SH_MM

Ever wondered why Rheinmetall calls the LANCE turret a modular turret system (MTS)? Here is the explanation: It's like lego, well at least sort of. That's why the Scout-SV turret is looks so different, while being based on the LANCE MTS modified by Lockheed Martin (afaik mainly allow the much different feed mechanism for the gun):

I have seen these rumors about "a DU mesh" acting like perforated armor at other places. However it was always either Wikipedia (without mentioning a source) or another website/forum quoting Wikipedia. There seems to be no reputable source describing the DU armor in the Abrams' turret as mesh or perforated plate. DU supposedly has a higher ME against shaped charges than steel (old source on tank-net, unfortunately Google blocks access due to phishing claims). I have never seen perforated armor against anything larger than HMG bullets. It works well against bullets, but longrod penetrators should behave quite a bit different than those. Probably the tip might break away when impacting a heavy metal perforated armor system, but the majority of the rod might stay intact. Furthermore I wonder if a perforated DU plate would be a feasible option in terms of protection per weight compared to a NERA-based array. The Leopard 2 is rumored to incorporate tungsten and titanium in it's armor since the 2A4 variant, while the Leclerc according to some books features a "tungsten-titanium non-explosive reactive armour system".

The British military experimented with DU as NERA material. Probably the DU armor in the US tanks follows the same design.

The EGS also had a torsion bar suspension. According to cross sectional drawings, there are two elastomer mounting elements: one around the support bearings, which connect the running gear module to the hull and one around the torsion bar, acting as air-tight seal. Unfortunately I am not sure if this is the correct translation of the German terms. Here is a image from a patent showing a vehicle with a decoupled running gear (and diesel-electic drive). The elastomer connection is marked as 10. On the drawings of the EGS suspension, there is another elastomer connection/seal at the torsion bar. I suspect the M113 might have a similar system.

The running gear (suspension, wheels, etc.) are not directly fixed to the hull (by welding/bolting) except for the part necessary for the power transmission; instead they are connected to the hull only via elastomer mounting elements. The elastomer connections can negate some of the vibrations and oscillation when moving; this leads to a slightly smother ride, but mainly reduces the generated noise; according to German studies by some 20-25 dB(A). The first German vehicle to be fitted with a decoupled running gear was the M113 driver training tanks, but only for noise reduction. On more modern vehicles such as the Puma, the choice of decoupling the running gear also has other advantages: There are no penetrations of the hull bottom and sides (except for the transmission/final drive), which greatly enhances the protection agianst mines. Furthermore on the Puma the fuel tanks are located within the decoupled running gear, so that armor penetrations won't result in burning fuel leaking into the crew compartment. BAE Systems recently presented the Bradley Next-Gen prototype, on which also all fuel was moved outside of the crew area. On modular vehicles such as the NGP and the Swedish SEP, decoupled running gears allow easier integration of modules. Edit: just to clarify, the noise is only reduced inside the vehicle.

Those drawings are an artist's impression and not related to the real Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project. It was canceled before first designs were made. The EGS and PzKW 2000 might be related, but the status of the PzKW 2000 project was a bit unclear for some time. While it wasn't part of the German Armed Forces plan (Bundeswehrplan) of 1989, which would imply that it was canceled, the project was apparently re-added to the Bundeswehrplan 1990 to 1992. Unfortunately these documents are hard to find (while some newer ones can be simply downloaded after a shorter google search)... An interessting side note of the Bundeswehrplan 1990 was the idea to replace the Marder IFV with two different non-IFV vehicles: one version armed with an autocannon (only for defence against helicopters and low-flying aircraft) that transported the infantry, while another vehicle armed with a 120 mm smoothbore would be responsible for anti-tank duty and fire support. You are speaking about reading comprehension, but end up being the one with the biggest troubles understanding the English language. NGP was not canceled, but transformed into different other programs; first all non-IFV versions were cut, then during multiple different projects the requirements were all completely transformed. The first project was called NeSPz, then it became Panther, then Igel, then Panther MMWS, SPz Panther, and finally Puma IFV. While not all nomenclature and designation changes are directly related to changes in the requirements (how could the German military dare to purchase a vehicle that bears the same name as a famous Nazi tank!), the final result of all this developments has nothing to do with the NGP. The Puma fails to satisfy any of the original NGP requirements. It is not armed with a 50 mm Rh 503 chaingun (rather a gas-operated Mauser MK-30), it has nowhere near the frontal protection and weight class of the NGP (more than 70 metric tons), it doesn't have a hardkill active protection system, it doesn't have two men crew, it carries less infantry than desired and most importantly, it is not a modular vehicle, that can be reconfigured to any specific type of combat vehicle, by swapping out a module containing the turret. This is why the Puma has nothing to do with the original NGP project. It's a single vehicle, designed for a single role. The NGP was a common family of modularily reconfigurable vehicles, not a fixed version that fails to meet any of the core requirements (aside of having a decoupled running gear). Aside of ballistic protection, a key feature tested in the EGS were stealth charactersitics of all sorts. Reducing thermal signature, reducing the radar cross section and also reducing the noise signature. That's why the engine was fitted with a muffler, similar to the one adopted on the Swiss Panzer 87 Werterhaltung upgrade. No idea on the location of the cooling vents though. A similar (or maybe even identical) muffler on the Panzer 87 (Leopard 2) after the Werterhaltung upgrade. Note that the normal air vents are still being used.

