The Leopard 2 Thread

[Pardus]

 

[Pardus]

Anyone wanna guess where on the tank this is:

[Wiedzmin]

driver hatch hole, and clearly visible 30mm plate, of course if you know other dimensions to compare lol...

[Pardus]

It is indeed the drivers hatch, but not sure where you seeing the 30mm plate?

 

If you're talking about the UFP, it's 45mm. The hatch itself though is 30mm on the 2A4, and over twice as thick on the 2A5 forward.

 

[Pascal]

On 4/29/2020 at 4:32 AM, SH_MM said:

Thermal imagers at the early 1970s didn't offer sufficient resolution and contrast to be used as night vision devices in armored vehicles; yet they clearly offered a massive advantage in terms of detection capability.

 

In what sense? Were Thermals outside armored vehicles okay in the early '70, if there were any in service?

In 1974 a test with an AN/TAS-3 strapped to a TOW, had a 60% hit capability at ranges from 600 to 1000 meters at night, compared to 16% with day tracker and some illumination.

[SH_MM]

The 1st Panzerdivision is showing off its new gate guardian/mascot.

 

 

Leopard 2AV turret (T21) on pre-series Leopard 2 hull. Apparently with 105 mm rifled gun.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pascal said:

 

In what sense? Were Thermals outside armored vehicles okay in the early '70, if there were any in service?

In 1974 a test with an AN/TAS-3 strapped to a TOW, had a 60% hit capability at ranges from 600 to 1000 meters at night, compared to 16% with day tracker and some illumination.

 

All thermal imagers based on Common Modules (TOGS, WBG-X, systems for M60A3 and M1 Abrams) utilize a 120 line detector, which is usually used to generate a image with a 640 x 480 pixel effective resolution (AFAIK it can be either interlaced or non-interlaced depending on the exact implementation). According to US data, this would allow the M1 Abrams to identify targets (i.e. to know wether the pixel blob on the screen/in the occular is a T-72 or a M1 Abrams tank) up to about 1,500 meters distance. However combat experience in the Gulf War has shown that in bad weather condiitons, target identification range can be limited to just 600 meters - this was blamed for the increased number of firendly fire incidents in Iraq.

 

West-Germany wanted to be able to fight at night at ranges of up to 3,000 meters (though even with their LLLTV systems actual range was probably closer to under 1,500 meters at bad weather conditions). The AN/TAS-3 has a 64 line detector and was ready for production in 1975, about the same time the Leopard 2 was originally meant to enter service. So it is clear that this technology didn't allow meeting the desired range at the time.

 

In the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik it is mentioned that the RZ 501 thermal imager made by the West-German industry had a 100 lines detector in 1974 and a MOU to develop the Common Modules was being signed, so technology was catching up - but the original Leopard 2 prototypes were ordered in 1971, well before thermal imaging systems were ready to become the sole source for night vision equipment of main battle tanks.

 

AFAIK the MIRA thermal imager for Milan has 50 detector elements, no idea about MIRA 2.

[Pascal]

13 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

All thermal imagers based on Common Modules (TOGS, WBG-X, systems for M60A3 and M1 Abrams) utilize a 120 line detector, which is usually used to generate a image with a 640 x 480 pixel effective resolution (AFAIK it can be either interlaced or non-interlaced depending on the exact implementation). According to US data, this would allow the M1 Abrams to identify targets (i.e. to know wether the pixel blob on the screen/in the occular is a T-72 or a M1 Abrams tank) up to about 1,500 meters distance. However combat experience in the Gulf War has shown that in bad weather condiitons, target identification range can be limited to just 600 meters - this was blamed for the increased number of firendly fire incidents in Iraq.

 

West-Germany wanted to be able to fight at night at ranges of up to 3,000 meters (though even with their LLLTV systems actual range was probably closer to under 1,500 meters at bad weather conditions). The AN/TAS-3 has a 64 line detector and was ready for production in 1975, about the same time the Leopard 2 was originally meant to enter service. So it is clear that this technology didn't allow meeting the desired range at the time.

 

In the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik it is mentioned that the RZ 501 thermal imager made by the West-German industry had a 100 lines detector in 1974 and a MOU to develop the Common Modules was being signed, so technology was catching up - but the original Leopard 2 prototypes were ordered in 1971, well before thermal imaging systems were ready to become the sole source for night vision equipment of main battle tanks.

