Wiedzmin

T-90A turret, it was posted earlier

T-90A turret, it was posted earlier

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

Yes, sort of. The 100 mm AP round broke the welding seam, which then jammed the turret ring. The turret still could be turned, but only using (external) force.

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
this is description for this draw 
 

 
but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report
 

 

 
as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 
 

 
tank cut-away show fuel tank

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"
25.04.75
it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 
 
 
it can't

 
HOT
 

 
MILAN
 
and even this graph's is a mean crater depth, not penetration

interesting, thank you and how about "x" ?
 

https://i.imgur.com/Z6dUHdu. jpg
 
 
turret of L2AV, i hope i managed to avoid mistakes(if there any i will later re-upload corrected version), too complicated scheme, packages A,B,C,D same 190mm packages with special armour, but there is no 12mm plates package.
 

interesting, thank you and how about "x" ?
 

https://i.imgur.com/Z6dUHdu. jpg
 
 
turret of L2AV, i hope i managed to avoid mistakes(if there any i will later re-upload corrected version), too complicated scheme, packages A,B,C,D same 190mm packages with special armour, but there is no 12mm plates package.
 

btw good pic of polish L2A5(or 6?) showing bottom part of turret(here you also can see how its differ from 2AV)
 

 
and some old photo
 

I say that Type C armor cannot stop DM43 based on the available information. DM43 has a 600 mm long penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s. It should be enough to deal with armor supposedly having troubles with DM23 at close ranges. The LKE1 prototype nearly defeated the frontal armor of a simulated T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 ERA, i.e. "over 700 mm RHA", if one does care about such figures.
 
If the Leopard 2A5 kept Type C base armor, why did the Germans use old turrets from the earliest batches to create them? They could have just kept the old turrets and only modified the area around the EMES 15. But they didn't. Also why would Rolf Hilmes lie?
The image from the Swedish leaks shows five different colored areas in the graphs, suggesting there are five armor configuration. Unless you argue that these are refering to different configurations of add-on armor, there is one color without representation.
I agree with you that the yellow graph matches the "German model" (Type B armor with Type D add-on modules), but please take a look at the blue area.
It has less armor protection at 50% than the "German model", but much greater coverage with higher protection. This means that this armor somehow covers less area (like lacking the hull add-ons), but is better than Type B + Type D add-ons in terms of average coverage between 85% and 30%. If you pay attention to the gradients at the end of the graph, it becomes obvious that the yellow area would have higher protection at below ~25% coverage, i.e. a better turret front armor (if the gradients do not change). In other words the armor package represented by the blue graph covers less area and has weaker turret front armor, but higher protection at other areas. How is that possible in your opinion?
 
The only explanation aside the existence of a Type D base armor package (for which there are sources claiming that it existed) or multiple types of add-on armor, which however were never mentioned by any source and never has been spotted. Both TVMs use the same armor, the KVT was made with mock-up modules only.
 
 
That is an anecdote and hardly a source. Tank crews do not take of the skirts by themselves on a regular basis and without uusing a scale, I doubt that he can distinguish between 75 kg and 100+ kg.
 
@Wiedzmin, I have found a theory about the different steel types mentioned in the Leopard 2AV docs. Letter codes used for construction steel might be the explanation:
hh: gehärtet - high hardness sh: geschält - hot rolled steel, turned (for extra smooth surface - might be an advantage when used in NERA?) W: wetterfest - weather resistant V: vergütet - steel with high UTS C: kaltgezogen - cold rolled  
 

I have the answer for @Wiedzmin to the different steel types and old dude @SH_MM is completely wrong with his theory:
The letters are used in the old German specification for armour steel TL-2350-0001 for different hardnesses where W is 400 to 450 HBW, V is for 440 to 490 HBW and C is for 340 to 390 HBW. The letters hh and sh are not German abbreviations.
 
 

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

1974 requirements
-105mm KE
-120mm KE
-120mm HEAT

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700
 
1977-78 requirements

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

 
mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?
 

 
1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)
 
-120mm DM23
- HOT


and once again
 

 
HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.
 
as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.
 
british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...
 
for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 
 
 
firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...