Pardus

2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

68 metric tonnes? That’s about on par with Abrams!

Yup, and for a dimensionally smaller tank

A Danish commander here talks about the additional side hull armour on the 2A5DK (He talks about the difference between the tank in question and the one used on operations which weighes 68 tons):

The armour he is talking about:

The new Danish Leopard 2A7DK's arriving at Oksbøl (Note the addition of further protection to the front hull, upper & lower.):

These tanks came fully equipped with:

-  New 3rd Generation ATTICA FLIR imagers for commander & gunner

-  New added front, side & bottom hull armour

-  New 120mm L55A1 gun

-  New APU

-  New digital turret traverse control unit 

-  New displays for gunner & commander 

-  Updated drive train

-  Updated suspension

-  Spectus driver's cameras, front & rear. 

These pictures show added armour protection on a Leopard 2A5DK along the lower hull side, spanning the crew compartment area:

Source: 

On 11/12/2019 at 2:25 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

Are you by chance confusing the overall offensive scoring with gunnery scoring, because 

 

 

No I mean the Leopard 2 in general has won the SETC gunnery exercises. The stationary shoot out discipline was won in 2018 by the US, but that's the first and only time so far, and they didn't place as high as the Leopards in the initial offensive & defensive gunnery disciplines.

On 10/27/2019 at 2:06 AM, 2805662 said:

Interesting. From a purely combat-tested crew survivability perspective, I’d rate the Abrams series as superior to Leopard 2. Leopard 2’s completely exposed hull ammunition wine-rack stowage is an inexcusable flaw. 
 

In terms of sensors, the gen 2 FLIR on Abrams (about to be superseded by gen 3 FLIR), is highest performing thermal currently available. My experience with European sensor systems is that they are available, expensive, and adequate, but underperform US systems, remaining a generation behind in performance. My most recent exposure to leading US AFV sensors is 2015, so a little dated, but I’ve heard nothing that would convince me that there’s been significant changes in this regard. 
 

 

Pretty sure the new Attica 3rd Gen FLIR system on the Leopard 2A7 is beyond anything ever put on or even planned for the Abrams. You should read up on it.

Also the Leopard is consistently scoring better in gunnery competitions between the two during SETC, and the scores given include the time taken to correctly ID targets before engaging. It isn't just about who can hit most accurately, but also about how fast they can do it whilst distinguishing "friendly" from "enemy" targets.

Wondering, are there side hull armour drawings/specifications out there for the Leo 2AV ? 

Trying to figure out the most likely protection of the Leo 2's side lower hull, and wether it changes along the length of the tank.

Armour distribution based on the Swedish data:

As for how the thickness of the back plate was measured:

As far as I can tell the thickness of the mantlet was measured like so:

Thus 420mm is very much confirmed if you ask me.

As for the lower hull side thickness, I've read between 40-50mm, but I haven't seen any measurements yet to confirm it. Anyone got anything on the lower hull sides?

6 minutes ago, Scav said:

Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page.

Though, I'll see if I can adjust it.

There is this picture which shows that the hull roof is noticably thicker than the hatch (how much ofcourse is anybody's guess, but I think 40-45mm sounds reasonable based on the photographic evidence):

As for the mantlet area, it's complex to colour code due to all the different parts:

Scav,

The front hull roof should be between 40-45 mm thick (hatch is 30mm), which is 287-323mm LOS alone. So 250mm is too low there.

Also keep in mind that the hull nose module covers part of the highly sloped hull roof area. I've attached a more detailed illustration of the hull armour below:

10 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

Some basics: https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/hensoldt/Datenblätter/En/0714_SL_0817_9_GPG_EMES_15_EN_LoRes.pdf

That's the boresight tool, I need official info on the EMES-15 primary sight

Does anyone have detailed & sourced specifications for the Leopard 2's EMES-15 sight?

Hello Laviduce, 

Disappointingly the people I were able to talk to when there simply didnt know the information you requested, and taking any measurements was rendered impossible by all the military personnel around. 

However I found out that there's a tank musuem nearby with a Leopard 2A4 on exhibition that I might be able to get access to and there are likely to be experts on the tank there too. 

Alright guys, I will be attending something called Åben Hede in Denmark tommorrow where the Leopard 2 will be doing some live exercises and you can walk around the tanks and so forth. If there's anything you guys want me to ask or achieve whilst there just let me know today.

Thanks SM_HH,

That atleast seem to validate the use of an inner wall, and supposedly with NERA.

Would you happen to have information on the thickness of the hull below the sponsons? Narod.ru puts it at 50mm RHA, however are there any measurements to back this up?

A closer look from the other side which seems to indicate that there is a inner wall:

Images removed for OPSEC reasons, as per. request from METKA

A close up picture of the rear turret bustle being worked on:

- image deleted per official request-

moderation team

Notice the lip formed by the plate overhang, what does this indicate? Is the turret bustle armour really not 90mm thick? or is the particular turret simply missing the inner wall plate at the moment of picture?

An illustration of what I believe is likely the armour layout of the Leopard 2's sponsons:

- image deleted per official request-

moderation team

Again this is based on the Leopard 2AV and 2K protection scheme as well as the actual protection scheme present on the Leopard 2 at the NBC unit.

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I don't think the six squares have to relate to the armor thickness of the hull side; they are part of the mounting mechanism for the side skirt elements.

 

Leopard 2A7 at Eurosatory

I think they are the lower mounting points yes, however I still think they might indicate how thick the outer plate is going to be by how much they extend over the sponson floor. And again ofcourse it simply wouldn't make sense not to secure the fuel tanks (a critical component) from smallarms fire, as even 5.56 NATO green tip will penetrate 10mm of armour at 100m, 7.62 NATO AP 15mm,  and finally .50 BMG up to 22.2mm of FHA. 

Now since I seem to recall reading that the Leopard was designed to be immune to 20mm fire from the sides, I believe that indicates at atleast a 40-50mm RHAe protection for the fuel tanks, which could be achieved for example via a 12mm outer high hardness plate + a thicker 30mm one spaced behind it, just like on the 2K and 2AV and seemingly also exactly the type of protection fround on the aircon/filtration system hatch, i.e. a ~12mm outer plate with a ~30mm plate spaced behind it.

In summary since the Leopard 2K and 2AV both featured ample amount of spaced armour to protect their fuel cells, and since the NBC hatch on the Leo 2 actually features this same type of spaced protection, I think it's only logical that the production variant followed suit here or even slightly improved upon it for the fuel tank section.

Also just noticed the following:

Image removed for OPSEC reasons (recieved notification from METKA)

Note: I think the six squares at the edge of the left sponson indicate the thickness of the plate here, which to me looks like ~30mm. This also makes the most sense in terms of protecting the fuel tanks from being ruptured by smallarms or HMG fire. To corroborate this theory there seems to be at least that amount of protection on the aircon system hatch: 

5 minutes ago, Rohrkrepierer said:

@Pardus, I'm currently trying to get in contact with one of the authors of the paper to see if he can help me with a couple of things. Including this, and possible further information on DM23.

Sounds good Rohr!