 

AFAIK the MIRA thermal imager for Milan has 50 detector elements, no idea about MIRA 2.

 

What's the identification range of a tank target for the image intensifiers of the early '70 time frame?

I had something regarding the M60A3 and it's early versions with the image intensifiers before switching to it's thermals, hope i can find it in time.

[Wiedzmin]

On 5/8/2020 at 5:18 PM, SH_MM said:

The 1st Panzerdivision is showing off its new gate guardian/mascot.

 

 

Leopard 2AV turret (T21) on pre-series Leopard 2 hull. Apparently with 105 mm rifled gun.

 

 

 

 

[Yoshi_E]

I spend recently a bit of time with the Rh-120mm L44 gun.
Here are my findings (weight estimation):

 

Spoiler

This a combination of estimation (marked with ~) and many sources for the weight of the L44 gun on the Leopard 2A4

 

Sources can be found here: http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg

 

Here are also some great pics of the L44 cut open:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Yoshi_E
removed incorrect data

[SH_MM]

The BAAAINBw's TL 2350-0010 for "Sonderpanzerung, zweite Generation" (technical delivery conditions for the supply of special armor, second generation) expired last year. No idea what to make of this. Unfortunately none of the TLs are available for private persons.

 

17 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

From there I can only draw the conclusion that it's a metal which does not rust, therefore not needing any paint.

 

It does not rust... just like stainless steel.Paint is hardly an evidence.

 

[Pardus]

Brand new video I'm sure you will all enjoy:

 

[Pardus]

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It does not rust... just like stainless steel.Paint is hardly an evidence.

 

True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. 

 

A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight. 

 

 

 

[Pardus]

On 5/14/2020 at 11:24 PM, Yoshi_E said:

A counter argument I could think of is that titanium quickly shatters, meaning it would create a lot of spalling when penetrated, yet no spall liner was applied there.

 

I don't think titanium actually shatters, it's fairly ductile eventhough its very hard.

[Scav]

On 5/14/2020 at 11:24 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I spend recently a bit of time with the Rh-120mm L44 gun.
Here are my findings (weight estimation):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This a combination of estimation (marked with ~) and 5 sources for the weight of the L44 gun on the Leopard 2A4

 

Sources can be found here: https://i.imgur.com/l3O7juF.png (contact me if u want the .svg file)

 

Here are also some great pics of the L44 cut open:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Regarding the theory that Leopard 2A4 8th batch and upwards utilized Titanium and Tungsten:

In all older Leopard 2 the trunnion was always painted with rust resistant paint as seen here:
 

 

Yet in all new versions (>=2A5) the trunnion was no longer painted and just raw metal:

 

From there I can only draw the conclusion that it's a metal which does not rust, therefore not needing any paint.
Taking the rumors into account, the trunnion is most likely made out of a titanium alloy.  The color and texture of the metal would also support this idea.

A counter argument I could think of is that titanium quickly shatters, meaning it would create a lot of spalling when penetrated, yet no spall liner was applied there.

 

On 5/16/2020 at 5:02 AM, Pardus said:

 

True, but using stainless steel wouldn't make much sense due to weight IMO. 

 

A solid titanium block with holes drilled into it is my best guess, as this would provide the best protection for its weight. 

 

 

 

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.
 

[Pardus]

On 5/17/2020 at 7:53 PM, Scav said:

 

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.
 

 

What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yoshi_E]

On 5/17/2020 at 7:53 PM, Scav said:

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.
 

I had that file already in my folder... guess i overlooked it or got deterred by the language. Thats why this thread is a gold mine
The swedish document was difficult to translate, but I manged to find everything other than "Framförare vikt : 36kg" Translation is something like: "Front - Recoil reducing". Im assuming its part of the hydraulics / recuperators, but the "Front" part in it doesnt match that.

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

@Pardus:
240mm thickness
728mm wide (Swedish documents list 910mm including the bearings)
500mm tall
The central hole should be around 310 mm in diameter (from the Swedish document)
The smaller ones are larger on the inside and smaller on the front, but in general it should be 30-80mm in diameter.

