Scav

On 5/20/2020 at 3:33 PM, Pardus said:

 

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)

We don't know the exact dimensions of the holes, though you can sort of get close with pixel measuring on the inside, but that isn't particularly relevant because the gun cradle isn't just that block, it's also the thicker part of the barrel right in front of the block and right behind it.
In the Rh120 brochure from Rheinmetall I posted a while ago the "gun port" dimensions are given: 730x500mm, thus while the gun cradle itself is 728mm wide we can surmise the height is close to 500m, after you know the rough dimensions some guessing of hole sizes, you can get a decent idea on how much volume it has.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 3:52 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

Total weight is 3655kg with mantlet.
Without it's 3015kg.
Where do you get 3780 from?

Keep in mind that weight can change over production, the 122's gun might not be identical to the original leo 2's.

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Meanwhile this design from 1976 weighed more than the gun mantlet of the series production version.

The section at the bottom seems to have been dropped and I'm not sure which 2AV mantlet this is....

 

This one?

 

Or this one?

 

On 5/14/2020 at 11:24 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I spend recently a bit of time with the Rh-120mm L44 gun.
Here are my findings (weight estimation):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This a combination of estimation (marked with ~) and 5 sources for the weight of the L44 gun on the Leopard 2A4

 

Sources can be found here: https://i.imgur.com/l3O7juF.png (contact me if u want the .svg file)

 

Here are also some great pics of the L44 cut open:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Regarding the theory that Leopard 2A4 8th batch and upwards utilized Titanium and Tungsten:

In all older Leopard 2 the trunnion was always painted with rust resistant paint as seen here:
 

 

Yet in all new versions (>=2A5) the trunnion was no longer painted and just raw metal:

 

From there I can only draw the conclusion that it's a metal which does not rust, therefore not needing any paint.
Taking the rumors into account, the trunnion is most likely made out of a titanium alloy.  The color and texture of the metal would also support this idea.

A counter argument I could think of is that titanium quickly shatters, meaning it would create a lot of spalling when penetrated, yet no spall liner was applied there.

 

On 5/16/2020 at 5:02 AM, Pardus said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Why all this guessing?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4xitrrBUDsYckRhSXNNSXpKbkE/view?pli=1
Gun cradle weight of 595kg, and all the other stuff you can probably use translate for (this is most likely for Strv 122 as well, not Strv 121).
So gun cradle on 122 is steel, not titanium, weight in this location doesn't matter as much as it's right on the pivot point, inertia and balance doesn't change a whole lot because of it.
 

On 3/7/2020 at 4:07 PM, Pardus said:

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:

 

Spoiler

 

 

50-60mm maybe?

No need to guess:
 

Quite easily 64mm, though I'm not sure the entire hatch is that thick considering there's optics on it and they have to lead down somewhere, so maybe there's a cutout that allows you to push up the other end (haven't bothered to get inside pictures, so purely speculation).

@Domichan

Thanks for those pictures, still not sure though... DM53 looks very close.

 

20 hours ago, Jackvony said:

Edit: I have no official measurements but I've looked at some photos of M829A3 and the penetrator definitely seems longer based on the sabot petals seeming to be longer at the top.

Nice pics, from my measurements it's the same length as M829A3 though the sabot looks a bit different as you pointed out.

If we assume the core goes halfway into the windshield (which you can actually see fairly well, it's very thin), it's about 785mm long.

 

Though I have to agree with @Militarysta, it very much looks like some kind of mockup or steel shell.

Maybe you could hang around long enough to watch them move it to see how heavy it is  

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

You are getting ridiculous It literally says Type D armor was offered as drop-in packs for the turret, not as external armor modules.

That could easily have been a mistranslation or error on the part of the Brits writing it down.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

West-Germany offered this to persuade the British Army to buy the Leopard 2A4 as Chieftain replacement and later buy the Type D armor modules as retro-fit option, an offer made after the Leopard 2 with Type C prototype armor failed to meet the claimed protection (stopping 120 mm DM23 from 200 m distance) in 1987 in front of an audience including a British delegation (the British opinion on these firing trials was posted earlier by Wiedzmin).

This solution was rejected by the British Army, because even with the projected protection level (i.e. the claimed 600 mm RHAe vs KE), it still was considered to fail at meeting the required protection levels due its the ballistic holes (gunner's sight weakspot and large size of the gun mantlet). Only then the Leopard 2A5 with re-designed gun mantlet and external armor modules started coming in focus. The Challenger 2 was apparently required to reach 500 mm RHAe vs KE and 800 mm RHAe vs CE; which then was uprated (or an increase was at least considered) to 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 900 mm vs CE.

As if Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were devoid of ballistic holes.... that driver's hatch, lack of a gun mantlet on CR1 (with thinner composite armour behind it as well), TOGS hole on the side and equally large challenger 2 mantlet they ended up adopting....

Where exactly do you see that information? Are there more pages that weren't posted?

 

FYI, KVT was built in 1989, so it's entirely possible they initially thought they could make the D armour an internal package and only in testing realised they couldn't do it without adding more armour externally.
Besides, how would you explain that massive increase in protection in barely 3-4 years time when a much smaller increase (B to C) took much longer and (atleast according to the Brits) failed?

 

Regarding the required protection values: in the Hayne's manual for CR2 the author remarks that the M1A1 Block 2 (M1A2) with DU had 15% better KE protection than the CR2 over a narrow frontal arc.

Judging by the Swedish trials we can guesstimate the protection of M1A2 at around 600-640mm for the turret front, so CR2 would be around 510-540mm.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

As for the protection levels: this is obviously the projected protection, given that the document is from 1987/1988. One has to be careful with the claimed performance, as West-Germany didn't want to reveal anything without a MoU. It might have been the talk of a single soldier/scientists that was considered enough. The late Leopard 2A4 and the variant of the Leopard 2A5 placed in service (not accounting the add-on armor modules) were heavier than the Leopard 2 with Type C armor. There is however one variant of flat/internal armor that was offered in the 1990s as upgrade option of old Leopard 2A4 variants that could stop the LKE1 APFSDS. The claimed HEAT protection is awefully close to HOT-2 at opimal stand-off...

So, you're saying this is them guessing.
Then why do you also point out that it "could stop LKE1", that would be an even higher protection figure.

 

Where did you read that late 2A4s were heavier than C tech ones?
Finding information on any late 2A4s, including C is hard enough, let alone getting a comparison between the 1988 and 1991 models.

Only info I could find was data on the Pz 87, most of which were C and it weighs around 56.5t.

 

HOT-2 does not reach 1200mm, that's HOT-3.

HOT-2 maxes out around 1000mm.

 

Putting this into perspective: M1A2 had 2t of DU added to bump the protection up from around 400-450mm (still "debated") to 600-640mm (while CE remained the same if not slightly decreased), out of 939mm LOS.

That's only for the turret front mind you, not even including turret side or hull front.

Yet, somehow, this new armour package that comes at "almost no weight penalty", barely four years after the latest armour package, reaches 600mm and 1200mm CE out of 860mm LOS while also including a protection increase for turret side and hull front?

 

Without actual proof this is pretty incredulous.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

Btw. while the Brits assessed the Type B armor to provide protection equal to 350 mm steel against KE rounds, they also said that according to Germany it stopped 125 mm steel APFSDS (with WC slug), which according to the Brits could penetrate 380 mm of steel armor at 1,000 m and 420 mm point-blank. So protection is very variable, always depending on what round is used as reference. DM23 (with 420 mm RHA penetration at 200 m) was considered to be equal to Soviet 125 mm tungsten APFSDS with 475 mm penetration into steel point-blank and 440 mm at 1,000 m.

Did I miss some pages?
Where was this listed?

 

I mean, naturally different types of ammunition react differently to certain armour types, but I fail to see how 400mm+ steel can result in less than that in actual protection.