If you are to stupid to find a book, after knowing it's exact name, then I cannot help you. It's not my task to serve you anything on a silver plater; you can buy the book, ask someone who owns the book or go to a library. Meanwhile you still have failed to provide any sort of source. Suspensions means suspension, what you meant was a decoupled running gear. I already said that you have problems with terminology, just like you have a serious lack of manners or reading comprehension yourself.

Just stop trolling and move on. We got better things to do. You want pictures of me providing sources? Maybe read the replies in this topic next time... You want pictures of you claiming the EGS used a hydropneumatic suspension? Here you go, fam: (Adoption of the EGS suspension = torsion bar, which is incorret. But you have proven to have troubles with terminology already earlier.) So, now you can go and try to learn something about the topic of this discussion before starting a topic on this forum with 0 accurate informations. People might get dumber because of all this missinformation you are spreading here.

No, it is not. Modular armor existed a long time before the EGS was build, the decoupled running gear was developed by Krauss-Maffei since the 1970s. But hey, I guess it's hard to admitt one is wrong, when one does start a topic without having any sources on the matter. Btw: The EGS used torsion bars, Puma has a hydropneumatic suspension.

No, this photograph shows the EGS and not the TTK. The EGS predates the NGP project. It is a testbed, not a prototype; the whole purpose of the EGS was to test if it is possible to create a tank with modular armor package, two men crew in the hull and mobility equal or better than the Leopard 2(A4). The conception of the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project (from 1989!) already saw the use of a two men crew located in the hull. Just because the NGP had a two men crew, not all prototypes with a two men crew are related to it. The US Army also had tank prototypes with only two men crew, which are not related to the NGP. US tank design from 1993 with two men crew and unmanned turret. Have you noticed that the EGS has no turret and no gun? It doesn't have proper optics and no FCS sensors. It is not a prototype. No prototype of the NGP was ever build, because the concept phase was never finished. Four industry groups (Krauss-Maffei, Wegmann & Co., MaK Systemgesellschaft and a joint-venture of Henschel Wehrtechnik and KuKa Augsburg) were bidding, but none was chosen and no prototype was funded. The Technologieträger Kette (TTK) was a testbed for the crew compartment conception (much like the VT2000), but not designed with armor. It had a front-mounted engine (unlike the EGS), a weight of much less than 30 tons (probably less than twenty - it had only four roadwheels per side). There is no photograph of the TTK, but a drawing showing the vehicle. You can read all of that, and a lot more about the NGP and EGS in the book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien" by Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Hilmes, who worked at the German military procurment agency (BWB - Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung, now integrated into the BAAINBW) as "Referent für Panzertechnologie" and "wissenschaftlicher Direktor". Pages 87-92 contain a sub-chaper on the NGP, while the EGS is mentioned on the pages 180-182.

Your information is incorrect. The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP. The EGS' development started in 1989, the first prototype was finished in 1993. In 1995/1996 the vehicle was trialed. Unlike your claims, the EGS used large roadwheels with an increased diameter of 810 mm! Weight ranged from 48 to 62 metric tons (depending on armor package), the hull length is 8.67 metres and the height is 2.71 metres. The width is 3.98 metres overall (3.5 metres width to the tracks). No NGP prototype was ever build. You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations. The NGP was designed with modular armor and depending on variant a minimum weight of 51 to 55 tons. With full modular armor package mounted, the weight of the vehicle was to be 71 to 77 tons depeding on varaint. As no prototype was ever finished, exact statements to the details of the armor, armament and sensor suite are not possible. However Germany investigated to use either a 140 mm smoothbore gun or an ETC gun for the tank variant, while the IFV version was to be armed with a 50 mm gun and most likely ATGMs. The turrets were unmanned. A research project for multiple active protection systems was funded. The crew should be supported by multiple cameras and software functions like automated tracking. As engine conventional HPD (high power density) diesels and a diesel electrical drive system were considered. Armor protection included increased roof armor vs bomblets, improved mine protection and modular armor for the sides of the vehicle. The NGP project was never canceled, but it was cut back to just one version - the IFV variant, because the Marder required replacement more urgently than the Leopard 2. The program was renamed from NGP (new armored platform) to NeSPz (new infantry fighting vehicle) and then became after numerous changes in layout and requirements (and the project names Panther and Igel) the current Puma IFV. The idea was to later utilize new technology developed for the Puma (such as the newer HPD engines, the modular armor system, unmanned turret, decoupled running gear, MUSS APS, etc.) for a tank variant.