 

Based on:

Spoiler

 

[Pardus]

 

[Pardus]

17 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

I had that file already in my folder... guess i overlooked it or got deterred by the language. Thats why this thread is a gold mine
The swedish document was difficult to translate, but I manged to find everything other than "Framförare vikt : 36kg" Translation is something like: "Front - Recoil reducing". Im assuming its part of the hydraulics / recuperators, but the "Front" part in it doesnt match that.

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

@Pardus:
240mm thickness
728mm wide (Swedish documents list 910mm including the bearings)
500mm tall
The central hole should be around 310 mm in diameter (from the Swedish document)
The smaller ones are larger on the inside and smaller on the front, but in general it should be 30-80mm in diameter.

 

Based on:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Ok, using those measurements I get 698 kg for a solid block, no holes, using a density of 8 g/mm3. With the holes 595 kg sounds about right, so RHA does make sense based on that. 

 

420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.

[Yoshi_E]

On 5/21/2020 at 9:51 AM, Pardus said:

420mm NERA + 240mm RHA should make for some pretty impressive protection. Using a 0.5 RHAe modifier for Tech B armour you get 210mm RHAe + 240mm RHA backing, so that's a 450mm RHAe mantlet.

Seems about right

 

[SH_MM]

57 mm cover plate + 22 mm rear plate

 

Meanwhile this design from 1976 weighed more than the gun mantlet of the series production version.

 

[Scav]

On 5/20/2020 at 3:33 PM, Pardus said:

 

What is the weight calculation that suggests steel based on, a solid or hollow trunnion? Also what measurements are used besides the 240mm thickness? (incl. size & depth of all the holes)

We don't know the exact dimensions of the holes, though you can sort of get close with pixel measuring on the inside, but that isn't particularly relevant because the gun cradle isn't just that block, it's also the thicker part of the barrel right in front of the block and right behind it.
In the Rh120 brochure from Rheinmetall I posted a while ago the "gun port" dimensions are given: 730x500mm, thus while the gun cradle itself is 728mm wide we can surmise the height is close to 500m, after you know the rough dimensions some guessing of hole sizes, you can get a decent idea on how much volume it has.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 3:52 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I updated my post, though the total mass is still off by some 540kg. Other than the cradle tube i cant think of other locations where this weight could be. Any ideas?

Total weight is 3655kg with mantlet.
Without it's 3015kg.
Where do you get 3780 from?

Keep in mind that weight can change over production, the 122's gun might not be identical to the original leo 2's.

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Meanwhile this design from 1976 weighed more than the gun mantlet of the series production version.

The section at the bottom seems to have been dropped and I'm not sure which 2AV mantlet this is....

 

This one?

Spoiler

 

Or this one?

Spoiler

 

[Yoshi_E]

17 hours ago, Scav said:

Where do you get 3780 from?

I summarized all weights here:
http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg
In most sources 3800kg or 3780kg is given (especially for more current version)

 

@SH_MM Source to that? It looks alot like the 2AV armor array, how much is that applicable to Leopard 2A4, considering that the armor layout between them were changed quite considerably?

[Scav]

On 5/23/2020 at 1:44 PM, Yoshi_E said:

I summarized all weights here:
http://gamesound.eu/res/leopard2/leopard_120mm_compare.svg
In most sources 3800kg or 3780kg is given (especially for more current version)

I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages.

The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.

[Yoshi_E]

On 5/26/2020 at 10:05 AM, Scav said:

I suggest using the factory brochure since it's from 1982 and that's going to be more accurate than those webpages.

The current version is going to weigh more as a result of a heavier barrel, none of those seem to have this, so they are most likely wrong.

You think the value Rheinmetall has given is wrong? I doubt that. It also matches the recently measured weight on Pz 87.
The barrel weight is commonly given, and known for all L44 and L55 variants.
I think its more likely that the system or the armor on the system was changed, or increased in weight since 1982.
E.g. the Turnunion there was not manufactured that precise in 1980, it should also be slightly smaller due to additional paint layer. Other changes could be the recoil system. The mount system for the MG was also changed.

So 3655kg for Leopard A0-A3 and 3780kg or 3800kg for Leopard 2A4 - Leopard 2A5.

[Pascal]

On 11/3/2019 at 2:57 AM, SH_MM said:

new ATTICA thermal imager for the gunner's sight, new eye-safe laser rangefinder.

 

So the German leopards 2 jumped over the second generation thermal imager's for the gunner's sight right to third generation?