Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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:

3 hours ago, Pardus said:

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.

 

I don't comment on armour because my knowledge is too limited but this statement is incorrect. Maybe the prehistoric Malyutka is an exception but against most of the ATGMs the slat armor is rather useless because it can't cut the fuze in them unlike with the old RPG/LAW warheads. Even against those it's far from being 100% effective in not initializing the warhead. 

 

Unfortunately I can't find the video now but I remember that there was one on youtube where they test fired now already dated and pretty light RPG-26 on a slat-armoured APC and the slat armour failed to achieve anything. The warhead detonated and penetrated the vehicle completely in and out. Maybe someone who can write in cyrilic may find it. 

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

 

Unfortunately I can't find the video now but I remember that there was one on youtube where they test fired now already dated and pretty light RPG-26 on a slat-armoured APC and the slat armour failed to achieve anything. The warhead detonated and penetrated the vehicle completely in and out. Maybe someone who can write in cyrilic may find it. 

RPG-26 have inertial fuze that actives when rocket stops (or drops speed too fast). Slat armor is nearly useless in that case. Original video is deleted.

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

more than 70 years old

careful with ageist slights.  A twenty year old engineer working on Leopard 2 in 1970 would be 70 years old now.  Leopard 2 and Abrams etc are bloody old = the guys that designed them are bloody old and or dead...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, the guys being engineers with Leopard 2 first development at DEG (Deutsche Entwicklungsgesellschaft) are too old to type in forums or are even dead. But some guys which worked with the development of the improved Leopard 2 A5 armour are old (more than 60) but still agile in some protection areas. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the case who SH_MM is:
I dont think a 70 year old german defence industry retiree would be in this forum.
And if he was he would be posting in a german forum too.

I think he is a student at a university studying defence technology or works for one of the bigger companies but is pretty new.
The young guy at bigger Company is pretty plausible because he keeps his online profile very low.

I think this here is one of, if not the only forum he posts on after his sadly deserted blog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

On the case who SH_MM is:
I dont think a 70 year old german defence industry retiree would be in this forum.
And if he was he would be posting in a german forum too.

I think he is a student at a university for defence technology or works for one of the bigger companies but is pretty new.
The young guy at bigger Company is pretty plausible because he keeps his online profile very low.

I think this here is one of, if not the only forum he posts on after his sadly deserted blog.

 

Maybe you are right but at some time he will betray himself... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/7/2020 at 4:07 PM, Pardus said:

Something I just came to think of, the drivers hatch on the 2A5 onwards looks a lot thicker than the 30mm of the 2A4's:

 

Spoiler

walk-around-detailbilder-leopard-2a5-wal

 

 

50-60mm maybe?

No need to guess:
 

Spoiler

leopard_2e_spanish_150_of_192.pngStPSdQb.pngleopard_2e_spanish_150_of_192.png

Quite easily 64mm, though I'm not sure the entire hatch is that thick considering there's optics on it and they have to lead down somewhere, so maybe there's a cutout that allows you to push up the other end (haven't bothered to get inside pictures, so purely speculation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very thick indeed, ~65mm as you can see, and the add on armour on the UFP is 45mm, which if I'm not mistaken is also the thickness of the base armour here (45mm), atleast that's what it was on the 2AV.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, my bad again, 81 no used against hull, 127 and 107

 

127mm-600-636mm pen

107mm-480mm pen

0071erLk578.jpg

KHM7uu-eSK0.jpg

 

 

as far as i understand, because of this hull front failure they later made this hull 

 

CYFl6YRQAnI.jpg

 

and only after this version get to 2A0/4 style hull, but i don't know is 2A0/4 a capable of stoping 127mm warhead or not...

 

and there is a scheme of firings of 2AV in US, without any good details, only that tank have 39 hits, of which 16 germans consider to be "good", of which 3 actually was penetration in turret front and mantlet by 127mm warhead, remaining 23 hits, they didn't  mention...

 

yWO9QJVJ94o.jpg

v5d7eI5X2C0.jpgN-v-hYskMvk.jpg

 

penetration was hit 6, 5 and 13, which version of hull front was used in US trials i don't know

 

 

f7NVe7P.jpg

p.s scheme of US trials seem to match trials i previosly posted here, so it's seems that they used improved hul, or germans repeat all hits that they recieved during US trials later at home with improved hull front

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Does anyone have confirmed info that is there new flat screen(s ) (thermal image display) for commander in the latest Leo 2A7V?  There is some picture on the internet from the commander station of the  first Leo 2A7 variant where there is old CRT still there? Some new display on the right, but thermal imager screen is still old CRT? And some BMS display between that thermal imager screen and some new display?

 

Edit also same question concerning driver CRT display

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rike1985 said:

Does anyone have confirmed info that is there new flat screen(s ) (thermal image display) for commander in the latest Leo 2A7V?  There is some picture on the internet from the commander station of the  first Leo 2A7 variant where there is old CRT still there? Some new display on the right, but thermal imager screen is still old CRT? And some BMS display between that thermal imager screen and some new display?

