The Leopard 2 Thread

[SH_MM]

10 hours ago, Sheffield said:

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:

 

 

 

He however made a small mistake, from what I can tell the "Duell-Bugdachschutz" isn't optimized for "tank duels".

[Scav]

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

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).

He states: "For the conversion to 2A5, the oldest turrets were taken and modified with the most modern D technology into KWS turrets."
Previous to this he never even mentions the internal armour packages, only the add-on modules.
If he was going to include the turret inserts, I would have expected him to specify this separately and state so directly, not with a generic "modified with D tech" which most likely refers to the add-on modules as he doesn't specify those either.

I've asked many native Germans speakers and very few take this to mean that the internal packages were changed to D tech, especially when the context is taken into account.

 

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

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.

It's the third letter of the alphabet and it's stated numerous times that D tech is the fourth generation of armour technology, I don't see what other number could possibly be attributed to it.
Leo 2 did have different armour packages before B tech, in the form of spaced armour on the Keiler series or a different array on the 2AVs, any one of these could be the "1st generation".

Also, I don't think it necessarily contradicts it existing, as an internal armour package, but the evidence for it is incredibly meager and whenever D tech is referred to by reputable sources it's pretty much always mentioned to be add-on armour.
It's hard to prove something doesn't exist, because if it doesn't you won't find any proof of it....

It's entirely possible and IMO quite likely that the initial plan was to have D technology as an internal armour package like the Brits claim in those documents relating to C tech testing, but then the idea and concept changed and we see that in 1988/9 they were going to use it as add-on armour instead.
 

 

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

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:

C tech entered service in 1988, 6th batch was the first to receive it from the 97th vehicle on and the batch started being delivered in Jan 1988 and lasted until May of 1989.
The time difference between them is perhaps not "3" years but already by 1991 KVT and TVM were running around in an "almost ready" configuration.
If you are going to count from the time that they started developing the armour, then you'll have to use 1976 for B tech, 1984 for C tech and 1987 for D tech...


600/420 is a 43% increase and 1200/750 is a 60% increase, I used 780mm but it's still a lot more than 30 and 37%.
Either way, significantly higher increases than between B and C, where they spent more time to develop it.
It is revolutionary for internal armour changes, especially if you assume the part about "no weight penalty" to be true.
The DU armour package on M1s added around 2 tonnes of weight to an array that was quite poorly optimised against KE (not particularly efficient), and did so only on the front of the turret, it didn't include the hull, it didn't include the turret sides, just the turret front.
The original M1 was only protected against XM579/XM735 (if that) and the armour array is essentially MBT-70 layout but with a thinner backplate (4" vs 5") and a much larger space between the front and rear plate, including the NERA package for HEAT protection and spacers.
The M1A1's armour without DU is the same except with an increase in NERA array thickness, no armour technology change.
So going from an armour style that relies primarily on the front and rear plate + spacing to defeat incoming KE threats, with the NERA doing relatively little (the steel plates in the sandwiches are quite thin), to an array that now includes DU plates as thick as 5/8ths of an inch, there can be a very big increase in KE efficiency due to the significantly bigger role the internal package plays and the substantially increased density.

There is no such density change in D tech (according to the Brit sources).
 

 

11 hours ago, Sheffield said:

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:

I did not include his book because a friend asked him directly about this, he answered with "the information is based on wide variety of sources. The hull of the 2A7 and Leguan look very much like the 2A7V, the external changes like glacis armour and catcher are easily seen.".
He doesn't provide any source for the internal D tech because it doesn't come from KMW or anyone in the industry, it is likely that he found it here on the internet.
Lobitz on the other hand does not state this D tech internal change and he is Leopard 2 project lead, while Zwilling is merely a tank enthusiast (a good one, but not a reliable source).

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

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.

Lobitz is Leopard 2 project lead and he states D technology is "similar to 4th generation armour".
I would trust him more than other sources and think it's close enough.
KMW states a bunch of weird things at times, a lot of it is marketing and perhaps not completely accurate, but only meant to give rough ideas of improvements.
For example, in that slide about protection they state the protection against KE did not improve between 1980 and 19985, then it improved again in ~1996 and again in ~2001 and yet again in ~2007.
This doesn't match reality and should just be taken as a rough representation of the increases in threat and thus improvements in armour over time.

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

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.

I have only seen one, the British document.
If you have more, please do link them.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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".

Then why does not only Spielberger state this, but also Lobitz who is the project lead?
As well as several others.
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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":

There may be a difference in how IBD calls these armours, they also start with "2nd generation" in their powerpoint and use the Bionix as representation of 2nd generation armour and the same MRAP/APC hull as both 3rd and 4th generation armour with no visible differences.
Multiple inconsistencies in their presentation that we can't overlook.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

Yeah, but this is circumstantial evidence, I tried looking this up earlier and that is all I could find, no explanation given, no other information.
While I agree that 12 years seems like a long time, it also says that steel from the 2nd generation was published in 2008....

Spoiler

It also doesn't mention 1st generation or third generation or even 4th generation armour.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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":

Yes as I have said, there are a lot of inconsistencies, many others call it 4th generation.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

I honestly don't think we can, there are far too many inconsistencies and the context for many of the mentions isn't the same, there is a possibility yes, but there is also a possibility that it's the other way around.

I will also point out that the add-on armour for the leopard 2A4M in that KMW slide is also called "Beulblechtechnologie".
But I think we both know it isn't "B tech".

Spoiler

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

Yes, and there isn't a single source that doesn't contradict another in some way.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

But he literally does state so?
"Integriert" = "integrated"
I did ask native German speakers what they thought and they agreed he says integrated, I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted.
The second part is a separate sentence and he mentions them for chronological reasons as in "this is the first time in the service history of leopard 2 that external add-ons are used".
Also, we can't forget that he is talking about KVT here, not TVM nor Leopard 2A5 and we know for a fact that KVT retained B tech internal armour.
The Swedish trials indicate that TVM also used B tech internal armour (and I made this connection previously).

I honestly don't see how it would make any sense to build KVT from a 5th batch vehicle, then upgrade the internal armour to D tech, have it weigh 60.5t combat weight and then later build TVMs based on 8th batch vehicles and downgrade the armour to B tech and somehow weigh either 60.5t (assumption) or 62.5t.
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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:

Yes, there are discrepancies and I did point those out, but the armour offered to the Swedes and the tank which they tested supposedly came with B + D-2.
I explained why I think this is the case, but perhaps I didn't word it properly.
Yes there are "differences" according to that table, however in the same book a little bit later the weight of both KVT and TVM is presented to be equal.
Lobitz also mentions that the approximate weight increase was 7t for KVT, which would also put it at 62.5t.

There are several such discrepancies and I think they have to do with the "maximum weight" and "combat weight" as I had stated previously.
Sometimes one is used over the other.

Either way I do not see how it would make any sense to:

• Build TVM as trial vehicle for the 699 tank batch with different armour than they would use on the 699 tanks.
• Send TVM to Sweden with different armour (higher) and offer a lower armour package.
• Retain B internal armour on KVT but change TVM internal armour from C to D.
• Vaguely mention the installation of D internal for KVT while it only weighed 60.5t.

If KVT was indeed fitted with D internal armour as you say, then why do you also say that it has B internal armour?

IVT was sent to Sweden as part of the IFIS trials, not related to the main trials to choose a tank and it certainly would be strange to use it for the armour comparison.
Swedes also call B + D-2 as "German solution" which indicates this is the solution they are planning to use for their production lot.
This at least matches the earlier plan to upgrade 699 tanks with a more modest upgrade of just adding the add-ons and not improving the main armour outside of raising EMES and the narrow mantlet.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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

Yes and this could be any number of armour arrays, there is no hard proof it is D tech as you've admitted.
It might even be a generic test to optimise LKE1 for all we know.

As you no doubt know, in that KMW presentation from 2013 there are pictures of a PG-7V being tested against the hull roof add-on, they specifically mention it is a leopard 2 PSO armour for the hull roof, I would at least expect something similar with the LKE test if it was indeed meant as drop in package, but instead it's just "special target".

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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).

I don't see why not?
So if you think KVT uses B tech base because it is based on a 5th batch vehicle, then you must also assume TVM uses C tech because it's based on an 8th batch vehicle, not "D tech".
However, it's clear that the original internal armour hardly matters because B + D-2 is a possibility and one the Swedes tested, presumably because it was offered in the form of TVM.
The armour needs to be changed a bit anyway, the raising of the EMES for example.
Any internal armour tech can probably be used, at least if it makes any sense, you wouldn't use an armour optimised solely for HEAT for example...
 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

Yeah, there is a lot of confusion and contradicting statements, but you have to admit that nobody explicitly says the internal armour was upgraded with D tech either.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

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.

16t of empty weight for a B tech turret.
There is only a single picture claiming 15.5t while every secondary source says 16t and there is at least one source giving 16.99t for a "combat ready" turret.
I don't think there is a 2.49t difference between combat load and "empty"....

Also, that's comparing to B tech turret, not C tech which 2A5 likely uses.
The light ballistic skirts are very heavy when I tried lifting them, couldn't see much difference between those and the perforated ones (both from a leo 1A5BE and 1BE, but should be the same).

The change in mantlet is going to be a big increase in weight, that little mantlet and block behind it are already 195kg and have a big hole for the barrel in it.
The two blocks on either side are probably solid material and are going to weigh significantly more than the 345kg remaining (when comparing to B tech, because we don't have numbers for C tech).

I specifically didn't compare just the turrets because we have no point of reference to properly compare them, while we do have a comparison to the whole tank in the case of the Pz 87.

We should not forget that the turret roof and other parts have been altered significantly:

• there is a lot of "cosmetic" armour over the armour cavity cover plates
• the commander's hatch is ever so slightly raised (larger square raised section)
• The "tippvisier" has been added
• Added two large eyelets and mounting points for the changed mantlet blocks
• EMES was raised and now needs it's own "doghouse"
• PERI was changed, it's significantly bigger
• FERO was changed (probably not significant, but it does need it's own armoured cover)
• Turret bustle has more storage baskets and also has to offset the weight added to the front of the turret at least somewhat.

Then there are the mounting points for the add-on armour itself, let's look at the size of it all here:
 

Spoiler

BTW, in that weight for the turret without add-on armour elements, I doubt they removed the mantlet, never mind the mantlet blocks.

Liner probably adds a few hundred KGs, but the armoured hubcaps and all the changes I indicated previously probably add significantly more.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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).

Well KVT had the mockup in 1989 and only after this had the real ones, it's possible it refers to that.
He also puts KVT and TVM at the same weight later, so...
 

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

I agree.
Mostly meant this as an indication of how different the armour protection was.
After all, if you assume that DM43 (LKE1) was stopped by D tech whereas C tech could barely stop DM23, the difference in protection must be quite large
BTW, where did you find this DM23 test?
Or is that from the comparison between US/UK plates and TL plates?

