ground vehicles Leopard 2 A4

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

          Leopard 2 A4          

 

Austrian Leopard 2 A4 on combat excercise; Credit: ÖBH, Daniel Trippolt

 

 

 

 

Leopard 2 development histotry
 

Development of the heir of the exceptionally successfull Leopard 1 already began in the 1960s with the KPz70 and KPz Keiler projects. These tanks were the logical next step in terms of tank development, seeing as  intelligence reports confirmed that the Soviets were already working on the 125mm smoothbore armed T64 tank series. As a result, it was decided that combat effectiveness upgrades of the Leopard 1 tanks were not going to suffice any more.

In 1970, Krauss Maffei Wegmann began development of the prototype series of tanks called Leopard 2K, KPz Keiler, and Vergoldeter Leopard which was fitted a welded turret design by Porsche. 
After the Americans cancelled the MBT 70 project themselves, they issued an order of the new Leopard 2 preseries of tanks, called Leopard 2 AV (AV=Abgemagerte Version) which were, except for two of them, fitted with the 105mm L7 A3 gun. The other two were fitted the feared 120mm smoothbore L44 cannon made by Rheinmetall. The 14 prototypes were shipped to take up the XM1 models of prototype tanks made by GMC and Chrysler in trials at Aberdeen proving grounds. After the trials, it became clear to the US, that the need to upgrade from 105mm M68 cannons to 120mm cannons was justified, they shifted development of their own MBT, the M1. While initial variants were produced with the 105mm M68 cannon, they soon upgraded to the M1A1 standard, which was fitted with the 120mm copy of the L44 by Rheinmetall.

German development of the Leopard 2 continued after the Leopard 2 AVs were returned, and in 1979 the first of 8 ordered batches of vehicles of the Leopard 2 A0 type were delivered to the the West German Bundeswehr.

 

 

The Leopard 2 production and KWS (=Kampfwertesteigerung)

 

Leopard 2 A0

 

The first production batch was designated A0 variant, and was produced between October 1979 and March 1982, with a total of 380 vehicles. 
Basic equipment included:

- Main gunnery system EMES 15

- Laser range finder

- Hunter-Killer sight PERI R17

- Backup sight FERO Z18

- Cross wind sensor on the turret

- Low light intensifier PZB 200

 

Leopard 2 A1

 

The second production batch was designated A1. Produced between March 1982 and November 1983, the total of produced vehicles was 750.

Upgrades over the A0 variant included:
- Thermal imaging sighting systems as standard

- Various crew comfort improvements

 

Leopard 2 A2

 

Over the years, all vehicles of the A0 type were upgraded to A1 standards and redesignated A2.

 

Leopard 2 A3

 

Production batch No. 4, with 300 vehicles, produced between December 1984 and December 1985.
Upgrades over previous versions include:
- Detail-improvements
- New radio station SEM 80/90 (VHF) with shortened antennas

- Camouflage painting scheme switched to Tri-Color CARC (all camo schemes are painted by the tank's crews themselves)

 

Leopard 2 A4

 

The fifth production batch of Leopard 2 vehicles, designated Leopard 2 A4, produced for the German BW between December 1985 and March 1992 with 695 vehicles.

The Leopard 2 A4 is with over 2 000 units the most produced Leopard 2 to date. Still in production under license in Swizerland, it presents the biggest batch of Leoard 2 models ever, and has been exported to even more countries than the Leopard 1 models, as it is the now base model of Leopard 2 tanks, with a whole plethera of add-on armor packages, FCS modifications, and more. The most modern add-on overhaul based on the Leopard 2 A4 is the MBT Revolution package by Rheinmetall.

First revealed in 2014, it features a 360° camera view, new armor modules fitted to the turret and hull, an APS, smoke grenade launchers that can be armed with close proximity protection fire-grenades, an improved tageting system, full combat organization networking to link up with other tanks in order to share targeting information, enemy positioning, etc, etc. 

 

Spoiler

Austrian Leopard 2 A4 on an excercise

 

Upgrades to the Leopard 2 A4 over the previous versions included:
 

The Leopard 2 A4 included all upgrades made to previous versions of the Leopard 2, plus the following:

- New FCS with binocular main gunnery sight EMES 15A1, and secondary backup sight FERO Z18 A2

 

Spoiler

   

EMES 15 A1                                                            FERO Z18 A2                                                                                           New sight picture of the EMES 15 A1

- Improved "Hunter-Killer" system PERI 17A1, coupled to the EMES 15A1

 

Spoiler

 

 

PERI R17                                                                                                                                                                                      Sightpicture of the PERI R17A1

 

- More modern ammunition types for the 120mm smoothbore cannon
- Improved fire detection-, and suppression systems in all fuel tanks, the engine bay, and the fighting compartment

- Loading hatch on the left side of the turret, to allow for easier loading of the tank

- New and improved armor modules incorporating a laminated steel, sandwiched with other materials on the front section of the hull and turret, and a spaced armor module located at the front      side skirts in "D-Technologie" (=building method of spaced armor)

- New tracks

- New battery units which are less maintenance intensive

 

Ammunition:

 

Ammunition available for the Leopard 2 A4 ranges from DM13 used on the initial variants all the way up to the most modern ammunition types available for the L44 gun.