On the earlier tanks, yes. But on the T-80UD and late T-72B/T-90 hull and turret armor follow the same technology, the shape of the inserts was just adapated to the shape of the hull. Some sources suggest so, other sources however disagree. There are at least five M1 Abrams tanks with DU armor in the hulls located in the US Army schools - but it seems possible that DU armored hulls were not adopted in US Army service (yet). From a document of the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command Safety Office to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

We haven't seen the armor layout of the turret cheeks, but we have seen the armor layout at 4 different places. The two places where the armor is integrated (hull front and turret bustle side), there is such a mounting bracket. On the two other places, the armor is fitted into modules can easily be detached. I find it hard to assume that the frontal turret armor suddenly follows a completely different layout - in general it should provide (on the oriignal production model) the same level of protection as the turret along the frontal 60° arc. The fact that the hull armor stayed at the same size, while the turret armor thickness increased is related to how armor upgrades distributed more mass to the turret; that still doesn't mean that the function of the mounting bracket was to provide volume for future armor arrays.

I guess it could be related to the way the NERA array is mounted, allowing easier replacement (repair) of damaged armor modules. I have been wondering (based on the following photograph) if the Abrams' side armor modules are inserted from the side, rather than cutting of the roof as done on the Leopard 2. This might make sense due to the M1's sight systems and hatches overlapping over the weldline of the armor cavity roof. (M1 Abrams turret structures during a upgrade process - note how the side armor of the crew compartment was cut open at the sides) British Burlington armor designs don't feature a mounting bracket or a large empty space betweem the NERA layers and the base armor. Well, there is a slightly larger air gap in front of the base armor, but it's only ~ 2-3 times as large as the spacing between each NERA layer. The air gap in front of the base armor of the US design is 5-6 times as large as the air gaps between the sandwich plates. I haven't seen any photo of a damaged M1 Abrams with such mounting bracket, do you happen to know a link to one? I don't think your theory is correct, based on the M1IP and M1A1 requiring new turrets with thicker frontal armor.

It's worth noting that on the T-80U tested in Sweden, the two rows of polymer-filled cells in the turret armor had different thickness. The outer steel plate with the "pocket holes" for the polymer was 100 mm thick, the inner steel plate with pocket holes was only 60 mm thick. PS: Those schemes are from Sweden, not South-Korea.

I am more suprised about how much space is occupied by the mounting brackets for the NERA. There are a number of possible armor layouts that don't need such brackets.

I wonder if the offset first warhead might not help when hitting the edge between two ERA tiles: it might only defeat an ERA tiles that is not in the path of the main warhead...

Not all documents available on the CIA website are actually written by the CIA.

What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online? But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976. I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window. ___ I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP). I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6: (that's what seems to be the most likely assumption) Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August. So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case. Now let's take a look at the Leopard 2A7V demonstrator from Eurosatory 2016. In general the hull armor seems to have the same thickness as on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL, Leopard 2DK and Leopardo 2E (however the armor composition was most likely altered, the position and size of the bolts is different): The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!

I wonder what the exact reason for this is? Weight saving?

That is interesting information. However I am not so sure about the claimed protection levels and armor thickness. How does a 20 mm thick "BDD-type NERA" look? The Soviet BDD armor is not exactly the common type of NERA and requires lots of thickness. The coverplate of the BDD turret armor is between 60 mm and 80 mm thick, the "NERA" consists of four to five 5 mm steel plates with 20 mm polyurethane layers inbetween. Also is the applique armor only covering this little area of the tank? Is there any more information on the TR-125's armor? It seems to be thinner than the armor of the T-72M1 and T-72B, so I am wondering how the estimations for armor protection should be higher. Sure it's heavier, but it also has a longer hull and uses heavier side skirts...

Well, that doesn't look good... Photos via SyrianMilitaryCap from Twitter. I am still not sure, that these tanks weren't destroyed after being abandoned by the crew. Specifically the last photos are very odd; the hull ammunition apparently didn't detonate (otherwise hull UFP armor would be blown off), but the turret is detached from the hull without any major sign of damage.

" "JagdChieftain", a prototype from the Anglo-German FMBT project.

Also nice is a story from CIA is how the Soviet Union supposedly acquired a Leopard 1 engine by ordering a yacht in West-Germany, which secretly was said engine. Interestingly the CIA document is a scan of the New Yorks Time article "A Defector Warns: What Fools".

Yes, that is a Leopard C2 with MEXAS. You can see the spaced (NERA) plate ontop of the glacis and the mounting bolts for the side armor module. Also the turret armor is visible.