Pardus
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Pardus
-
Suuure, what'ever you say champ
-
The evidence is in the numbers as far as I'm concerned, 30mm of armour is not enough to reliably stop a 20mm DM43 at 100 m, it isn't even sufficient vs WW2 style 20mm APCR. And as we know the 2K & 2AV were both scrapped because they failed a number of unspecified criteria, and based on the adoption requirements my guess is side protection was one of the areas they failed to fully meet demands. Rarely is classified information mentioned specifically, hence I wouldn't put much thought into that.
-
That's not a plan drawing showing actual armour thickness Laviduce, hence very bad idea to make guesses based on that. The 10mm sponson armour being a prime example as that would be insane to have as the only cover for your fuel tanks, as that would allow regular smallarms fire to cripple your tank. So I'm sorry but there's no way those guesstimates are accurate. To prove it you can observe pictures of the actual tanks sponsons opened up: As you can see the plating at the back is more like 20mm thick (with another angled plate in behind where the tools are mounted) rather than a mere 10mm which would be even less than the initial Lochbleche skirts. The section infront of the engine bay covering the NBC system & fuel tanks looks like a continuation of the Leopard 2K sponson protection scheme, with a 12mm + 30mm spaced array, as seen on the NBC hatch: Hence it's likely to look like this: The hull side continues up behind the sponsons in the crew area, and features another spaced array used for NERA inserts on later variants, and they also looks quite thick (again not present on the Hilmes cutaway, because it isn't a drawing meant to show armour thickness or layout):
- 1,531 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- leopard 2
- protection
- (and 1 more)
-
No, I am not claiming it is 45mm, I am saying I think it must be around 45mm based on the adoption requirement, which is the only clue we have to go by. There's big difference between saying "It IS 45mm!" and "I believe it is 45mm based on this".
-
Sorry but no. I'm not the one making blanket statements as to what the hull side thickness is. On the contrary I am saying not of us know as we don't have the plan drawings, yet since we do know one of the adoption requirements we can atleast make a reasonable guess, hence the 45mm figure as this would be sufficient to protect reasonably well against DM43 at 100 m. In short 45mm is what I think it is, not something I claim it to be. And I base this assumption on the evidence available.
-
WT is definitely not equal to the real world. Lot's of stuff missing on the Leopard 2, including the gun trunnion and lots of LOS thickness for the mantlet and cheeks. Glacis plate (82 deg) is also only 35mm in WT, where'as it's 45mm in real life. Turret roof is 40mm in WT and again 45mm in RL. As for the hull side below the sponsons, I think it's 45mm based on the requirement for adoption, i.e. immunity from 20mm DM43 @ 100 m. But others in here are saying 30mm based on the rejected 2K & 2AV prototypes. None of us know for sure however.
-
Doesn't seem like it's the same tank HAKI, as that one features add on armour around the angled part of the lower hull too, which the other one did not.
-
1) Again where's the proof of 30mm hull sides for the 2A4-6? Leopard 2K drawings don't really matter as we know it failed the requirements, as did the 2AV. I'm not saying it's impossible for the hull side to be 30mm, but where's the proof? I sincerely doubt it based on the requirement to withstand 20mm DM43 at 100 m from 700mm height upwards, for that to be met 45mm hull sides are basically required. 2) Already mentioned the increased hull side armour on the Danish A7DK's delivered recently (As I said I spoke to a couple of the guys who tested & now operate them). And the Danes have had 2A5's operational with increased add on hull side armour for a long time, so it's not about them realizing anything just now. Now it seems like A7's simply come with it as part of the base armour now instead of an addon kit, which btw also covered the lower angled side.
