Steelninja333

Cool pic of Nippon steel

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the survivability of this vehicle.  The Pentagon has tried to kill it like, four times already.  What the hell makes anyone think that ATGMs or 125mm gunfire are going to have any more luck?

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!

Take this my dude:
 
EDIT:
Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 

bRutAL isRaElI SoLdiErs FiRE wHiTe PhoSpHorUS sHeLls aT PeAcEfuL dEmONsTrAtoRS, YoU cAn'T BeLIeVe wHaT HaPPeNs NeXt!

Turret number matches the army's posterboy:

 
Leopard 2 121 Allfader:





 
 

 

 
 
Might have been used to test new armor for the upgrade program:

 

Sorry, I forgot to explain that correctly: the diagram shows the armor of the Marder before the 1A3 upgrade. Source for the values is the book "Schützenpanzer Marder: Die technische Dokumentation des Waffensystems" by Lohmann and Hilmes.

 
The listed thickness of the front plate is the engine cover thickness. The engine cover has a lid around the edges, that make it look a bit thicker when seen from the side:
 
#
The actual steel plate is less than half as thick as it seems from the side, due to the lid around the edges.

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE
And some pictures of CV9030FIN side-skirt: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU
 
By the way, given the armor of modern IFV´s are guns like 35mm oerlikon capable of engaging them from the front or are they limited to side engagements? Same for engaging tanks, are Autocannons usefull for  engaging tanks from the side?

A small gallery of Leopard 2A6FIN sideskirt photos, taken on the FDF 100-years day 4.6.2018 by me: https://imgur.com/a/83RepaQ

Some CV9030FIN side armour photos, taken at the FDF 100-years day exhibition: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU

A small gallery of Leopard 2A6FIN sideskirt photos, taken on the FDF 100-years day 4.6.2018 by me: https://imgur.com/a/83RepaQ

In addition to what Collimatrix said, it's worth noting that correctly indexing guide rails is a giant sonnovabitch and requires a lot of skill and technical know how. Guide rods... Not so much (though RSAF Enfield still managed to fuck it up!).

It is not, as was later found it is Azerbaijan. IIRC some of those tanks were than used during events in Azerbaijan in 1988 

M1 Abrams' TUSK belly plate is made of spaced aluminium plates and mainly works thanks to its massive thickness, reducing ground clearance by up to 11.5 inches (292 mm). AFAIK there is no other material, at least a photo of the belly plate in the TB 9-2350-264-12&P-1 shows no other materials.
 
The Leopard 2A6M, Boxer, Puma and other German AFVs use mine protection kits from RUAG, which are made of composite plates. The outermost layer is a steel plate, but it also includes on or more layers of plastic fibre to absorb the energy. In case of the Leopard 2A6M, the belly plate reduces ground clearance only by 50-100 mm, but is supposed to provide the same level of protection as the TUSK's much thicker spaced aluminium solution... however the Leopard 2A6M's plate is heavier. In case of the Puma IFV, the mine protection consists of two sandwich plates with more than 100 mm empty space between them.

RUAG's mine protection system. In theory it might also include ceramic materials against EFP mines, at least IBD Deisenroth is offering this as part of its AMAP-M anti-mine armor.

Every time I think I've met the dumbest person I'd ever meet, there will be *someone* going to prove me wrong.

@Sturgeon

 
 
Those guys are running out of ideas for click-bait-ish Top 5 videos.

@Methos
Confirm that german special amrmour was not tested in USA:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293016483954;view=1up;seq=1
 
marevelous document about 105mm vs 120mm in USA:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210024740399;view=1up;seq=1
"we know that 105mm is shit but it's cost effective"
 
BTW: Im agree that Leopard 2 is understimeted a lot. IMHO whole think is taken from T14 turret values or fact tahat in Leopard 2AV tehere was no special armour - just "cavity" made by frontplate and backplate - X-rayed by Americans who "discover" there is no special armour there. So propably (it's only my assumption) value for Leo2 is taken from XM1 whit thinner backplate and frontplate in leo-2 (2x 45mm RHA)
IMHO there is no other logical explanation of sucht value
 

Yep.  The suspension on the M60 was really not all that different from all the other Patton series tanks, going back to the M46.  The torsion bars on the M1 were a much more advanced material that allowed for greater bending.  Initially, an improved suspension system was considered for the M60A3 variant.  The first system considered was a tube over bar system.  This was later dropped and the competition was between a Hydro suspension (National Waterlift) and the "advanced torsion bar" system (ATB.)  ATB consisted of bars made from high strength H-11 electroslag refined steel and had a spring rate roughly halfway between the standard bars and the tube over bar system.  The ATB could have been put into existing tanks quite easily, all it required was replacing the existing bars.  Chrysler was determined to kill any mobility upgrades to the M60A3, which they saw as a threat to the XM1 program.  Also, Chrysler did not want to do anything that might help out Teledyne Continental, which stood to profit if their new 950hp version engine was accepted into the M60A3.  Since Teledyne Continental was partnered with GM on the XM1 program, Chrysler did not want to do anything to help them out at all.  As I understand it, this included Chrysler putting pressure on Allison to say they couldn't get the CD-850 transmission upgraded to accept 950HP.  Therefore, Teledyne Continental went and licensed the German Renk transmission to go with higher power output versions of the AVDS-1790 for the "Super 60" and Merkava II.  

I'm anxiously waiting for the Turkey's K2-derived Altay to have all these teething problems which will be denied with as much vigor as the Indians defend the Arjun. 

CGI video of a danger close interception from either a Type 730 or Type 1130 30x165mm CIWS taking out multiple targets.
 
Hard to tell, the video runs so fast I have trouble counting the amount of fucking barrels.
 

According to Richard Ogorkiewicz's Seven Habits of Highly Effective AFV Designers, if you make a monocoque tracked vehicle hull out of RHA steel, about the point that it's structurally sound as a vehicle hull, it is also "shell proof."  So the only way an AFV could really fail to be shell proof is if it's open-topped.