jojoisgood

https://iiil.io/6Y7N

KNDS says leopard 2a7v have E tech,i don't know if that means main armor or something else, but 1080KE protection i think is not what D tech can perform 

Did anyone have the information of Dm63or dm53 penetration testing ?

Really want to know .

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

If I understood correctly, the insinuation here is that DTC-10 (125) penetrator is about 590mm long?

Yes,but it have a short WC penetrater behind the main penetrater, and have steel cap .so probably around 635mm ,plus all of those. also the short wc penetrater is 90mm long, but half of it is inside the 590mm main penetrater plus it has smaller diameter

https://iiil.io/Jret

3 pictures of Chinese DTC10 

It have a WC penetrater inside the fin

On 1/8/2024 at 9:56 PM, FORMATOSE said:

 

This illustration is based on this kind of drawing (made more than 10 years ago, by a Polish forum user, Jaroslaw "Militarysta" Wolski, IIRC) whose estimates are purely speculative.

 

Leopard 2A4 either have B-tech or C-tech composite armour packages. The latter has been tested against 120 mm DM23 APFSDS and HOT-1 ATGM.

 

So is this illustration true or false ?

If dm63 have 730mm length of rod

and have 720mm at 2km it will need 1810m/s muzzle velocity, which will have 2km 1710m/s velocity .

https://iiil.io/w3PJ

M829A3?

saw this on a Chinese website,they said 36 is a WC penetrater 

4 minutes ago, jojoisgood said:

https://iiil.io/h9pB

Chinese DTC 10

https://iiil.io/ZvH9

Dtc10 manual 

I have some question about Dm63 

 i saw some test about dm63 hitting a infinite target and get 605mm of penetration, don't know if the information is right, and also the 675 penetration for 5 steel plate and have air gap between each other, maybe 150mm for each,and also i use the calculator, if the dm63 is 685(from wiki) 26 diameter it will need to have around 1800m/s to get 605mm 90° penetration, 237 for BHA,and if the dm63 is 730 long it will only need 1740m/s(speed for L55)to have 605mm of penetration, so i am very curious about the dm63 also the dm53 real penetration now,and also the penetration rheinmetall gave ,dm33 450-500 dm63 650-680 L44 720-750 L55 if use 510mm 26mm diameter 2km 1530m/s 90°, 200 BHA will get 481 mm performance, it is 450 <and <500.but if use 656mm long 1560m/s 2km 24 diameter dm63 will only get 600mm performance ,if use 730mm length will get 664mm performance which is 650<and <680.

But if you use 11.35×11.35×pi×656×1.72 is 4.6kg

I saw a picture about the weight and it is 4.6kg 

26 diameter 685 length English wiki

22.7 diameter 656 length russian wiki

Br i am very confused now

https://iiil.io/h9pB

Chinese DTC 10

17 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

On the topic of armor, there was this nice slide of the Perun Army in 2021 that was discussing the acquisition of older Leopard 2A4 tanks with apparently upgraded internal armor.



550-600mm arc protection on Leopard 2A4 - possible the drop-ins that were mentioned?
The Mantlet would seemingly receive no improvement and stay at ~315mm RHAe.

How? 420mm composite plus 240mm steel only 315mm of protection ?

5 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

On the topic of armor, there was this nice slide of the Perun Army in 2021 that was discussing the acquisition of older Leopard 2A4 tanks with apparently upgraded internal armor.



550-600mm arc protection on Leopard 2A4 - possible the drop-ins that were mentioned?
The Mantlet would seemingly receive no improvement and stay at ~315mm RHAe.

I have a question about Dm63, i use the calculator to calculate penetration of APFSDS, for dm33 i use 28 diameter 500 long rod and 1530m/s i get 437mm,very close to 450mm. for dm63 i use 26 diameter, 685mm (according to wiki) and 1560m/s but i get only 570mm not close to 650mm. Is the length of dm63 longer than 685mm?

Also i think rheinmetall show a picture of dm63 penetration at a infinite plate at 90° and get 605mm of penetration, but when i use the calculator ,the length need to be 745mm length and 1800m/s .really want to know how. 

And is the only difference between DM53 and DM63 just gunpowder?

10 minutes ago, speziale said:

I would like to draw your attention to 1 more interesting thing, here:

 

 

On the slide had been represented 2 shots from 30 degree AoA (Shot 7 SWE and Shot 1 SWE), and there is a very significant difference between the protection values.

But if we compare the Shot #7 (SWE) to the Shot #1 (GER), we can see that the difference between them (758/720-1=~5.5%) is almost the same to the difference between the LOS thickness of the armor from 20 and 30 degree AoA. 

