like a real ass if your hypothesis turns out to be wrong :D  

 

And as for the factory drawings, they indeed tell the truth, but if they supposedly were/are as easy to get a hold of as Wiedzmin suggested, then I wonder why that hasn't already been done? ;) I'm quite sure it wouldn't be due to a lack of interested individuals :D 

 

Share this post


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

@SH_MM

 

 

No, I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that 45mm is more likely in my opinion. I never once claimed it to be fact, and neither did I simply scuff & brush away anything you said as ridiculous the way you have done it to me.

 

 

On the contrary I have an argument, which is that based on the logic that if immunity to 20mm DM43 was demanded above 700mm height then 30mm of armour wouldn't be enough. That's the main argument from my side.

 

If you have a report that says otherwise, heck even that side armour was decreased then I don't understand why you haven't posted it by now.

 

 

"Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about" - What a way to start a sentence, you for sure aren't emotionally invested in this conversation at all ^_^ 

 

1) Never claimed that 12mm perforated steel + 30mm base armour is insufficient vs 14.5mm AP (a 12mm perforated steel rubber plate obviously doesn't provide as much protection as a monolithic steel plate though), what I've said is that there's a noticable portion of the Leopard 2's side hull which isn't covered by skirts and hence would likely be vulnerable to even 14.5mm AP if just 30mm thick.

2) Immunity to 20mm APCR was what I remembered as the requirement, you claim it is at 100m above 700mm height (you "informed" me no less, fancy stuff, we'll get back to that), which I completely accepted, but it's a pointless detail to make as it doesn't impact the argument I was making: i.e. 30mm of armour ultra high hardness, high hardness or regular RHA isn't going to be sufficient to guarantee immunity against 20mm DM43 based on the flat penetration figures I've seen for this round. It might just cut it vs 14.5mm if its UHHS, not sure.

3) I didn't "decide" that penetration performance of WW2 20mm APCR matters as reference, I mentioned it to illustrate that performance of modern 20mm APCR certainly wouldn't be worse than this.

4) Slat armour is supposed to break up HEAT warheads, so yes ofcourse it should also work against some ATGMs, it depends entirely on warhead type and hit location. Against a top attack only ATGM system side mounted slat armour obviously doesn't really matter.

 

 

Nope, once again never once said that. I said they were scrapped because failed to meet the requirements that the production version was built for.

 

If the requirement for the 2K & 2AV was for immunity to 20mm DM43 along the entire crew compartment and they fulfilled this requirement, then find me the statement were that is made and we're good. I've read through my own copy of Krapke & Hilmes book and found nothing suggesting this.

 

 

Incorrect, like I've said from the beginning I don't care what thickness the side hull is, and I do care about what is fact, but in case we don't know these facts (which is the case here) then I will concentrate  on what I think is most likely based on the limited information we have. And I can do that without calling anyone with a different opinion clueless or any other deragatory term in the process.

 

You on the other hand seem to only care about having people acknowledge everything you say as fact, and if they don't you will let personal insults rain upon them until they submit to what you deem factual. Which brings me to the obvious question of why you act like this? From where does this sense of authority & entitlement on the subject originate? What's the ethos here? Are you a former KMW employee? Do you work with the Leopard 2 on a daily basis etc? If so then I can understand that you feel you can speak with atleast some elevated authority on the subject (it still doesn't excuse your deplorable habbit of speaking down to people however), but otherwise I don't see how you can expect others to simply abandon their own opinion.

 

 

 

 

In my opinion @SH_MM was never a KMW employee because he is a Deisenroth and Rheinmetall fan and he believes that KMW has no protection development knowledge. For me he is an old fool telling old stories with little actual background. Guess he is a pensioned BWB or BMVg clerk, more than 70 years old and playing the "protection knowledge" supervisor for this community. Sorry for this rigorous statement!

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...