tanks/vehicles Experimentaleintwicklung Kampfpanzer Keiler (leo 2 EARLY, EARLY prototype)

[Ruslan_DR 686]

In an offshoot of ; https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/242916-the-kampfpanzer-70-mbt-70-as-new-german-medium-tank/

If the MBT-70 is the leopard 2's grandfather, then the Keiler is it's father.

BEFORE YOU POST. read this first post FULLY, as it explains many problems people seem to keep bringing up. I did my research, and do not want to have to answer questions I have already answered.
Thank you.

Firstly, the "Keiler" project designation does not mean a date, it refers to a production build of 17 test beds (only 16 were built) for leopard 2 prototypes built from 1968 to 1973, this topic refers to ONLY the 1969 model.

10 were comissioned to be built with 105mm longbore L7's from the leo 1. The remaining 7 were to be refitted with the prototype 120mm Rheinmetall gun, an early version of the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 gun.




Information sources;

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/Leopard-2.php

http://www.panzerpower.de/ger/leo2_geschichte.htm (use google translate)

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2

I have decided to offer an alternative that would fit snugly between the Kpz-70, and the leo 1. Funny enough, the tank i'd like to discuss is actually an indirect result of that program.

The Experimental tank, Kampfpanzer Keiler "Wild boar" was basically the hull of the MBT-70, with thinner armor, more or less the same build, and a COMPLETELY REDESIGNED, cheekless turret.


There was 17 different configurations, with the 1968 model being the first, however the specs are for the 1969 model which this article will be discussing. ONLY the 1969 model, making it a pre-cutoff vehicle, and good enough to deal with any armor, but not too well defended, therefore balancing itself out.

Essentially, the whole thing was;
German designers; Take as many of the things you can from the MBT-70 but make it cheaper to manufacture and not have all these problems.

So, the result is a loss of hydropneumatic suspension, much less effective armor, but a bigger gun, relatively similar top speed, and better turret.

Below is the 1969 prototype with the Kpz-70's cannon.


rearward shot of the same tank


1969 Keiler again, with SEVERAL extra Keilers in the background (top left.) this is the same body, hull, turret, but mounts a 105mm, however this image is good for more "proof" as well as shows more of the top of the tank.


The reason for this suggestion, is the powerful gun would offer a good way to balance the vehicle out, and on top of this, the armor is just about as poor as the leo 1's original armor, so it's more like a gun and turret upgrade than anything else, with additional mobility. If anything, the actual armoring of this thing is WORSE than the leo 1.

The turret design was in fact so popular, it became standard on leopard 1a3's and onwards. So essentially this is a slightly better leo 1a3 with a bigger gun.



Below is a drawing plan using the 120mm Glattrorhkanone, one of the prototype's options. (1969 model, note light placement and fume extractor As well as this, the openings in the rangefinder slots have armor that can be pulled to cover the vulnerability, so my suggestion is keep them closed until a player uses a rangefinder, at which point they open to measure distance.)




Specs;
Date of production; The drawing of armor shows it's armor layout, and sets date as 1969.

Armament; 120mm "Glattrohrkanone" ("smoothbore"), essentially an older variant of the L44 model of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun without the bit on the tip. It can be seen mounted on the later leo 2 prototype image in the article. (Please note there were multiple armaments, but this thread ONLY covers the 120mm, as ten were built with the 10.5 L7, while seven were built with the new 120mm smoothbore gun.)

 

 

At the latest after the publication of the battle tank T-62 with its 115 mm smoothbore gun was clear, which could come as armament of the successor to the Leopard 1 only a considerably stronger gun into consideration. 
In 1965, the company Rheinmetall presented after basic investigations firmly secured, the the required performance boost would be equally accessible only by a glattrohrigen cannon. Therefore, in 1968 the company Rheinmetall commissioned such a tank cannon with a smooth pipe and the associated ammunition to develop. As caliber they agreed on 120 mm to provide sufficient reserves for the future development to keep them.

 

- http://www.kotsch88.de/g_120_mm_rh.htm

 

 

Rheinmetall 120mm/L44: muzzle velocity with oldest APFSDS shell: about 1600 m/s     muzzle energy: 9.8MJ

 

For comparison, please look at these two diagrams, one of which I modified to explain why the guns look different.

This is the EXISTING 120mm L/44


This is the prototype. The grey area I added on, it shows the main difference between the prototype and the production model L/44. The reason for this difference is that in the production model, this additional metal was removed to save weight and improve performance of the aiming mechanism.  - in order to prevent further arguments of it "not being the gun" I have also showed the rough positioning of the beak in the updated image below.