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

I sincerely doubt the efficacy of "ceramics" against KE, this is at least one point where I agree with the British when they there is no test on record to show it's performance as being particularly good (yes they say appliqué).
Also, it seems to me these predictions aren't from the UK, but rather that the Germans themselves claimed this level of protection.

Brits merely inferred that C tech contains ceramics, tho actual evidence remains sparse.
The only ceramics type of armour I've seen so far is when the DPM restored the TVM and a picture displays some glass-like blocks that look like they could've been for the roof armour based on their shape.
It might refer to certain steel structures or something...

The whole ceramics thing seems to be a left-over from the old days before we had better information regarding modern composites, IBD with their nano-ceramics for example show charts that only reach up to and including stanag level 4.

I tried looking up this "tandem ceramic armour" to no avail sadly.
 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

hat 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.

There still would be, by using old turrets instead of newer ones the remaining 2A4 vehicles retain a higher level of protection, using C turrets and B hulls instead of B turrets and B hulls.
While 2A5s would meet the threat regardless (although the hull did not).
The simple fact that they dropped the hull add-on for cost reasons, makes it highly unlikely that they improved the turret armour beyond the requirement by utilising a completely new armour package.

If the original purpose was to take the oldest tanks with B tech and upgrade them to a higher level while retaining their base protection, so as to minimise costs and maximise amount of tanks with a higher level of protection both for the hull and turret, then why would they suddenly degrade the hulls (not using hull add-on) while at the same time further improving the turret?

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As a matter of fact, we have clear statements that the Stridsvagn 122 used better internal armor than the "B technology"):

Well.... Lobitz doesn't state B tech, he compares it directly to Leopard 2A5, not 2A4.
So unless you think 2A5 uses B tech I don't see why he would compare it to that.

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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.

At the same time, you are assuming they mean internal packages.
I think we should all assume nothing except the most basic and conservative ideas.

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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" solution 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:

I didn't state it was purely the result of improved add-on armour.
Merely pointing out that the TVM modules are clearly different from the ones eventually adopted, I also think that it is likely a combination of both.
But it doesn't make sense that it is going from B to D.

Going back to the original plan vs what happened:

• 699 "TVM" B + D-2 ->  ~40° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 30° arc on hull
• 229 2A4 C tech -> 50-60° arc for turret and hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?)
• ~1222 2A4 with B t ech -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?)

Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, most combat potential retained
Most expensive option

• 350 "2A5" D + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?)
• 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?)
• 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?)

• 350 "2A5" D + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?)
• 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?)
• 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?)

Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential lower than first option.

Second most expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, but somehow turret improved beyond needed?

• 350 "2A5" C + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?)
• 229 "hybrid 2A4" B hull + C turret -> 50-60° arc for turret against 120mm DM23 (420mm?) and ~40° arc against 120mm DM13 (350mm?)
• 1571 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?)

Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential equal to first option

Third most expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, turret improved slightly to meet requirement.

• 350 "2A5" C + D on turret and C on hull -> 40-60° turret arc against 120mm C1 (700mm KE) + 50-60° arc on hull against 120mm DM23 (420mm?)
• 1971 2A4 with B tech hull and turret -> 40-50° arc for turret and hull against 120m DM13 (350mm?)

Unknown amount of 2A4s retained, combat potential lowest of all options

Least expensive option, hull add-on removed to save on cost, C tech 2A4s used as base to further reduce cost.

Options 2 and 4 don't make any sense, second one because the turret is improved way beyond what the (original) requirement calls for without increasing combat potential and the latter because the combat potential in the whole fleet is reduced.
Option 3 is a good compromise, retaining more combat potential with the reduced funds available and doesn't make silly trades like trading hull add-on for overkill turret protection increase.

I see no reason why upgrading to C tech from B doesn't make sense or is impossible for 2A5, we've already agreed that even B tech can be used in KWS turrets as a base.

[Scav]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

He however made a small mistake, from what I can tell the "Duell-Bugdachschutz" isn't optimized for "tank duels".

They all make a lot of tiny mistakes here and there, Lobitz Gesamtwerk is full of translation errors.
Lobitz also mentions the hull being up-armoured to the level of the turret, but at the same time says that the hull roof add-on is "light".

[Sheffield]

1 hour ago, Scav said:

If he was going to include the turret inserts, I would have expected him to specify this separately and state so directly, not with a generic "modified with D tech" which most likely refers to the add-on modules as he doesn't specify those either.

 

Possibly an oversight, maybe he was planning on going more into detail on it, but didn't for unknown to us reasons. Case in point it still states the turrets taken for KWS were modified with "D-technology", I don't think this simply refers to keeping the turrets as they were (B-technology) and adding the MEXAS add-on on top [you're cutting the turret open to modify it entirely anyhow, the armour is basically the cheapest thing to replace there]. This is imo a worst case scenario (with best case of course being D-technology refering here to both the internal armour improvement of the turret, but also the "add-on"), middle ground being of course an upgrade to C-technology with the add-on armour (i.e same level as Strv 122).

 

Quote

It's the third letter of the alphabet

 

That's not really a good argument for it being the case. Do we know what the letters *actually* refer to? Couldn't C simply refer to "Ceramic".

 

Quote

and it's stated numerous times that D tech is the fourth generation of armour technology, I don't see what other number could possibly be attributed to it.

 

As previously stated by SH_MM, D-technology is said to be either 3rd generation or 4th generation depending on the source used. I reckon they base the generation on the overall development status, in this instance:

- KMW stating D-technology is the 3rd generation armour - >  because this is the 3rd armour scheme they're implementing into the ***serial production*** Leopard 2

- IBD stating D-technology is the 4th generation armour - >  it's the 4th armour scheme they've worked with since the project began (which would include prototype armour designs)

 

 

Quote

Leo 2 did have different armour packages before B tech, in the form of spaced armour on the Keiler series or a different array on the 2AVs, any one of these could be the "1st generation".

 

Sure, but this is as I previously stated, likely a difference in definition. Some companies/people may only be counting armours *actually used*, while some may be counting all the armours since the begining of the project. There's a lack of information, so I don't believe it's possible to say which interpretation is correct here.
 

Quote

Also, I don't think it necessarily contradicts it existing, as an internal armour package, but the evidence for it is incredibly meager and whenever D tech is referred to by reputable sources it's pretty much always mentioned to be add-on armour.
It's hard to prove something doesn't exist, because if it doesn't you won't find any proof of it....

 

Neither do I, and I agree that the evidence is pretty meager, but at the same time I refuse to believe Germany has not advanced past the C-technology on their newest MBT (2A7V).

 

Quote

It's entirely possible and IMO quite likely that the initial plan was to have D technology as an internal armour package like the Brits claim in those documents relating to C tech testing, but then the idea and concept changed and we see that in 1988/9 they were going to use it as add-on armour instead.

 

Yes, but this would only imply that the armour as inserts does exist, but was simply not used due to X reasons (weight concerns, costs at the time, balance issues, requirements already being fulfilled with C-technology + add-on etc etc).

 

I'm of the opinion that this is simply inconclusive.

 

Quote

600/420 is a 43% increase and 1200/750 is a 60% increase, I used 780mm but it's still a lot more than 30 and 37%.
Either way, significantly higher increases than between B and C, where they spent more time to develop it.

You're right on that, sorry. The British documents from Nov 1990 state that D-technology was about as efficient as "Developed CA" armour, what that Developed CA was isn't exactly known to me, but it could possibly refer to early Dorchester armour (which would give us a better image of D-tech's performance, this being closer to ~500mm RHAe KE in an arc, rather than the previously assumed ~600mm RHAe KE in an arc, this would result in a ~20% performance increase, certainly not impossible).

 

 

(requirements as dictacted by SR(L) 4026, what I'm assuming to be the performance of Developed CA/early Dorchester).

[Scav]

19 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

That's not really a good argument for it being the case. Do we know what the letters *actually* refer to? Couldn't C simply refer to "Ceramic".

Why use English?
Keramik -> K
Dunno, then D would refer to... what exactly?
It's still bulging plate armour, so why not use B-2 or something?

Strange ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

21 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

Neither do I, and I agree that the evidence is pretty meager, but at the same time I refuse to believe Germany has not advanced past the C-technology on their newest MBT (2A7V).

Eh, well....
Armour advances usually far outpace the implementation of them, as we can see from Germany not adopting add-on until 2019 and even now they only adopt the "light" hull roof add-on which was developed for use against RPGs, yet even Lobitz' most recent book he claims the hull was up-armoured to the level of the turret.
I don't doubt the 2A7V uses a new insert as that slide shows, but what technology it is is anyone's guess.
Using a ~30 year old armour technology and claiming it's the latest doesn't sound very smart.

 

seems rather strange to me

26 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

I'm of the opinion that this is simply inconclusive.

I agree.

 

27 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

You're right on that, sorry. The British documents from Nov 1990 state that D-technology was about as efficient as "Developed CA" armour, what that Developed CA was isn't exactly known to me, but it could possibly refer to early Dorchester armour (which would give us a better image of D-tech's performance, this being closer to ~500mm RHAe KE in an arc, rather than the previously assumed ~600mm RHAe KE in an arc, this would result in a ~20% performance increase, certainly not impossible).

Or maybe... Brits simply had different idea of what "impressive" constitutes and had different result in mind.
I think Chobham in general is quite lacking against KE in all forms we've seen.
The myth of British armour has been debunked quite a few times now...

Without knowing the actual results it's hard to say.

[Sheffield]

 

4 minutes ago, Scav said:

Dunno, then D would refer to... what exactly?

Isn't that the entire point? We've no idea what's the reason behind their naming convection so we're assuming it's one or the other. The letters could either describe the armour in some way (by referencing the technique, material etc), or be Germany's way of saying "this is our new armour, which is different from our old armour, so we're giving it a new letter" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Quote

Using a ~30 year old armour technology and claiming it's the latest doesn't sound very smart.

I'm of opinion that this was simply a play on words by Zwilling; "newest" obviously refering to the latest development providing the best/most balanced results, while using the basic geometry of D-technology (maybe it was the most efficient layout? don't know).

 

Quote

Or maybe... Brits simply had different idea of what "impressive" constitutes and had different result in mind.
I think Chobham in general is quite lacking against KE in all forms we've seen.
The myth of British armour has been debunked quite a few times now...

Yes, that is certainly a possibility, but at least now we've got 2 points of reference;

- the older "results" providing ~600mm RHAe KE & 1200mm RHAe CE over an arc 

- the newer "results" being a comparable effectiveness to what perhaps is Dorchester in terms of KE (~500mm RHAe in an arc), but with higher potency against SC threats.

[SH_MM]

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Then why does not only Spielberger state this, but also Lobitz who is the project lead?

