SH_MM

+
Apparently the M1A1HA has "650 mm RHAe" turret frontal protection against KE rounds according to the UK. Note that this is limited only to the turret front modules, as the side armor was not improved. So over a 60° frontal arc, the tank still remained vulnerable to much weaker rounds.
 
Also note the rate of fire for CR1: 3-4 rounds per minute!

The probblem is that neither Spielberger nor Lobitz talk about the base armor being C-Technologie/3rd generation armor. As I wrote, I believe there to be two conflicting definitions:
one counting special armor beginning with the Leopard 2 production version one earlier also counting something else (potentially just simple spaced armor or some prototype armor arrays) as first generation  
 
The show the Bionix as example of "2nd generation medium protection", not heavy protection. The SuperAV/ACV is shown with two different medium protection generations, because the composition of the armor has changed and was improved. This is also shown in the earlier slides with the light protection. Light protection of the second generation was just large white ceramic tiles (most likely aluminium oxide) that were glued to what seems to be rubber. The third generation light protection used smaller tiles (10 x 10 cm) of unknown composition. The fourth generation light protection uses nano-ceramics ("NANOTech-Keramikmodul") based on silicon oxide (at least that's what the color suggests) with even smaller, hexagonal size.
 
For the SuperAV/ACV, initially the third generation medium protection was used to deal with IEDs. It was later upgraded to/replaced by fourth generation protection making use of newer/more optimal materials at similar size.

Likewise for the Boxer A2 of the Dutch Army, the armor modules were replaced using lighter ones that provide the same protection. Visually there is no difference.
 
 
You are mistaken - the fourth edition of the TL for second generation armor steel was published in 2008. Earlier editions existed long before that. This patent for example mentions a November 1990 edition of TL 2350-0000.
 
There was however only one edition for TL 2350-0010. Btw. you can simply search the TL register at the Bundeswehr's official website.
 
 
Yes, I know that, but I can only speculate for reasons. Maybe the TL 2350-0010 is only listed because it expired and the TLs for third and fourth generation special armor remain fully classified (including title). Maybe there was a TL for second generation armor as the design was made/developed by a state-owned facility without production capacities, while the other armor generations were developed by companies and are thus their intellectual property? There are lots of potential reasons, but I don't think that wild guesses will help much.
 
 
Yes, you misunderstood me. From my understanding, the original armor was simply described as "Panzerung in Beulblechtechnologie" ("armor in bulging plate/NERA technology"). Due to the composition of the armor being highly classified and the German MoD not wanting to disclose the armor construction to anybody without proper security clearance, this was abbreviated as "Panzerung in B-Technologie". From what I remember reading online a few years ago, the next name ("C-Technologie") was apparently a "backronym" (i.e. the name was intentionally chosen with an English name to have a "C" at the beginning) with the "C" standing for "Ceramic-Composite". Something like that was stated on an the Swiss Army's description page for the Leopard 2A4/Panzer 87 but I cannot find it anymore with the Internet Wayback Machine.
That is also the reason why Paul Lakowski (in his Armor Basics) and a lot of other TankNet members 15+ years ago believed that the initial Leopard 2 had no composite armor and only the Leopard 2A4 introduced "Chobham-like ceramic armor" (though as we know nowadays, Chobham isn't made out of ceramics).
 
D-Technologie and E-Technologie (to which the Leopard 2A4M's armor in "Beulblechtechnologie") belong were simply named that way to follow the existing pattern. But I cannot prove that, because I cannot find the old article describing "C-Technologie" as "ceramic-composite-Technologie").
 
Btw. the new PSO add-on armor marketed/described as E-Technologie is patented and developed by KMW, it uses some interesting technique (coating the surface of the steel plates using zinc electrophoretic deposition) to solve some issues with NERA that we usually never hear of (i.e. connecting the elastic layer to the steel plates in such a way that it is a permanent connection, is resistant to environmental influences such as heat and wetness and doesn't negatively impact protection performance).
 
 
Well, as a native German speaker I would answer with "integriert" means "integrated", but that doesn't necessarily help. I personally never would say "integriert" when attaching something to the outside of an object. The word is also often translated as "embedded", i.e. an "integrierter Speicherchip" would be an "embedded member chip".
 
My main point is that he is IMO talking about two things:
first Schutzpakete (protection packages) that were integrated into the turret and hull. Note that the Krauss-Maffei slide in Lindström's presentation uses "Pakete" (packages) in reference to the internal armor and "Vors. Modul" ("Vorsatzmodul", attachment module) in reference to the add-on modules "Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell", i.e. add-on attachment modules for hull and turret
 
That's at least how I as a native German speaker would understand his writing. Otherwise he is using (by accident) the same nomenclature as Krauss-Maffei (Wegmann) but in a wrong way while also using the word "integriert" in another way than I would do. But again, who knows. There are lots of regional nuances in the choice of words. Maybe he is from Bavaria or another place where people don't write/speak correct German...
 
