SH_MM

Thanks for the correction. I typed "T-72B" into google and that came up. Didn't pay attention to the details.

(I misread.)

The Evolution package is not the "only and best" solution; but there are only very few upgrade options and it is among the best. IBD Deisenroth is a large company, the market leader in composite armor solutions in Germany; it is not a company depending on a single product or man to be succesful. Just last years they revealed winning a contract for a new armor kit for the Boxer, their new Smart ProTech armor, that a new NERA kit for the Puma had been qualified and that they started working on turret designs for the MGCS. The company also has started to offer protection analysis (as computer simulation aswell as ballistic tests) for external costumers, recently the armor for Czech Gerlach from Zetor Engineering was tested by IBD Deisenroth. The company has sold tens of thousands of armor kits and keeps making new ones. As for the changes in company lead; that is hardly relevant. It really doesn't matter if a man or his daughters are leading the company or wether it got sold to Rheinmetall (or any other bidder) is irrelevant, tha doesn't affect the performance. Wether Rheinmetall, IBD Deisenroth or any other name is written on the armor doesn't matter. Also note that I specifically mentioned that these are claims made by the manufacturer and that one always should be careful with marketing claims. The reason why the armor provides such a high level of protection per weight, is that it trades higher weight-efficiency for larger volume and a lower multi-hit capability. Tests with the same armor array in the ISL during the late 1970s showed that by increasing the space between certain layers, a 15% increase in protection could be achieved (or at the same protection level, armor weight could be reduced to ~86%) - that is because NERA, NxRA and anti-KE armor arrays designed to shatter the projectile or induce yaw to it, become more efficient when spaced further away. That is why single NERA layers in scientific papers (with usually more than 1,000 mm empty space behind them) can reduce the penetration of shaped charge warheads by massive amounts, leading to a mass efficiency of sometimes more than 20, while actual armor (like Chobham) had a mass efficiency between 2 and 4 against shaped charges. The added space, new materials and better optimizations allow AMAP-SC allows to reach a mass efficiency of 8 to 10. The Leopard 2A5's wedge armor also relies on the same principles as the AMAP add-on modules. Last but not least you are looking two decades in technological advancements. KMW is not developing its own special armor. The Bergepanzer 2 (locally called Taurus) of Canada is fitted with MEXAS, these kits were already purchased during KFOR. The Leguan bridge-layer isn't sold with add-on armor by KMW, it uses a standard Leopard 2 hull. The Leopard 2A7V for the German army will receive add-on armor made by IBD's Greek office (as the hulls are remanufactured there), same happened with the Leopard 2A7+ hulls for Qatar. All current products of KMW rely on armor made by other companies, often GEKE/RUAG or IBD, but sometimes other suppliers aswell. KMW just never directly reveal swho makes the armor. This is AMAP-SC, a type of NERA or NxRA. This is SidePRO-RPG armor from RUAG, it is used on the Leopard 2 MLU at the rear sections of the turret (turret bustle). It is extremly weight-efficient (not as good as slat armor, but has a higher working probability) and can include an optional layer of perforated armor against 14.5 mm AP rounds (when fitted to light vehicles like the M113). It doesn't work against RPGs and ATGMs with long stand-off probes or tandem warheads (i.e. it would fail to protect against the PG-7VLT). This actually is not the same armor as previously, but SidePRO-ATR; it is also NERA/NxRA and RUAG's competitor to AMAP-SC & AMAP-B. RUAG sells the armor of GEKE Schutztechnik, a German company partially owned by it. GEKE/RUAG provide certain armor systems for the Leopard 2, Puma and Boxer.