Munitions used;

 

(quoted from Urho3000)

 

DM12

 

first tested: 1967

v_0 = 1140 m/s

Cartridge weight = 23 kg 

Projectile weight = 13.5 kg

Penetration:

up to approx. 700mm RHA at 0°

approx. 450mm of 3-layer composite armour (K formula) at 0°

approx. 220mm of 3-layer composite armour (K formula) at 60

 

120 mm KE-projectiles (APFSDS)

The DM 13 was the first developed in Germany armor-piercing power ammunition for smooth bore cannon and was available on the date of introduction of the Leopard 2 in 1979. The fin-stabilized KE projectile acts solely by its kinetic energy that it receives at launch in the pipe. Given the bullet sec accelerated to an initial velocity of 1640 m /. The caliber in flight is 38 mm, the projectile mass without the separable sabot is 4.6 Kg. The actual armor penetrating core is embedded in the projectile body and has an even smaller diameter than the projectile body. The material of the penetrator consists of a special tungsten alloys with enormously high density and hardness. The penetrating power of DM 13 should be at 2200 m shooting distance approximately 230 mm homogeneous rolled steel (RHA).

The cartridge consists of a steel sleeve bottom with Zündschraube and a Anzündstab, which ensures an optimal ignition of the propellant charge. A glued into the sleeve base sleeve body burns completely. The tip of the cartridge case bears the bullet. The performance data of DM 13 already no longer satisfactory early 80s, so it was replaced in 1983 by the DM 23rd

 

http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120_mm.htm

 

v_0 = 1650 m/s

Cartridge weight = approx 15 kg 

Projectile weight = 4.6 kg

Penetrator caliber < 38 mm

Penetrator length = 453 mm

-> L/D > 12.5 / 1

Penetration:

approx. 470mm RHA at 0° at 500m

approx. 390mm RHA at 0° at 2000m

approx. 230mm RHA at 60° at 2200m

 

 

Secondary Armament; 2x MG 3 Machine guns

Armor;

Chassis and hull
Hull; According to data from the Entwicklung series, the front glacis was 50 mm at 15° then 35 mm at 8°, equivalent to 90 mm of welded steel RHA with a hardened upper layer.The engine deck is 20 mm thick and 14 mm under the engine compartment while the rear plate was 25 mm thick at 15-20°. The lower face of the beak was 59 mm at 35°. The bottom front plate (from the beak to the rear of the turret) is 19 mm (19mm underbelly for the front half of the vehicle.)

Turret; judging by the fact that the Leopard 1a4 uses a nearly identical turret, use it's armor values, as it sought to recreate this turret. The difference is that the leopard 1A3 used a plastic-filled space between the spaced armor, whereas the Keiler was truly spaced, having nothing between it's plates Therefore, subtract the RHA value of plastic from 1A3 turret, and make it spaced, then just copy down the values minus the plastic filler, and use the larger armor value for the turret beak's top, as it consists of only one plate instead of two.

Weight; Approximately 40 tons, very close.

Engine; MB 872 Ka-500 | 1250 HP
Transmission; ZF 4 HP 400 transmission

Additionally, the new cooling system using suction (which is why there's those two intakes on the top of the hull) reduced the size of the bump in the rear area, allowing for more gun depression in the rear end.

As well as this, an additional OM 636 engine was used to power a generator for the tank's electrical systems, which included gun stabilization in BOTH directions, meaning this tank can fire while going full speed ahead, and typically won't lose it's aim, so you can make use of it's mobility, unlike the leopard 1 where you have to snipe and sit.
Rangefinder type; EMES-12 sight with optical rangefinder, the same as the leopard 1.

top speed; Unknown, likely faster than the leopard 1 as the engine was twice as powerful, as well as a new transmission.

Crew; Usual configuration, Gunner, Commander, Driver, Loader, following a conventional layout. All crew members are placed in positions analogous (similar to) the Leopard 1.

Communications; Same as leopard 1


"All in all, this was no way superior to that of the leopard 1 chassis, however the compartments above the main drivetrain received new cofferdams of composite armour storage bays and are flat rather than sloped on the previous Leopard on which all the tooling was fastened externally. The driver is located to the right hand side. He is given a sliding hatch (to the right) and three periscope vision blocks before him."



If anyone else has additional information to contribute, I will add it below, the beginning of each contribution will be written in gold lettering.

