ground vehicles Leopard 2(A0/A1) - [Spoiler Alert - Image Intensive]

[Laviduce 1,779]

Suggestion:        

 

The addition of the very first Leopard 2 MBT to the German tech tree as their final tier 6 (or at a later date tier 7) vehicle to War Thunder Ground Forces.

[Spoiler Alert !!! - Image Intensive!!!]

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Background: 

 

On 24. and 25. October 1979, the fourth Leopard 2 MBT ever produced was handed over to the  Bundeswehr in a ceremony. The vehicle was the first series production vehicle as the first three had been pre-production vehicles. The ceremony marked the beginning of series production, and its delivery to the Bundeswehr signified the beginning of operational service for the Leopard 2.    (Source: Frank Lobitz - Leopard 2 - Entwicklung und Einsatz in der Bundeswehr)

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

A collage of schematics properly scaled to eachother that show some of the inner workings of the Leopard 2:

 

 

 

General Specifications:

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Leopard 2A4 specifications - Note: The actual weight of a Leopard 2A4 is 56.5 metric tons, not 55.15 as in the case of the Leopard 2A0.

Mobility - 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

The acceleration behavior of the Leopard 2A0 on a street (Krapke)

 

Spoiler

The wall climbing, trench bridging, gradiant climbing and tilting characteristics of the Leopard 2A0 (Krapke)

 

Firepower -  The Leopard 2A0s main armament consist of the Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 (44 calibre) smoothbore gun. The Leopard 2A0 would be equipped with the DM13 APFSDS-T round and the DM12 HEAT-T round. Starting in 1983 , the DM23 APFSDS-T round would become available as well.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

                                                                               Accuracy of the 120mm Rheinmetall gun at various distances without the help of the ballistic computer or a  misfiring.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Approximate Penetrative Performance: 440-470 mm RHAe KE at 0 m

 

Approximate Penetrative Performance: 520 mm RHAe KE at = 0 m

 

Approximate Penetrative Performance: 600 mm RHAe CE

 

 

 

Protection - The Leopard 2 protection has been optimized to offer the best protection inside the frontal 60 degree arch particularly for the turret.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Approximate frontal "weak zones":

Spoiler

 

Armor Distribution:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Official requirements:

 

Spoiler

This document fragment suggests that the  Leopard 2 should be able to resist 105 mm APDS rounds (most likely the DM13 APDS penetration: 322 mm RHAe) as well MILAN ATGMs. (Penetration 650 mm RHAe)

 

Spoiler

This diagram suggests that the Leopard 2 (A0-A3) equipped with 1st generation protection is meant to be able resist the 125 mm armaments of the T72 and T64B tanks.

 

 

Spoiler

 

This diagram illustrates the ranges at which the toughest part of the Leopard 2 (A0)  turret gets perforated. Source: Paul W. Krapke - Leopard 2 - sein Werden und seine Leistung

Note: One could reasonably assume that the toughest part of the turret of a Leopard 2(A0-A3) would most likely be the left turret cheek with a line-of-sight thickness of up to 840 mm.

 

 

Spoiler

 

According to the table above, the most sophisticated KE round available to a T-72 during the the early years of the Leopard 2 was the 125 mm BM-22  round with a penetration performance of 450 mm RHAe. During the same time frame, the top-of-the-line APFSDS-T rounds of the T-62 suggests a perfomance of between 430 - 460 mm RHAe for the BM-21 and BM-28 rounds respectively.

 

Source: Steel Beasts Wiki 2016

 

 

Source: War Thunder Wiki 2017

 

 

Estimates:

 

Spoiler

 

                                           Protection: 450 mm RHAe  - Rolf Hilmes 2017  (I would think that this would refer to the KE resistance of the toughest part of the turret of a Leopard 2A0-2A3)

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

This publication suggests that the Leopard 2 offers a KE resistance of about 400 mm and a CE resistance of about 700 mm in the frontal 60 degree arc.

Source: Armed Forces Journal International - February 1989

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

This is an estimate by Militarysta of http://btvt.narod.ru - His estimate gives the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret cheek(s)  a resistance of about 470 mm RHAe for KE rounds and about 650 mm RHAe against CE rounds.

 

 

Given the information above,  the Leopard 2(A0) left turret cheek seems to have a KE resistance of about 330 mm RHAe at the very least and about  470 mm RHAe against sub-calibre KE rounds at the very most. Given a line of sight thickness of up to 840-860 mm this would give the left turret cheek a respective armor thickness (co) efficiency (TE) of  between 0.388 and 0.553. In both cases.   For CE resistance the estimates seem to hover around 650-850 mm RHAe. This would make the left turret cheek of the Leopard 2A0  resistant to the MILAN 1 ATGM as originally outlined in the official document.

 

 

 

The side hull in detail:

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

This image shows the approximate thicknesses of the side hull of a Leopard 2A6. The side hull of a Leopard 2A0 will most likely not be much different.

 

Spoiler

A closer look at the hull cross-section of a Leopard 2

 

Spoiler

 

 

Location of the main gun ammunition-bunkers on a Leopard 2(A0-A4) - 42 main gun rounds can be carried (15 turret / 27 hull).

