Sheffield

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.

57 minutes ago, Scav said:

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.

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.

4 minutes ago, Scav said:

Dunno, then D would refer to... what exactly?

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)_/¯

Quote

Using a ~30 year old armour technology and claiming it's the latest doesn't sound very smart.

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).

Quote

Or maybe... Brits simply had different idea of what "impressive" constitutes and had different result in mind.
I think Chobham in general is quite lacking against KE in all forms we've seen.
The myth of British armour has been debunked quite a few times now...

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 hour ago, Scav said:

If he was going to include the turret inserts, I would have expected him to specify this separately and state so directly, not with a generic "modified with D tech" which most likely refers to the add-on modules as he doesn't specify those either.

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).

Quote

It's the third letter of the alphabet

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".

Quote

and it's stated numerous times that D tech is the fourth generation of armour technology, I don't see what other number could possibly be attributed to it.

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)

Quote

Leo 2 did have different armour packages before B tech, in the form of spaced armour on the Keiler series or a different array on the 2AVs, any one of these could be the "1st generation".

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.
 

Quote

Also, I don't think it necessarily contradicts it existing, as an internal armour package, but the evidence for it is incredibly meager and whenever D tech is referred to by reputable sources it's pretty much always mentioned to be add-on armour.
It's hard to prove something doesn't exist, because if it doesn't you won't find any proof of it....

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).

Quote

It's entirely possible and IMO quite likely that the initial plan was to have D technology as an internal armour package like the Brits claim in those documents relating to C tech testing, but then the idea and concept changed and we see that in 1988/9 they were going to use it as add-on armour instead.

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.

Quote

600/420 is a 43% increase and 1200/750 is a 60% increase, I used 780mm but it's still a lot more than 30 and 37%.
Either way, significantly higher increases than between B and C, where they spent more time to develop it.

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).

A few nitpics @Scav

Quote

Hilmes' mention of turrets being modified with D tech, which likely refers to the add-on modules

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).

Quote

The sources that mention an improved base armour either don't mention what kind or they mention third armour technology (C tech)

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.

Quote

Then from C to D there is ~3 years time to go along with a whopping ~45% protection increase in both KE and HEAT?

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

On 4/28/2022 at 4:40 PM, SH_MM said:

As for FCAS, this is not Airbus randomly trying to get IP "for free". It has been contractucally agreed by Germany and France that the results of the development - which are also funded with German money - would be shared. That is the understanding of the contract by German officials. Germany just wants to get what it is paying for; Airbus' developments are also being handed over the France. Dassault only wants to get a competitve advantage over Airbus for the future. The French senate (supporting Dassault) wants Germany and Spain to sacrifice their respective jet fighter industries for the sake of Dassault.

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"

@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? 

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/

@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?

6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Rumors suggest that it was significantly reduced in terms of quantity (~50 instead of 150-266 new Pumas)... because the Inspecteur of the German Army is a big supporter of the wheeled Boxer heavy weapons carirer/"IFV in everything but name".

Personally hoping the rumours are untrue... but only time will tell.

On 11/13/2022 at 3:18 PM, Voltzz said:

isnt it 50 50?

It is 50/50.

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? 

2 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

... and SPECTUS mounted at the upper glacis front. In this version, there should also be a new front armour package installed.

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.

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

There is nothing in this video that has anything to do with the Leopard 2A5 (or the M829A2).

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.

A new simulation of 2A5's turret w/wedges vs M829A2 just cropped up.

Wow, a confirmation that D-technology is an internal armour package. Years of debates can finally be put to rest.

9 hours ago, TWMSR said:

Sheffield, max speed is for rapid traverse, f.e. when you need to turn turret from 2'oclock to 6 o'clock or TC align turret position with his Peri. Aiming speeds are minis and maxes for responsive aiming, slow for precision 'sensing', fast for target tracking and FCS solution commands (you do not want do wait too long until gun elevates for shooting far-far away targets).

Thank you.

Hey, just wanted to ask if someone could explain the terminology of the stuff on this snipet (in regards to the Leopard 2);

Specifically - the Max speed, Max. aiming speed and Min. aiming speed - does this mean that Leopard 2 can and will elevate the cannon at 40°/s or is it limited to 9°/s?

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Yes, this seems to be the weight baseline for Norwegian MBT project. Seems easier for the K2 to fulfill.

It should be possible for the 2A7 "NO" to achieve that by removing the belly plate which should weight about ~2 tons. If we take the page of 2A7 NO at face value, it should come at about 62.3 tons after removing the belly plate or making it optional, fx, to be fixed onto the tank if the mission requires it.

Right, sorry for tagging but, @SH_MM do you have the source for where DM53 and M829A2 faced off against one another in Denmark?

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

KMW also suggests that the Leopard 2A7 has an even higher level of protection, but the slide showing that uses a very abstract measure for protection; it might be simply a reference to the add-on armor improving protection against EFP-IEDs and RPGs.

 

I know that the Polish sources for when 2PL was being scheduled for production widely propagated information such as the turret protection surpasses that of the 2A5 and that even 2PL cannot reach it, they suggested that the hull protection is also much greater than 2A5s. As you say, in theory 2A7 could have received new armour, but my question is here whether the weight increase is really representive of it, as far as I know IBD has shown off ceramics that weight 1/5th of RHA but offer twice the protection. Hull add-on could in theory nowdays be much lighter than 1 ton (i'm assuming that's the weight of 122s add-on) due to material improvements, same with the internal package. As far as i know, SEPv3 weights only 1.6 tons more than SEPv2 yet it greatly improves on protection of the hull and turret (and also extends the turret by some +/- 15cm).

Also, aren't the hull of Leopard 2A7V's newly produced? I think i've read somewhere that they are.

7 hours ago, Rico said:

There are a few things the Norwegians already use that are different to 2A7 right now regarding weight. I had a chance to see their WiSENT 2 AEV and saw that they use 571 instead of 570 track. This is 420 kg less. They use a Lithium battery pack instead of APU which is 120kg less. 

Side skirts are much lighter as well.

 

So there are many ways to reduce weight.

Interesting, thanks for the info. Is there any difference in their main armour array though? Is the 2A7 NO based on older C/D-technology armours or does it use the same armour as 2A7V and the weight difference comes mostly from non-armour related stuff?

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct.

 

However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.

Interesting. Another thing that i got surprised by is that E-technologie is no the name of the main armour array but instead the name of side add-on armour, I presume the main hull and turret armours then have to be something completely new as well because D-technologie was used in the turrets of 2A5s back in the 90s and i doubt they resorted to adopt it for the hull when it is quite likely outdated or at least not up to par today.

This also puts a wedge in my theory about Leopard 2A7, as, because of 2A7 NO site, i had assumed the standard German 2A7s had to use Panzerug E-technologie main array armour that provided high protection without a really significant (~3 tons) weight increase since 2A6M to 2A7 is 1.5 tons of difference and 2A7 to 2A7 NO is 400kg difference. Since we're on the topic of Leopard 2s anyways, can you give me your opinion on whether 2A7 has had received a newer armour array than previous variants. I know that Militarysta claims it did and so does Janes from 2013 and 2014.

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yes, you can read more about that here:https://below-the-turret-ring.com/armored-vehicles/bundeswehr-introduces-leopard-2a7v-into-service/

How is the weight 66.5 tons when the (supposedely) identical Leopard 2A7 NO weights only 64.3 tons, am I not aware of something?

Pictures of the new Leopard 2A7V's;