Scav

well it is, even vs DM63, but  20mm DM63 only, anyhow....
 

 

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008.
We can't really say for sure what it refers to, especially because both the 1st generation and third generation are missing, never mind a potential 4th.
It's a dead end so far as information goes, at least until someone can look at the specification and what it says.

 
 

This?
Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x).
 
Never seen E tech specifically being referred to, but it does seem like KMW is moving away from IBD/Rheinmetall and trying to develop/use more of their own products.
It's especially interesting that they introduced this on PSO and the presentation even shows it tested for PSO, but the actual vehicle retained the heavy hull roof add-on.
Then on their slide showing "duel config" and "PSO config" there is a difference, but on A7V they use the light add-on, which makes absolutely no sense...
 
Integration could refer to the need for the vehicle to be properly prepared and modified to even accept them; you can't just weld/bolt the add-ons to any existing vehicle.
Perhaps it's a way to distinguish it from armour kits like the K-1 ERA on T-72A/B.

But my main point with this was that he says this in his KVT chapter and refers to KVT.
Which seems incredibly odd considering KVT retained the B tech armour....

He might be getting ahead of himself or making some small errors, but I try not to assume he makes too many of those without an indication.
 
That's also what I thought initially, but it seems rather odd to me that Spielberger mentions them in the same breath.
Likewise, it seems even stranger that the proposed armour configuration of TVM to the Swedes was listed as B + D-2 if that wasn't the case.
I don't think they would intentionally offer a worse solution than they are testing and intend to use themselves, AFAIK the objective of LEOBEN has always been to maintain a maximum possible amount of standardisation whenever possible.

Not saying it's impossible that TVM was C + D-whatever, but it just seems incredibly weird and unlikely.
 
 
Nice pictures, but I don't think we can necessarily use this as proof?
For all we know, radios or other equipment may have already been demounted.

Krapke mentions the project leader of the turret developer adamantly refusing to exceed a 17t limit for the turret.
This rhymes with the 16.99t figure I have found for a combat loaded turret.
There's several other sources that also give 16t for an empty turret with armament.
2AV turret with EMES-15 sat at 17.4t fully loaded.
 
Well to be fair, 1.5t isn't a lot... I have talked to some tankers that had the opportunity to load up their vehicles on a scale during shipping (Abrams tankers) and one of them told me his tank was close to 2t lighter than the weight often referred to when empty...
I also don't see how the heavy skirts could be lighter, considering there's now an extra part to it.
Never seen much regarding C tech in general, it was quite "short lived" in service outside of Switzerland.
 
Sorry, I meant the large periscope in front of the TC, I often get them mixed up.
 
....What...?
Another Britain moment or was there more to it?

Those values seem extremely scuffed, but thanks for the picture, hadn't seen this before.
 
CAWA is the only one I've seen actual "results" for, the TCA is requestionable as only some references are found and none of the citations.
The Soviet welded turrets seems mostly a result of utilising new steels and transitioning to an RHA structure rather than a cast structure, multi-hit performance is going to be problematic.

Most of the papers involve small scale tests.
The ceramic in MEXAS likely refers to the skirts, the D tech light skirts seem to have involved at least one version with some kind of insert in the fiberglass/aramid composite structure.
If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go.

But production vehicles seem to be lacking them and I doubt HEAT protection is the only reason.
 
Somehow I doubt this was still the plan in 1995 when they started retrofitting tanks, also if the reason was weight penalty, wouldn't that also mean adopting a heavier D tech armour package in the turret is off the table..?
BTW, both TVM and TVM 2 had MLC70 marking, so does 2A5, I don't deny there's a difference there, but it seems a bit odd to use that as the reason.

In regards to worst tank being upgraded first, that's exactly what I mean when I suggest that they used B tech turrets for the base and still upgraded them with C tech rather than using C tech as a base.
Retains the most combat potential with the (2nd) least effort/cost.
 
Just seems like somebody didn't want to bother graying out cells TBH (they needed an intern ), otherwise I would have expected them to also gray out B and C for "Vors. modul".
I also just think they're different amounts or types of add-on armour, I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart.
 
