Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Yeah, the velcro ismost likely for the SAAB Barracuda nets. But the mounts for the add-on armor doesn't really match with the Leopard 2A4M CAN though, as seen here:




I really don't know anything about the turret in my original post. It could be something bought after the Leopard 2 contract, but the rest of the vehicles are from the Netherlands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Leopard 1A3's fire control system and optics were derived from the contemporary Leopard 2 development; in particular the EMES 12 steoroscopic rangefinder, the PERI R12 commander's sight and the FL

1976  Leopard 2AV armour(all from declassified reports), bustle spaced armour(12+30) also used on serial Leopard-2 tanks.

Do you happen to know where said turret is located?


The number painted on white to the turret is common for Swiss Leopard 2 tanks:





That should imply the turret was actually used for one of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes, which featured add-on armor (that was not purchased for production vehicles).





One of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes was used to test SAAB's Barracuda (again not purchased):



However I am not sure how the lack of camouflage painting and mounting points for some of the equipment (RWS, Galix smoke grenade launching system) can be explained...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Voodoo said:

It is located in Norway. 


Okay, that makes it harder to find out any details. It could be that for some reason one of Panzer 87 WE prototypes' turrets ended up in Norway (maybe for cold weather trials or they later sold the prototype without add-on armor for conversion into support vehicles like ARVs, bridge-layers or engineering vehicles).


Alternatively it could be a Norwegian prototype; Norway tested the SAAB Barracuda camouflage on at least two tanks.




Maybe Norway wanted to test mounting slat armor to the Leopard 2A4 turret and hence added the mounting points. The Leopard 2A6M CAN uses a different arrangement of mounting points (i.e. only two rows of rectangular mounting points each with two holes for bolts), but the difference might be a result of different supplier for the slat armor and/or the different shape of the tanks.



Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:49 PM, SH_MM said:

Leopard 2 KWS prototype (AFAIK one of the two TVM tanks, but could also be the IVT) being refurbished and repainted before going into a museum. It will probably go to the Panzermuseum Munster (or maybe is already there?), which has requested a replacement for the old Leopard 2A4 (because children and young adults would be used to the wedge-shaped turret armor of the Leopard 2).




A few more photos. I didn't know that the armored vehicle restoration group of the German tank museum has its own facebook page.












The tank is in driving condition.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Poland to upgrade 14 more Leopard 2A4s to Leopard 2PL standard

Krzysztof Kuska, Gdansk - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
31 July 2018

Poland will upgrade 14 more Leopard 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2PL standard, PGZ confirmed to Jane's on 30 July. Poland's Armament Inspectorate (AI) signed the PLN300 million (USD82 million) deal with PGZ Zakłady Mechaniczne Bumar-Łabędy on 20 June. Reports of the deal appeared in the Polish media on 26-28 July.

The upgraded tanks are scheduled to be delivered in 2021. The original deal to upgrade 128 Leopard 2A4s was signed on 28 December 2015 and included an option for 14 more tanks, which was exercised by the AI, raising the total price to around PLN2.7 billion.

In addition to increasing the number of tanks to be modernised, the upgrade package will be changed to give the tanks new capabilities.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Austrian General Robert Brieger announced that the current configuration of the Leopard 2 (the Leopard 2A4Ö) can ot be supported (supplied with spare parts) anymore in the (near) future. Therefore Austria has to upgrade or scrap the Leopard 2A4 fleet, the latter seems to be unlikely. Last year Austria reactived 16 Leopard 2A4Ö tanks (bringing the active fleet from 40 to 56), which originally were meant to be cannibalized for spare parts.




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I don't know if it suits better to this or MGCS' thread.


I've found that MTU started (or would start) to develop new, 1325 kW version of MT 883 engine. But if this engine reaches a prototype or production status, it has to be paired with HSWL 354 or another, brand new transmission in powerpack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, SH_MM said:



Leopard 2RI production line.

It's the Unterlüss production line, isn't it? And the foreground chassis with glacis add-on, hatch and mounting plates for side armor looks like for Leopard 2PL, or?

Edited by Gun Ready
Typing error, recognition to Indonesian MBT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

It's the Unterlüss production line, isn't it? And the foreground chassis with glacis add-on, hatch and mounting plates for side armor looks like for Leopard 2PL, or?

Dude says it's 2RI, not PL.

It's also noticeable that it cannot be the PL because the PL only features turret applique, while the hull armor remains unchanged. These are very clearly equipped with hull applique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

So, based on the Swedish documents, I made a quick "rough" visual of what the red graph is supposed to represent (if it was a theoretical C tech leopard).




Image result for leopard 2 swedish documents

The red graph in the middle is rumoured to be C tech.

From that graph I made this:




Couple of notes: I made the roof 350 though I don't have "sources" for this, I assumed ~45mm roof thickness (not exact ofcourse).
I doubt the LFP was changed, same with the hull roof and the area under the mantlet.

The rest is fairly self explanatory, I neglected the 550+ values because frankly, I don't fully know where to put them and as we can see from the leo 2 improved turret model, the swedes considered the area directly around the mantlet weak, so I'm not sure if thats an artifact of their modelling or....

One of my friends has also pointed out the relatively minor weight difference between the variants, 55.15t for B and 56t for C, so I consider it very much possible that graph doesn't even represent C tech.

I'm open for suggestions and input.

I'm not sure how you made your model, maybe you could help me out with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites



The front hull roof should be between 40-45 mm thick (hatch is 30mm), which is 287-323mm LOS alone. So 250mm is too low there.


Also keep in mind that the hull nose module covers part of the highly sloped hull roof area. I've attached a more detailed illustration of the hull armour below:




Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Pardus said:

The front hull roof should be between 40-45 mm thick (hatch is 30mm), which is 287-323mm LOS alone. So 250mm is too low there.

Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page.

Though, I'll see if I can adjust it.

45 minutes ago, Pardus said:

Also keep in mind that the hull nose module covers part of the highly sloped hull roof area. I've attached a more detailed illustration of the hull armour below:

Yeah... I know, the problem is that the LOS goes down the further up you go, guess I can estimate just how far up it goes.

Still, that means it'll have less protection than the flatter part, so I'll have to calculate that as it's own section and I'm not sure wether it would be more effective (due to the initial slope) or less effective.


Coupled with the question of inert spots (turret sides as pointed out by someone else), this would raise the protection value even more, making it even less likely that  it represents C tech.
I mean.... 850kg is not enough added weight for such a massive increase in armour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scav said:

Problem is that I've never seen measurements of that, I've only seen it mentioned, like on @Militarystas page.

Though, I'll see if I can adjust it.


There is this picture which shows that the hull roof is noticably thicker than the hatch (how much ofcourse is anybody's guess, but I think 40-45mm sounds reasonable based on the photographic evidence):


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

  • Create New...