 

Edit also same question concerning driver CRT display

 

German Leo2A7 are part of the DLBO (Digital Landbased Operations). For that the vehicles will get new displays (to show the BMS) I assume that it will be this display (but this project is still in progress so the first 2A7 might not have it yet):

https://www.atm-computer.de/19758-ZG9tPWRvbTEmbD1lbiZzdGFydD0x-/products/VistaMaster.html

 

Further the Leo2A7 has the Spectus thermal imager in front and rear

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

This requires a new display as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The Leopard 1A3's fire control system and optics were derived from the contemporary Leopard 2 development; in particular the EMES 12 steoroscopic rangefinder, the PERI R12 commander's sight and the FLER-H are based on early Leopard 2 components.

 

But on the Leopard 2 prototypes the EMES 12 was not just an optical rangefinder. Paul-Werner Krapke in his book essentially calls it an optical rangefinder with integrated laser rangefinder, which leaves tonnes of room for imagination. The Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik from 1974 explains some details regarding this arrangement. Basically the laser rangefinder used the same lenses as the optical rangefinder, but was reflected at a semi-translucent mirror, while visible light could pass it. As the Bundeswehr considered laser rangefinders to be too inaccurate during the early 1970s (apparently they often picked up incorrect or multiple laser echos), the gunner had the task to double-check the laser rangefinder's measurements. For this purpose the result of the laser rangefinding was displayed in the gunner's eyepieces, so that he could quickly set the optical rangefinder to that range - if the measurement was correct, then the target would appear correctly ranged (sharp) in the optical rangefinder aswell.

For the Leopard 1A3 the laser rangefinder was removed - probably as cost-saving measure.

 

I wonder what this means regarding the reliability of the Tank Laser Sight adopted on the Chieftain already in 1970...

 

On a side note, the FERO Z12 auxiliary sight on the early Leopard 2 prototypes also included a night vision option (of unknown quality - IR or image intensifier?) - the later FERO Z18 of the Leopard 2 and corresponding devices found on other modern tanks like the Abrams and Challenger 2 only work as daysights.

 

But the really interesting aspect of the early Leopard 2 prototypes are the night vision devices. Basically two different designs were tested: the PZNG and NZG 200.

 

The PZNG (this probably stands for "passives Ziel- und Nachtsichtgerät" - passive targeting and night vision device) was made by AEG. It consists of a fully-stabilized periscope incorporating a low light level television system with a 200 mm lens opening and basically the same second-generation image intensifier as used in the PZB 200 LLTV camera. The whole PZNG had a weight of circa 70 kilograms and was mounted on a retractable mast at the back of the turret. Full 360° traverse and elevation ranging from -10° to +20° allowed detection targets at all directions.

 

xy8c60I.jpg

PZNG with captions pointing towards the LLTV camera lens ("TV-KANAL"), thermal imager lens ("WB-KANAL"), as well as drives for elevation and azimuth

 

A special feature of the PZNG was the so-called Wärmebildortung or Wärmebildpeilung (basically: thermal image detection/scanning). Thermal imagers at the early 1970s didn't offer sufficient resolution and contrast to be used as night vision devices in armored vehicles; yet they clearly offered a massive advantage in terms of detection capability. So AEG decided to add a thermal imaging system to the PZNG to be purely used for target detection, which projected the image onto the photocathode of the camera tube. Essentially by activating the Wärmebildortung the thermal imager produced images at a very slow rate (just one frame per minute, probably in order to reduce the required cooling system). These were laid over the image provided by the LLLTV system, essentially acting as a very early type of sensor fusion. Compared to thermal rangefinders, LLLTV systems at the time provided clearer images and longer ranges (up to 3,000 meters according to the optimistic values from the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik 1974). The modular design of the PZNG allowed to completely replace it with a newer thermal imager in the future.

 

The NZG 200 was developed by Zeiss and Eltro. I believe that NZG might stand for "Nachtsichtzielgerät" - night vision targeting device. In terms of overall specs, it is largely similar to the PZNG - a 70 kg heavy, fully stabilized periscope with 360° travese and -10° to +20° elevation that sits on an elevatable mast which can be retracted into the turret. The main difference between both systems is the image intensifier - another type of video camera tube was used - and the íntegration of the still early thermal imaging technology. Instead of a small thermal sensor with a low framerate being used, the NZG 200 included a proper thermal imager. A mirror in the "dead" zone of the LLLTV's mirror lens directed the incoming light to it. As the resolution was still rather limited, the thermal imager also was to be only used for target detection - identification of the target aswell as aiming was to be done using the image intensifier instead.

 

QC8sj3z.jpg

 

The NZG 200 didn't allow overlying the thermal imager's output onto the LLLTV image, instead the operator had to switch between switch between both modes. Alternatively one operator (gunner or commander) could view the thermal channel, while the other could view the LLLTV channel. The NZG 200 was designed in such a way, that the thermal imaging module could be easily replaced with newer ones in the future.

 

 

The PZNG was fitted to the Leopard 2 prototype turrets T12 and T17, while the NZG 200 was fitted to the turrets T11 and T16.

 

https://esut.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/T11-mit-20-mm-MK-und-Nachtsehger-Ein-Prototyp-der-ersten-Generation-e1569408092813.jpg

 

Leopard 2 prototype with turret T11 (the only one with 20 mm autocannon). The NZG 200 is visible at the center-left side of the photo. Next to it is the pulse spotlight, which could be used with the LLLTV system in the oimnous "gated viewing mode".

 

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...