Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 5/22/2020 at 11:53 PM, Scav said:

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

 

Shouldn't matter. The prototypes were built with weight simulators, not the actual armor packages. The different shape of the mantlet is related to the different guns mounted on the tank.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 1:44 PM, Yoshi_E said:

@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?

 

It is a drawing based on documents from the German national archives. Wiedzmin made it based on the descriptions/drawings in the declassified documents. You will find more about it in the earlier pages of the topic.

 

Only new production Leopard 2A4 tanks made in and after 1988 received newer armor. All earlier Leopard 2A4s were made with the same armor as the original Leopard 2 production model of 1979. This armor is probably very similar to the one designed for the Leopard 2AV in 1976, as it is based on it.

 

15 hours ago, Pascal said:

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

 

Yes. The OPHELIOS second-generation thermal imager for the commander was created as cost saving measure, as the new European second-generation thermal imaging modules (developed during the TRIGAT project that included Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) weren't available in time for production and would have very expensive during the early 1990s. The plan was to later replace OPHELIOS's thermal imaging module and the WBG-X completely with a new design utilizing the TRIGAT's thermal imaging module (that was introduced with the UHT Tiger in German service and also used on various other weapon systems such as the other Tiger variants,  the Leclerc, the Warrior IFV, the Scimitar scout vehicle and the T-90A as part of different thermal imagers), but upgrade plans came to an halt when the KWS III was canceled.

Share this post


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

Yes. The OPHELIOS second-generation thermal imager for the commander was created as cost saving measure, as the new European second-generation thermal imaging modules (developed during the TRIGAT project that included Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) weren't available in time for production and would have very expensive during the early 1990s. The plan was to later replace OPHELIOS's thermal imaging module and the WBG-X completely with a new design utilizing the TRIGAT's thermal imaging module (that was introduced with the UHT Tiger in German service and also used on various other weapon systems such as the other Tiger variants,  the Leclerc, the Warrior IFV, the Scimitar scout vehicle and the T-90A as part of different thermal imagers), but upgrade plans came to an halt when the KWS III was canceled.

 

Thank you very much for the information.

Shame German Leopards 2 gunner's went so much time without second generation thermals.

Couldn't gunners use the commanders second generation thermal for firing?

Share this post


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

Couldn't gunners use the commanders second generation thermal for firing?

 

Not as far as I am aware. The difference in image quality also wouldn't be very large, as OPHELIOS was very simple in order to be cost effective in the early 1990s, when the manufacturing of electronic components still was cumbersome and expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 12:01 PM, SH_MM said:

Shouldn't matter. The prototypes were built with weight simulators, not the actual armor packages. The different shape of the mantlet is related to the different guns mounted on the tank.

Comparing proto to production, yes it will matter....
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 3:19 PM, Yoshi_E said:

You think the value Rheinmetall has given is wrong? I doubt that.

The 3800kg weight is not given for the L/44 as on leo 2, but the LR version(s).


Not sure, but could be that it's the same for this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061103224651/http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1448&lang=3&pdb=1

 

On 5/26/2020 at 3:19 PM, Yoshi_E said:

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, 150kg added.... 
From?
Things that changed (MRS, MG mount) aren't very significant in weight.

The Strv 121/122 doc has weights given for the 122 BTW, not the 121.
Note on the Pz 87 site: they list 56.5t (presumably because their tanks are C tech).

Share this post


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

Does anyone know when the "E-technology" armor packages were introduced to the Leopard 2 line ? I heard that that happened over 10 years ago.

 

I cannot say when it was actually fielded, but according to an article written by Dieter Haug, who worked (maybe still works) as a protection expert for the Armament Directorate (then BWB, today BAAINBw) of the German Ministry of Defence, the B-technology armor was followed by C-, D- and E-technology armor as a reaction to the ever increasing penetration potential of newer weapons. The article is dated 2009 and provides a very good overview on the development of armor technology (including indirectly describing B-technology armor and Chobham armor as NERA).

 

If I had to guess, I'd say the E-technology armor was developed for the Leopard 2A6 EX demonstrator (simply based on the fact that it was designed to surpass the existing Leopard 2 variants in pretty much every aspect). It also might be related to the Leopard 2A7, which was in early stages of development by 2009 (first presented to the public in 2010).

 

8 hours ago, HAKI2019 said:

 

This should be a PERI R17A3L4 (L4 for Leopard 2A4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2020 at 11:17 PM, Laviduce said:

Does anyone know when the "E-technology" armor packages were introduced to the Leopard 2 line ? I heard that that happened over 10 years ago.

The development of the E -technology started 2002 as a private initiative of KMW to cover the expected threat of PG's fired from RPG-7. The design covered turret and chassis with add-on armour modules adapted to Leopard 2.

This technology was proved by German Army and sold by KMW to the Canadian Army for their Leopard 2 A4M CAN. A few vehicles were sent in 2010 to Afghanistan and performed pretty well. This technology can also be attached to Leopard 2 A7V as the attachment points have been foreseen at this MBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2020 at 11:26 AM, Gun Ready said:

The development of the E -technology started 2002 as a private initiative of KMW to cover the expected threat of PG's fired from RPG-7. The design covered turret and chassis with add-on armour modules adapted to Leopard 2.

This technology was proved by German Army and sold by KMW to the Canadian Army for their Leopard 2 A4M CAN. A few vehicles were sent in 2010 to Afghanistan and performed pretty well. This technology can also be attached to Leopard 2 A7V as the attachment points have been foreseen at this MBT.

So E- technology armor packages are not meant to be armor inserts to replace the D-technology armor packages, they are meant just as add-on armor packages ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

So E- technology armor packages are not meant to be armor inserts to replace the D-technology armor packages, they are meant just as add-on armor packages ?

Yes, correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the version of the Leopard 2A7+ purchased by Qatar, i.e. the Leopard 2A7Q (aka Leopard 2A7 QAT). No idea if this is really identical to the variant ordered by Hungary, but compared to the German Leopard 2A7(V), it has the full armor kit (including additional roof protection), the PERI RTWL-B from the Puma in place of the PERI R17A3, a third generation thermal imager and improved LRF for the gunner's EMES 15 sight, cross wind sesnor and the FLW-200 RWS on top of the turret.

 

It is basically KMW's late Leopard 2A7+ demonstrator with minimum changes. Qatar purchased the best possible configuration, while Germany initially didn't want to spend as much money, only to implement some of the lacking features in the Leopard 2A7V (and possibly in the follow-up variant, because both a LRF for the commander and a RWS are still on the Bundeswehr's tank crews' wish lists...).

 

I don't think the L/55A1 tank gun variant was available at the time of the Qatari purchase, but this is just my speculation.

 

 

Meng+35th+scale+Leopard+2A7+build+review

Share this post


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

Qatar purchased the best possible configuration,

Well, its just rumors, but I heard that its the case here in hungary too... Sadly no specific details are coming from official sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 7/7/2020 at 10:54 PM, Gun Ready said:

Great photos! Do you have from top?

 

Not as of now, but i am sure i can send a few more pictures in the near future :)

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...