Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Militarysta
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Newtonk said:

IMG_20210916_170500_006.jpg

 

Leo 1 and 2 turrets on a Patton tank, thanks to Gur Khan for the image. Makes for an interesting hybrid.

 

If I remember correctly those M48 hulls were used to move the turrets around a gun range, but the turrets were not able to rotate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sheffield said:

How is the weight 66.5 tons when the (supposedely) identical Leopard 2A7 NO weights only 64.3 tons, am I not aware of something?

I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct.

 

However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct.

 

However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.

Interesting. Another thing that i got surprised by is that E-technologie is no the name of the main armour array but instead the name of side add-on armour, I presume the main hull and turret armours then have to be something completely new as well because D-technologie was used in the turrets of 2A5s back in the 90s and i doubt they resorted to adopt it for the hull when it is quite likely outdated or at least not up to par today.

 

This also puts a wedge in my theory about Leopard 2A7, as, because of 2A7 NO site, i had assumed the standard German 2A7s had to use Panzerug E-technologie main array armour that provided high protection without a really significant (~3 tons) weight increase since 2A6M to 2A7 is 1.5 tons of difference and 2A7 to 2A7 NO is 400kg difference. Since we're on the topic of Leopard 2s anyways, can you give me your opinion on whether 2A7 has had received a newer armour array than previous variants. I know that Militarysta claims it did and so does Janes from 2013 and 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few things the Norwegians already use that are different to 2A7 right now regarding weight. I had a chance to see their WiSENT 2 AEV and saw that they use 571 instead of 570 track. This is 420 kg less. They use a Lithium battery pack instead of APU which is 120kg less. 

Side skirts are much lighter as well.

 

So there are many ways to reduce weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rico said:

There are a few things the Norwegians already use that are different to 2A7 right now regarding weight. I had a chance to see their WiSENT 2 AEV and saw that they use 571 instead of 570 track. This is 420 kg less. They use a Lithium battery pack instead of APU which is 120kg less. 

Side skirts are much lighter as well.

 

So there are many ways to reduce weight.

Interesting, thanks for the info. Is there any difference in their main armour array though? Is the 2A7 NO based on older C/D-technology armours or does it use the same armour as 2A7V and the weight difference comes mostly from non-armour related stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Leopard 2A7NO right now. This vinter a Leo 2A7 will compete against K2M in a qualification test which will lead to a purchase decision.

 

Based on their AEV it was fitted for Tarian RPG protection and E-tech armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the situation is a bit more complex. According to KMW, Leopard 2 tanks made in/after 2001 (i.e. the Leopard 2A6 tanks made for Greece and Spain) have a higher protection level than Leopard 2 tanks made in 1996 (i.e. the Stridsvagn 122). This means that either there are different versions of "Panzerung in D-Technologie" or that my informations about the "Panzerung in E-Technologie" are incorrect. KMW also suggests that the Leopard 2A7 has an even higher level of protection, but the slide showing that uses a very abstract measure for protection; it might be simply a reference to the add-on armor improving protection against EFP-IEDs and RPGs.

 

 

The weight difference between the Leopard 2A6M and the Leopard 2A7 is likely not related to changes in the main armor array; if there was any weight added by the improved armor arrays, then it was only a few hundred kilograms at most. The Leopard 2A7 adds quite a few things to the tank, which all affect the weight. First of all, the hull rear deck is raised on the side, where an APU from Vincorion (formerly part of Jenoptik) is added. The APU alone weighs 270 kilograms. Then there is the addition of a 6 kW air conditioning system from MKK. Displays for IFIS, the controls/programming unit and interface for the DM11 HE-ABM round, UltraCaps for turret and hull and the upgraded firefighting system also will add a few dozen kilograms each.

 

The hull of the Leopard 2A7 has been prepared for the installation of the add-on armor (i.e. the "Panzerung in E-Technologie"), which includes the installation of the "RPG catchers" and interfaces along the sides of hull and turret. The lowermost section of the hull also was fitted with interface for additional IED/mine protection.

 

The RPG catcher are (steel) armor plates on the hull side section along the crew compartment, which are required to stop the tip of the shaped charge jets. You can see them here.

020g.jpg

 

The Leopard 2A7 could in theory have received the same internal arrays as the Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL or a newer version.

 

The Leopard 2A7 NO does not exist yet, only proposals made by the Norwegian officer's club (and probably some proposals made by KMW). The Leopard2A7.no website contains questionable informations; i.e. the hull add-on armor of the Leopard 2 weighs more than one metric ton by itself. The weight figure is likely not valid for the shown variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a bit grey since Øyvind Isachsen is not only the head of Kavalariklubben (The Cavalry Club), but also a senior advisor at First House who has been contracted by KMW to promote the Leo 2A7 in Norway. Thus the questions that needs to be answered are if the Kavaleriklubben members who created the website did so with KMW's approval, and from where they got the specs that are listed on it. There’s also the question of why KMW haven’t corrected this info now that they are supposedly in control of the website.