Well...
I don't think it would be cheaper, let alone weigh the same, which would also mean the difference between A5 and A4 turret can't be because of D tech, nor can it be used to prove as such If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech? UK docs are from a year or several years before KVT/TVM, we don't have all of them and they were told in secrecy with very few details Things might've changed between 1987 and 1989, perhaps they realised the goals were far too much to ask from an internal armour package, perhaps they just found a better way of doing things in a more practical way Brit documents are kind of notorious for misrepresenting the facts, overestimating their own equipment, underestimating foreign equipment or generally just missing the ball. If C tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why is Pz 87 heavier?
If D tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why would 2A5 turret have "unexplained" weight increase apart from the things I have listed previously?

Something doesn't add up, there is never a free lunch and when it comes to armour, all the recent revelations keep me sceptical of any "weight neutral" increase in protection, particularly if they are large and with no thickness increase.
 
They definitely would have used different add-ons, but at the same time, some of the increases seem a little bit excessive to just be a result of an add-on module.
In case of the glacis attack, to me it seems the hull add-on modules of the Strv 122/TVM don't differ nearly enough to explain an "80mm" difference (I realise the actual threat only reaches 700mm).
The nr 2 turret attack can probably be ignored as a result of the measuring method (that threat doesn't reach beyond 700m, so any number beyond this is not exactly definitive or known).

There can also be slight variances in where the hits occurred, for example the sight aperture location might give substantially different results than the armour section below it.

Maybe we'll just have to wait another 10-20 years for the actual answers.

So no direct mention of the technology used?
Bit unfortunate...
 
From what I've heard and seen written, the only "named" improvement has been the refinement of the hatches and utilising new steels in the construction of the vehicle, which the authors also mention could be used to reduce the weight without compromising on protection.
The leopard 2E scandal of replacing titanium with steel in the roof add-on comes to mind.
 
I think there's more to the story and we have to look at all the information we have, because there are quite a few discrepancies so far.

Spoilers ahead.
 
When you look at other nations like the US, Britain or even Russians, we don't see such large and rapid increases in armour without a radical change in density or use of ad-on armour modules.
Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have actual documents stating it has D tech though (not the British docs please, we all know how reliable they are).

So no direct mention of the technology used?
Bit unfortunate...
 
From what I've heard and seen written, the only "named" improvement has been the refinement of the hatches and utilising new steels in the construction of the vehicle, which the authors also mention could be used to reduce the weight without compromising on protection.
The leopard 2E scandal of replacing titanium with steel in the roof add-on comes to mind.
 
I think there's more to the story and we have to look at all the information we have, because there are quite a few discrepancies so far.

Spoilers ahead.
 
When you look at other nations like the US, Britain or even Russians, we don't see such large and rapid increases in armour without a radical change in density or use of ad-on armour modules.
Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have actual documents stating it has D tech though (not the British docs please, we all know how reliable they are).

So no direct mention of the technology used?
Bit unfortunate...
 
From what I've heard and seen written, the only "named" improvement has been the refinement of the hatches and utilising new steels in the construction of the vehicle, which the authors also mention could be used to reduce the weight without compromising on protection.
The leopard 2E scandal of replacing titanium with steel in the roof add-on comes to mind.
 
I think there's more to the story and we have to look at all the information we have, because there are quite a few discrepancies so far.

Spoilers ahead.
 
When you look at other nations like the US, Britain or even Russians, we don't see such large and rapid increases in armour without a radical change in density or use of ad-on armour modules.
Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have actual documents stating it has D tech though (not the British docs please, we all know how reliable they are).

Leopard 1BE measurements at Gunfire museum (July 22).
Mantlet was not really doable due to time constraints.

Leopard 1A5BE MEXAS light skirts were ~20mm, had a "plywood" texture, probably some type of aramid composite as it was quite heavy.
LFP add-on thickness: 140mm
UFP add-on thickness: 105mm
Turret left side add-on was 260mm LOS, not including stand-off, only the vertical angle.
The add-on on the hull was made of a single thin steel plate, about 6mm, with some kind of foam backer, probably PU foam, roughly 20-30mm thick and "brittle" to the touch.

Variance of about 2mm due to paint etc.
If anyone knows of a way to improve the chances to measure convex and rough surfaces with a TM-8818 and log them, feel free to share.

