Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Militarysta
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread sure was an exhaustive read. 

 

It raised me few questions / conclusions:

 

Regarding the ex- Bundeswehr surplus 2 A4 around the world  - at least three different hull / turret armor combinations can be around:

 

  • B/B - Any given vehicle from the first five batches
  • B/C - Vehicles up to the fourth batch, which have been turret donors for vehicles from batches six to eight (C [or even D?] tech hulls which were used as basis for 2 A5's ) in the 90's, and have received a later C-tech turret in exchange
  • C/C - late fifth batch vehicles

Does this make sense? I am assuming that the B/B vehicles were not upgraded with C-series armour, when bringing them up to 2 A4 specification - do we have any conclusive evidence that would suggest pre-sixth batch 2 A4's receiving armour upgrades?

 

For attention and eye candy, I drop you a single Finnish LEO 2A4 URDAN from Armoured Engineer Co in ARROW 19 FTX, from my personal album.

 

 

14918441.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 6:55 PM, Glattrohr said:

Regarding the ex- Bundeswehr surplus 2 A4 around the world  - at least three different hull / turret armor combinations can be around:

 

  • B/B - Any given vehicle from the first five batches
  • B/C - Vehicles up to the fourth batch, which have been turret donors for vehicles from batches six to eight (C [or even D?] tech hulls which were used as basis for 2 A5's ) in the 90's, and have received a later C-tech turret in exchange
  • C/C - late fifth batch vehicles

 

Not enirely. Pretty much all tanks of the last combination (with Type C armor in hull and turret) were upgraded to the Leopard 2A5/2A6 standard. There is at least one still in existence (IIRC kept at the BAAINBw as a reference). Most of the Swiss Panzer 87 were also made using this armor standard, though these are obviously not ex-German.

 

Also there remains the question about the internal armor arrays of the 8th batch tanks, which at least also featured Type D skirt armor. Like the previous ones, they were later converted into Leopard 2A5/2A6 tanks.

 

As far as I can tell, no old Leopard 2 tank with Type B armor was retrofitted with Type C during the upgrade to the Leopard 2A4 standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SH_MM said:

 

Not enirely. Pretty much all tanks of the last combination (with Type C armor in hull and turret) were upgraded to the Leopard 2A5/2A6 standard. There is at least one still in existence (IIRC kept at the BAAINBw as a reference). Most of the Swiss Panzer 87 were also made using this armor standard, though these are obviously not ex-German.

 

Also there remains the question about the internal armor arrays of the 8th batch tanks, which at least also featured Type D skirt armor. Like the previous ones, they were later converted into Leopard 2A5/2A6 tanks.

 

As far as I can tell, no old Leopard 2 tank with Type B armor was retrofitted with Type C during the upgrade to the Leopard 2A4 standard.

Yeah,

 

Thinking in retrospect, that makes sense. Based on my own observations the B/B and B/C is to be found on photo references - if one takes to freedom of assuming every turret without loading hatch weld line is indeed a late fifth batch with Type C armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Austria is looking to modernize its Leopard 2 tanks. There isn't much budget, so it is likely a smaller modification only:

___

 

Ever thought Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 Revolution looks like it was made out of plastic? Well, it kind of is...

Milit%C3%A4rtechnik.png

https://www.hintsteiner-group.com/wehrtechnik#step-1

 

Boxes for the armor modules, cover for the SEOSS sight and parts of the RWS are made out of carbon-fibre. The same applies to parts of the KF31 and KF41 Lynx.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Boxes for the armor modules, cover for the SEOSS sight and parts of the RWS are made out of carbon-fibre. The same applies to parts of the KF31 and KF41 Lynx.

 

They were advertising on ESuT pretty heavily for some reason.

 

And as for the Austrian plans for Leopard 2 - The only cheap useful upgrades would be modernizing the optics with something like the Hensoldt products together with a modern armor package. Firepower upgrades would also be nice to see, but looking at the price of a new gun + the corresponding ammunition orders would probably be a dealbreaker for the Austrians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

sT3bVLWu5hc.jpg?size=1200x802&quality=96

Ej3yv0eVJZU.jpg?size=1579x2160&quality=9

 

what was idea(i understand that it need ribs for strength) behind Leopard 2 belly bended inward(and weld shut concave areas with additional plates) and not outward like on T-series and use those bended areas as place for torsion bars ?

 

FHHQXx84Wvo.jpg?size=640x371&quality=96&

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past days, there have been a lot of discussions and news regarding the integration of the Trophy active protection system into the Leopard 2 tank. The short version:

  • The purchase and integration of Trophy has been approved by the German parliament (as the contract has a volume above €25 million, approval was required). The price of the systems (including spares, training equipment, dummy rounds, etc.) is supposedly €40 million, total cost (including integration into the tanks) is more than €100 million. Trophy is purchased for 18 tanks (one testbed and 17 tanks).
  • Rumors say that the system weighs more than 3,5 tonnes, which seems quite plausible given the weight increase of the M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams when fitted with Trophy.
  • Trophy has passed a number of German tests including performance in cold environments, resistance to shock and vibrations, and safety tests. Firing trials are still to be made.
  • Also it has been stated, that Germany has no access to the source code and algorithms used by Trophy, which is deemed as bad. German companies are required to disclose the source code of their systems (not only APS, but in general) and to meet certain ISO norms (with certification). Trophy is purchased as a "black box".
  • Trophy will not be integrated into the Leopard 2A7(V) tank, but instead into the Leopard 2A7A1 tank. These are based on the Leopard 2A6A3 turret with newly-made hulls, as the old Leopard 2A6 hulls are unfit for Trophy (e.g. they lack an APU and thus have very limited electrical energy, but it seems that there might be other modifications required). There seem to be two options here: either the Leopard 2A6A3 was chosen in order to free the Leopard 2A7V tanks for the VJTF 2023 or Trophy requires so many/deep changes, that the Leopard 2A7V hull would not be suited for Trophy (which would mean no future purchases of Trophy for Germany). One side effect is that Germany will have 17 more Leopard 2A7 tanks.
  • No Leopard 2 tank with Trophy will be ready for the VJTF 2023, i.e. the only reason why Trophy was purchased at all. Delays in the program will result in a delivery between 2024 and 2025. Instead of 17 Leopard 2 tanks with Trophy, Germany will send 30 Leopard 2A7V tanks for its participation to the VJTF 2023.
  • There are apparently voices in Germany arguing (following the issues with Trophy) that the government should declare (active) protection systems a "national key technology", which would lead to more money being invested into homegrown systems and national solutions being prefered to foreign offers.

