Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2 T19 turret was fitted with an actual autoloader in 1983. The turret was fitted to a Leopard 1 hull for test.

 

 

Funny because this exact turret was used as a testbed for the 140mm gun.

 

IMG_1973.jpg

 

@SH_MMalso, do you have any additional information (apart from ESuT) on this autoloader on the PT19 turret?

 

 

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.

Interesting, from when is this document? Seems to be a very early array.     It doesn't matter how a layman, an enthusiasts or even a member of a tank crew rates the survivability of

53 minutes ago, MoritzPTK said:

@SH_MMalso, do you have any additional information (apart from ESuT) on this autoloader on the PT19 turret?

 

Not really, but based on external appearance and date, it should be identical to this Rheinmetall design capable of holding 40 (!) rounds of 120 mm ammunition. However it was too complicated and didn't really work.

Rheinmetall-Kompaktlader-aus-dem-Jahr-19

 

For the 140 mm gun, no new autoloader was added to the turret T19. AFAIK they only manually loaded the gun for firing tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 11:55 PM, SH_MM said:

 

The Leopard 2AV has full turret protection over a 50° arc, just like the Abrams according to British documents. The Leopard 2/3 has protection over a 60° arc. The series production Leopard 2 also has full turret protection over a 60° arc according to the Swedish leaks (or KMW was at least providing protection values for the 1979 model Leopard 2 from -30° to +30° from the turret centerline).

 

 

Rolf Hilmes wrote that the base turrets of Leopard 2 tanks upgraded to the 2A5 configuration were modified with "D" technology armor. There was a German armor package capable to resist the 120 mm LKE1 (DM43) APFSDS without wedges offered as upgrade option to Leopard 2A4 users during the 1990s. There is more evidence that base armor in "D" technology was created than otherwise.

 

 

Based on the following image, the "Type D" armor is refering to the follow-up armor package to the "Type C" armor tested in 1987:

 

  Hide contents

 

 


14433_2000.jpg
 

 

 


Type B: 350 mm vs KE along the frontal arc,

Type C: 410-420 mm vs KE along the frontal arc,

Type D: not revealed, still in development at the time

 

 

 

 

 

Can you tell me the name of the book?

Link to post
Share on other sites

None.

There are 20 Leo 2A7 delivered so far.

 

Germany is currently upgrading 104 to Leo 2A7V.

 

Further there will be Leo 2A6A4 which final goal will be close to Leo 2A7V. Difference towards 2A7V are mine protection, no APU. I guess no AoA for the chassis in the front and no AC for the turret (not sure others might know better).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany should really consider reinventing their designation systems... it is getting idiotic. Again. They did the same thing in cold war. Now what is next? Leo-2A6A4A3A8V??? What is the point of stacking these stupid "A" numbers on each other? Americans did it right now with the new Abrams designation system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Germany should really consider reinventing their designation systems... it is getting idiotic. Again. They did the same thing in cold war. Now what is next? Leo-2A6A4A3A8V??? What is the point of stacking these stupid "A" numbers on each other? Americans did it right now with the new Abrams designation system. 

 

Once all 20 A7s got converted, the A7V will be called A7. The tanks with the various and confusing amount if A6 designations will also be shrinked due to the second phase of the german Leo 2 upgrade process.

 

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

Small recap, the German tanker who in a previous video was talking about a MV of 2000+ m/s might have been refering to performance of the L55A1 with the DM63A1 round. According to RhM the higher chamber pressure results in a 20% increase in performance over the L55 with the DM53/53A1/63.

 

 

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

Small recap, the German tanker who in a previous video was talking about a MV of 2000+ m/s might have been refering to performance of the L55A1 with the DM63A1 round. According to RhM the higher chamber pressure results in a 20% increase in performance over the L55 with the DM53/53A1/63.

 

No, the gun just supports a higher chamber pressure. It does not mean that current rounds have increased pressure, velocity or muzzle energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MoritzPTK said:

No, the gun just supports a higher chamber pressure. It does not mean that current rounds have increased pressure, velocity or muzzle energy.