 

- DM13: ~465-480mm of penetration @500m@90°; v_0= 1650m/s

- DM23: ~520mm of penetration @500m@90°; v_0= 1650m/s

- DM33*

- DM43/A1*

- DM53*

* Due to DM23 being the most likely variant of ammunition to be introduced on this tank in the game, I would like to withhold any estimates on further ammunition types in order to keep the amount of unconfirmed data as small as possible.

Armor profile:

With the Leopard 2 A4, the armor layout and type has been changed from previous models from a regular laminated steel module, to a laminated steel module sandwiching other composite materials in between its steel elements.

Effective armor protection with the new armor type has been determined by Swedish research as part of their replacement program for the 2A4 to be as follows:

 

Spoiler

 

(LEFT) Leopard 2 A4 protection levels; Leoaprd 2 "Improved" protection levels (RIGHT)

 

 

I am aware of the fact that due to the Leopard 2 A4 still being in active service in a lot of countries, and that its armor profile is therefore still classified. There are only estimations available to the common user.
However, the German Bundesarchiv does have all the training manuals of the Leopard 2 variants (A0-A6+) in their archives under lock. You can go and ask permission to view these documents for private use if you are a German citizen. I have been informed that someone has already gone ahead and copied the relevant pages out of these training manuals and passed them on to Gaijin, so Gaijin is currently not the only one who has a hold of this information.

 

Conclusion:

 

On the development blog on the M1 Abrams, a keen eye may have spotted a phrase right at the end of the text that suggested the introduction of the M1 A1 Abrams in a future update to War Thunder.

The Leopard 2 A4 and the M1A1 Abrams with DM13, and respectively M829 ammunitions are widely regarded as one of the closest matches in overall performance by modern tank enthusiasts and soldiers alike. It is for this reason I would like to suggest the Leopard 2 A4 to be introduced to War Thunder in the future. 

I personally also have a very strong emotional bond with the Leopard 2 A4, as I was a loader during my time in the Austrian armed forces.

I think that the Leopard 2 A4 and other equally capable tanks could make for a very fun time in War Thunder, given Gaijin provides the right environment for such capable tanks. In particular I find the game lacking in the maps and game mode department more than anywhere else. War Thunder has great potential that I feel is not used to the best of its capabilities. Maps like "Fulda Gap" are a great example of how gorgeous and exciting Gaijin's development team can make such maps, however they really need to improve the gamemodes played on these big maps. 

 

Lastly I would like to welcome anyone who finds more data on the Leopard 2 A4 to forward any relevant infos to me, as I would like this suggestion to be as complete as possible.

 

Best regards,

Rohrkrepierer o7                              

The 2-plane stabilizer of a German Leopard 2A4 in action

 

Spoiler

Sources: 

 

https://www.kmweg.de/home.html

https://www.rheinmetall.com/de/rheinmetall_ag/home.php

http://www.bundesheer.at/

http://amicale.3emedragons.free.fr/Docs materiels WW2/Waffen Arsenal 069 - Kampfpanzer Leopard 2+.pdfssified CIA Documents: „World Wide Fire Control Systems
DeclaIn0535: Vehicle Recognition (Friendly Armor), Edition C.
U.S. DoD Defenselink website
FM 3-90.12: Combined Arms Gap-Crossing Operations, July 2008

GTA 17-2-8: Armored Vehicle Recognition, February 1977

World Wide Equipment Guide 2015

World Wide Equipment Guide Volume 1

OPFOR WorldWideEquipmentGuide

 

Spoiler

  

 

Sight picture of the EMES15A1                                                                                                            Dimension scheme

  

EMES 15A1                                                                                                                 FCS Leopard 2 scheme

 

  

120mm L44 scheme                                                                                                   Ammunition scheme

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rohrkrepiererer
Spelling; Streamlining; Reworked Armor section

[Radom 4,245]

Open for discussion.