Well, you are right, but I think we are looking at the tanks from different perspectives: You ask the question wether the requirements were well suited for the tanks and focus on the actual situation on the (hypothetical) battlefield. In this regard you are clearly correct with your assessment. In my previous posts in this discussion, I was more focused on the perspective of the requirements, i.e. how the engineers try to meet their goals. The Leopard 2 with "B" technology armor's lower level of KE protection clearly is a negative factor in real life combat, but based on the Swedish leaks it seems that the gun mantlet still reaches 350 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE or more when seen directly from the front, which is rather impressive as this seems to be the desired protection level along the frontal arc (so the main turret armor will also provide roughly ~350 mm protection vs KE when hit in such a way, that the slope in the horizontal plane is negated) - in other words, the tank seemed to have a rather consistent level of protection, but the protection requirement was too low in hind-sight. The T-72A/M1 seems to have been built with a higher level of protection against KE, but less consistent coverage. The Challenger 1's lack of a gun mantlet might have been the best solution when only looking at armor coverage (trying to minimize weakspots), but made replacing the barrel and accessing the gun a nightmare. The Leopard 2AV was not a good tank, pretty much a prototype. They couldn't spend lots of time on the design stage and testing all changes, because the deadline to participate at the US trials was too close. The decision to integrate the fuel tanks into the hull armor was however made following a suggestion by the US Army. According to the testimony of a West-German general to the US officials (indirectly to the US Congress) it was a "mistake" that the weight demonstrators in the mobility trials didn't correlate with the true weight of the tank, but their is a large probability that this was a lie. Both sides (US inudstry/Army and the Germans) were focused on doing their best to get the US Army to spend millions on buying their respective tanks. The US government originally agreed to send all design and development papers of the XM1 designs to West-German, but declared them "top secret" after having received the Leopard 2AV designs... such behaviour from both sides is rather counterproductive when trying to make sure that NATO has the best possible equipment - unfortunately it is still common. I think you may have misunderstood me. I never intended to say that the T-72 (and other Soviet designs) was worse in all aspects regarding tank design, armor protection and the focus on trying to minimize weakspots than all NATO tanks. There are places where the T72's armor layout and design is better than that of the Leopard 2, there are places where the Challenger 1 is worse and there are places where all contemporary NATO tanks are worse than the T-72A. I believe that the Challenger 1 is not a good design in many aspects, which is likely related to the low development effort and its origin as an export tank. The MBT-80 would have been a lot better in pretty much every category bar costs. Btw. according to Hilmes, the gun trunion/cradle length of the T-72A is just 870 mm, while it was extended to 1,510 mm on the T-72B. A longer gun trunion/cradle means the gun is less affected by oscillations and easier to stabilize; but on the T-72A, the area of the trunions is the weakened section in the center of the turret - so does the T-72B have a larger weakened area than the T-72A? Yes, the lowest edges are always an issue, but subjectively I thought that it was a bigger issue than on the Leopard 2. Maybe I was wrong, I've never seen a lot of data regarding this (aside of comparisons between scale drawings). Maybe these weakspots are similar in size, but they just are a lot easier to see on the T-72(B): I agree; as I said, tank designs are trade-off. Sometimes there isn't one perfect answer to a question (for example how to protect the gun mantlet area), but there are different options. For example eliminating the gun manlet, having a smaller weakened zone, but needing to lift the turret of the tank everytime there needs to be work done on the tank. Having a large gun mantlet covering the complete gun cradle allows a much easier access, but also means a larger weakened zone - which when adding more armor to this area can be reduced, but never eliminated. Having a small gun mantlet with lower level of protection is also a valid solution, which can be better than the former - if you don't get hit on the smaller mantlet. Well, the situation is a bit messy, because the original photograph printed in Krapke's book is rather small (whole image is 2.4 x 7 cm) with limited resolution. Maybe you are right and the edges are proturding over the armor block; but by how much? Is the extrusion at the top completely part of the proturding edges (as assumed by you) or only partial? Also note that the center section of the mantlet includes a plate for the gun trunion to screw into, which is actually proturding even further than the edges - but what is it made of? Steel, aluminium, titanium? Is it hollow or solid? If you think so, maybe I am. I am obviously biased in regards to thus statement and I disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, I specifically phrase my sentences carefully when speculating and/or questionable (note that I'm often using words like "supposed", "might", "could", "allegedly") to show that this is either not confirmed or that this is supported by "weak" sources only. I am willing to change my mind and not using outdated or incorrect sources rather than having an opinion set in stone (e.g. I am not considering a table in an overview document citing "Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide" as source to be better and more accurate than official reports from NCR). I also don't dislike any sort of technology (be it a gun, a tank or anything civilian) because of a personal dislike of certain people/countries (unlike our favorite Abrams' fanboy, who hates stuff just because it is German and Germany conquered and occupied Poland during WW2). I do however not accept incorrect statements or unreasonable bashing. I wouldn't say that I am "protecting the Leopard 2" specifically, due to my language skills, nationality and personal connection/experience it is however the MBT for which I happen to have access to the largest number of souurces and I hope that this way I can provide the most to discussions. If I'd speak French, I'd probably buy and read lots of books and articles regarding their military hardware - just like I would probably have a deeper interest in Soviet/Russian tanks, if I spoke Russian. I however do not and secondary sources (like for example the rather limited "Osprey New Vanguard" books) are often rather bad. I wouldn't mind you posting more information about other tanks, so I'll keep on learning about them. As translated by Cicerio, scio me nescire. As I said I don't know how the Leopard 2's armor does perform in this regard; I specifically pointed that out. The UK however believed that the Leopard 2's armor is a copy of Chobham armor, so it seems relevant to this discussion; if you have better sources, please post them. Based on the estimated armor weight (difference between values from Spielberger regarding the weight of the steel construction minus special armor and HImes regaridng the weight of the "naked" tank with special armor) and the Swedish leaks, the overall special armor of the Leopard 2 seems to be have a mass efficiency 1.1 and 1.3 against APFSDS for the left turret cheek. There are no accurate informations regarding CE protection and the exact construction of the gun mantlet (how thick are the cover plates for the special armor?), so there isn't much more to say.

Best quote... showcasing a massive lack of self reflection:

I wouldn't agree with that statement. The gun mantlet is always a weak spot, even on the Leopard 2A5. However the amount of armor seems to differ quite dramatically between tanks, with many designers focusing on reducing the overall size of the mantlet rather than trying to add lots of armor to that. For example on Abrams the special armor cavity at the front of the gun mantlet seems to be less than 300 mm thick, unless the soldiers in the following picture happen to be giants... The Merkava's design seems to also to be very much focused on reducing the size of the gun mantlet rather than focusing on providing it with thick armor. On the earlier models, there isn't much of a question. For the Merkava 4, the mantlet is extremely small (one of the smallest one in use), but it still seems to be fitted with rather limited protection only: The T-90A with welded turret seems to have a decent mantlet thickness based on drawings and exterior photographs, but the earlier Soviet-designed tanks didn't feature any special armor at the gun mantlet. Russian language articles have claimed a protection level of 900 mm RHS vs KE, but I doubt that this is based on official claims. It seems highly unlikely that the T-90A's turret armor array or a similar construction is used in the T-14 Armata. Any source for these claims? The T-90 and T-90A were made as cheap main battle tanks to keep the industry alive, the Soviets already had better armor in development and proposed for all of their next-generation desgisn (both Kontakt-5 and the "bulging plates" main armor was therefore outdated in certain aspects). They are totally not and that was some very weird and questionable napkin math. That is way too heavy to be a reliable estimate. The complete special armor of the Leopard 2 from 1979 supposedly weighs between 5.4 and 5.5 metric tons - for a total weight of 55.15 metric tons; putting the weight of the tank without special armor at 49.65 to 49.75 metric tons. With 9 to 12 metric tons of glacis main armor (and the tank is also featuring special armor at the sides of the hull and roof) and additional ERA - the Kontakt-1 kit for the T-80BV weighed 1.2 metric tons; the T-14's heavy ERA covering a larger area (hull flanks, roof and glacis) should weigh a lot more - the T-14 tank without any special armor would have a weight significantly lower than 40 metric tons, which I'd consider impossible given its size. The unmanned turreet allows shaving a few metric tons away, but not that much. Unless you are mixing short and metric tons, your claim is incorrect. Only a relatively small part of the weight is special armor, as the steel construction, ammunition, gun and internal components are quite heavy. For example the weight of non-armor (neither steel structure nor composite armor) of a Leopard 2A4 turret is more than 6.5 metric tons. The T-14 Armata's turret is likely heavier than 10 metric tons (as it features a heavier gun than the old Rh 120 L44, has a basic steel structure, roof armor and ERA, an APS, a RWS, etc.). The main problem I have with perforated DU armor plates in the Abrams is that there is no source suggesting anything like that. All speculation regarding such a design seems to be related to a statement regarding a "DU mesh" on Wikipedia - it was never provided with a reference to a source and hence removed quite a while ago; yet it seems to still hang around in the minds and memories of lots of people. Using DU as material for a NERA array was at least scientifically tested by the UK. It is the only known case of a DU armor array being tested (while Sweden did also test DU, we have no idea about what the specific armor arrays looked like). SLERA is trading some multi-hit capability for a higher overall performance; so to answer your question: the theoretical DU SLERA would outperform the other types, but would withstand less consecutive hits in the same area.

The modular Evolution armor package from IBD Deisenroth is designed to provide a similar level of frontal protection as the armor arrays used on the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7, while also including add-on armor on the sides of turret and hull, an additional module for the hull front, a mine protection plate and a layer of lightweight armor for the roof. The whole upgrade package was designed to stay within a weight of 60 metric tons, when all modules are adopted but nothing else is changed with the tank. That means it offers a cheap upgrade path for even the oldest Leopard 2 tanks without the need for modifying the suspension. The Polish army wanted more changes for the Leopard 2PL (like for example adding an APU), so certain armor elements had to be dropped in favor of staying within the weight limit. There are different configurations of the Evolution package (based on photographs of various prototypes and series production versions), so it is hard to make any definitive statements about how much each armor modules weighs and what level of protection it provides. Some versions include composite armor at the turret bustles, others have slat armor covering the complete rear section of turret and hull, while a third version lacks any sort of armor at the bustle section. Some versions have a flat & box-shaped turret front (like the Leopard 2SG and the proposed variant for Indonesia), while others have a slightly sloped & egdy turret front (Leopard 2PL, series production variant for Indonesia). An explanation could be that the former variant might lack some parts of the frontal armor array. According to marketing material from IBD Deisenroth, the frontal arc of the tank is protected against current 120 and 125 mm APFSDS rounds and large caliber ATGMs without specifying any range or types. Rheinmetall stated in different interviews/advertorials, that the Leopard 2PL's turret would provide a higher level of protection than the Leopard 2A5's turret or the same protection as the Leopard 2A7's turret. Again no statements were made about range, threats and other conditions. The side armor modules for the sideskirts have resists penetration by the PG-7VLT (Bulgarian tandem-warhead ammunition for the RPG-7 with 550-600 mm penetration) in tests. A similar shaped armor module with large empty space and a steel plate (claimed to simulate the side hull armor of an unspecified tank) managed to resist penetration by a German-made tandem warhead with 800 mm penetration (simulating the PG-7VR warhead for the RPG-7). Given that the turret add-on armor is thicker (both at the front and sides) than the hull's side armor modules, one could expect a comparable level of protection, unless the armor optimizitations against APFSDS rounds had negative effects on it. It is worth noting that AMAP is extremely weight-efficient (if Rheinmetall's marketing claims are correct, the Leopard 2 Evolution has a higher protection level than the Stridsvagn 122B with mine protection kit, while weighing some 4-6 metric tons less - but who knows, marketing people have a tendency to exaggerate), but only because it lowered volume efficiency, is rather expensive and - being a lightweight composite armor - has likely a limited multi-hit capability, which might have been a problem in certain tests based on statements from other forum members. The Leopard 2A7+ weighs a lot more than 64 metric tons. The first batch of German Leopard 2A7s has a combat weight of 63.9 metric tons - without the hull add-on modules and without the enhanced roof protection, that all newly built Leopard 2s feature. The weight of these components can be roughly estimated by comparing the Swedish Stridsvagn 122 (62.5 metric tons), which features both these components, to the German (nowadays Polish) Leopard 2A5 at 59.5 metric tons. The Hungarian Leopard 2A7+ likely will weigh 67 metric tons, unless the weight of the armor has been reduced by either modifying its composition or by excluding it from the Hungarian variant. The Leopard 2A6 of Germany seems to feature turret armor in "D" technology and hull armor in either "C" or "D" technology (depending on what armor array was mounted on each specific converted tank). Export customers might have purchased tanks with newer armor packages (unless KMW decided to not continue improving the armor technology and kept selling 1990s armor to Spain and Greece - the latter country received its first series production 2A6 tank in 2006 or 11 years after Germany adopted the Leopard 2A5). According to Jane's IHS, the Leopard 2A7 features a new generation of passive armor, rumors/speculations say that this would be called "E" or "F" technology. The wedge armor of the Leopard 2 is actually made by the same company as AMAP and even called AMAP in some of their more recent brochures. Originally it was called MEXAS-H ("H" for heavy), but when MEXAS was replaced by AMAP, a lot of old products were renamed. So it is an older version of AMAP (unless IBD has decided to rename all AMAP products as part of their new ProTech and NanoTech product lines). The Swedish office of IBD Deisenroth actually has created a demonstrator for the Swedish army, which replaces the old add-on modules with newer ones; this frees up weight while staying at the same protection level, so that more weight can be invested in side armor against RPGs and in a mine protection kit. It has been called the Stridsvagn 122B Evolution.

