Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Militarysta
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey, just wanted to ask if someone could explain the terminology of the stuff on this snipet (in regards to the Leopard 2);

 

unknown_3.png

 

Specifically - the Max speed, Max. aiming speed and Min. aiming speed - does this mean that Leopard 2 can and will elevate the cannon at 40°/s or is it limited to 9°/s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheffield, max speed is for rapid traverse, f.e. when you need to turn turret from 2'oclock to 6 o'clock or TC align turret position with his Peri. Aiming speeds are minis and maxes for responsive aiming, slow for precision 'sensing', fast for target tracking and FCS solution commands (you do not want do wait too long until gun elevates for shooting far-far away targets).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TWMSR said:

Sheffield, max speed is for rapid traverse, f.e. when you need to turn turret from 2'oclock to 6 o'clock or TC align turret position with his Peri. Aiming speeds are minis and maxes for responsive aiming, slow for precision 'sensing', fast for target tracking and FCS solution commands (you do not want do wait too long until gun elevates for shooting far-far away targets).

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first of six LEGUAN Leopard 2 AVLB have been delivered to Norway. Note that they will reuse the LEGUAN bridges of the current Leo 1 based NM190.

 

bKbHXBx.jpg

 

n5UF7GI.jpg

 

qWe7SP4.jpg

 

Source: https://forsvaretsforum.no/forsvarsmateriell-haeren/forsvarsmateriell-har-mottatt-den-symbolske-nokkelen-til-den-forste-bropanservognen-til-norge/223531

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

German and Dutch Leguan 2 bridge-layers are usually equipped with add-on armor. Interesting to see Norway not fielding it.

 

Likely a weight saving measure. A while back it was reported that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration have been unwilling to permit the use of tanks/AFVs that are heavier than 62.5 tonnes on our roads, so vehicles like the Wisent 2 and new AVLBs cannot be used in their heaviest configurations. I also suspect that we’ll see similar weight saving measures on the proposed A7NO when it's eventually revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

Likely a weight saving measure. A while back it was reported that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration have been unwilling to permit the use of tanks/AFVs that are heavier than 62.5 tonnes on our roads, so vehicles like the Wisent 2 and new AVLBs cannot be used in their heaviest configurations. I also suspect that we’ll see similar weight saving measures on the proposed A7NO when it's eventually revealed.

 

I thought the AVLB might have a higher similarity with your Wisent 2s. Based on your picture they have an APU and 570 track instead of lithium pack and 571 track.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rico said:

 

I thought the AVLB might have a higher similarity with your Wisent 2s. Based on your picture they have an APU and 570 track instead of lithium pack and 571 track.  

 

The AVLBs won’t be transferred to the Army before 2023-24, so it’s possible that this won’t be it’s final configuration. That said, I do find it weird that it doesn’t have APB instead of APU already. Even if it wasn’t necessary to reduce the weight of this vehicle (???), you’d think it would still be a good idea to standardise on one solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

Likely a weight saving measure. A while back it was reported that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration have been unwilling to permit the use of tanks/AFVs that are heavier than 62.5 tonnes on our roads, so vehicles like the Wisent 2 and new AVLBs cannot be used in their heaviest configurations. I also suspect that we’ll see similar weight saving measures on the proposed A7NO when it's eventually 

 

 

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

 

The AVLBs won’t be transferred to the Army before 2023-24, so it’s possible that this won’t be it’s final configuration. That said, I do find it weird that it doesn’t have APB instead of APU already. Even if it wasn’t necessary to reduce the weight of this vehicle (???), you’d think it would still be a good idea to standardise on one solution.

 

Having only one system makes absolutely sense since it shares HIM, eases maintenance

and the lithium pack reduces weight, noise and thermal emissions. Only reason for an APU would be if the AVLB needs long term 17kW power for silent watch which is not the case. 

 

We are currently having that discussion as well. Some are aiming towards APU because that is already in use but I think that the diesel engine will not be availble in the future anymore. Lithium is clearly the path to go for - on my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Additional engineer equipment had been adapted from Leopard 1 to Leopard 2 within the Tactical Mobility Implements (TMI) program: mine plough (IMI) and mine roller (Urdan). The common mechanical and electrical interface had been developed by KMW.

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...