 

updated tag/prefix

Edited March 7, 2018 by Radom

[Leopard774 10]

+

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

30 minutes ago, Radom said:

Open for discussion.

updated tag/prefix

 

Thank you, senpai 

[scavenjer 1,892]

Gib,only logical if we see the M1A1....

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

hell yeah. +1

 

i think that tanks like this should be where tier 7 starts, because with how good the Leo 2A4 and its contemporaries are, even near-future tier 6s would have a hell of a time.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

hue, im liking where this is going

[Nope 10,634]

The tricky part about this is the ammo that could be used. Due to the way modern tanks work, going from DM23 to DM33 can result in the equivalent of a BR increase as the engagement distance increases quite significantly. This would require some sort of dynamic BR increase system and not just dump all available ammo into one vehicle otherwise it would just be a point and click sort of deal for all tanks involved. While this wouldn't be so bad with the more static development of NATO MBTs, Russian MBTs just go all over the place in variants. It will just not allow for smooth progression.

 

o btw using armor basics values for the leopard 2 out of all things is probably the most sinful source you could ever use especially since it is physically impossible for a composite module that is 420mm thick (gun mantlet) to be 600mm effective against ke not to mention faulty measurements leading to the assumption that the leopard 2's composite is mostly aluminum

 

this is your friendly reminder that using sb values in 2018 is like using a 1300s world map to teach modern geography

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

@Nope, I know. And I asked people to provide more reliable sources on armor if available. You can contribute too of you'd like. I also said work on this suggestion will continue

[Laviduce 1,779]

16 minutes ago, Nope said:

The tricky part about this is the ammo that could be used. Due to the way modern tanks work, going from DM23 to DM33 can result in the equivalent of a BR increase as the engagement distance increases quite significantly. This would require some sort of dynamic BR increase system and not just dump all available ammo into one vehicle otherwise it would just be a point and click sort of deal for all tanks involved. While this wouldn't be so bad with the more static development of NATO MBTs, Russian MBTs just go all over the place in variants. It will just not allow for smooth progression.

 

o btw using armor basics values for the leopard 2 out of all things is probably the most sinful source you could ever use especially since it is physically impossible for a composite module that is 420mm thick (gun mantlet) to be 600mm effective against ke not to mention faulty measurements leading to the assumption that the leopard 2's composite is mostly aluminum

 

this is your friendly reminder that using sb values in 2018 is like using a 1300s world map to teach modern geography

 

I think they also include the 2x 25 mm thick gun trunnion block in the LOS thickness KE effectiveness calculation. In my 3D model the total LOS thickness from the front mantlet to the back of the trunnion block comes to 660 mm. I used the Rolf  Hilmes Leopard 2 crosssection to generate the model.

 

I am also suspicious of the symmetry of those values on the turret face.  The left turret front face is about 820-840 mm thick whereas the upper right turret front face is 650 mm + EMES 15. The lower right front face seems to be about 320-370 mm composites ,EMES 15 gap, and 280 mm composites , resulting in a LOS thickness of about 600-650 mm for the composites and 300-350 mm for the EMES 15 gap.

 

How can these turret protection values for the left and right front face be identical !? 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

7 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

How can these turret protection values for the left and right front face be identical !? 

 

They are not. My suggestion is still "Work-In-Progress".

Again. If you have more reliable estimations or even primary sources, pass them on to me and I will gladly include them in the suggestion.

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

No questions asked, simply yes. It would make a great tank to be under the Leopard 2A1 (since the 2A2 and 2A3 had modifications, that are irrelevant in War Thunder).

 

Btw, next year researchable "Evolution" upgrade for the 2A4 ja?

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Stuhlfleisch

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

well gaijin basically confirmed the M1A1 for a devplog in the future. so why not?
+1 Rohr-senpai

14 hours ago, Nope said:

The tricky part about this is the ammo that could be used.

historically? up to DM43

Edited March 8, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[Querulous1 3,276]

Sure +1

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

19 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

The 2-plane stabilizer of an Austrian a German Leopard 2A4 in action

FTFY
i know that we are neighbours, but lets not Anschluss again.... at least for now

Edited March 8, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[Laviduce 1,779]

I see someone has an "Anschlussverlangen"

[Laviduce 1,779]

Potential Leopard 2A4 protection level revealed:

 

 

"Turret front of a Leopard 2A5 is about 700-800 mm vs KE, 1,600 to 1,800 mm vs HEAT. The Swedish Strv 122 has a different armor package, providing higher protection levels; the Leopard 2 (flat turret) has 300 - 500 mm vs KE protection, but about 50% of the surface is protected against APFSDS ammo with less than 400 mm penetration into steel only.