 

I know what it means, but since the tanker quoted 2000 m/s, there's a chance this is actually the performance of what's in service with the new gun. Remember the DM63A1 is a new round different from the DM53A1 & DM63, likely using a higher pressure propellant charge infront of the same penetrator to take advantage of the L55A1's added capability. The future DM73 is going to add a new penetrator to boot.

 

Going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s is a 14.2% increase in velocity, which jives well with a 20% increase in penetration.

 

In short the tanker might very well have been refering to performance of the L55A1 + DM63A1 combination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DM63A1 is in service since 2014 (in Greece, since 2015 in Germany). It is not a very new round. It also can be fired by the L/44 gun of the Leopard 2A5/Leopard 2PL and modified Leopard 2A4 tanks.

 

The DM63+ will take advantage of the higher pressure limit of the L/55A1, the DM63A1 does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pardus said:

I know what it means, but since the tanker quoted 2000 m/s, there's a chance this is actually the performance of what's in service with the new gun. Remember the DM63A1 is a new round different from the DM53A1 & DM63, likely using a higher pressure propellant charge infront of the same penetrator to take advantage of the L55A1's added capability. The future DM73 is going to add a new penetrator to boot.

 

Your argument doesn't make sense, sorry. The DM63A1 has been around even before development for L/55A1 & L/44A1 has been started. And btw the Munitionsmerkblatt does not show an increased pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MoritzPTK said:

Your argument doesn't make sense, sorry. The DM63A1 has been around even before development for L/55A1 & L/44A1 has been started. And btw the Munitionsmerkblatt does not show an increased pressure.

 

Well consider the following:

DM53A1 was a DM53 using a new less temperature sensitive propellant, DM63 later followed also using temp independant propellant, as I understood it merely being a redesignation of the DM53A1. Later DM63A1 appears, around the same time L55A1 is first announced (2014-2016), and is described as the most advanced and capable tungsten APFSDS-T round in the world. 

 

So it's either that or DM63 is completely seperate from DM53, which is not how I've understood it.

 

In short I suspect the German tanker was alluding to performance of the L/55A1, and not simply speaking nonsense.

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

DM53A1 was a DM53 using a new less temperature sensitive propellant, DM63 later followed also using temp independant propellant, as I understood it merely being a redesignation of the DM53A1. Later DM63A1 appears, around the same time L55A1 is first announced (2014-2016), and is described as the most advanced and capable tungsten APFSDS-T round in the world.

 

So it's either that or DM63 is completely seperate from DM53, which is not how I've understood it. 

 

Negative. The DM53A1 was introduced after the DM63. It is a modification of the original DM53 using the new SCDB propellant first introduced with the DM63. All DM53A1 were created by converting existing rounds.

 

The DM63A1 is a new version of the DM63 designed to be compatible with all 120 mm smoothbore guns without modifications, whereas the DM63 only worked with the L/55 and modified L/44 guns as per old Rheinmetall press releases:

"Dank eines neuen Antriebs kann die DM63A1-Wuchtmunition – im Gegensatz zu allen bisher weltweit verfügbaren Munitionstypen – nicht nur in der jüngsten kampfwert-gesteigerten Variante des Kampfpanzers Leopard 2 verwendet werden, sondern erhöht auch die Kampfkraft anderer Plattformen mit 120mm-Glattrohrkanone. Dabei sind keine Umrüstungsmaßnahmen erforderlich. Mit ihrem temperaturunabhängigen Antrieb verfügt die neue Munition über ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal, das weltweit seinesgleichen sucht."

 

So rather than being improved in performance and hence limited to the L/55A1 gun (and the purely hypothetical L/44A1), the DM63A1 was designed for greater compability with the L/44, L/55, M256, CN120-26/52, etc.

 

Even the L/55A1 utilizing its raised pressure limit fully wouldn't reach 2,000 m/s firing the DM63's sub-projectile, as this would require an increase in kinetic energy by 38% rather than the advertised 20%.