So, this coupled with the other 3 pairs of shots (mentioned in my preivious posts) from same AoA strongly underpin the view there was no difference in (at least) the base armor of the GER and SWE versions turrets. I think the Shot #1 (SWE) was just an outlier due to a lucky strike 😊.

 

 

 

I also note that in the case of the hull armor there was a significant difference in the protection level of the heavy skirts, but there was no add-on armor on the skirts. And the outlook of the Strv122 heavy skirts are similar to the C-tech skirts.

Futhermore, the protection level of the glacis with B-tech armor could be around 380mm. And in the british document Germans claimed that C-tech armor increased around by 20% the performance against KE-threats. 380*0,2=76mm. It is almost tha same to the difference between the glacis protection of the two versions Shot #1 (GER-670mm and SWE-750mm)

 

So, what if the actual difference between the GER and SWE versions was that the swedish version combined the B-tech turret with C-tech hull? This explanation would also solve the question of "were there multiple add-on armors or not"

It seems, Germany originally promoted the Leopard 2 Improved with B-tech inserts and with add-on armor. This can be logical, since according to the original plans, the Germans wanted to upgrade many more Leopard 2s (than they after actually did, and than they C-tech armored Leopard 2 had), and as several people mentioned before, it is likely that in this case the older tanks would have been upgraded first. In addition, in Mannheim the Leopard user countries decided together about the technical specification, and the Netherlands only had B-tech armored Leopards. And also keep in mind, that the final prototype of the L2A5 was made from a 5th batch Leopard. So, it is possible Germany promoted the same version to the Sweden. However, this configuration did not fully meet the protection requirements of the Swedes, which is why the modification was necessary. And that (use C-tech hull instead of B-tech) actually seemed like the easiest (or the only off-the-shelf) solution.

I think b tech 350 ×1.2=420 still very close to 80mm

Could anyone anybody make a graphs like the leopard 2a4 one,which presents which part have how many percentages ,and we can know what the protection level STRV122 Lower front plate HAVE,and,we can figure out what armor it USE ,BRO Please somebody gotta do it,STRV122 have around 11% protected area at 500mm,which it will definitely penetrate C tech LFP while can not penetrate roof armor of the Leopard, 70mm 7°,because  Dejmian had made a simulation of 40mm7° vs 3bm42 ,and it almost stop it ,I think 70mm 7° will be enough to stop 500mm .

15 hours ago, Scav said:

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 what armor do you think the blue and green use ?yellow is B + D2 add-on and. What about blue and yellow ?

https://lurl.cc/IrCvF

Maybe the b tech c tech Era is like this 

And maybe D tech for the Leopard 2a7v is different than the d tech in 1990?

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

And also I have a question that did swedish test hit the Junction of the wedges armor ? Because the D tech armor is around 600mm 640Los 600÷640×turret Los 860=806

Or the D tech turret doesn't really use D tech?

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

Wait so what the armor you think is fitted in the strv122 and TVM1 leopard 2a7v ?

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Are you now able to post the images related to this?
 

  Hide contents

Not these images?
 

 

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?
 

  Hide contents

https://imgur.com/a/5XRYrH8

 

What is that big red armor they test ?

10 hours ago, speziale said:

 

Are u sure?

 

Here is the picture from the Swedish document:

 

 

Purple: B-tech armor

Red: C-tech armor 

Yellow: B-tech armor+"original/german" add-on armor

blue: B-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor (I think it beacuse this composition was tested on the Swedish trial to compare the "german" and "swedish" versions of the add-on armors)

Green:  C-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor ( I think it beacuse this seems logical based on the tested armor combinations. But there is no indication for that this armor composation was actually tested, so I think this armor composation was the choosen/propsed for the Strv122)

 

So, I think the Strv122 has C-tech base armor.

I don't think Swedish use c tech base armor, if it use c tech what the purpose to compare them?

And i don't think The blue one use swedish add-on armor, MEXAS is introduced in 1994 tvm is build around 1991,

If the test is to know which add-on armor is better they should use same base armor, and I don't think german will prepare two different hull armor for this test ,the swedish one is better simply because it is better add-on armor 

3 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

Indeed the Leopard 2A5/6/7's gun mount structure is the best protected I've ever seen. 

 

I suppose the two hinged modules have the same plates as the mantlet's "KE-Modul" excluding the ~30mm frontwall and air gap , so it's probably ~330mm thick, with ~210mm armor steel rotor and additional wedge heavy NERA, the equivalent steel thickness on the entire path is over 600mm and close to 700mm, even thicker at the trunnion position, though the rotor has a lot of holes to install recoil mechanisms and MG.etc. , IMO it's still quite enough just in terms of protecting crews.

Can you draw a picture to explain it?