https://soldat-und-technik.de/2021/01/mobilitaet/25410/entscheidung-fuer-trophy-bleiben-abstandsaktive-schutzsysteme-nationale-schluesseltechnologie/

https://soldat-und-technik.de/2021/01/mobilitaet/25620/abstandsaktives-schutzsystem-trophy-fuer-leopard-2-erst-ab-2024/

 

 

It seems that Trophy really isn't suited for fast integration into further platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also strongly suspect Trophy as a system was tailored to the Merk, and integration anywhere else is an afterthought inherently limited by (likely sensible, in the context) design choices made at the time.

But it is reliable and in active service, which is more than can be said for any other hardkill APS (with the exception of Zaslon on Turkish M60Ts, I suppose).

 

Delays in such programs are common, and the long timelines for fielding any APS seem to suggest it is not as easy a technical problem to solve as one might think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Netherlands Army decided just these days to perform a CV9035NL upgrade including IRON FIST APS from Elbit and Rafael SPIKE-LR ATGM. The number of vehicles is much higher with 122 each, so it seem that this is a more mature decision instead of 17 Leopards!

Https//www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/netherlands-awards-contract-to-upgrade-cv9035nl-fleet

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CV90 upgrade is already in the CV90 thread. I would point out that as of now, Iron fist has not been fielded on any vehicle, only selected for service on a few. This inherently means a lower level of system maturity, as it hasn't had the decade Trophy has to shake out any bugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-90S said:

I have a question. What is the difference between Leopard 2A6 and 2A6A3 and 2A6M? And is there Leo 2A6A1 and 2A6A2?

The 2A6M has just extra mine protection in the form of new decoupled seats and a mine protection plate on the belly.
LEOPARD 2 A7+ - KMW

The 2A6A3 is a sort of Ersatz-2A7V its trying to get to the same level as the A7V but with a few discounts. Mainly the extra frontal hull armor, the improved final drive and the APU. But the FCS, controls and optronics will be the same as the A7V.
"In March 2019, KMW received an order from the BAAINBw to upgrade a total of 101 Leopard 2A6 tanks. Besides other changes, the operating concept, sight system, fire control system and the chassis will be brought to Leopard 2A7 level. Furthermore, the vehicles should be equipped with the SPECTUS (SPECtral Technology for Unlimited Sight) driver’s sight device at the front and rear. After the upgrade, the vehicles will be designated Leopard 2A6A3."

Yes the 2A6A1 have different mountings for Radios and BMS because those are for Bataillon Commanders. The 2A6A2 is for the dutch german tank bataillon 414. It has a BMS and Radio which compatible with the dutch one.

"As the Leopard 2A6A1 is mostly used by the commanders of Tank Battalions, it features a different radio equipment consisting of the SEM 80/90 VHF radio system and the SEM 93 VHF radio system."

"The Leopard 2A6MA2 main battle tank is an upgraded version of the 2A6M fielded with the Bundeswehr in 2004. Beginning in April 2018 the Leopard 2A6Ms were equipped with the Dutch Battlefield Management System ELIAS (Essential Land based Information Application & Services) and the related radios. Optionally also the German C3I system Führungs- und Informationssystem des Heeres and the related SEM 80/90 VHF radio system can get installed. Furthermore the vehicles get equipped with the multispectral driver’s sight device SPECTUS. Panzerbatallion 414 from Lohheide received the first vehicles during a handover ceremony on 11 April 2018. After the upgrade the vehicles will be designated as Leopard 2A6MA2s."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2021 at 12:37 PM, N-L-M said:

I also strongly suspect Trophy as a system was tailored to the Merk, and integration anywhere else is an afterthought inherently limited by (likely sensible, in the context) design choices made at the time.

 

That's the same problem as with Iron Vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/31/2021 at 3:39 PM, Laser Shark said:

KMW has established a new website to promote the Leopard 2A7NO for Norway.

 

I have to correct myself here. As it turns out this website was actually created by “Kavaleriklubben”, an association of former and currently serving Norwegian cavalry personnel, and it’s only now that the website is being transferred over to KMW. I guess we can expect the quality of website to improve in the future referring back to @Rico’s complaints.

 

Also, as predicted, there are now projects with the goal of extending the life of both the Leo 1 based ARVs and AEVs (Project 1043), as well as acquiring additional support vehicles on Leo 2 hull (SUP LTP M-15). Interestingly, the latter project also mentions an assault breacher vehicle ("gjennombrytingspanservogn" in the Norwegian version of this document). The Norwegian Army had plans of acquiring such vehicles back in the 90s, initially taking the form of a turretless Leo 1 with a new  superstructure, a mine plough and a MICLIC launcher, but unfortunately it never got past the drawing board. If a MICLIC launcher can be fitted to the Wisent 2 Mine Clearance variant, it would probably satisfy the requirements, I think.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • 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...