 

The probblem is that neither Spielberger nor Lobitz talk about the base armor being C-Technologie/3rd generation armor. As I wrote, I believe there to be two conflicting definitions:

• one counting special armor beginning with the Leopard 2 production version
• one earlier also counting something else (potentially just simple spaced armor or some prototype armor arrays) as first generation

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

There may be a difference in how IBD calls these armours, they also start with "2nd generation" in their powerpoint and use the Bionix as representation of 2nd generation armour and the same MRAP/APC hull as both 3rd and 4th generation armour with no visible differences.
Multiple inconsistencies in their presentation that we can't overlook.

 

The show the Bionix as example of "2nd generation medium protection", not heavy protection. The SuperAV/ACV is shown with two different medium protection generations, because the composition of the armor has changed and was improved. This is also shown in the earlier slides with the light protection. Light protection of the second generation was just large white ceramic tiles (most likely aluminium oxide) that were glued to what seems to be rubber. The third generation light protection used smaller tiles (10 x 10 cm) of unknown composition. The fourth generation light protection uses nano-ceramics ("NANOTech-Keramikmodul") based on silicon oxide (at least that's what the color suggests) with even smaller, hexagonal size.

 

For the SuperAV/ACV, initially the third generation medium protection was used to deal with IEDs. It was later upgraded to/replaced by fourth generation protection making use of newer/more optimal materials at similar size.

Likewise for the Boxer A2 of the Dutch Army, the armor modules were replaced using lighter ones that provide the same protection. Visually there is no difference.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Yeah, but this is circumstantial evidence, I tried looking this up earlier and that is all I could find, no explanation given, no other information.
While I agree that 12 years seems like a long time, it also says that steel from the 2nd generation was published in 2008....

 

You are mistaken - the fourth edition of the TL for second generation armor steel was published in 2008. Earlier editions existed long before that. This patent for example mentions a November 1990 edition of TL 2350-0000.

 

There was however only one edition for TL 2350-0010. Btw. you can simply search the TL register at the Bundeswehr's official website.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

It also doesn't mention 1st generation or third generation or even 4th generation armour.

 

Yes, I know that, but I can only speculate for reasons. Maybe the TL 2350-0010 is only listed because it expired and the TLs for third and fourth generation special armor remain fully classified (including title). Maybe there was a TL for second generation armor as the design was made/developed by a state-owned facility without production capacities, while the other armor generations were developed by companies and are thus their intellectual property? There are lots of potential reasons, but I don't think that wild guesses will help much.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I will also point out that the add-on armour for the leopard 2A4M in that KMW slide is also called "Beulblechtechnologie".
But I think we both know it isn't "B tech".

 

Yes, you misunderstood me. From my understanding, the original armor was simply described as "Panzerung in Beulblechtechnologie" ("armor in bulging plate/NERA technology"). Due to the composition of the armor being highly classified and the German MoD not wanting to disclose the armor construction to anybody without proper security clearance, this was abbreviated as "Panzerung in B-Technologie". From what I remember reading online a few years ago, the next name ("C-Technologie") was apparently a "backronym" (i.e. the name was intentionally chosen with an English name to have a "C" at the beginning) with the "C" standing for "Ceramic-Composite". Something like that was stated on an the Swiss Army's description page for the Leopard 2A4/Panzer 87 but I cannot find it anymore with the Internet Wayback Machine.

That is also the reason why Paul Lakowski (in his Armor Basics) and a lot of other TankNet members 15+ years ago believed that the initial Leopard 2 had no composite armor and only the Leopard 2A4 introduced "Chobham-like ceramic armor" (though as we know nowadays, Chobham isn't made out of ceramics).

 

D-Technologie and E-Technologie (to which the Leopard 2A4M's armor in "Beulblechtechnologie") belong were simply named that way to follow the existing pattern. But I cannot prove that, because I cannot find the old article describing "C-Technologie" as "ceramic-composite-Technologie").

 

Btw. the new PSO add-on armor marketed/described as E-Technologie is patented and developed by KMW, it uses some interesting technique (coating the surface of the steel plates using zinc electrophoretic deposition) to solve some issues with NERA that we usually never hear of (i.e. connecting the elastic layer to the steel plates in such a way that it is a permanent connection, is resistant to environmental influences such as heat and wetness and doesn't negatively impact protection performance).

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

But he literally does state so?
"Integriert" = "integrated"
I did ask native German speakers what they thought and they agreed he says integrated, I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted.
The second part is a separate sentence and he mentions them for chronological reasons as in "this is the first time in the service history of leopard 2 that external add-ons are used".
Also, we can't forget that he is talking about KVT here, not TVM nor Leopard 2A5 and we know for a fact that KVT retained B tech internal armour.
The Swedish trials indicate that TVM also used B tech internal armour (and I made this connection previously).

 

Well, as a native German speaker I would answer with "integriert" means "integrated", but that doesn't necessarily help. I personally never would say "integriert" when attaching something to the outside of an object. The word is also often translated as "embedded", i.e. an "integrierter Speicherchip" would be an "embedded member chip".

 

My main point is that he is IMO talking about two things:

1. first Schutzpakete (protection packages) that were integrated into the turret and hull. Note that the Krauss-Maffei slide in Lindström's presentation uses "Pakete" (packages) in reference to the internal armor and "Vors. Modul" ("Vorsatzmodul", attachment module) in reference to the add-on modules
2. "Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell", i.e. add-on attachment modules for hull and turret

 

That's at least how I as a native German speaker would understand his writing. Otherwise he is using (by accident) the same nomenclature as Krauss-Maffei (Wegmann) but in a wrong way while also using the word "integriert" in another way than I would do. But again, who knows. There are lots of regional nuances in the choice of words. Maybe he is from Bavaria or another place where people don't write/speak correct German...

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I honestly don't see how it would make any sense to build KVT from a 5th batch vehicle, then upgrade the internal armour to D tech, have it weigh 60.5t combat weight and then later build TVMs based on 8th batch vehicles and downgrade the armour to B tech and somehow weigh either 60.5t (assumption) or 62.5t.

 

The internal armor of the KVT was not upgraded. The internal armor of the TVM was likely never downgraded. KVT stands for Komponentenversuchsträger (component test bed), it doesn't need new internal armor as it was never meant to be identical to the prodution configuration.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

There is only a single picture claiming 15.5t while every secondary source says 16t and there is at least one source giving 16.99t for a "combat ready" turret.

 

There is an old documentary from German TV channel N24; they show the Leopard 2A4 turret being upgraded to the 2A5/2A6 configuration. During that video, the turret of the Leopard 2A4 was lifted with a display reading "15.500 To". 

Its either this one or the first part: https://www.welt.de/mediathek/dokumentation/technik-und-wissen/sendung155731963/Der-Leopard-2.html (unfortunately not available at the moment due to N24 not paying license fees for some of the used imagery anymore)

 

I have old screenshots from the movie...

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

Also, that's comparing to B tech turret, not C tech which 2A5 likely uses.

 

Except for the Swiss Panzer 87 being heavier, I have not seen any proof that the armor in C-Technologie is heavier. Rolf Hilmes even called the upgrade "weight neutral", but he is also the only one mentioning anything abnout the weight. So he might be wrong.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

The "tippvisier" has been added

 

Not on a series production model.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, where did you find this DM23 test?
Or is that from the comparison between US/UK plates and TL plates?

 

Its related to the tripartite trials, but not from the same document as posted by Wiedzmin. In general one should not forget that the takeaway from the UK was to attribute the DM13 APFSDS (!) with 475 mm penetration at 1,000 metres based on the trials even though it only penetrated 226.9 mm @60° (454.8 mm) of British steel and only 192.1 mm @60° (384.2 mm) of German TL 2350 plate.

 

Spoiler

 

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I sincerely doubt the efficacy of "ceramics" against KE, this is at least one point where I agree with the British when they there is no test on record to show it's performance as being particularly good (yes they say appliqué).

 

There are tons of tests showing that ceramic armor works very well even against large scale APFSDS rounds and there are tons of examples of such armor being developed (including, but not limited to: Soviet armor for the welded turrets in the late 1980s, Polish CAWA-2, American Tandem Ceramic Armor, etc.). Various tests with full scale penetrators have shown "good" performance (<1.5 mass efficiency against KE). The biggest problem was/is that ceramics are much worse than NERA against shaped charges.

 

ETEC Gesellschaft für technische Keramik even cited the Leopard 2 with "MEXAS system" as reference for its ALOTEC ceramic modules before the company was taken over by CeramTec:

Spoiler

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

The simple fact that they dropped the hull add-on for cost reasons, makes it highly unlikely that they improved the turret armour beyond the requirement by utilising a completely new armour package.

The upgrade of the hull armor was still planned, it was just re-scheduled to 2008  - when the new 140 mm turret was supposed to be adopted, requiring further changes to the hull.

 

The hull add-on armor was directly not removed for budgetary reasons, but due to the weight limit. The weight limit was indirectly caused by the budget, as there was not enough funding to replace the SLT 56 tank transport truck with trailer.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

If the original purpose was to take the oldest tanks with B tech and upgrade them to a higher level while retaining their base protection, so as to minimise costs and maximise amount of tanks with a higher level of protection both for the hull and turret, then why would they suddenly degrade the hulls (not using hull add-on) while at the same time further improving the turret?

 

The worst tank always gets upgraded first, because having lots of tanks that are "good enough" is better than having some tanks that are "unusable" and some tanks that are "good". This was the modus operandi of the German Bundeswehr during the Cold War and the reason why the M48 got passive night vision (PzB 200) before the majority of the Leopard 1 tanks, etc.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

At the same time, you are assuming they mean internal packages.

 

I am not assuming that "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" mean internal armor packages, I am just showing possibilities. Personally, I am assuming that "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" are just different amounts of the add-on armor being fitted. But I also believe there is "D tech" internal armor due different British documents (different due to their date) mentioning that and due to the  they mean both, because Krauss-Maffei used a table in the documents given to Sweden:

 

 

This layout just doesn't make a lot of sense, if "PAKETE" and "VORS. MODUL" are mutually exclusive.

 

4 hours ago, Scav said:

I see no reason why upgrading to C tech from B doesn't make sense or is impossible for 2A5, we've already agreed that even B tech can be used in KWS turrets as a base.

 

Because you'd buy older armor than what is available. If the claims mentioned in the British documents are anywhere close to correct (regardless of the order of magnitude of the performance), then "D tech" armor doesn't cost more and doesn't weigh more than the "C tech" armor. So why would you buy "C tech" armor in 1995, when "D tech" armor is available?

 

Your theory only makes sense if the Germans lied to the UK or if the UK made up stuff...

[speziale]

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

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:

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

 

I can accept your arguments. In this case the 5 colour lines probably show the evolution of the Leopard 2 protection. Purple – B-tech, Red – C-tech, Yellow – Leopard 2 KVT (Leopard 2 Improved – B tech+add-on), and the blue or the green line represents the Leopard 2 TVM.

However, this still does not answer the question of whether there were several add-on armor solutions. You showed some alternative readings, but I think these are incorrect. If the D-3 would mean the combination of D-1 (in this reading: internal armor) and D-2 (in ths reading: add-on armor), it would be represented as a combination of the D-1 (pakette) and D-2 (Vorsatz-module), not as „D-3”.

And as the technologie-combination of B-tech base armor with add-on armor represents the Leopard 2 KVT’ armor which had a full add-on armor coverage, I think that reading the D-1 is one part of the add-on, the D-2 is the other part of the add-on and the D-3 is the full add-on armor, is also incorrect.

Even if we assume the D-1 refers to the D-tech base armor we still have two add-on armor solution.

 

However, my main argument remains unanswered. The protection level of the „german” and „swedish” version turrets are the same from same angle of attack. It implies there is no difference between the base armor. But it (same protection level from same angle of attack) is not true in the case of the hull. So, the only possible answer for it is that there were two versions of (at least) the hull add-on armor.

[speziale]

49 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Because you'd buy older armor than what is available. If the claims mentioned in the British documents are anywhere close to correct (regardless of the order of magnitude of the performance), then "D tech" armor doesn't cost more and doesn't weigh more than the "C tech" armor. So why would you buy "C tech" armor in 1995, when "D tech" armor is available?

 

Your theory only makes sense if the Germans lied to the UK or if the UK made up stuff...

 

except that in the case of the hull they kept the C-tech armor. It seems quite logical that they did not want to use different internal armor in the hull and turret. and the TVM, which was a prototype (or pre-series version?) for the A5 alsi had a C-tech armor.

[Scav]

26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

You are mistaken - the fourth edition of the TL for second generation armor steel was published in 2008. Earlier editions existed long before that. This patent for example mentions a November 1990 edition of TL 2350-0000.

 

There was however only one edition for TL 2350-0010. Btw. you can simply search the TL register at the Bundeswehr's official website.

 

Yes, I know that, but I can only speculate for reasons. Maybe the TL 2350-0010 is only listed because it expired and the TLs for third and fourth generation special armor remain fully classified (including title). Maybe there was a TL for second generation armor as the design was made/developed by a state-owned facility without production capacities, while the other armor generations were developed by companies and are thus their intellectual property? There are lots of potential reasons, but I don't think that wild guesses will help much.

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008.
We can't really say for sure what it refers to, especially because both the 1st generation and third generation are missing, never mind a potential 4th.
It's a dead end so far as information goes, at least until someone can look at the specification and what it says.

 

 

28 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Yes, you misunderstood me. From my understanding, the original armor was simply described as "Panzerung in Beulblechtechnologie" ("armor in bulging plate/NERA technology"). Due to the composition of the armor being highly classified and the German MoD not wanting to disclose the armor construction to anybody without proper security clearance, this was abbreviated as "Panzerung in B-Technologie". From what I remember reading online a few years ago, the next name ("C-Technologie") was apparently a "backronym" (i.e. the name was intentionally chosen with an English name to have a "C" at the beginning) with the "C" standing for "Ceramic-Composite". Something like that was stated on an the Swiss Army's description page for the Leopard 2A4/Panzer 87 but I cannot find it anymore with the Internet Wayback Machine.

That is also the reason why Paul Lakowski (in his Armor Basics) and a lot of other TankNet members 15+ years ago believed that the initial Leopard 2 had no composite armor and only the Leopard 2A4 introduced "Chobham-like ceramic armor" (though as we know nowadays, Chobham isn't made out of ceramics).

This?
Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x).
 

30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

D-Technologie and E-Technologie (to which the Leopard 2A4M's armor in "Beulblechtechnologie") belong were simply named that way to follow the existing pattern. But I cannot prove that, because I cannot find the old article describing "C-Technologie" as "ceramic-composite-Technologie").

 

Btw. the new PSO add-on armor marketed/described as E-Technologie is patented and developed by KMW, it uses some interesting technique (coating the surface of the steel plates using zinc electrophoretic deposition) to solve some issues with NERA that we usually never hear of (i.e. connecting the elastic layer to the steel plates in such a way that it is a permanent connection, is resistant to environmental influences such as heat and wetness and doesn't negatively impact protection performance).

Never seen E tech specifically being referred to, but it does seem like KMW is moving away from IBD/Rheinmetall and trying to develop/use more of their own products.
It's especially interesting that they introduced this on PSO and the presentation even shows it tested for PSO, but the actual vehicle retained the heavy hull roof add-on.
Then on their slide showing "duel config" and "PSO config" there is a difference, but on A7V they use the light add-on, which makes absolutely no sense...
 

34 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Well, as a native German speaker I would answer with "integriert" means "integrated", but that doesn't necessarily help. I personally never would say "integriert" when attaching something to the outside of an object. The word is also often translated as "embedded", i.e. an "integrierter Speicherchip" would be an "embedded member chip".

 

My main point is that he is IMO talking about two things:

1. first Schutzpakete (protection packages) that were integrated into the turret and hull. Note that the Krauss-Maffei slide in Lindström's presentation uses "Pakete" (packages) in reference to the internal armor and "Vors. Modul" ("Vorsatzmodul", attachment module) in reference to the add-on modules
2. "Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell", i.e. add-on attachment modules for hull and turret

 

That's at least how I as a native German speaker would understand his writing. Otherwise he is using (by accident) the same nomenclature as Krauss-Maffei (Wegmann) but in a wrong way while also using the word "integriert" in another way than I would do. But again, who knows. There are lots of regional nuances in the choice of words. Maybe he is from Bavaria or another place where people don't write/speak correct German...

Integration could refer to the need for the vehicle to be properly prepared and modified to even accept them; you can't just weld/bolt the add-ons to any existing vehicle.
Perhaps it's a way to distinguish it from armour kits like the K-1 ERA on T-72A/B.

But my main point with this was that he says this in his KVT chapter and refers to KVT.
Which seems incredibly odd considering KVT retained the B tech armour....

He might be getting ahead of himself or making some small errors, but I try not to assume he makes too many of those without an indication.

 

39 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The internal armor of the KVT was not upgraded. The internal armor of the TVM was likely never downgraded. KVT stands for Komponentenversuchsträger (component test bed), it doesn't need new internal armor as it was never meant to be identical to the prodution configuration.

That's also what I thought initially, but it seems rather odd to me that Spielberger mentions them in the same breath.
Likewise, it seems even stranger that the proposed armour configuration of TVM to the Swedes was listed as B + D-2 if that wasn't the case.
I don't think they would intentionally offer a worse solution than they are testing and intend to use themselves, AFAIK the objective of LEOBEN has always been to maintain a maximum possible amount of standardisation whenever possible.

Not saying it's impossible that TVM was C + D-whatever, but it just seems incredibly weird and unlikely.
 

 

42 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

There is an old documentary from German TV channel N24; they show the Leopard 2A4 turret being upgraded to the 2A5/2A6 configuration. During that video, the turret of the Leopard 2A4 was lifted with a display reading "15.500 To". 

Its either this one or the first part: https://www.welt.de/mediathek/dokumentation/technik-und-wissen/sendung155731963/Der-Leopard-2.html (unfortunately not available at the moment due to N24 not paying license fees for some of the used imagery anymore)

 

I have old screenshots from the movie...

Nice pictures, but I don't think we can necessarily use this as proof?
For all we know, radios or other equipment may have already been demounted.

Krapke mentions the project leader of the turret developer adamantly refusing to exceed a 17t limit for the turret.
This rhymes with the 16.99t figure I have found for a combat loaded turret.
There's several other sources that also give 16t for an empty turret with armament.
2AV turret with EMES-15 sat at 17.4t fully loaded.

 

53 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Except for the Swiss Panzer 87 being heavier, I have not seen any proof that the armor in C-Technologie is heavier. Rolf Hilmes even called the upgrade "weight neutral", but he is also the only one mentioning anything abnout the weight. So he might be wrong.

Well to be fair, 1.5t isn't a lot... I have talked to some tankers that had the opportunity to load up their vehicles on a scale during shipping (Abrams tankers) and one of them told me his tank was close to 2t lighter than the weight often referred to when empty...
I also don't see how the heavy skirts could be lighter, considering there's now an extra part to it.
Never seen much regarding C tech in general, it was quite "short lived" in service outside of Switzerland.

 

57 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Not on a series production model.

Sorry, I meant the large periscope in front of the TC, I often get them mixed up.

 

59 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Its related to the tripartite trials, but not from the same document as posted by Wiedzmin. In general one should not forget that the takeaway from the UK was to attribute the DM13 APFSDS (!) with 475 mm penetration at 1,000 metres based on the trials even though it only penetrated 226.9 mm @60° (454.8 mm) of British steel and only 192.1 mm @60° (384.2 mm) of German TL 2350 plate.

....What...?
Another Britain moment or was there more to it?

Those values seem extremely scuffed, but thanks for the picture, hadn't seen this before.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

There are tons of tests showing that ceramic armor works very well even against large scale APFSDS rounds and there are tons of examples of such armor being developed (including, but not limited to: Soviet armor for the welded turrets in the late 1980s, Polish CAWA-2, American Tandem Ceramic Armor, etc.). Various tests with full scale penetrators have shown "good" performance (<1.5 mass efficiency against KE). The biggest problem was/is that ceramics are much worse than NERA against shaped charges.

 

ETEC Gesellschaft für technische Keramik even cited the Leopard 2 with "MEXAS system" as reference for its ALOTEC ceramic modules before the company was taken over by CeramTec:

CAWA is the only one I've seen actual "results" for, the TCA is requestionable as only some references are found and none of the citations.
The Soviet welded turrets seems mostly a result of utilising new steels and transitioning to an RHA structure rather than a cast structure, multi-hit performance is going to be problematic.

Most of the papers involve small scale tests.
The ceramic in MEXAS likely refers to the skirts, the D tech light skirts seem to have involved at least one version with some kind of insert in the fiberglass/aramid composite structure.
If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go.

But production vehicles seem to be lacking them and I doubt HEAT protection is the only reason.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The upgrade of the hull armor was still planned, it was just re-scheduled to 2008  - when the new 140 mm turret was supposed to be adopted, requiring further changes to the hull.

 

The hull add-on armor was directly not removed for budgetary reasons, but due to the weight limit. The weight limit was indirectly caused by the budget, as there was not enough funding to replace the SLT 56 tank transport truck with trailer.

 

The worst tank always gets upgraded first, because having lots of tanks that are "good enough" is better than having some tanks that are "unusable" and some tanks that are "good". This was the modus operandi of the German Bundeswehr during the Cold War and the reason why the M48 got passive night vision (PzB 200) before the majority of the Leopard 1 tanks, etc.

Somehow I doubt this was still the plan in 1995 when they started retrofitting tanks, also if the reason was weight penalty, wouldn't that also mean adopting a heavier D tech armour package in the turret is off the table..?
BTW, both TVM and TVM 2 had MLC70 marking, so does 2A5, I don't deny there's a difference there, but it seems a bit odd to use that as the reason.

