Leopard Tank Question

[Przezdzieblo]

Awesome.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Przezdzieblo

[alejandro_]

I am trying to figure out the different armour packages used in Leopard 2, this is what I got so far...

- 2A0/A1/A2/A3 and most A4 use Type-B armour
- Last batches of A4 use a Type-C, and another 70 the Type-D installed in A5/A6

According to Polish sources T-72M1 and PT-91 have better protection against APFSDS than the A4 they field. British considered uparmoured Chieftain to have better protection than Leo 2 as evaluated.

Armour protection

Type-B: 350mm of RHA vs KE,  700mm vs HEAT (Haynes manual)
Type-C 420mm of RHA vs KE (Haynes manual)
Type-D 600mm of RHA vs KE, 700mm vs HEAT, available in 1995 (Vía Methos from same document as Haynes)

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/37096-chieftain-questions/page/66/

In the document below data are found on a Leo 2 (Improved as proposed): 410-420mm vs KE and 750-800 vs HEAT

The Type-D protection level, is it for a Leo 2A4 or A5? Also, was there a Type-A armour?

Edited June 7, 2022 by alejandro_

[Damian]

5 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

was there a Type-A armour?

Yeah, in Leopard 2AV.

[methos]

7 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Type-D 600mm of RHA vs KE, 700mm vs HEAT, available in 1995 (Vía Methos from same document as Haynes)

1,200 mm vs HEAT, not 700 mm.

7 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

The Type-D protection level, is it for a Leo 2A4 or A5? Also, was there a Type-A armour?

The original term for the armour is Panzerung in B-Technologie ("armour in B technology"), which the British translated as "Type B armour". This seems to be an abbrevation of Beulblech-Technologie ("bulging plate technology"), a technical reference to the armour's construction. The C-Technologie (called "Type C" by the Brits) has also been described as Composite-Technologie, though this name seems to be created in post factum. There most likely never was a "Type A" armour.

The armour protection level mentioned in the British report is for the drop-in packs of the turret, so i.e. it would be for an improved variant of the Leopard 2A4 - but the protection level was only projected (so it is not clear if the final product matches these projections). It is also worth noting that the Germans claimed there wouldn't be a weight gain, yet the Leopard 2A4 with "Type C" armour supposedly turned out to be heavier than the previous variant.

 

As for the Leopard 2A5, the level of armour protection will depend on exact model. The original plan of the German MoD was to utilize old tanks from the early batches and only fit the add-on armour (as a cost-cutting measure). The Bundeswehr protested (when it became clear that the number of active tanks would be cut), so they came up with a compromise. German Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 tanks use upgraded turrets (early production batches, but armour inserts replaced with modern ones and fitted with add-on armour) to hulls with "Type C" armour and no add-on armour.

For export models, there are many differences. Apparently the protection of the Leopard 2A6 tanks sold to Greece and Spain is higher than that of the Leopard 2A5DK and Stridsvagn 122.

Edited June 7, 2022 by methos

[sunday]

Our Leopardos 2E were built here in Spain, with somewhat irregular results.

[alejandro_]

3 hours ago, methos said:

The armour protection level mentioned in the British report is for the drop-in packs of the turret, so i.e. it would be for an improved variant of the Leopard 2A4 - but the protection level was only projected (so it is not clear if the final product matches these projections). It is also worth noting that the Germans claimed there wouldn't be a weight gain, yet the Leopard 2A4 with "Type C" armour supposedly turned out to be heavier than the previous variant.

Thanks, that would explain the different values for the improved version offered to the UK and Sweden.
 

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Our Leopardos 2E were built here in Spain, with somewhat irregular results.

Roof protection was reinforced in the 2Es as requested by Spanish Army. If your comment is about titanium being installed instead of the armour module, it is fake.

I have updated my blog with a new interview; the intervee was a Leopard 2 tanker in the Dutch Army and used all 3 variants.

http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-veteran-leopard-2-tanker-from.html

Edited June 7, 2022 by alejandro_

[sunday]

18 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

If your comment is about titanium being installed instead of the armour module, it is fake.

Thank God it was not!

[Perun]

16 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

I am trying to figure out the different armour packages used in Leopard 2, this is what I got so far...