The steel APFSDS rounds were very poor against any form of composite armour compared to actual long rods, so it wouldn't surprise me that even 3BM26 failed to penetrate M1 frontal armour, let alone CR1 or leopard 2.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

In terms of technology, it is possible to achieve such a major gain in protection while staying at a comparable weight. The Leopard 2's Type C armor was tested eight years after the Type B armor entered service and increased KE protection against monobloc tungsten penetrators by 20%. The Type D armor was expected six/seven years after the trials of Type C armor, so a similar increase in armor protection per weight might not be impossible. According to a declassified British documents, the Challenger 1's Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of 1.3 against APFSDS rounds. If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36.

If the 1991 batch was D tech, there was only 3-4 years between C and D, and the increase wouldn't be 20% but 43% (600/420).

I severely doubt that 1.3x efficiency against APFSDS rounds, perhaps they're talking about steel or tungsten slug APFSDS, but certainly not tungsten/DU alloy long rods from the mid 80s.

Where did you read that it was rejected...?
Bit at a loss for words here, is there some other place more information gets published?

Quote

If one considers that one (rejected) variant of the Leopard 2AV's turret armor had more than 440 mm steel at LOS along the frontal arc of the turret, 600 mm could be achieved with a mass efficiency of less than 1.36.

It could, but then we'd solely be talking about the frontal armour, not including the sides etc, which is what the British appear to be talking about (hence the 350mm and 420mm).

That's what makes it appear to ridiculous, how can you get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE in a 60° frontal arc (what the Brits were using) when barely 12 years earlier they reached 350mm?

 

This is not even including the front of the hull.

Plus, the only reason why it that 2AV version could reach such high figures is that it had lots of steel in the array , which in turn takes up lots of space, this leaves little room for CE protection or fancy materials.

So, while you can technically reach 600mm KE, the CE protection in turn cannot also be so high.

That's specifically hard to do with passive armour, even more if they didn't use a completely new material (like ceramics which is claimed to be utilised on C tech).

 

The wedges on the other hand are an entirely different situation, here you have a (substantial) LOS increase along with materials optimised to work against CE (and the additional space also helps massively against KE).

 

On 9/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, SH_MM said:

Likely the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C1 and C2 was designed to stop PG-7V and TMRP-6 EFP mines, i.e. the threats feared by NATO during KFOR.

Definitely the most likely option here.

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

According to the Brits, Type D base armor is a thing.

You don't honestly think that out of ~700mm LOS (60° arc....) they can get 600mm KE and 1200mm CE right?

Even assuming this is from direct front that 1200mm CE is just absurd in combination with the already very high 600mm KE.

 

Not to mention the supposed "no weight penalty".....

This most probably refers to the wedges, those can reach the figures quite comfortably, and considering this is an early statement they were probably being carefull with their estimates.

The date even corresponds with 2A5 adoption and not the 1992 leopard 2A4 batches.

 

But to think this talks about some kind of internal armour is ludicrous, what are they using? Fairy dust?

 

D type exists, sure, but in what form is the question.

5 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

As I stated yesterday the schematic shows precisely the DM33 120 mm x 570. No doubt!!!

I guess a picture for proof isn't possible?
 

4 hours ago, TWMSR said:

Scav,

Hülsendeckel of DM 33 looks precisely like that on scheme, not like on pictures of mocked up JM33s.

Look closely at 105 mm DM 53 fins - those do not fit into those from scheme.

So, this isn't correct?

Everything besides the fins matches 105mm DM53 more closely than 120mm DM33 though...
I know it's just a schematic, but ....

 

 

Also, in that X-ray picture you posted, there's one frontal tip segment, on the schematic there's two.

It could be that the first one was completely destroyed on impact and isn't visible for that reason, or it could be there was only one.

On 9/4/2019 at 9:06 PM, TWMSR said:

Hülsendeckel, or consumable cone adaptor, must be and is a part of production rounds. You cannot assembly a round without it. It is a part that is being glued to cylidrical part of case after filling propellant. Yes, there are some novel ideas of partition of 120 mm cartridge, but DM 33 is not an example of that.

I know this section is important, but the design in that schematic does not match production rounds.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 9:06 PM, TWMSR said:

There are few patents that could be connected with 120 mm DM 33 project because of timeline and general similarity. That coloured diagram is from one of those - and it is just on, AFAIR, steel case around projo's tip. But there are few more, on making predetermined breaking points (present on DM 33 - check here), on changing tip properties via heat treatment, on fin section design etc. IMHO there is stron possibility that diagram posted by BkktMkkt's shows a projectile close or identical to DM 33.

 

As for your last notice, this could be an answer:

A surprising increase in the effectiveness when firing on multiply armored targets, especially on spring mounted armor plate, has been achieved by means of the proposed increase in the diameter in only one tip area, which has been proven through testing. Conservative estimates lead to the conclusion of an increase in effectiveness of more than 10% in connection with this improved kinetic energy projectile, compared with customary kinetic energy projectiles.

I've seen that before, and they probably used a similar design on many of their ammunitions (105 and 120 alike).

 

If you were to look at the schematic's tip and the tip on actual production ammunition you'll see how much thicker it is on the latter.

Ontop of that, the schematic shows a smooth middle part of the sabot, production DM33 does not have that, it has a small step in it.

 

It might be a schematic for DM33, but it looks closer to what 105 DM53 ended up like.

Either way, the design changed from the schematic quite a bit.

4 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

A "stepped plate" won't change anything, while being rather weight-inefficient and covering pretty much no arc (the side armor and the mantllet lack "stepped plates").

Why wouldn't it?
It would prevent shrapnel, small projectiles and possibly even APFSDS from riding up the armour and continuing to hit the cupola or whatever's behind it.

The Brits found this to be an issue on the Chieftain, so it makes sense that these plates could prevent it and serve such a purpose.

 

23 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

If you believe the stepped plates were added for protecting the cupola of the loader (even though that doesn't make sense) how do you draw conclusions about the underlying base armor?

 

The frontal armor of the Leopard 2 overlaps the turret ring, so it has to be accessed from the top. The side armor (as discovered by noisy Leopard 2 users trying to improve their own tank industry) can be replaced from the bottom. The mantlet armor was replaced and most definetly the armor at the EMES-15's gunner's sight (which required major redesign, so no "stepped plates").

You mean the side armour that was cut open from above?

If they for some reason decided to increase the height of the modules (like you propose by saying they didn't bother with adding a single plate on top to cover the three different modules, yet they are somehow taller than the ones on the 2A4) then why wasn't this done for the sides?

 

I don't get it, why would this one composite package be taller than the rest and stick out?
Why would this one package not be covered by a single plate to smooth it over?

And even weirder is why it was only done on the back of the composite package and also covered the area behind the composite package....

If those stepped plates indicate there's composite right underneath then they extended the composite package backwards and left an area infront of them.....

Maybe I'm misuderstanding what you meant, but those plates definitely do not cover the entire composite package...

There's a decent amount of space between the loader's optic and the turret front interior wall, yet these stepped bits go right up to it.

(It's a 2A4, but the loader's periscope didn't change)

So.......

 

No, I don't think it has anything to do with the armour package honestly.

 

47 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

According to a Canadian solider, a Leopard C2 surived a hit by an unspecified RPG on the gun mantlet in Afghanistan (or rather a "volley"). This photo is supposed to show the result:

Is that the fuse of the warhead stuck in the mantlet?
Boy, that was lucky, that mantlet is thin as all hell.....

 

I imagine they can put something in there, but it's still rather little material in the way of that RPG....

He's right to smile.

Ah yes, that picture.

We don't know if that's DM33 120mm though.
 

The Hülsendeckel on there isn't on production DM33 rounds, those also have two different kind of fins it seems like, one type like the ones shown here, but others are longer:

Also note that the attachment of the case to the sabot is different, as well as the tip being substantially thicker on production ones.

