SH_MM

Lightweight ERA and NERA solutions are not providing high levels of protection against kinetic energy threats such as EFPs and artillery fragments. If the flyer plates are not thick enough to break the penetrator (or change its form/flight path), the protection is more comparable to spaced steel plates. The armor design from KMW provides cheaper protection against the threats and is flexible (armor boxes can be filled in theater (with dust/sand/dirt/gravel) and the internal filling material can be changed to meet different protection levels).

No. The comparison between 115/125 mm HE and 120 mm HESH however seems to be focused on tests against composite armor and/or the ability to tear apart welding seams/break internal equipment (i.e. the strength of the shock caused by the detonation). Tests of the HESH mechanism against monolithic steel armor were also conducted.

KMW has research different types of special armor for a while, but they have not developed their own solutions and never fielded anything, because that would require a lot of ressources that the company is not interested in investing. Given that Germany (and LEOBEN) are deciding what will be adopted to the Leopard 2, there wasn't much of a incentive to develop optional armor modules; before the Leopard 2 PSO, all Leopard 2 users just bought variants of the Leopard 2 developed for Germany and nobody bothered to purchase different armor kits. KMW seems to have(nearly) shut down all research at some point of time, resulting in a loss of experienced personnel. Dr. Gerd Keller, who funded GEKE Schutztechnik, worked for some time for Krauss-Maffei. The Leopard 2 PSO armor package might be an own development by KMW, but I couldn't find any source to confirm this. It was developed as a private venture (thus Germany didn't dictate what parts to use), but at the first few times the Leopard 2 PSO prototype was showcased, the armor modules were just mock-ups. KMW as a system integrator is not capable nor interested in developing every company on its own. Last year they invited more than 200 representatives from other companies (i.e. companies like Tencate, IBD, etc., which develop special armor) to discuss possible ways to reach STANAG 4569 level 6 armor protection and solutions against RPGs and IEDs. I am not the one "hotly favouring" any company, you exclaimed that the fact that KMW would provide its own special armor modules to certain tanks, this would mean the end to armor modules from other manufacturers. That is however not true. Sorry, but this protection isn't really special armor. The modules are designed and made by KMW, but they are hollow and meant to be filled with Schüttgut (bulk material like sand or gravel). The corrugated exterior shape is the result of KMW trying to keep the steel shell as light-weight as possible, while providing enough structural strength to support the weight of the Schüttgut. KMW did not patent any sort of filling material and the design is optimized for low costs, so it seems to be just a fancy kind of modern sandbag armor (unless KMW buys filling material such as SAAB's soft armor from other companies). The whole armor design is explained in the patent DE102016111285A1 "Panzerungselement zur Anordnung an einem Fahrzeug". This armor isn't optimized for protection against shaped charges, but (EFP-)IEDs. For protection against kinetic energy (medium caliber rounds, artillery fragments), Denmark has chosen to adopt another armor layer made by Scanfiber Composites A/S. Germany - demanding protection against RPGs - is using IBD Deisenroth's AMAP for the Bergepanzer 3 Büffel, while the AEV Dachs wasn't fitted with any add-on armor due to other vehicles being used in Afghanistan. The Leopard 2A4M CAN uses the armor kit developed for the Leopard 2 PSO and also been offered for the Leopard 2A7. The original Panzerschnellbrücke 2 prototypes kept the original hull armor of the Leopard 2A4 with C-technology or with D-technology (depending on prototype), but to deal with the increased weight of the Leopard 2A7(V), the latest prototypes have been based on the Leopard 2A4M CAN hull. This variant has an upgraded suspension and thus can deal with a larger weight. The add-on armor is identical to the Leopard 2A4M CAN's, but the last skirt armor module was removed to save weight. The series production model might loose the add-on armor modules.

I would assume that Rheinmetall shipped the Challenger 2s to Germany and developed the upgrade there. While the company has multiple subsidiaries in the UK, the one that seems to be most fitting for the development of the Challenger 2 LEP prototype would be Rheinmetall Defence UK Ltd. (the other ones are focused on producing parts for various projects and maintenance for MAN trucks). According to Rheinmetall's website this subsidiary has only 45 employees, of which likely not all are factory workers. The company also has still to produce turret shells for the British AJAX (unless they have finished this task), so it seems likely that the upgrade was developed in Germany, where the gun is also made. There used to be quite a few T-72 tanks available in Germany, but this might have changed in the past years. Still it would be possible to buy used T-72(M1s) from the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland without paying too much for shipping. It is in a state of limbo: it is practically dead, but I don't want to fully kill it yet. I would like to revive it in another form (maybe with more writers than just me), but this is a rather complex matter in many points. Not happy with blogspot, local copyright laws (no fair use) and available time (I started writing twice as many articles than I managed to publish, because time was an issue and I didn't want to turn a hobby into work). Changes in my actual job (was assigned to a project in Spring of 2018, which required me sometimes to keep working until the evening) and the fact that I've probably got too many hobbies meant that I didn't have enough time for much work on the blog.

