Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

It is indeed the drivers hatch, but not sure where you seeing the 30mm plate?

 

If you're talking about the UFP, it's 45mm. The hatch itself though is 30mm on the 2A4, and over twice as thick on the 2A5 forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2020 at 4:32 AM, SH_MM said:

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.

 

In what sense? Were Thermals outside armored vehicles okay in the early '70, if there were any in service?

In 1974 a test with an AN/TAS-3 strapped to a TOW, had a 60% hit capability at ranges from 600 to 1000 meters at night, compared to 16% with day tracker and some illumination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1st Panzerdivision is showing off its new gate guardian/mascot.

 

 

Leopard 2AV turret (T21) on pre-series Leopard 2 hull. Apparently with 105 mm rifled gun.

EXQwPrmWsAQLmg2?format=jpg&name=large

 

EXQwS5oWkAAhDCN?format=jpg&name=large

 

EXQwR5gWkAIVMvS?format=jpg&name=large

 

1 hour ago, Pascal said:

 

In what sense? Were Thermals outside armored vehicles okay in the early '70, if there were any in service?

In 1974 a test with an AN/TAS-3 strapped to a TOW, had a 60% hit capability at ranges from 600 to 1000 meters at night, compared to 16% with day tracker and some illumination.

 

All thermal imagers based on Common Modules (TOGS, WBG-X, systems for M60A3 and M1 Abrams) utilize a 120 line detector, which is usually used to generate a image with a 640 x 480 pixel effective resolution (AFAIK it can be either interlaced or non-interlaced depending on the exact implementation). According to US data, this would allow the M1 Abrams to identify targets (i.e. to know wether the pixel blob on the screen/in the occular is a T-72 or a M1 Abrams tank) up to about 1,500 meters distance. However combat experience in the Gulf War has shown that in bad weather condiitons, target identification range can be limited to just 600 meters - this was blamed for the increased number of firendly fire incidents in Iraq.

 

West-Germany wanted to be able to fight at night at ranges of up to 3,000 meters (though even with their LLLTV systems actual range was probably closer to under 1,500 meters at bad weather conditions). The AN/TAS-3 has a 64 line detector and was ready for production in 1975, about the same time the Leopard 2 was originally meant to enter service. So it is clear that this technology didn't allow meeting the desired range at the time.

 

In the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik it is mentioned that the RZ 501 thermal imager made by the West-German industry had a 100 lines detector in 1974 and a MOU to develop the Common Modules was being signed, so technology was catching up - but the original Leopard 2 prototypes were ordered in 1971, well before thermal imaging systems were ready to become the sole source for night vision equipment of main battle tanks.

 

AFAIK the MIRA thermal imager for Milan has 50 detector elements, no idea about MIRA 2.

Share this post


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

All thermal imagers based on Common Modules (TOGS, WBG-X, systems for M60A3 and M1 Abrams) utilize a 120 line detector, which is usually used to generate a image with a 640 x 480 pixel effective resolution (AFAIK it can be either interlaced or non-interlaced depending on the exact implementation). According to US data, this would allow the M1 Abrams to identify targets (i.e. to know wether the pixel blob on the screen/in the occular is a T-72 or a M1 Abrams tank) up to about 1,500 meters distance. However combat experience in the Gulf War has shown that in bad weather condiitons, target identification range can be limited to just 600 meters - this was blamed for the increased number of firendly fire incidents in Iraq.

 

West-Germany wanted to be able to fight at night at ranges of up to 3,000 meters (though even with their LLLTV systems actual range was probably closer to under 1,500 meters at bad weather conditions). The AN/TAS-3 has a 64 line detector and was ready for production in 1975, about the same time the Leopard 2 was originally meant to enter service. So it is clear that this technology didn't allow meeting the desired range at the time.

 

In the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik it is mentioned that the RZ 501 thermal imager made by the West-German industry had a 100 lines detector in 1974 and a MOU to develop the Common Modules was being signed, so technology was catching up - but the original Leopard 2 prototypes were ordered in 1971, well before thermal imaging systems were ready to become the sole source for night vision equipment of main battle tanks.

 

AFAIK the MIRA thermal imager for Milan has 50 detector elements, no idea about MIRA 2.