-
And the "real" penetration at 90 deg and 100 m? To me it looks like it agrees well with the figures on the chart. Mind you the Russian 14.5mm PTRS AT rifle could/can also penetrate up to 40mm at 100m 90 deg. And by comparison WW2 German 20mm KwK30/38 APCR was good for 40mm @ 30 deg @ 100 m, equivalent to a good 55+ mm flat. I will concede that I did actually misread that one, somehow mixed up the 30 & 60 deg figures. Anyway here's the source (Russian) for the table I posted: https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/298964.html No idea what you're talking about, the only game forum I'm a member of is War Thunder (Same name), and WarGaming. I even announced I arrived from there with my first post here. As for whining, I don't whine, on the WT forums I concentrate on highlighting inaccuracies, whilst here I focus on learning and discussing armour amongst what seems to be people more into the technical side of things than what you usually find on the gaming forums. And I am not stuck on any idea, on the contrary I'm completely open to reason, so if you can disprove anything of what I say you are always welcome to do so - I mean you seem to believe you are an authority on the subject, and yet atm you're apparently more interested in ad hominem attacks rather than actually discussing the subject matter, and to me that is basically declaring out loud you have no valid counter argument. In short I'm here to discuss armour, not religion or politics. So how about we carry this on in a civil manner and stick to the subject of armour eh? The Leopard 2's side hull below the sponsons isn't spaced armour, it's monolithic and there's a good chunk not covered by the skirts as illustrated. If this area was only 30mm thick it would extremely vulnerable to auto cannon attack, heck even 14.5mm fire up close. Hence why I'm inclined to believe the side hull armour is around 45mm thick, i.e. same thickness of plate as the glacis and forward part of the turret roof. The hull below the 700mm height is angled and covers no real vital parts, and as such it can be thinner, being 30 or maybe even just 20mm thick.
-
By the very figures you just posted it is not (DM43 = 17mm vs 3URB8 = 27mm), also your figure matches the one on the chart for 1 km @ 60 deg quite well (27 vs 28mm). ad hominem attacks leads you nowhere, try to stick to the subject instead.
-
That I sincerely doubt, as 25mm Bushmaster APFSDS-T round is supposed to penetrate ~48mm RHAe @ 60 deg @ 1 km vs the 17mm of the 20mm DM63 at the same distance.
-
Sorry but at 100 m 20mm DM43 is not going to hit at much of an angle (couple of deg at most), and the requirement was that the armour was immune to 20mm DM43 at this distance, i.e. irrespective of impact angle, as in a real world combat condition projectiles can come from all sorts of directions as in the real world combat doesn't always take place on a level field where attacks can only come with difference in the horizontal. I also see no reason to drop this requirement, if anything the requirement would become stricter with further advancements in same caliber cannon penetration power. Which is probably also why they later switched from the perforated skirts to the solid high hardness steel skirts to enhance protection even further.
-
Problem is that would have it fail the requirement as it leaves the area I was talking about completely vulnerable to 20mm AP, incl. the hull ammo rack, failing the immunity requirement at 100 and even 500 m: 20mm DM43 performance at 1 km: This would become more problematic with the newer RHA skirts as they actually cover a bit less area: Hence I am still more inclined towards 45-50mm side hull armour above the 700mm line, where'as below that 30mm is possible as the hull is angled, plus there is no vital parts there.
-
@SH_MM I don't think it's silly to believe the hull armour is 45-50mm at all, esp. considering that immunity to 20mm AP was required. That means complete protection even at point blank. Also keep in mind that a noticable area of the Leopard 2's hull sn't covered by the skirts, hence 20mm DM43 AP would be able to sail through a 30mm plate here. As for the Leopard 2AV meeting the requirement, where is this established/mentioned? So is the Abrams.
-
Yeah the BMP-1 frontal hull is also very well sloped (80 deg upper, 57 deg lower), and APCR does not deal well with sloped armour to begin with. Anything less than 45mm at 90 deg simply wouldn't pass as immune to 20mm AP, and would even be vulnerable to Russian 14.5mm HMGs.