 

Sources:

 

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

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm

 

http://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/Kampfpanzer-LEOPARD-2.htm

 

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/2006/dec/11dec06_nr2/11dec06_fs.html

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWb-hH_MxiY&t=334s

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hilmes-Kampfpanzer-heute-morgen-Hardcover/dp/B00SB5LXP2

 

https://www.amazon.de/Leopard-sein-Werden-seine-Leistung/dp/3833414251

 

End

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Laviduce
added some spoilers to help our GPU deficient friends

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Nope 10,634]

The protection requirements for the Leopard 2A0 are only (loosely) clear for APDS, not KE in general. As I have to explain multiple times, KE protection depends heavily on the type of KE used, with the T-64 being protected against L28 APDS even though M111 penetrates a T-72A despite worse penetration against steel. Going onto ammunition, almost the entire SB ammo page is filled with penetration values that make absolutely no sense according to equations based on proper physics. Take L23A1 for instance with penetration of 460mm at 3.5 km, despite an official British document stating 490mm penetration at 10m, which implies an impossible velocity loss of 12 m/s every km despite the general estimate being 50-60 m/s each km for the standard monobloc penetrator. The Lanz-Odermatt equation on the other hand got stupid close to the British values and every single value from the Lanz-Odermatt equation is lower than the penetration value of every single monobloc penetrator in the SB wiki, which means the SB wiki is not a credible source. There's also no equation that exists that can estimate the penetration of DM13 that shares its penetrator design with M735, nor is there an equation that can estimate the penetration of 3BM-22 or 3BM-15 (3BM-9 penetration values can still be found with the Lanz-Odermatt equation, though the Russians have different criteria it seems). This means there are no values for the stock round of the 2A0. And this only becomes worse with the armor protection estimates that are made to be in sync with already flawed and unscientific penetration values to boot, thus leaving only the Leopard 2 requirements that only show a bare minimum that could have definitely been exceeded with the production vehicle, as was the case of the M1 (whose recently found armor values have unknown criteria). You also use acceleration on slopes instead of the acceleration chart made by Ogorkiewcz.

 

Yeah, this just doesn't have enough proper sources to be implemented without causing a huge mess that will take forever to clean up. Until more concrete data is found, the 2A0 will just be badly implemented much to people's disappointment.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Nope

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

well Laviduce, get ready to be updating this suggestion for the next 2 years until mid/late cold war modern armor catches up to modern firepower and we're ready for tier 7 :p

 

 

while there's going to be plenty of discrepancies and inconsistencies and disagreements etc. in the initial suggestion, as seen from other long term suggestions, people can dig up data in some of the most random and obscure areas of the internet. so by the time this eventually gets passed and/or confirmed we'll have found some weird but accurate info.

 

so ultimately i'm for this- knowing that the Leo 2A0 almost certainly will come after 2019, and the kampfpanzer Keiler and maybe Leo 2AV preceding it. +1

 

 

EDIT: remember people that this is very quite clearly a long-term suggestion people and even the OP points this out. THINK with at least just the slightest consideration with the LONG-TERM development of WT in mind.

 

don't just be like "we're just getting ERA/composites" and downvote thinking this tank is going to be coming out in THE NEXT PATCH. the Leo 2A0 is late 1.9X patch material at the very absolute earliest.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Admiral_Aruon

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Can you please use some spoilers? That OP is a mess of images at the moment.

[Laviduce 1,779]

On 12.9.2017 at 2:28 AM, Mercedes4321 said:

Can you please use some spoilers? That OP is a mess of images at the moment.

 

I am sorry that i included a lot of diagrams in the post. I did not mean just to create a post suggesting vehicle A without providing a few diagrams and references.  I will add a spoiler warning next time.

 

Anyhow here is some more relevant information concerning the MILAN 1 ATGM, armor distribution, KE ammunition behavior, etc.

 

The MILAN ATGM family performance:

 

(MILAN 1 is given a perforation performance of 650 mm)

 

 Bare Leopard 2(A0-A4)  turrets during assembly: 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

A closer look at the Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 and the mantlet:

 

 

 

The Dimensions of the Leopard 2A0 Power Pack:

 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Laviduce
added a few spoiler tags

[ganJ 2,692]

any info about REAL armor values ?
REAL primary info ?

[Laviduce 1,779]

1 minute ago, ganJ said:

any info about REAL armor values ?
REAL primary info ?

 

Primary info as in the manufacturer giving away the exact layout and thickness of the armor packages ? No!

 

The information comes from authors that dealt with the Leopard 2 directly (Hilmes, Spielberger, Lobitz, Krapke, etc. ) via military service and/or industry/project involvement (i.e.:BWB, KMW,etc.). There are also images that came from Rheinmetall, KMW, etc.  directly

 

The rest of the information comes from Militarysta who has gotten the chance to measure some of the important Leopard 2A4 dimensions.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

54 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

am sorry that i included a lot of diagrams in the post. I did not mean just to create a post suggesting vehicle A without providing a few diagrams and references.  I will add a spoiler warning next time.

 

You realize you can just edit previously placed posts right? I also like how you don't even bother to ;Spoiler; those pictures in the very post that responds to someone asking you to spoiler previous ones.