There are massive differences in probability comparing a 25 mm to a 120 mm APFSDS... Tanks and other AFVs are designed to resist certain reference threats, ideally they would resist them at every part of the desired surface. In practice that is unfortunately not possible due to the need to make place for the gun mantlet, turret ring, optics, etc. Still design decisions can be made to try compensating as much as possible for the weakened section. On the T-72M1, there are parts with very high LOS and there is the center section, which is a lot weaker. This means there isn't a very uniform level of protection, i.e. it can be penetrated by rounds that are - in relation to the base armor - a lot weaker than the reference threat (specifically if you also include anti-tank munitions with shaped charge warheads as refernce threats). The Soviet tanks were designed in such a way, that the surface area and volume was minimized, which provided advantages such as weight saving, reducing the probability of being hit and allowing to invest more armor into the turret cheeks and hull. Tank designs are trade-offs between various different factors, there rarely is a design decision that has no negative effects; in case of the Soviet tanks, this was a lower protection level at the gun mount. On other tanks different optimizations have been made and other drawbacks were accepted. In case of the Leopard 2, accounting for the holes (one with a diameter of 215 mm and two with a diameter of 75 mm) in the mantlet reveals that at a weight of 650 kilograms, it is equivalent to a 186 mm steel plate - but it is not steel, but special armor. How much protection it will provide? I don't know, it will depend on the exact threat. British tests (with Chobham armor and their own reference threats) showed a 30 to 50% higher mass efficiency against KE threats and more than 2 against shaped charges. In such a case, the mantlet would provide 240-270 mm protection, which added to the gun mount means that the area directly next to the gun cradle reaches the same 400-450 mm protection vs KE as the rest of the turret (against the refernece threat), i.e. a very uniform level of protection. It also would be enough to stop the MILAN's shaped charge warhead, which served as shaped charge reference threat. Obviously the very center of the gun mantlet remains a weakspot, but it shows how the tank design was adapted to minimize these. A different design with different drawbacks and advantages (to the latter belongs the ability to easier access the gun for repairs and replacement). You already claimed once that the 420 mm LOS thickness figure would be incorrect, but your proof was proven wrong back then. Why do you still say that Yes and no. It is always a weakspot, but how large it is depends on the exact design. Measures can be made to minimize them. A cupola like on the T-72 doesn't seem to be optimized for protection, but rather for providing a good overview on the battlefield, trading higher vulnerability for that. As I said, there is about 500 mm LOS steel from the front plus the kvartz filling. Take a look at the cut-through section III. That's 284 mm + 142 mm of steel (plus 115 mm of kvartz) at 38° slope. From the front this will be ~540 mm steel at LOS (+ kvartz). The cut above has the nearly the same thickness without slope (532-534 mm instead of 534-535 mm), but is sloped only at 30°. That's ~490 mm steel at LOS (+ kvatz). Overall there is about ~500 mm steel at LOS at the cheek sections closest to the center. But how do they want to pay $3 billion USD for Damian's M1A1PL?

This is the physical thickness along the line of sight. That was the context in which it was meant, the old statement previously mentioned also compared the physical thickness along the LOS of the two tanks. In the frontal projection of the crew compartment? This is based on an old article published on Andrei's blog, which claimed that the T-72B is vulnerable to APFSDS ammo with a penetration capability of 200 mm /60° at the places above. It doesn't mention an exact round and it is obivously rather simplified (see sloped roof being a weakspot), but so depending on range DM13 will still pose a threat to a T-72B. My point is not to pretend that the Soviet tanks were bad - they clearly provided very competitive levels of protection and even outperformed their NATO adversaries in terms of KE protection for most (nearly all) of the Cold War. There were however some drawbacks resulting from minimizing the volume and surface area of the tank. Think of the reduced thickness near the gun mount - ~370 mm instead of ~700-800 mm for the T-72M1, while the Leopard 2 has 420 mm mantlet armor + 230-280 mm steel at the edge of the gun mount (still a weakened zone, but not as weakened as in case of the T-72). I wasn't talking about the highly sloped roof of the tank, but the uppermost and lowermost edges of the turret front. In Sweden for example, the upper edge of the T-80U turret was considered a weakspot. In the Swedish 3D model of the T-80U's turret armor, the composite armor (polymer-filled cells) do not reach the upper edge of the cavity.