In regards to worst tank being upgraded first, that's exactly what I mean when I suggest that they used B tech turrets for the base and still upgraded them with C tech rather than using C tech as a base.
Retains the most combat potential with the (2nd) least effort/cost.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

am not assuming that "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" mean internal armor packages, I am just showing possibilities. Personally, I am assuming that "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" are just different amounts of the add-on armor being fitted. But I also believe there is "D tech" internal armor due different British documents (different due to their date) mentioning that and due to the  they mean both, because Krauss-Maffei used a table in the documents given to Sweden:

 

 

This layout just doesn't make a lot of sense, if "PAKETE" and "VORS. MODUL" are mutually exclusive.

Just seems like somebody didn't want to bother graying out cells TBH (they needed an intern ), otherwise I would have expected them to also gray out B and C for "Vors. modul".

I also just think they're different amounts or types of add-on armour, I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Because you'd buy older armor than what is available. If the claims mentioned in the British documents are anywhere close to correct (regardless of the order of magnitude of the performance), then "D tech" armor doesn't cost more and doesn't weigh more than the "C tech" armor. So why would you buy "C tech" armor in 1995, when "D tech" armor is available?

 

Your theory only makes sense if the Germans lied to the UK or if the UK made up stuff...

Well...

• I don't think it would be cheaper, let alone weigh the same, which would also mean the difference between A5 and A4 turret can't be because of D tech, nor can it be used to prove as such
• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?
• UK docs are from a year or several years before KVT/TVM, we don't have all of them and they were told in secrecy with very few details
• Things might've changed between 1987 and 1989, perhaps they realised the goals were far too much to ask from an internal armour package, perhaps they just found a better way of doing things in a more practical way
• Brit documents are kind of notorious for misrepresenting the facts, overestimating their own equipment, underestimating foreign equipment or generally just missing the ball.

If C tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why is Pz 87 heavier?
If D tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why would 2A5 turret have "unexplained" weight increase apart from the things I have listed previously?

Something doesn't add up, there is never a free lunch and when it comes to armour, all the recent revelations keep me sceptical of any "weight neutral" increase in protection, particularly if they are large and with no thickness increase.

 

1 hour ago, speziale said:

However, my main argument remains unanswered. The protection level of the „german” and „swedish” version turrets are the same from same angle of attack. It implies there is no difference between the base armor. But it (same protection level from same angle of attack) is not true in the case of the hull. So, the only possible answer for it is that there were two versions of (at least) the hull add-on armor.

They definitely would have used different add-ons, but at the same time, some of the increases seem a little bit excessive to just be a result of an add-on module.
In case of the glacis attack, to me it seems the hull add-on modules of the Strv 122/TVM don't differ nearly enough to explain an "80mm" difference (I realise the actual threat only reaches 700mm).
The nr 2 turret attack can probably be ignored as a result of the measuring method (that threat doesn't reach beyond 700m, so any number beyond this is not exactly definitive or known).

There can also be slight variances in where the hits occurred, for example the sight aperture location might give substantially different results than the armour section below it.

Maybe we'll just have to wait another 10-20 years for the actual answers.

[Sheffield]

57 minutes ago, Scav said:

They definitely would have used different add-ons, but at the same time, some of the increases seem a little bit excessive to just be a result of an add-on module.

My head cannon is that as Germany delivered the TVMs, the subsequent ballistic tests carried out helped IBD identify the weakpoints in the overall design, shortly thereafter the TVM 2 is presented which sports the finalised vorsatz modul armour (that we today know as MEXAS-Heavy). Another conclusion I've come to is the prototype MEXAS was thinner/lacked the triangular plates on the inside of the turret modules (hence why there were gaps in the "700mm protection" from an off-angle), but that is more so due to the fact I have yet to see how the prototype armour looked on the inside, unlike the production armour.

[jojoisgood]

15 hours ago, Scav said:

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008.
We can't really say for sure what it refers to, especially because both the 1st generation and third generation are missing, never mind a potential 4th.
It's a dead end so far as information goes, at least until someone can look at the specification and what it says.

 

 

This?
Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x).
 

Never seen E tech specifically being referred to, but it does seem like KMW is moving away from IBD/Rheinmetall and trying to develop/use more of their own products.
It's especially interesting that they introduced this on PSO and the presentation even shows it tested for PSO, but the actual vehicle retained the heavy hull roof add-on.
Then on their slide showing "duel config" and "PSO config" there is a difference, but on A7V they use the light add-on, which makes absolutely no sense...
 

Integration could refer to the need for the vehicle to be properly prepared and modified to even accept them; you can't just weld/bolt the add-ons to any existing vehicle.
Perhaps it's a way to distinguish it from armour kits like the K-1 ERA on T-72A/B.

But my main point with this was that he says this in his KVT chapter and refers to KVT.
Which seems incredibly odd considering KVT retained the B tech armour....

He might be getting ahead of himself or making some small errors, but I try not to assume he makes too many of those without an indication.

 

That's also what I thought initially, but it seems rather odd to me that Spielberger mentions them in the same breath.
Likewise, it seems even stranger that the proposed armour configuration of TVM to the Swedes was listed as B + D-2 if that wasn't the case.
I don't think they would intentionally offer a worse solution than they are testing and intend to use themselves, AFAIK the objective of LEOBEN has always been to maintain a maximum possible amount of standardisation whenever possible.

Not saying it's impossible that TVM was C + D-whatever, but it just seems incredibly weird and unlikely.
 

 

Nice pictures, but I don't think we can necessarily use this as proof?
For all we know, radios or other equipment may have already been demounted.

Krapke mentions the project leader of the turret developer adamantly refusing to exceed a 17t limit for the turret.
This rhymes with the 16.99t figure I have found for a combat loaded turret.
There's several other sources that also give 16t for an empty turret with armament.
2AV turret with EMES-15 sat at 17.4t fully loaded.

 

Well to be fair, 1.5t isn't a lot... I have talked to some tankers that had the opportunity to load up their vehicles on a scale during shipping (Abrams tankers) and one of them told me his tank was close to 2t lighter than the weight often referred to when empty...
I also don't see how the heavy skirts could be lighter, considering there's now an extra part to it.
Never seen much regarding C tech in general, it was quite "short lived" in service outside of Switzerland.

 

Sorry, I meant the large periscope in front of the TC, I often get them mixed up.

 

....What...?
Another Britain moment or was there more to it?

Those values seem extremely scuffed, but thanks for the picture, hadn't seen this before.

 

CAWA is the only one I've seen actual "results" for, the TCA is requestionable as only some references are found and none of the citations.
The Soviet welded turrets seems mostly a result of utilising new steels and transitioning to an RHA structure rather than a cast structure, multi-hit performance is going to be problematic.

Most of the papers involve small scale tests.
The ceramic in MEXAS likely refers to the skirts, the D tech light skirts seem to have involved at least one version with some kind of insert in the fiberglass/aramid composite structure.
If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go.

But production vehicles seem to be lacking them and I doubt HEAT protection is the only reason.

 

Somehow I doubt this was still the plan in 1995 when they started retrofitting tanks, also if the reason was weight penalty, wouldn't that also mean adopting a heavier D tech armour package in the turret is off the table..?
BTW, both TVM and TVM 2 had MLC70 marking, so does 2A5, I don't deny there's a difference there, but it seems a bit odd to use that as the reason.

In regards to worst tank being upgraded first, that's exactly what I mean when I suggest that they used B tech turrets for the base and still upgraded them with C tech rather than using C tech as a base.
Retains the most combat potential with the (2nd) least effort/cost.

 

Just seems like somebody didn't want to bother graying out cells TBH (they needed an intern ), otherwise I would have expected them to also gray out B and C for "Vors. modul".

I also just think they're different amounts or types of add-on armour, I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart.
 

Well...

• I don't think it would be cheaper, let alone weigh the same, which would also mean the difference between A5 and A4 turret can't be because of D tech, nor can it be used to prove as such
• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?
• UK docs are from a year or several years before KVT/TVM, we don't have all of them and they were told in secrecy with very few details
• Things might've changed between 1987 and 1989, perhaps they realised the goals were far too much to ask from an internal armour package, perhaps they just found a better way of doing things in a more practical way
• Brit documents are kind of notorious for misrepresenting the facts, overestimating their own equipment, underestimating foreign equipment or generally just missing the ball.

If C tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why is Pz 87 heavier?
If D tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why would 2A5 turret have "unexplained" weight increase apart from the things I have listed previously?

Something doesn't add up, there is never a free lunch and when it comes to armour, all the recent revelations keep me sceptical of any "weight neutral" increase in protection, particularly if they are large and with no thickness increase.

 

They definitely would have used different add-ons, but at the same time, some of the increases seem a little bit excessive to just be a result of an add-on module.
In case of the glacis attack, to me it seems the hull add-on modules of the Strv 122/TVM don't differ nearly enough to explain an "80mm" difference (I realise the actual threat only reaches 700mm).
The nr 2 turret attack can probably be ignored as a result of the measuring method (that threat doesn't reach beyond 700m, so any number beyond this is not exactly definitive or known).

There can also be slight variances in where the hits occurred, for example the sight aperture location might give substantially different results than the armour section below it.

Maybe we'll just have to wait another 10-20 years for the actual answers.

So what armor do you think the blue and green use ?yellow is B + D2 add-on and. What about blue and yellow ?

[Scav]

1 hour ago, jojoisgood said:

So what armor do you think the blue and green use ?yellow is B + D2 add-on and. What about blue and yellow ?

No idea, impossible to really know for sure.

[speziale]

Do anybody know what was the weight of the turret add-on armor (w/o roof armor)?

[speziale]

And we also have to note that TVM 2 (this was built in "Mannheim configuration") already had a wegde shaped turret side armor in contrast to the TVM Max or the KVT.

[speziale]

BTW, it is also possible that the Germans decided to use the B-technology turret for the L2A5 upgrade because they wanted a uniform program with the Dutch, who, on the other hand, only had earlier series tanks. And by the way, the TVM 2, which was the final prototype of the Leopard2A5, was rebuilt from the previous KVT vehicle.

[SH_MM]

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

However, this still does not answer the question of whether there were several add-on armor solutions. You showed some alternative readings, but I think these are incorrect. If the D-3 would mean the combination of D-1 (in this reading: internal armor) and D-2 (in ths reading: add-on armor), it would be represented as a combination of the D-1 (pakette) and D-2 (Vorsatz-module), not as „D-3”.

 

Again, there are so many different possibilites. Maybe D-1 is just the skirt armor (as fielded on the Leopard 2A4 tanks from the eight batches), D-2 is the add-on armor and D-3 is the internal armor. We don't know anything concrete, so seeing the existence of D-1, D-2 and D-3 as proof for there being multiple add-on packages mounted in the same place (or as proof for there being only one add-on package) doesn't make sense.