 

Anyways, untill accurate sources become available for such a vehicle, it's best not to implement this, especially because it would require the implementation of other vehicles with similar, yet also classified performance to balance it out with.

[Laviduce 1,779]

Measurements of a Leopard 2A4 by Militarysta:

 

Mantlet:

 

Left turret "cheek":

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Right turret "cheek":

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Right side turret:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by P8triot
add some spoiler tags

[Laviduce 1,779]

Concerning the US results of the XM1 - Leopard 2AV comparative trials in 1976:

 

"The accuracy of its fire control system was slightly higher than that of the XM1, but it was more expensive. The armor protection, ammunition compartmentation, and gun movement
were considered somewhat inferior to that on the American tank." - Hunnicutt - Abrams Vol II

[Retry 7,363]

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

I am sorry that i included a lot of diagrams in the post. I did not mean just to create a post suggesting vehicle A without providing a few diagrams and references.  I will add a spoiler warning next time.

 

On 9/10/2017 at 2:27 PM, Laviduce said:

[Spoiler Alert !!! - Image Intensive!!!]

 

Spoiler

That's

Spoiler

Not

Spoiler

What

Spoiler

He

Spoiler

Meant

 

 

 

 

 

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Retry said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

That's

  Hide contents

Not

  Hide contents

What

  Hide contents

He

  Hide contents

Meant

 

 

 

 

 

 

cant a mod help him out by editing his posts and putting images in spoilers?

 

or is that not possible

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Had to scroll too far.... Didn't want to stop between unspoilered photos to read.... 

 

15 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

cant a mod help him out by editing his posts and putting images in spoilers?

 

or is that not possible

 

Fairly certain it's possible... but better just to ask the OP to use spoilers... 

 

 

Blah blah blah, this is what you will find in my spoiler, and elaborate on technical specs.... followed by:

 

[spoiler*] and [/spoiler*] (Remove the * )

 

For our sanity and being able to organize things.... please... do this.

Edited September 12, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7
fixed it. :P

[TheLastYouSee__@psn 281]

id have to say no to this tank due to the fact we lack proper info about the armour and because it is a 3rd generation MBT whilst we are now only getting proper 2nd generation MBTs for the soviets

 

[The_Doctor_084 1,583]

The cats out of the bag just depends on if Gaijin can find enough info to make it as close to the real thing as possible. +1 here

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, RexLuporum said:

 if Gaijin can find enough info

 

[Laviduce 1,779]

KPZ-70 vs. Leopard 2 (A0) model:

 

 

Compiled design drawings for the Leopard 2A4:

 

 

The proper scale was determined using the official dimensions of the vehicle and the size of key component dimensions (track width, hull width, road wheels diameter, return rollers diameter,etc.) . The drawings themselves come from Rolf Hilmes (former BWB) and are from Rheinmetall and potentially KMW.

 

Interesting characteristics to note:

 

• The left side turret armor is 310 mm thick at the front.
• The right side turret is  310 mm thick at the front.
• The side hull thickness is 50 mm and 30 mm at different locations.
• The rubber/metal side skirts are about 10-20 mm thick.
• The turret is about 2.56 m wide and 4.49 m long.
• The front hull glacis thickness seems to be at most  680 mm, trailing off to about 570 mm on average in the upper section. Overall average thickness is about 620 mm.
• The heavy side skirt thickness is  90-105 mm.
• The mantlet thickness is 420 mm on average.
• The trunnion block thickness is 260 mm.
• The hull floor is 20 mm thick.
• The fuel tanks on the sponsons are backed by 50 mm of ballistic steel. The sponson fuel tanks seem to be protected by thin steel plates (10 mm?)
• The turret roof area in the middle of the turret is 30 mm thick.
• The front hull above the driver area is 30 mm thick.
• The rear side turret thickness (ammunition bunker space) seems to be at least 30 mm but no more than 80 mm thick. Around 50 mm seems to be the most plausible.
• The rear engine deck seems to be about 20 mm thick.
• The turret front roof is about 40-45 mm thick

 

Measurements of the left front turret weld lines give a depth of about 790 - 800 mm. 840 mm seems to be very plausible for the total LOS thickness.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Laviduce

[Laviduce 1,779]

Some Leopard 2A4 glacis details:

 

 

Spoiler

 

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

38 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

"details"

 

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

Nope.

 

Just nope.

 

Much as I'd love it, we do not know the information to accurately recreate it.

 

So no.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

2 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Much as I'd love it, we do not know the information to accurately recreate it.

 

 

 You don't. Other people do.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

51 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

 You don't. Other people do.

 

No kidding.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Necrons31467

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

Oh boy, this again. "I have the information but I can't post it."

 

Then your (Edit: or anyone, not specifically you) having it isn't worth much is it?

Edited September 15, 2017 by muzzleflash98

[Universae 677]

If im honest, I just want any Leopard 2 model (upto A4) to be included XD

I dont even think it has to go so far in the tree because there arent really alot of new tanks.....like by then they advanced very quickly.

 

But sure, I want the Leo 2 XD

It just looks great.