The Leopard 2 Thread

[SH_MM]

10 hours ago, Cheburashka said:

Can somebody please give me a quick rundown on frontal sensors starting from the inner side(from the barrel). I believe that the outmost one is the Trophy radar?

 

ELAWS laser warning receiver made by Elbit Systems, 360° camera system (day/night) and IAI EL/M-2133 radar panels.

[Cheburashka]

On 9/20/2022 at 8:46 AM, SH_MM said:

 

ELAWS laser warning receiver made by Elbit Systems, 360° camera system (day/night) and IAI EL/M-2133 radar panels.

Thank you!

[SH_MM]

Leopard 2A6MA3 via Ralph Zwilling (tank-masters.de)

 

 

Fitted with anti-RPG add-on armor developed by KMW at the glacis plate.

 

 

[speziale]

45 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Leopard 2A6MA3 via Ralph Zwilling (tank-masters.de)

 

 

Fitted with anti-RPG add-on armor developed by KMW at the glacis plate.

 

 

Hi SH,

 

is this new glacis add-on armor same to the A7V glacis?

[SH_MM]

On 9/26/2022 at 3:01 PM, speziale said:

is this new glacis add-on armor same to the A7V glacis?

 

It seems to be the same.

[Gun Ready]

On 9/26/2022 at 2:12 PM, SH_MM said:

Leopard 2A6MA3 via Ralph Zwilling (tank-masters.de)

 

 

Fitted with anti-RPG add-on armor developed by KMW at the glacis plate.

 

 

... and SPECTUS mounted at the upper glacis front. In this version, there should also be a new front armour package installed.

[Gun Ready]

2 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

... and SPECTUS mounted at the upper glacis front. In this version, there should also be a new front armour package installed.

Note, due to SPECTUS KMW relocated the snow track grippers to the turret side add-on armour.

[Sheffield]

2 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

... and SPECTUS mounted at the upper glacis front. In this version, there should also be a new front armour package installed.

I will jump the gun and assume it's the same package as 2A7Vs (e.g "D-technology"). However are there any sources that mention 2A6MA3 having its internal composite package being replaced during the modernisation process? I remember that there was one saying that the hull would be brought up to Leopard 2A7's (dunno if they specifically named the 2A7V version there or not) level but it did not provide any specific data.

[speziale]

I know this theme chewed many times, but I tried to make a little bit deeper insight tot he Leopard 2A4 protection level…

I hope my analyses will be interesting/useful

 

According to the very-well known swedish presentation, the distribution of the protection level are the following:

500mm < 6%

400-500mm ~14% (cumulative: 20%)

350-400mm ~25% (cumulative: 45%)

300-350mm ~17% (cumulative: 62%)

300mm> 38%

 

https://i.imgur.com/0zK5TH9.jpg

 

It is important to note, that there are measuring points on the graph in the swedish document. these are the abovementioned levels. But the measuring points are simply connected with a linear line. It means, to read the protection level scale between the measuring points are missleading. I mean, to say for example the 13% protected area at 450mm is not correct.

 

I used militarysta’ measures for the LOS thicknesses published on the btvt.narod

 

 

 

 

So, the results:

500mm < area is the turret roof section (modelled: 6%, swedish presentation: 6%)

400-500mm: we can assume the best protected area is the turret’ NERA armor blocks (orange blocks on the drawings). These are 14% of the total area, according to my calculation (vs. 14% in the swedish document)

350-400mm: we can assume that the NERA blocks in the hull front (20%+2,5%) and behind the EMES (2,5%) are in this range. these are 25% of the total area (vs. 25% in the swedish document)

300-350mm: upper glacis (where it is 40mm thick) is certainly in this band; it is 4,9% of the total area. Other possible candidate is the gun mantlet (13%). Total modelled: 17,9% (vs. 17% of swedish document).

300mm> the driver’ hatch area, the gun barell and the lower part of the hull.

 

 

The remeaning question is that, how much can be the „exact” protection level.

First, we use logic. The swedish document gives us 2 important additional infomation: The protected area between 400-500mm from angle 20 and 30 deg.

 

The upper side of the drawing shows the area protected (and unprotected) between 400-500mm from attack angle 20, and the lower side showed this from angle 30. If we keep in mind that the heavy skirt covered only 40% of the hull’ height, we can get the result the area protected between 400-500mm is 23% and 31% from attack angle 20 and 30, respectively. These figures are almost identical what we can see in the swedish document.

 

This statement implies that the hull front NERA block gives protection between 400-500mm from attack angle 30 but do not from 20. And also implies that turret NERA block gives protection between 400-500mm from attack angle 30, which is almost diagonal impact.

 

 

We should note, that in the case of longrod apfsds higher the attack angle higher the LOS perforation. In the case of 20, 30 and 60 degree the LOS perforation thickness is higher by 1.5%, 4% and 17% than against flat target. It means we should adjust with these figures the Sin/Cos values to get the „effective” LOS thickness of the armor (against longrod apfsds). For example, in the case of the turret’ NERA block (which angled at 35 degree) we should use the multiplier 1.17 (1.22/1.045) instead of 1.22.