 

Closer to this diagram:

 

I'm not sure, but the schematic you posted looks more like that experimental 105mm DM53:

Granted, the fins are different, but the tip looks much closer, the rings on the sabot also match it closer, on 120mm DM33 there's a large open band that is for attaching the casing to it.

 

I kinda wonder why they would have a sharp tip inside of the fatter steel tip though, the point of that thicker tip in the first place was improved performance against composite armour like on the T-series, having a sharp tip underneath that would partially defeat the purpose.....
 

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As far as I know this is not meant to protect the cupola (not to mention, that the Leopard 2 doesn't have any cupola's extending over the roof). The raised roof of the Stridsvagn 122, Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6 HEL, Leopard 2A7Q, etc. has also nothing to do with it - the additional space is taken up by the armor.

The cupolas (hatches really) could still be damaged, and in the case of leopard 2E etc, a round that penetrates this roof module could jam the hatch, a stepped plate like this prevents this from happening.

Not saying it's the main reason, but it could explain why it's only present infront of the hatch.

 

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

My theory about the visible plates is that they are related to the installation of new armor modules. In case of the Leopard 2AV with the "too complicated armor", the armor consisted of three armor modules (self-contained hollow steel boxes), which were welded together and then covered by a roof plate. For some reason (probably trying to reduce the costs), the Leopard 2A5/2A6 didn't receive a single plate covering the modules on the left turret front. The new steel plates on top of the Leopard 2A5 turret perfectly cover the armor module.

Note that at the right side of the photograph, the cut extends further than the new cover plates. As if the remaining part of the old roof was bend to allow installing a new armor module more easily or to better connect side armor and front armor modules, before being bend back in place.

I don't see how having the armour bulge out on the roof would be cost saving, while having all the other armour not do this.
Unless only this part of the armour was changed, I don't see why it would be done.

 

The cut seems to indicate the opposite to me, that the cavity is still the same and that these three plates were welded on later.

 

On the original leopard 2 the roof over the cavity was flush, so unless they made the armour packages slightly bigger/taller (I don't see why this would be done just for this section), I would expect the same for the packages on the 2A5.

 

21 hours ago, David Moyes said:

@Scav

https://www.facebook.com/ed.francis.524/posts/10156528526392467

 

Thanks!
I don't have FB, so please do post any docs or pictures he posts regarding this topic, it'd be quite interesting to see.

 

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

whole point of MEXAS addon on Leo1 is to completely avoid penetration of RPG-7, or just minimize residual penetration effects after armour penetration(in case of UFP armour it's unlikely  to protect from anything) ?

Note quite the same package (MEXAS-M I think?) but the 1A6BE was originally supposed to bring the leopard 1A5s up to a level sufficient to be used against RPG-7 equipped insurgents:

More pictures here:http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/robert_de_craecker/leopard_1a5_abl/index.php?Page=3

 

I doubt it can stop more than early RPG-7s on the hull though, perhaps more on the turret.

Regarding the base armour, it's hardly worse than what the leopard 2 uses for it's steel shell, the composite cavities are what gives that tank it's protection too....
Add enough of these packages to the outside of a leo 1 and I reckon you can get to similar protection levels.

 

On 8/16/2019 at 1:25 PM, SH_MM said:

Turkish APFSDS (licence-produced Israeli round?):

Looks like M322, or Slpprj 95 in Swedish service.

http://www.imisystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/120mm-M322-APFSDS-T-Cartridge-.pdf

 

Also, @BkktMkkt what are you basing the tip of DM33 off?

Atleast according to the patent, it has a flat tip.

On 8/15/2019 at 5:08 PM, SH_MM said:

Yes, the Gepard has spaced armor - at least on the hull flanks. Hull and turret front seems to be single-layered steel.

Thanks!
Those look like Dutch leo 1s at the firing range for their aircraft?

On 8/16/2019 at 8:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Some food for thought:

I always thought this was to prevent rounds from striking up at the cupola or roof add-on package when installed (which "raises" the cupolas right?).

Bit like the ribbed armour on BMP-1 glacis.

 

Rather interesting as this would indicate they had the tank ready for the upgrade or thought it was necessary (UK found a similar necessity for the Chieftain's persicope GPS after the Iran-Iraq conflict).

Also, is it just me, or does the leo 2 have thinner armour around the driver's hatch than on the rest of the glacis?

 

Thanks for the translation BTW, wasn't sure on some points.

 

Lol..... @David Moyes do you have a link to this post?

Spielberger mentions in his book about German SPAA's that the Gepard prototypes had spaced armour:

And in the pre-production series the tanks were lightened, but he doesn't mention the spaced armour configuration being deleted....

 

So, do the production variants still retain the spaced armour configuration?

Did a quick calculation as to the steel LOS in the array, it's almost 400mm....?
FYI, the 15mm comes from the U-shaped blocks in the front, from the horizontal, it seems as if a projectile would hit one and clip another before exiting that part of the array, hence 15mm without the 2.6mm sheet metal plate at the back.

 

It's a rather impressive amount of steel, 393mm without even taking into account the effects of spacing etc, the 15° angled UFP is 81mm thick in steel or about 313mm LOS, then the glacis plate is ~323mm LOS.

 

All of this would be substantially better against KE than the XM-1s.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

You are speculating, the Swedish leaks say nothing like that. They say that the German model - such as the model that Germany wants to buy - has Type B base armor. That they analysed the TVM (rather than relying on armor modules and informations supplied by Krauss-Maffei) or that the German model would be equal to the TVM is never stated there. 

Why would they analyse an armour package and do tests on it when that's not the armour package that is in the tank they are doing the other trials with?
They were sent the TVM for the trials, it makes little sense for them to test another armour package and not the TVM's, changes in module size and weight could affect mobility trials or even vision and other such things.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Given that the "German model" in the Swedish leaks has better hull armor than the Leopard 2A4 with Type C armor, what does this tell us about the turret armor...

"German model" being TVM (or KVT?) it has the add-on modules and thus shouldn't come as a surprise that it has better protection on both the hull and the turret.

Not quite sure what you mean to point out with this?

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

That is because these are prototypes. The Swedish leaks show the side armor of the wedges to be identical between the German model (which you claim to be the TVM, which had flat sides during the Swedish trials) and the Swedish model. Both have the flat sides based on the thickness visible in the top-view. The sloped wedges were first added to the TVM 2 mod., developed between 1991 and 1992. The main focus of the TVM 2 mod. was weight and cost reduction in order to stay within the weight limit agreed upon by the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland during a conference in Mannheim (hence it was called the Mannheimer Konfiguration). This didn't improve protection, but downgraded protection (by e.g. removing the hull and turret roof add-on armor modules), i.e. it doesn't make sense to speculate that the turret add-on armor was improved over the original TVM 2 configuration with flat-sided wedges.

Those schematics are not detailed enough nor the same as those of the M1A2 where you can see the module being mounted (and not even that well), there being no difference doesn't mean much as they are not trying to represent the protection on the schematic itself, but merely using it as a way to indicate the location of the hits, like in that UK doc.

I think you'll agree that this is hardly an exact representation of the armour layout of a leopard 2A4.

 

It actually makes more sense to use slightly better modules than to change the base armour (with a very effective and probably expensive package as you have pointed out), as this would save costs and not add to them.

The wedges being flat would inevitably lead to different protection to the later bulged ones as the angle of impact would be different.

Fact is, we don't know what the "Swedish wedges" look like, but we do know that they were made in cooperation with IBD, the guys who made the first ones too.

Besides, how else can you explain the difference in protection?

10mm between the German model on the turret side and the Swedish model is too insignificant to be due to internal armour changes, same for the rest of the turret.

 

Only on the hull is there an 80mm difference for the glacis, which is too little of a difference for a change from B to C (~300mm to ~425mm) and even more so if we assume this "D" package was used instead of B....

