Scav

1 minute ago, RoflSeal said:

I don't know what you smoke, but the IPM1 had a brand new turret compared to the M1.

Extended frontal armour, I don't call that "brand new".

Brand new would be M60 -> M1

Just now, RoflSeal said:

So from the M46 to the M1 Abrams, nothing has changed with the turrets, the layout of the crew and periscopes is still very much the same, just with "deep modifications"

T-90A's welded turret is not a brand new turret. Not a lot has actually changed from it's previous iterations.

If we go to a welded turret (as Rhm say) from a, presumably, cast turret previously when the Challenger 2 was first produced 2 decades ago or so, that is new manufacture, by definition it is a brand new turret.

Strawman argument.....

As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret".

So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.

15 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

No, lovey I just don't stand complete and utter bullshit.

Ha, right, so that should include things you say.

There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out.

That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed.

Also, since when is pointing out typical marketing quotes "utter bullshit"?

@SH_MM
Don't bother with him, he just likes trolling for the sake of trolling.

1 minute ago, SH_MM said:

The roof armor is always thicker on some places of the Challenger 2. Most likely they added some sheet metal plates to make it look "flush and aerodynamic".

Could be, doesn't appear to be a final design, though it's no PL-01.

If they did rework parts of the turret, they could've done away with the toilet and other unnecessary items, possibly lowering the profile and having extra room on-top, though I would question the location of the optics then.

Is it just me or does this new turret feature additional armour?
That's either a shitty fit and finish, or a roof add-on module.

41 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Still better than the CR2.

#ChangeMyMind

Atleast it uses a modern gun.... and isn't 75 tonnes fully upgraded....

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances.

I found them a little bit confusing and perhaps a little too little detail as well.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct.

I think the diameter of the penetrator matters with this kind of test though:

http://www.j-mst.org/on_line/admin/files/09-04151_2076-2089_.pdf
Velocity also matters and I think having a thicker projectile means some kind of "overmatch" could take place, for both of these DM13 works quite well.

The Brits might've been right, but I think there's more to it than what we can see from these tests.

In any case, there's a good reason why Germany upgraded the UFP of leopard 2s (only on 2A7Vs but, some earlier versions for other countries had it too).

Odd that the US hasn't done the same.

Still think it's a more efficient layout than what the Challenger 1/2 use.

edit: you can also see in that research paper that the hardness of the target plate matters, if the leopard 2 had a HHA hull roof that might've increased the protection by quite a bit.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules?

OK, so I asked him again, he said it was 12cm total with the add-on, I thought it was odd too (I probably misunderstood).

More info: roof was 26mm over crew compartment, add-on on LFP was 80mm + 5-10mm of air + 30-40mm base armour.

UFP was 30-40mm base + 5-10mm air + 50mm add-on.

So, I was mistaken and it was 120mm total, excuse me.

edited the wording, don't want my German friend to go all 1939 on me

38 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The Abrams has supposedly 320-340 mm steel-equivalent Burlington armor along its frontal arc; this is insufficient to protect against 115 mm 3BM-21 and 3BM-28 APFSDS rounds at distances of 2,000 m. The same applies to the Leopard 2's armor; be it 400 or 450 mm equivalent protection heads-on at the turret front; the hull front and turret armor is insufficient against 115 mm APFSDS rounds along the frontal 50-60° arc. There isn't even a need to speak about how the required protection ("sufficient protection against future Soviet KE rounds at combat distances") isn't given when looking at 125 mm APFSDS rounds.

I don't think the slug type APFSDS as used on early 115 and 125mm ammo would have an easy time with the turret of either of these (specifically leo 2) as the slug would leave the penetrator body when hitting the first plates after which it would be much easier to defeat. 

To be fair, 3BM26 kinda fixed part of this and 3BM28 is thought to be a DU long rod.

43 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

These figures have been published in different German articles, I doubt that they are from some sort of CIA document.