@Wiedzmin I might go back for mantlet if needed...

https://imgur.com/a/xs5pgoN

AMX-30 at the Gunfire museum.
Rather inconsistent, the LFP, mid front plate and a small section of the UFP attached to the mid plate are all cast.
The UFP is made up of about 5 parts, the section close to the nose/midplate, this is one big cast piece together with part of the LFP, then there's a middle section which is just under the driver's hatch, this seems to be made of rolled steel and only about 50mm thick as opposed to the ~65mm cast section, both of these are roughly at 68°.
Then there's two plates next to and around the driver's hatch, this area is also 50mm thick but at about 75°, both of these are probably rolled steel but the one in which the driver's hatch sits has a cutout for the cast driver's hatch.
This hatch is quite weird and has some cavities in the frontal portion where I wrote "15-20" because there seems to be some mechanism on the inside.
For the driver's hatch itself there's about 40mm of cast steel, rather heavy (and perhaps grimed up).

Around the turret ring it's a ~15mm plate, didn't get to check on the engine deck unfortunately.
The rest of the hull is fairly "normal".

The turret is a disaster frankly, the mantlet had lots of cavities and was very hard to measure, the whole roof including the bit above the mantlet is only 20mm thick, it's thickest parts are only around 45mm thick around the rangefinder, all the rest is less, generally between 40 and 30mm.
Rangefinder itself is around 20mm for both the housing and the cover.

I have pictures from the inside as well, the internal height was just 170cm for the loader, his station was rather "crowded and none of the periscopes he has access to are easy to use or see much, the deadzones are probably around 20m or so.

Commander's seat is alright, his main periscope lacked the bottom mirror/periscope bit, but the 360° ones were all there, he has slightly better field of view than the loader, even for the loader's side, but the periscopes were at an uncomfortable height with no more adjustment on the seat to go up.

The gunner's station is very cramped and the main FCS/sighting system wasn't present, he has a side looking periscope which is unusable unless you stand up (quite slippery floor even with boots!), the unity sight same thing and the seat had no real adjustment.
His shoulder was right up against the (depressed) gun and the recoil guard will move with it, perhaps you would get used to it, but it seems rather worrying.
Even though the gun seemed to be fully recoiled and elevated, it was quite difficult to get from one side of the vehicle to the other.

Overall "ergonomics" seem to be almost an afterthought and the armour scheme is quite strange, some areas are not "bad" but many others are simply horrendous.
That 20mm thick angled roof right above the mantlet for example.

Leopard 1BE measurements at Gunfire museum (July 22).
Mantlet was not really doable due to time constraints.

Leopard 1A5BE MEXAS light skirts were ~20mm, had a "plywood" texture, probably some type of aramid composite as it was quite heavy.
LFP add-on thickness: 140mm
UFP add-on thickness: 105mm
Turret left side add-on was 260mm LOS, not including stand-off, only the vertical angle.
The add-on on the hull was made of a single thin steel plate, about 6mm, with some kind of foam backer, probably PU foam, roughly 20-30mm thick and "brittle" to the touch.

Variance of about 2mm due to paint etc.
If anyone knows of a way to improve the chances to measure convex and rough surfaces with a TM-8818 and log them, feel free to share.

@Wiedzmin I might go back for mantlet if needed...

https://imgur.com/a/xs5pgoN

AMX-30 at the Gunfire museum.
Rather inconsistent, the LFP, mid front plate and a small section of the UFP attached to the mid plate are all cast.
The UFP is made up of about 5 parts, the section close to the nose/midplate, this is one big cast piece together with part of the LFP, then there's a middle section which is just under the driver's hatch, this seems to be made of rolled steel and only about 50mm thick as opposed to the ~65mm cast section, both of these are roughly at 68°.
Then there's two plates next to and around the driver's hatch, this area is also 50mm thick but at about 75°, both of these are probably rolled steel but the one in which the driver's hatch sits has a cutout for the cast driver's hatch.
This hatch is quite weird and has some cavities in the frontal portion where I wrote "15-20" because there seems to be some mechanism on the inside.
For the driver's hatch itself there's about 40mm of cast steel, rather heavy (and perhaps grimed up).

Around the turret ring it's a ~15mm plate, didn't get to check on the engine deck unfortunately.
The rest of the hull is fairly "normal".