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

However, my main argument remains unanswered. The protection level of the „german” and „swedish” version turrets are the same from same angle of attack. It implies there is no difference between the base armor. But it (same protection level from same angle of attack) is not true in the case of the hull. So, the only possible answer for it is that there were two versions of (at least) the hull add-on armor.

I don't understand your conclusion here. If the "same protection level" is provided from "the same angle of attack", then that also would imply that the add-on armor is identical aswell, wouldn't it?

 

I think you are refering to location number 2 on this slide, where shot #921162 against the "Swedish solution" and shot #930701 against the "German solution" provide very similar results (820 mm @ 0° and 817 mm @ 0°. But location number 1 (shot #921161 and shot #930687) also hit the frontal armor of the turret through the applique armor close to location one, yet it provided a quite significant performance difference. That just means that the armor - regardless of it being the base armor or the add-on armor - behaves differently when hit at an angle.

 

For the other turret side (shot 7), Sweden noted an even larger performance difference, claiming that the "German solution" could only stop the 120 mm APFSDS test round and 165 mm warhead when hit directly from the front.

 

So the left turret front might be vulnerable even at 10°.

 

23 hours ago, speziale said:

except that in the case of the hull they kept the C-tech armor. It seems quite logical that they did not want to use different internal armor in the hull and turret.

 

Why is does this seem "quite logical"? I cannot think of a single reason to keep the internal armor of hull and turret identical, when weight limits forbid upgrading the hull. What advantage does having the same internal armor in hull and turret provide? Why did that not matter for the Leopard 2A4 hybrids receivng the turrets of the converted hulls?

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Seems rather strange they would have multiple editions of such an old armour technology, even making newer ones as recently as 2008.

 

As you can see on the BAAINBw's official page, the TL 2350-0000 is still valid. There even were two new editions (the last one from August 2023) since the your list was generated.

 

It is hardly strange to have multiple editions, it is just steel (Panzerstahl, II. Generation = armor steel/RHA of the second generation). They just add new manufacturing techniques (welding techniques like e.g. laser welding) or steel grades that were developed. Steel doesn't change too much, so publishing a new TL likely makes no sense. The British DEF-STAN 95-25 for example is from WW2 (I.T.90) translated into the new document format and was used for the CR2 turret.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

This?

 

That's from militärfahrzeuge.ch, isn't it? I remember seeing something on the official Swiss Army website that probably acted as source for militärfahrzeuge.ch.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Very strange to use English for internal names of armour technology IMO, at least use the whole English name of "C technology then x).

 

Then again, the Type C armor was directly marketed to the UK. Maybe that's when it got its name.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Integration could refer to the need for the vehicle to be properly prepared and modified to even accept them; you can't just weld/bolt the add-ons to any existing vehicle.

 

Would be an odd way of saying. Prepared for/adapted to makes more sense.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Likewise, it seems even stranger that the proposed armour configuration of TVM to the Swedes was listed as B + D-2 if that wasn't the case.

I don't think they would intentionally offer a worse solution than they are testing and intend to use themselves, AFAIK the objective of LEOBEN has always been to maintain a maximum possible amount of standardisation whenever possible.

 

There is nothing suggesting that the "proposed armor configuration for Sweden" was identical to the TVM's armor.

At the time of the Swedish trials, Germany still wanted to upgrade earlier tanks with the add-on armor and keep the tanks with newer internal armor in service. LEOBEN had three users back then, one with tanks featuring "C technology" base armor on most of its tanks, one exclusively with "B technology" base armor and Germany.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Nice pictures, but I don't think we can necessarily use this as proof?
For all we know, radios or other equipment may have already been demounted.

Krapke mentions the project leader of the turret developer adamantly refusing to exceed a 17t limit for the turret.
This rhymes with the 16.99t figure I have found for a combat loaded turret.
There's several other sources that also give 16t for an empty turret with armament.
2AV turret with EMES-15 sat at 17.4t fully loaded.

 

The weight of the turret without ammunition and crew is 15,500 kg. That is how much it weighed in the factory, before the optics, hydraulic pump, secondary armament, main gun, etc. was removed. 16.99 tonnes doesn't seem realistic. militärfahrzeuge.ch claims 16,000 kg for the turret.

 

16.99 tonnes would leave only 38.16 tonnes for the hull, that would mean that the Leopard 2 hull is lighter than the Abrams' hull despite its power pack (engine + transmission + fuel) weighing 10% more than the Abrams' and featuring much thicker armor and heavier tracks.

 

Spielberger listing a weight of 16.99 tonnes also lists a total combat weight of 55,500 kg for the Leopard 2A4...

Spoiler

 

Pretty much every other source including official ones list a weight of 55,15 tonnes.

 

Spoiler

 

The 17 tonnes weight limit existed during development, resulting in the two prototypes weighing 57,920 kg (with EMES 13) and 57,670 kg (with EMES 15) in early 1977 with turrets weighing 17,650 kg and 17,400 kg.

Hull weight was 40,720 kg. Changes leading to an overall weight reduction worth 2,067 kg were proposed, but only changes resulting in 1,143 kg weight reduction were approved. The following aspects were to be considered for further weight reductions:

• changes in materials, especially for parts not contributing to armor protection. Armor protection was to remain unchanged (105 mm KE/38 and Milan ATGM)
• reduction of structural plate thickness by 2-3 mm
• the proposed but not accepted weight reductions should be investigated
• BWB was tasked to investigate the size and impact of the imbalance moment regarding possible changes in the gun drives and stabilizers
• the TZF 1A1 was to be replaced with a new backup sight (this became the FERO)

So all "new" changes being investigated would affect the turret weight.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

The Soviet welded turrets seems mostly a result of utilising new steels and transitioning to an RHA structure rather than a cast structure, multi-hit performance is going to be problematic.

 

The article from @Andrei_bt's page that I linked two contains two drawings of Soviet ceramic armor that was meant for the welded turrets and developed in tandem with them.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

The ceramic in MEXAS likely refers to the skirts, the D tech light skirts seem to have involved at least one version with some kind of insert in the fiberglass/aramid composite structure.

 

I doubt that ceramic armor is used in the skirts. According to Rolf Hilmes, ceramic is not suited for skirt armor, as the skirts will touch the ground when travelling offroad through mud/uneven terrain or hit trees/bushes/rocks. In such a case, the brittle ceramics would crack result in a loss of protection capabilities.

 

This seems to be confirmed by the fact that MEXAS on the CV9030 uses perforated steel for the skirts:

 

Spoiler

 

The improved light skirts of Leopard 2 ("D-Technologie") seem to be made of fibre-reinforced plastic, on earlier models they were made of rubber with perforated steel plates embedded into.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

If their only drawback was HEAT protection, you'd think combining it with add-on that provides that would be the way to go.

 

Yes, it would... if there only would be an add-on armor module that is by design highly effective against shaped charges and also provides some additional KE protection...

 

Spoiler

 

Given that you have posted a photo of armor tests showing an armor array stopping LKE1, you probably also have seen the presentation on ammunition development that was part of the same "advert for upgrades" folder... look at the graph predicting the anti-KE armor development there. It clearly contains an area labelled "Keramik".

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

BTW, both TVM and TVM 2 had MLC70 marking, so does 2A5, I don't deny there's a difference there, but it seems a bit odd to use that as the reason.

 

That's the reason stated by Hilmes.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

I've pretty much excluded the roof protection because it doesn't make sense on this chart.

 

It is possible thar roof protection was included and it is possible that roof protection was excluded. We cannot really rule either out. The chart in the middle might not even be from the same page/folder as the other two.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

Well...

• I don't think it would be cheaper, let alone weigh the same, which would also mean the difference between A5 and A4 turret can't be because of D tech, nor can it be used to prove as such
• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?
• UK docs are from a year or several years before KVT/TVM, we don't have all of them and they were told in secrecy with very few details
• Things might've changed between 1987 and 1989, perhaps they realised the goals were far too much to ask from an internal armour package, perhaps they just found a better way of doing things in a more practical way
• Brit documents are kind of notorious for misrepresenting the facts, overestimating their own equipment, underestimating foreign equipment or generally just missing the ball.

If C tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why is Pz 87 heavier?
If D tech is a weight neutral upgrade, why would 2A5 turret have "unexplained" weight increase apart from the things I have listed previously?

Something doesn't add up, there is never a free lunch and when it comes to armour, all the recent revelations keep me sceptical of any "weight neutral" increase in protection, particularly if they are large and with no thickness increase.

 

There are lots of factors at play. The whole issue with the weight is really messy and convoluted. Do we actually have a proper/official source that the second and third batches of Panzer 87 are heavier? Or is that only militärfahrzeuge.ch and two articles of the Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift talking about the Panzer 87WE. Why is the Panzer 87WE just as heavy as the late Panzer 87 pre-WE? Does the electric turret drive perfectly negate the weight of the added rear driving camera, digital screens and the PERI R17A2 which has an additional armored cover not found on the Leopard 2A5? Why does the militärfahrzeuge.ch list the weight of the early Panzer 87 as 55,000 kg - lower than the first production model Leopard 2 - despite the vehicle supposed to be fitted with 260 kg worth of engine mufflers? And how does the militärfahrzeuge.ch only list one weight for the turret (16,000 kg) for all three Panzer 87 (early, late and WE) models?

Why does Spielberger list the "series production" Leopard 2's weight at 55,550 kg rather than the 55,150 kg found elsewhere? And why does he list a "maximum combat weight" of 62,500 kg for th KVT and TVM, when Rolf Hilmes specifically mentions that the combat weight of the KVT is 60,500 kg vs 62,500 kg for the TVMs?

 

All of this doesn't really make sense. The statement of the "weight neutral armor" doesn't come from me, its from Hilmes and the British documents. But those are subjective (are less than 2.5% of additional weight "neutral") or predictions for future developments. To add insult to injury, the British documents list a weight of 55 tons for the Leopard 2A4 with "C technology" armor!

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

• If C tech suffices, why risk using a potentially less mature armour tech?

Because armor in "C technology" might not have been suffice based on the German predictions for the future? We know that "third generation armor" fielded/ready in 1991 - regardless of this being "improved C technology" or "D technology" was the FST tank. FST-1 would be just the T-80U, FST-2 and FST-3 tanks remained NATO predections for the future (just as the "T-95"). For countering the FST-3, Germany had the requirement for a 140 mm smoothbore gun in the Panzerkampfwagen 2000, Leopard 2 KWS III and later the NGP.

 

21 hours ago, Scav said:

In case of the glacis attack, to me it seems the hull add-on modules of the Strv 122/TVM don't differ nearly enough to explain an "80mm" difference (I realise the actual threat only reaches 700mm).