- 2A0/A1/A2/A3 and most A4 use Type-B armour
- Last batches of A4 use a Type-C, and another 70 the Type-D installed in A5/A6

According to Polish sources T-72M1 and PT-91 have better protection against APFSDS than the A4 they field. British considered uparmoured Chieftain to have better protection than Leo 2 as evaluated.

Armour protection

Type-B: 350mm of RHA vs KE,  700mm vs HEAT (Haynes manual)
Type-C 420mm of RHA vs KE (Haynes manual)
Type-D 600mm of RHA vs KE, 700mm vs HEAT, available in 1995 (Vía Methos from same document as Haynes)

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/37096-chieftain-questions/page/66/

In the document below data are found on a Leo 2 (Improved as proposed): 410-420mm vs KE and 750-800 vs HEAT

The Type-D protection level, is it for a Leo 2A4 or A5? Also, was there a Type-A armour?

I know that this is about Leo but do you have data for T-72M1 and PT-91

[methos]

7 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Roof protection was reinforced in the 2Es as requested by Spanish Army. If your comment is about titanium being installed instead of the armour module, it is fake.

What was the Spanish Army's requirement for overhead/roof protection? Because the reinforcement resulted in a reduced coverage.

The original statement (from Spanish press) regarding titanium and the Leopardo 2E, was that SBS replaced titanium elements of the armour package with cheaper steel in order to cut costs; not that expensive titanium was used instead of armour modules.

 

1 hour ago, Perun said:

I know that this is about Leo but do you have data for T-72M1 and PT-91

As I said in the original post, protection performance of multi-layered armour is always dependent on the reference projectile; figures from different eras and different trials cannot be really compared. Soviet sources attributed the T-72 up to the T-72M1 with 380 mm steel-equivalent protection along the frontal arc.

Edited June 8, 2022 by methos

[Damian]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

I know that this is about Leo but do you have data for T-72M1 and PT-91

T-72M1 and PT-91 protection vs KE is similar to T-72A. However PT-91 will have much higher protection levels vs CE thanks to ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ERA.

ERAWA-2 protects front of the turret and hull, and is capable to reduce single warhead HEAT warheads penetration potential between ~80-95%. Against tandem warheads, ERAWA-2 can reduce penetration to ~50%.

[Perun]

Thanks.

Do you have numbers for T-72A

[Perun]

6 minutes ago, methos said:

As I said in the original post, protection performance of multi-layered armour is always dependent on the reference projectile; figures from different eras and different trials cannot be really compared. Soviet sources attributed the T-72 up to the T-72M1 with 380 mm steel-equivalent protection along the frontal arc.

Thanks

[Damian]

4 minutes ago, Perun said:

Thanks.

Do you have numbers for T-72A

For T-72A/T-72M1 protection vs KE ranges from ~380mm up to ~410mm vs KE depending on angle and place of hit and used projectile model.

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, methos said:

What was the Spanish Army's requirement for overhead/roof protection? Because the reinforcement resulted in a reduced coverage.

The original statement (from Spanish press) regarding titanium and the Leopardo 2E, was that SBS replaced titanium elements of the armour package with cheaper steel in order to cut costs; not that expensive titanium was used instead of armour modules.

 

Yes, I did not explain the issue correctly. According to Roberto Gutiérrez from Revista Ejércitos, the titanium alloy in the armour module was replaced by steel, and this led to an increase of weight of 2 tons (*). It also affected the engine and transmission life.

https://csifabricadetrubia.wordpress.com/2019/12/24/ejercitos-org-vcr-8x8-requiem-por-un-sueno/

I asked a Leo-2E tanker and he has never heard of this issue. He has never noticed any tanks having these reliability issues. There were some with the welding. I am not even sure if SBS had full access to armour module or it was simply added in Spain in a Final Assembly Line (manufacturers usually don't share it).

I am not sure of the requirement, but I will ask for details.

(*) Just for reference, Challenger armour in the turret was predicted to be ~5,5 tons,

2 hours ago, Damian said:

ERAWA-2 protects front of the turret and hull, and is capable to reduce single warhead HEAT warheads penetration potential between ~80-95%. Against tandem warheads, ERAWA-2 can reduce penetration to ~50%.

ERAWA 2 does not increase protection against KE rounds?

[sunday]

Coronel Candil wrote about the excess weight issue in the relevant book.

Edited June 8, 2022 by sunday

[Damian]

27 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

ERAWA 2 does not increase protection against KE rounds?

Slightly, it's better than Kontakt-1, but not on the level of Kontakt-5.

[methos]

55 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

He has never noticed any tanks having these reliability issues. There were some with the welding. I am not even sure if SBS had full access to armour module or it was simply added in Spain in a Final Assembly Line (manufacturers usually don't share it).

When SBS was taken over by General Dynamics, there was a delay in the Spanish Leopard 2 program, because KMW demanded assurances that its intellectual property was not shared with its competitor. So it seems that at least some classified/secret stuff was done by SBS.

55 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

(*) Just for reference, Challenger armour in the turret was predicted to be ~5,5 tons,

The Leopard 2A4 (with "Type B" armour) has apparently some 5.4 tonnes of total composite insert weight (for hull and turret). On the Leopard 2A5, it is more than 10 tonnes with the majority of this being distrubted in the turret. The Challenger tanks are a bad reference, as they rely on rather thick cast turret shells, while the Leopard 2 uses very thin plates for the turret shell only.

However the 2 tonnes of additional weight seem questionable.

The usage of titanium in the late Leopard 2's armour has been confirmed by German authors.

55 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

ERAWA 2 does not increase protection against KE rounds?

Against older rounds, but against those the early Leopard 2's armour will also offer more protection (see previous discussion in the Chieftain questions topic).

Edited June 8, 2022 by methos

[RETAC21]

8 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Yes, I did not explain the issue correctly. According to Roberto Gutiérrez from Revista Ejércitos, the titanium alloy in the armour module was replaced by steel, and this led to an increase of weight of 2 tons (*). It also affected the engine and transmission life.

https://csifabricadetrubia.wordpress.com/2019/12/24/ejercitos-org-vcr-8x8-requiem-por-un-sueno/

I asked a Leo-2E tanker and he has never heard of this issue. He has never noticed any tanks having these reliability issues. There were some with the welding. I am not even sure if SBS had full access to armour module or it was simply added in Spain in a Final Assembly Line (manufacturers usually don't share it).

I am not sure of the requirement, but I will ask for details.

(*) Just for reference, Challenger armour in the turret was predicted to be ~5,5 tons,

ERAWA 2 does not increase protection against KE rounds?

The Leopardo-2E issue seems to come from the initial batch, which were overweight:

"Krauss Maffei's attitude had its climax – also in mid-2005 – with the confession of an unexpected mistake, when it had already delivered its entire production quota of 30 tanks: the tank was overweight by approximately half a ton. This may not seem like much, but it was, since with a weight of 62.5 tons -including the UPA-, the integration of any additional equipment (air conditioning supposedly...) would place the total weight at the limit of the class of upper weight MLC 80: 63.1 tons, for which contrary to the irresponsible opinion of GD-SBS, Krauss Maffei imperatively advised to reduce the weight in some way (16). To do this, even though it was his fault, he proposed the adoption of various measures, among which the most "simple" suggested was the replacement of the current FT chain by a new light chain -called P0-, from Diehl, which would provide a considerable weight reduction (of the order of 600 Kg.). Naturally, this matter further advised not to adopt or integrate any equipment into the car anymore, especially the air conditioning system. The first recommendation that came to mind was, of course, to terminate the contract and return the carts to Krauss Maffei. It goes without saying that the Ministry blocked any claim solution. The Spanish Leopard 2E is today the heaviest Leopard 2 in service, although its capabilities have not been diminished. I do not know if the light chain has been adopted, but I highly doubt it, given the industrial implications that the possible change entailed.

(16) – Since Krauss Maffei no longer gave us any confidence, a 2E car, manufactured in Spain, was weighed on the scale in the port of Seville. It was quite an epic. The results confirmed what Krauss Maffei confessed."

https://ensantabarbarablog.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/ejercitos-del-mundo-historia-del-leopard-2-en-espana-parte-iii-septiembre-2010/

 

[alejandro_]

23 hours ago, methos said:

The Leopard 2A4 (with "Type B" armour) has apparently some 5.4 tonnes of total composite insert weight (for hull and turret). On the Leopard 2A5, it is more than 10 tonnes with the majority of this being distrubted in the turret. The Challenger tanks are a bad reference, as they rely on rather thick cast turret shells, while the Leopard 2 uses very thin plates for the turret shell only.

