Jump to content

Leopard 2 Prototype with automatic charger


pieve
 Share

 

1BJ99IP.png

           Germany

Leopard 2 Prototype



 


 

Leopard 2 Prototype

Kampfpanzer%20Leopard%202%20Prototyp%20f

Leopard 2 Prototype PT-16 chassis with PT-14 tower with automatic charger

 

WlImmaF.png

On 1 August 1963, two years before the launch of the Leopard 1, the US and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a government agreement to co-operate on the development of a new tank, which was to replace the combat armor M48 from 1970 onwards. The project was named "MBT / KPz 70". After six years of development, however, it was clear that the project would not have a successful conclusion for several reasons. This realization led to the termination of the development work. In Germany, the beginning of the national program began in the course of the study "Keiler" with the conceptual considerations for its own tank concept. In 1971, the first two test organizers were available. Experiences gained with the Kampfpanzer 70 were integrated into the project, so that a first prototype left the production halls under the name Leopard 2 K in 1972

 

In the following three years, Krauss-Maffei built further prototypes: with 105 mm and 120 mm smoothbore guns, with a total of 16 different chassis and no fewer than 17 different towers. The other developments were among others. under the influence of the experiences of the Yom Kippur War, the NATO Agreement on Standardization of Combatants, and the comparative testing with the American prototype XM-1. In October 1977, the public finally received a series-ready result and Krauss-Maffei was commissioned as a general contractor to build the new combat armor. In October 1979, the first series models of the KPz Leopard 2 were handed over to the German Panzer Group (PzLehrBrig).

 

The prototype Leopard 2 tower (module T-14) was built at the same time as the Leopard 2-AV PT 19 / T-19-AV Prototype. while the PT 19 / T-19-AV was used in the USA for comparative testing of leopard 2 AV and XM-1, Leopard 2 with T-14 Mod was available for testing only in Germany for testing purposes.
Equipped with the 120mm direct channel cannon, stabilized primary target devices and an existing AEG fire control system, important technical data have been developed.
The main component of the fire control system, however, was a completely new passive remote control (principle of correlation removal). the two fliders show the T-14 Mod. with the tub PT 09 in the technician for the Schilben in June of 1976.

Notable features of tower 14 mod. are: the protection of the missing armor to the left and to the right of the blind.

The view head of the correlation removal device with the three windows in the left view around the tower. The two external views form a small base for the correlation section. The average view was for the night.
There is no more jogging system on either side of the tour. the front of the crosswindmebrad in the tower.

 

0ArwoFj.png

Test field. Here you can see Leopard 2 in germany

 

ukELxhC.jpg

gMf8Lpa.png

Here you can see Leopard 2 automatic loader system, very reminiscent of AMX Leclerc charging system

jqf1b7c.jpg

MFsZbcl.jpg

Photos of the prototype of leopard 2 at the museum WehrTechnische StudienSammlung

Spoiler

nwKELo0.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_185_of_430.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_183_of_430.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_188_of_430.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_186_of_430.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_187_of_430.jpgwts_koblenz_031408_188_of_430.jpg

source:

 

Edited by pieve
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 35
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud your effort and this is a really interesting tank, but is it composite? (spaced armor counts as 'composite' to Gaijiggle apparently 'cough' MBT/Kpz-70 'cough'... which they cant model in game very well). 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

I applaud your effort and this is a really interesting tank, but is it composite? (spaced armor counts as 'composite' to Gaijiggle apparently 'cough' MBT/Kpz-70 'cough'... which they cant model in game very well). 

apparently in the chassis has no composite shielding because its chassis is based on leopard 1 yet, but tower I think so

oa13Wom.jpg

CIMG7489.jpg

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

I applaud your effort and this is a really interesting tank, but is it composite? (spaced armor counts as 'composite' to Gaijiggle apparently 'cough' MBT/Kpz-70 'cough'... which they cant model in game very well). 

to my knowledge, no. was a special test turret

now we are talking. a big fat +1
maybe someday, when we have the right Tier as a event/ premium?

Edited by dotEXCEL
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pieve hope this helps
Offenlegungstag (publication date [of an unexamined patent document]) of the Drawing was the 23rd March 1993 due to german patent law
1391977563-4qq0t1.jpg

Edited by dotEXCEL
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

to my knowledge, no. was a special test turret

 

Then why should it be in-game? The vehicles that are less set in stone in-game still have configurations that were intended for combat rather than testing. That would be like implementing the V1 turret onto the Maus even though the V1 turret was never meant to be mounted on a combat-ready Maus in the first place.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pieve said:

apparently in the chassis has no composite shielding because its chassis is based on leopard 1 yet, but tower I think so

oa13Wom.jpg

CIMG7489.jpg

 

5 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

to my knowledge, no. was a special test turret

now we are talking. a big fat +1
maybe someday, when we have the right Tier as a event/ premium?