 

So, the hull NERA block protection  can be between 360 and 380mm (360*(1.16/1.04)>400 and 382*(1.06/1.016)<400)

The turret NERA block protection can be between 401 and 427mm (427*1.17<500, 401*1>400)

 

We have some additional informations. We know the germans designed the Leopard2 to whitstand the KE38 apfsds from 1500m.  According to the RH105mm gun test, the KE38 perforated 305mm armor angled at 85 deg (almost flat) at 1390m/s speed limit. Fired from 120mm gun the DM13 speed at 1500m is around 1530 m/s (assume 75m/s/km speed loss) which means around (1530/1390)^2-1~22% higher kinetic energy. It suggests the DM13 perforation capacity at 1500m is around 1,22*305~370mm against flat armor. (it is definitely in the abovementioned range)

 

If we assume that the turret’ NERA and hull’ NERA blocks have similar efficiency then the ratio of the LOS thicknesses can be a good proxy for the turret’ NERA protection. LOS thicknesses (in both cases assume diagonal impact) are 640mm (hull) and 700mm (turret). So, turret’ NERA block protection level can be 700/640*370~405mm. against frontal attack: 405*1,17=475mm. With similar calculation we can get the armor block’ protection behind the EMES is around 380mm (660/640*370mm)

 

Further considerations: the yellow line which shows the protection level of the C-type armor, we can see 45% of the area protected at (least) 450mm level. As we calculated before in the case of B-tech armor the area which protected at least 400mm actually has a protection level 475mm. It is 20% of the area. So, with the C-tech armor additional 25% area becomes at least 450mm protected (45%-20%). It equals of the total surface area of the behind EMES armor, the front part of the hull and the UFP’ part which covered by the NERA block. And the turret front’ protection from 0 degree can be 700/640*450*1,17~575mm. It is higher by 21% than the B-tech armor’ protection (475mm), which totally in line with the british document’ (about the „Chieftain replacement program”) statement.

 

[speziale]

So, the final conclusion for the B-tech Leopard 2A4:

 

 

[speziale]

Sorry for my mistake:

 

"Further considerations: the yellow line which shows the protection level of the C-type armor, "

 

Naturally, not the yellow but the red line shows the armor protection level of the L2A4 in the swedish document

 

https://i.imgur.com/0zK5TH9.jpg

 

[speziale]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:08 PM, SH_MM said:

 

It seems to be the same.

 

Thank you.

 

I read your article on the below-the-turret blog about the Leo2A7V.

 

May I have a question about it?

 

Is there any information whether the add-on armor package on the upper part of the glacis (which can be also seen on the Leo2A6M3) is the same to the Strv 122 solution, or is it a more modern solution?

[watch_your_fire]

On 9/30/2022 at 2:35 PM, speziale said:

So, the final conclusion for the B-tech Leopard 2A4:

 

 

Is this supposed to be LOS thickness or KE equivalency?

[speziale]

9 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Is this supposed to be LOS thickness or KE equivalency?

This is the estimated protection level against KE threat

[Sheffield]

Good evening gents. Is anyone in here in possession of documents that describe when and by whom the MEXAS family of armours was designed and if more companies than one took part in the design process and is willing to share that document? 

[Rico]

MEXAS comes from IBD. I can only partly understand the German but Google translate works https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/949102

 

There are some references. Maybe you find what you are looking but I am sure @SH_MM knows everything about it.

[SH_MM]

"MEXAS" is a brand name, it does not reference a specific type of armor. Many different armor solutions made out of different materials (ceramics, NERA, only metal alloys, etc.) were marketed as "MEXAS". IBD developed its first add-on armor systems in 1983; I am not sure if the name "MEXAS" was used already back then. The development of the add-on armor for the Leopard 1 started in 1988.

 

"MEXAS" is a brand for products purely developed by IBD, though IBD cooperated with various other companies (mainly as provider of technology/licenses). It was made under license in Canada, the US and Sweden. In Canada, DEW Engineering was responsible for production, in Sweden it was Åkers Krutbruk (later acquired by IBD). In case of the US, MEXAS - or rather armor technology from IBD - was at first tested during the 1990s as part of a government-to-government deal between Germany and the United States (with FMC representing the US side and leading parts of the test program). This apparently was a positive campaign, as MEXAS was selected for the Stryker ICV and a license for production was acquired by Simula. Miscommunications between the US side (primarily General Dynamics) and IBD lead to a replacement of the armor supplier, so that DEW Engineering provided the armor for the later Stryker production.

[watch_your_fire]

Unconventional urban camo for some PUMA IFVs. Knowing German procurement I'm sure the taxpayer paid thousands for those pallets. Still, not a bad job.

[David Moyes]

Leopard 2A7HU



 

 

[Renegade334]

 

[SH_MM]

[Yoshi_E]

This armor block is a one piece block with cutouts for a polymer at a 90% steel 10% polymer ratio, making 4 steel and 3 polymer layers.

 

However I find the use of the screws in this construction rather odd.

These bolts pass through the block and connect to something on its back. There is no threading on these bolts that interact with the steel block. They just pass through.

 

Does anyone know how the backside of this armor block looks like / whats attached to these bolts?

 

Presumably these screws ontop attach to the same thing.

You can even see a glimpse of it next to the gunner optics:

 

 

 

[Wiedzmin]

21 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

This armor block is a one piece block with cutouts for a polymer at a 90% steel 10% polymer ratio,

it look like just 4 steel plates welded together, why you think there is polymer inside ?

[Pardus]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:43 PM, Yoshi_E said:

This armor block is a one piece block with cutouts for a polymer at a 90% steel 10% polymer ratio, making 4 steel and 3 polymer layers.

 

However I find the use of the screws in this construction rather odd.

These bolts pass through the block and connect to something on its back. There is no threading on these bolts that interact with the steel block. They just pass through.

 

Does anyone know how the backside of this armor block looks like / whats attached to these bolts?

 

Presumably these screws ontop attach to the same thing.

You can even see a glimpse of it next to the gunner optics:

 

 

 

 

Four NERA blocks lightly welded together and secured to the mantlet piece by the bolts. Makes it easier to replace individual pieces or sections incase of damage. 

[Wiedzmin]

it's not NERA either