This is a 3D rendering from Rafael showing the Leopard 2A7 with UrbOp (urban operations) armor package, which is being offered by KMW. It replaces the original frontal add-on modules with lighter & thinner to allow adopting add-on armor modules to the side of the hull and turret while still remaining relatively low weight. Germany decided against this solution and instead kept the DuelOp (duel operations) armor package for the Leopard 2A7(V), which is focused on protection against KE longrod penetrators and ATGMs along the frontal arc. To this the add-on armor interface was added, allowing to install the same side armor modules (KMW's proposal didn't seem to include this, because they IIRC wanted to sell both UrbOp and DuelOp to Germany). The same armor configuration (DuelOp + add-on interfaces from UrbOp) was also adopted by Qatar and Denmark. Leopard 2A7+ DuelOp prototype Leopard 2A7+ UrbOp prototype The UrbOp armor package was however install in parts on the Leopard 2A4M CAN. The frontal armor modules are a lot thinner and hollow (AFAIK they are storing 7.62 mm ammunition inside them), though it has been speculated that they could be filled with armor modules if required. The German Leopard 2A6M variant is the most likely to be sent to VJTF 2023, so unless for some reasons the frontal armor is downgraded, Trophy will be installed elsewhere (I'd expect a similar configuration to the M1A2 SEP v2 and Merkava 4M).

No, they won't. The project is still in the conception phase, it has yet to be decided which company will be contracted to make which parts and who will end up the primary contractor for each vehicle. The only decision that has been made yet, is that German companies (KMW, Rheinmetall, or others) will be awarded the primary contracts (system integration) for the MGCS next-generation tank, the CIFS next-generation self-propelled gun and the EuroMALE drone. A French company (Dassault or Airbus) will be awarded the primary contract for the next-generation jet aircraft of both countries, the FCAS.

Didn't know that, but apparently a lot of British soldiers over at ARRSE don't seem to bother distinguishing between the different use-cases. Nexter and KMW didn't merge yet, this is becoming one of the most common internet myths. Both Nexter and KMW still exist as separate entities with their own marketing units, their own CEOs, their own R&D divisions, etc. KMW and Nexter both gave the shares of their companies to a common holding (KDNS), which is owned by Nexter and the family that owned KMW. The two separate companies will try to cooperate by marketing each others products and not competing for the same contracts; further integration of both companies is possible, but only when this becomes viable from a business stand-point. Sorry, but your whole post is just baseless speculation. First of all: BAE Systems and Rheinmetall have one joint-venture for one specific market: they have not joined operations on all markets (just regional) and only try to provide vehicles to this market. I've seen a lot of people in other forums thinking like you, assuming that BAE Systemsn and Rheinmetall would now act as a single company. That is not true. Both BAE Systems and Rheinmetall have tons of other joint-ventures. For example you mentioned the Boxer and Puma: both made by joint-ventures between KMW and Rheinmetall (and these aren't the only JVs between both companies). As a matter of fact, Rheinmetall also has joint-ventures with states: in Romania there is/was a JV with the Ministry of Economy, while there is a JV with the Ministry of Defence in Qatar. As for the Lynx: KMW never has been active on the IFV market (neither had been Krauss-Maffei) until the NGP/NeSPz projects, while Rheinmetall has been making Leopard 1 and 2 tanks (or rather MaK, which was acquired by Rheinmetall). So your logic is inverse.

