Jump to content


Photo

Leopard Tank Question


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 15 July 2019 - 1350 PM

What is the rationale for using quite thick plates with a single thin bulging plate vs. NERA with a thicker interlayer and two flyer plates ?


Edited by KV7, 15 July 2019 - 1353 PM.

  • 0

#42 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 15 July 2019 - 1727 PM

VbAtUVl10Wk.jpg

 

1976  Leopard 2AV armour(all from declassified reports) 

 

 

What is the bulging plate (in olive ?) made from ?

mild steel i think, but no data in report

 

 

 

 

With the context of marking high hardness and TL steels and where the plates marked w are, I could imagine the "w" stands for weich, that is soft or mild (steel).

 

maybe, thank you

Ex-sailor question, but why that set up of spaced, "thin" plates?


  • 0

#43 Paul Lakowski

Paul Lakowski

    Man of the worldly means

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor Tech and silly humor.

Posted 15 July 2019 - 2104 PM

I cant read the Russian, but the rational I got was mild steel plates [1/4 of the price of HHS] was just as effective if not even more effective than hard armor plates . These mild steel plates put increasing lateral strain simultaneously on the long rod penetrator at different places along the rod.

Best guess, this reduces/breaks up the penetrator.
  • 0

#44 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 15 July 2019 - 2106 PM

Ex-sailor question, but why that set up of spaced, "thin" plates?


Hard to say. As a whole, the armour design seems to be rather inefficient.

Edited by Interlinked, 15 July 2019 - 2108 PM.

  • 0

#45 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 15 July 2019 - 2254 PM

What is the rationale for using quite thick plates with a single thin bulging plate vs. NERA with a thicker interlayer and two flyer plates ?

Without thick plates you doesn't have KE protection, so, you must make spaced array of steel before and after(or between)light NERA package(early chobham armour variants gain KE protection only from spaced armour part, NERA was only against CE) , or use it like on leo2av, t72b, where you have plates thick enough to work against KE and bulging plates helps against CE

+ it's better to have thick back plate to stop damaged rod (like on cr1/2, m1, t-series)

Edited by Wiedzmin, 15 July 2019 - 2301 PM.

  • 0

#46 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 16 July 2019 - 0239 AM

The AV was never meant to be representative of the ACTUAL armor configuration. The intent was that the armor cavities would be filled with whatever the US would choose to place there, but that for the purpose of evaluation/trials "something" had to be put in there to approximate the weight. In the US Chrysler (to save the XM-1) and the unions then started a smear campaign that the armor protection was inadequate (well, duh!) and that the US would "buy" a foreign tank when the explicit intent was a license production completely under US control. Irrespective of the question whether the Leopard ever had a chance to be adopted by the US (I don't think so), poring over the details of the AV's armor package is a complete waste of time.


  • 0

#47 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 16 July 2019 - 0244 AM

 

thickness

 

260mm from front face of frontal 15mm plate to rear face of rear 20mm plate(225m "pocket" for special armour consisting of 12mm HHA and 4mm bulging plate)

 

"hh" - hohe Härte 

TL - TL spec steel 

"w" i don't know, maybe some german speaking members could help 

Lochblech - perforated sheet

 

With the context of marking high hardness and TL steels and where the plates marked w are, I could imagine the "w" stands for weich, that is soft or mild (steel).

 

"weich" appears rather unspecific; it could equally well stand for "Walzstahl" (rolled armor plate) which at least would signify some production standard.


  • 0

#48 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 16 July 2019 - 0300 AM

The AV was never meant to be representative of the ACTUAL armor configuration. The intent was that the armor cavities would be filled with whatever the US would choose to place there, but that for the purpose of evaluation/trials "something" had to be put in there to approximate the weight. In the US Chrysler (to save the XM-1) and the unions then started a smear campaign that the armor protection was inadequate (well, duh!) and that the US would "buy" a foreign tank when the explicit intent was a license production completely under US control. Irrespective of the question whether the Leopard ever had a chance to be adopted by the US (I don't think so), poring over the details of the AV's armor package is a complete waste of time.

i will add firing trials for this version later, it's not very detailed, but uses US spec threats for tests 

 

GwZM7Ze1GPE.jpg

GwDoRntZkQ8.jpg

just some random photo of Leopard 2AV

 

 

"weich" appears rather unspecific; it could equally well stand for "Walzstahl" (rolled armor plate) which at least would signify some production standard.

 

thank you


Edited by Wiedzmin, 16 July 2019 - 0303 AM.

  • 0

#49 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 16 July 2019 - 0459 AM

BOTH are, however, speculation. "w" is nothing but a single letter.


  • 0

#50 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0632 AM

wRX1xS1_bQY.jpg

1974 requirements

-105mm KE

-120mm KE

-120mm HEAT

YtLqB0f_3yk.jpg

120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700

 

1977-78 requirements

dd8h75slPOU.jpg

did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm

18Xiwe4aW0o.jpg

 

mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ?