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Prototypes of the Leopard 2A5 were completed at the time, but the decision to eliminate the Leopard 2 from the competition was already made years earlier. We know from declassified UK documents (aka government reports) that "Leopard 2 won British trials" is a lie.

And where are these reports?
Why else did the leopard 2A5 proto participate in the trials?

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

The add-on armor at the turret and hull doesn't have different thickness. If you read R. Lindström's presentation and the old version of his website (via web archive), you'll notice that he never stated that the add-on armor of the Leopard 2 was replaced/improved. He only stated that all tanks were tested with armor developed by Åkers Krutbruk and IBD Deisenroth. A short look at the old website of Åkers Krutbruk (via web archive) reveals that they acquired the MEXAS licence from IBD Deisenroth.

 

The term "swedish armor" by itself doesn't mean "they replaced the add-on armor with identical looking one, which somehow happens to be better despite having the exact same dimensions and weight" nor does it mean that the actual armor was developed by Sweden, given that Åkers had the licence for MEXAS. It can also mean that this was the armor chosen for Sweden.

The changes are too small to be because they changed the internal armour from something like B to C.

And I never said the armour had to look identical, I think they actually tested modules similar to those on the actual 2A5 instead.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

That said, Hilmes suggest that the main changes in survivability between the Leopard 2A5 of Germany and the Stridsvagn 122 is the hull, i.e. among other facts that it features spall liners, supposedly some titanium elements for weight saving and the hull and roof add-on armor modules. According to a Danish tanker (Denmark choose the Leopard 2A5DK based on the Swedish trials, after they were given access to the test data), the side armor of the hull is different between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122.

That doesn't surprise me, there's the one slide that shows all the armour fitted to the Strv 122 compared to a normal 2A4 in yellow, it shows the side hull spaced elements being filled or changed.

Even the skirts were different between the 2A5 (some of which used the older C tech skirts) and the Strv 122 (which probably exclusively used the newer D tech skirts).

This amounted to an 80mm+ difference at 15-17.5°.

 

Strv 122 is actually quite likely to use C in both the hull and turret, as they were making brand new tanks anyway.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Unlike claimed by you, LKE1/DM43/OFL-1/KEW-A1 was designed with optimizations against special armors and ERA. That's why the round is still in use today and even has been ordered just this year by Taiwan for their future M1A2 tanks. That it performs better against Kontakt-5 than M829A1 is no wonder, because it has a thicker rod (26 mm) and is made of tungsten, which has a higher stiffness than DU, i.e. it is less likely to be deformed/shattered by heavy ERA.

Couple of issues with this:

1. Entire projectile only weighs 4kg according to GD
2. 26x600mm penetrator would have incredibly low density to achieve the 4kg total weight
3. Some sources claim it was derived from DM33 and just upscaled or lengthened
4. Germany didn't think it was sufficient and dropped it in favour of DM53
5. Kotsch (a fairly decent source) states it isn't 26mm, which is most definitely correct based on pictures

Let's assume the penetrator weight alone is 3.6kg (fairly normal weight for the fin assembly etc), volume of the rod is 318.56cc, this means the density of the rod would need to be just 11.3(!)g/cc to achieve a rod weight of 3.6kg.....

This is WAY too low and thus unrealistic.

 

Based on pictures such as these:

We can deduce it is most definitely thinner than DM33, based on the known length and thickness of DM13 we can get a decent guesstimate at DM43's thickness, which is around 24mm on the non-threaded frontal part.

This would still mean a very, very low density, thus that is probably not the actual thickness but the jacket thickness.

Based on the weight, Kotsch's figures (admittedly quite a few of them are wrong, but DM43's are quite close to pictures), and similar rounds from this time period, it's likely that the actual rod thickness is around 20 or 21mm, with a jacket extending that to 24mm total.

This would not only make it more effective against composites than a monobloc round, but would keep the density of the core at a reasonable level.

Assuming the core actually weighs 3.4kg with the remaining 600g in the fins and jacket, that would give us a density of 18g/cc, totally reasonable and actually a density suggested in German patents before.

While the jacket would definitely help with structural strength of the rod while penetrating (even against K-5), I think they were instead trying to minimise the sectional density to prevent the K-5 from activating in the first place, add to this the increased velocity, and it might just be sufficient for K-5, though I personally doubt it was very effective.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

- Even if the Leopard 2 from 1991 still was fitted with Type C armor, this doesn't change the fact that there could have been Type D/fourth generation base armor as mentioned by Hilmes. It remains a fact that a flat, box-shaped armor module was able to resist LKE1/DM43 without the penetrator reaching the last ~quarter of the armor array and that this was offered as upgrade option to several countries operating older versions of the Leopard 2 (which is why I know about this: the relevant documents were classified at a relatively low level because said countries didn't buy the armor upgrade, so informations could be leaked even by lower levels of the respective armies) Maybe this armor was never fitted to the Leopard 2A4 as base armor - this doesn't change the fact that the Leopard 2A5/Stridsvagn likely has such base armor, based on its weight.

It's entirely possible that they are referring to C tech, I strongly doubt it "only" had 425mm on the front of the turret as claimed by the brits, because it simply does not match the protection figures provided by the Swedish trials, nor does it make sense that the "improved" armour package didn't increase the frontal turret armour beyond B levels by any decent amount.

Looking at that proposed armour from B&V (is it actually fitted or not? @Militarysta kinda seemed to say that it was, but then you said it wasn't?....) the LOS thickness of the steel alone is more than enough to reach 425mm of protection in the frontal 60° arc of the front (again, excluding the side armour, it's obviously the weakest part of the turret).

 

So if they did end up increasing the frontal protection substantially (Swedish leaks indicate this), then it might just be C tech that stopped DM43.

Almost 20% of the frontal surface was equivalent to 550mm of RHA protection, it isn't a stretch to think the ballistic test was conducted to simulate a 2000m range, at which point the penetration of DM43 from the L44 would've been below 600mm at the vertical, possibly being defeated by an array equivalent to 550mm.

 

If there was a "D" tech main armour, I would seriously question how they managed to achieve substantially higher protection, with a LOS efficiency of around 0.85, compared to C tech, which came just three years prior....

That's not to mention the supposed increase in CE protection....

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Sure, every author makes mistakes. But you are just speculating on him exactly making a difference at this place. Your examples for his previous mistakes are also bad. You are using his original book from 1984 and argue that it is wrong without even having a proof that the sections your criticize contain any errors.

TOW is commonly known to be an error, HOT was indicated earlier, Milan same thing and the T-72 protection is also wrong as most sources say 300+ (350 for the 60-100-50 model).

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

Maybe he made an error when drawing the sketch due to an incorrect understanding of the translation, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as you are using a book from the 1980s citing tons of sources to discredit his statements about a program where he was actually involved in...

He wasn't even being clear on what he meant, internal turret armour or add-on or both?
And he did make the 2A3 mistake which he should've had correct regardless, he's human and can make mistakes like the rest of them.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SH_MM said:

A contemporary special of a German military magazine on the Leopard 2A5 written by Michael Scheibert, a Bundeswehr officier who served 73 years before retiring and wrote numerous articles on German military hardware, tactics and other military related topics wrote in regards to the armor: "Einbau von Schutzpaketen neuer Technologie im Turmgehäuse und Anbau von Vorsatzmodulen an der Front und an den Flanken des Turmes;" (Integration of protection modules [made with] new technology into the turret structure and addition of external add-on modules at the front and flanks of the turret). He furthermore mentions that despite using the newest (!) armor technology, the weight of the Leopard 2A5 had to be increased to nearly 60 metric tons to meet the demanded protection levels. Newest armor technology doesn't sound like Type B armor from 1979...

And did he have access to this kind of info?

Does he mention which generation or type of armour for both?
He could again be referring to C for the internal armour and D for the external armour.
Does he have any book on 2A4s etc?

 

So, one book says they changed internals, one magazine says the same and mentions third generation armour (C tech), then R.H makes a vague statement of turrets being modified with D tech.

