Laviduce

Some my photos of L2PL
 

 
 

K2PL from my perspective
 

 
 
And additionally K600.
 

Gurkhan shared this, from Army Forum 2020. Official data of T-14 by UVZ:
 

 
Hull width, including side armor modules, is 3820mm which led me to update my estimation of the thickness of the hull armor itself:
 

 
Now the most likely hull base armor LOS thickness in my opinion is 938mm.
 
Another interesting info from UVZ is that T-14 does have a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun finally ending years of debate. Also the maximum on road speed is no less than 75 km/h and we know that the tanks speedometer goes up to 85 km/h. Cruising range is also not less than other standard Russian service MBTs (T-72s, T-90s).

TB 2020. T-72B3Sport looks like is preparing for long voyage through Pacific ocean with that engine from Kuznetsov, kek.

 

 
 

from this article https://m.asiatime.co.kr/news/newsview.php?ncode=1065578054265027
6Mpix 3Mb image w/ 4 renders of K2PL:

Fire extinguisher system for AS21.
do we have an equivalent for the lynx?
 

This excerpt was published on @Molota_477's blog, he probably can provide you the exact name of the document.
 
 
I am not disagreeing with the fact that making a smaller tank allows to either save weight or to improve protection while staying at the same weight. As far as I can tell, nobody in this topic question that and thus it never was the issue.
 
But I don't think that this is relevant to the topic; the statements regarding the questionable protection of the K2 were not related to its lower weight, but to the limited armor thickness and armor coverage. The fact that the K2 is a bit smaller and lighter than other contemporary tanks doesn't negate the fact that it indeed has thinner armor at certain angles.
 
 
I see a few problems with your way of choosing sources arbitratrily like that:
The British documents containing the armor protection estimates for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc are all from 1987 and thus provide a look at two contemporary armor packages. Unless the French armor technology was less advanced than the German, it would provide the cleanest point of comparison. The Type C armor for the Leopard 2 was ready for production by at least 1988. After that it didn't change. We cannot say the same about the Leclerc's armor package, which probably was further improved (hence explaining the higher level of protection in the Swedish trials). Comparing the armor package that entered service in 1988 and stopped improving (as a newer one had already entered development) with a newer one is silly. It removes the whole point of the discussion, i.e. showcasing that by reducing the physical size, a higher level of protection can be achieved. The Germans also offered the Type D armor to Sweden which was still in development - comparing that to the Leclerc would make more sense. In the end, West-German officials were sure that they could reach 600 mm RHA equivalent protection by 1994 (I previously wrote 1995, but I checked the source again. Sorry for that mistake). By 1990/91, a Leopard 2 with Type D prototype armor might have reached the same level or a higher level of protection than the contemporary Leclerc (specifically given that reaching a level of protection might be the first step in development; then making sure that it matches all constraints regarding weight, price, multi-hit capability, manufacturing capacities, etc. becomes relevant). All values are subjective. The values for the Leopard 2A4's protection with Type B, Type C and Type D armor are based on data supplied by the manufacturer. The computer analysis of the Leclerc, Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams is based on (to us) unknown data. How do you know that the steel grades and penetration criteria a identical/comparable? It makes sense to compare the computer analysis data for each of the three aforementioned tanks, because it is based on the same criteria. Comparing the data for the Leopard 2A4 to any of them is questionable. We also have only Swedish data for the turret of the Leclerc. Greece tested a Leclerc Series 2 tank. Comparing that to the Leopard 2A4 with armor that entered production in 1988 makes even less sense.   
 
The difference will be less pronounced once the whole 60° frontal arc is taken into account. The side armor stays the same in your graphic.
 
 

Hungarian Government confirms Lynx KF41 numbers: 218 vehicles, 172 built locally
 
 

They buy also 9 Buffalo ARV. 

ATTICA thermal imager video from Leopard 2:
https://streamable.com/q3jiau
 
SPECTUS driver camera:
https://streamable.com/jhqvek
 
(I don't know how to embed videos on here)
 

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:
 
Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.
Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.
 
 
 
Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:
 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  
 
Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:
 
3-man full turret:
 

 
and the 2 man flat turret:
 

 
TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.
 
The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !
 
I hope this clears things up a bit!
 
P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

some of my estimations on M1(M1 105mm) left turret frontal part, used all known and available data at the moment and some photogrammetry of real M1 from museum...

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:
 
Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.
Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.
 
 
 
Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:
 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  
 
Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:
 
3-man full turret:
 

 
and the 2 man flat turret:
 

 
TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.
 
The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !
 
I hope this clears things up a bit!
 
P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

BVs also being prepared for Parade, in snow camo.

Updated tank destroyers
 

 
 
 

https://twitter.com/Militarium/status/1303364818972401669
 

 

photos of K2PL scalemodel from various twitter users

THICC
 

Looks like this is K2 version for Poland, possibly will be shown this year at MSPO.
 

New Leopard 2A4 upgrade from Roketsan
Twitter Video

Al Khalid turret parts, and as far as i can see... they even showed special armour block...