Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    1,402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

SH_MM last won the day on September 14

SH_MM had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About SH_MM

Recent Profile Visitors

7,986 profile views

SH_MM's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/3)

1.3k

Reputation

  1. But some guy on the War Thunder forums said it is solid steel
  2. No, that is incorrect. According to KMW, the RPG catchers are the additional side plates mounted on the lower hull. The slat armor is not part of the 2A7 configuration.
  3. The weight differential between Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A7V suggests that the add-on armor for the hull (and the new internal armor) is not lighter. The new armor package from the former IBD is not used. The M1A2 SEP v2 has a combat weight of 62.8 metric tons without add-on kits (i.e. TUSK or Trophy). The M1A2 SEP v3 has a combat weight of 66.6 metric tons without add-on kits (part of this might be result of the improved mine protection, if this is not part of the new TUSK version).
  4. As far as I can tell, the situation is a bit more complex. According to KMW, Leopard 2 tanks made in/after 2001 (i.e. the Leopard 2A6 tanks made for Greece and Spain) have a higher protection level than Leopard 2 tanks made in 1996 (i.e. the Stridsvagn 122). This means that either there are different versions of "Panzerung in D-Technologie" or that my informations about the "Panzerung in E-Technologie" are incorrect. KMW also suggests that the Leopard 2A7 has an even higher level of protection, but the slide showing that uses a very abstract measure for protection; it might be simply a reference to the add-on armor improving protection against EFP-IEDs and RPGs. The weight difference between the Leopard 2A6M and the Leopard 2A7 is likely not related to changes in the main armor array; if there was any weight added by the improved armor arrays, then it was only a few hundred kilograms at most. The Leopard 2A7 adds quite a few things to the tank, which all affect the weight. First of all, the hull rear deck is raised on the side, where an APU from Vincorion (formerly part of Jenoptik) is added. The APU alone weighs 270 kilograms. Then there is the addition of a 6 kW air conditioning system from MKK. Displays for IFIS, the controls/programming unit and interface for the DM11 HE-ABM round, UltraCaps for turret and hull and the upgraded firefighting system also will add a few dozen kilograms each. The hull of the Leopard 2A7 has been prepared for the installation of the add-on armor (i.e. the "Panzerung in E-Technologie"), which includes the installation of the "RPG catchers" and interfaces along the sides of hull and turret. The lowermost section of the hull also was fitted with interface for additional IED/mine protection. The RPG catcher are (steel) armor plates on the hull side section along the crew compartment, which are required to stop the tip of the shaped charge jets. You can see them here. The Leopard 2A7 could in theory have received the same internal arrays as the Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL or a newer version. The Leopard 2A7 NO does not exist yet, only proposals made by the Norwegian officer's club (and probably some proposals made by KMW). The Leopard2A7.no website contains questionable informations; i.e. the hull add-on armor of the Leopard 2 weighs more than one metric ton by itself. The weight figure is likely not valid for the shown variants.
  5. I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct. However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.
  6. Yes, you can read more about that here:https://below-the-turret-ring.com/armored-vehicles/bundeswehr-introduces-leopard-2a7v-into-service/
  7. That is not a MIV Boxer in the photo, but FFG's recovery module. So at least four Boxers will be displayed.
  8. I doubt that. There is no reason to assume the Trophy integration will be influenced by the possiblity to mount a 130 mm gun that the UK has no official plans to adopt. IMO it is more likely that the British Army wants the option to mount add-on armor on the turret sides without having large weakspots thanks to Trophy.
  9. That is a Leopard 2A4 tank used for internal tests by KMW. The EDR coverage on the Leopard 2 from a few pages earlier mentions it. KMW has done quite some work after that; i.e. they developed their own blast/fragmentation shield (that apparently can be folded up and down without leaving the tank), and integrated two of their smoke grenade launchers (physically at least, not sure about software) into the Trophy module. As far as I can tell, the Trophy system still is a modular appliqué solution on the Leopard 2A7A1; the turrets of the Leopard 2A6A3 are re-used (with minor modifications); the power delivery is a bigger issue (as the Leopard 2A6A3 has no APU) and hence new hulls are produced. There is little reason to assume that the Leopard 2A7(V) could not be fitted with Trophy if desired.
  10. Not much, there are only minor improvements, many of which were part of the Leopard 2A5 already 25 years earlier: the FCS can now read multiple echoes of the LRF, which is required to engage aerial targets the commander can press a button to automatically turn the turret to face the front (0° rotation) or the back (180° rotation) a fire extinguishing system was installed/connected to the APU the ability for cold starting the engine without restarting the electronics was added cooling systems for the electronics were improved batteries were improved "fitted for but not with" an IFF system
  11. The Trophy is fake, btw. This is an Abrams tank borrowed from an US Army unit, the Trophy APS is a plastic mock-up, hence its odd mounting (attached to the storage racks) and the lack of a counter-weight at the turret front. The same tank a few hours before the photo with "Trophy" was taken:
×
×
  • Create New...