Sheffield
Contributing Members-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About Sheffield
- Currently Using Personal Messenger
Recent Profile Visitors
659 profile views
Sheffield's Achievements
Advanced Member (3/3)
9
Reputation
-
Not sure if this have been posted before, but Leopard 2A5s turret (empty & no add-on armour) is 18.25 metric tons, with add-on armour it's 19.8 metric tons; meaning the wedges + side armour account for 1.55 tons. Empty weight for the whole tank is 57.7 tons (likely without the add-on armour). Assuming both tanks lose 1.2 tons going from combat load - > empty, a Leopard 2A4C would weight 55.3 tons compared to 2A5s 57.7 tons.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
My head cannon is that as Germany delivered the TVMs, the subsequent ballistic tests carried out helped IBD identify the weakpoints in the overall design, shortly thereafter the TVM 2 is presented which sports the finalised vorsatz modul armour (that we today know as MEXAS-Heavy). Another conclusion I've come to is the prototype MEXAS was thinner/lacked the triangular plates on the inside of the turret modules (hence why there were gaps in the "700mm protection" from an off-angle), but that is more so due to the fact I have yet to see how the prototype armour looked on the inside, unlike the production armour.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Isn't that the entire point? We've no idea what's the reason behind their naming convection so we're assuming it's one or the other. The letters could either describe the armour in some way (by referencing the technique, material etc), or be Germany's way of saying "this is our new armour, which is different from our old armour, so we're giving it a new letter" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm of opinion that this was simply a play on words by Zwilling; "newest" obviously refering to the latest development providing the best/most balanced results, while using the basic geometry of D-technology (maybe it was the most efficient layout? don't know). Yes, that is certainly a possibility, but at least now we've got 2 points of reference; - the older "results" providing ~600mm RHAe KE & 1200mm RHAe CE over an arc - the newer "results" being a comparable effectiveness to what perhaps is Dorchester in terms of KE (~500mm RHAe in an arc), but with higher potency against SC threats.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Possibly an oversight, maybe he was planning on going more into detail on it, but didn't for unknown to us reasons. Case in point it still states the turrets taken for KWS were modified with "D-technology", I don't think this simply refers to keeping the turrets as they were (B-technology) and adding the MEXAS add-on on top [you're cutting the turret open to modify it entirely anyhow, the armour is basically the cheapest thing to replace there]. This is imo a worst case scenario (with best case of course being D-technology refering here to both the internal armour improvement of the turret, but also the "add-on"), middle ground being of course an upgrade to C-technology with the add-on armour (i.e same level as Strv 122). That's not really a good argument for it being the case. Do we know what the letters *actually* refer to? Couldn't C simply refer to "Ceramic". As previously stated by SH_MM, D-technology is said to be either 3rd generation or 4th generation depending on the source used. I reckon they base the generation on the overall development status, in this instance: - KMW stating D-technology is the 3rd generation armour - > because this is the 3rd armour scheme they're implementing into the ***serial production*** Leopard 2 - IBD stating D-technology is the 4th generation armour - > it's the 4th armour scheme they've worked with since the project began (which would include prototype armour designs) Sure, but this is as I previously stated, likely a difference in definition. Some companies/people may only be counting armours *actually used*, while some may be counting all the armours since the begining of the project. There's a lack of information, so I don't believe it's possible to say which interpretation is correct here. Neither do I, and I agree that the evidence is pretty meager, but at the same time I refuse to believe Germany has not advanced past the C-technology on their newest MBT (2A7V). Yes, but this would only imply that the armour as inserts does exist, but was simply not used due to X reasons (weight concerns, costs at the time, balance issues, requirements already being fulfilled with C-technology + add-on etc etc). I'm of the opinion that this is simply inconclusive. You're right on that, sorry. The British documents from Nov 1990 state that D-technology was about as efficient as "Developed CA" armour, what that Developed CA was isn't exactly known to me, but it could possibly refer to early Dorchester armour (which would give us a better image of D-tech's performance, this being closer to ~500mm RHAe KE in an arc, rather than the previously assumed ~600mm RHAe KE in an arc, this would result in a ~20% performance increase, certainly not impossible). (requirements as dictacted by SR(L) 4026, what I'm assuming to be the performance of Developed CA/early Dorchester).
