That's a lot more helpful. It would have been nice to know the weight and dimensions of the blocks right off the bat rather than being told "It is physically impossible given the size and weight of the skirt modules".
Sure, it would have been nice. But I cannot remember every detail for every tank without checking my sources. I did remember from the last discussion that it is physically impossible based on measurements and weight of the modules.
For a more detailed answer, I had to search through my files and find the sources (i.e. weight values and photographs of someone measuring the skirt module with a tape measure), which takes time and shouldn't exactly be needed to prove that the heavy ballistic skirts are not made of two 50 mm steel plates, given how little protection that would provide against shaped charges.
Well i see how i might have been a bit unclear,.....i DONT know the armor layout of the old heavy ballistic skirts, what i do know is what the internal side armor modules in the hull look like. I know because i have not only seen the armor with my own eyes but also felt and fondled it with own my chubby fingers. ......To me it would make sense to use the same type of armor layout in the heavy skirts but i could well be wrong.
Are you sure that the rubber-filled holes/perforations did completely go through the steel plate?
Also I don't believe that the internal armour in the sponsons is necessarily identical to the side skirt armour, as the sponson armour seems to rely on the fuel tanks providing at least some additional protection. As fuel provides decent shaped charge protection by itself, it is not that surprising that the special armour is more optimized against KE rounds. The skirts themselves can provide some yaw/destabilization against KE rounds, even while potentially being more optimized against shaped charges.
In case of the Leopard 2AV, there were differences between the left and right sponson armour arrays, i.e. due to the location of the driver's seat/hatch. Which side did you see?
What is a weight of the Challenger 1/2/Warrior add-on armor single module? Cause we know a composition for those, so that could make a possible point of reference regarding Leo 2 heavy skirts.
I think it is rather unlikely that the Leopard 2's heavy ballistic skirts resemble the add-on armour of Challenger 1 & Warrior. The Leopard 2's armour was designed to resist 105 mm APFSDS (& 120 mm APFSDS at longer distances) aswell as the MILAN ATGM along the forntal arc, even the armour used on the hull. However protection is limited to a frontal arc with apparently no/very little focus being paid to optimize armour against rounds hitting perpendicularly.
The hull add-on armour of Challenger 1 and Warrior is meanwhile designed to stop only 23 mm AP (including the base armour) and to stop a 83 or 84 mm shaped charge at perpendicular impact. Thus the armour is bulky (it has to incorporate sloped layers) and uses thin plates to maximize weight efficiency vs shaped charges.
In case of the Chieftain Mk. 5/2, the Chobham armour modules for the hull were 203.2 mm thick, but weight was only on the level of a 20-25 mm thick steel plate of equal width and height (i.e. areal density). The Leopard 2's skirt are about ~2.6 to ~3.4 times as heavy, while having only about 54% of the thickness.
Edited by methos, 03 December 2019 - 1059 AM.