 

Neat, have a +1, we don't need anymore poorly modeled 'composite' tanks in WT until they can sort the RHA and CHA we have already. 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

@pieve hope this helps
Offenlegungstag (publication date [of an unexamined patent document]) of the Drawing was the 23rd March 1993 due to german patent law
1391977563-4qq0t1.jpg

Nice bro,This is going to be very useful.;)

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pieve said:

Nice bro,This is going to be very useful.;)

This will also prove useful for the Leopard 2(A0/1) !  Also, the diagram is stretched/distorted along the x axis by about 8%.

 

Here is the slightly adjusted image:

 

adjusted_turret_AL.thumb.jpg.98787d34325

Edited by Laviduce
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

Then why should it be in-game? The vehicles that are less set in stone in-game still have configurations that were intended for combat rather than testing. That would be like implementing the V1 turret onto the Maus even though the V1 turret was never meant to be mounted on a combat-ready Maus in the first place.

why is the object 120, r2y2's or the T114 ingame? non of them saw combat.
i get the feeling that you are against nearly all post-war suggestions recently. eighter say that you are against it and leave or help collecting infos.

Edited by dotEXCEL
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

This will also prove useful for the Leopard 2(A0/1) !

pssst.... not so loud

27 minutes ago, pieve said:

Nice bro,This is going to be very useful.;)

my pleasure

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:


i get the feeling that you are against nearly all post-war suggestions recently. eighter say that you are against it and leave or help collecting infos.

 

I'm in a similar boat, but for a good reason: Gaijin can't seem to model RHA or CHA right, and we still don't have FHA or HHA which were both used during WWII. Why would we want composite tanks that have far more complex, heterogeneous arrays when simple homogeneous armor isn't correct? That and some types of ammo aren't performing right (APCR, Solid Shot, APHE) and there's still only 2 types of APDS when IRL there are (I believe) 3 generations of APDS before APDS-FS, of which there are many different types, all of which react differently (monobloc vs. composite/cored, length/diameter ratio, material, etc.) 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

why is the object 120, r2y2's or the T114 ingame? non of them saw combat.
i get the feeling that you are against nearly all post-war suggestions recently. eighter say that you are against it and leave or help collecting infos.

 

It's not my fault most of said suggestions are pretty damn bad and rely on the rule of cool rather than consideration of meta and balance. Also, the Object 120, R2Y2 and T114 have configs that do seem to be an attempt at making a battle-ready vehicle rather than a temporary testbed as was the case of the PT-14 turret.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

It's not my fault most of said suggestions are pretty damn bad and rely on the rule of cool rather than consideration of meta and balance. Also, the Object 120, R2Y2 and T114 have configs that do seem to be an attempt at making a battle-ready vehicle rather than a temporary testbed as was the case of the PT-14 turret.

R2Y2 and battle ready.... joke of the century. Maybe the R2Y1.

The Autoloader was tested and fired. So its as good as the object. if you are only here to flame around, then please leave. if you have infos on a tank which might improve the post them but not waste our time with your worthless flaming. have a good one :salute:

Edited by dotEXCEL
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

I'm in a similar boat, but for a good reason: Gaijin can't seem to model RHA or CHA right, and we still don't have FHA or HHA which were both used during WWII. Why would we want composite tanks that have far more complex, heterogeneous arrays when simple homogeneous armor isn't correct? That and some types of ammo aren't performing right (APCR, Solid Shot, APHE) and there's still only 2 types of APDS when IRL there are (I believe) 3 generations of APDS before APDS-FS, of which there are many different types, all of which react differently (monobloc vs. composite/cored, length/diameter ratio, material, etc.) 

if it bothers you, make bug reports, make suggestions, be productive, but just pointing at errors without coming up with a solution is just lazy. easy as that.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

It's not my fault most of said suggestions are pretty damn bad and rely on the rule of cool rather than consideration of meta and balance. Also, the Object 120, R2Y2 and T114 have configs that do seem to be an attempt at making a battle-ready vehicle rather than a temporary testbed as was the case of the PT-14 turret.

what are you talking? You say things without circumstances. all these are prototypes that did not work out Object 120, T-114, leopard 2 PT-14, in addition R2Y2 never existed. and you fall into contradiction with your own answer

Edited by pieve
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...