SH_MM

I'm still not sure what to think about the Ajax platform. But I guess they now officially confirmed (for the second time), that the "side armor" modules are in fact storage boxes; otherwise there wouldn't be a need to adopt the net-based Tarian's RPG armour at the sides.

No, it is not fake. This is the collateral damage caused by ERA with metal flyer plates, that has specificially been designed with reduced collateral damage: I.e. in this case (SidePRO-CE ERA) all metal fragments are kept within a 10-15° horizontal arc. Normally the metal fragments would spread along a 90-120° arc. In the vertical plane they still spread along a 90° arc. After traveling approximateely three metres, the fragments still can punch through the reference plate (aluminium armor). On older ERA types like Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, ERAWA, Brenus and Blazer, the metal fragments will spread in a 90-120° cone and cover a distance of multiple meters, so that operating vehicles fitted with such armor in urban environments and alongside infantry is dangerous - in the opinion of the German military, too dangers. More modern types of ERA such as BRAT/SRAT, SidePRO-CE, Breakwater and Iron Wall, the ERA casette is covered by a thin rubber or kevlar too reduce the amount of fragments. Not adopting ERA before the Puma. ERA got patented in 1969 by Dr. Held, yet it took until 2015 to become adopted by the military. The company behind ADS (i.e. the joint-venture between IBD and Rheinmetall) has already been working with the French industry and government. I.e. the ADS is currently the most French APS, because it uses sensor components from the French manufacturer Thales (or at least the French version uses Thales' sensors). It was/is known as SHARK (systéme hardkill) and received funding from the French government. Prototype from 2008 Not all temporary solutions become long-term ones in the US military; a lot of them end after a short time. They just don't stay in the minds of the people after they were replaced. The MAPS is designed to accept a larger amount of different countermeasures and sensor units, so they have to design it to work with box-based/distributed and launcher-based systems. I think it is pretty safe to assume that on the long run the US won't have three different types of APS. Well, a successful interception rate of 80% (at different weather conditions and including top-attack ATGMs) is pretty much as good as it gets. If you talk to people who are involved in arms procurment processes and/or read between the lines, a lot of other systems supposedly fail to meet this STANAG requirements. In 2011 when the US military tested the AMAP-ADS (as it was known back then), it claimed to reach an overall interception rate of 95%, according to the manufacturer the best overall result in the tests - other systems were claimed to have a "clear (performance) gap". In general hypothetical performance vs actual performance is quite different in some cases. Every modern IFV claims to have a first round hit probability of 80-90% at medium ranges, yet in the Czech Republic (with shorter than average range), all IFVs except the Puma missed half the shots. Also note how high the failure rate of anti-ballistic missile systems is compared to how they are advertised... The leftover armor penetration applies only to intercepted rounds. Many types of APS (i.e. systems like Trophy and Arena) damaged the shaped charge warhead without completely destroying it, so there will still be a (small) amount of residual penetration.

According to a Chinese article, the frontal armor of the VT-4 provides protection equal to more than 500 mm steel vs KE without ERA. With ERA it is boosted to more than 700 mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE. Supposedly Chinese tanks are much better protected, but more than 700 mm vs KE is "enough for the third world". http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2014_12_05_302564_s.shtml