I might not be able to do that, but Rheinmetall just did that. During upgrade and rebuilding processes, turrets of Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs have been completely stripped down, meaning all internal and external components have been removed. There is no reason why this should be impossible with the Challenger 2. The rest is a bit of engineering work that any medium-sized military vehicle integrator should be able to carry out. Technical documentation, specifications and blueprints were likely provided by the British military when the two Challenger 2 tanks were handed over to Rheinmetall (even if this didn't happen, they'd be able to do that by themselves). During the early stage of the Leopard 2 development, three different construction mechanisms were used to create the turret shells for the prototypes. There really isn't any magic required to move from a cast to a welded construction. As for the armor I can only point towards to Grant Turnbull's article, which mentioned this aspect: the Challenger 2 LEP is a program focused on obsolescence management. Replacing the gun or improving the armor protection isn't part of it and the figures released by Rheinmetall during its Capital Markets Day 2018 suggests that the company is banking on an increased budget for the gun replacement, so many changes to the armor aren't financially feasible. Most likely the statement from Turnbull's article is a reference to the changed in turret bustle protection and/or improved protection via using welded steel. A new armor package would require an extensive qualification program on side of the British MoD (risking delaying the whole program) and likely would have looked more similar to the other offers from Rheinmetall: Why would the gun mantlet and original turret front shape remain unaltered, when the steel citadel is replaced and a whole new armor package is added? I never said that. I posted a picture showcasing why it is not a brand new turret, you just added your own interpretations to it (at first "that guy considers everything obsolete that the guy marked" and now "that guy things everything is unaltered that is marked in the picture"). You notice that I never said anything along these lines; instead I even pointed out in my last reply, that the Thales Orion sight is now fitted. The identical location of the gunner's sight and commander's cupola, which leads to a weakspot is worth nothing, showing that this isn't exactly brand new. But well, maybe you should go for your own suggestions and play "wait and see", rather then registering to this forum because you were trigged by your own interpretations of my picture and made rash opinions.

Yes, but it wasn't extensively marketed as a brand new turret design suited for other future tanks. It was said from the very beginning to be an improved version of the existing turret design, which I'd argue is the case with the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Rheinmetall aswell. Everything except the new Thales Orion sights is unchanged. Also this is not a render, but a photograph of a photo printed on a poster. Yes, this was changed to meet the basic requirements of the Challenger 2 Lifetime Extension Programme. The "it's a new turret" argument is mostly marketing. They made a new steel structure, then did just enough work to meet the minimum requirements (removal of obsolencies in FCS and digital systems) and added all old parts to it. A turret is more than steel shell, given that fact that the 120 mm smoothbore gun is not a final offer (the budget for the gun replacement has still to be allocated and the decision to integrate it has still to be approved by the British MoD) Rheinmetall is essentially offering the same turret as BAE Systems, but they can bait all journalists with "brand new turret" after changing the internal steel citadel and extending the bustle. People have been calling me a paid Rheinmetall shill in the past (I actually was once invited by them, but due to communication issues, I missed the event), but I have to call them out for this "brand new turret" marketing claims. Outdated systems can be found on other tanks too. The whole vision & situational awareness concept for the crew hasn't seen any modernization; Rheinmetall originally teasered adopting its Situational Awareness System to provide 360° camera surveillance with automated target identification and tracking, but this apparently has been dropped in favor of the budget. The L94 is an unreliable piece of junk and has been criticized by British soldiers over at ARRSE for years; given that Rheinmetall has been trying to push its RMG 7.62 on its other current vehicle offers, this just shows how they had to cheap out in order to stay within budget. On other tanks, work is done to enhance and improve situational awareness while some of the other obsolencies found on the Challenger 2 do not exist in the same fashion (but all tanks have their own issues). You also notice that I marked all the parts in order to show that they were unchanged and this turret was not brand new, rather than claiming every single of them was obsolete?

T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components. The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.

Oman maybe?

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4835-rafael-trophy-aps-for-leopard-2.html

The roof armor is always thicker on some places of the Challenger 2. Most likely they added some sheet metal plates to make it look "flush and aerodynamic".

"brand new welded turret"

Well, the Tweet said "mate to a new hull". But designing a Leopard 2 competitor when work on the Leopard 2 replacement is under way really seems like a scheme to sell the new turret to the UK. "You finally have a tank to compete against last gen's MBT."

So Rheinmetall has dropped the SAS and MSSA in favor for putting new armor on the turret (or a brand new turret, that looks extremely similar to the original Challenger 2 turret and mounts the same components in the same locations... ).

Solid choice, although I imagine the turret roof become rather cluttered... smoke grenade launcher, commander's sight (with slaved MG?), situational awareness system, hatches and APS on that tiny roof?

Gun is being considered a key factor for Rheinmetall's offer in their slides for the investors' conference in January 2019. Always find it ridiculous how people decide to speak about "the three best Western tank" (or four in this case) and then include the Challenger 2 over the Leclerc...

No, BAE Systems just want to get a bit of the Boxer money. They're willing to trade 55% of their UK-based land vehicle division for that.