 

What's the identification range of a tank target for the image intensifiers of the early '70 time frame?

I had something regarding the M60A3 and it's early versions with the image intensifiers before switching to it's thermals, hope i can find it in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spend recently a bit of time with the Rh-120mm L44 gun.
Here are my findings (weight estimation):

 

Spoiler

2HsW3hQ.png

This a combination of estimation (marked with ~) and many sources for the weight of the L44 gun on the Leopard 2A4

 

Sources can be found here: http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg

 

Here are also some great pics of the L44 cut open:

Spoiler

Cs1UAEl.jpg
ziZgApM.jpg
iSimSMC.jpg

 

 

Edited by Yoshi_E
removed incorrect data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BAAAINBw's TL 2350-0010 for "Sonderpanzerung, zweite Generation" (technical delivery conditions for the supply of special armor, second generation) expired last year. No idea what to make of this. Unfortunately none of the TLs are available for private persons.

 

17 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

From there I can only draw the conclusion that it's a metal which does not rust, therefore not needing any paint.

 

It does not rust... just like stainless steel.Paint is hardly an evidence.

 

Share this post


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

It does not rust... just like stainless steel.Paint is hardly an evidence.

 

True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. 

 

A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 11:24 PM, Yoshi_E said:

A counter argument I could think of is that titanium quickly shatters, meaning it would create a lot of spalling when penetrated, yet no spall liner was applied there.

 

I don't think titanium actually shatters, it's fairly ductile eventhough its very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 11:24 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I spend recently a bit of time with the Rh-120mm L44 gun.
Here are my findings (weight estimation):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

nMuXoS7.png

This a combination of estimation (marked with ~) and 5 sources for the weight of the L44 gun on the Leopard 2A4

 

Sources can be found here: https://i.imgur.com/l3O7juF.png (contact me if u want the .svg file)

 

Here are also some great pics of the L44 cut open:

  Reveal hidden contents

Cs1UAEl.jpg
ziZgApM.jpg
iSimSMC.jpg

 

Regarding the theory that Leopard 2A4 8th batch and upwards utilized Titanium and Tungsten:

In all older Leopard 2 the trunnion was always painted with rust resistant paint as seen here:
 

 

Yet in all new versions (>=2A5) the trunnion was no longer painted and just raw metal:

 

From there I can only draw the conclusion that it's a metal which does not rust, therefore not needing any paint.
Taking the rumors into account, the trunnion is most likely made out of a titanium alloy.  The color and texture of the metal would also support this idea.

A counter argument I could think of is that titanium quickly shatters, meaning it would create a lot of spalling when penetrated, yet no spall liner was applied there.

 

On 5/16/2020 at 5:02 AM, Pardus said:

 

True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. 

 

A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight. 

 

 

 

Why all this guessing?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4xitrrBUDsYckRhSXNNSXpKbkE/view?pli=1
Gun cradle weight of 595kg, and all the other stuff you can probably use translate for (this is most likely for Strv 122 as well, not Strv 121).
So gun cradle on 122 is steel, not titanium, weight in this location doesn't matter as much as it's right on the pivot point, inertia and balance doesn't change a whole lot because of it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 7:53 PM, Scav said:

 

Why all this guessing?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4xitrrBUDsYckRhSXNNSXpKbkE/view?pli=1
Gun cradle weight of 595kg, and all the other stuff you can probably use translate for (this is most likely for Strv 122 as well, not Strv 121).
So gun cradle on 122 is steel, not titanium, weight in this location doesn't matter as much as it's right on the pivot point, inertia and balance doesn't change a whole lot because of it.
 

 

What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 7:53 PM, Scav said:

Why all this guessing?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4xitrrBUDsYckRhSXNNSXpKbkE/view?pli=1
Gun cradle weight of 595kg, and all the other stuff you can probably use translate for (this is most likely for Strv 122 as well, not Strv 121).
So gun cradle on 122 is steel, not titanium, weight in this location doesn't matter as much as it's right on the pivot point, inertia and balance doesn't change a whole lot because of it.
 

I had that file already in my folder... guess i overlooked it or got deterred by the language. Thats why this thread is a gold mine :)
The swedish document was difficult to translate, but I manged to find everything other than "Framförare vikt : 36kg" Translation is something like: "Front - Recoil reducing". Im assuming its part of the hydraulics / recuperators, but the "Front" part in it doesnt match that.