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
A few nitpics @Scav The quote from Hilmes directly states turrets from batches 1 - 4 received "D-technology", but at the same time it makes a distinction that for other vehicles upgraded to Leopard 2A5 standard, turrets equipped C-technology were mated with B-technology hull; this is a contradiction to the idea "D-technology" only and solely refers to the add-on modules (because otherwise he'd have stated "D-technology turrets were mated with B-technology hulls" etc). What are the sources that state C-technology = third generation armour array? Since this would indicate that serial production Leopard 2s had a different package before B-technology & C-technolgy, and up to date I've yet to see a single mention of it. I also don't see why D-technology being a 4th generation add-on armour array would be contradictory to it also existing as an internal array either. C-technology entered service in 1987, according to the British docs, D-technology was to be ready for use by 1993/1994, that's 6 - 7 years for a ~30% increase in KE protection and ~37.5% increase in CE protection (420mm - > 600mm & 750mm - > 1200mm). Not really revolutionary all things considered, the US Army had produced an armour improving KE resistance by ~34% (400mm - > 600mm RHAe KE turret arc) in give or take 5 years (M1IP - > M1A1 HA). Their SC results were of course worse, but that was to be recitified with HAP-2 armour with British help in the following years: D-technology would've had more time, and most importantly, newer developments integrated into it - therefore there isn't a need to look at the cited performance and question it on the basis of % increase compared to a previous iteration of armour technology since other nations had also made significant protection jumps in the same time period. Incidently, add-on armour for the Leopard 2 (e.g "4th generation" armour) was only at very early stages of development in 1988 (if at all, last I checked, the best Germany had by 1989 was a simple mock-up rather than an actual armour module of the wedges), so i'd be leaning towards the modules in question (the posted page) being of the internal array sort. And for the last part, the book by Ralph Zwilling which unequivocally confirms the Leopard 2A7V had received new internal armour modules for the hull using the "latest D-technology", by extension corrobrating the existence of D-technology as an internal armour array as well: Just a few nitpics here and there to add to the discussion, waiting for SH_MM to chime in honestly
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: Tanks guns and ammunition.
-
Since it's been a while, I do wonder if perchance you may be willing to provide commentary on this article by Dassault, to me it reads like "yep, we're not sharing anything" and frankly I find it hard to believe that both Airbus & the Bundestag would just allow this. https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/news/dassault-aviation-and-airbus-reach-agreement-on-future-combat-aircraft/ To be more precise, this quote "We have been confirmed in our role as prime contractor and architect of the aircraft, and we have obtained protection for our industrial know-how and technologies"
- 390 replies
-
- knds
- demonstrator
- (and 9 more)
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV
-
Laser Shark reacted to a post in a topic: The Leopard 2 Thread
-
@SH_MM Any idea why they stated gun depression and elevation is now -7.4 and + 17.4 as opposed to previous version's -9 and +20?
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Clan_Ghost_Bear reacted to a post in a topic: The Leopard 2 Thread
-
KMW has been officially contracted to produce and supply 2A7s for Norway. Deliveries will start in 2026 and finish in/by 2028. https://www.spartanat.com/2023/02/leopard-a7-no-gekauft/
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Sheffield replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
@SH_MM If you have time to spare, would it be possible to ask you for a comprahensive breakdown of what went wrong with Puma VTJF? I've seen a few articles but none were really concrete in their claims and would just repeat each other. I've also seen some suggest Puma might be entirely axed and replaced with either KMW's or Rheinmetall's indigenous developments (hard to believe) - and, what do you think the future holds for the IFV? -
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Sheffield replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Personally hoping the rumours are untrue... but only time will tell. -
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: The Leopard 2 Thread
-
Good evening gents. Is anyone in here in possession of documents that describe when and by whom the MEXAS family of armours was designed and if more companies than one took part in the design process and is willing to share that document?
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: The Leopard 2 Thread
-
I will jump the gun and assume it's the same package as 2A7Vs (e.g "D-technology"). However are there any sources that mention 2A6MA3 having its internal composite package being replaced during the modernisation process? I remember that there was one saying that the hull would be brought up to Leopard 2A7's (dunno if they specifically named the 2A7V version there or not) level but it did not provide any specific data.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: The Leopard 2 Thread
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea
-
Sheffield reacted to a post in a topic: Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)
-
Yup, aware of that. However i still find simulation like those "fun" all in all as they assume a lot of things but are hailed as Gospels of Truth by many.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
A new simulation of 2A5's turret w/wedges vs M829A2 just cropped up.
- 1,523 replies
-
- leopard 2
- protection
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with: