The Leopard 2 Thread

[SH_MM]

The lifting eyelets are located behind the gun mount, so the overall thickness of the main turret armor at this location - including the "hinged element" - is less than 800 mm. There simply is no space for a 250 mm "composite armor module" or something similar.

 

 

[Wiedzmin]

+trunnion clamps, and no any space for any "addons" in there

[jojoisgood]

https://lurl.cc/RR2eo

Maybe like this

https://lurl.cc/NUa37

But if it is air gap you need to explain this https://lurl.cc/bTz1O

And also I think the left side and right side thickness is different 

I think maybe right side is >440? https://lurl.cc/XGKg6

 

[jojoisgood]

Still want to know if my thought about leopard 27v hull armor protection is right or not

Maybe D tech hull have KE protection around 575mm, and it is against swedish C1 APFSDS（ The predecessor of dm53？）  I think it have performance similar to newest round like DM73 DM63 M829a3 etc

Because they have similar diameter 

So maybe when against these round it will have nearly 575mm of protection 

Same as the additional armor of leopard, if the B tech have 370mm protection 750-370 =380

Maybe it will have 955mm of protection against those round ?

[jojoisgood]

Did leopard 2a7v have upgraded turret front armor ?

And did strv122A have hull D tech armor ?

Leopard 2a7v without mine protection is 64.1 heavier than strv122 62.5tons but 2a7v don't have additional roof armor but have l55a1 cannon and upgrades side turret armor D tech hull so where did that 1.9tons come from? Upgraded the front turret armor ?

[SH_MM]

19 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

And also I think the left side and right side thickness is different 

I think maybe right side is >440? https://lurl.cc/XGKg6

 

You are including parts of the turret front armor which is located next to the mantlet and not covered by the "hinged modules". You can see that the frontal armor doesn't overlapp with the mantlet modules here:

 

 

Poorly made sketch:

 

4 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Maybe D tech hull have KE protection around 575mm, and it is against swedish C1 APFSDS（ The predecessor of dm53？）  I think it have performance similar to newest round like DM73 DM63 M829a3 etc

 

The "C1 APFSDS" was likely a special trial round used for the ballistic trials in Sweden, given that the shaped charge warheads also were purpose-made trial charges. Given that the velocity of the 120 12 C1 projectile used in the Swedish tests is nowhere stated, it is impossible to compare its performance directly to modern APFSDS rounds.

 

The "D tech" base armor/drop-in package for the Leopard 2A4 was at least tested against the LKE1 APFSDS (120 mm DM43 prototype) at 2,000 metres range. If this was the requirement for protection isn't yet known to me, but it barely stopped the round (visible bulge at rear plate).

 

4 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Same as the additional armor of leopard, if the B tech have 370mm protection 750-370 =380

Maybe it will have 955mm of protection against those round ?

 

Again, it doesn't work like this.

• while your video games do not simulate that, the definition of "RHA" or "armor steel" is differing per country. You are mixing values from different sources with some primary school math.
• performance of armor is always dependent on ammunition. The same round will provide different penetration values in "RHAe" when fired against different armor arrays, likewise an armor array will provide different protection values in "RHAe" when hit by different rounds. You are using values for the (hull) armor in B-technology generated using a certain round and distracting these from protection values generated by armor in B-technology with add-on module against a different round... that doesn't work. The base armor might have provided more/less protection against the second test projectile.
• last but not least there are different standards for measuring protection/penetration. I.e. when is an armor array considered penetrated (Do cracks in the armor count as penetration? Does there need to be a hole large enough to shine light through?, etc.) and how is penetration measured (Is it measured against a semi-infinite steel target or is it measured in terms of full perforation? etc.)

E.g. the German Army and the Rheinmetall don't really use RHA values, but usually measure protection/penetration in terms of "it can stop round X at range Y" and " it cannot stop round X at range Y".

 

3 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Did leopard 2a7v have upgraded turret front armor ?

And did strv122A have hull D tech armor ?

Leopard 2a7v without mine protection is 64.1 heavier than strv122 62.5tons but 2a7v don't have additional roof armor but have l55a1 cannon and upgrades side turret armor D tech hull so where did that 1.9tons come from? Upgraded the front turret armor ?

 

The Leopard 2A7V has improved armor in the hull at least, though there isn't any official statement regarding the turret armor. The Leopard 2A6 HEL, the Leopardo 2E, the Leopard 2A7Q and Leopard 2A7HU all have improved "D tech" armor over the Stridsvagn 122. The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

 

There is not Leopard 2A7V without mine protection. The mine protection is built in and cannot be removed. Thus any weight value for the "Leopard 2A7V without mine protection" is speculation or actualll belongs to the baseline Leopard 2A7.

 

As for the weight difference between the Stridsvagn 122A and the Leopard 2A7V, the Leopard 2A7V has:

• an auxiliary power unit
• two air conditioning systems
• upgraded hull side protection
• different tracks
• upgraded optics and new driver sights
• different final drives
• the IFIS C4I system and upgraded/changed radios including the SOTAS-IP
• more external stowage racks/boxes
• a modified fire supression system
• the longer L55A1 gun
• different hull frontal armor at least (potentially also different turret armor)
• a mine protection kit including torsion bar retention brackes, decoupled ammo racks, a belly armor plate

So there are a lot of factors that can add or remove weight compared to the Stridsvagn 122.

[Scav]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The "D tech" base armor/drop-in package for the Leopard 2A4 was at least tested against the LKE1 APFSDS (120 mm DM43 prototype) at 2,000 metres range. If this was the requirement for protection isn't yet known to me, but it barely stopped the round (visible bulge at rear plate).

Are you now able to post the images related to this?
 

Spoiler

Not these images?
 

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2A6 HEL, the Leopardo 2E, the Leopard 2A7Q and Leopard 2A7HU all have improved "D tech" armor over the Stridsvagn 122. The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?
 

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/5XRYrH8

 

[speziale]

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

 

Are u sure?

 

Here is the picture from the Swedish document:

 

 

Purple: B-tech armor

Red: C-tech armor 

Yellow: B-tech armor+"original/german" add-on armor

blue: B-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor (I think it beacuse this composition was tested on the Swedish trial to compare the "german" and "swedish" versions of the add-on armors)

Green:  C-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor ( I think it beacuse this seems logical based on the tested armor combinations. But there is no indication for that this armor composation was actually tested, so I think this armor composation was the choosen/propsed for the Strv122)

 

So, I think the Strv122 has C-tech base armor.

[Molota_477]

Quote

On 2023/12/27 at PM8点24分, SH_MM said:

The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.

 

 

How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.

 

Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.

 

Indeed the Leopard 2A5/6/7's gun mount structure is the best protected I've ever seen. 

 

I suppose the two hinged modules have the same plates as the mantlet's "KE-Modul" excluding the ~30mm frontwall and air gap , so it's probably ~330mm thick(if considering the frontwall to maintain same total steel thickness it might be ~360mm), with ~210mm armor steel rotor and additional wedge heavy NERA, the equivalent steel thickness on the entire path is over 600mm and close to 700mm, even thicker at the trunnion position, though the rotor has a lot of holes to install recoil mechanisms and MG.etc. , IMO it's still quite enough just in terms of protecting crews.

Sketch not stand for real things.

[jojoisgood]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

You are including parts of the turret front armor which is located next to the mantlet and not covered by the "hinged modules". You can see that the frontal armor doesn't overlapp with the mantlet modules here:

 

 

Poorly made sketch:

 

 

The "C1 APFSDS" was likely a special trial round used for the ballistic trials in Sweden, given that the shaped charge warheads also were purpose-made trial charges. Given that the velocity of the 120 12 C1 projectile used in the Swedish tests is nowhere stated, it is impossible to compare its performance directly to modern APFSDS rounds.

 

The "D tech" base armor/drop-in package for the Leopard 2A4 was at least tested against the LKE1 APFSDS (120 mm DM43 prototype) at 2,000 metres range. If this was the requirement for protection isn't yet known to me, but it barely stopped the round (visible bulge at rear plate).

 

 

Again, it doesn't work like this.

• while your video games do not simulate that, the definition of "RHA" or "armor steel" is differing per country. You are mixing values from different sources with some primary school math.
• performance of armor is always dependent on ammunition. The same round will provide different penetration values in "RHAe" when fired against different armor arrays, likewise an armor array will provide different protection values in "RHAe" when hit by different rounds. You are using values for the (hull) armor in B-technology generated using a certain round and distracting these from protection values generated by armor in B-technology with add-on module against a different round... that doesn't work. The base armor might have provided more/less protection against the second test projectile.
• last but not least there are different standards for measuring protection/penetration. I.e. when is an armor array considered penetrated (Do cracks in the armor count as penetration? Does there need to be a hole large enough to shine light through?, etc.) and how is penetration measured (Is it measured against a semi-infinite steel target or is it measured in terms of full perforation? etc.)

E.g. the German Army and the Rheinmetall don't really use RHA values, but usually measure protection/penetration in terms of "it can stop round X at range Y" and " it cannot stop round X at range Y".

 

 

The Leopard 2A7V has improved armor in the hull at least, though there isn't any official statement regarding the turret armor. The Leopard 2A6 HEL, the Leopardo 2E, the Leopard 2A7Q and Leopard 2A7HU all have improved "D tech" armor over the Stridsvagn 122. The Stridsvagn 122 uses an earlier type of "D tech" base armor and older applique armor.

 

There is not Leopard 2A7V without mine protection. The mine protection is built in and cannot be removed. Thus any weight value for the "Leopard 2A7V without mine protection" is speculation or actualll belongs to the baseline Leopard 2A7.

 

As for the weight difference between the Stridsvagn 122A and the Leopard 2A7V, the Leopard 2A7V has:

• an auxiliary power unit
• two air conditioning systems
• upgraded hull side protection
• different tracks
• upgraded optics and new driver sights
• different final drives
• the IFIS C4I system and upgraded/changed radios including the SOTAS-IP
• more external stowage racks/boxes
• a modified fire supression system
• the longer L55A1 gun
• different hull frontal armor at least (potentially also different turret armor)
• a mine protection kit including torsion bar retention brackes, decoupled ammo racks, a belly armor plate

So there are a lot of factors that can add or remove weight compared to the Stridsvagn 122.

Damn brother thanks for the help,but the armor besides the cannon sketch is wrong ,that armor doesn't line up turret face armor it should be sticks out

[jojoisgood]

3 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

Indeed the Leopard 2A5/6/7's gun mount structure is the best protected I've ever seen. 

 

I suppose the two hinged modules have the same plates as the mantlet's "KE-Modul" excluding the ~30mm frontwall and air gap , so it's probably ~330mm thick, with ~210mm armor steel rotor and additional wedge heavy NERA, the equivalent steel thickness on the entire path is over 600mm and close to 700mm, even thicker at the trunnion position, though the rotor has a lot of holes to install recoil mechanisms and MG.etc. , IMO it's still quite enough just in terms of protecting crews.

Can you draw a picture to explain it?

[jojoisgood]

10 hours ago, speziale said:

 

Are u sure?

 

Here is the picture from the Swedish document:

 

 

Purple: B-tech armor

Red: C-tech armor 

Yellow: B-tech armor+"original/german" add-on armor

blue: B-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor (I think it beacuse this composition was tested on the Swedish trial to compare the "german" and "swedish" versions of the add-on armors)

Green:  C-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor ( I think it beacuse this seems logical based on the tested armor combinations. But there is no indication for that this armor composation was actually tested, so I think this armor composation was the choosen/propsed for the Strv122)

 

So, I think the Strv122 has C-tech base armor.

I don't think Swedish use c tech base armor, if it use c tech what the purpose to compare them?

And i don't think The blue one use swedish add-on armor, MEXAS is introduced in 1994 tvm is build around 1991,

If the test is to know which add-on armor is better they should use same base armor, and I don't think german will prepare two different hull armor for this test ,the swedish one is better simply because it is better add-on armor 

[jojoisgood]

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Are you now able to post the images related to this?
 

  Hide contents

Not these images?
 

 

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?
 

  Hide contents

https://imgur.com/a/5XRYrH8

 

What is that big red armor they test ?

[SH_MM]

20 hours ago, Scav said:

Not these images?

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

22 hours ago, Scav said:

Any sources for this other than the 2013 powerpoint?

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

20 hours ago, speziale said:

 

Purple: B-tech armor

Red: C-tech armor 

Yellow: B-tech armor+"original/german" add-on armor

blue: B-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor (I think it beacuse this composition was tested on the Swedish trial to compare the "german" and "swedish" versions of the add-on armors)

Green:  C-tech armor+"swedish" add-on armor ( I think it beacuse this seems logical based on the tested armor combinations. But there is no indication for that this armor composation was actually tested, so I think this armor composation was the choosen/propsed for the Strv122)

 

So, I think the Strv122 has C-tech base armor.

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

10 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

Damn brother thanks for the help,but the armor besides the cannon sketch is wrong ,that armor doesn't line up turret face armor it should be sticks out

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

[jojoisgood]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

Wait so what the armor you think is fitted in the strv122 and TVM1 leopard 2a7v ?

[jojoisgood]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

 

 

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

 

 

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

 

 

It is a sketch, not meant to be super accurate. Either way, it illustrates that there isn't enough place for a composite module and that the turret frontal armor does not overlap with the "hinged armor module".

 

And also I have a question that did swedish test hit the Junction of the wedges armor ? Because the D tech armor is around 600mm 640Los 600÷640×turret Los 860=806

Or the D tech turret doesn't really use D tech?

[Scav]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

These are two of the images. There also is one showing the impact side, but that doesn't add anything. I was told that these images are classified as Verschlusssache - Nur für Dienstgebrauch or their equivalent classification in countries that received the "upgrade folder" (i.e. a bunch of documents that the German industry gave away to buyers of ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks to advertise possible improvements).

I only have a simple description for these photos (i.e. this being the "drop-in package" for upgrading Leopard 2 tanks) and what can be seen on the photos, i.e. the text on the signs. This is the third trial (3. VERS) with the munition (MUN) 120 MM KE LKE 1 W at 2,000 metres (E_S 2000M) against the special target (SONDERZIEL) #16 (or #18).

So no direct mention of the technology used?
Bit unfortunate...
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Only generic statements such as "armor was improved", "continuous development of armor", etc. in some articles, nothing as direct as the slide from the FKH 2013 symposium.

From what I've heard and seen written, the only "named" improvement has been the refinement of the hatches and utilising new steels in the construction of the vehicle, which the authors also mention could be used to reduce the weight without compromising on protection.
The leopard 2E scandal of replacing titanium with steel in the roof add-on comes to mind.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

As for the Stridsvagn 122's base armor: the KVT prototype was created by modifying a Leopard 2A4 tank from the fifth production batch (i.e. with "B technology base armor"). It was fitted with add-on armor on the turret roof, the hull and the turret front but had only a total weight of 60.51 metric tons. This suggests that all changes done to the KVT add ca. 5 metric tons of weight (not all of this being armor, there also was an APU, spall liners, etc.). The TVMs were based on tanks from the eight production batch, i.e. the final production run of the Leopard 2A4 in Germany, featuring already at least the light armored skirts in "D technology". The TVM 1 was tested in Sweden with a weight of 62.5 metric tons - i.e. it was two tons heavier than the KVT despite having the same internal components ("tip visors", APU, spall liners even in the hull, etc.) and the same add-on armor.

 

Armor in "C technology" provides no additional weight according to German sources (the Swiss claim a slightly higher weight for their Panzer 87 WE tanks, but the combat weight also includes a engine noise muffler). Thus the Stridsvagn 122 at 62 metric tons (but without APU) is ca. 2 tons heavier than it is supposed to be with "C technology armor".

 

Alternatively, comparing the Stridsvagn 122 with the German Leopard 2A5 (featuring at least  "D technology armor" in the turret)

shows that the addition of the roof armor (ca. 1.3 tons according to Rolf Hilmes) and the hull add-on armor (ca. 1.1 tons) leads to a combat weight of 62 metric tons... just as expected.

I think there's more to the story and we have to look at all the information we have, because there are quite a few discrepancies so far.

Spoilers ahead.
 

Spoiler

https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_54.html
Combat weight with old skirts: 55t
Combat weight with new skirts: 56.5t

Majority of images don't show the mufflers installed and if they are, it can be either with the new skirts or the old skirts.
This combined with the fact that 1.5t seems like an awful lot of weight for a muffler, it makes me think that the weight of C tech is indeed 1.5t more than B tech.
Otherwise I would think they had specified the muffler instead of the skirts, as they do for length for example.

Spielberger mentions the weight as 260kg for the pair, which makes a lot of sense and could well fit in the difference often observed between the "maximum weight" and "combat weight".
For example, on Leopard 2A1 NL this difference was 150kg.

This difference between "max weight" and "combat weight" will pop up again.

KVT was weighed at 60.5t, but max weight was listed as 62.5t
Note how D technology is mentioned only for the add-on armour modules and is listed as the "4th armour technology.

And yes, it was based on B tech + the add-on armour, later as the IVT it was also sent to Sweden (to test IFIS on which TCCS is based).

Here they mention how KVT differs from TVM in the armour modules, both add-on and internal.

KVT and TVM are lumped together and given a "maximum combat weight" of 62.5t, importantly the weight distribution matches that of Lobitz which I've linked after this.

Lobitz mentions the same and also refers to the add-on modules as "integrated":

However, he also mentions how the weight distribution went:

Which begs the question, 7t + 55t doesn't quite result in the 60.5t mentioned as the combat weight, but does match the maximum weight.


Rolf Hilmes confirms 60.5t.
And while Lindström gives a weight of 62.5t for the tank they tested, he also says Leclerc (54.5t) is 7t less than the other two tanks, which would put their weight at 61.5t.

For TVM Hilmes gives following info:


He doesn't mention use of new armour packs in the turret or hull front, only the use of add-on modules.
Lindström says the armour of the tank they tested (or was offered) was using B pakette and D-2 Vorsmodul:

This all seems to match the original plan of 699 tanks to be converted using older tanks with B tech armour package as a base.
It would also indicate that the TVM was using B + D-2 armour, same as the KVT with the weight difference that is noted by the Swedish trials perhaps being the result of utilising the "maximum combat weight".
So even though the TVMs were based on vehicles with C tech "pakette", they ended up with B tech "pakette" according to the information we have.

That would also indicate that it was indeed possible to "upgrade" the turrret armour layout with B tech, and that it isn't necessary to use newer armour technology for this.

Now if we look at all the sources that talk about the Leopard 2A5 upgrade, we see a trend:

Lobitz - Leopard 2 Entwicklung und Einsatz

Rolf Hilmes (as part of Paul Krapke's book Leopard 2 Sein Werden und seine Leistung)

Michael Scheibert - Leopard 2A5

Walter Bohm - Leopard 2A5

Again Lobitz in tankograd 2A6 book.

Gerard Van Oosbree in Armor magazine

Lobitz - Gesamtwerk

 

Nobody can quite agree on the specifics, but they all seem to think that D technology is the "4th armour technology" and that the base armour on 2A5 was improved a bit, but not with this new armour technology, instead they either just call it "improved", "reinforced" or "third generation armor".
Which would actually indicate that they used C tech for the turret inserts, this also seems much more logical as the difference in armour protection between KVT/TVM and Strv 122 is not nearly as large as would be expected from this supposed "D tech" insert that could on it's own stop LKE1, if we are to believe such a thing exists.
Some also think Strv 122 has different integrated protection packages, but what they mean with this is unclear as "integrated" has been used to describe the add-on modules as well.

As to weight differences, they are all over the place, even the manuals can't agree on some.
For example:

Typos are easily made.

But if we take the weight of the KVT (B tech base) and compare it to that of a 2A4 (B tech base), there is a 5.5t difference, 1.3t as a result of the turret roof add-on, 1.1t for front hull armour and less than 1.4t without other add-on modules, leaves us with more than 1.7t that is "unexplained".
It could be the following:

• Skirts (weight driver)
• Liner (weight driver)
• Protected wheel hubs (strong weight driver)
• Mantlet change (strong weight driver)
• EWNA
• Raised EMES (weight driver)
• APU
• Change in driver's hatch (potential weight driver)
• Modified running gear
• Engine cooling system

If we assume C tech as base for 2A5 there is only a 3.2t difference of which 1.4t would be turret add-on modules, leaving just 1.8t for the rest, which can be explained by many of the same differences as above, albeit less of them.
Though, the add-on modules for 2A5 are different and probably a little bit heavier than those found on KVT and TVM.

The evidence for D tech internal armour is limited to:

• British document from mid-late 80s talking about future upgrade
• A graphic from the Swedish trials that says there are three armour generations, but doesn't say what they are or what is meant by it
• Hilmes' mention of turrets being modified with D tech, which likely refers to the add-on modules, he previously only mentioned these and not the internal package and specifically doesn't mention internal changes when going from 2A4 to KVT to TVM or to 2A5....
• A photograph of an armour package with description "Sonderziel"

None of this is particularly convincing, especially when the B + D-2 already improved armour to a level of almost 700mm in a frontal arc, with only a small improvement going to the "Swedish version" which almost exactly matches up with the difference between B and C tech or the change to the side of the modules.
D tech is already supposed to provide 600mm in a frontal arc according to the Brits, so I don't see how this could possibly match up with the existing improvement from using a different add-on.
The protection in this case would be way higher than the one we see in the trials.

 

Regarding KVT and TVM, they were supposed to be representative of the eventual 2A5, so B+D-2 makes sense for both and the differences between these in public sources never include internal armour packages.
The claimed armour improvements between B, C and D tech also don't make much sense.
From B to C there is ~10 years time and a weight increase (~1.5t, I have never seen sources that claim there isn't) to go along with a ~20% improvement in KE and HEAT.
Then from C to D there is ~3 years time to go along with a whopping ~45% protection increase in both KE and HEAT?

We should apply Occam's razor, the most logical explanation is simply that a few typos were made and that 2A5 likely uses C tech turret with D tech add-ons.
The sources that mention an improved base armour either don't mention what kind or they mention third armour technology (C tech), when they specifically mention 4th armour technology or D tech for the add-ons.
And there are even sources that don't mention an improvement at all for the base.
 

No offense, but I honestly can't see a logical explanation for the use (or even existence) of D tech in the main armour, especially when we see how they even dropped the roof and hull add-ons because of money (presumably D tech is more expensive).

When you look at other nations like the US, Britain or even Russians, we don't see such large and rapid increases in armour without a radical change in density or use of ad-on armour modules.
Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have actual documents stating it has D tech though (not the British docs please, we all know how reliable they are).

[speziale]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

You are speculating here. There is no description for the graph and I can only definetly agree with purple and read being Leopard 2 tanks with "B tech" and "C tech" armor and no add-on modules.

 

Yep, my understanding is a speculation, as there is a puzzle, but I dont have  all pieces …so I have to speculate…but I do not think that anybody would have a clear evidence to that what type of armor Strv122 has. But u also speculate when u use the weight figures to underpin your opinion. I think these weigth figures are also very uncertaint. For example, in the „famous” british document the germans stated that the D-tech armor „can be fitted as drop-in packs to the existing turret and hull of Leopard 2 with no weight penalty”.

 

 

But, what do we know from the swedish slides:

the purple and the yellow lines are sure (purple: basic „B-tech” armor, yellow: Leopard 2 Improved)

but we also know this slide:

 

 

if u compare the protection levels from same angles (e.g: „blue” 2 for both the GER and SWE version, or „pink” 11 and 6 for SWE and GER version, respectively), you can see that the „german” and „swedish” solutions’ protection level are same. Which implies – and it is also logical if you want to compare the effectiveness of the add-on armors – that in this test the „swedish” armor configuration also had a „B”-tech interior armor package.

 

And it seems quite logical that the armor configurations that were tested are shown on the slide in question (with the 5 colour lines). So, if the Leopard 2 with B-tech base armor was tested with 2 versions of add on armor, it seems logical, that this result was shown on the slide. So, that is why i think that the blue line is the B-tech armor with the „swedish” ( or Mexas-H) add-on.

 

Furthermore, I think it is not a coincidence that C-tech armor also presented in the „technologie-combination” table.

And if the blue line is the B-tech base armor with the „better” (Mexas-H) add-on armor, which technologie-combination has higher protection (green line)? I think the answer is the C-tech base armor with the „better” add-on armor.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

One problem with your idea is that the blue graph has a lower overall armor coverage than the yellow graph. I.e. 92-93% of the frontal arc of the yellow graph reach a protection of at least 350 mm vs KE. We have no indication tht the blue graph also reaches such a protection level, given that it only becomes visible at 87-88% of the frontal arc.

 

I think u read the graph incorrectly.

The share of the protected area at least 400mm is the same in the case of the yellow and the blue line. (and the green line in the case of „at least 350mm protection”)

What u mention is very illogic

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

As far as I can tell, there is no Swedish add-on armor. There was one set of add-on armor used on the KVT and TVMs which was refined for production on the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and Stridsvagn 122 with some minor changes to the side armor.

 

I can not follow u. There were definitely 2 versions of add-on armors which were tested and compared during the swedish trial. (These called in the presentation „german” and „swedish” solutions. I know the „swedish” solution actually was the Mexas-H developed by the IDB Diesenroth.) And these solutions had different protection values, especially in the case of the hull add-on. And we do not forget that the hull add-on armor was tested also on the M1 and the Leclerc tanks, so the hull add-on solution was not applied  exclusively on  the Leopard. As I mentioned earlier in the case of the turret there was no „measurable” difference between the „german” and the „swedish” solutions, so it is probably, that the wegde armor was the same in both cases. But it was not the case of the hull add-on. And on the mentioned slide there are D-1, D-2, D-3 add-on armor solutions.

 

 

[speziale]

2 hours ago, Scav said:

 

  Hide contents

Nobody can quite agree on the specifics, but they all seem to think that D technology is the "4th armour technology" and that the base armour on 2A5 was improved a bit, but not with this new armour technology, instead they either just call it "improved", "reinforced" or "third generation armor".

 

there are many controversial informations about the L2A5. 

"the remeaning energy is absorbed by the improved basic armor"....as the L2A5 built from earlier series Leopards' turrets the improved basic armor easily refers to the C-tech armor. Ans as the hulls came from the latest series Leopards it seems logical that the turret armor upgraded to the same level than the hull.

 

but on the other hand the third generation armor was definitely the D-tech.

 

Edited January 1 by speziale
correction

[speziale]

5 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

And also I have a question that did swedish test hit the Junction of the wedges armor ? Because the D tech armor is around 600mm 640Los 600÷640×turret Los 860=806

Or the D tech turret doesn't really use D tech?

 

I think your 600mm figure came from the "famous" british document. But I think u interpret incorrectly the document' protection figures.

[Scav]

1 hour ago, speziale said:

but on the other hand the third generation armor was definitely the D-tech.

Multiple sources state D tech = 4th generation armour.
I think the slide you posted here is just different and meant for export or something, not meant to relate to the internal armour developments on a 1:1 basis, rather it's just to show that there is a continuous development of armour.
It's not much of a "source" anyway, it lacks context and was probably made long before the trials themselves.

 

1 hour ago, speziale said:

I can not follow u. There were definitely 2 versions of add-on armors which were tested and compared during the swedish trial. (These called in the presentation „german” and „swedish” solutions. I know the „swedish” solution actually was the Mexas-H developed by the IDB Diesenroth.) And these solutions had different protection values, especially in the case of the hull add-on. And we do not forget that the hull add-on armor was tested also on the M1 and the Leclerc tanks, so the hull add-on solution was not applied  exclusively on  the Leopard. As I mentioned earlier in the case of the turret there was no „measurable” difference between the „german” and the „swedish” solutions, so it is probably, that the wegde armor was the same in both cases. But it was not the case of the hull add-on. And on the mentioned slide there are D-1, D-2, D-3 add-on armor solutions.

BTW, there is a difference for the turret, the arc of protection is higher for the "Swedish" solution (they're all made by IBD anyway).
The difference can be easily seen on the wedges of the TVM in comparison with those of 2A5/Strv 122

Spoiler

But yeah, it definitely seems like yellow graph = B + D-2, both have a very noticeable drop in % when going from 400mm to 500mm and end at about 30% (I said as much some years ago).
It matches up pretty well.
 

[Sheffield]

A few nitpics @Scav

 

Quote

Hilmes' mention of turrets being modified with D tech, which likely refers to the add-on modules

 

The quote from Hilmes directly states turrets from batches 1 - 4 received "D-technology", but at the same time it makes a distinction that for other vehicles upgraded to Leopard 2A5 standard, turrets equipped C-technology were mated with B-technology hull; this is a contradiction to the idea "D-technology" only and solely refers to the add-on modules (because otherwise he'd have stated "D-technology turrets were mated with B-technology hulls" etc).

 

Quote

The sources that mention an improved base armour either don't mention what kind or they mention third armour technology (C tech)

 

What are the sources that state C-technology = third generation armour array? Since this would indicate that serial production Leopard 2s had a different package before B-technology & C-technolgy, and up to date I've yet to see a single mention of it.

 

I also don't see why D-technology being a 4th generation add-on armour array would be contradictory to it also existing as an internal array either.

 

Quote

Then from C to D there is ~3 years time to go along with a whopping ~45% protection increase in both KE and HEAT?

 

C-technology entered service in 1987, according to the British docs, D-technology was to be ready for use by 1993/1994, that's 6 - 7 years for a ~30% increase in KE protection and ~37.5% increase in CE protection (420mm - > 600mm & 750mm - > 1200mm). Not really revolutionary all things considered, the US Army had produced an armour improving KE resistance by ~34% (400mm - > 600mm RHAe KE turret arc) in give or take 5 years (M1IP - > M1A1 HA). Their SC results were of course worse, but that was to be recitified with HAP-2 armour with British help in the following years:

 

 

D-technology would've had more time, and most importantly, newer developments integrated into it - therefore there isn't a need to look at the cited performance and question it on the basis of % increase compared to a previous iteration of armour technology since other nations had also made significant protection jumps in the same time period.

 

Incidently, add-on armour for the Leopard 2 (e.g "4th generation" armour) was only at very early stages of development in 1988 (if at all, last I checked, the best Germany had by 1989 was a simple mock-up rather than an actual armour module of the wedges), so i'd be leaning towards the modules in question (the posted page) being of the internal array sort.

 

And for the last part, the book by Ralph Zwilling which unequivocally confirms the Leopard 2A7V had received new internal armour modules for the hull using the "latest D-technology", by extension corrobrating the existence of D-technology as an internal armour array as well:

 

 

Just a few nitpics here and there to add to the discussion, waiting for SH_MM to chime in honestly

[jojoisgood]

https://lurl.cc/IrCvF

Maybe the b tech c tech Era is like this 

And maybe D tech for the Leopard 2a7v is different than the d tech in 1990?

[speziale]

9 hours ago, Scav said:

Multiple sources state D tech = 4th generation armour.
I think the slide you posted here is just different and meant for export or something, not meant to relate to the internal armour developments on a 1:1 basis, rather it's just to show that there is a continuous development of armour.
It's not much of a "source" anyway, it lacks context and was probably made long before the trials themselves.

 

The picture is from a KMW presentation. And i think, the KMW knows much better than anyone who wrote a Leopard 2 book what armor type was the 3. generation.

The introduction dates of the 1. and 2. generation armors are also very telling. 1979- start of the serial production of the Leo2 with B-tech armor; 1988- serial production of Leo2 with C-tech armor. So the picture clearly refers to the interior armor' generations.

 

and there are many sources and evidences for that the D-tech armor was existed/developed as a drop-in solution. I think the development of the add-on armor package within the KWS program, was simply independent from the development from the interior armor package development.

 

My problem was only that, I'm not sure ( or rather: I strongly belive) that D-tech interior armor package was not applied neither on the Strv122 nor the Leopard 2A5.

Latest informations about the A7V also suggests that the Leopard 2A5 turret does not incorporate the D-tech armor. (the statement that A7V' hull protection - with the D-tech armor - reached the same level than the turret, suggests different interior armor packages for the turret and the hull)

[SH_MM]

I wrote a rather detailed answer yesterday but accidentally closed the wrong tab and the forum didn't save it... so I'll try to make this short.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

So no direct mention of the technology used?

 

Based on the description I was given, no.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

KVT was weighed at 60.5t, but max weight was listed as 62.5t
Note how D technology is mentioned only for the add-on armour modules and is listed as the "4th armour technology.

The problem here is that Spielberger is wrong in calling "D-Technologie" the "fourth armor technology generation". He likely saw that "D" is the fourth letter of the alphabet and assumed that this means that "armor in D technology" equates to "fourth generation armor". This is obviously wrong as "B-Technologie" was originally an abbreviation of "Beulblechtechnologie".

 

There are however several reasons why this is not the case. First of all, "Panzerung in B-Technologie" is the first generation of special armor. This is confirmed e.g. by a 2009 article written by Dieter Haug, a "protection expert in the Armament Directorate of the German MoD" (i.e. the BWB/BAAINBw), called "Development of Protection Technologies". In this article, the author clearly states "[...] led to the development of first generation spaced laminated composite armours, like the German “Bulge Plate Armour” (B-Technology) for MBT Leopard 2 and the British 'Chobham Armour' for the UK MBT Challenger and the US MBT M1 Abrams." Published in the same Wehrtechnischer Report as this article is also one written by by IBD Deisenroth's Dipl. Phys. Michael Rust explaining the development of AMAP armor. There he states: "The latest technologies in advanced passive armour are based on the experiences gained with the so-called „3rd-Generation“-Protection installed on platforms like the Leopard 2, STRV 122, Fuchs (Rheinmetall), LMV (Iveco), ASV (Textron), CV90 (BAE Systems) and LAV Stryker (GDLS). With the results of intensive research and development in material sciences the 4th generation of passive armour was introduced and has now been applied to platforms".

 

In other words, according to IBD, MEXAS-M and MEXAS-H are so-called third generation armors while only AMAP is a fourth generation armor. This is furthermore confirmed by a presentation held by IBD in the 2013 FKH symposium (the same symposium where Ralf Ketzel included the slide showing the Leopard 2 protection development in his presentation), which mentions as examples of tanks with "Schwerer Schutz 3. Generation" (heavy protection of the third generation) the "Leopard 2 A5, A6, MBT 122, Leopard 2 A6 Greece and Leopard 2 A6 Spain" as well as the Leopard 2 A4 N. N. (which is from my understanding this thing) with a Leopard 2A4 from the late production lot (heavy skirts from "C technology armor") being shown as the starting point for the parallel upgrades in the graphic. Note that IBD only produced the add-on armor, so the "D tech" add-on armor is considered third generation armor by IBD as well.

 

Furthermore, there is the Technische Lieferbedingungen (TL) 2350-0010 - the delivery conditions of the Bundeswehr for "Sonderpanzerungen II. Generation". The only edition of this standard was issued in April 1990; while it is common for these to be only published some time after a vehicle was adpoted, i.e. the Leopard 1 was made with armor steel according to a preliminary version of TL 2350-0000 because the standard was fully approved later thanks to the slowness of bureacracy, I do have serious doubts that it took 12 years for the TL to be issued, hence the "armor in C technology" being second generation armor; subsequently the "armor in D technology" being third generation armor.

 

Even Spielberger himself calls "D-Technologie" the 3. Schutzversion (third version of protection) at another place, specifically refering to the side skirts in "D-Technologie":

 

Spoiler

 

Last but not least, Krauss-Maffei itself has noted that third generation armor entered service in 1991, which coincides with the last production batch of the Leopard 2A4, featuring at least side skirts in "D-Technologie". Second generation armor entered service in 1988, matching the date of introduction of the Leopard 2A4 with "C-Technologie armor".

 

(I see that @speziale also has pointed that out).

 

So we have established that first generation armor is B-Technologie (according to Dieter Haug of the German MoD's BAAINBw and Krauss-Maffei's graphic above), that second generation armor is C-Technologie (based on the graphic above and the date of TL 2350-0010) and that third generation armor is D-Technologie (Spielberger's mention of the D-Technologie skirts, IBD's article from Michael Rust in 209 and their 2013 presentation at the FKH symposium).

 

The key issue is that there either seem to be two ways of counting generations (with B-Technologie either being first generation armor or second generation armor) or D-Technologie covering two generations (maybe internal armor/D-1 and external modules/D-2).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Lobitz mentions the same and also refers to the add-on modules as "integrated":

No, he doesn't refer to the add-on modules as "integrated". The English translation is misleading. He says "Die Schutzpakete waren in D-Technologie ausglegt ([...]) und je nach Stelle integriert (Turmfront/Fahrgestell) oder aufgesetzt (Turmdach). Erstmal gab es Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell, [...]".

This means that "[t]he protection modules were designed in D technology and depending on location integrated (turret/hull) or put on (turret roof). For the first time, there were add-on modules for the turret and hull."

 

There are two parts here: first, the D-Technologie armor was integrated into turret and hull (integrated = installed into the structure of turret and hull) and put onto the turret roof (due to there being no internal cavity, it was not "integrated" there) and then the add-on modules are mentioned separately.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

It would also indicate that the TVM was using B + D-2 armour, same as the KVT with the weight difference that is noted by the Swedish trials perhaps being the result of utilising the "maximum combat weight".

 

How does this indicate that the TVM was using "Panzerung in B-Technologie"? I don't see how you came to that conclusion. As you said yourself, the IVT (KVT with additional measuring equipment) was send to Sweden for trials. This tank had obviously "B technology" armor as the KVT was based on a Leopard 2A4 from the fifth batch, i.e. before the "C technology" armor was adopted.

 

The TVMs however have different internal armor than the KVT based on the table that you included in the post:

Spoiler

Subsequently, if the KVT uses "B technology" base armor and the TVMs have different base armor, then they cannot have "B technology" base armor. That is also obvious given that the two TVMs were based on Leopard 2A4 tanks from the eight batch (which was built with "D-Technologie" side skirts and at least "C-Technologie" internal armor).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Nobody can quite agree on the specifics, but they all seem to think that D technology is the "4th armour technology" and that the base armour on 2A5 was improved a bit, but not with this new armour technology, instead they either just call it "improved", "reinforced" or "third generation armor".

 

They don't all think that "D technology" is "4th armor technology". That is not shown there. The problem is simply the following:

Lobitz and Scheibert call "D-Technologie" the fourth generation armor technology, but they don't state that the internal armor is third generation or C-Technologie. Hilmes doesn't mention any armor generations and only talks about the turrets being modified with "D-Technologie" and the hulls being "C-Technologie". Spielberger calls D-Technologie both "the third protection version" and "fourth generation armor technology". Van Oosbree mentions "third generation armor" but no "fourth generation armor" and doesn't state that third generation armor would be in "C-Technologie".

 

There is not a single source clearly stating either that "C-Technologie" is "third generation armor" or that internal armor was a generation older than the add-on armor modules. Only Spielberger implies something like that, be he also calls D-Technologie both the third and fourth generation/version, showing that he might mix up two different definitions.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

as would be expected from this supposed "D tech" insert that could on it's own stop LKE1, if we are to believe such a thing exists.

 

I mean, you posted a photo of an armor array without add-on module stopping LKE1...

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

But if we take the weight of the KVT (B tech base) and compare it to that of a 2A4 (B tech base), there is a 5.5t difference, 1.3t as a result of the turret roof add-on, 1.1t for front hull armour and less than 1.4t without other add-on modules, leaves us with more than 1.7t that is "unexplained".

 

Just look at the turret alone. The Leopard 2A4 turret has an empty weight of 15.5 tonnes. The Leopard 2A5 turret - without add-on modules - has a weight of 18.4 tonnes. That's 2.9 tonnes of unexplained weight, not 1.7 tonnes. The EWNA  is lighter than the old systems it replaces (also the case with the light ballistic skirts in D-Technologie, but those are irrelevant for the turret). The changes for moving PERI R17 and EMES 15 were likely rather small, given that the main purpose was to move them so that the add-on module's coverage remains large.

The new gun mantlet results in a lower weight (3,210 kg vs 3,655 kg) which likely does not fully offset the hinged armor. Leaving the spall liners, which are hard to estimate. For the M113A3, the spall liners (and all other changes) resulted in less than a tonne of weight being added - and that has a much larger internal surface area than a Leopard 2 turret. IMO there is still unaccounted weight, estimating the weight of the hinged armor based on thickness, frontal profile & the density of steel as well as adding some exaggerated number like 900 kg for the spall liners still leave "leftover" weight.

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

Regarding KVT and TVM, they were supposed to be representative of the eventual 2A5, so B+D-2 makes sense for both and the differences between these in public sources never include internal armour packages.

 

If you ignore this chart:

Spoiler

 

This also suggests that KVT and TVM had different add-on modules, though it might be a reference to some being excluded at times (initial mock-up based on KVT only had turret modules).

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

The claimed armour improvements between B, C and D tech also don't make much sense.
From B to C there is ~10 years time and a weight increase (~1.5t, I have never seen sources that claim there isn't) to go along with a ~20% improvement in KE and HEAT.
Then from C to D there is ~3 years time to go along with a whopping ~45% protection increase in both KE and HEAT?

 

All protection values we have are British estimates that are in general of a rather poor nature. The Brits concluded that the "Type C" armor/"Panzerung in C-Technologie" offers 410-420 mm RHAe of protection, because "Penetration was variously quoted as 400 mm or 410-420 mm RHA equivalent". That leads a lot of issues including the fact that there is no fixed definition for RHA. I.e. if the "600 mm figure" was given/estimated using British RHA and the 410-420 mm figure is from German tests, then the difference is a lot smaller than 180 mm. 120 mm DM23 also managed to defeat the NATO heavy single target (150 mm steel with a hardness of 260-300 kp/mm² which is rather close to British DEF-Stan) sloped at 71.5° (effective thickness: 472 mm) at a range of 1,300 metres. Even taking into account that performance against sloped armor is better, it points to better performance than 410-420 mm at 200 metres. Hence why I would put less faith in subjective numbers.

 

Furthermore we have to remember that we only have performance predictions from the UK for the "Type D" armor, not any concrete info regarding actual final performance. Arguing with time frames is also not the best solution IMO. The development of "C technology" armor didn't start in 1979, it was initated based on studies made in 1984.  So there weren't ten years, but one still has to wonder what "breakthrough in technology" was discovered between 1988 and 1991, assuming the British values are correct.

 

Last but not least, the US ARL also managed to improve the KE protection performance of one of their ceramic arrays by 33% over an existing ceramic array. Given that the "Panzerung in C-Technologie"/"Type C" armor introduced ceramic elements according to the UK, there might have been a lot of potential for further improvements...  but 42-45% seems to be rather unrealistic.

Spoiler

 

19 hours ago, Scav said:

We should apply Occam's razor, the most logical explanation is simply that a few typos were made and that 2A5 likely uses C tech turret with D tech add-ons.

 

That is not the most logical explanation. If "C tech" armor is used in the turret, then there wouldn't be a reason to use turrets from old batches (1st to 4th batch) for the Leopard 2A5 upgrade in Germany. They were intentionally used so that the "C tech" armored turret could remain in service on the Leopard 2A4 "hybrids". This was only possible as the internal armor of the Leopard 2A4 was being replaced during the upgrade to the Leopard 2A5 standard.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

think these weigth figures are also very uncertaint. For example, in the „famous” british document the germans stated that the D-tech armor „can be fitted as drop-in packs to the existing turret and hull of Leopard 2 with no weight penalty”.

 

That was a prediction. Predicitions don't necessarily match the reality, just look at the CR2 for example.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

if u compare the protection levels from same angles (e.g: „blue” 2 for both the GER and SWE version, or „pink” 11 and 6 for SWE and GER version, respectively), you can see that the „german” and „swedish” solutions’ protection level are same. Which implies – and it is also logical if you want to compare the effectiveness of the add-on armors – that in this test the „swedish” armor configuration also had a „B”-tech interior armor package.

 

And it seems quite logical that the armor configurations that were tested are shown on the slide in question (with the 5 colour lines). So, if the Leopard 2 with B-tech base armor was tested with 2 versions of add on armor, it seems logical, that this result was shown on the slide. So, that is why i think that the blue line is the B-tech armor with the „swedish” ( or Mexas-H) add-on.

 

I think you are making too many leaps of faith here. The table showing the graph with the five colors, i.e. the table in the center of this slide was most likely supplied by Krauss-Maffei:

Spoiler

Why? The graphics on the left and right of it are also supplied by Krauss-Maffei (German text). Sweden neither has the data for showing the frontal arc armor coverage/protection of all the various Leopard 2 models (unless supplied by Krauss-Maffei) and had no interest in plotting such data (what is the gain of plotting that, if you only buy one configuration?). Furthermore the English labelling for the graph contains common "German mistakes" (hyphen between "KE" and "Performance", spelling every noun with a capital letter, because that's how spelling in Germany works).

 

If that assumption is correct - and I don't see any evidence speaking against that -, then the graph cannot contain any data of a "Swedish armor" that was developed after Krauss-Maffei's offer. Thus - if there is "Swedish applique armor" - it is not shown in the graph.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

And if the blue line is the B-tech base armor with the „better” (Mexas-H) add-on armor

 

All add-on armor for the KVT, TVM and Leopard 2A5/2A6 is MEXAS-H. Between 1989 and 1991, Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth exlusively worked on R&D contracts for the German BWB (nowadays BAAINBw), i.e. the German military materiel/procurement office. Between 1990 and 1998, they worked on contracts regarding protection materials for the BWB.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

The share of the protected area at least 400mm is the same in the case of the yellow and the blue line. (and the green line in the case of „at least 350mm protection”)

 

No, I am pointing out that you are speculating. Due to how the graph is plotted (wiht solid colors), it cannot be said if the blue line has the same coverage for <400 mm protection or not. The gradient of the graph might be constant.

 

16 hours ago, speziale said:

I can not follow u. There were definitely 2 versions of add-on armors which were tested and compared during the swedish trial. (These called in the presentation „german” and „swedish” solutions. I know the „swedish” solution actually was the Mexas-H developed by the IDB Diesenroth.)

 

MEXAS-H is used on both tanks.

 

There were two different armor solutions tested: the "German solution" (which we know is "B tech" base armor and "D-2" add-on armor) and the "Swedish solution" (which we don't know what it is made of). You are assuming that the difference between these two solutions is the add-on armor, but we have no source stating that. It could be the same add-on armor with different base armor. As a matter of fact, we have clear statements that the Stridsvagn 122 used better internal armor than the "B technology"):

 

Spoiler

 

"Improved integrated protection packages". Meanwhile the add-on armor is not listed as differing from the Leopard 2A5...

 

The "German solution" used "B tech" base armor, because back then the German Army planned on upgrading 699 older Leopard 2A4 tanks to what would become the 2A5 configuration. These tanks would have the "B tech" base armor due to their age, while the newest Leopard 2A4 tanks (with "C technology" base armor and in some cases "D tech" skirt armor) would remain without armor upgrades.

 

Lindström's presentation shows Krauss-Maffei supplied tables with "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" but we have zero context for that. Developing multiple armor packages with different protection levels doesn't really make sense if there is only one specific requirement. "D-1" could be just turret add-on modules, "D-2" could be turret and hull modules, "D-3" could be turret, hull and roof modules - or it could be something completely different. "D-1" could be internal armor, "D-2" could be add-on armor and "D-3" could be a combination of both. We don't know due to the lack of context. You are just assuming that this means that there were three different sets of add-on armor.

 

14 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, there is a difference for the turret, the arc of protection is higher for the "Swedish" solution (they're all made by IBD anyway).
The difference can be easily seen on the wedges of the TVM in comparison with those of 2A5/Strv 122

 

That is just speculation. The KVT/IVT and TVMs used prototype versions of the armor, the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122 use the refined version for production. We havbe zero proof that the refined version for production is the "Swedish" solutionlooks different  or that there is a difference in protection between the "Swedish solution" and the "German solution" is the result of different add-on armor. Lobitz clearly cites improved integrated armor packages as a difference between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122, thus the Strv 122 had better base armor. The CAD models used in the Swedish protection analysis also show an identical side armor shape:

Spoiler