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:

  • 4 weeks later...

Leopard 2 NOR - Rheinmetall’s offer to the Norwegian Leopard 2 upgrade programme (P5050) that was cancelled a few years ago:

 

zOS2Dzu.jpg

 

It looks like a somewhat downgraded version of the ATD demonstrator (no L55A1, no ROSY etc.). In addition to the vehicle cameras from Saab, it would have had Kongsberg’s Integrated Combat Solution (ICS). Also, if you got the feeling that this image reminds you of something, it’s probably for good reason. Anyway, I guess time will tell if we made the right call on this one. If we end up with 84+ Leo 2A7V or K2, then the answer is decisively yes, but if that doesn’t happen (I mean, this is like our fourth attempt at upgrading/replacing the Leo 2A4...), then 38 of these would certainly have been way better than nothing.  

 

Speaking of the Norwegian tank replacement project, Hyundai Rotem have been pretty vocal lately about the industrial benefits of selecting the K2. They’re offering local production of all the turrets and spare parts, as well as system integration and final assembly. A South Korean purchase of Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile is apparently also on the table. Now, while I think it’s fairly obvious why Hyundai Rotem & South Korea would be willing to offer up a lot to secure this contract, there is also a very good reason for why they are going out in the media before the competition has even started, namely that there might not even be a competition! A direct acquisition from KMW is apparently still an option, so Hyundai & MED (their Scandinavian representative) have to throw in a wrench to stop this from happening, and thus force a competition. It also seems to be working, and unless KMW can offer industrial incentives that are about as good as Hyundai’s, it seems unlikely that a direct acquisition project will be able to pass parliament approval next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2020 at 11:38 AM, Laser Shark said:

A direct acquisition from KMW is apparently still an option, so Hyundai & MED (their Scandinavian representative) have to throw in a wrench to stop this from happening, and thus force a competition. It also seems to be working, and unless KMW can offer industrial incentives that are about as good as Hyundai’s, it seems unlikely that a direct acquisition project will be able to pass parliament approval next year.

 

I wonder if the U212CD submarines will affect KMW's chances. In the end the deal was similar to what the South-Korean government together with Hyundai seems to offer ("buy our stuff, then we buy your stuff"), but the Norwegian government had issues securing sufficient funds for the U212CD (or considered TKMS' offer to be too expensive), hence delaying the program. Maybe they could swap out one U212CD and buy Leopard 2 tanks instead for a little less money.

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

 

I wonder if the U212CD submarines will affect KMW's chances. In the end the deal was similar to what the South-Korean government together with Hyundai seems to offer ("buy our stuff, then we buy your stuff"), but the Norwegian government had issues securing sufficient funds for the U212CD (or considered TKMS' offer to be too expensive), hence delaying the program. Maybe they could swap out one U212CD and buy Leopard 2 tanks instead for a little less money.

 

Pretty much zero chance of that happening IMO. After the F-35, new submarines are almost certainly among the projects with the highest priority, and 4 submarines are already on the low side (currently we have 6 Ula-class subs). Yes, there have been several delays before the production has even started (in addition to the reason you mentioned, it's going to take time for two navies to sit down and agree upon a common design, and there has also been a desire to include additional countries to bring down costs), but I do think that we’ll see a contract before the end of the year.

 

I’m less certain about the tank replacement project, even though KMW has reportedly stated that they can be pretty flexible when it comes to payment since they consider Norway to be a reliable customer (IIRC it was reported in this article by AldriMer.no, though it now sits behind a paywall…), and a Norwegian order would be placed behind those of other countries anyway with the possible exception of a dozen or so vehicles that Norway would need for its VJTF deployments. A competition will extend the project even further, however, so that could be another reason to go this route.

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

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...