Leopard 2 data of course are better, but yes, Challenger turret shell is estimated to be 7.5 tons.
 

15 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The Leopardo-2E issue seems to come from the initial batch, which were overweight:

Thanks, that article is very informative. In any case, the issue he explains is totally different to the one above, and the overweight much smaller.

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Leopard 2 data of course are better, but yes, Challenger turret shell is estimated to be 7.5 tons.
 

Thanks, that article is very informative. In any case, the issue he explains is totally different to the one above, and the overweight much smaller.

Yes, when I first saw it with the Chobham off, I thought it was some kind of Chieftain turret development.

https://next.photobucket.com/u/stuart666_2010/a/c5ddf702-b208-4dbd-8f49-451c4546dd22/p/3125b87e-9e88-4c26-93f1-b365a0f408fe

[methos]

On 6/8/2022 at 7:15 PM, RETAC21 said:

The Leopardo-2E issue seems to come from the initial batch, which were overweight:

[...]

(16) – Since Krauss Maffei no longer gave us any confidence, a 2E car, manufactured in Spain, was weighed on the scale in the port of Seville. It was quite an epic. The results confirmed what Krauss Maffei confessed."

https://ensantabarbarablog.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/ejercitos-del-mundo-historia-del-leopard-2-en-espana-parte-iii-septiembre-2010/

Thanks for sharing that link. Given that the blog is called "Former Santa Bárbara National Company - the real truth" (at least that's how Google translates its name), it seems that this blog might be biased. The other blog that claimed SBS had replaced titanium with steel also seems to be a biased, given that this statement was part of an article complaining about the supposed

IMO both stories on their own are unbelievable. KMW already had designed and produced the Stridsvagn 122 (the first batch of tanks was made in German), which weighed 62.5 metric tons. Why would KMW believe that the Leopardo 2E (based on the Stridsvagn 122's armour configuration, but with the longer L/55 gun, APU, and air-conditioning system) weighed only as much as the Stridsvagn 122? That part in the story from the "Antigua Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara" blog makes no sense.

At the same time the story from the "Canal de comunicación de la CSI en la Fábrica de Armas de Trubia" blog also doesn't add up, as the Leopardo 2E isn't known of weighing two metric tons more than specified (which would be more than 65 metric tons).

So I would speculate - based on the two blog postings - that something along the following lines might have happened:

• There was some sort of miscommunication between KMW and the Spanish side (SBS or the Spanish government); maybe KMW wasn't aware of the Spanish weight limit, maybe SBS decided to modify offer to the Spanish government during the process without telling KMW and/or the Spanish government, maybe SBS claimed that steel was to be as stand-in for titanium in certain places without having the green light from the government. In the end, the Leopardo 2E exceeded the weight limit of 62.5 metric tons.
•  KMW "confessed" (or simply stated) that the weight of the tank was more than 62.5 metric tons and was willing to resolve the issue, while SBS wanted to ignore the issue.
• Apparently none of the weight reduction measures proposed by KMW were adopted.

22 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Leopard 2 data of course are better, but yes, Challenger turret shell is estimated to be 7.5 tons.

The turret shell weighs nine metric tons (without bustle, spaced roof and hatches) in case of the Challenger 2.

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, methos said:

Thanks for sharing that link. Given that the blog is called "Former Santa Bárbara National Company - the real truth" (at least that's how Google translates its name), it seems that this blog might be biased. The other blog that claimed SBS had replaced titanium with steel also seems to be a biased, given that this statement was part of an article complaining about the supposed

IMO both stories on their own are unbelievable. KMW already had designed and produced the Stridsvagn 122 (the first batch of tanks was made in German), which weighed 62.5 metric tons. Why would KMW believe that the Leopardo 2E (based on the Stridsvagn 122's armour configuration, but with the longer L/55 gun, APU, and air-conditioning system) weighed only as much as the Stridsvagn 122? That part in the story from the "Antigua Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara" blog makes no sense.

At the same time the story from the "Canal de comunicación de la CSI en la Fábrica de Armas de Trubia" blog also doesn't add up, as the Leopardo 2E isn't known of weighing two metric tons more than specified (which would be more than 65 metric tons).