The guy that told me about them said they were from a bribery inquiry on the trials.

(Maybe it wasn't CIA, but some internal agency dealing with it)

44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Krapke lists the weight of the Leopard 2AV's gun assembly though.

Yeah, but I don't think that much changed for the mantlet specifically, I read something about the roof armour being changed but not much more.

There's ofcourse the hull armour change as well.

48 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

There isn't one type of "Chobham" armor. The UK has designed and tested more than a dozen different types of Chobham armor during the late 1960s and 1970s, which were designed to meet different requirements. For example, one array was designed to improve efficiency against KE rounds from a mass efficiency of roughly 1 to 1.5, but traded a reduction in performance against shaped charges from a mass efficiency of 3 to just 2.

Yep, and it seems like they preferred CE protection if we look at the later MBT-80 requirement.

49 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

We know from patents, German books on the Leopard 2 and Soviet sources, that the Leopard 2 employs some type of NERA or "not Chobham, but armor following the Chobham principle". While the West-German military asked for a higher level of KE protection relative to the US Army, it is still a lot harder to achieve sufficient protection to stop an ATGM with 530 mm penetration than an APFSDS round with 300-350 mm penetration along the frontal arc. By my estimates, the frontal armor would be nearly enough by itself (per weight) to achieve the desired level of protection against KE rounds, so only a "small amount" of additional protection (10-20%) needs to be achieved for it along the whole frontal arc. Meanwhile one needs to achieve a mass efficiency of 1.4 to 1.5 against shape charges for the frontal armor to resist a Milan-1 ATGM warhead and an even higher efficiency for protection along the frontal arc.

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.

53 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

According to a Soviet report - or at least a Russian book from 2005-2006 claims that there was such a report - West-Germany tested armor arrays making use of five NERA plates, which all had a rather thick front plate (25 mm) followed by a thin rubber layer (5 mm) and thin steel back plate (3 mm). This armor would be much more remiscient of the T-72B's turret armor, but could still be considered a type of "Chobham". The ISL suggested in 1979/1980 that for optimum protection against shaped charges, a multi-layered backplate (made of steel plates with either a glass or a ceramic "core") should be used in combination with spaced NERA sandwich plates. However filling the empty space with low-density compressible plastic or removing it, but layering the NERA directly ontop of the backplate was seen as counter-productive, reducing the protection level.

Do you remember what Russian book that was?

I've been looking for info such as this.

54 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Regarding Leopard 1A3 and Keiler: There never was a requirement for shaped charge protection on these tanks. The designs submitted to England during the early phase of the Kampfpanzer 3/Future Main Battle Tank project show how this "technology" would have been adapted to also protect against shaped charges: MaK's proposal had a spaced arrangement of seven thin steel plates as frontal armor, while Krauss-Maffei's design had six thin steel plates spaced apart, while a fuel tank would have been incorporated between the two outermost layers.

Interesting.

55 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Schürzenpanzerung means "skirt armor"

Yep, I know, but you can see that it could be easily confused by people who don't speak German as a primary language (I had to do a double take as well).

@SH_MM
So I finally managed to get my hands on the book Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2 by Spielberger thanks to a friend.

I found that he actually mentiones only skirt changes with the 8th batch but he words it in a way that makes it look like new integrated armour:

"Schürzenpanzerung" looks and sounds a lot like "Schützenpanzerung" (if that's even a word), perhaps some authors misread this and used it themselves?

In any case, he does specifically mention that only the skirts changed (interestingly, both the heavy and light ones).

For the 6th batch he does specifically mention new base armour though:

So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before?
My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures:

They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries).

Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

AFAIK using simple, not sloped steel-plastic-steel sandwich improves efectiveness of steel layers of armor

Not against CE atleast.

I don't doubt they also use plastics or rubber, but I don't think it's in the same manner as the UK or US, we can kind of see that with the add-on for later models, the steel layers are thicker while the plastics (or whatever it is) are thinner compared to the style used on the M1 for instance.

