methos

Given that the photo has been posted on twitter and various other forums already, I'll just add that here: Captured M1150 wreck showing the exposed turret armor array. Very similar to the Chobham armor of the early M1 Abrams, likley because it was not optimized against KE rounds (no DU armor).

It isn't really clear. First the text states, that the tank has only been hit by HEAT rounds in static trials. That's already a bit odd given that the graphic shows "Impacts from previous tests". Then it lists three rounds "120 mm", "105 mm HEAT" and "3.2'' HEAT" being used in live firing ballistic tests. Does the lack of the word "HEAT" behind the "120 mm" mean, that the first round was a KE round? Or did they simply forgot about that? I am not sure. From the context, I'd assume that it was HEAT, but maybe there is more in the addendum - the document refers to the addendum (vergl. Beilagen). The 120 mm round only caused damaged at the "exterior skin", which also is rather curious.

Where does it say anything about 120 mm APFSDS? The text says "Bezüglich Beschussversuche wurden bisher nur statische Prüfungen, d.h. Sprengung von HEAT auf den Panzer durchgeführt" (regarding ballistic trials, only static trials i.e. detonating HEAT were conducted so far). Before mentioning the "Überprüfung im scharfen Schuss" (validation with live ammunition). Or is there more text/data?

I double-checked, you are right. I made the mistake of trusting a list on Wikipedia. Sorry 'bout that.

Basically every major German-language news site reported on them in the last year, because the British parent company Rolls-Royce Holding threatened cutting jobs at RRPS (a German company belonging to RR Holding to which MTU belongs) regardless of the on-going war in Ukraine. The workers' council (Betriebsrat) of MTU even claimed that the company might not be able to fulfill large orders anymore and that every single new job has to be approved by the British parent company, adding further delays with the planned growth. Obviously, Rolls-Royce Holding denies any issues and claims that they can "quickly" react to large volume orders... https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/sorge-um-panzermotoren-rolls-royce-konzern-in-massiver-schieflage-18638493.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/rolls-royce-mtu-in-friedrichshafen-wenn-wir-nicht-mehr-liefern-koennen-gibt-es-keine-panzer-mehr-a-266bc07c-1d8b-4bc3-8a2d-2a747fd8279b https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/rolls-royce-power-systems-panzermotoren-101.html https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/wirbel-um-sparkurs-beim-panzermotoren-hersteller-mtu-am-bodensee-betriebsrat-alarmiert-ld.1723688 They also mentioned that the company is booked out already for 2024 mostly with civilian engines and switching production/retooling production lines for tank engines takes a lot of time and effort.

Its not the same engine. The Leopard 1's MB838 CaM-500 is a 37.4 litres ten cylinder engine, while the Arjun's MB838 Ka-501 is a 31.7 litres eight cylinder engine. They also don't use the same type/size of cylinders and run at different speeds. The MB838 Ka-501 is basically a different engine that has only been produced for the Arjun. Most likely MTU and its suppliers simply shut down their production lines for the MB838 Ka-501 and its sub-components years ago, lacking any orders. They probably have to wait for their suppliers to retool their facilities and hire new staff. Despite itself being extremely successful, MTU is in quite a bad place, because its parent company Rolls-Royce Power Systems is/was having troubles for some time and has/had reduced a lot of MTU's capabilities to save money. Was in the news a few months ago.

Interesting that compared to the other document you posted, there are quite a few changes in values. I assume the one posted here is older than this one, @Harkonnen? M735 went from 410/380/345 to 380/350/320 while the prototype L64 went from just 420/390/350 to 445/420/383. Guess that shows that one should not rely on a single "snapshot" in time when looking at historical data of non-fielded ammunition. Also note that for the Leopard 2, the footnote (3) says (at least in the other table) "Results from Dec 76 firings at Meppen, but does not apply to Serial 1a." I don't think that they are not lowballing APDS, performance is in line with data from other countries.

You are aware that the driver's escape hatch also get its mine protection plate qualified to the same level of protection?

The same applies to the ENT (Evolutionary National Tank), a concept for the CR1 follow-up (with autoloader and 140 mm gun):

Pretty much all Soviet "next-gen" tanks even as early as the (inofficial) T-74 fixed the "ticking time bomb" by separate crew from ammunition. T-64, T-72 and T-80 were all designed before blow-off panels became a thing in NATO MBTs. The CR2 meanwhile remained a ticking time bombs despite being a late 1980s design...

How many Challenger 2 tanks were hit by those? How many of those hit the front of the tank? In Gulf War, there was one Abrams with recorded hits from enemy tanks, one hit by an anti-tank gun and one hit by a BMP-1. All of the other lost/damaged tanks were hit by artillery, infantry-carried anti-tank weapons, mine, secondary explosions or friendly fire. Three tanks of 1,225 Abrams tanks that took part in Gulf War. So the CR2 surviving hits a small sample size of hits at different locations doesn't really make the weakspot in the hull disappear. Even before the CR2 program was started, RARDE wanted to completely redesign the hull to eliminate the driver's weakspot...