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

You are including parts of the turret front armor which is located next to the mantlet and not covered by the "hinged modules". You can see that the frontal armor doesn't overlapp with the mantlet modules here:

 

 

Poorly made sketch:

 

 

The "C1 APFSDS" was likely a special trial round used for the ballistic trials in Sweden, given that the shaped charge warheads also were purpose-made trial charges. Given that the velocity of the 120 12 C1 projectile used in the Swedish tests is nowhere stated, it is impossible to compare its performance directly to modern APFSDS rounds.

 

The "D tech" base armor/drop-in package for the Leopard 2A4 was at least tested against the LKE1 APFSDS (120 mm DM43 prototype) at 2,000 metres range. If this was the requirement for protection isn't yet known to me, but it barely stopped the round (visible bulge at rear plate).

 

 

Again, it doesn't work like this.

• while your video games do not simulate that, the definition of "RHA" or "armor steel" is differing per country. You are mixing values from different sources with some primary school math.
• performance of armor is always dependent on ammunition. The same round will provide different penetration values in "RHAe" when fired against different armor arrays, likewise an armor array will provide different protection values in "RHAe" when hit by different rounds. You are using values for the (hull) armor in B-technology generated using a certain round and distracting these from protection values generated by armor in B-technology with add-on module against a different round... that doesn't work. The base armor might have provided more/less protection against the second test projectile.
• last but not least there are different standards for measuring protection/penetration. I.e. when is an armor array considered penetrated (Do cracks in the armor count as penetration? Does there need to be a hole large enough to shine light through?, etc.) and how is penetration measured (Is it measured against a semi-infinite steel target or is it measured in terms of full perforation? etc.)

E.g. the German Army and the Rheinmetall don't really use RHA values, but usually measure protection/penetration in terms of "it can stop round X at range Y" and " it cannot stop round X at range Y".

 

 

The Leopard 2A7V has improved armor in the hull at least, though there isn't any official statement regarding the turret armor. The Leopard 2A6 HEL, the Leopardo 2E, the Leopard 2A7Q and Leopard 2A7HU all have improved "D tech" armor over the Stridsvagn 122. The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

 

There is not Leopard 2A7V without mine protection. The mine protection is built in and cannot be removed. Thus any weight value for the "Leopard 2A7V without mine protection" is speculation or actualll belongs to the baseline Leopard 2A7.

 

As for the weight difference between the Stridsvagn 122A and the Leopard 2A7V, the Leopard 2A7V has:

• an auxiliary power unit
• two air conditioning systems
• upgraded hull side protection
• different tracks
• upgraded optics and new driver sights
• different final drives
• the IFIS C4I system and upgraded/changed radios including the SOTAS-IP
• more external stowage racks/boxes
• a modified fire supression system
• the longer L55A1 gun
• different hull frontal armor at least (potentially also different turret armor)
• a mine protection kit including torsion bar retention brackes, decoupled ammo racks, a belly armor plate

So there are a lot of factors that can add or remove weight compared to the Stridsvagn 122.

Damn brother thanks for the help,but the armor besides the cannon sketch is wrong ,that armor doesn't line up turret face armor it should be sticks out

Did leopard 2a7v have upgraded turret front armor ?

And did strv122A have hull D tech armor ?

Leopard 2a7v without mine protection is 64.1 heavier than strv122 62.5tons but 2a7v don't have additional roof armor but have l55a1 cannon and upgrades side turret armor D tech hull so where did that 1.9tons come from? Upgraded the front turret armor ?

Still want to know if my thought about leopard 27v hull armor protection is right or not

Maybe D tech hull have KE protection around 575mm, and it is against swedish C1 APFSDS（ The predecessor of dm53？）  I think it have performance similar to newest round like DM73 DM63 M829a3 etc

Because they have similar diameter 

So maybe when against these round it will have nearly 575mm of protection 

Same as the additional armor of leopard, if the B tech have 370mm protection 750-370 =380

Maybe it will have 955mm of protection against those round ?

https://lurl.cc/RR2eo

Maybe like this

https://lurl.cc/NUa37

But if it is air gap you need to explain this https://lurl.cc/bTz1O

And also I think the left side and right side thickness is different 

I think maybe right side is >440? https://lurl.cc/XGKg6

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

No, its not. Why can't you War Thunder people stop making stuff up?

I am saying the green line,it is around 600mm ,red line is 866mm it have 200~armor mount for gun so basically 866-200, around 600mm,war thunder is basically right.

And bro we have some pictures showing that the air gap near that yellow line have some armor attached to the bolt, if it just pure steel plate they don't need to separate them, they can just forge them together,and also the swedish have picture shown that armor is additional armor if it just steel plate they won't paint it as yellow, so basically the armor is 350~ steel plate 250~composite armor or something,but definitely not 250~ air gap and 200~armor mount for gun, 600+200=800