The DM63+, DM73 and the supposed DM73 Neo rounds will be limited to the L/44A1 and L/55A1 guns. Neither of these rounds is in service yet, as there are no MBTs compatible with them. The DM63+ however is supposedly ready for introduction since 2019.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

purely hypothetical L/44A1

This gun is not "purely hypothetical", it was already tested.

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The DM63+ however is supposedly ready for introduction since 2019

Any source or documentation for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Negative. The DM53A1 was introduced after the DM63. It is a modification of the original DM53 using the new SCDB propellant first introduced with the DM63. All DM53A1 were created by converting existing rounds.

 

The DM63A1 is a new version of the DM63 designed to be compatible with all 120 mm smoothbore guns without modifications, whereas the DM63 only worked with the L/55 and modified L/44 guns as per old Rheinmetall press releases:

"Dank eines neuen Antriebs kann die DM63A1-Wuchtmunition – im Gegensatz zu allen bisher weltweit verfügbaren Munitionstypen – nicht nur in der jüngsten kampfwert-gesteigerten Variante des Kampfpanzers Leopard 2 verwendet werden, sondern erhöht auch die Kampfkraft anderer Plattformen mit 120mm-Glattrohrkanone. Dabei sind keine Umrüstungsmaßnahmen erforderlich. Mit ihrem temperaturunabhängigen Antrieb verfügt die neue Munition über ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal, das weltweit seinesgleichen sucht."

 

So rather than being improved in performance and hence limited to the L/55A1 gun (and the purely hypothetical L/44A1), the DM63A1 was designed for greater compability with the L/44, L/55, M256, CN120-26/52, etc.

 

Even the L/55A1 utilizing its raised pressure limit fully wouldn't reach 2,000 m/s firing the DM63's sub-projectile, as this would require an increase in kinetic energy by 38% rather than the advertised 20%.

The DM63+, DM73 and the supposed DM73 Neo rounds will be limited to the L/44A1 and L/55A1 guns. Neither of these rounds is in service yet, as there are no MBTs compatible with them. The DM63+ however is supposedly ready for introduction since 2019.

 

 

 

 

As far as I recall they advertized a 20% increase in penetration performance, not kinetic energy, and going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s (+14.2%) seems likely to increase penetration by about that much (+20%). Also where have you heard of DM63+ ?

 

So designation discussion aside, I am fairly convinced the tanker could've refered to the MV achieved by the new L55A1 gun. Getting MV off by more than 200 m/s as a gunner in the type just doesn't sound right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MoritzPTK said:

This gun is not "purely hypothetical", it was already tested.

 

When was this confirmed? Two years ago, Rheinmetall still spoke only about the possibility to adapt the L/55A1's improved technology to the shorter gun. Are you sure that you don't confuse the L/44A1 with the L/55A1?

 

19 hours ago, MoritzPTK said:

Any source or documentation for that?

 

There aren't many mentions of the DM63+ (sometimes written DM63Plus). It was announced during a conference IDEX 2017 with an expected service readiness of 2019 while KE2020 (DM73) was expected to be ready for service by 2022. Several news outlets from that time including Jane's IHS, picked up on the story.

 

Since then it has been rarely mentioned. Jan-Phillipp Weisswange mentioned it on his blog once in 2018. I've not seen any further information, so maybe the idea was given up.

 

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

What gun is that? 

 

This is a Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun without the frontal section of the thermal sleeve and bore evactuator.

 

9 hours ago, Pardus said:

As far as I recall they advertized a 20% increase in penetration performance, not kinetic energy, and going from 1,750 to 2,000 m/s (+14.2%) seems likely to increase penetration by about that much (+20%).

 

Performance of guns is measured in kinetic energy, not by penetration.