 

79BuKjqYo9E.jpg

 

1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88)

 

-120mm DM23

- HOT

D_bhA1V2ziM.jpg

rrbq4SDxcA4.jpg

and once again

 

sMdg1NP7AMQ.jpg

 

HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE.

 

as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work.

 

british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or...

 

for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions 

 

 

firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...

 

 

 

 

 

Z6dUHdu.jpg

Turret L2AV

 

 

BOTH are, however, speculation. "w" is nothing but a single letter.

user Gun Ready from SH said:

 

"The letters are used in the old German specification for armour steel TL-2350-0001 for different hardnesses where W is 400 to 450 HBW, V is for 440 to 490 HBW and C is for 340 to 390 HBW. The letters hh and sh are not German abbreviations."


Edited by Wiedzmin, 28 July 2019 - 0654 AM.

  • 0

#51 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1036 AM

L2AV hull from a top, there is more problems with hull because there is not much detailed drawings of it + it changed during trials, side screen only drawed as a 3 spaced plate with total thickness of block 100mm(L2A4 have +- same side blocks)
 
for example hull front
 
 
As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.
 
 
1,5mm bulging plate was drawed only for upper left side, but i think i similar for the right side because it's same structure 

Edited by Wiedzmin, 02 August 2019 - 1037 AM.

  • 0

#52 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1107 AM

HUS1ck-hOHc.jpg

 

first variant (from what i have) of L2AV hull front(fuel tank between 1st and 2nd armour arrays), drawing name "Vorerprobungsmuster Wannebug SK150-1800.00.012.0 Krauss-Maffei AG Munchen-Allach"

25.04.75

it's test rig for firing trials, later they changed armour inserts, maybe someone can translate german part about "Peco Bolzen" etc ? 


Edited by Wiedzmin, 04 August 2019 - 1317 PM.

  • 0

#53 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1347 PM

Just steel plates with bulging plates glued on without interlayers?


  • 0

#54 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,901 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1449 PM

Wiedzmin, excellent stuff, as always.


  • 0

#55 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1533 PM

Just steel plates with bulging plates glued on without interlayers?

thats all i have on this variant at the moment, second variant i will draw later, but it's very stange, and less info on it...


  • 0

#56 Paul Lakowski

Paul Lakowski

    Man of the worldly means

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor Tech and silly humor.

Posted 08 August 2019 - 1326 PM

Just steel plates with bulging plates glued on without interlayers?


This armor is optimised to defeat long rod penetrators like APFSDS & HEAT warheads . yep works just as well as thicker steel plates, but its cheaper than ceramic steel armor.
  • 0

#57 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 11 August 2019 - 0644 AM

 

Just steel plates with bulging plates glued on without interlayers?


This armor is optimised to defeat long rod penetrators like APFSDS & HEAT warheads . yep works just as well as thicker steel plates, but its cheaper than ceramic steel armor.

 

This statement is so confusing.


  • 0

#58 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 11 August 2019 - 0655 AM

second variant of Leopard 2AV hull, unfortunately there is only one blueprint for front section and it's doesn't show special armour inserts, and judging by the blueprint it's still have fuel tank inside

 

As part of the above-mentioned study contract, a bow section using the new, martensite-hard welding is to be prepared and tested under fire. The bow section corresponds in arrangement and dimension of the frontal structure to the pre-haulage model already shot in Meppen according to the KM drawing no. SK 156-181.000.000.2 (BWB PA 145/76). Deviating from that miss the Kettenabdeckbereiche and the Turmdrehkanz. For details, please refer to the enclosed MaK drawing no. 13-SK-4228-01.00.0. The usual austenitic sweat connection is replaced by the martensite hardening. The bombardment tests are to be used exclusively for assessing the new type of welded connection under bombardment, that is to say by means of balancing shells. Consequently, the jalousie profiles and insert plates are not provided with gummed up bumps and holes. The completion of this bow section will be completed in mid-December 1976, so that at the beginning of January 1977, the transport to Meppen can be arranged. We ask for scheduling the shelling attempts from January 1977.

 

this is description for this draw 

 

oPEcaPNoAV8.jpg

 

but, there is 2 hand drawn armour schemes inside report

 

CYFl6YRQAnI.jpg

 

YrxTKBHNukY.jpg

 

as you can see it has similar front section structure, but has no fuel tank, BUT if you look at first scheme it tells that the is 175mm air gap between first and second jalousie blocks(special armour packs), but scheme itself and second shows that there is 3rd pack(middle), i don't know it this error(reports usually have them) or there is version without fuel tank, or maybe there was some sort of inserts to left and right from fuel tank 

 

eUo6qidH8YU.jpg

 

tank cut-away show fuel tank


  • 0

#59 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 August 2019 - 0729 AM

Have any Leo2s been scrapped yet? Other than Turkish army losses in Syria.
  • 0

#60 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 11 August 2019 - 0735 AM

Dutch, Austrian, German IIRC


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users