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances. As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct. Also interessting is the fact that they had a 32 mm projectile; is that a DM23 prototype? It retains its muzzle velocity for a longer period of time and penetrates more armor. Btw: According to Krapke, the 105 mm smoothbore gun was abandoned, after a "performance-improved M735 round" fired from the L7 tank gun matched its lethality. That is the reason why some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were retro-fitted with rifled L7A3 guns in the last stages of Leopard 2 development. That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules? The planned features for the Leopard 2AX are: new engine with 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) output hardkill active protection system remotely operated weapon station 360° vision systems improved KE ammunition (KE2020) automated target tracking If all these features will be adopted (if there is budget) and what exact parts will be chosen remains unknown. I'd say that the Rheinmetall ADS, KMW's FLW 200+ RWS and the Rheinmetall's SAS are some of the likely options.

So is the mythical Kanchan armor just a copy of the T-72's hull armor array with increased thickness (3 x 50 mm layers of glass/phenolic-reinforced plastics vs two layers of 52.5 mm on the T-72M1)? Based on the following text, Kanchan might be only a substitute for the textolite material of the T-72:

Comparing the turret armor of the Leopard 2 to the M1 Abrams wouldn't really very productive in real world scenarios; both had too low armor protection as a result of incorrect estimates of Soviet firepower. My perspective in the previous posts was focused on the requirements; if they were met and how they were met. As Wiedzmin correctly stated, it doesn't matter how much milimetres of steel equivalent protection an armor array provides, if both can be defeated by the same (common) battlefield threats. Based on available documents, the aim for the M1 Abrams for example was to resist future 115 mm APFSDS with tungsten penetrator ammo along a 50° frontal arc from a distance of 800 m (on the turret) or 1,200 m (in case of the hull). This requirements are based on assumptions that the Soviets would continue to use the 115 mm smoothbore gun with the T-64, the T-72 and other future tanks (i.e. the T-80) - this was wrong. Likewise the penetration was underestimated with the US military using the 152 mm XM578E4 APFSDS developed for the MBT-70 during the 1960s as a reference for the 1980s' Soviet anti-tank projectiles - this was also a failure of the procurement process and US intelligence service. The Abrams has supposedly 320-340 mm steel-equivalent Burlington armor along its frontal arc; this is insufficient to protect against 115 mm 3BM-21 and 3BM-28 APFSDS rounds at distances of 2,000 m. The same applies to the Leopard 2's armor; be it 400 or 450 mm equivalent protection heads-on at the turret front; the hull front and turret armor is insufficient against 115 mm APFSDS rounds along the frontal 50-60° arc. There isn't even a need to speak about how the required protection ("sufficient protection against future Soviet KE rounds at combat distances") isn't given when looking at 125 mm APFSDS rounds. These figures have been published in different German articles, I doubt that they are from some sort of CIA document. Krapke lists the weight of the Leopard 2AV's gun assembly though. There isn't one type of "Chobham" armor. The UK has designed and tested more than a dozen different types of Chobham armor during the late 1960s and 1970s, which were designed to meet different requirements. For example, one array was designed to improve efficiency against KE rounds from a mass efficiency of roughly 1 to 1.5, but traded a reduction in performance against shaped charges from a mass efficiency of 3 to just 2. We know from patents, German books on the Leopard 2 and Soviet sources, that the Leopard 2 employs some type of NERA or "not Chobham, but armor following the Chobham principle". While the West-German military asked for a higher level of KE protection relative to the US Army, it is still a lot harder to achieve sufficient protection to stop an ATGM with 530 mm penetration than an APFSDS round with 300-350 mm penetration along the frontal arc. By my estimates, the frontal armor would be nearly enough by itself (per weight) to achieve the desired level of protection against KE rounds, so only a "small amount" of additional protection (10-20%) needs to be achieved for it along the whole frontal arc. Meanwhile one needs to achieve a mass efficiency of 1.4 to 1.5 against shape charges for the frontal armor to resist a Milan-1 ATGM warhead and an even higher efficiency for protection along the frontal arc. According to a Soviet report - or at least a Russian book from 2005-2006 claims that there was such a report - West-Germany tested armor arrays making use of five NERA plates, which all had a rather thick front plate (25 mm) followed by a thin rubber layer (5 mm) and thin steel back plate (3 mm). This armor would be much more remiscient of the T-72B's turret armor, but could still be considered a type of "Chobham". The ISL suggested in 1979/1980 that for optimum protection against shaped charges, a multi-layered backplate (made of steel plates with either a glass or a ceramic "core") should be used in combination with spaced NERA sandwich plates. However filling the empty space with low-density compressible plastic or removing it, but layering the NERA directly ontop of the backplate was seen as counter-productive, reducing the protection level. Regarding Leopard 1A3 and Keiler: There never was a requirement for shaped charge protection on these tanks. The designs submitted to England during the early phase of the Kampfpanzer 3/Future Main Battle Tank project show how this "technology" would have been adapted to also protect against shaped charges: MaK's proposal had a spaced arrangement of seven thin steel plates as frontal armor, while Krauss-Maffei's design had six thin steel plates spaced apart, while a fuel tank would have been incorporated between the two outermost layers. How long did the process take? I know that these are different tanks, but the first photo shows daylight, the sky in the second photo is black from the night. According to Hilmes, it takes about a day to replace the barrel of the Chieftain tank. That would maybe provide a tiny bit of additional protection, but likely less than simply using spaced steel plates (which makes it easier for the fragments of the damaged projectile to spread along a greater surface). "Pure ceramic" armor is rather uncommon on MBTs and more or less never used alone (there were some Soviet designs, but these made use of ERA for achieving sufficient protection against shaped charges). Schürzenpanzerung means "skirt armor", so he is refering to the heavy ballistic skirts. Spielberger doesn't mention a change of the base armor, but confirms that both types - heavy and light skirt segments - were changed. Interessting.