Then there's 3 or 4 books that don't mention the internal armour being changed.

 

 

 

Edit:

That's a very complex armour configuration....
And did they use Gummi bears  as spacers?

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

In the table listing the firing results? Three out of six KE impacts resulted in bulges - aka a near penetration. Just a little bit more powerful ammunition (or a hotter environment, a shorter distance or a less optimal angle) and these could have turned into penetrations. The other three impacts resulted in penetrations - although as I noted earlier, these were unlucky/unfair shots based on the impact locations (not passing through whole turret array, hitting weld line on hull, missing the heavy side skirt module).

 

The DM43 APFSDS was stopped by the armor offered for the upgrade of Leopard 2A4 even before reaching the last layers of the array. So your estimate of 550 mm equivalent protection for the 860 mm thick frontal turret armor isn't sufficient to explain why less than 700 mm special armor stop the DM43.

I have a hard time believing that an array less than 700mm thick can stop DM43 when at the same time it supposedly defeats K-5 + T-80UD turret armour.
DM43 doesn't seem to have any built in mechanism for dealing with heavy ERA, it's a light, thin rod that goes very fast, so unless it simply didn't trigger the K-5, it wouldn't be much better at defeating it than DM33 apart from the extra velocity and length.

M829A1 was defeated by K-5 on a T-80U, M829A1 is longer than DM33, heavier, but slower, so it's probably only slightly worse than DM43.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

It passed through the simulated Kontakt-5 ERA module, the outer steel plate, the composite module and through ~half of the back plate. This probably would represent probably 700-900 mm equivalent protection against the DM33 APFSDS in the Swedish graph - assuming that the highest relative protection levels are achieved in the areas covered by Kontakt-5.

 

Supposedly the main armor used by Germany to simulate the T-80U was actually based on the T-80UD prototypes with more effective ceramic inserts rather than the cellular polymere armor of the original T-80U model (at least this is confirmed for other German trials).

Was this on the cheeks from the front, or the cheeks from the side?
Did it actually trigger the K-5?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

What? The red area is showing where the DM33 can penetrate the turret, there is zero overlap with the Kontakt-5 modules - except a tiny bit at the lower left side, where no composite armor is behind.

That is the area that I mentioned...
It's right at the edge of the internal cavity.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

So... what about the hulls then? They also feature NERA, but they weren't refurbished and remained in use (Leopard 2A4 turrets with Type C armor were mounted on them). So somehow the old plastics didn't need to be replaced? There is not a single source stating that the original armor of the turrets was kept, there are sources directly saying it was replaced. Yet for some unknown reason you seem to think that the Type B armor was kept and there were multiple types of add-on armor, despite their being no proof and sources & facts directly contradicting you.

The hulls were used to carry relatively new turrets and weren't part of the "main reaction force", obviously these hulls were outdated yet not upgraded, definitely because of costs.

Plastics don't go bad from one day to the next, it's a gradual process and for what those hulls would be used, it was probably not considered worth the money, a lot of these vehicles would be later on sold as training vehicles or additional equipment to countries such as Turkey, Greece, etc...

 

There's plenty of sources making no mention of internal armour changes, yet talking about the new additional armour (which is said to be "fourth" generation or "D technology" armour).

The only other source I've managed to find that corroborates the packages being replaced is one that talks about third generation armour (AKA, C tech), and this is from the armor magazine...

Rolf Hilmes is the only one that seems to mention "D" main armour being used, and I cannot find this book anywhere (at a reasonalbe price) to confirm.

 

Rolf Hilmes makes mistakes just like every other author, it's entirely possible he mixed the letters up or intended to say the armour was changed to "C" instead of "D".

Here he says HOT penetrated 800mm ( @Wiedzmin found info indicating otherwise), Milan penetrating 500mm (it's slightly more), TOW 600mm (430mm for the original one), I-TOW 860mm (real one around 600mm).

 

He also claims this is what the Merkava front hull looks like, even though it doesn't appear to be correct.

 

Yes, he's an excellent author, but that doesn't mean he's always right or doesn't make mistakes.

 

As for the add-ons changing, you can clearly see the turret add-ons changed quite a bit from TVM to 2A5.... I don't need to point that out.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

E.g. the turret of the Leopard 2A5 weighs 19 tonnes empty and about 20.5 tonnes full. The wedges weigh less than 1.5 tonnes according to the Dutch military (each turret front wedge weighs 500 kg; both side wedges should weigh less than a single front wedge, given the much lower thickness and low coverage). Where do you think the additional weight does come from? How can you say "the author probably made a mistake" when he specifically mention that the whole process (using old turrets and replacing their armor inserts, while using new hulls with already good armor) was done to maximize the protection level!

Between 2A4 (B tech) and 2A5 turret there's a 3.6t difference, which means 2.1t are unaccounted for when we exclude the wedges.

There's also the new mantlet with multiple parts (probably a decent weight increase), changing of the optic placement (which means slightly more armour there), the EWNA, spall liner, perhaps a slightly changed turret roof, new storage baskets at the rear, radio in the old hydraulic pump area (which was removed), etc.

Quite a lot of changes, if they account for all the weight difference, I don't know, but it's hard to say without knowing the numbers.

 

He can easily make a mistake by meaning to point out that add-on modules are D tech and accidentally also saying the internal ones are too.

There's like 4 other books that I have, which make no mention of changed internal armour, but do mention the add-on modules and the tanks using old turrets.

Atleast two of these also make mention of new skirts being adopted (which is a very insignificant thing and only relates to batch 6/7 hulls, not batch 8 hulls).

 

If they were doing this to "maximise" protection level, then why didn't they adopt the hull add-on too?

Even a B tech hull with add-on would be better than a normal C tech hull.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

And why would KMW advertise an armor upgrade with a date (1991) , if it wasn't in service on any tank by that date (despite the year coincidentally matching the eight production batch of Leopard 2s, which are proven to at least have Type D armor skirts, but are not proven to have Type B or Type C base armor). Your theory about this refering to the Leopard 2A5 prototypes is incorrect, as the KVT received proper armor modules in 1990 (after two years of wooden mock-ups).

Because in 1991 they would have the add-ons ready?

Obviously before that time, they wouldn't necessarily know what they'd look like.

Batch 8 in multiple books is stated to only change the skirts, not the main armour.

You'd think main armour would be more important to mention, especially if it came with a weight increase like you propose is the reason for the "missing" weight between 2A4 and 2A5.

 

There's even one book that was made before the 2A5 was finalised and shows the "2A5" to be a 2A4 with improved armour...

This shows that even at this point there was confusion on what exactly the 2A5 would be.

 

Every book so far mentions that in the 6th batch there was new armour introduced as well as new skirts, why would they omit this for the 8th batch if that was the case again?

 

Yet, not one book mentions the armour itself being changed in the 8th batch.

 

Not one mention of internal armour changes.

 

As for Hilmes' claim of D technology in the turret base (the one I could find on the web):

Translation: "For the conversion to the Leopard 2A5, the oldest turrets (1-4th batch) are taken and modified with the most modern D-technology into KWS-turrets.

He doesn't mention the add-ons in this sentence specifically, and thus he treats the entire turret including add-ons as the same thing, which could either mean both the add-ons and the internal armour is "D tech" or he is referring to the add-ons only.

It could be interpreted both ways.

I wouldn't exactly call this definitive evidence.

 

Is there another time he talks about this?

 

Anyway, I think it's evident that if many (if not all) authors mention with the 6th batch that the base armour + skirts changes, they would do the same for the 8th batch if  it was the case.

No author mentioning the base armour being changed in the 8th batch, either means no author knew about this (but then how/why did they know about the 6th batch change?) or it means it simply didn't happen.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

And you know the protection requirements ("goals") of the Germany army for the Leopard 2A5? No, you do not. Do you know the price for the armor modules (base armor and/or add-on)? No, you do not.