41 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

?

And how long does that take compared to something like on the M1 or leo 2.

46 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

try to draw all "%" on blueprint by yourself(without somebody marks, it can give you independent point of view), and you will understand that mantlet will get in "%" area with "less than 300"

No?

Over 60% of the frontal surface is protected against 300mm KE or more, that leaves just shy of 40% under 300mm, LFP accounts for around 20% while the hull roof accounts for 11%, block under mantlet accounts for 2%, driver's hatch for about 1%, that combines into around 34% of the total surface that's pretty much confirmed to be under 300mm KE.

The mantlet isn't 5% of the total surface, it's around 12%.

So if the mantlet was also part of this "under 300mm KE" area, the area protecting against 300mm or more would only be around 55%, not 60-63%.

Besides, that makes little sense in the first place, the mantlet would need to be hollow and just an empty shell for such low values to be possible.

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

i have 2 reports something like 400 pages, maybe more

I'd love to see as much as possible on "Chobham".

In specific, I'm looking for these pages:

And any others from similar reports (or the same one).

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

- in other words, the tank seemed to have a rather consistent level of protection, but the protection requirement was too low in hind-sight.

I wouldn't consider it too low, not in comparison with the M1 for instance.

M1 turret front (straight on): ~400mm KE or protection against 115mm APFSDS from 800m.

Leopard 2 turret front (straight on): ~430mm KE, protection against 38mm HK (which I think now with that swedish report on the 105mm smoothbore with APFSDS is actually the 105mm DM13 APFSDS).

And depending on what ammo they used to get these results, the difference could be bigger, if the leo 2 was tested using something like DM33, it would've fared better against older types of ammo, whereas with the M1, we don't know anything but that it was designed to withstand 115mm APFSDS (320-340mm according to some UK documents).

Ofcourse, IMO, neither tank is sufficiently protected under 2000m against USSR contemporaries such as T-72M1 with 3BM26.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Challenger 1's lack of a gun mantlet might have been the best solution when only looking at armor coverage

I'm convinced it's not because of that, but because it's essentially a Chieftain with "chobham", it worked on Chieftain, why change it?
Ofcourse, not denying that could've been the intent with the Chieftain's design (and therefore "extended" to CR1).

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2AV was not a good tank, pretty much a prototype. They couldn't spend lots of time on the design stage and testing all changes, because the deadline to participate at the US trials was too close. The decision to integrate the fuel tanks into the hull armor was however made following a suggestion by the US Army.

 

According to the testimony of a West-German general to the US officials (indirectly to the US Congress) it was a "mistake" that the weight demonstrators in the mobility trials didn't correlate with the true weight of the tank, but their is a large probability that this was a lie. Both sides (US inudstry/Army and the Germans) were focused on doing their best to get the US Army to spend millions on buying their respective tanks. The US government originally agreed to send all design and development papers of the XM1 designs to West-German, but declared them "top secret" after having received the Leopard 2AV designs... such behaviour from both sides is rather counterproductive when trying to make sure that NATO has the best possible equipment - unfortunately it is still common.

According to some CIA document (which I've not had the pleasure of seeing myself, so take this with a grain of salt), the 2AV was winning against the XM-1 on most points, which is when they changed the rules and the XM-1 s tarted winning:

Quote

Of the 117 criteria listed, 77 of which were assessed, the Leopard 2 AV 61 and the XM1 met 48.

After changes to the evaluation system, in 17 assessment groups only six were fulfilled by the Leopard 2, 16 by XM1. Rated according to the German system, in which each criterion was evaluated and evaluated individually, the Leopard 2 was clearly superior to the XM1. So the XM1 lacked the ABC protection system, an independent periscope for the commander and the ability to underwater.

Regardless of what happened, the trials weren't fair and the decision was long made for both countries.