The RPG-7 is only mentioned as an example threat, it is more meant as protection against all types of hand-held anti-tank weapons. Hilmes mentioned different hand-held anti-tank weapons and the RPG-7 (with warheads capable to penetrate more than 600 mm steel after ERA) multiple times in this chapter. The Swiss military operates a variant of the Panzerfaust 3 with 124 mm warhead, which can likely defeat the frontal armor of the original Panzer 87. Also the frontal arc might be designed to resist ATGMs too. Note that the Leopard 2A5 in the Swedish tests (both German and Swedish model) couldn't survive a Carl-Gustav round with 420 mm penetration. The M1A2's side armor also is only capable to resist RPGs with 380 mm penetration at the turret bustle; the turret sides at the crew compartment are thinner. The armor weight of the M1A1 Abrams increased by less than 907 kilograms according to Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams (The empty weight of the M1IP - with identical armor to the M1A1 - is 907 kg higher than the empty weight of the M1 Abrams. The M1IP didn't only introduce the improved armor but also other changes, hence the "less than"). The M1A1 HA added 4,400 lbs of weight according to the weight "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command, this is just ~1,995 kg. Apparently the adoption of the heavier T158 tracks raised the weight of the M1A1 from 120,000 lbs to 130,800 lbs, thus creating the illusion of a much larger weight gain for the M1A1HA (which always uses the T158 tracks) due to incorrect comparisons with the M1A1 with T156 tracks. As discussed earlier, the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 might have a combat weight of 56.5 tonnes (or about 1,350 kilograms more than the previous model). It might feature titanium and tungsten within its armor array (according to rumors mentioned by different authors, the late Leopard 2A4 - so either the model with "C" technology armor or the one with "D" technology armor - makes use of these materials). Yes and no. It wouldn't make sense to create such armor, but it would likely be possible to create such. Note that German authors always talk about "B", "C" and "D" technologies, this might be relating to the fact that each letter refers to a concept/change of "material generations". For example we know that the late batches of the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A5 use harder steel than the original model. I think the formatting suggests at least one overlap (otherwise what's the point of that table format), not that every armor/technology generation was used for both Pakete and Vorsatzmodule. The hull was likely not designed for full 30° protection (same case with the Abrams). ____________ Regarding Hungary: Before signing the contract, a Hungarian delegation visited German military facilities. They showed lots of interested in the IDZ soldier system and the Puma IFV.

This is just classical for Damian. He always likes to criticize every piece of military gear made in Germany for some of the most nonsensical reasons, but he loves the United States and will pretend everything made in the USA is better and flawless. He has directly admitted his bias in the past and kept making incorrect claims for his own agenda. Before armor measurements for the Leopard 2 were made, there was a time where he claimed its maximum physical armor thickness was just 500 mm, while the original Abrams would have had 900 mm. Now we know that the Leopard 2 has up to ~860 mm at the turret front, while the M1 Abrams untilm 1984 had only ~730 mm physical armor thickness at the turret. 1. He is correct by saying that the Leopard 2A4 tanks of Poland only have "B" technology armor. A few years ago, there was a Polish article claiming that the PT-91 and Leopard 2 had comparable armor protection, but based on documents from the Swedish tests, it might provide a bit lower protection against (modern) KE penetrators than the T-72 and T-72M1. As always there are many different factors to consider (such as: What rounds are used in the comparison? Older Soviet ammo should perform worse against multi-layered Chobham-style armor. What ammunition and steel alloy has been used for the armor values in the Swedish leaks?) , maybe militarysta knows something about "some tests" mentioned by Damian. The T-72 has a cast turret with up to 500 mm thickness at the thickest points, the T-72M1 has roughly the same amount of steel armor, but with a kvartz filler added to that. The armor protection has been claimed to be more than 450 mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE, sometimes as high as 500 mm RHAe vs KE. The Leopard 2 has roughly 400-450 mm at the turret front. However the cast-turrets of the Soviet tanks had rather heterogenous thickness, in some places the T-72M1 is only ~370 mm thick. Even the T-72B with at least ~550 mm RHAe vs KE, was vulnerable to the 120 mm DM13 and comparable Soviet rounds according to a Soviet analysis due to the cast turret being thinner at the upper and lower edges and around the gun mount. What Damian ignores is that is the fact that the M1 Abrams and the M1IP/M1A1 also had a lower protection level than the T-72/T-72M1 against KE based on available sources. He pretends that the Leopard 2 is poorly armored, yet it was better or equal to its NATO contemporaries at a lower weight (thanks to minimizing the protected volume). Based on Swedish data, the hull of the M1A2 from 1992 is worse against KE than the hull of the T-72M1! 2. According to Frank Haun, the CEO of KMW, micro-cracking of the Leopard 2's welded steel armor would occur after about 50 to 60 years when the tank is consistently used (he mentioned that in an article, where he forecasted lots of sales for the Leopard 2's follow-up tank, the MGCS). The Polish Leopard 2 tanks should not suffer from micro-cracks and only the suspension should be the limiting factor for the weight. I've never heard or read anything about similar issues from any other country (and plenty other have upgraded old generation hulls with new armor - Denmark, Singapore, Indonesia, Germany), so maybe it is a problem unique to Poland related to how they use the tank and how it is maintained? Maybe Damian is mixing up two different things? 3. The Leopard 2PL uses a combination of different AMAP solutions, there are only rumors about troubles in the tests (and these might be a result of the testing procedure). I couldn't find any confirmation from my sources, but that does not directly mean that there weren't any issues. That's between $7.5 and $10 million per tank! I've heard rumors that the new built Leopard 2A7 tanks for Hungary might be cheaper (thanks to help from the EU).