Protection requirement was to defeat DM53, either from the L55 or the L44.

L44 was proven to be met in the Swedish leaks, and if we are to trust the rumours regarding the Greek trials, perhaps also with the L55.

I doubt the price of the hull add-on would be more expensive than this "magical" D tech for the turret base.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The hull armor upgrade was scheduled, if Russia didn't turn out to be friendly to the rest of Europe (until the annexion of Crimea) and NATO didn't expand eastwards, it would have been adopted.

Along with a complete redesign of the turret for the 140?
 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

LOS thickness alone is pretty irrelevant, it is a combination of multiple factors that matters.

So, you're telling me that somehow less than 700mm of LOS can defeat an APFSDS capable of defeating 700mm+ RHAe?

Even when the M1A2 with 2t DU can only do 600mm RHAe out of ~760mm LOS, and even the T-80U with K-5 supposedly only barely stopped this round?

 

It would need to use something similar to K-5 but better, which I highly doubt.

Souds like magic fairy dust to me.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The TVMs were prototypes, not finished products. That's why the armor looks different, not because it is a different type/class of add-on armor. It was not finished and represented the state of development at the time.

You lost me there, how does the armour not looking the same, with different angles, different thicknesses (LOS) mean it isn't different?

The Swedes specifically mentioning "their" armour (different add-on) performed better and was made (in coorperation) by the same company that made the initial wedge design (IBD)?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

As for your pictures - they are not really connected to the topic. The first three come from a really bad source, which includes multiple incorrect claims (such as the Leopard 2 "winning" the British Chieftain replacement program and only being rejected for political reasons, while British sources clearly state that there were multiple technical issues including the impossibility to integrate Dorchester into the Leopard 2A4 and the lack of protection provided by the German Type B and Type C armors.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/

Hmm, even former UK tank officer seems to agree however....
 

The UK trial was to be held in 1990 but was delayed due to the Gulf War, and ended up happening in 1991, when the IVT and perhaps even the TVM were already completed....
So, yes, it's actually quite probable the Leopard 2 Improved won the trial itself (Swedes considered it better than the M1A2, doubt the UK would think otherwise), this also means they (probably) did get the info about the protection of D tech.

Which would be the only area where the leopard 2 improved would not be automatically considered better than Challenger 2.

 

And as we "know" from the Greek trials, the rest is vastly better, with a good possibility of the armour also being better.

The one big difference between these two in terms of survivability is the ammo in the turret...

That could be the sole reason the survivability on CR2 was considered superior, not exactly more important than all the other benefits of the leopard 2.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The author is a photograph, he doesn't have the required technical background (unlike people like Hilmes).

And as I pointed out, Hilmes can make mistakes too.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

In the first photo, the text doesn't say anything about the base armor.

In the second photo, the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with a fabric cover at the edge of the wedge, which can be seen in numerous other photos in the book, this is the only reason why the armor looks odd.

Third photo just mentions that Strv 122 has additional roof and hull armor compared to the German configuration. The rest of the photos, like the previous ones, is not relevant to the discussion.

Perhaps because it didn't get changed?

You're missing the fact that the angles are different compared to the TVM....
The sides on the TVM are flat, the wedges on the front are slightly differet too and don't have the cut-outs.

All the pictures are relevant as all of them talk about the add-on armour, but not at all about the base armour, just like no book seems to talk about the base armour of the 8th batch being different yet mentioning the skirts are....

 

If nobody talks about the armour changing, despite them mentioning it before on a different variation, maybe it's because nothing got changed?

In the same manner that nobody mentions the UFP armour on the T-54 getting changed or remaining the same on the T-55, evidently this is because it didn't get changed.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

You always say stuff like that as if it was proven. We know for a fact that the Leopard 2 TVMs do not have Type B base armor, simply given the fact that they were based on Leopard 2 tanks from the eight production batch, while the last one to utilize Type B armor was the fifth.

Except the Swedish leaks say so....?

TVM was sent over and was the tank they analysed, it was made of the 8th batch, yet apparently had B tech base.

Unless you think they actually sent over the KVT, despite several sources saying otherwise.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

The KVT with hull and turret modules (incl. 1.3 tonnes roof armor) had a combat weight of 60.51 tonnes. The TVMs weighed 62.5 tonnes (incl. the same roof armor). The series production model for the German army has a combat weight of 59.7 tonnes (more than the KVT without roof armor!).

Is that the weight with wooden mock up modules or actual armour modules?

 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:21 PM, SH_MM said:

My understanding is that the heavy ballistic skirts of the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 are heavier than the ones used on the Leopard 2A4 (Type B armor) - they original ones were made to be folded up and were much thinner (110 vs 150 mm).

Yes, they are, atleast several books mention them being heavier.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

Where does it show C tech having issues with DM23?

Hull was penetrated once, which is entirely reasonable given that my estimates based on the Swedish leaks suggest around ~425mm on the UFP for C tech, DM23 should be sufficient for this, by contrast, only shot number 12 penetrated the turret cheek and this was most likely because it exited the main armour array into the gun area before it hit the back wall.

According to my previously mentioned estimates, the turret front is around 550mm, though I have to point out that even then the percentages don't reach the values from the Swedish leaks, indicating that it could be slightly higher than this.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

Yes, and how did it "nearly" defeat it?
As we can see from this:

Even DM33 did a decent enough job and managed to punch through parts of the K-5 (to the right of the gun), so we really need more details.

Besides, the two protection types are completely different, not sure how you can compare them 1 to 1.....

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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?

He may not have lied at all, just made a mistake.

The reason why I'd use the earliest turrets possible is that they would be in the most need for refurbishment and if there were plastics utilised in the turrets (which would seem to be the case if they used NERA or atleast some form of it), then it might've degraded the most and be in need of replacement.

By that same logic, they would've needed to refurbish the entire turret and that would mean taking out the armour inserts and replacing the degraded parts, obviously the steel itself would've been fine and could be reused...

If there is such a thing as D tech main armour and if it did provide a noticeable protection increase over C, it would've been substantially more expensive than B tech and I frankly doubt that they would upgrade the base armour of the turret to an even more potent armour type if the turret already achieved it's protection goals with B tech as a base.
It would've made much more sense to adopt the hull add-on instead as this would bring the entire tank up to spec and would probably cost less as well.

 

Also, considering B + D-2 already achieves remarkable levels of protection and the D-2 got changed for a better version in the Mannheim specification, C tech as base would've already made it pass the requirement, let alone some type of even further improved base armour....

C tech offered an improvement of 20-35% over B, with add-ons I'd imagine that gap would increase further (comparing B + add-on and C + add-on), so why would there be a need for a D tech base?

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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?

IMO:

Pink -> B tech ("confirmed")
Red -> C tech (indicated by circumstancial evidence)
Yellow -> B + D-2 ("confirmed")

Blue -> B + D1/3

Green -> C hull + D1-3, B(or C) turret + D1-3

 

Not entirely sure when you mean by blue having less protection at 50% than the "German model"?
At 50% it has around 650mm protection while yellow ("German model" I guess?) has 525mm.

I don't think you can just extrapolate the gradients beyond what the graph shows from the ones that come before, as you can see from the yellow, graph, the gradients can change drastically.

Plus, I don't see how a normal 2A4 with D main armour could possibly reach the levels of protection that B + D-2 show, the LOS simply isn't good enough.

 

Rather, I think that the reason for blue merging with yellow left of 400mm is because it ( the add-ons) don't cover as much of the tank as D-2 does, possibly because the LFP or some other small area isn't quite as covered.

Or, it could be that they actually match and the gradients are equal at this point....
In any case, I think the additional protection blue offers over yellow has to do with the hull protection, more so than turret protection.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong and blue indicates they utilised C tech for the hull as base as well as different add-on, which would also explain the gap.

