Pardus

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

eave a man with his illusions lol

 

i can't understand such argumentation "i think/i doubt", there is archvies, if someone in doubt go to archvies find report pay money and show it, as for me as far as i get something new and interesting i post it, but there is a bunch of "i don't believe !111 and don't want to spend money on stupid archives because my opinion is more important!"...

Suuure, what'ever you say champ 

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

You keep saying that. Do you have any proof that the Leopard 2K and Leopard 2AV failed to meet the specified protection requirements? I doubt that.

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.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2K/early Leopard 2 PT tanks ceased to exist because of changed protection requirements, not due to the inability to meet the original ones (actually all early Leopard 2 PT models were over-weight to meet the protection requirements). The Leopard 2AV also did not fail to meet the specified protection level. According to Paul-Werner Krapke, the Leopard 2AV met all US-American and all West-German protection requirements after the redesign of the hulll in 1976.

 

The series production model is derived from the Leopard 2AV. The "AV" designation was simply dropped at a later stage, it is not an alternative development to the Leopard 2AV. The designation remained in use until 1977/1978. Paul-Werner Krapke wrote that between US testing and the series production of the Leopard 2, the hull front was re-designed to offer "better" protection compared to the Leopard 2AV (without qualifying the term "better"), he doesn't state anything regarding side armor.

 

Rarely is classified information mentioned specifically, hence I wouldn't put much thought into that.

5 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

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 minute ago, Beer said:

You're caiming it's around 45 mm without any proof as well. 

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".

1 hour ago, Beer said:

Sorry to jump in your discussion but you repeatedly asked others for proofs backing their statements while you haven't presented any sort of proof yourself. 

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.

13 minutes ago, HAKI2019 said:

It is a German 2A7，http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6038632857?pid=124142068677&cid=#124142068677,

A7V，http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6038632857?pid=124142068677&cid=#124142068677，the photos were collected by a Chinese model player.

 

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.

41 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

so they finaly realized(german 2A7 or Denmark?) that 30mm not enough to stop modern threats even after thick side skirts ? any more photos?

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.

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

DM43 is 8mm/60° (real pen 10mm/60° at 800 meters and 20mm/60° at 100 meters) at 1km

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.

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

you don't understand what you reading, do you ?

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

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

lack of understanding of the essence of the problem leads you nowhere, but as far as i can see it's more often leads you to tank games(even IL2 lol ?) forums where you whining about "german tank/shells/armour underestimated"

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? 

4 hours ago, DIADES said:

against monolithic armour, not spaced = not relevant.

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.

Quote

it's penetrating even more than 30mm 3URB8 APDS(3UBR8 is APDS not API-T and has 27mm/60deg at 1km and 12mm/60 at 4km according to the manufacturer claim) lol

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).

37 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

in real world you have tons of conventions and compromises and especially probabilities of a real hit, and there is no "ingenious german/soviet/american/anybody else design", if you try to research any tank(and not to prove your religious point of view for some games lol)  of any country you most likely come to a conclusion "wtf this piece of junk?! how it can be adopted in service?!"

ad hominem attacks leads you nowhere, try to stick to the subject instead.

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

According to this Russian source, the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS round penetrates more flat armor than a 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T round. It's a poor source.

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.

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

No, because the real world is not a video game like Armored Warfare, War Thunder or World of Tanks. You are pretending that they took each armor plate of the hull and fired a 20 mm DM43 round with 90° impact at it.

 

That is not how ballistic tests are being conducted, because that does not represent any relevant combat scenario. The lower section can only be hit at an angle in real combat conditions, hence the design takes this into account. That was already the case with the Leopard 2K.

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. 

On 2/23/2020 at 1:58 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Incorrect. The official requirement was to resist 20 mm Hartkern (APCR) rounds from 100 meters distance. Tests from a shorter distance were not conducted.

 

Also the requirements applied only to the hull upwards from 700 mm of the ground. Pretty much all of the area not covered by the skirts falling in the area for which the protection requirement was issued is covered by drivetrain elements, which were counted as armor (seen as integral to meeting the protection requirement, represented in the ballistics tests).

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? 

18 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

No, why should they? Equipment is still being used.

So is the Abrams.

9 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I found these numbers for DM43: 

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

BMP-1 hull resisted this frontally. 

 

Source: (I dont know how reliable it is)

https://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

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.

On 2/18/2020 at 7:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Only sixteen Danish tanks will see the full upgrade, the rest of them will receive partial improvments only.

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? 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The requirement to stop the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance was already set for the original Leopard 2 prototypes with MLC50 weight limit and spaced armor only - though back then it was limited to the crew compartment only. The early Leopard 2 prototypes has 10 mm thick side skirts and 29 mm thick base armor at the sides of the crew compartment. This was sufficient to meet the protection requirement.

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? 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Slat armor doesn't really work against anti-tank missiles.

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.

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The side armor of the Leopard 2AV's lower hull is 30 mm steel - Germany used higher grade steel than other nations, but no ultra high hardness armor. Specifically given that the Danish Leopard 2A5 tanks are rebuilt early batch Leopard 2s, the hull armor isn't going to be made of the best possible steel.

 

Even the basic PG-7 can defeat five inches (127 mm) steel armor after detonating two feet in front of the target. This very poor performance is a result of the low production quality of the warhead. A modern hand-held anti-tank weapon (such as a RGW-60) with similar overall penetration capacity would likely retain more over distance.

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.

12 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

"RPG-7" is a bad generalization. I can imagine it protects against PG-7V or VM in some circumstances, but I think it is unlikely that even that armor can do anything against even the PG-7VS, which is sill ancient, from the early '70s. Also dont forget the impact angle, which is very important. At 30 degreees for example, this armor will stop PG-7V or VM, but at 90... I dont think so. This +50mm add on is purely against EFPs.

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.

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations variant proposed by KMW had totally different turret add-on armor designed with reduced frontal protection for weight savings. The Leopard 2A4M CAN is based on this concept. The (initial?)Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations had full frontal armor, but no add-on armor options for the side.

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?

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Unlikely. The reinforced hull armor was adopted as part of the mine protection kit and is most likely designed to deal with EFPs, that can easily defeat the tank's side armor (a low-grade 100 mm EFP warhead can penetrate more than 80 mm steel). EFPs cannot be stopped by slat armor and the simpler types of light-weight reactive armor, so adopting a heavy add-on solution makes sense. For stopping RPGs, the armor thickness is too low.

 

The up-armored Danish Leopard 2A5 variant was fitted with slat armor in Afghanistan and given that slat armor works only against the weaker types of RPGs, this shows that there wasn't any confidence in the upgraded hull dealing with RPGs.

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.

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Forsvaret lists the Leopard 2A5DK with enhanced mine protection/hull side armor at 66 tonnes:

https://www2.forsvaret.dk/nyheder/overige_nyheder/Pages/SidstekaliberskudmedLeopard2A5.aspx

 

This would imply that the 68 tonnes include the slat armor and Barracuda MCS.

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.

1 hour ago, Mork said:

is the 68 tonnes including slat armor?

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.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I meant additional armor on the Leopard 2A7DK compared to the 2A5DK. I unintentionally wrote 2A5DK in the first sentence, I corrected this.

 

I also wrote, which should have made the mistake obvious:

  

 

 

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.