 

Edit: According to the second in charge Jørgen Fodstad, the info came from KMW:

"But it is KMW itself that has been responsible for the content on the Leopard page, he states"

https://www.tu.no/artikler/lavmal-uten-like-kavaleriklubben-eide-skryteside-for-leopard-og-kritisk-side-for-black-panther/509639

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

KMW also suggests that the Leopard 2A7 has an even higher level of protection, but the slide showing that uses a very abstract measure for protection; it might be simply a reference to the add-on armor improving protection against EFP-IEDs and RPGs.

 

I know that the Polish sources for when 2PL was being scheduled for production widely propagated information such as the turret protection surpasses that of the 2A5 and that even 2PL cannot reach it, they suggested that the hull protection is also much greater than 2A5s. As you say, in theory 2A7 could have received new armour, but my question is here whether the weight increase is really representive of it, as far as I know IBD has shown off ceramics that weight 1/5th of RHA but offer twice the protection. Hull add-on could in theory nowdays be much lighter than 1 ton (i'm assuming that's the weight of 122s add-on) due to material improvements, same with the internal package. As far as i know, SEPv3 weights only 1.6 tons more than SEPv2 yet it greatly improves on protection of the hull and turret (and also extends the turret by some +/- 15cm).

 

Also, aren't the hull of Leopard 2A7V's newly produced? I think i've read somewhere that they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sheffield said:

As you say, in theory 2A7 could have received new armour, but my question is here whether the weight increase is really representive of it, as far as I know IBD has shown off ceramics that weight 1/5th of RHA but offer twice the protection. Hull add-on could in theory nowdays be much lighter than 1 ton (i'm assuming that's the weight of 122s add-on) due to material improvements, same with the internal package.

 

The weight differential between Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A7V suggests that the add-on armor for the hull (and the new internal armor) is not lighter. The new armor package from the former IBD is not used.

 

7 hours ago, Sheffield said:

As far as i know, SEPv3 weights only 1.6 tons more than SEPv2 yet it greatly improves on protection of the hull and turret (and also extends the turret by some +/- 15cm).

 

The M1A2 SEP v2 has a combat weight of 62.8 metric tons without add-on kits (i.e. TUSK or Trophy). The M1A2 SEP v3 has a combat weight of 66.6 metric tons without add-on kits (part of this might be result of the improved mine protection, if this is not part of the new TUSK version).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 11:01 AM, SH_MM said:

The RPG catcher are (steel) armor plates on the hull side section along the crew compartment, which are required to stop the tip of the shaped charge jets. You can see them here.

020g.jpg

 

 

 

The RPG catchers are cage armour that can be attached to the sides not the extra armour plate on the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 12:47 PM, holoween said:

The RPG catchers are cage armour that can be attached to the sides not the extra armour plate on the side.

No, that is incorrect. According to KMW, the RPG catchers are the additional side plates mounted on the lower hull. The slat armor is not part of the 2A7 configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisent 2 AEV NOR

 

jDjakO3.jpg

 

DvuMRCF.jpg

 

Article and video can be found here. It also mentions some of the weight saving measures that @Rico talked about earlier. It seems they went to some lengths to keep the weight of the Wisent 2s at around 62 tonnes, which is interesting in light the ongoing tank replacement project. In other words, I would not be too surprised if the A7NO turns out to be somewhat lighter than its German and Danish counterparts.

 

Other than that, it also mentions that both the AEVs and ARVs have been outfitted with a new camera system from Kappa optronics. It says it offers improved performance for this platform, so I guess they're only for the Wisent 2s, and other vehicles will keep their Saab cameras.

 

It's also nice to see that Saab Barracuda MCS is becoming more common on Norwegian AFVs since I prefer the aesthetics of Norwegian splitter camo over plain ol' NATO green.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 1:10 PM, Laser Shark said:

62 tonnes

 

Yes, this seems to be the weight baseline for Norwegian MBT project. Seems easier for the K2 to fulfill.

 

The Kappa system has really great pictures. I was told that they are used in aerospace as well. Quality is better than some weapon stations I've seen but I think the price is high as well. So other vehicles will most likely stick to SAAB or Spectus.

 

Most interesting statement I got was that their ARV won in recovery and engineering competitions in eFP beating all other Leo 1 and Leo 2 based vehicles in service in Germany and Netherlands. Looking forward to fight that beast with my ARV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Yes, this seems to be the weight baseline for Norwegian MBT project. Seems easier for the K2 to fulfill.

It should be possible for the 2A7 "NO" to achieve that by removing the belly plate which should weight about ~2 tons. If we take the page of 2A7 NO at face value, it should come at about 62.3 tons after removing the belly plate or making it optional, fx, to be fixed onto the tank if the mission requires it.

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...