Contribution by "Shinzu" which states the Keiler's weight, engine, and transmission as well as rangefinder type;

Weight: ~40t
Secondary Armament: 2x MG 3

Source: http://www.kampfpanz...hicles/leopard2 (weight is written at the propulsion specification,secondary arma at armament)

 

Contribution by Arczer, stating gun munitions and specs.

 

im trying to get some info about ammunition, for now it is:

BM-13 oldest 120mm L44 ammo that i found for now, developed in the same time as 120mm L44

about ~390mm 0 degree 2km so 0 degree isn't somewhat super great, but were it shine

60 degree ~200mm. yep it is long rod penetrator, compared to T-62 APFSDS and 1650m/s

round is correct for 120mm L44 and its it first developed APFSDS for 120mm (or at last claimed), this ammo with entered service with gun in 1979

 

so overall kampfpanzer keller is better leopard, compared to leopard 1a1 with offers minor upgrades (due lack FCS modelling), with would be nice counter to heavily armored m60a1 and chieftain.

 

Contribution by Urho3000 stating gun munitions and specs

Quote

 

Die 120 mm Mehrzweckgranate DM 12

Die DM 12 wurde als Mehrzweckgranate entwickelt und soll neben der Bekämpfung von gepanzerten Zielen auch gegen ungepanzerte Ziele, Feldbefestigungen und lebende Kräfte eingesetzt werden. Die Granate besitzt eine Hohlladung zum Durchschlagen von gepanzerten Zielen. Durch eine angepasste Granathülle wird beim Detonieren neben dem eigentlichen Hohlladungseffekt zusätzlich eine erhöhte Splitterwirkung erreicht. Die Durchschlagswirkung bei Panzerzielen soll bei 60 Grad Auftreffwinkel in Bereichen bis zu 220 mm liegen. Bei 90 Grad Auftreffwinkel durchschlägt sie ca. 450 mm Schottpanzerung, abhängig vom Keramikanteil der Panzerung. Bei homogenem Panzerstahl sind etwa 700 mm Durchdringtiefe möglich. Die Kombination Hohlladung und Splittergeschoss ist jedoch ein Kompromiss. Die Leistungsdaten beim Einsatz gegen ungepanzerte Ziele, Feldbefestigungen und lebende Kräfte liegen deutlich unter denen einer konventionellen Splittergranate wie beispielsweise der russischen 125 mm HE-FRAG OF-26. Deshalb haben bereits einige Streitkräfte die neue HE-Granate DM 11 eingeführt, was auch für die Bundeswehr geplant ist.

first tested: 1967

v_0 = 1140 m/s

Cartridge weight = 23 kg 

Projectile weight = 13.5 kg

Penetration:

up to approx. 700mm RHA at 0°

approx. 450mm of 3-layer composite armour (K formula) at 0°

approx. 220mm of 3-layer composite armour (K formula) at 60°

Edited August 29, 2016 by blakeob
Added prefix tag.

[Smin1080p 60,444]

Open for discussion  :salute:​ 

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Open for discussion  :salute:​ 

 

Thaaaanks! I added a bunch more info and pictures, was a little worried since it was just so close to the cutoff date XD

[Doktor_Junkers 8,441]

Might be useful if WT really decides to expand the timeline. Otherwise I see no place for it in the game.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Might be useful if WT really decides to expand the timeline. Otherwise I see no place for it in the game.

 

It's basically RIGHT on the border of the current timeline, and would you prefer having a more balanced vehicle, or a way faster, way better armored Kpz-70/ MBT-70 tackling early postwar vehicles? This is basically the only thing (of actual German production, not those lend-lease M60's or anything.) that is capable of tackling the current Soviet vehicles. There's also my other thread on 128mm APDS, which did exist, but I figured having a backup that could possibly work helps. It's really just another leo 1 with a better gun and plinky armor.

[Doktor_Junkers 8,441]

It's basically RIGHT on the border of the current timeline, and would you prefer having a more balanced vehicle, or a way faster, way better armored Kpz-70/ MBT-70 tackling early postwar vehicles? This is basically the only thing (of actual German production, not those lend-lease M60's or anything.) that is capable of tackling the current Soviet vehicles. There's also my other thread on 128mm APDS, which did exist, but I figured having a backup that could possibly work helps. It's really just another leo 1 with a better gun and plinky armor.

 

I'd prefer imported vehicles (Germany has its own unique M48 modification augmented with the L7 for instance) from both the Bundeswehr or NVA over that.

