Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Militarysta

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pardus said:

What makes you say that? We're talking 4 hollow steel boxes (or modules if you like) with angled NERA plating inside as its the best protection vs weight option for that area. 

Thats incorrect, the blocks themselves are much simpler in nature. They are solid steel blocks as I described them previously.

 

What im interested is this part:

image.png

 

The part that is secured by the bolts and has been removed here:

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

Thats incorrect, the blocks themselves are much simpler in nature. They are solid steel blocks as I described them previously.

 

What im interested is this part:

image.png

 

The part that is secured by the bolts and has been removed here:

image.png

 

Solid steel? I really dont see the necessity for that, considering:

1) The amount LOS thickness available for NERA modules (~480mm) + the thick multilayered wedge infront and the solid 240mm trunnion and cradle behind. We're talking between 1000-1500mm LOS thickness total between the lower/upper & central area after all.

2) It would be a complete departure from all the other heavily armoured spots on the tank, and again unnecessary considering the total LOS thickness available and desire to keep weight in check.

 

I'm convinced we're talking hollow NERA modules with angled tungsten polymer plates inside. These internal plates are probably quite thick though, so Im not suggesting it's a "light weight" installation by any means, merely that I dont think its solid steel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

it is not 

 

Why all the blanket statements without proof?

 

Meanwhile we can see that it goes back as deep and sticks out further than the 2A4 mantlet:

leopard_2a6_tower_06_of_27.thumb.jpg.207

 

and as can also be seen the new narrower mantlet is thicker still.

 

2z3p0kz.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

xpAeJDzcAXw.jpg?size=1022x628&quality=96 

 

yeeee over9000mm for sure

 

I didn't say that part was 900mm...

 

I said the combined LOS thickness of the inserts + gun cradle/mount + wedge, would be between 1000-1500mm in places, as logically the further you move toward the middle, the higher LOS thickness.

 

But by all means keep up with the hostile "I know it better" attitude, that benefits us all I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 1:21 PM, TWMSR said:

Right one is 542 kg, left one 389 kg. If you model it you can check density.

 

For the right one I currently got 0.0707m^3 * 7750kg/m^3 ~= 548kg but the model is not fully tweaked yet.

Im assuming thats without the bolts and the part attached on the back?

Thanks for the info.

 

 

 

Do you, or anyone else, have an idea why there is a 2nd hole below the MG that goes all the way through, even through the armor plate of the mantlet?

image.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.png

 

On the Inside it looks like this:

image.png

I assumed it would be just the mount for the MG and or a reservoir for the recuperators/intensifiers of the recoil system, but that doesn't seem to be the case?

Why does it go all the way through, not only the cradle, also through the mantlet armor plate, but not the Mantlet main armor blocks.

 

Or is it just and access for maintenance hatch will be closed before the gun mantlet armor is installed?

Just like the MG Its not present in any form on the new 130mm.

 

 

Edit: Seems to be a manual smoke extractor as far as i could find. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZEplWQDKN5g.jpg?size=553x379&quality=96&

 

This are the requirements written in 1977/1978 of the Dutch army when they needed a new tank which became the Leopard 2.

a: with direct fire kinectic or chemical energy ammunition of enemy tanks or anti-tank weaponsystems to a distance of 2000 mtr (only for the frontal armour)

b: direct fire armour piercing projectiles with a caliber  from 20mm to 30mm to a distance of 100mtr (all around)

c;  the effects of shrapnel from enemy 152mm HE exploding at 30mtr distance

d: enemy detection

e: fire and explosion after a hit

f: AP mines and the effects of AT mines as long as they don't explode under the hull

g: against the use of NBC weapons including the effects of an EMP

(in a other document about the nuclear protection, minimal 20KT at 1km 50% change tank and crew 1 hr employable)

pbk90QaUZXA.jpg?size=1000x527&quality=96

And this is what the Germans told about the protection of the Dutch Leopard 2A4s

 

from tank-net, posted by Lesley

 

B0pOHTlla0M.jpg?size=853x612&quality=96&

sGsmraJFoSY.jpg?size=853x612&quality=96&

 

oyT6kxdXIys.jpg?size=1080x1188&quality=9

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2019 at 1:53 PM, Wiedzmin said:

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside

 

As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.

 

this is description for this draw 

 

oPEcaPNoAV8.jpg

 

but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report

 

CYFl6YRQAnI.jpg

 

YrxTKBHNukY.jpg

 

as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 

 

eUo6qidH8YU.jpg

 

tank cut-away show fuel tank

Hello,

for the drawings or complete file, do you know the signature of the archive? Is it the BWB PA 145/76?

 

Many thanks

Blubblab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reduced order (originally, the project called for 72-84 tanks) is supposedly a compromise between the MoD and the Chief of Defence since the latter wanted to put the project on ice in order to accelerate other projects, like long range rocket artillery (somehow we are still at the point where projects like these are pitted against each other…). Hopefully they’ll rectify this in the future since the order does include an option for the missing 18 tanks, but I won't be holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Glattrohr said:

Any clues yet - will they be upgrading their old hulls or is the whole order newly buidlt?

New built ,Assembled in Germany , as Gemany has no tank production line , most of the Leopard 2 parts , including all hulls are manufactured in Greece these days as it has basically Europes only tank production line and its very low production capacity so tanks are practically hand built with corresponding quality issues  that come form such low rate production , like cracked turret rings that plagued Greek Leopard 2 order. Its also long wait for anything 2 years from metal being cut to first tank rolling off hence 2026-31 delivery timeframe.

At 31mio Eur per tank if you count the whole order with associated costs and spares its no wonder Korean K2 is a serious contender , they still have a hot production line vs butique Leopard production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real price for the acquisition of the Leopard 2A7NO is not being disclosed, both sides agreed to keep it secret. The figures floating around on the internet are the maximum amount of approved budget for the program (so a potential ceiling of the costs), it doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 acquisition will utilize the whole budget.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...