 

The muzzle velocity of DM63 is 1,720 m/s at 21°C; only the DM53 using its hotter (and more temperature dependent) propellant charge reaches 1,750 m/s at 21°C ambient temperature. Given the projectile weight being presuambly identical between DM53 and DM63 (no reported changes to projectile, exterior dimensions are identical), this results in a muzzle energy of ~12.4 MJ at 21°C ambient temperature. At 2,000 m/s, the muzzle energy would be 35% higher (I previously wrote 38%, but this was with a projectile weight that was off by a sligth margin).

 

The improved penetration is also only achieved with new ammunition, not with the old DM63. As per news reports from 2017, the prototype of KE2020 (DM73) with conventional WHA penetrator existing at that time had a longer and heavier penetrator, resulting in a reduced muzzle velocity. Only when using a new - then not existing - hybrid sabot (with aluminium and composite materials) and further modifications, the muzzle velocity was expected to exceed the DM63's. However at that time several other concepts were also considered including sheated penetrators (thinner but much longer tungsten rods with steel sheat), gradient penetrators (where the thickness of the penetrator differs to increase penetration against complex targets), and even multi-penetrator designs in one catrige (one penetrator against ERA, one against the base armor) etc.

 

10 hours ago, Pardus said:

So designation discussion aside, I am fairly convinced the tanker could've refered to the MV achieved by the new L55A1 gun. Getting MV off by more than 200 m/s as a gunner in the type just doesn't sound right.

 

No, he just mixed effective range for the old DM12 HEAT-FS round with the muzzle velocity of an unspecified round. The guy was not a gunner, but a Leopard 2A6 driver (so he will not receive a Leopard 2A7V tank) and he also stated that the muzzle velocity would be Zwotausendzwohundert (2,200 m/s). The video was also likely recorded before the order for the Leopard 2A7V tank was placed.

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

A muzzle velocity of 2,200 m/s at identical weight would result in a 62% higher muzzle energy compared to DM63 and a 26% higher muzzle velocity than even DM53. This guy just mixed up two numbers (DM12 HEAT-FS effective range of 2,200 m with the APFSDS' muzzle velocity of 1,720 m/s), because he was nervous in front of the camera. That's human nature and not an accidentally leaked secret performance gain that has been confirmed nowhere else...

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Are you sure that you don't confuse the L/44A1 with the L/55A1?

The gun was along other things demonstrated to a delegation of foreign military personnel in 2019.

27 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Since then it has been rarely mentioned. Jan-Phillipp Weisswange mentioned it on his blog once in 2018. I've not seen any further information, so maybe the idea was given up.

Yes i have seen it on the Strategie & Technik blog as well, but as you said there is little to no information so i wondered whether you had any. Quite plausible that plans have been changed now. Possibly DM63Plus redesignated  to DM73 and previous DM73 design now called KE2020Neo. But that’s just speculation on my behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Performance of guns is measured in kinetic energy, not by penetration.

 

Yet when RhM wrote of the Rh 130 and it's 50% increase in performance, they specified that increase as being in "penetration & effectiveness". 

 

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The muzzle velocity of DM63 is 1,720 m/s at 21°C; only the DM53 using its hotter (and more temperature dependent) propellant charge reaches 1,750 m/s at 21°C ambient temperature. Given the projectile weight being presuambly identical between DM53 and DM63 (no reported changes to projectile, exterior dimensions are identical), this results in a muzzle energy of ~12.4 MJ at 21°C ambient temperature. At 2,000 m/s, the muzzle energy would be 35% higher (I previously wrote 38%, but this was with a projectile weight that was off by a sligth margin).

 

Well there are changes between the DM53 & DM63 projectiles, wether they are just superficial or new materials are used in the construction is unclear to me. But they are visibly different atleast in appearance, with the DM53's tip being all black whilst the in service DM63's I've seen are metallic with a black stripe.

 

Also I wonder why DM53A1 & DM63 wouldn't be usable in the L/44, whilst DM63A1 is? What modification was done from DM53A1/DM63 to DM63A1? (Sabot design?)

 

 

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.

Guest
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...