The whole "close-proximity APS are saver" discussion (and marketing) has been done since at least ten years, there are tests (and probably also studies) confirming this. How much the increased safety is valued by each potential user nation is different. In Germany, modern conventional ERA was invented (indepent from Soviet research), yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). Many other countries didn't care about it, German companies developed the CLARA (HL-Schutz) ERA. Yet CLARA was chosen for a €124 million contract by the UAE army, not one of the cheaper, more dangerous options... As far as the APS market is concerned, I think you assessement is incorrect. The Netherlands are buying Iron Fist for tests first, a follow up order to equip more CV90s will come only if these tests are successful. Australia might buy Trophy or any other APS. They have not decided yet and are also considering the ADS - don't forget that the ADS is mounted on one of the Boxer CRVs! Aside of an unnamed SEA country, Turkey is actively trying to buy the ADS (despite also developing their local APS called Akkor). The deal has been delayed by the German government, but it soon might be finalized (see my mention of the news report by the Spiegel magazine earlier). Germany is testing the ADS as possible option for the Boxer and Leopard 2. Furthermore three European countries (France, the UK and Sweden) have funded trials of the ADS in the past; none of these have yet decided to buy an APS - but if they do, would they buy a system already tested by their own military or buy something else? Who knows. Last but not least: The United States are interested in buying the ADS for tests. On the long run, the US Army will adopt its own APS, the modular active protection system (MAPS), which might incorporate technology from other systems. The current APS trials in the United States need to be put into the context of the MAPS, they are only used to tests the capabilities of current active protection systems and find out how the MAPS should look like. Only Trophy (as urgent material requirement) will be adopted on actual combat vehicles, while the Iron Fist APS and the Iron Curtain APS will be used for tests. As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017: "The system has been tested successfully against a range of weapons, including the Russian Kornet and RPG-7 families, the US TOW 2B, and the Swedish BILL 1 and AT4 Confined Space (CS). Capable of firing even if the associated ROSY_L smoke dispensing system has been deployed, the ADS uses an infrared bandwidth that is lower than the multispectral smoke can obscure. The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs. The Active Defence System has already been sold to Malaysia (I assume they mean Singapore...) for use on its upgraded Leopard 2SG MBTs. ADS even claims it is more effective than rival hard-kill systems such as the Israeli Trophy because it is more effective at preventing detonation of the threat projectile’s warhead." (Please note that the current NATO standard STANAG 4686 for (active) protection systems demands only an 80% probability to reduce armor pentration by 50%)

Belarussian army training to target weakspots of Abrams, Bradley and Stryker... https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/678197.html

Since March 2017 Turkey is interested in upgrading its Leopard 2A4 tanks with technology from Rheinmetall. Given the political tensions between Germany and Turkey (and other reasons), this deal has been blocked by the German government. Now as reported by the "Spiegel", the government might approve the deal. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesregierung-will-aufruestung-von-tuerkischen-leopard-panzern-genehmigen-a-1188730.html What exactly is part of the deal has not been disclosed. Earlier news reports simply mention "protection systems". The Spiegel mentions "thicker belly plates to protect against mines and IEDs" aswell as "additional sensor systems to protect against anti-tank weapons". The "Welt" reported in March 2017, that the Turkish military wanted to buy the ADS active protection system. The whole deal is not approved yet and it is very controversial. Just two days ago, it was reported that Erdogan wanted to set free a German journalists (a number of German journalists with Turkish heritage have been arrested in Turkey, because Erdogan is no fan of free speech) if Germany approved more arms sales to Turkey.

The website of the Iranian military industrial complex has an interesting selection of some odd ammo... 105 mm APFSDS with 460 mm penetration against a steel target. No range data, no velocity. But look at the shape of the sabot... that's just odd. 106 mm recoilless rifle ammo My personal favorite: a 122 mm HEAT shell for howitzers. Seems to be a copy of the 125 mm HEAT shell adopted for the smaller calibre. 220 mm at 60° penetration. Old Soviet 125 mm ammo. Note that the penetration for the 105 mm APFSDS would exceed that of the BM-42 Mango based on their way of writing just a number without range data...

