Pardus

I am well aware that penetration doesn't scale linearly with MV, hence why I said a 14.2% increase in MV jives well with a 20% increase in penetration. The point is that RhM is talking about penetration when they refer to the percentage wise increase in performance with the Rh120 L55A1 & the Rh130 L51, and not KE. I think they made that clear in their press release: I had a feeling you would pull out those presentation pictures, problem is the actual in service DM63 doesn't seem to look like that, but rather like this: And here cutaways of the DM63 & DM53 (don't mind the length/width measurements, they are clearly just guesses, dimension wise DM53 & 63 look the same): DM63 DM53 So like I said dimensionally there doesn't seem to be a discernible difference between the penetrators, but there is an outward difference in colour, which could indicate a different/newer tungsten alloy being used for the DM63 - or it could simply be a visual way of telling the two apart, we don't know.

Yet when RhM wrote of the Rh 130 and it's 50% increase in performance, they specified that increase as being in "penetration & effectiveness". Well there are changes between the DM53 & DM63 projectiles, wether they are just superficial or new materials are used in the construction is unclear to me. But they are visibly different atleast in appearance, with the DM53's tip being all black whilst the in service DM63's I've seen are metallic with a black stripe. Also I wonder why DM53A1 & DM63 wouldn't be usable in the L/44, whilst DM63A1 is? What modification was done from DM53A1/DM63 to DM63A1? (Sabot design?)

As far as I recall they advertized a 20% increase in penetration performance, not kinetic energy, and going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s (+14.2%) seems likely to increase penetration by about that much (+20%). Also where have you heard of DM63+ ? So designation discussion aside, I am fairly convinced the tanker could've refered to the MV achieved by the new L55A1 gun. Getting MV off by more than 200 m/s as a gunner in the type just doesn't sound right.

Well consider the following: DM53A1 was a DM53 using a new less temperature sensitive propellant, DM63 later followed also using temp independant propellant, as I understood it merely being a redesignation of the DM53A1. Later DM63A1 appears, around the same time L55A1 is first announced (2014-2016), and is described as the most advanced and capable tungsten APFSDS-T round in the world. So it's either that or DM63 is completely seperate from DM53, which is not how I've understood it. In short I suspect the German tanker was alluding to performance of the L/55A1, and not simply speaking nonsense.

I know what it means, but since the tanker quoted 2000 m/s, there's a chance this is actually the performance of what's in service with the new gun. Remember the DM63A1 is a new round different from the DM53A1 & DM63, likely using a higher pressure propellant charge infront of the same penetrator to take advantage of the L55A1's added capability. The future DM73 is going to add a new penetrator to boot. Going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s is a 14.2% increase in velocity, which jives well with a 20% increase in penetration. In short the tanker might very well have been refering to performance of the L55A1 + DM63A1 combination.

Small recap, the German tanker who in a previous video was talking about a MV of 2000+ m/s might have been refering to performance of the L55A1 with the DM63A1 round. According to RhM the higher chamber pressure results in a 20% increase in performance over the L55 with the DM53/53A1/63.

Brand new video on the Danish Leopard 2A7's:

Ok, using those measurements I get 698 kg for a solid block, no holes, using a density of 8 g/mm3. With the holes 595 kg sounds about right, so RHA does make sense based on that. 420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.

What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)

I don't think titanium actually shatters, it's fairly ductile eventhough its very hard.

True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight.

Brand new video I'm sure you will all enjoy:

It is indeed the drivers hatch, but not sure where you seeing the 30mm plate? If you're talking about the UFP, it's 45mm. The hatch itself though is 30mm on the 2A4, and over twice as thick on the 2A5 forward.

Anyone wanna guess where on the tank this is:

Recieved a notification from METKA to remove pictures of Leopard 2 manufacturing pictures for OPSEC reasons, just a heads up.

"MV 2200 m/s" ?? (2:28 min)

It is very thick indeed, ~65mm as you can see, and the add on armour on the UFP is 45mm, which if I'm not mistaken is also the thickness of the base armour here (45mm), atleast that's what it was on the 2AV.

Something I just came to think of, the drivers hatch on the 2A5 onwards looks a lot thicker than the 30mm of the 2A4's: 50-60mm maybe?

Well to be fair he hasn't really been holding back on the rigorous statements himself has he?