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/12/20/army-moves-closer-to-equipping-an-active-protection-system-on-bradley-fighting-vehicles/ So the Iron Fist purchase is still not final?

Prototype VS2 (mobility testbed) already had front exhaust. The rear of the vehicle (just as the series configuraiton) is occupied by the intercom and the (still projected) TSWA.

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more. It might be possible, but I doubt that this is very likely if both vehicles make use of the same armor technology: The Puma's decoupled running gear means there is no penetration of the hull floor (which is required for the torsion-bar suspension of the Lynx KF41), so the KF41 would require thicker belly armor to offer the same resistance against mines The basic structure of the Puma is designed to minimize weight (for example by using an aluminium inner shell for the unmanned turret and thin-metal bending technology for the hull), thus a larger percentage of its weight is invested into composite armor (which can offer several times the protection of steel plates of the same weight). The hull and turret structure of the Lynx KF41 are made of welded steel without making use of weight reduction measures. The Puma has an unmanned turret, while the Lynx KF41 has a manned turret (it could be fitted with an unmanned turret, but has only been showcased with the manned LANCE 2.0 turret), so the turret armor of the Lynx KF41 would need to be stronger for the same level of relative crew protection. The Lynx KF41 is capable of transporting more dismounts, because it is larger. This means there is more surface to be armored, which means less effective protection is afforded per weight and per surface area. So it really depends on unknown factors such as how much the armor weighs, how much weight is saved by the Puma's design, how much added area needs to be protected with the manned turret, where the armor is located in what thickness and how much the armored surface area/volume of the Lynx KF41 is larger than the Puma's. The fact that the Puma has a nine men capacity (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts), the Lynx KF41 with 12 men (crew of 3 + 9 dismounts) seems to indicate that the weight gain might not be enough to provide the same level of protection, if the same armor package technology would be used. The Puma is a result of a project, which originally was meant to be fully modular and include various variants such as IFV, MBT, self-propelled anti-air gun, etc. The whole vehicle family was to be larger (up to 77 tonnes with modular armor package installed), feature bigger guns (50 mm gun for the IFV, 140 mm gun for the MBT variant) and provide more space (crew of 3 + 8 or 9 dismounts of 95th percentile German males) - but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV. The Lynx KF41 barely copies some of these aspects in a more primitive form. The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

Btw. according to Rolf Hilmes, the Swiss add-on armor developed by RUAG for the Panzer 87WE was optimized for protection against handheld anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7 rather than against kinetic engery penetrators. For anti-KE purposes the Swiss could have adopted the Leopard 2A5 instead, as they (together with Germany and the Netherlands) funded the development of the 2A5 upgrade. Without knowing his sources, there is nothing but speculation. In general there seems to be some copying going on (different authors either use the same source or are basing their statements on other authors). Krauss-Maffei could have simply revealed at the time that the Leopard 2A4 from 1988 started to feature new and improved armor. In the end the tank was still being offered on the export market - including to the British tank program. The Leopard 2 from 1991 however entered service at a time when the Leopard 2A5 was in development and marketed to Britain and Sweden. One fact to consider is that nobody specified that only the skirts were changed - they might be the only visible change. While Lobitz book is rather detailed, he isndoesn't list all changes for each variant that are sometimes mentioned by other authors. One can argue that the fact that Lobitz doesn't mention a change in the base could imply that it wasn't changed, but that is the only argument that I've seen against the existence of a "D" technology base armor coming from you. I'd consider it a fact that there is a "D" technology base armor package for multiple reasons including that the Leopard 2A5 turrets for Germany feature "D" technology base armor. The Krauss-Maffei data delivered to Sweden includes a table which by formatting implies that "D" technology base armor exists (and it also includes three different sub-variants of it, labelled "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3"). A graphic from the same documents shows a flat-sided Leopard 2 with the three dates 1979, 1988 and 1991 corresponding to the armor packages. Last but not least an armor package was offered to different operators of the Leopard 2 with "B" generation armor during the 1990s, which could stop the LKE1 APFSDS at 2,000 m, but didn't include a add-on module. The light skirts consists of perforated steel plates sheathed with rubber. The light skirts are ~12 mm thick. The turret applique armor kit for the Leopard 1A1A1 uses such perforated steel plates with a thickness of 5 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm. It is possible that the skirt armor consists either of one or two 5 mm perforated steel plates or there also was a 10 mm perforated steel plate. You can see the rubber-covered perforations at the right side of the following image. What I meant in my previous post regarding the skirts + side armor at 15° providing more protection than the frontal armor is not related to the light skirts. According to Lobitz, both heavy ballistic and light skirts are made in "D" technology for the Leopard 2A4 from 1991. This means that the frontal section of the side armor should be able to stop 120 mm APFSDS rounds with 700 mm penetration and 143 mm single shaped charge warheads with 1,000 mm penetration (1,270 mm protection during ballistic tests) along the frontal 30° arc - given that the frontal turret armor of a Leopard 2A4 with "C" technology armor array is supposedly equivalent to only 500-550 mm steel vs KE (based on the Swedish leaks) and 420 mm steel along the frontal 60° arc. There would be quite a disbalance in armor protection, given that the Leopard 2's hull (and apparently most hulls) aren't designed with the same protected frontal arc as the turret!

Well, that the concept is similar was already known when Rheinmetall reconfigured the Lynx KF41 between day 1 and day 2 of Eurosatory 2018, they even had a timelapse video of the whole process.