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

Personally, I like the tank but, opening the timeline worries me a bit unless there are major changes to the MM and BR  system.  It's already bad enough sitting in your Jagdpanther and fighting t54s, IS4 and 3s and T10s not to mention the ZSU-57.

 

This would work if they truly split the eras to WW2 and Post war though.  Maybe that is a solution in itself.

 

Also, are they looking at the MBT70 as a vehicle in the game?

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Personally, I like the tank but, opening the timeline worries me a bit unless there are major changes to the MM and BR  system.  It's already bad enough sitting in your Jagdpanther and fighting t54s, IS4 and 3s and T10s not to mention the ZSU-57.

 

This would work if they truly split the eras to WW2 and Post war though.  Maybe that is a solution in itself.

 

Also, are they looking at the MBT70 as a vehicle in the game?

 

Nah, click the link in the original post, people are discussing it but complained it was TOO good for combatting the soviets. This is meant to be a little more modest. As for fighting T10's, that's why I'm suggesting it. The leo is very difficult to use and the fandanglers always aim for your turret. This would completely solve the problem. I do not think it would open up the timeline either, as it is before 1970, even if ONLY just. 

 

I'd prefer imported vehicles (Germany has its own unique M48 modification augmented with the L7 for instance) from both the Bundeswehr or NVA over that.

 

Yes, you'd think that, but here's the thing. That link at the very beginning of this thread? a bunch of people merely said "we've had enough of these damn imports, give us our own vehicles, we're tired of copy paste." which is another reason I made this thread, apart from the Kpz-70 being too OP for this current timeline. 

 

I have some things to say, but I'm not going to derail my own topic, let's just say there's a very good reason to have something this basic. 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Ruslan_DR

[Stryker232 174]

I don't think it has a place in WT at the moment with that being said I hope Germany does get it as this will open the door for the Chrysler and General Motors XM1 Abrams prototypes for US.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I don't think it has a place in WT at the moment with that being said I hope Germany does get it as this will open the door for the Chrysler and General Motors XM1 Abrams prototypes for US.

 

Eh, I guess. Overall this thread is looking kind of disappointing. Maybe the 128mm APDS was a better solution XD Ech, and if you're getting those, then we're most definitely getting the early leo 2 with flat cheeks :P not this thing. I mainly only suggested this because it has a better gun.

 

And that's where the upgrades stop 8|

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

There's a lot of people talking about the new cutoff year and confirmed new vehicles in the other threads. Where is this information?

[_Sync 1,028]

I don't see why people are against this. Germany needs more decent vehicles for fighting the Russians and Americans.

 

Germany only has 2 decent Tier Vs as of now, (Maus and Leopard 1) JgPz 4-5 is crap anyways because of it's armor and the low pen for a HEATFS round.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is the timeline.

 

But it's a +1 :salute:

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

I don't see why people are against this. Germany needs more decent vehicles for fighting the Russians and Americans.

 

Could not agree more if there is one faction that desperately needs more high end armour it's Germany.  The Leo is great but every single tank it will ever face can one shot it frontally.  Compare this to the Russian top tier where you almost need the Leo's gun to do any damage from the front.  I know, I know, it's really mobile but flanking is getting harder and harder, especially now and if you don't one shot or disable the gun in any tank the Leo sees you are toast unless you have some good cover around you.

 

Germany only has 2 decent Tier Vs as of now, (Maus and Leopard 1) JgPz 4-5 is crap anyways because of it's armor and the low pen for a HEATFS round.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is the timeline.

 

Me too, it's a slippery slope.

 

But it's a +1 :salute:

[ManyMilesAway 366]

Something like this is needed for the Germans.  The issue that we are facing right now in nations other than the USSR is the fact that they have a completely fleshed out tech tree of Tier V vehicles.  and not a single one of them is a bad tank.  Now a lot of that is due to the inherent design of such vehicles during that timeline, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that the soviets have solid vehicles in every category.  

 

What we need is simply more vehicles that are up to combating the USSR vehicles.  The buffs to the L7/M68 guns as of 1.53 have been welcome and have evened the playing field a little bit now that those guns can actually reliably defeat russian armor.  But even still, there is not enough GOOD variety to say that Tier V is totally balanced.  For example; The only two really competitive vehicles for the Germans are the Maus and the Leopard 1.  For the US its the M60 and The M103 (one could potentially argue the M47 as well but only because of its HEAT ammo).  Thats 4 vehicles total vs 8 competitive USSR vehicles.  