 

One thing of note is that according to the graph, the "glacis" section seems to be the module covering the composite armor location 1 and 2, KE shots #930205 and #930692. The upper hull module covering the thin steel section/upper front plate was only tested on the Swedish version... maybe because it was just steel and thus identical (in case the add-on armor was identical)?

 

 

4 hours ago, speziale said:

Do anybody know what was the weight of the turret add-on armor (w/o roof armor)?

 

The two frontal modules weight 1,000 kg according to an old sign put up by the Dutch during a public display. That's however causing lots of issues with the turret weights cited in the manuals according to @Scav.

 

4 hours ago, speziale said:

And we also have to note that TVM 2 (this was built in "Mannheim configuration") already had a wegde shaped turret side armor in contrast to the TVM Max or the KVT.

 

The TVM 2 is the TVM Max after being converted to the final configuration. This was done before the trials in Sweden started and just shows that the side armor shape was a typical change going from prototype to series model.

 

3 hours ago, speziale said:

BTW, it is also possible that the Germans decided to use the B-technology turret for the L2A5 upgrade because they wanted a uniform program with the Dutch, who, on the other hand, only had earlier series tanks. And by the way, the TVM 2, which was the final prototype of the Leopard2A5, was rebuilt from the previous KVT vehicle.

 

No, the TVM2 is the TVM Max. TVM1 is the TVM Min. These are just different designations according to Hilmes. The KVT was turned into the IVT, the TVM 2 was modified into the TVM 2 mod. (corresponding to the series production model) starting in 1992 and finished in Spring of 1993. In Fall of 1993, the Swedish trials started.

[Wiedzmin]

 

Blohm & Voss package for  Leopard-2/3, end up in Flachturm Leo2

 

 

3rd picture posted by Säbelzahnmöwe

 

his channel 

h

[speziale]

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I don't understand your conclusion here. If the "same protection level" is provided from "the same angle of attack", then that also would imply that the add-on armor is identical aswell, wouldn't it? 

 

Not, beacuse this was not true in the case of the hull. That’ the point. But what do you think what was the reason for the different protection values of the GER and SWE versions?

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Why is does this seem "quite logical"? I cannot think of a single reason to keep the internal armor of hull and turret identical, when weight limits forbid upgrading the hull. 

 

maintenance, for example. and you forget that the cold war was ended and Germans can think that protection level can be enough.

 

But based on your logic, it is hardly understandable, why just the light skirt was changed on the last 75 tanks, if KMW stated that D-tech armor had been ready in 1991? To be honest it would be more logical if they change at least the heavy skirt elements as it was the weakest area of the armor from 30 degree of angle of attack (in other words: it gave the lower edge of the protecion level in 60 degree frontal arc).

 

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I think you are refering to location number 2 on this slide, where shot #921162 against the "Swedish solution" and shot #930701 against the "German solution" provide very similar results (820 mm @ 0° and 817 mm @ 0°. But location number 1 (shot #921161 and shot #930687) also hit the frontal armor of the turret through the applique armor close to location one, yet it provided a quite significant performance difference. That just means that the armor - regardless of it being the base armor or the add-on armor - behaves differently when hit at an angle.

 

 

 

No, not just the Shot #2. The Shot #11 (SWE – 379mm) and Shot #6 (GER-371mm), or the Shot #3 (SWE-1480mm, GER- 1475mm). That is 3 shots (with Shot #2 what you have already mentioned). I think it is enough proof for that there could not be difference in the base armor.

And to compare the estimated protection values from different angle of attack is not too lucky thing, beacuse there is a very complicated geometrics here. If you compare the Shot #7 and #1 (both for SWE), you can see 720 vs 810 mm protection level from same angle of attack. The first one is lower than the Shot #1 (GER- 760mm), which is quite plausible, as higher the angle of attack lower the armor’ LOS thickness. So, it is possible the Shot #1 (SWE) was just a very lucky/unlucky (depends on the point of view) shot.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There is nothing suggesting that the "proposed armor configuration for Sweden" was identical to the TVM's armor.

 

Except the fact that the TVM participated on the Swedish trial.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

No, the TVM2 is the TVM Max. TVM1 is the TVM Min. These are just different designations according to Hilmes. The KVT was turned into the IVT, the TVM 2 was modified into the TVM 2 mod. (corresponding to the series production model) starting in 1992 and finished in Spring of 1993. In Fall of 1993, the Swedish trials started.

 

Sorry, I made a mistake here. I want to say that TVM 2 also had a B-tach armor. What I have read it was made by the modification of the Fahregestell-Nr 20823 with the licence plate Y-567056 (MaK made vehicle from the 5. batch).

[Scav]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As you can see on the BAAINBw's official page, the TL 2350-0000 is still valid. There even were two new editions (the last one from August 2023) since the your list was generated.

 

It is hardly strange to have multiple editions, it is just steel (Panzerstahl, II. Generation = armor steel/RHA of the second generation). They just add new manufacturing techniques (welding techniques like e.g. laser welding) or steel grades that were developed. Steel doesn't change too much, so publishing a new TL likely makes no sense. The British DEF-STAN 95-25 for example is from WW2 (I.T.90) translated into the new document format and was used for the CR2 turret.

BTW, I recalled something, TL 2350-001 is a specification for armour steel that existed in the 70s, predating C tech and seemed to have been used in 70s to come up with bulging plate armour.
 

Spoiler

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

That's from militärfahrzeuge.ch, isn't it? I remember seeing something on the official Swiss Army website that probably acted as source for militärfahrzeuge.ch.

Then again, the Type C armor was directly marketed to the UK. Maybe that's when it got its name.

Yep.
C tech was also probably marketed to Switzerland as they ended up getting it.
Not sure why they would base their naming off of it, seems very random to change language just for this.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There is nothing suggesting that the "proposed armor configuration for Sweden" was identical to the TVM's armor.

At the time of the Swedish trials, Germany still wanted to upgrade earlier tanks with the add-on armor and keep the tanks with newer internal armor in service. LEOBEN had three users back then, one with tanks featuring "C technology" base armor on most of its tanks, one exclusively with "B technology" base armor and Germany.

Exactly why I think it makes absolutely 0 sense to build trial vehicles with an armour scheme you don't intend to adopt in the first place.

Never mind propose an armour scheme to a potential customer if you don't intend to use it youself.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The weight of the turret without ammunition and crew is 15,500 kg. That is how much it weighed in the factory, before the optics, hydraulic pump, secondary armament, main gun, etc. was removed. 16.99 tonnes doesn't seem realistic. militärfahrzeuge.ch claims 16,000 kg for the turret.

16.99 tonnes would leave only 38.16 tonnes for the hull, that would mean that the Leopard 2 hull is lighter than the Abrams' hull despite its power pack (engine + transmission + fuel) weighing 10% more than the Abrams' and featuring much thicker armor and heavier tracks.

 

Spielberger listing a weight of 16.99 tonnes also lists a total combat weight of 55,500 kg for the Leopard 2A4...

Pretty much every other source including official ones list a weight of 55,15 tonnes.

 

The 17 tonnes weight limit existed during development, resulting in the two prototypes weighing 57,920 kg (with EMES 13) and 57,670 kg (with EMES 15) in early 1977 with turrets weighing 17,650 kg and 17,400 kg.

Hull weight was 40,720 kg. Changes leading to an overall weight reduction worth 2,067 kg were proposed, but only changes resulting in 1,143 kg weight reduction were approved. The following aspects were to be considered for further weight reductions:

• changes in materials, especially for parts not contributing to armor protection. Armor protection was to remain unchanged (105 mm KE/38 and Milan ATGM)
• reduction of structural plate thickness by 2-3 mm
• the proposed but not accepted weight reductions should be investigated
• BWB was tasked to investigate the size and impact of the imbalance moment regarding possible changes in the gun drives and stabilizers
• the TZF 1A1 was to be replaced with a new backup sight (this became the FERO)

So all "new" changes being investigated would affect the turret weight.

Spoiler

Spielberger does give a weight of 55.15t later in the book, it was perhaps a typo.
Hilmes also provides the 16t empty weight and so does the Swiss tank website (it seems they mostly provide weight for B tech tanks and only did so for the total weight in the beginning, bit strange but whatever)
There were some other people/places, but I can't recall them.

Combat weight increase of 990kg seems very reasonable:

• 300kg=15x21kg 120mm rounds
• 225kg= 3x75kg crew
• ~100kg for the 7.62 ammo and boxes
• ~350kg left for other equipment, helmets, boots, self defense weapons..

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I doubt that ceramic armor is used in the skirts. According to Rolf Hilmes, ceramic is not suited for skirt armor, as the skirts will touch the ground when travelling offroad through mud/uneven terrain or hit trees/bushes/rocks. In such a case, the brittle ceramics would crack result in a loss of protection capabilities.

 

This seems to be confirmed by the fact that MEXAS on the CV9030 uses perforated steel for the skirts:

I don't mean the whole skirt, but certainly inserts inside the skirt could be.
The skirts themselves consist of a fiberglass/aramid material.
 

Spoiler

There are several versions of the D tech skirts BTW, there's the initial ones with the fiberglass/aramid structure and low instep, there's the composite ones with the higher instep and then even later steel ones with a higher instep.
(pictures just for illustration)

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yes, it would... if there only would be an add-on armor module that is by design highly effective against shaped charges and also provides some additional KE protection...

Yes, so wouldn't the "supposed" ceramic technology make sense to use then?
Also, there are definitely more factors at play that prevent their use.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Given that you have posted a photo of armor tests showing an armor array stopping LKE1, you probably also have seen the presentation on ammunition development that was part of the same "advert for upgrades" folder... look at the graph predicting the anti-KE armor development there. It clearly contains an area labelled "Keramik".

Unfortunately... I did not save anything other than this image and can't recall specifics.
But yes, there are always adverts claiming "future improvements".
It's a very common trope, in particular just look at all the nano ceramics stuff they claimed 15 years ago, almost all of which seems to have remained at the lower end of the KE threat scale.

Likewise there are a lot of other proposed upgrades with new technology that have taken their sweet time to be implemented.

I don't doubt there is lab experiments that show potential, but that's where it seems to remain for the large part.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is possible thar roof protection was included and it is possible that roof protection was excluded. We cannot really rule either out. The chart in the middle might not even be from the same page/folder as the other two.

If it were included I would at least expect another diagram showing roof protection levels, though it might've been off-page I suppose.
Just seems a bit odd to mix that in with the "KE threat".

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There are lots of factors at play. The whole issue with the weight is really messy and convoluted. Do we actually have a proper/official source that the second and third batches of Panzer 87 are heavier? Or is that only militärfahrzeuge.ch and two articles of the Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift talking about the Panzer 87WE. Why is the Panzer 87WE just as heavy as the late Panzer 87 pre-WE? Does the electric turret drive perfectly negate the weight of the added rear driving camera, digital screens and the PERI R17A2 which has an additional armored cover not found on the Leopard 2A5? Why does the militärfahrzeuge.ch list the weight of the early Panzer 87 as 55,000 kg - lower than the first production model Leopard 2 - despite the vehicle supposed to be fitted with 260 kg worth of engine mufflers? And how does the militärfahrzeuge.ch only list one weight for the turret (16,000 kg) for all three Panzer 87 (early, late and WE) models?