No, you didn't state reasons. You made a few claims and simply declared them true, without having a single source. In your own words: "Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it." And why should the T-14 use this kind of armor instead of anything even closely resembling the armor arrays used on their next-gen prototypes? Because they couldn't afford to use better armor? Because they magically can invest 12 metric tons just for the hull front armor array - while improving side protection, underbelly protection and roof protection at the same time? By your logic we also could assume that it uses simple steel armor, because the T-72's turret had pure steel. We could argue that the smaller size of the T-14 and the fact that using pure cast steel is cheaper than multi-layered armor would be an advantage. Then we say that the turret front has an armor thickness of 950 mm - without source - and do some napkin math like "950 mm * 0.97=921 mm, that is close to 900 mm!". Now it is proven with "historical and practical reasons"! The T-90 was designed as cheap stopgap solution until a true next gen tank (Object 195, Object 477/A) would have become available. These development projects continued after the end of the Soviet Union. It was supposedly chosen over the T-80U for cost reasons. The T-14 Armata is not a stopgap solution and not designed to be a low-cost tank. That the T-90A's internal turret armor array is identical to the one used on the T-72B is pure speculation, just like your claims that Object 187 used exactly the same armor as the T-72B (which the so-called Malachit ERA fitted to the last prototype of the Object 187 easily disproves). The T-90S as a (downgraded) export tank might use a similar arrangement of multi-layer plates (based on a single screenshot from the LS-DYNA software that was part of a marketing poster), but that the material composition and thickness remain unchanged are not confirmed. Assuming that the T-90A the export T-90S has the same armor array as the export T-90S is also pure speculation. It is napkin math on your side; the tankograd blog isn't perfect either and has a few mistakes, but he clearly mentions that the protection level are dependent on the types of ammunition used and explains how he comes up with his values (i.e. mentioning the relation to the penetrator geometry and the avialable ammunition at that time). He mentions that increasing the elongation of the penetrator material decreases the efficiency of the armor, likewise he tries at least to factor in L/D ratio and different penetrator constructions. Your "calculation" is purely assuming that the armor has to look like that, because other armor looked like this. Even Paul Lakowski did that better (he factored in weight and used an estimated density to assume the filler, his results still were horrible wrong) and he came up with some of the most incorrect armor estimates. The efficiency of modern longrods and composite armor is depending on numerous factors. Old armor like the one used in the T-72B is likely achieving a lower efficiency against newer penetrators with longer rods made from more resilient material. The amount of armor available is highly depending on weight - just "guessing" the armor thickness, ignoring weight and deciding that a certain armor composition is likely based on pure arbitrariness isn't going to be anywhere close to realistic. Then proclaiming that "the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it" is just silly, if not even dumb. That your math doesn't even add up according to your own logic (the 10-15% protection increase from replacing the cast steel shell with welded steel for some reason is applied to the whole armor array, including the protection provided by the HHS and NERA plates!). Your conclusion is also wrong. As the performance of ammunition is depending on the exact interaction between penetrator and armor, your hypothetical armor array based on the T-72B's simple NERA likely won't reach 760 mm equivalent protection against modern APFSDS rounds, thus it won't protect against any APFSDS round without ERA. The efficiency factors estimated from the tankograd blog are based on old style APFSDS from the 1980s with limited L/D ratio.