The turret is a disaster frankly, the mantlet had lots of cavities and was very hard to measure, the whole roof including the bit above the mantlet is only 20mm thick, it's thickest parts are only around 45mm thick around the rangefinder, all the rest is less, generally between 40 and 30mm.
Rangefinder itself is around 20mm for both the housing and the cover.

I have pictures from the inside as well, the internal height was just 170cm for the loader, his station was rather "crowded and none of the periscopes he has access to are easy to use or see much, the deadzones are probably around 20m or so.

Commander's seat is alright, his main periscope lacked the bottom mirror/periscope bit, but the 360° ones were all there, he has slightly better field of view than the loader, even for the loader's side, but the periscopes were at an uncomfortable height with no more adjustment on the seat to go up.

The gunner's station is very cramped and the main FCS/sighting system wasn't present, he has a side looking periscope which is unusable unless you stand up (quite slippery floor even with boots!), the unity sight same thing and the seat had no real adjustment.
His shoulder was right up against the (depressed) gun and the recoil guard will move with it, perhaps you would get used to it, but it seems rather worrying.
Even though the gun seemed to be fully recoiled and elevated, it was quite difficult to get from one side of the vehicle to the other.

Overall "ergonomics" seem to be almost an afterthought and the armour scheme is quite strange, some areas are not "bad" but many others are simply horrendous.
That 20mm thick angled roof right above the mantlet for example.

Leopard 1BE measurements at Gunfire museum (July 22).
Mantlet was not really doable due to time constraints.

Leopard 1A5BE MEXAS light skirts were ~20mm, had a "plywood" texture, probably some type of aramid composite as it was quite heavy.
LFP add-on thickness: 140mm
UFP add-on thickness: 105mm
Turret left side add-on was 260mm LOS, not including stand-off, only the vertical angle.
The add-on on the hull was made of a single thin steel plate, about 6mm, with some kind of foam backer, probably PU foam, roughly 20-30mm thick and "brittle" to the touch.

Variance of about 2mm due to paint etc.
If anyone knows of a way to improve the chances to measure convex and rough surfaces with a TM-8818 and log them, feel free to share.

@Wiedzmin I might go back for mantlet if needed...

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.
 

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.
 

Object 640 Kaktus ERA system - interesting overlapping position of each ERA tile sure looks like more serious effort than what you see on Budget Cuts 3.

 

 
 
 http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_66.html
 
   Also, according to pattent they wanted to detonate tiles in layers to increase amount of counter-actions against incoming penetrator. External ERA cover was involved in counter-action. After first layer detonates, a soft-ish material in between first and second layer of ERA was delaying damaging effects of first ERA detonation while tubes with explosives worked as detonators for second layer of ERA.
   On thise side cutaways you can see those detonation tubes between ERA tiles
 

A production 120mm DM33 on top of Munitionsmerkblatt 1305-9213-4. Shape of the tip and fins is exactly the same.
If you look at number 22 in the bottom picture, that is the  Hülsendeckel and "a" indicates where it is glued to the rest of the Hülsenmantel.
Hope this helps.
 

New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while.
 
I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, while awesome and cool to get inside of, was nothing new. However, they had a cutaway of a M829A4 round, which was on public display so it's not breaking OPSEC. Thought it would interest you guys.
 


 
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.

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.