Two aspects to take into account: 1. the stated reliably of the CR1 was the result of trials and experiences, the reliability for the CR2 meanwhile was estimated based on prototypes and promises of Vickers to fix the discovered issues 2. the CR2 did not use the same suspension as CR, i.e. it uses an improved, so-called second generation Hydrogas suspension from Horstmann. The CR1 used a first generation system.

The current manufacturer mentions only x8 on his website: https://www.excelitas.com/product/raven-sight

The hull armor fo that tank was not impacted by any weapon. It was abandoned in June 2023 after a hit by an FPV drone, then later set on fire.

No. The barrel wear is not directly the result of the barrel length but of multiple factors. Type of propellant, the material from which the barrel is made, the heat generated during firing, the pressure, the driving band material, etc. all matter to even larger degree.

Yet the CR2's hull design can be traced back to the Chieftain and suffers from design compromises (engine bay size, driver's hatch requiring armor to be "cut away") directly influenced by this heritage. If the UK wanted, they could acquire a license for either M1 or Leopard 2 (which is exactly what Italy is doing right now) and let its local industry (WFEL, Pearson, etc.) contribute. Even integrating a hydrogas suspension wouldn't be impossible.

From what I've seen, there was an optional requirement for roof protection against EFPs (desired protection level: 200 mm vs KE) but none of the offered solutions including what later was adopted as CR2. There is only a single "cosmetic" spaced plate at certain parts of the turret, which seemingly is not fitted to the CR3 (yet).

Yes, it was considered, but the story is a bit more complex. Basically, when the Bundeswehr needed more tanks, the government/chancellor Adenauer simply wanted to buy more M47 tanks. This plan was halted following complaints by the German Army, as the M48 tank had already entered production for the US Army and the German Army didn't want to buy an outdated tank. The British government became aware of West-Germany's intention to buy new tanks, hence they started lobbying for the Centurion, General Montgomery was directly involved in these efforts. Thus, the three potential tanks were tested against each other and IIRC the Centurion was even the favored solution but the US government vetoed against West-Germany buying it, hence the M48 was adopted instead.

I am not sure where to place the snipplets from Wiedzmin chronologically. Was this a proposal/budget request for £61.8 millions to be spend on the development of the improved armour or was this a report on finished development activities? I.e. do we know that the proposed armour upgrade was implemented? My understanding is the following: original CR2 requirement asked for 500 mm KE protection / 800 mm CE protection for the turret CR2 proposal by Vickers Defence Systems met this requirement requirement was altered, asking for even higher protection, i.e. 600 mm KE protection and 900 mm CE protection a proposal was made to improve the armour of the CR2, costing £61.8 millions but not fully reaching the new protection requirements (only 540 mm vs KE) CR2 entered service, depending on whether the proposed armour was developed and produced either with 540/900 or only 500/800 protection

The General Staff Requirement (Land) 4026 is the requirement for the Chieftain replacement, which lead to the adoption of the Challenger 2. I.e. the requirement for protection was 600/900 mm steel-equivalent protection vs KE/CE (after being increased, at the beginning it was only 500/800 mm) but even the proposed solution fell short of that.

Based on the fact that the hull sides are listed under "Gulf", I'd assume that the value refers to the up-armored CR1 as deployed in Gulf War:

Yes, but the autoloader is already a feature of the "normal" (non-EVO) Panther. The new hull and the smaller 120 mm L/55A1 gun are the differences between the EVO and non-EVO models.

I don't know. The Leopard 2A7A1 required quite a few changes to support Trophy, but it was based on older Leopard 2A6(MA3) tanks. Trophy on Leopard 2A7A1 & Leopard 2A8 is detachable, as it cannot be kept on the vehicle during transport (due to railway width limits). There however need to be attachment points and interfaces on the tank. The available informations on the Leopard 2A7HU are too limited, to say whether the tank does have these or not.

Two noteworthy changes for the new so-called "Panther KF51 EVO": it will have a new hull based on the Bergepanzer 3 Büffel ARV's chassis and it will be armed with a 120 mm L/55A1 gun, though with the ability to upgun to the 130 mm L/52. https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/news-watch/news/2023/12/2023-12-15-panther-developement-contract-hungary?s=09

Based on current informations, that seems to b the case. When an RWS is installed, the blow-out panels are modified/replaced to take this into account. This was already done for the Leopard 2 PSO demostrator in the early 2000s. On the Leopard 2A7HU due to the RWS being placed on a raised platform, it is a bit more complicated (green highlights = blow-out panels): Funnily enough, the blow-out panels are fitted with add-on armor against top-attack artillery bomblets. The Leopard 2A7A1 also gets Trophy and no RWS. I don't think that this is necessarily "weird". It is a matter of priorities. APS is seen as more important than the RWS. Also the German Army has an on-going program to procure new RWS, so for the purpose of standardization it makes sense to not simply buy one for Leopard 2 yet.