US wouldn't adopt a German tank, Germany wouldn't adopt a US tank.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I believe that the Challenger 1 is not a good design in many aspects, which is likely related to the low development effort and its origin as an export tank. The MBT-80 would have been a lot better in pretty much every category bar costs.

Yep, from everything I've been able to gather, CR1 seems to be a Shir 2 (with new suspension and FCS) which in turns is just a Chieftain Mk 5/2 with a decent engine/transmission.

If you look at the armour arrangements on the FV4211 and Mk 5/2, it's basically identical to the CR1 with aluminium instead of steel.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Well, the situation is a bit messy, because the original photograph printed in Krapke's book is rather small (whole image is 2.4 x 7 cm) with limited resolution. Maybe you are right and the edges are proturding over the armor block; but by how much? Is the extrusion at the top completely part of the proturding edges (as assumed by you) or only partial? Also note that the center section of the mantlet includes a plate for the gun trunion to screw into, which is actually proturding even further than the edges - but what is it made of? Steel, aluminium, titanium? Is it hollow or solid?

At minimum it's still 390mm, going off other pictures, sources say a weight between 595kg (that Swedish shooting table) and 680kg.

There's atleast two sources that agree on the whole weight of the assembly, both Krapke and that Swedish table say 4290kg for entire gun mount and 3100kg without gun cradle and mantlet.

I doubt the mantlet is hollow, that doesn't make any sense at all, but neither does a solid mantlet, that would make it ridiculously heavy (in the region of 1.2t).

Aluminium doesn't make much sense either, titanium could be, but I would imagine that to be quite costly (though would lower the weight, to the point it might be solid and still only weigh ~650kg).

Exact thickness doesn't matter much IMO, you can get equivalent steel thickness with the weight, height and width, though that still leaves the question how much spacing would improve the effectiveness.

With the information available, I wouldn't consider the mantlet area weak, still going to disable the tank most likely, but atleast it's not tissue paper.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

If you think so, maybe I am. I am obviously biased in regards to thus statement and I disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, I specifically phrase my sentences carefully when speculating and/or questionable (note that I'm often using words like "supposed", "might", "could", "allegedly") to show that this is either not confirmed or that this is supported by "weak" sources only.

 

I am willing to change my mind and not using outdated or incorrect sources rather than having an opinion set in stone (e.g. I am not considering a table in an overview document citing "Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide" as source to be better and more accurate than official reports from NCR). I also don't dislike any sort of technology (be it a gun, a tank or anything civilian) because of a personal dislike of certain people/countries (unlike our favorite Abrams' fanboy, who hates stuff just because it is German and Germany conquered and occupied Poland during WW2).

I do however not accept incorrect statements or unreasonable bashing. I wouldn't say that I am "protecting the Leopard 2" specifically, due to my language skills, nationality and personal connection/experience it is however the MBT for which I happen to have access to the largest number of souurces and I hope that this way I can provide the most to discussions. If I'd speak French, I'd probably buy and read lots of books and articles regarding their military hardware - just like I would probably have a deeper interest in Soviet/Russian tanks, if I spoke Russian. I however do not and secondary sources (like for example the rather limited "Osprey New Vanguard" books) are often rather bad. I wouldn't mind you posting more information about other tanks, so I'll keep on learning about them. As translated by Cicerio, scio me nescire.

Agreed, I'd add that everyone is biased to some degree, but when everything points to something being good, the bias argument is easily made against everyone that "supports" said good thing, maybe a little bit too easy.

Damian is a different level though, that's clear bias, not "bias by liking something good".

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The UK however believed that the Leopard 2's armor is a copy of Chobham armor, so it seems relevant to this discussion; if you have better sources, please post them.

UK would believe that, they gave Germany a lot of info on it and from several of their research papers it seems they thought quite highly of themselves, "educating" the Germans in armour technology....