So I would speculate - based on the two blog postings - that something along the following lines might have happened:

• There was some sort of miscommunication between KMW and the Spanish side (SBS or the Spanish government); maybe KMW wasn't aware of the Spanish weight limit, maybe SBS decided to modify offer to the Spanish government during the process without telling KMW and/or the Spanish government, maybe SBS claimed that steel was to be as stand-in for titanium in certain places without having the green light from the government. In the end, the Leopardo 2E exceeded the weight limit of 62.5 metric tons.
•  KMW "confessed" (or simply stated) that the weight of the tank was more than 62.5 metric tons and was willing to resolve the issue, while SBS wanted to ignore the issue.
• Apparently none of the weight reduction measures proposed by KMW were adopted.

The turret shell weighs nine metric tons (without bustle, spaced roof and hatches) in case of the Challenger 2.

It's biased indeed, but the writer of the article, and the previous ones, was the Spanish Army program manager, so he should know what was going on. From my personal experience with SB products, and their very public inability to deliver, I woudl say the article is mostly accurate, if unsympathetic.

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, methos said:

The turret shell weighs nine metric tons (without bustle, spaced roof and hatches) in case of the Challenger 2.

The estimated weight for Challenger 1 turret was 7.5 tons. I am somewhat surprised about Challenger 2 being even heavier, as I would expect more emphasis on the armour module rather than the shell.
 

Quote

So I would speculate - based on the two blog postings - that something along the following lines might have happened:

As I understand those two postings are not related, as they come from different authors. The one about the overweight caused by extra equipment is indeed from coronel Candil Muñóz, who as RETAC21 stated was the program manager. He wrote a very long series of articles about the Leopard 2E acquisition, being very critical of SBS. 

The one about the titanium being replaced by steel is from Roberto Gutierrez, author and editor of Revista Ejércitos, the same where Candil Muñóz published his articles.

[Sovngard]

11 hours ago, methos said:

The turret shell weighs nine metric tons (without bustle, spaced roof and hatches) in case of the Challenger 2.

The strange thing is that the Challenger 2 turret is only 200 kg heavier than the one of its predecessor despite having a 1500 kg heavier turret shell.

I wonder which components of the CR2 turret were subjected to weight reduction.

9 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

The estimated weight for Challenger 1 turret was 7.5 tons. I am somewhat surprised about Challenger 2 being even heavier, as I would expect more emphasis on the armour module rather than the shell.

A heavier shell means thicker back plates and thus increased ballistic protection.

[methos]

On 6/10/2022 at 9:38 AM, RETAC21 said:

From my personal experience with SB products, and their very public inability to deliver, I woudl say the article is mostly accurate, if unsympathetic.

If read a lot of similar stories about SBS doing a poor job, but I was a bit confused about some other statements in the article. The author mentioned that the DM53 would wear down the barrel so fast, that a new one is needed after just 100 shots. German figures suggests that it lasts 200-300 shots at approved temperature ranges. That is a bit odd.

Just like the statement about KMW "confessing" that the tank was overweight or the statement that SBS had made no real agreement for local production of the tank and was depending on KMW's good will. IMO it seems that the author is exaggerating a bit to make the whole story more entertaining.

The second section of the article mentions that the L/55 was only added into the contract via an addendum after the original contract was signed, so I guess that could explain the tank being "overweight", given that the tank without the heavier gun likely weighs close to 62.5 metric tons. The APU and air-conditioning unit was also not part of the initial contract. So it seems to me, that the tank became "overweight" due to changes made after the order (of a tank weighing 62.5 metric tons) had been placed.

On 6/10/2022 at 11:47 AM, alejandro_ said:

The estimated weight for Challenger 1 turret was 7.5 tons. I am somewhat surprised about Challenger 2 being even heavier, as I would expect more emphasis on the armour module rather than the shell.

The Challenger 2 was designed to be cheaper than its competitors, so the inclusion of expensive/exotic materials was not really an option (and as you can read in the British report on the 1987 firing trials of the improved Leopard 2A4 armour, the British Army disliked ceramics for their supposedly lower multi-hit capability).

 

With the protection requirement for the Challenger 2 being higher in terms of KE protection, while demanding only a minor improvement in resistance to shaped charge warheads, the improved efficiency of the composite armour (against shaped charges) might have freed up weight (or some other changes resulted in a weight reduction) that Vickers decided to spend on thicker cast steel to reach the KE protection requirements.