Probably a result of not wanting to post information that isn't publicly available elsewhere.
BTW the 55000kg weight isn't lower than first production model leo 2s, it's actually just the "combat weight".
I have a page of a leo 2A1NL manual that states the combat weight is 55t and the maximum allowable weight 55.15t.

The mufflers probably aren't included simply because they're not used all the time, though as I said, the weight can vary even between tanks of the same model, which isn't all too surprising.
Leo 2 went through a lot of changes between A0 and A4, yet the weight is still listed as the same.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Why does Spielberger list the "series production" Leopard 2's weight at 55,550 kg rather than the 55,150 kg found elsewhere? And why does he list a "maximum combat weight" of 62,500 kg for th KVT and TVM, when Rolf Hilmes specifically mentions that the combat weight of the KVT is 60,500 kg vs 62,500 kg for the TVMs?

Wait, where does Hilmes mention this?
It's not in the section of Krapke's book, he only mentions the 60.51t weight there (and doesn't change it for TVM).
I checked Heute und Morgen and it's not there either.

 

Trying to find as much of this as possible.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

All of this doesn't really make sense. The statement of the "weight neutral armor" doesn't come from me, its from Hilmes and the British documents. But those are subjective (are less than 2.5% of additional weight "neutral") or predictions for future developments. To add insult to injury, the British documents list a weight of 55 tons for the Leopard 2A4 with "C technology" armor!

Yup, it's quite frustrating, just trying to get a discussion going to compile all possible information.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Because armor in "C technology" might not have been suffice based on the German predictions for the future? We know that "third generation armor" fielded/ready in 1991 - regardless of this being "improved C technology" or "D technology" was the FST tank. FST-1 would be just the T-80U, FST-2 and FST-3 tanks remained NATO predections for the future (just as the "T-95"). For countering the FST-3, Germany had the requirement for a 140 mm smoothbore gun in the Panzerkampfwagen 2000, Leopard 2 KWS III and later the NGP.

Wasn't that the point of KWS3 and later NGP though?
Taking things one step at a time with a reasonable amount of mature development seems much more in line with their service adoptions, rather than rushing and trying to get the absolute best possible.
And being able to defeat LKE2 (some version of it at least), seems more than sufficient for whatever the Soviets were expected to bring to the table in the foreseeable future until KWS3 or later upgrades roll out.

If that was the case, then I would have expected them to upgrade the hull armour as well (outside of the add-on).
But yeah, value for money...
 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

One thing of note is that according to the graph, the "glacis" section seems to be the module covering the composite armor location 1 and 2, KE shots #930205 and #930692. The upper hull module covering the thin steel section/upper front plate was only tested on the Swedish version... maybe because it was just steel and thus identical (in case the add-on armor was identical)?

It was also tested with a lower threat on the Swedish version, at least if I understand you correctly.
But yes, as I said, I didn't see much difference.
Visual inspection of the TVM also looks incredibly similar to that of the Strv 122 for example (or 2E/HEL for that matter).
It's mostly the turret add-ons that seem different, in particular the sections at the corner and sides (where we also see the biggest difference in the testing results).

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The two frontal modules weight 1,000 kg according to an old sign put up by the Dutch during a public display. That's however causing lots of issues with the turret weights cited in the manuals according to @Scav.

I honestly doubt those weights were accurate, probably just a ballpark number, I mean exactly 500kg?
They also didn't include the side add-ons, just the front ones and the side ones only weighing 200 each seems a bit odd, although not impossible.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The TVM 2 is the TVM Max after being converted to the final configuration. This was done before the trials in Sweden started and just shows that the side armor shape was a typical change going from prototype to series model.

Y-567 056 (2A4) was the basis for TVM 2 Mod
TVM max was Y-907 792 and TVM min was Y-907-793 (on display now in Munster).
KVT was Y-582 391
TVM max became Leopard 2A6EX DEMO 1 and there is an image of it with in the TVM config but with L55 gun, I believe it later became the DEMO 2 and after that PSO (possibly the basis for the EMBT 2 now?)

Hilmes gives a different explanation, which I can't explain with the picture evidence of TVM Max with L55 and later as 2A6EX...

Not sure what became of IVT, it seems to have been used for future "C2" trials between the US and Germany.

 

[Scav]

1 hour ago, speziale said:

But based on your logic, it is hardly understandable, why just the light skirt was changed on the last 75 tanks, if KMW stated that D-tech armor had been ready in 1991? To be honest it would be more logical if they change at least the heavy skirt elements as it was the weakest area of the armor from 30 degree of angle of attack (in other words: it gave the lower edge of the protecion level in 60 degree frontal arc).

Some sources state only light skirts were changed, some state both were changed.
I tried finding a leopard 2A5/6 with the Danish style of heavy skirt, but haven't been able to.
The German/Dutch heavy skirts on A5/6 are notably different than those of the Danish tanks and they look identical to images of C tech heavy skirts.
Pictures of the TVM also don't show the inside sadly...

If someone can find images of the Strv 122 heavy skirt when it's de-mounted, that would be very nice.

They could still be different of course, even with identical appearance, but at least there ought to be a reason for it.

[speziale]

I would like to draw your attention to 1 more interesting thing, here:

 

 

On the slide had been represented 2 shots from 30 degree AoA (Shot 7 SWE and Shot 1 SWE), and there is a very significant difference between the protection values.

But if we compare the Shot #7 (SWE) to the Shot #1 (GER), we can see that the difference between them (758/720-1=~5.5%) is almost the same to the difference between the LOS thickness of the armor from 20 and 30 degree AoA. 

So, this coupled with the other 3 pairs of shots (mentioned in my preivious posts) from same AoA strongly underpin the view there was no difference in (at least) the base armor of the GER and SWE versions turrets. I think the Shot #1 (SWE) was just an outlier due to a lucky strike 😊.

 

 

 

I also note that in the case of the hull armor there was a significant difference in the protection level of the heavy skirts, but there was no add-on armor on the skirts. And the outlook of the Strv122 heavy skirts are similar to the C-tech skirts.

Futhermore, the protection level of the glacis with B-tech armor could be around 380mm. And in the british document Germans claimed that C-tech armor increased around by 20% the performance against KE-threats. 380*0,2=76mm. It is almost tha same to the difference between the glacis protection of the two versions Shot #1 (GER-670mm and SWE-750mm)

 

So, what if the actual difference between the GER and SWE versions was that the swedish version combined the B-tech turret with C-tech hull? This explanation would also solve the question of "were there multiple add-on armors or not"

It seems, Germany originally promoted the Leopard 2 Improved with B-tech inserts and with add-on armor. This can be logical, since according to the original plans, the Germans wanted to upgrade many more Leopard 2s (than they after actually did, and than they C-tech armored Leopard 2 had), and as several people mentioned before, it is likely that in this case the older tanks would have been upgraded first. In addition, in Mannheim the Leopard user countries decided together about the technical specification, and the Netherlands only had B-tech armored Leopards. And also keep in mind, that the final prototype of the L2A5 was made from a 5th batch Leopard. So, it is possible Germany promoted the same version to the Sweden. However, this configuration did not fully meet the protection requirements of the Swedes, which is why the modification was necessary. And that (use C-tech hull instead of B-tech) actually seemed like the easiest (or the only off-the-shelf) solution.

[jojoisgood]

Could anyone anybody make a graphs like the leopard 2a4 one,which presents which part have how many percentages ,and we can know what the protection level STRV122 Lower front plate HAVE,and,we can figure out what armor it USE ,BRO Please somebody gotta do it,STRV122 have around 11% protected area at 500mm,which it will definitely penetrate C tech LFP while can not penetrate roof armor of the Leopard, 70mm 7°,because  Dejmian had made a simulation of 40mm7° vs 3bm42 ,and it almost stop it ,I think 70mm 7° will be enough to stop 500mm .

[jojoisgood]

10 minutes ago, speziale said:

I would like to draw your attention to 1 more interesting thing, here:

 

 

On the slide had been represented 2 shots from 30 degree AoA (Shot 7 SWE and Shot 1 SWE), and there is a very significant difference between the protection values.

But if we compare the Shot #7 (SWE) to the Shot #1 (GER), we can see that the difference between them (758/720-1=~5.5%) is almost the same to the difference between the LOS thickness of the armor from 20 and 30 degree AoA. 

So, this coupled with the other 3 pairs of shots (mentioned in my preivious posts) from same AoA strongly underpin the view there was no difference in (at least) the base armor of the GER and SWE versions turrets. I think the Shot #1 (SWE) was just an outlier due to a lucky strike 😊.

 

 

 

I also note that in the case of the hull armor there was a significant difference in the protection level of the heavy skirts, but there was no add-on armor on the skirts. And the outlook of the Strv122 heavy skirts are similar to the C-tech skirts.

Futhermore, the protection level of the glacis with B-tech armor could be around 380mm. And in the british document Germans claimed that C-tech armor increased around by 20% the performance against KE-threats. 380*0,2=76mm. It is almost tha same to the difference between the glacis protection of the two versions Shot #1 (GER-670mm and SWE-750mm)

 

So, what if the actual difference between the GER and SWE versions was that the swedish version combined the B-tech turret with C-tech hull? This explanation would also solve the question of "were there multiple add-on armors or not"

It seems, Germany originally promoted the Leopard 2 Improved with B-tech inserts and with add-on armor. This can be logical, since according to the original plans, the Germans wanted to upgrade many more Leopard 2s (than they after actually did, and than they C-tech armored Leopard 2 had), and as several people mentioned before, it is likely that in this case the older tanks would have been upgraded first. In addition, in Mannheim the Leopard user countries decided together about the technical specification, and the Netherlands only had B-tech armored Leopards. And also keep in mind, that the final prototype of the L2A5 was made from a 5th batch Leopard. So, it is possible Germany promoted the same version to the Sweden. However, this configuration did not fully meet the protection requirements of the Swedes, which is why the modification was necessary. And that (use C-tech hull instead of B-tech) actually seemed like the easiest (or the only off-the-shelf) solution.

I think b tech 350 ×1.2=420 still very close to 80mm

[speziale]

3 hours ago, jojoisgood said:

I think b tech 350 ×1.2=420 still very close to 80mm

 I think this 350mm came from the 'famous' british docoments.

But u missunderstood this value. This means, the Leopard 2 was protected against 350mm KE threat in 60 degree frontal arc. so, this value is rather a "lower edge" of the protection, or you can say: "there was at least 350mm protection in 60 degree frontal arc".  But this value tells nothin about the main armor elements' (e.g: turret front) protection level.