Yes, it is possible. They are both IFVs. The Puma is optimized to achieve the maximum possible level of protection within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft. It makes a number of sacrificies (such as being more expensive due to relying on high-performance materials for armor protection and being able to transport only six dismounts) in order to achieve its goal. Unlike the Lynx KF41, it is a proper "next-generation" IFV in the sense of incorporating as many new technologies as possible - the German military used the Puma development to fund the development of new technologies suited for future next-generation AFVs such as MBTs. The Lynx KF41 is based on tested and existing components, not integrating many new technologies. However that makes it cheaper and likely also more reliable (at least until the teething issues of the Puma have been fixed). It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine), larger armament options (up to 120 mm smoothbore gun in an AGS variant) and uses a cheaper (but physically larger) engine. The Lynx KF41 is meant to be a low-cost option compared to developing new IFVs in many aspects. It is also semi-modular (the rear module can be exchanged), further lowering costs of creating and operating multiple variants of the Lynx KF41. In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage. Wether these two are the best on the market is debatable, there never is a definitive best solution; each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. But they should always be considered to be contenders. Currently there is only a single Lynx KF41 prototype, this is the same vehicle showcased at Eurosatory 2018 in Paris, at AUSA 2018 in the US and in Australia. But apparently Qatar has shown interest in the Lynx KF41 (maybe they are already negoating, I don't know), so Rheinmetall decided to showcase the vehicle in Qatar. Note that Rheinmetall Barzan is a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and the ministry of defence of Qatar, so it has a very good chance of being adopted in Qatar. As said by 2805662, the SEOSS commander's sight can be retracted into the turret, so that the Lynx fits through lower tunnels, into ships or transport aircraft with height restrictions. This is how the retracting mechanism looks in case of the LANCE 1.0 turret:

That's not what the source says though. The same turret has been proposed to Slovenia, after other alternatives were deemed to be too expensive. Slovenia still hasn't decided wether to finalize the Boxer purchase or scrap it.

Ukraine, Turkey could start joint mass production of Ukrainian APS for Turkish M60 tanks

Given the Trophy was purchased directly after successfuls tests on the Abrams, does this mean that Iron Fist isn't market ready by US Army definition (TRL too low)?

Not a fan of this Challenger 2 "urbanization", but that is probably related to the fact that it probably was created with very tight budget and mostly for showcasing the solutions of the British industry offered to the UK MoD. Streaming video feeds to infantry is a nice capability, is this new for the British army? It has been around in different other militaries. Also the videos are meant to be displayed on "Android tablets and smartphones" according to Shephard Media, which sounds like a pretty bad solution given that those likely aren't hardened for electronic warfare or for operations in harsh conditions. Doesn't the British army have any system similar to IDZ-ES or GLADIUS 2? That the rear monitor runs Windows 7 isn't optimal too, but I guess that is a result of the vehicle serving as a demonstrator and probably would be fixed on any real application. The mortar is an odd choice, but there obviously is no space in the turret. I think an add-on system mounted on the rear of the hull might be a better option, but that would be more expensive. I'm thiinking of something similar to the Puma's TSWA, but as detachable component that is only attached for urban operations. The hull mounted cameras also seem to have a very limited FOV. There are none at the rear.

I believe so, but there is no direct confirmation, only facts serving as indirect sources (the added weight, the adoption of new side skirts, the fact that the hull armor access hatch was welded shut, the Dutch orderiing their tanks to the Mannheimer configuration just like Germany, etc.). There have been different versions of Laviduce's estimations. He originally believed the right turret cheek to be weaker than the left one, but a closer look at the graphs from Lindström's presentation show that the right cheek actually was better protected. The size of the EMES-15 gap seems to be a bit too much, i.e. overall armor module thickness seems to be nearly identical on the lower right and the left cheeks, but the former includes addiitonal space between the modules, enhancing overall protection. Note that the thickness of the armor array below the EMES-15 sight is pretty much the only place where the thickness was guesstimated, while for the other places actual measurements were available. It also seems to be a place with a bit more variable thickness, as the front and rear walls of the EMES-15's cavity are not parallel. On the left edge the frontal armor module seems to be about 400 mm thick. Note that the protective shutters of the EMES-15 is located ontop of the armor, the cavity starts behidn them: This "book" happens to be the German wikipedia article on the Leopard 2 (in a slightly outdated form). The authors of the article happen to have a rather limited understanding of the armor generations, for example due to their generalizing and simplified writing style, they claim that all Leopard 2 variants (including the original production model from 1979 and the current Leopard 2A7 from 2014) feature armor in C-technology. The armor in D-technology is only mentioned as side skirt armor, because Lobitz mentioned only the side skirts directly. The problem is that most authors do not use the terminology with "B", "C" and "D" technology armor arrays in their books and do not specify how the armor was changed. They mention that the late model has "improved protection" or general armor technology ("armor in C technology", "armor in D technology", "3rd generation armor", "4th generation armor") without mentioning anything specific about where the armor was used - if the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 would only have the improved skirt armor according to F. Lobitz's "Kampfpanzer Leopard 2 - Entwicklung und Einsatz in der Bundeswehr", then other authors could refer to the same changes in skirt armor with their more generic descriptions. However I am not sure if Frank Lobitz doesn't only mention the skirts, because it is the only visible change. He didn't specify anything about the base armor remaining identical to the Leopard 2A4 from 1988 (although he mentioned there, that the base armor was changed), he might not have been sure while writing his book. Note that the table listing the changes mentioned by Voodoo is located on page 126, it specifically mentions the skirts, but on page 127 is the following image with caption: The German caption of the upper photograph includes the word "auch" (in English: "too", "also"), which is excluded from the English translation. This might either mean that the Leopard 2 from 1991 also featured armor in "D" technology in the chassis and turret or that it also features "D" technology armor like other tanks. The problem with the latter is that nearly two dozen pages in front of this caption are focused on describing the older versions of the Leopard 2. so the whole situation with Lobitz's book is rather odd. To add to this confusion, he mentions in the table in page 126 that the heavy side skirts would also be in "D" technology (albeit looking identical to those fitted to the Leopard 2 from 1988 with "C" generation armor), which would mean that at least. I don't really see the point in changing only the skirt armor, if the rest of the armor remained completely unchanged - specifically if it is only the light skirt (which offers no protection advantage, but is more expensive, as HHS costs several times more than perforated RHS in rubber). If the composition of the heavy skirts was also altered, the hull would be better protected from impacts at an angle than frontally... Also a curious fact is a snipplet from page 183, where the author mentions that the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 uses "second generation light side skirts" (in his nomenclature, which probably isn't official, as other authors use "second generation" in reference to the armor in "C" technology), while the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 use "third generation light side skirts" - the layout seems identical, but the location of the screws is different (maybe the thickness too, but this might be the result of artistic freedom of the man who made the sketch showcasing the differences). This might again point to a difference in D-1 (first type of skirt armor made in "D" technology) and D-2 (second type of skirt armor made in "D" technology) armor arrays being used.