For Germany Chobham wouldn't have been the best choice, given how it's more optimal against CE whereas the Germans always preferred KE protection, Leopard 1A3 being an example.

Their previous research like on the leopard 1A3, Keiler etc, used spaced armour, I don't consider it a stretch to think they saw what the UK did and simply were inspired by it, the depth of the armour package, mounting system, module design, things like that.

So, a copy of Chobham? 

I don't think so.

Seems more likely they only used some parts of it and still preferred spaced steel arrays with higher thickness instead of thin steel plates sandwiching plastic.

They probably looked at the thickness of the armour package on the hull and applied "their" protection ratios of Chobham.

Certainly wouldn't be the first time they make assumptions like that.

So, apparently the Swedes tested the Rheinmetall smoothbore 105:

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/rheinmetall-105-cm-smoothbore-performance/

Quite interesting, I wonder how well it lines up with this:

I read on this forum that the picture above was user made from real data, anyone know more?

22 hours ago, Militarysta said:

And M829 was rather weak APFSDS-T.

To be fair, I think M829 seems to be often overestimated, I've seen a lot of pictures pointing out a 540mm long penetrator, but when I measure it it's often below 500mm, mostly around 490mm, ofcourse, those are just picture measurements, not actual ones.

That combined with the tip that seems to be derived from M774, normal conical tip without any kind of break-off design (unlike DM33 which does seem to have a special one) would hamper performance against high angles.

M829A1 still has that, but it's way longer so that will probably make up for it.

When I put M829 through L/O with the picture measurements I get around 540mm at PB 60° and not at 2KM 60°.

Do you know if that 40mm appliqué plate was the same HHA as on the T-72M1?
 

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Both the Trophy and Iron Fist, much like competing systems, have their own methods to eliminate risk to nearby troops.

Trophy has an MEFP with a very limited amount of penetrators, only enough to ensure a high probability of interception.

A total of 17 fragments, all precisely directed, is not enough to pose any significant risk. 

 

Iron Fist uses a fragment-free warhead that uses a shockwave to 'cut' through the projectile, or tilt it in case of a KEP. The only fragments are those of the casing of the grenade, which can be made disintegratable.

Only decent testing footage I've found:

Does look rather minimal, but I still don't want to be near that when it goes off, though I guess most combat clothing/vests will protect the infantry.

So, safe to say it's probably not lethal unless it hits the head/armpits with the larger fragments, but minor injuries are still very much possible it seems.

I'd still prefer a proper analysis, but I guess we'll have to wait for that....

So, the numbers and the exact position of the "kvarts" core are incorrect?

1 minute ago, Andrei_bt said:

Incorrect turret

The numbers or the layout?

12 hours ago, Lord_James said:

The projectiles it is intercepting (if not inert) would most likely contain far more explosives than the Trophy or Iron Fist’s interceptors do. 

Yes, exactly.

If that explodes too, you'll have even more fragments that are directed at the tank (and around it).

I still think having an APS is a good thing, but a good thought out implementation is needed, you can't just slap it on.

4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

I missed something?

Yes, good point, merry Xmas everyone!

21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

All tests and combat employments showed either perfect results, or very close to perfect.

Were they tested with top attack ammo?

Or multiple simultaneous hits?

26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The US tested 2 systems to the point of accepting them into service, and determined both to be safe enough for use in infantry-filled environment.

 

In Trophy's case alone, they test fired it 48 times and it worked every time. These tests also disproved the myths spread by Raytheon that the system somehow "shreds nearby infantry".

If it uses fragments to intercept the threat it'll inevitably have side-effects, maybe not to the point it "shreds" all nearby infantry, but probably still enough to injure infantry close to the vector of the intercepted thread.

Also, I haven't seen any actual declassified testing with all the data available, just articles on "it works" which doesn't say a whole lot.

If you do have that kind of data, I'd love to see it.

32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Both these systems also protect against top attack munitions.

Don't they still have a limited vertical arc?