I have been searching for informations regarding current Chinese APFSDS ammo for a discussion in another forum... seems interesting. The older APFSDS design had a windshield and a copy of the M829A2's "stepped tip" to maximize penetrator length. According to the original poster, the left APFSDS shown in this image has a WHA penetrator, the other one has a DU one and is therefore shorter (due to keeping a desired velocity I assume). The Type II M APFSDS has a penetration of 220 mm at 66.4° at 2,000 metres or roughly 550 mm along the line-of-sight. It has a muzzle velocity of 1,700 m/s and is overall a bit lighter than the DTW-125. The PTZ98 II round for the 120 mm smoothbore gun has similar armor penetration, but a lower muzzle velocity of only 1,660 m/s... so it either has better flight characteristics or a longer penetrator (overall length of projectile is 655 mm, so penetrator length most likely is less than 600 mm). The 105 mm DTW2 APFSDS penetrates 150 mm at 71° at 2,000 m, which is roughly 460 mm along the line of sight. 125 mm BTJ1 HEAT penetrates 180 mm steel at 68° or roughly 480 mm unsloped steel, so performance seems somewhat poor. 125 mm Type IIM or 125 mm DTW-125 APFSDS in front, at the left side is an old 105 mm APFSDS not being sold anymore Old 105 mm APFSDS has a penetration of 460 mm (220 mm at 61.4°) and a muzzle velocity of 1,530 m/s. The 105 mm BTA2 APFSDS seems to be nearly identical to the DTW2, but has a much higher penetration 220 mm at 66.42° at 2,000 m. That's about 550 mm along the line of sight! Muzzle velocity is slightly better than on the DTW2 and old APFSDS (1,540 m/s instead of 1,530 m/s). The projectile is much longer (703 mm vs 636 mm), but the weight has slightly decreased from 6 kg to 5.9 kg for the projectile. Do the Chinese utilize composite sabots? 125 mm DTW-125 APFSDS on the top, unknown two other rounds. Note that the 120 mm APFSDS seems to be a lot more beefy (longer road) than the previous PTZ89 II. The 105 mm APFSDS also has a "DTW" name, so it is probably the DTW2 above. These two photos confirm that the upper APFSDS is indeed the DTW-125 The APFSDS round is called DTW-125 and supposedly capable of penetrating 220 mm steel at 68.5° slope and 2,000 m distance, which is roughly equal to 600 mm along the line of sight. The muzzle velocity is 1,740 m/s and the overall weight of the complete round (both parts) is 21.36 kilograms. Dispersion at 1,000 m is 0.25 x 0.25 m on average. Some claim that the DTW-125 and DTW10-125 APFSDS rounds can only be fired from the Type 99(A) tanks. For the VT-4 the Chinese manufacturer NORINCO is offering the BTA4 APFSDS. I wonder if this is equivalent to the Type II M or the DTW-125... The size comparison between BTA4 and BTJ1 HEAT suggests that the BTA4 APFSDS is identical in length to the Type II M. I personally would asusme that Type II M and DTW-125 were identical (seem to be similar sized), if it wasn't for the differences in armor penetration and velocity. So that points to a stronger powder charge or a composite sabot. The latest round is the DTW10-125, which has a slightly longer penetrator than the previous DTW-125. Supposedly it has no ballistic cap, but the penetrator extends into the tip. I remember reading similar patents from the 1980s or 1990s suggesting this layout, doesn't seem to be cutting edge. No performance data, but claimed to be 650-700 mm.

This seems to be RUAG's SidePro-Lasso: Slat armor from McCurdy:

From a youtube video. PS: Hitting the frontal section of the ERA tile = lower efficiency...

In my opinion NORINCO should offer the VT-5's side armor package as upgrade option.

You mean ELAWS (Elbit Laser warning system). ALWACS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system) is a softkill system with IR countermeasure utilizing the ELAWS sensors. Maybe the multi-spectral smooke grenade launchers from the ALWACS are also used, but it is not the full system.

That gun barrel looks oddly long. I guess that is due to lacking a thermal sleeve?

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5a53a86848c85ef3503c96cf/dinamicheskaia-zascita-noj-tanka-bm-bulat-5a53ab5e00b3dd9078274161? The number 15 is showing the detonation cord/charge used to fuze all linear shaped charges. It is also visible in the cut-through Nozh module above. High-speed x-ray of a Nozh module interacting with a shaped charge jet.

The whole reason behind having the breech block moving through the roof is not limiting the gun depression...

The first Spike-LR tests with the Puma were a failure, which kind of reminds me of the very first Spike-LR tests (also failed). The missile is operational with the army since 2012 in small numbers. According to the article on the German Army website (from which Mr. Turnbull copied the photos), four Spike-LR missiles were fired at targets about 4 kilometres away. The first missile (fired in the SACLOS mode, i.e. "fire and steer" as called by Rafael) had a malfunction and didn't properly react to the commands of the gunner. It is not reported wether it hit the target, but it flew too low (so that it wasn't captured by the measuring devices and high-speed cameras) despite the gunner trying to make it fly higher. Second missile, also fired in SACLOS mode hit the target. Third missile (fired in the "fire and forget" mode) had issues during flight, the video in the monitor was wobbling (might in theory also be a problem with the launcher). It is not reported wether it hit the target or not, just like what happened with the fourth missile. If the fourth missile had no issues, this still would only be a 50% success rate... not good. But it is part of a testing and qualification program, so the issues are meant to be mended before the launcher is adopted on the series vehicles. PS: Also the Raketenjagdpanzer video from 1969:

The low-profile turret design from the 1980s would see two men (commander and gunner) sit within the turret. A completely unmanned turret is not possible on the Leopard 2 hull without even more additional work. This proposal takes an unaltered hull (or a shortened hull with a smaller powerpack) and adds a low-profile turret. A tank belonging to the VT-2000 testbed would have a completely unmanned turret with a two men crew (driver and a combined gunner/commander) in the hull. These countries keep using old stuff, because they don't want to invest enough money for upgrades. Finland hasn't upgraded its Leopard 2 tanks in any way, just like Austria. I don't see a reason why they would decide to upgrade the ex-German Leopard 2A7/2A8/2A9 tanks, if they bought these in 2040/2050. Every gun mantlet already has an opening in which rain and dirt could in theory leak. This is not a special feature of a low profile turret with the breech block penetrating the roof. You are seeing the turret profile only regarding being easy to spot, but in reality it is mostly a matter of protection. Optics and a RCWS ontop of the roof won't matter, because there is no internal volume behind them. if you penetrate a RCWS with an ATGM, APFSDS round or RPG, then the crew will remain unharmed. If you penetrate the turret bulge, then the splash from the projectile and spall from the armor is in the crew compartment and will harm/kill the crew. Removing the bulge from the Leclerc would reduce the size of the gun mantlet by ~30%, the area of the turret sides that can be hit by ~40% and the area of the frontal profile with internal volume behind it by ~10-20%. It is the following question: do you want to have a larger turret with more weakspots or a smaller one with essentially none?

VT-4 seems to be surprisingly high-tech.

No, that doesn't work. The Abrams already has two separate compartments, yet it needs thick bustle armor. Unless the firewall is extremely thick, it is not guaranteed that it will stop a round from penetrating both ammo compartments. Well, they would replace the tank after enough next-generation MBTs are in service. So by 2040-2050; if the Leopard 2 by that time is still acceptable counter to the new tanks that Russia, China, etc. have accepted into service then. The French turret suffers from being a "bulge turret". As the gun is not allowed to move above/through the roof (as in case of the German proposal), there is a "bulge" added to the roof; without this the gun depression would be limited (breech block would hit the roof). This bulge is essentially unarmored and causes the turret to offer no size reduction compared to the Leopard 2 turret - at least not in height. It has a slightly smaller frontal profile, but when seen from the side the bulge is exposed and can be hit. That's why the German design - if a decent NBC protection solution has been found - is better. Alternatively one could accept a really low-profile turret comparable to the Stryker MGS turret or the Falcon II turret from the Jordanian KADDB; these however again would offer lower protection against threats hitting the sides. I am not sure that this is accurate, but it might be close.