The CV90 Mk. III reaches what BAE Systems describes as "level 5++" of STANAG 4569. This means its protection should be above STANAG level 5 (capable of stopping 25 mm AP(FS)DS ammunition at the frontal arc), but below STANAG 4569 level 6. That would place effective protection below ~120 mm steel equivalent protection, but above 60-70 mm. The CV90 Mk. IIIb (Norwegian model) and CV90 Mk. IV are both offered with STANAG 4569 level 6 protection, so they should have at least ~120 mm RHAe along the frontal arc. Only the Swedes with their Strf 90C (CV90 Mk. 0 with add-on armor) have adopted armor capable to stop the basic RPG-7 ammunition types with penetration of ~300 mm steel armor. The ASCOD is also offered with numerous armor configurations. The Spanish Pizarro is fitted with ERA along the frontal arc, but no composite armor. So armor protection is just barely higher than the standard ASCOD hull (stopping 14.5 mm AP rounds along the frontal arc and 7.62 mm rounds elsewhere; even including the steel plates of the ERA, protection might be as low 50-60 mm steel armor equvialency vs KE). The SABBLIR ERA is claimed to provide protection against the RPG-7 with 300 mm penetration. The Ulan is fitted with MEXAS designed to resist 30 mm APFSDS at 1,000 m range along a 30° arc (±15°), so it should have at least ~110 mm RHAe at the frontal section. Curiously the latest versions of the ASCOD 35 have been showcased with only STANAG 4569 level 5 armor (so at least ~60-70 mm RHAe), which also appears to be thinner than the Ulan's MEXAS. As for the Ajax, the UK has not revealed any protection levels, but it is understood (based on the weight), that it should be able to at least reach STANAG 4569 level 6. Likewise Germany has not revealed the protection level of the Puma IFV, aside of stating that it is protected against "medium caliber ammunition (such as 30 mm APFSDS)" and RPGs at the front of the hull without add-on armor, when fitted with add-on armor (which currently is always fitted), the sides of the hull and the turret reach the same protection against KE (and the hull is also capable of resisting RPGs). It is rumored, but uncofirmed, that the armor can protect more than just 30 mm APFSDS ammo. The frontal hull armor makes use of AMAP-SC NERA, which in other applications (like the side skirts of the Leopard 2 Evolution) can stop the PG-7VLT munition of the RPG-7, which features a tandem warhead with 550-600 mm penetration into steel armor. The armor of the KF41 Lynx remains largely a secret, but the manufacturer also provides armor for the ASCOD Ulan, the Puma, Strf 90C and CV90 Mk. IIIB, so it is expected to reach a very high level of protection given its weight. It doesn't seem to be NERA, so it likely won't be enough to stop an RPG. The ASCOD has yet to be advertised with STANAG 4569 level 6, the ASCOD 35 presented at Eurosatroy had only STANAG 4569 level 5 ballistic and level 3 mine protection. Ajax's protection level also remains a mystery. It is not stated wether the Puma conforms with any STANAG standards in terms of protection, the level 6 was added to the standadrd 4569 long time after the Puma was designed. The additional side protection also contains an armor plate, overall it is claimed to provide similar protection to the front armor (that is confirmed to at least protect against unknown 30 mm APFSDS rounds from unknown distance). Yes, that is the main reason why 35/40/57 mm autocannons have been made. But IFVs are always on the light side of protection, the Warrior and M2 Bradley were initially designed to stop 14.5 mm AP rounds at the front only. You are simplifying too much, both in terms of size and weight available for armor. It is much smaller than a Marder in terms of usable volume and the claimed protection levels are very suspicious. Parts of the UFP are directly taken from the T-64 hull on which it is based. But it won't matter, it is rusting away... Marder 1 has 11-15 mm steel at the upper hull, 32 mm steel at the lower hull and 25 mm steel at the turret. Including slope you are looking at 32-72 mm steel armor. The Marder 1A3 added spaced armor to protect against 30 mm AP rounds from 200 m distance (on the upper hull, the spaced armor seems to be between 5 and 10 mm thick, so steel thickness along the line-of-sight would be about ~75-100 mm with slightly higher equivalent protection.