9 minutes ago, rob89 said:

In my modest opinion it's very strange that the absolute need for APS system is again so underestimated.

APS' can fail, not to mention that few protect the tank against top attack ammunitions.

Let's not forget that many MBTs including the leo 2 in German service are always supported by infantry, an APS that uses fragments to intercept threats can be very dangerous or even lethal for supporting infantry.

That's why Germany has been keen on developing an APS that doesn't have these drawbacks, but this takes time and money.

Also, not sure where I read this, but IIRC there was some trial that showed passive protection systems often only worked (reliably) with their own ATGMs, not enemy ATGMs.

37 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

as for war, when it comes to T-72 "battle history" we often blame arabs etc users because they can't use it properly, but what with the rest part of the world ? maybe turks good users of Leo2 ? or saudi of M1A2 ? or iraqi of M1A1 ? 

The Turks modified the Leo 2's blast doors to remain open for "faster loading" according to a German instructor sent there, they also just had a coup like two or three years ago and a "cleansing" to accompany that...

So yeah, they're not "good users" of Leo 2s.

Most probably the same with the Saudi M1A2s and Iraqi M1A1s.

39 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

CR1 and CR2 lowermost edges of turret

I mean..... Challengers.

Might as well consider the entire hull a weakspot.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Note that the Leopard 2A5 in the Swedish tests (both German and Swedish model) couldn't survive a Carl-Gustav round with 420 mm penetration. The M1A2's side armor also is only capable to resist RPGs with 380 mm penetration at the turret bustle; the turret sides at the crew compartment are thinner.

You mean to the side of the turret?
I would've been surprised if it could stop that honestly, the side is pretty thin despite the addon.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The armor weight of the M1A1 Abrams increased by less than 907 kilograms according to Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams (The empty weight of the M1IP - with identical armor to the M1A1 - is 907 kg higher than the empty weight of the M1 Abrams. The M1IP didn't only introduce the improved armor but also other changes, hence the "less than").

Sorry, meant M1A1 -> M1A1HA.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The M1A1 HA added 4,400 lbs of weight according to the weight "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command, this is just ~1,995 kg. Apparently the adoption of the heavier T158 tracks raised the weight of the M1A1 from 120,000 lbs to 130,800 lbs, thus creating the illusion of a much larger weight gain for the M1A1HA (which always uses the T158 tracks) due to incorrect comparisons with the M1A1 with T156 tracks.

Ah, that would definitely explain the large difference, I didn't know about this, thanks for clearing that up.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As discussed earlier, the Leopard 2A4 from 1991 might have a combat weight of 56.5 tonnes (or about 1,350 kilograms more than the previous model).  It might feature titanium and tungsten within its armor array (according to rumors mentioned by different authors, the late Leopard 2A4 - so either the model with "C" technology armor or the one with "D" technology armor - makes use of these materials).

I think it's more likely to be the C model, especially if the armour upgrade was weight neutral yet still had a large armour improvement.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yes and no. It wouldn't make sense to create such armor, but it would likely be possible to create such. Note that German authors always talk about "B", "C" and "D" technologies, this might be relating to the fact that each letter refers to a concept/change of "material generations". For example we know that the late batches of the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A5 use harder steel than the original model.

 

I think the formatting suggests at least one overlap (otherwise what's the point of that table format), not that every armor/technology generation was used for both Pakete and Vorsatzmodule.

Personally I don't think the table format means much, it's very little to go off so I very much hesitate to consider that evidence, in a similar fashion that I consider grammar (for documents, not necessarily books as they focus more on getting that correct) to be unreliable or or little significance.

I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion (I want to be absolutely sure of things, I don't like making assumptions I can't back up with anything other than "logic" or "common sense").

But I'll definitely keep your points in mind.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The hull was likely not designed for full 30° protection (same case with the Abrams).

