Leopard Tank Question

[sunday]

21 minutes ago, methos said:

the statement that SBS had made no real agreement for local production of the tank and was depending on KMW's good will

That is very believable. Management of SBS still worked as if SBS was the old weapons-making public monopoly, so they thought they had the right, and the duty, of collaboration in any new weapon system for the Spanish Army.

[RETAC21]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

That is very believable. Management of SBS still worked as if SBS was the old weapons-making public monopoly, so they thought they had the right, and the duty, of collaboration in any new weapon system for the Spanish Army.

And they still do...

[Bichri001]

Guy, I need a little help with the sensors. The outmost (3) is a Trophy radar, I believe...

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 6/10/2022 at 10:47 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.
 

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.

It looks longer to my untutored eye. They also were reputedly concerned about Top Attack weapons.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

Item one on the turret front is the same as the detectors on AJAX. In the attached article, it's behind the smoke launchers in the second picture.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/general_dynamics_land_systems-uk_inaugurates_new_armoured_fighting_vehicle_facility_for_ajax_10703161.html

I think it's a laser warning system, but may be a bit broader in capability than that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

#1 is the Elbit ELAWS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://elbitsystems.com/media/LWS_5_Web.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjVgqbBkKP6AhU1_7sIHY3bBXMQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3XAt7o4HHJzNalXLLo-vUa

Don't know what #2 is but modern versions of Trophy integrate IAI's OTHELLO as an optical sensor. This could be an OTHELLO with a different mount.

https://www.iai.co.il/p/elo-5220-othello

[lucklucky]

What are the boxes at turret side and sensors in top of it?

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 hours ago, lucklucky said:

What are the boxes at turret side and sensors in top of it?

The sensors on top are the Trophy interceptors. They're a tungsten plate that forms multiple EFPs when fired, and is mounted on a rotating arm.

The box below houses the rotating arm's mechanism and multiple additional interceptors to reload after firing (autoloader).

[lucklucky]

Thanks.

[Wiedzmin]

marder armor according to DE2730826C1 patent

 

 

updated 1A3, now UFP addon and roof are correct

Edited January 17, 2023 by Wiedzmin

[RoflSeal]

On 6/10/2022 at 8:23 PM, Sovngard said:

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.

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

A couple of things I can think of
each track link is about 5% lighter on Challenger 2 vs Challenger 1, so that shaves off about 250kg
Challenger 1 has a  sideskirt designed to offer some ballistic protection, Challenger 2 has a much thinner sideskirt that covers less area and is only for dust control.

The armoured charge bins are more volume efficient meaning there is only 1 charge bin in the front hull of Challenger 2 vs two in Challenger 1 (excluding Mk3 which also has armored charge bins).
The cupola of Challenger 1 is more complex, with a geared system for it to rotate and slew-to-cue the turret and an MG mount to be fired under armor, while Challenger 2 is fixed periscopes and the MG is moved to the loader's hatch on a pintel mount.
Stowage items is pretty vague, but I can imagine that can be changed to be lightened.

[DKTanker]

This is the breech operating handle for the M256 and Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.  I played tank for almost 10 years on the M1A1 and I've never gave much thought to the areas marked in red and yellow, but somebody I know would like to understand what they're about and I'm now a bit curious myself.

Edited January 18, 2023 by DKTanker

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

This is the breech operating handle for the M256 and Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Just the M256; there is a German counterpart, but they're not interchangeable.

Since I didn't tanked for Sam and was paided no bonus, I can offer no further assistance as to the meaning of the red and yellow stripes.

Were there matching color marks on the handle? Then maybe it's just meant as an orientation identifier for the fools that can't memorize it.

[DKTanker]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Just the M256; there is a German counterpart, but they're not interchangeable.

Since I didn't tanked for Sam and was paided no bonus, I can offer no further assistance as to the meaning of the red and yellow stripes.

Were there matching color marks on the handle? Then maybe it's just meant as an orientation identifier for the fools that can't memorize it.

That is interesting.  At the time we all figured it had something to do with the German gun which was subsequently lost in translation.
No, the color marks are no part of the handle, only the picture.

Edit:  Further research seems to indicate that a way back machine was used to bring this handle forward from the era of the 90mm M36 and or 120mm M58.

Edited January 18, 2023 by DKTanker

[RETAC21]

On 6/7/2022 at 9:50 PM, methos said:

1,200 mm vs HEAT, not 700 mm.

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.

Some more numbers to throw about. The source is this tweet. 

David is a former artillerymen and current author, the numbers he says he got from Rheinmetall are:

type B (lots 1 to 6) & C (lots 6 & 7). frontal RHA: 570 mm vs APFSDS & 830 vs HEAT.

type D (lote 8): 650 mm vs APFSDS &  1.050 mm vs HEAT.

From 1993 lots 1 to 4 were updated to lot 8 armor while lots 5 to 7 retained type C.

[Pavel Novak]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Some more numbers to throw about. The source is this tweet. 

David is a former artillerymen and current author, the numbers he says he got from Rheinmetall are:

type B (lots 1 to 6) & C (lots 6 & 7). frontal RHA: 570 mm vs APFSDS & 830 vs HEAT.

type D (lote 8): 650 mm vs APFSDS &  1.050 mm vs HEAT.

From 1993 lots 1 to 4 were updated to lot 8 armor while lots 5 to 7 retained type C.

I am no expert in this but these numbers looks like the one in Steel Panthers game. No distinguishing between "B" and "C" armor. And final sentence also doesn't make sense (B = lot has 1-6 but here lot from 5 retain C ???).

[Ssnake]

Lots 1-4 were upgraded to A5 standard, and part of that upgrade was to replace the armor modules. Lots 5...7 were not slated for upgrade at that stage and may have been sold to other user nations instead (Sweden, Spain, Greece, Poland).

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, Pavel Novak said:

I am no expert in this but these numbers looks like the one in Steel Panthers game. No distinguishing between "B" and "C" armor. And final sentence also doesn't make sense (B = lot has 1-6 but here lot from 5 retain C ???).

I am no expert either, so I just leave them there for what is worth, but they may make sense if the drop-in packs Methos mentions are added to a base armor in place of the original armor packs.

 

[Pavel Novak]

I am attacking the information purely from logic position:

" type B (lots 1 to 6) & C (lots 6 & 7). frontal RHA: 570 mm vs APFSDS & 830 vs HEAT. "

- that says that there is no difference between "B" and "C" and also that lot 5 has "B"

" From 1993 lots 1 to 4 were updated to lot 8 armor while lots 5 to 7 retained type C. "

- that says that lot 5 retained "C" but that is in direct contradiction to previous sentence in which lot 5 has "B"

Edited January 20, 2023 by Pavel Novak

[Ssnake]

These are very generic figures to begin with. It's a "friend of a friend" who's been quoted here; quite possible (likely, even) that something got lost/garbled in the transmission relay.

I'm not sure why a Rheinmetall representative would hand out such numbers to begin with, and even then these are but a single value for a protection that varies a fair bit over the frontal profile of the full tank.

I think what happened is that the 8th lot, and lots 1-4 when converted to 2A5 standard, replaced the bulging plate armor with laminate inserts that offered an increased resistance.

[methos]

16 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

David is a former artillerymen and current author, the numbers he says he got from Rheinmetall are:

type B (lots 1 to 6) & C (lots 6 & 7). frontal RHA: 570 mm vs APFSDS & 830 vs HEAT.

type D (lote 8): 650 mm vs APFSDS &  1.050 mm vs HEAT.

From 1993 lots 1 to 4 were updated to lot 8 armor while lots 5 to 7 retained type C.

These values directly contradict the actual requirements and declassified assessments of the armor protection of the Leopard 2 tank.

The (West-)German miltiary did not use "milimeters" for measuring protection, but rather range. I.e. for each tank/variant it was specified what type of round had to be stopped at which exact range. If a tank could not meet the range at a certain area, then the range at which the round could be stopped was noted; likewise if the armor protection exceeded the requirements, the range at which the round could be stopped.

Here is an example (for an experimental design with 3-axis stabilized turret considered as part of the KPz 3 program):

The original Leopard 2 was designed to protect against an experimental 120 mm APFSDS round (i.e. DM13 prototype) fired from 1,500 metres and an experimental 105 mm APFSDS round fired from a smoothbore gun, as well as 100 mm AP and 105 mm APDS rounds fired from less than 100 metres. It also was meant to be protected against 115 mm APFSDS rounds, but due to the lack of information on the latest Soviet 115 mm rounds, this was assumed to be identical in performance to the 120 mm APFSDS.

In addition to that, the Leopard 2(AV) had to meet US protection requirements (stopping 105 mm APFSDS at 800-1,200 m distance, etc.).

Note that the "Leopard 2" in the leftmost column is the early prototype model with spaced armor, while the composite-armored model is in the rightmost column next to the Leopard 2AV. 

For the shaped charge threat, the MILAN ATGM and the 120 mm HEAT-FS round were used in Germany, while US requirements introduced three specialized test shaped charge warheads: one used to simulate a RPG, one used to simulate a recoilless rifle and one simulating an ATGM.

In 1987 when ordering the Leopard 2's armor upgrade ("Type C" armor), the German MoD believed that the Leopard 2 was protected against 125 mm APFSDS with steel penetrator and shaped charge with a diameter of 136 mm (HOT 1, most likely) that the upgraded model would be protected against 125 mm tungsten-cored APFSDS rounds and larger diameter shaped charge warhead (afaik HOT-2 with 150 mm diameter).

 

The "milimeter" figures for armor protection discussed earlier in this topic are taken from British documents. My understanding is, that these are estimates made by the British based on German statements. I.e. German officials stated that the Leopard 2 was proof against 125 mm steel-cored APFSDS projectile, hence the Brits assumed that it provided 350 mm of steel-equivalent protection against monobloc APFSDS rounds. The Germans showed that the upgraded model stopped the DM23 APFSDS from 200 metres distance, the UK believed that this round penetrated 400 mm, so they estimated the Leopard 2 protectionto be 420 mm, etc.

KMW might also use "milimeters" to measure protection, at least they come up with such diagrams:

Note that KMW also states that the early Leopard 2A4 can be defeated by modern 105 mm APFSDS, so 570 mm of protection are out of question.

4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I am no expert either, so I just leave them there for what is worth, but they may make sense if the drop-in packs Methos mentions are added to a base armor in place of the original armor packs.

The armor was not upgraded in Germany, it was offered to the UK (as "Type D" armor was not ready in time of the British plans, but the "Type C" armor faield to meet the requirements).

[alejandro_]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not sure why a Rheinmetall representative would hand out such numbers to begin with, and even then these are but a single value for a protection that varies a fair bit over the frontal profile of the full tank.

He does not mention that the armour data came from Rheinmetall, so perhaps they came from Steel Panthers as mentioned above.

[Ssnake]

19 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

David is a former artillerymen and current author, the numbers he says he got from Rheinmetall

 

12 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

He does not mention that the armour data came from Rheinmetall

...?

[alejandro_]

In the twitter thread there is no mention of armour data coming from Rheinmetall. He does not give any sources.

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

In the twitter thread there is no mention of armour data coming from Rheinmetall. He does not give any sources.

He does when asked about:

 

But it doesn't mean he is right.