Note the last slide: The German prototype offered to Sweden (and maybe also the German tanks) have Pakete (integrated armor pacakges) of the technology generation "B", while the Vors. Modul (Vorsatzmodul, add-on module in front of the armor) has the technology generation "D-2". I suppose Sweden uses a more modern integrated armor pacakge (C, D-1, D-2, D-3) and the same Vorsatzmodul. The German wikipedia (without citing a reference) claims that the German Leopard 2 uses "C technology" armor (so "Pakete"). Maybe that's based on Spielberger's book, I need to take a look at it in the future. The graph in the center of the last slide shows five colors... my guess (based on the graphs at the left and the right:

1. purple - Leopard 2 from 1979, armor package of the "b" generation (fits the graph on the left);
2. red - Leopard 2 with enhance armor package (1987), which might be "C" generation;
3. yellow - Leopard 2 with enhanced armor package (1992), which might be "D-1" generation;
4. blue - Leopard 2 with armor of the "D-2" generation or armor of the "B" generation with Vorsatzmodul of the "D-2" generation
5. green - Leopard 2 with armor as adopted by Sweden - so probably "C" or "D-1/2/3" base armor with Vorsatzmodul of "D-2" generation

 

This would lead to the following protection estimates (please note that it says frontal arc - +30° to -30°, not direct from front):

1. Leopard 2 - 2A4 (from 1979): 300 mm protection vs KE at 60% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 25% of the surface
2. Leopard 2A4 (from 1987): 300 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 55% of the surface, 500 mm protection vs KE at 30% of the surface
3. Leopard 2A4 (from 1992): 350 mm protection vs KE at 93% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 87% of the surface, 525 mm vs KE at 50% of the surface and 620 mm vs KE at 42% of the surface
4. Leopard 2A5 (prototype?): 620 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 700 mm protection vs KE at 40% of the surface
5. Leopard 2A5 (production model? Swedish model?): 700 mm protection vs KE at 75% of the surface"  - MM_SH

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

historically? up to DM43

 

I am aware of which ammo was used, hence why I'm worried. DM43 has around 50mm or so more penetration than DM33, and this could easily extend combat range by 2 km. Sure, all nations would have done the same with the T-80B going from 3BM-32 to Svinets (around 100mm penetration increase) and the M1A1 going from M829 to M829A1 (70mm or so increase), but do you not see how easily armor gets negated that way? One would effectively need another vehicle with a different BR every single time ammo is upgraded. It's going to be all glass cannons from here unless Gaijin implements dynamic BRs. The current system isn't that bad for WWII tanks since the gun determines penetration due to a narrow choice of ammo types, but it's incompatible with the modularity of modern tanks.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

i know that we are neighbours, but lets not Anschluss again.... at least for now

 

Yeh, I switched the gif and forgot to correct the caption 

 

@Laviduce, Do I have your permission to work with the information you provided up there? 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Rohrkrepiererer

[Alzoc 367]

8 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Yeh, I switched the gif and forgot to correct the caption 

 

@Laviduce, Do I have your permission to work with the information you provided up there? 

 

The source is a presentation with a part about the Swedish tank trial.

It may have been a mistake from the author to put those data in a public presentation but it's out now.

(That or the fakers really did an extensive and very convincing forgery)

 

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH

Edited March 8, 2018 by Alzoc

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

30 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

I am aware of which ammo was used, hence why I'm worried. DM43 has around 50mm or so more penetration than DM33, and this could easily extend combat range by 2 km. Sure, all nations would have done the same with the T-80B going from 3BM-32 to Svinets (around 100mm penetration increase) and the M1A1 going from M829 to M829A1 (70mm or so increase), but do you not see how easily armor gets negated that way? 

ofc i see that, but was that ever something new?

14 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Yeh, I switched the gif and forgot to correct the caption 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[Laviduce 1,779]

27 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Yeh, I switched the gif and forgot to correct the caption 

 

@Laviduce, Do I have your permission to work with the information you provided up there? 

Yeah sure but it is not really my property or really my find. Here is the full presentation: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH

Edited March 8, 2018 by Laviduce

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

16 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Yeah sure but it is not really my property or really my find. Here is the full presentation: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH

 

Brilliant, that's exactly as close as we can get without actually having solid numbers. Thanks!

[Laviduce 1,779]

3 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Brilliant, that's exactly as close as we can get without actually having solid numbers. Thanks!

There are solid numbers right there. If it is authentic it is surely very helpful!

[WulfPack 1,693]

19 hours ago, scavenjer said:

Gib,only logical if we see the M1A1....

Along with the T-80U, Type 90, a Challenger 1 variant or the Challenger 2

Edited March 8, 2018 by WulfPack