-
Apologies for the late answer to this, but the Danish governement actually decided in late 2018 that all 44 tanks will recieve the full upgrade. https://www.berlingske.dk/nyheder/forsvaret-faar-flere-og-bedre-kampvogne-men-det-bliver-dyrt To translate: "All 44 tanks are now to be upgraded to the same high standard, where'as the plan initially was to make due with fewer" (16 out of 44)
-
Well to be considered immune to 20mm DM43 HK which can penetrate over 50mm, within 500 m atleast, will require more than 30mm of base side armour + 12mm steel rubber "Lochbleche" skirts. To be classifed as "immune" afterall requires 100% certainty of protection. Hence why I've always suspected 45-50mm as the hull side thickness decided upon for the production version, esp. since skirts don't cover everything, and it would be damn embarrasing to lose an MBT to something as simple as a ZPU equipped technical (14.5x114mm AP can penetrate 40mm RHA @ 100 m) On a sidenote, shouldn't atleast the 2A0-4's hull construction drawings be declassified soon'ish as well?
-
The early skirts were not solid though, but a "ventilated" steel rubber combo, which I doubt would affect 20mm DM43 HK much. Penetration performance of the 20mm DM43 is afterall over 50mm at 1.5 km. Hence I seriously doubt 30mm is the thickness of the Leopard 2A0->'s hull side. I know it was 29mm in the in 2K, but it was also rejected. Also are you sure the Abrams side is only 27mm thick around the crew compartment?
-
Well it's supposed to break up the cone of a HEAT warhead, so why not? If anything it should be effective versus any HEAT warhead. The 2AV must have featured thinner side armour as the Leopard 2A was supposed to be immune to 20mm AP, so that would rule out 30mm hull armour for the production version atleast. 50mm is the only thickness which would reliably protect you against the 20mm AP available in the 70's. As for the RPG-7, I doubt it will penetrate 80-100 mm of armour 500mm behind a 12mm steel skirt, as was also demonstrated several times in Iraq & Afghanistan.
-
I am talking purely if the side skirts are hit, in which case there's a ~500mm stand off between the RPG warhead going off and the ~100mm UHA underneath. If the side skirts are not hit, then ofcourse the RPG will punch straight through.
-
Frontal protection looks enhanced if anything, not reduced on the 2A7+ Urban Operations (which was just an addon kit AFAIK). So unless they removed internal NERA packages the frontal protection would still be at maximum, as the turret wedges are the same and the tank also features the extra upper hull protection. http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280 Is there information that says they removed the internal NERA arrays on this model? Well the entire side of the tank was fitted with slat armour, including the heavily armoured forward turret side, so I think the slat armor was merely added to make sure of proper protection vs the newest anti tank missiles likely available to the Taliban. If we presume the added side armour provides another 50mm of ultra high hardness armor then the total hull side armour would be around 100mm thick, add in the 12mm skirt and ~500mm airgap and I don't think for example an RPG-7 would stand a chance against that. Newer tandem charges would be a problem though, something the slat armour would have some ability to deal with by breaking up the cone before impact with any flat surface. That does not say anywhere it is the weight with the added armour though. If the tank truly weighed just over 70 tons in Afghanistan (according to that tanker), then I'm inclined to believe 68 tons is more likely. The tanker in the video I linked who mentioned 68 tons also never mentions the slat armour.
-
What I don't quite understand though is why the Danes didn't also opt for the available added turret side protection offered with the 2A7+: Will also be interesting to see when KMW decides to install the MTU 883 powerpack in the Leopard: Would allow for a lot of the systems in the turret to be moved down into the hull, making room for a bigger turret ammo rack, as well as the removal of the hull ammo storage.
-
Pretty sure it's without. One Danish tanker I talked to says the weight was slightly over 70 tons fully equipped in Afghanistan, which I take as being when with the slat armor and barracuda camo/insulation.
-
The add on side hull armour looks pretty thick, so if the lower hull side armour is already 50mm (which I believe is the only realistic figure to meet the 20mm AP immunity requirement), then that would bring the lower side hull up quite abit in thickness. With the additional 12mm steel skirts and air gap that should provide pretty good protection vs most RPGs.
-
No worries, my post wasn't even directed at you. The 2A7DK is supposed to have or get the increased side hull armor seen in the 2A5DK unloading picture as well, but probably only for operational use. I suspect the 2A7DK also comes with D-tech internal modules.