 

They might even throw us a curveball and utilise different add-ons for both hull and turret, we don't know.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

You can quite clearly see that the add-on which got adopted on the Strv 122 or 2A5s is quite different compared to the TVMs, the turret is most notably different.

The hull could also be different, thicker plates perhaps, that wouldn't show up on pictures unless you get a close up and compare them directly.

 

 

What is most curious though, is that some sources claim the base armour of the TVM was changed:

But we know that the TVM had B as base..... yet was made of an 8th batche vehicle.

So, that begs the question: did some authors confuse this info and think that the 2A5  also received these changes? Not realising that on the TVM it was probably a change from C to B.....?

 

On 7/23/2019 at 7:16 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

Yes, it's an enecdote, just like how another loader lost one of his skirts on a 2A6 and went looking for it on the range with another crewmate.

It's still interesting.

 

On 7/27/2019 at 5:33 PM, Gun Ready said:

BTW, why are you boys always discussing the pretty old stuff of Leopard 2 AV? Only two, to my knowledge, had been built. Nowadays we are talking about Leopard 2 A7V! So the "7" should be taken into discussion!

Always useful to go back and look at the origins, it'll always be relevant to know the baseline.

 

On 7/28/2019 at 1:45 PM, Wiedzmin said:

and again about this, report doesn't contain such scheme, the only scheme of L2 turret in report is this

On 7/28/2019 at 2:11 PM, Militarysta said:

x2

I don't understand why is reson to make sucht draws based on data not avaible in this specyfic sources. IMHO better idea will be ad "based on multiple sources" itp No there is risk  that somebody will take this picture as orginally report draw.

x3

Yeah, I agree, it'd be nice if we wouldn't adapt schemes and make "fake" ones.

 

On 7/28/2019 at 12:06 PM, Wiedzmin said:

https://i.imgur.com/Z6dUHdu. jpg

Link broken unfortunately.

 

22 hours ago, Lord_James said:

So for the Leo 2A5 and up, they just weld the old EMES hole closed? I thought I remembered something about “whole new turrets” or a “deep rebuild” of the 2A0-4 turrets to get them to 2A5 level. 

2A5s for the Netherlands and Germany were old turrets that were refurbished, for Strv 122, Leopard 2HEL and Leopard 2E brand new turrets were made (no ammo hatch on the side).

They pretty much had to cut up the entire turret though, and supposedly even then some additional changes were made later on in tanks like the leopard 2HEL or E.

 

8 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Most peoples there ignored this descripsion as fake etc.  And now the funny part - it's almoust exatly B&V armour choosen finnaly  for Leopard 2A0. The changes area minimal - and armour in above layout is suitable for hull. 

Did I miss something?
The B&V armour did get chosen for 2A0?
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Rolf Hilmes wrote that the base turrets of Leopard 2 tanks upgraded to the 2A5 configuration were modified with "D" technology armor. There was a German armor package capable to resist the 120 mm LKE1 (DM43) APFSDS without wedges offered as upgrade option to Leopard 2A4 users during the 1990s. There is more evidence that base armor in "D" technology was created than otherwise.

I still disagree on this topic.

Besides, who says C tech can't stop DM43?

If that red graph from the Swedish files is C tech (pink matches with B tech and yellow with B + D-2, no place for "plain" D tech), then it sports roughly 550mm on the front of the turret, which might be sufficient against DM43.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Based on the following image, the "Type D" armor is refering to the follow-up armor package to the "Type C" armor tested in 1987:

And D tech was probably ready by the point the UK trials were held, which was in 1990-1991 (IVT was tested during this period and used D tech wedges on B tech base).

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Btw. the report on the 1977 meeting regarding weight of the Leopard 2AV mentions a weight of 735 kg for the proposed heavy ballistic side skirts (Kampfschürzen) of the Leopard 2AV. This seems a bit too much for the Leopard 2 series skirts based on my knowledge.

As I mentioned previously, ex-loader told me one guy can't (easily) lift those skirts up and that they weigh in the region of 100kg, 6x100kg +attachment method and the front + rear bits could just about reach this.

33 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

i posted graph from real tests of Milan and HOT warheads(rig even simulate spin of warhead during flight IIRC), 2CD - real stand off, 4CD and other optimal and not-optimal stand-off's

Ah, thanks, didn't know it was for Milan/HOT, which is for which?
 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

maybe my misunderstanding 

It seems they're referring to the wedges like on 2A5 etc, these would be introduced on the KVT in 1989:

It's not very well known, but KVT was already partially ready in 1989 and would be quickly converted to the IVT (which most pictures show).

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

there was many test rigs(mockups for firing trials) for L3 and L2/3

So, mostly experimental and just armour tests instead of an actual vehicle?

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

not all versions of 2AV has heavy ballistic skirts 

True, I guess I'd just expect them to write "0°" then.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

spaced armour doens't work like "a+b+c" it can give both higher and lower levels of protection comapring to RHA of similar thickness 

Yes, ofcourse, but considering the thickness of the plates, I doubt it ends up lower, most likely higher.....

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

530mm vs CE for 55 tonn tank is madness, this is almost level of object 172-2m (520mm vs CE for turret and hull), but again, i will post test firing on 2AV later, doesn't have much spare time 

Different requirements....
Plus, I meant more than 530-580mm, so probably around 600-650mm.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

brits wasn't allowed to examine all penetration, so some of this "80mm" etc, speculative conclusions based on inspection of tank after hits with sealed holes IIRC

Hm, so they weren't given this info, could explain some discrepancies.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

and ? you get deformed core, it can make hole any size you want 

Yes, but usually monobloc APFSDS leaves bigger holes than the core width, for it to leave a smaller hole it would've needed to be almost completely destroyed or broken up, just worth noting.

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

bundeswehr doesn't have money at that time, but for trials you can insert diamonds inside tank if you want, because no one guarantees that someone will buy the offered options

as for "misidentified" etc i would advise not to build theories about the fact that "in fact there was a death star, and the tank is just wonderful and endured everything"

Thought it was worth pointing out.

Considering the brits weren't allowed to properly inspect the tank, there's a chance they weren't given the name of the round (or performance thereof).

 

19 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

never was that high, all report gives 700-720.

But is that with stand-off or without?

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

The 19 tons are metric tons.  When i present data I  always use SI/metric units.

Thanks, always good to double check

@Wiedzmin Thanks for posting those.

 

Couple of things I'd like to point out:

Leopard 2/3?
Did they actually perform tests, if so, what tank is this really?
I've seen some references to it before, so I really wonder what this thing is or if it was made.

 

Leopard 2 AV turret is rated to stop 120mm KE at 1500m in a 25° arc, but the hull has the same distance but without arc?
Why, wouldn't the hull be weaker considering the armour there was thinner and the turret(front) was quite beefy?

Unless this is really talking about the entire turret, including the sides and at 25° the sides become quite weak, which is why the turret is only rated for 1500m...?
 

Doing some quick calculations on the drawing you provided earlier: side turret is (30+4) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + (12+1.5) + 40 = 128mm of steel (assuming bulging plates are steel and not something else).

128mm @ 65° = 302mm LOS..... with airgaps and increase in protection from that, 350mm is plausible.

 

Perhaps this is why the turret is rated at 350mm?

Maybe if the angle was lower (15°), the turret would be rated "higher"?

Based on 2AV armour scheme, this definitely seems possible, is also somewhat backed up by US/UK stating armour protection is "unbalanced".

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

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 ?

Unlikely, leopard 2AV was only finished by 1976 (US trials), in 1974 they were still testing pt 14.

Most probably Milan was for leopard 2AV and series production and was at normal stand-off (so higher than 530-580mm of protection).

 

Spall liner?????
Never seen any mention of this in leopard 2 before 2A5.

 

Skirt plates are probably early ones, according to friend of mine (loader 2A4) those weigh around 100kg or so, later ones seem to weigh more.