 
The internal armor of the KVT was not upgraded. The internal armor of the TVM was likely never downgraded. KVT stands for Komponentenversuchsträger (component test bed), it doesn't need new internal armor as it was never meant to be identical to the prodution configuration.
 
 
There is an old documentary from German TV channel N24; they show the Leopard 2A4 turret being upgraded to the 2A5/2A6 configuration. During that video, the turret of the Leopard 2A4 was lifted with a display reading "15.500 To". 
Its either this one or the first part: https://www.welt.de/mediathek/dokumentation/technik-und-wissen/sendung155731963/Der-Leopard-2.html (unfortunately not available at the moment due to N24 not paying license fees for some of the used imagery anymore)
 
I have old screenshots from the movie...
 
 
 
Except for the Swiss Panzer 87 being heavier, I have not seen any proof that the armor in C-Technologie is heavier. Rolf Hilmes even called the upgrade "weight neutral", but he is also the only one mentioning anything abnout the weight. So he might be wrong.
 
 
Not on a series production model.
 
 
Its related to the tripartite trials, but not from the same document as posted by Wiedzmin. In general one should not forget that the takeaway from the UK was to attribute the DM13 APFSDS (!) with 475 mm penetration at 1,000 metres based on the trials even though it only penetrated 226.9 mm @60° (454.8 mm) of British steel and only 192.1 mm @60° (384.2 mm) of German TL 2350 plate.
 
 
 
There are tons of tests showing that ceramic armor works very well even against large scale APFSDS rounds and there are tons of examples of such armor being developed (including, but not limited to: Soviet armor for the welded turrets in the late 1980s, Polish CAWA-2, American Tandem Ceramic Armor, etc.). Various tests with full scale penetrators have shown "good" performance (<1.5 mass efficiency against KE). The biggest problem was/is that ceramics are much worse than NERA against shaped charges.
 
ETEC Gesellschaft für technische Keramik even cited the Leopard 2 with "MEXAS system" as reference for its ALOTEC ceramic modules before the company was taken over by CeramTec:
 

The upgrade of the hull armor was still planned, it was just re-scheduled to 2008  - when the new 140 mm turret was supposed to be adopted, requiring further changes to the hull.
 
The hull add-on armor was directly not removed for budgetary reasons, but due to the weight limit. The weight limit was indirectly caused by the budget, as there was not enough funding to replace the SLT 56 tank transport truck with trailer.
 
 
The worst tank always gets upgraded first, because having lots of tanks that are "good enough" is better than having some tanks that are "unusable" and some tanks that are "good". This was the modus operandi of the German Bundeswehr during the Cold War and the reason why the M48 got passive night vision (PzB 200) before the majority of the Leopard 1 tanks, etc.
 
 
I am not assuming that "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" mean internal armor packages, I am just showing possibilities. Personally, I am assuming that "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" are just different amounts of the add-on armor being fitted. But I also believe there is "D tech" internal armor due different British documents (different due to their date) mentioning that and due to the  they mean both, because Krauss-Maffei used a table in the documents given to Sweden:
 

 
This layout just doesn't make a lot of sense, if "PAKETE" and "VORS. MODUL" are mutually exclusive.
 
 
Because you'd buy older armor than what is available. If the claims mentioned in the British documents are anywhere close to correct (regardless of the order of magnitude of the performance), then "D tech" armor doesn't cost more and doesn't weigh more than the "C tech" armor. So why would you buy "C tech" armor in 1995, when "D tech" armor is available?
 
Your theory only makes sense if the Germans lied to the UK or if the UK made up stuff...

Photos showing the K2 armor thickness, taken by someone in Poland.

Frontal armor seems rather inconsistent (at least in front of the gunner's sight). Basically only achieves consistent protection when seen directly from the front and ranges from ca. 650 mm (directly next to the gun mantlet) to ca. a maximum of 850 mm. Also I am not sure if the element to which the radar panels are mounted is actual armor; it is attached with bolts from the front, but there is also a welding seam at the top. At 30° angle, armor thickness can range from <100 mm to 630 mm.
 
Not a very consistent protection.

Turret side armor is 50 mm thick, seemingly a simple steel plate. Additional ERA can be attached to the stowage boxes.
 

Side skirt armor. 50 mm baseline armor plus ERA panels (25 mm ERA + 25 mm backplate).

Rear hull, 30 mm steel.
 

The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.
 

 
How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.
 
Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.
 
 
It is solid steel.
 
 
That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production.
 
 
That is not really how it works.
 
 
The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.
 
 
Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand.
 
 
Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years.
 
 
It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO.
 
 
No.

The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.
 

 
How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.
 
Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.
 
 
It is solid steel.
 
 
That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production.
 
 
That is not really how it works.
 
 
The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.
 
 
Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand.
 
 
Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years.
 
 
It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO.
 