 

The Kanonen-jagdpanzer and the Jagdtiger are NOT up to the job.  The Jagdtiger CAN give a T54 some trouble but only if the Jtiger gets the drop on him.  the Kanonen Jagdpanzer is fast but its gun is too small and its armor too weak.  also it fires APCR which is useless at the moment due to its ineffectiveness vs sloped armor (of which all soviet vehicles have...)

Edited November 9, 2015 by ManyMilesAway

[Shinzu 460]

Weight: ~40t
Secondary Armament: 2x MG 3

Source: http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2 (weight is written at the propulsion specification,secondary arma at armament)

Edited November 9, 2015 by Shinzu

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Weight: ~40t
Secondary Armament: 2x MG 3

Source: http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2 (weight is written at the propulsion specification,secondary arma at armament)

 

Thanks, even got the engine and some other specs from there, so we're all the more closer to seeing the full specs of this, and perhaps seeing it realized!

 

 

EDIT: Anyone know of anyone who might make this a signature thing? Might help get more notoriety!

Edited November 9, 2015 by Ruslan_DR

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

cool would good vs the t62

[igeticsu 3,400]

Would be an awesome top tier tank for Germany :D

[Stronk_Memes 111]

Yes! I'm all for this! :D Germany needs another good post-war tank. After all, Russia has seven, America has six, and Germany has... two. :/ This would also make dealing with T-54s/IS-3/IS-4/T-10s a lot easier. They have it easy because their guns kill everything usually in one shot. Why can't Germany have a tank like that, within the cutoff date?

[Danunachas 236]

I have to say no, just because if we get this, then russians and americans will get something to "balance" it out.

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

If Russia is really getting the T62 Then it's a definite yes and I think the MBT70, the German M47 and M48 should come with it.

 

There is a SERIOUS shortage of competetive germen top tier tanks.  This faction is dying a slow death at tier 5.

 

Russia needs another top tier tank like Kim Kardashian needs butt implants, and yet, they keep coming along with the under tiered pay to win clubbers like the T34-100

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I have to say no, just because if we get this, then russians and americans will get something to "balance" it out.

 

I would agree, but this is the same gun used on the modern Leo 2, but slightly shorter. so.... no matter what they get within the cutoff date they're still boned. However, this fact is balanced by the lack of armor.

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

I would agree, but this is the same gun used on the modern Leo 2, but slightly shorter. so.... no matter what they get within the cutoff date they're still boned. However, this fact is balanced by the lack of armor.

 

 

Could you explain the blue bit please.  Not sure what you mean by it.

[Vlad_The_Impala 338]

I have to say no, just because if we get this, then russians and americans will get something to "balance" it out.

 

If it is modelled correctly and given the right battle rating I don't think this is an issue.  Especially given The IS3, 4 and T10 that are already in game.  The late American tanks should be able to cope with this. 

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Could you explain the blue bit please.  Not sure what you mean by it.

 

The gun used on it is the same Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore model L44, which today is the L55, a longer variant with higher velocity;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun L44 refers to "44 calibers long"

 

The same prototype version of this gun was mounted on the German prototype Kampfpanzer-70, (Ger MBT-70) and was later remounted on this keiler prototype. The reason this looks different from the standard L44 is because the actual barrel itself is thicker, which means it is also harder to destroy! Take a look at the first image, you can see how thick it is compared to the normal L44 variant. Even the 10.5 cm version mounted on this tank was thick like this, in fact the thickness was considered too much, which is why the Keiler was later remounted with this 120mm one, the 10.5 cm's weight decreased the turret rotation.

 

(speaking of, we need to find more specs on the turret. It's rotation speed, armor.)

 

If it is modelled correctly and given the right battle rating I don't think this is an issue.  Especially given The IS3, 4 and T10 that are already in game.  The late American tanks should be able to cope with this. 

 

there are two easy, reliable ways i can already think of to kill it that aren't that hard, three if you want to get technical. First would be the trick that works on the T-10, and late T-54's, aiming under the gun mantle with HE. This would bounce shrapnel off and into the 8mm thick upper front glacis, likely into the ammo.

Way 2 is just to aim for the lower glacis, it's not thick enough to take a hit from AP, only the top bounces AP because of large angle.

Third way would be to just throw HE under the vehicle, as it's only got 19mm of armor up on the frontal underside, even less under the engine.

 

as i have explained, MULTIPLE TIMES. The saving grace is the OP gun, and due to the new engine having twice the HP of the leo 1, better top speed and accelleration. It's not that hard to destroy, it seems just because the topic title says "leo 2 prototype" nobody takes the time to READ the content and see it's a perfectly balanced vehicle.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Ruslan_DR