 

They say armour is designed to defeat threats over 60° frontal arc, but earlier German report states 50° and not 60° for 2AV, did they get info, or did they assume and make it up themselves?

136mm HEAT is HOT-1, penetration around 800m, potentially 900mm (claim from person I trust, probably optimum stand-off).

 

They "assess" armour protection, they did not get direct info and simply estimated it based on things they could see (holes taped over??)

They think multi-hit capability is not good, but if leopard 2 armour had that much steel, it will be better than NERA arrays in M1 as it has more structural strength......

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

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

Did they say D tech?
Because only C tech was introduced in 1988......

Doubt D tech even exists for main armour, seems to only be referred to for skirts or wedges.

 

Interesting,  shot nr 1 penetrated at 30° and penetrated 80mm backing plate (extra protection for driver I assume?), but shot nr 2 at slightly steeper angle didn't penetrate other side with no reinforcement....

 

Shot nr 5..... hole of 40x30mm but the ammunition used has a 32mm core....?
Are we sure they used DM23?
In 1987 DM23 would've been 4 years old and DM33 is coming out, DM33 is 28mm at it's widest point and seems to better fit the hole, and as we all know, monobloc APFSDS leaves bigger holes than core is wide....

 

Shot nr 6, it penetrated the highly angled plate? Or just the sponson side plate?
Earlier they say vertical for sponson side and they don't use NATO angles but the reverse, so 10° would be almost vertical and not almost horizontal....

 

Shot nr 9, interesting, so sight was not fitted..... otherwise they would've said that it "hit the sight" or something along those lines, did they know how much residual penetration was left? Why else would they leave that remark? Is this the base version of the armour or the improved version (which they claimed had spall liner)?

Shot nr 10/11, same comments as @SH_MM, if my earlier comment about sight being removed is correct, then maybe gun was also removed, leaving big open space for KE round to pass into before reaching crew compartment through "shortcut".

 

 

Shot nr 13, wait, so HOT was defeated at 60° impact on turret side?
That's actually quite decent.....

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, Wiedzmin said:

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 

Just an FYI, but the UK never received actual information about leopard 2 protection levels prior to the 1990s trials in the UK, and Vickers would definitely not have received that.

So, this is UK assessment based on visual inspection (with limited access it seems) and little bit of info from Germany.

 

It's entirely possible they misidentified the KE round or even didn't understand/properly interpret all the information given to them.

(I mean seriously, 2" thick spall liner?????)

 

On 7/20/2019 at 2:34 PM, SH_MM said:

Interesting, thanks. So Germany assumed that the future 115 mm APFSDS could defeat as much armor as the 120 mm DM13 prototypes, while the US assumed it would only be on par with the old APFSDS rounds designed for the MBT-70...

Information from the middle east regarding T-62 performance may have influenced that a bit, most rounds there were 3BM4 IIRC, not exactly up to standard for the USSR and that could have played a role in the US' estimations.

 

16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

IMHO from this raport we can take quite good for Leopard 2A0 and 2A4 picture of the armour protection in middle 80s'. It was more then enought against WarPac ATGM's all types (including Sthurm-S)  and just enought to stop 3BM15, 3BM22, and meybe even 3BM26/29. But obviously against 3BM42 andd 3BM32 it was not enought. But both round had DOI in 1987 and 1988 as I remeber couse problem whit large scale production in CCCP.   

Depends how good 3BM26/29 would be against multi layered steel armour like this, at angles above 15° the core would seperate from the body, although compared with 3BM22, this would happen slower due to core being in the tail.

Also, if "350mm" is for "minimum" of 50° frontal arc, that doesn't mean at 0° the turret would be ~400mm.

I think the poor side protection on the turret keeps the protection in the 50° arc down, and thus doesn't properly represent the turret protection.

 

14 hours ago, Militarysta said:

It's funny when we realize that all "big 3" NATO tanks have quite simmilar armour protection:

-snip-

More like:

• M1

turret:

350mm vs KE (XM579E1)

750mm vs CE

Hull:

350mm v KE (XM579E1)

750mm vs CE (+ hull fuel tanks protection) 

 

Leo 2A0-A4

Turret:

350mm vs KE (DM13) turret side?

580mm+ vs CE (Milan 1)

Hull:

350mm vs KE (DM13)

580mm+ vs CE (Milan 1)

 

CR1 Mk.1

turret:

435mmvs KE (XL23, front?)

700mm vs CE 

hull:

300mm vs KE (XL23?)

580mm vs CE

 

12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

But turret in Leopard 2A4 weight 15,500kg and in M1 as I remeber 20 500kg?

19t for M1, 16.9t for 2A4 (combat ready, metric)

IDK if the 19t is in metric or US short tons.

 

But considering the size discrepancy between them......
Attempted to scale properly, comparison with M1A1.

 

 

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

That doesn'T make sense: It has been reported that the basic M1 hull is not capable of supporting the weight of the M1A1 (HA) turret, which is why only M1IPs and M1A1s were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. The suspension cannot support a weight of 62 tonnes without being upgraded. The M1A2 offered to Sweden must have been based on the improved M1A1 hull.

Agreed, M1A2 offered was probably improved M1A1 with improved armour to get to HA levels of protection (same weight anyway).

 

On 7/19/2019 at 5:09 PM, LoooSeR said:

Blue part is just sheet metal. Probably there is a big wire, part of anti-mine electromagnetic protection system... or nothing at all.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

(Not sure why I didn't see your reply before...)

 

On 7/19/2019 at 11:45 PM, alanch90 said:

I only extrapolated the same estimation method used for T-72B on Tankograd (the author there concluded in rating the turret at 550-600 KE,)

Hmm, I think he was referring to the turret cheeks that are around 750mm thick though.

I'll re-read that part on his blog.

 

On 7/19/2019 at 11:45 PM, alanch90 said:

Now a couple of notes. Just checked the russian Nii Staly website on Relikt ERA, there it specifies a 40 percent of performance vs KE BUT also refers to this types of modules as 2S23(http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/relict/relikt_t72m_t90sm_bmpt/).  BUT on the other hand, on the english site, Relikt is described as composed by 2S24 and 2S25 (http://www.niistali.ru/en/products-and-services/#RELICT).

Wouldn't be the first time that the English site has labelled things wrong, but it could be the other way around as well.

Thanks for the links.

31 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

For me, at least visually, its very clear that even the front section where the lights are mounted there are ERA modules. Now, the very first "module" right besides i think its the same type of ERA too (lets just call it "Malachit" even if Comrade Looser threatens us with a trip to the gulag), look at its thickness, its very similar to the ERA where the lights are mounted and also the modules mounted in the front hull.

Wait, so you mean to say that the armor piece behind the front lights itself is also ERA?
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

With the rest I agree, I think it's likely that the frontal side section next to the fender is the same as the following modules and that they just decided to make it fit more closely with the fender to prevent dirt from getting in there too easily.

 

33 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

The last five modules are 2S24, only effective against HEAT. I'll try to make some comparisons when i get back home.

I didn't know 2S24 was only effective against HEAT, I'd assumed it was like Kontakt-5 but just a version that's more easily mounted and covers a larger area.

 

34 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

As for the effectiveness of the front hull armor, my previous estimation assuming a LOS thickness of 950mm and the use of "reflective plates" (the same ones from T-72B), resulted in an effectiveness of around 820mm for the lowest estimate and 870mm for the highest. If you want to check that very rough estimation i think that i posted it in page 57 or 59 of this thread. Those figures should be revised but im expecting of not getting any value lower than 750mm. On top of that, if the front ERA is at least as effective as Relikt, then it should increase the total effectiveness by about 40 percent.

85%+ efficiency?
That seems very high for what is essentially NERA with thicker steel layers, substantially higher than almost any NATO tank.

The ERA is about what I guessed as well, though that's assuming normal KE rounds and not one specialised to deal with heavy ERA.