 
No.

A bit more on the matter was posted on TankNet by Wiedzmin. There was a proposed upgrade for the turret armor to meet the increased protection requirement ("stretch potential"). Also more detailed CR1 protection estimates:

The "lower glacis" is the part of the hull covered by the special armor, the lowest section (only RHA) is described as "toe" armor. The add-on armor for the CR1 fielded during Gulf War increased the hull front to 350/700 mm vs KE/CE (i.e. section where ROMOR-A ERA overlap).

 
The side armor with Chobham armor modules was only protected against the most basic RPG-7 munitions. No wonder it was replaced on CR2 after a few months in Iraq with ERA.

 
Challenger 2 apparently had barely improved hull armor and somewhat improved turret armor - that is, if the upgrade was implemented and funded. Even with the upgrade, the increased requirement (600 mm vs KE) was not met.
 

A bit more on the matter was posted on TankNet by Wiedzmin. There was a proposed upgrade for the turret armor to meet the increased protection requirement ("stretch potential"). Also more detailed CR1 protection estimates:

The "lower glacis" is the part of the hull covered by the special armor, the lowest section (only RHA) is described as "toe" armor. The add-on armor for the CR1 fielded during Gulf War increased the hull front to 350/700 mm vs KE/CE (i.e. section where ROMOR-A ERA overlap).

 
The side armor with Chobham armor modules was only protected against the most basic RPG-7 munitions. No wonder it was replaced on CR2 after a few months in Iraq with ERA.

 
Challenger 2 apparently had barely improved hull armor and somewhat improved turret armor - that is, if the upgrade was implemented and funded. Even with the upgrade, the increased requirement (600 mm vs KE) was not met.
 

Old Swiss report on the trials of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.

The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.
 

 
How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.
 
Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.
 
 
It is solid steel.
 
 
That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production.
 
 
That is not really how it works.
 
 
The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.
 
 
Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand.
 
 
Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years.
 
 
It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO.
 
 
No.

Probably the best angle to see the construction of the armor.

Close-up of the damaged turret armor:

According to Rheinmetall, first Ukrainian-made Fuchs APCs/IFvs are to be delivered in 2024, Lynx IFV to follow in Summer 2025 - if the final contract is signed soon.
 
https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/industrie/rheinmetall-panzerproduktion-in-der-ukraine-soll-schon-2024-starten/29532760.html
 
 
Apparently the Boxer CRV will not become the Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie (all contracts valued more than €25 million have to be approved by the parliament). This was already reported a few months ago, but leaks suggest that the MoD does not plan to submit the contract for approvement during the next meeting of defence committee.
The reason for not accepting the Boxer CRV are two-fold. Supposedly the system is not as mature as claimed, inofficially the purchase was meant as a quid pro quo for selecting the Lynx. Not selecting the Lynx might have killed export chances for the Boxer CRV.
 
 
For a somewhat long time, it seemed as the Patria CAVS was the only contender for the 6x6 program really considered by the Army, but it has been decided that all candidates should be tested before a selection is being made. Aside of the Fuchs Evolution/Fuchs 1A9 and Patria CAVS, the GDELS Pandur EVO is also a contender.
These vehicles are also contenders for the Fennek replacement with a further competitor in form of the SuperAV/Guarani being offered by Iveco & Hensoldt.
 
 
 

On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight.
 
I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states.


 
A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.

On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight.
 
I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states.


 
A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.

On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight.
 
I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states.


 
A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.

On another forum @Wiedzmin noted some time ago that the Leclerc's gunner's sight seems to rely on the same stabilization system as the main gun, using a rod/axis to also move the sight.
 
I've dug up a patent from GIAT (FR2656077A1) confirming this. In 1992, when the Leclerc entered service, the patent was also applied for in Germany and several other states.


 
A rather curios design. Similar to earlier British and Chinese systems, but leaving the oculars in place.

SR(L) 4026 Documents floating around on twitter (would love the rest). 4026 is the Chieftain replacement program that would be fulfilled by CR2. Highlights are only 350KE/650CE for the front hull, a desire for 300KE on the turret roof (??), and the various proposed levels of CR1 upgrade (assuming this is prior to the culling of the CR1 fleet).
 
CR1 400 seems like they replace the turret with a CR2 turret
CR1 300, 200, 100 seems like varying levels of upgraded CR1 turret and CR1 MIN seems like basic upgrades to the existing turret only (CR2 gun control equipment seemingly optional and no other specific upgrades listed)
 
Penetration figures are seemingly at 60 degrees, point blank.

german report(from british archives) about plate quality vs APFSDS real penetration during trials
 

https://gandh.com/embedded-image-periscope-and-sighting-systems

Fairly certain that we can see a lid + latches at the turret side (on the right - increased brightness and contrast).

Leopard-2A6MA3 through a thermal imager of possibly same vehicle. Stolen from Wiedzmin.