Well, if you want to keep the tank around for an additional 42 years, I guess then investing into a deeper modernization of the Leopard 2 makes sense. However by 2030-2035 a proper next-generation main battle tank should be available. There are quite a few options, I just wouldn't consider them to be financially financially sensible for most users. Dipl.-Ing. R. Hilmes suggested - as a fully hypothetical upgrade - to install a low profile turret and a MT883 engine into a Leopard 2 for a major reduction in size and weight. This then would require to add an autoloader (in best case one would eliminate one crew member, but theoretically one also could keep a fourth crew member and give him another role). One also could use a next-generation engine based on the MT890 family as used in the Puma. A V12 variant of the Puma's MT892 would be 50% smaller (in terms of volume) and reduce fuel consumption by 10%. This low-profile turret was designed in the 1980s, but it was never used due to issues with the NBC protection system. I.e. to keep a high gun depression, the gun needed to move through the roof, which would mean that a much stronger NBC protection system is required (a larger opening means more clean air will exit the vehicle, so more air has to be filtered by the NBC protection system and moved into the vehicle to create an overpressure). Leopard 2 hull (shortened, only six roadwheels + MT883 engine and Renk HSWL 295TM) with such a loow profile turret. Same as above, but with Leopard 2A5-style add-on armor. Length of the hull is reduced by ~1 metre, height of the turret by ~20-30%. However the price for such an upgrade would be probably close to buying brand new Leopard 2 tanks. A more radical upgrade would involve using a two-men crew located in the hull - i.e. remove the ammo rack and use this spot for a combined commander/gunner. Then put an unmanned turret with autoloader onto the turret ring. Germany experimented with 2 men crews during the 1980s and 1990s for their next generation MBT (i.e. first the PzKpfW 2000, then the NGP), before the programs were canceled. Tests involved using special containers with three seats (two for the crew, one for a person who observes the tests and documents the results) on a Leopard 2 hull. The crew was assisted by modern optics and electronics, which would automatically detect targets, etc. In theory with more modern technology this also could involve automated driving (setting a waypoint on a GPS map, then letting the tank drive to the coordinates) and automatic target engagement (let the tank detect, aim and fire at enemies all by itself). Last but not least there is the aspect of armor protection. It really depends on what is required for the Leopard 2 in the 2040s, 2050s and 2060s. Rheinmetall claims, that the AMAP armor package used on the Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator and the Leopard 2 Evolution provides the same level of frontal protection as the Leopard 2A7(V), while also including roof armor and side armor modules for turret and hull, that are not part of the basic 2A7(V) configuration. So by using this AMAP armor kit without roof and side armor, one could probably already save 1-2 metric tons over the current 2A7(V) tank. More modern armor technology available in the 2030s/2040s/2050s would enable further weight savings while staying at the same level of protection - if a higher level of protection is desired, the weight savings would go away. The United States of America (with the Future Combat Systems) and the IDF (with the Carmel vehicle) both have at least played with the idea of reducing passive armor in favor for active protection systems. So in the future one could remove some ~10-15 metric tons of composite armor and instead install one or multiple types of APS, if this is considered acceptable. No, the Leopard 2 does have extra armor in the frontal section of the hull. However it is less obvious. First of all on the original hull design for the Experimentalentwicklung Keiler (1969) and the Leopard 2K (1972) were designed with a higher level of protection along the whole crew comparment. The frontal section of the Keiler was designed to have 40 mm cast steel armor at the lower section or two sloped plates (10 mm rolled steel at 45.5° + 35 mm cast steel at 30°) at the upper section. Engine compartment armor was only 29 mm rolled steel (lower section) or 12 + 22 mm steel (upper section). Leopard 2K continued this design with changed thickness. Frontal section has 12 + 30 mm spaced armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 29 mm (lower section), while the engine compartment has only 8 + 10 mm spaced side armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 19 mm (lower section). I cannot tell if the series production variant of the Leopard 2 (1979) has the same armor scheme, hower it was still present on the Leopard 2AV prototypes (1976-1977). I've heard that the side armor layout has been altered in certain batches, but I cannot confirm that this is true. At least on the Leopard 2A7Q and the Strv 122, the frontal most section of the hull - i.e. the section in which the driver sits and the hull ammo is located - includes a special armor array (some 150-200 mm thick). Note the opening that extends from the front to the center of the turret ring. There composite armor modules will be inserted.

I don't consider such a large rework of the Leopard 2's design a realistic option. If you shorten the hull, the track area will be reduced and the ground presssure will rise. So it really depends on how much weight can be saved by installing a new powerpack and shortening the hull. Given that the armor at the engine compartment is the thinnest of the hull, the reduction in combat weight would be rather small in relation to the reduction in track contact area. So essentially to negate a potential loss of mobility, the overall weight of the tank also should be reduced at other places. This might mean a ligher armor package (not ideal) or reducing the overall size of the tank, for example by using a new low-profile turret. However then you are changing so much, that you could instead buy a new tank for the same money (specifically if the suspension is also replaced by a decoupled running gear with hydro-struts). Moving the ammunition rack to the rear of the hull will cause more issues. In case of the Abrams, having a small (six rounds) ammo compartment in the rear also required adding two further armored skirt modules to the right side of the hull, which increases weight. Given that the Leopard 2's heavy ballistic skirts are shorter but thicker than the ones used on the Abrams, there need to be added even more; i.e. there is no weight saved by replacing the engine, only a new crew place is added. The Abrams' turret bustle has much thicker side armor than the one of the Leopard 2 - in fact the side armor of the Abrams' turret bustle is even thicker than the side armor of the crew compartment. So the Leopard 2 would need a lot of add-on armor for the turret rear, otherwise a single hit could leave the tank without ammo. The hydraulics are already replaced on later variants, but the place is occupied by more electronics. I.e. on the Leopard 2A7 the SOTAS-IP radios from Thales are located in the old place of the hydraulic pump.

According to the CeramTec, one of the largest manufacturers of industrial and ballistic ceramics, boron carbide is not used in combat vehicles, only in body armor. However silicium carbide is supposedly used in some AFVs including the Puma IFV.

Well, most of them look a little bit different, only some have "wings".