True, but that's pretty much my point, sure it's 700mm at 15°, but that's such a high angle you can probably reach the same protection level on the turret side, so I wouldn't consider that "out of line".

26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Btw. according to Rolf Hilmes, the Swiss add-on armor developed by RUAG for the Panzer 87WE was optimized for protection against handheld anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7 rather than against kinetic engery penetrators. For anti-KE purposes the Swiss could have adopted the Leopard 2A5 instead, as they (together with Germany and the Netherlands) funded the development of the 2A5 upgrade.

That's odd.... why would they want RPG-7 protection the turret front and sides? (sides is more understandable)

28 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Without knowing his sources, there is nothing but speculation. In general there seems to be some copying going on (different authors either use the same source or are basing their statements on other authors). Krauss-Maffei could have simply revealed at the time that the Leopard 2A4 from 1988 started to feature new and improved armor. In the end the tank was still being offered on the export market - including to the British tank program. The Leopard 2 from 1991 however entered service at a time when the Leopard 2A5 was in development and marketed to Britain and Sweden.

 

One fact to consider is that nobody specified that only the skirts were changed - they might be the only visible change. While Lobitz book is rather detailed, he isndoesn't list all changes for each variant that are sometimes mentioned by other authors.

I guess we'd need a second source to confirm.

30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

One can argue that the fact that Lobitz doesn't mention a change in the base could imply that it wasn't changed, but that is the only argument that I've seen against the existence of a "D" technology base armor coming from you. 

Well, another argument is that increasing the KE effectiveness even more is pretty difficult, especially considering it's already been increased just 3 years prior with a big jump in efficiency.

It's possible, but you'd need to add quite a bit of weight (if the C tech variant was weight neutral, it would've need to already use many new materials and changed the entire array).

I mean, if C tech already remained weight neutral and still increased KE protection by a good amount, for a similar protection increase the M1A1 got like a 3t weight increase, that's not even hull or side armour increase.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

I'd consider it a fact that there is a "D" technology base armor package for multiple reasons including that the Leopard 2A5 turrets for Germany feature "D" technology base armor. The Krauss-Maffei data delivered to Sweden includes a table which by formatting implies that "D" technology base armor exists (and it also includes three different sub-variants of it, labelled "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3").

The formatting would also imply there's add-on modules of B and C tech though, something I don't consider likely.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

A graphic from the same documents shows a flat-sided Leopard 2 with the three dates 1979, 1988 and 1991 corresponding to the armor packages.

Could very well be because it "looks" better, instead of having to use two different pictures, could also be that they didn't want to give away what it looked like (or weren't sure about which variant they'd adopt).

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The turret applique armor kit for the Leopard 1A1A1 uses such perforated steel plates with a thickness of 5 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm. It is possible that the skirt armor consists either of one or two 5 mm perforated steel plates or there also was a 10 mm perforated steel plate.

Noticed they were similar too, I think 25mm + 25mm is likely given the rather low weight of about 110kg.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

What I meant in my previous post regarding the skirts + side armor at 15° providing more protection than the frontal armor is not related to the light skirts. According to Lobitz, both heavy ballistic and light skirts are made in "D" technology for the Leopard 2A4 from 1991. This means that the frontal section of the side armor should be able to stop 120 mm APFSDS rounds with 700 mm penetration and 143 mm single shaped charge warheads with 1,000 mm penetration (1,270 mm protection during ballistic tests) along the frontal 30° arc - given that the frontal turret armor of a Leopard 2A4 with "C" technology armor array is supposedly equivalent to only 500-550 mm steel vs KE (based on the Swedish leaks) and 420 mm steel along the frontal 60° arc. There would be quite a disbalance in armor protection, given that the Leopard 2's hull (and apparently most hulls) aren't designed with the same protected frontal arc as the turret!

15° is a very accute angle though, nothing to scoff at.

I think a 30° angle would be a better comparison, if you would look at the side turret at 15° I'm sure you'd get similar results.