1

Re: Leopard 2AV
 
#
projectile
angle
target
result
1 / 1
81 mm HEAT
40°
left turret side
no penetration, light bulge
2 / 2
81 mm HEAT
40°
left turret side
penetration, cover of sponson fuel tank pushed in by shockwave
3 / 3
106 mm HEAT
30°
left turret side
no penetration
4 /4
127 mm HEAT
25°
turret front, left side
no penetration
5 / 5
127 mm HEAT
25°
left turret edge, between
front and side faces
penetration, track cover pushed in despite 25 mm cover plate, sponson fuel tank damaged
6 / 6
127 mm HEAT
0°
gun mantlet, front side
penetration
7 / 9
81 mm HEAT
30°
right hull side,
track skirts
no penetration, 10 mm deep and 110 mm long mark on the exterior of hull side wall
8 / 10
81 mm HEAT
30°
right hull side,
track skirts
no penetration, bulge, 21 mm deep and 110 mm long mark on the exterior hull side
9 / 8
81 mm HEAT
30°
track cover, close to
the driver's hatch
no penetration
10 / 7
81 mm HEAT
45°
turret front, right side
no penetration
11 / 11
127 mm HEAT
30°
turret front, right side
no penetration
12 / 12
127 mm HEAT
25°
right turret side
no penetration, weld along the turret roof broken along 1.66 meters length
13 / 13
127 mm HEAT
0°
gunner's sight
penetration, only minor marks visible in the interior
14 / 14
127 mm HEAT
20°
third track skirt element
penetration, only slight mark of damage in the interior; trunnion side wall pressed against gun mantlet, but movement of gun mantlet is not hindered
15 / 14R
127 mm HEAT
20°
first track skirt element
no penetration, skirt element mostly destroyed, support roller penetrated; only minor marks on the exterior side wall
16 / 15
127 mm HEAT
0°
central hull front
no penetration
17 / 16
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
central hull front
no penetration
18 / 17
127 mm HEAT
0°
central hull front
no penetration
19
/ 18
127 mm HEAT
0°
upper front plate
no penetration
20 / 37
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
upper front plate, section sloped at 8°
penetration, also damaged the gun mantlet (limited gun elevation only)
21 / 19
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
upper front plate
no penetration of crew compartment
23 / 22
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
left turret side
no penetration of crew compartment
24 / 23
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
turret front, left side
no penetration of crew compartment,
turret roof bulged outwards by 15 mm
25 / 24
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
turret front, left side
no penetration of crew compartment
26 / 25
D 105 mm APFSDS
20°
left hull side, track skirts
no penetration, bulge, 25 mm deep mark in the exterior side
27 / 27
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
turret front, right side
no penetration of crew compartment, turret roof bulged outwards by 18 mm
28 / 28
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
turret front, lower right side
no penetration, weld broken between turret front and side faces, dummy thrown out of its harness, gunner's sight screws knocked loose, turret can only hardly be turned
29 / 29
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
turret roof
no penetration
30 / 30
100 mm AP
30°
left turret edge, between
front and side faces
no penetration, broken weld to the turret ring; turret can only be turned using force
31 / 31
100 mm AP
20°
left hull side, track skirts
shot bounced off, no penetration of crew compartment, material broken off from the inner wall (spall), two skirt elements destroyed, support roller damaged
32 / 32
100 mm AP
10°
central hull front
no penetration
33 / 34
81 mm HEAT
45°
front wheel, left side
no penetration, 5 mm deep mark in hull side
34 / 35
127 mm HEAT
20°
front wheel, left side
penetration
35 / 29R
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
turret roof
no penetration, round bounced off, 250 mm long, 35 mm wide and 6 mm deep mark
36 / 20
D 105 mm APFSDS
0°
lower front plate
penetration, first torsion bar damaged slightly, isolation of second torsion bar damaged, third torsion bar damaged heavily
37 / 36
D 105 mm APFSDS
20°
front wheel, left side
no penetration, projectile did not touch hull side wall, but instead damaged the bearing of the front wheel, bounced off and penetrated two support rollers
38 / 38
D 105 mm APFSDS
25°
trunnion wall
penetration, nearly no traces of damages on the inside (projectile fragments exited turret through the ammunition compartment, where the door was blasted off during earlier tests)
39 / 6R
106 mm HEAT
0°
gun mantlet
no penetration
40 / 39
100 mm AP
25°
right turret side, close to the weld between front and side faces
no penetration, only partial crack of the external weld between right turret front and right turret side
 
 
There is a lot more info regarding the damage to the weld lines and the size of the holes caused by the hits.

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.
 
"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?
 
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....
 
And where are these reports?
Why else did the leopard 2A5 proto participate in the trials?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Couple of issues with this:
Entire projectile only weighs 4kg according to GD 26x600mm penetrator would have incredibly low density to achieve the 4kg total weight Some sources claim it was derived from DM33 and just upscaled or lengthened Germany didn't think it was sufficient and dropped it in favour of DM53 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.
 
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....
 
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).
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 

Possible layout of T-14 frontal armor
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2159&p=2#p1244215

 

T-16 at UVZ