I agree completely, and when speculating I think it's very important to be friendly & respectful about it, mostly because otherwise you end up looking like a real ass if your hypothesis turns out to be wrong And as for the factory drawings, they indeed tell the truth, but if they supposedly were/are as easy to get a hold of as Wiedzmin suggested, then I wonder why that hasn't already been done? I'm quite sure it wouldn't be due to a lack of interested individuals

Not sure why you point this out, I never said it didn't? I posted the picture in response to Laviduce's reliance on Hilmes drawing for guessing armour thickness, which is an exercise in futility as these drawings aren't meant to showcase armour layout or thickness, hence why they also don't show these cavities amongst many other things.

@SH_MM No, I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that 45mm is more likely in my opinion. I never once claimed it to be fact, and neither did I simply scuff & brush away anything you said as ridiculous the way you have done it to me. On the contrary I have an argument, which is that based on the logic that if immunity to 20mm DM43 was demanded above 700mm height then 30mm of armour wouldn't be enough. That's the main argument from my side. If you have a report that says otherwise, heck even that side armour was decreased then I don't understand why you haven't posted it by now. "Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about" - What a way to start a sentence, you for sure aren't emotionally invested in this conversation at all 1) Never claimed that 12mm perforated steel + 30mm base armour is insufficient vs 14.5mm AP (a 12mm perforated steel rubber plate obviously doesn't provide as much protection as a monolithic steel plate though), what I've said is that there's a noticable portion of the Leopard 2's side hull which isn't covered by skirts and hence would likely be vulnerable to even 14.5mm AP if just 30mm thick. 2) Immunity to 20mm APCR was what I remembered as the requirement, you claim it is at 100m above 700mm height (you "informed" me no less, fancy stuff, we'll get back to that), which I completely accepted, but it's a pointless detail to make as it doesn't impact the argument I was making: i.e. 30mm of armour ultra high hardness, high hardness or regular RHA isn't going to be sufficient to guarantee immunity against 20mm DM43 based on the flat penetration figures I've seen for this round. It might just cut it vs 14.5mm if its UHHS, not sure. 3) I didn't "decide" that penetration performance of WW2 20mm APCR matters as reference, I mentioned it to illustrate that performance of modern 20mm APCR certainly wouldn't be worse than this. 4) Slat armour is supposed to break up HEAT warheads, so yes ofcourse it should also work against some ATGMs, it depends entirely on warhead type and hit location. Against a top attack only ATGM system side mounted slat armour obviously doesn't really matter. Nope, once again never once said that. I said they were scrapped because failed to meet the requirements that the production version was built for. If the requirement for the 2K & 2AV was for immunity to 20mm DM43 along the entire crew compartment and they fulfilled this requirement, then find me the statement were that is made and we're good. I've read through my own copy of Krapke & Hilmes book and found nothing suggesting this. Incorrect, like I've said from the beginning I don't care what thickness the side hull is, and I do care about what is fact, but in case we don't know these facts (which is the case here) then I will concentrate on what I think is most likely based on the limited information we have. And I can do that without calling anyone with a different opinion clueless or any other derogatory term in the process. You on the other hand seem to only care about having people acknowledge everything you say as fact, and if they don't you will let personal insults rain upon them until they submit to what you deem factual. Which brings me to the obvious question of why you act like this? From where does this sense of authority & entitlement on the subject originate? What's the ethos here? Are you a former KMW employee? Do you work with the Leopard 2 on a daily basis etc? If so then I can understand that you feel you can speak with atleast some elevated authority on the subject (it still doesn't excuse your deplorable habbit of speaking down to people however), but otherwise I don't see how you can expect others to simply abandon their own opinion.

No, never implied that. Difference is I've been talking about the requirements for the production version the whole time, whilst you've been mixing it up with the initial ones. The Leopard 2K & 2AV couldn't meet updated requirements, hence the 2A was born. I have Krapke's book thank you very much. "neither failed to meet specifications" & "it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection" I hope you see the conflict But hey man, like I said I'm not here to discuss religion or politics. I don't care wether the sides are 30mm or 45mm, I've expressed my opinion (45mm) and provided an argument for it, and you yours. It's a pity some of you couldn't hold a good tone however, must say my respect for you has faded because of it. A wise man once said: "Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it."