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

@Pardus:
240mm thickness
728mm wide (Swedish documents list 910mm including the bearings)
500mm tall
The central hole should be around 310 mm in diameter (from the Swedish document)
The smaller ones are larger on the inside and smaller on the front, but in general it should be 30-80mm in diameter.


 

Based on:

Spoiler

WNvDyhx.png


 

Share this post


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

I had that file already in my folder... guess i overlooked it or got deterred by the language. Thats why this thread is a gold mine :)
The swedish document was difficult to translate, but I manged to find everything other than "Framförare vikt : 36kg" Translation is something like: "Front - Recoil reducing". Im assuming its part of the hydraulics / recuperators, but the "Front" part in it doesnt match that.

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

@Pardus:
240mm thickness
728mm wide (Swedish documents list 910mm including the bearings)
500mm tall
The central hole should be around 310 mm in diameter (from the Swedish document)
The smaller ones are larger on the inside and smaller on the front, but in general it should be 30-80mm in diameter.


 

Based on:

  Reveal hidden contents

WNvDyhx.png


 

 

Ok, using those measurements I get 698 kg for a solid block, no holes, using a density of 8 g/mm3. With the holes 595 kg sounds about right, so RHA does make sense based on that. 

 

420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 9:51 AM, Pardus said:

420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.

Dont forgot the cover plate.
The hole array in a bit more detail should be  more like this (+-5% mm margin of error, all values are estimates):
240mm Trunnion + 34mm Cover plate + 22mm air + 360mm NERA + 30mm fontal plate.


CquTtU4.png

 

btw, it seems that 240mm is a well know value, but do we have a source for that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 3:33 PM, Pardus said:

 

What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)

We don't know the exact dimensions of the holes, though you can sort of get close with pixel measuring on the inside, but that isn't particularly relevant because the gun cradle isn't just that block, it's also the thicker part of the barrel right in front of the block and right behind it.
In the Rh120 brochure from Rheinmetall I posted a while ago the "gun port" dimensions are given: 730x500mm, thus while the gun cradle itself is 728mm wide we can surmise the height is close to 500m, after you know the rough dimensions some guessing of hole sizes, you can get a decent idea on how much volume it has.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 3:52 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

Total weight is 3655kg with mantlet.
Without it's 3015kg.
Where do you get 3780 from?

Keep in mind that weight can change over production, the 122's gun might not be identical to the original leo 2's.

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Meanwhile this design from 1976 weighed more than the gun mantlet of the series production version.

The section at the bottom seems to have been dropped and I'm not sure which 2AV mantlet this is....

 

This one?

Spoiler

Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976) - Passed for Consideration - War ...

 

Or this one?

Spoiler

Gaijin pls: Leopard 2AV prototype as a german tier V premium, like ...

 

Share this post


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

Where do you get 3780 from?

I summarized all weights here:
http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg
In most sources 3800kg or 3780kg is given (especially for more current version)

 

@SH_MM Source to that? It looks alot like the 2AV armor array, how much is that applicable to Leopard 2A4, considering that the armor layout between them were changed quite considerably?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 1:44 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I summarized all weights here:
http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg
In most sources 3800kg or 3780kg is given (especially for more current version)

I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages.

The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 10:05 AM, Scav said:

I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages.

The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.

You think the value Rheinmetall has given is wrong? I doubt that. It also matches the recently measured weight on Pz 87.
The barrel weight is commonly given, and known for all L44 and L55 variants.
I think its more likely that the system or the armor on the system was changed, or increased in weight since 1982.
E.g. the Turnunion there was not manufactured that precise in 1980, it should also be slightly smaller due to additional paint layer. Other changes could be the recoil system. The mount system for the MG was also changed.

So 3655kg for Leopard A0-A3 and 3780kg or 3800kg for Leopard 2A4 - Leopard 2A5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 2:57 AM, SH_MM said:

new ATTICA thermal imager for the gunner's sight, new eye-safe laser rangefinder.

 

So the German leopards 2 jumped over the second generation thermal imager's for the gunner's sight right to third generation?

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...