leopard 2 Leopard 2 "Improved" (2A5 and prototypes)

[scavenjer 1,892]

 

Disclaimer

This is NOT a request or suggestion for the next patch/immediate future, so please, keep the comments about the vehicle itself and not about "powercreep" or when it should be implemented.

We are here to discuss the vehicle and it's implementation, whenever that may be.

Thanks for staying on-topic !

 

 

Introduction

The Leopard 2 MBT was the mainstay and an icon of European armoured prowess, however, to combat the threat of future Soviet MBTs and advancements in AT technology, a whole upgrade of the system was deemed necessary.

This resulted in the "Kampfwertsteigerung" project(s), KWS in short.

KWS I was aimed at improving the firepower of the Leopard 2, later achieved by the use of a longer barrel 120mm smoothbore and new ammunition.

However, that is a story for another day, right now we will focus on the KWS II project.

 

While an armour protection increase had already been implemented on the Leopard 2A4 from the 6th batch, 97th vehicle on, the Germans realised further improvements had to be made to keep the Leopard 2 at the peak of armoured performance.

 

 

Prototypes

In 1989 the Leopard 2 KVT (Komponenten-Versuchsträger, i.e. component trial vehicle) was built using a vehicle of the fifth batch, this was later reworked into the IVT (Instrumenten-Versuchsträger, i.e. instrument trial vehicle).

The KVT was fitted with additional armour, spall liners, a new type of electrically driven sliding hatch for the driver, rearranged hatches for the commander and loader, and increased protection for the turret roof.

The EMES 15 was raised and given an armoured housing while the PERI-R 17, which now included an independant thermal sight channel, was relocated to the left rear of the commander's station.

This vehicle had a total weight of about 60.5 tonnes and the armour had been increased to the point it was considered sufficient for the time and threats.

The additional armour packages to the front of the turret and hull were in D-technology, but due to the weight increase on the turret, this required a new FCS/stabilisation system, this meant they went from hydraulic to electric.

After trials, it was converted to the IVT and joined the IFIS (Integrated command and information system) programme.

 

However, after evaluation of the development tests with the KVT, two TVMs (Truppenversuchsmuster, i.e.  troop trial vehicles) were built in 1991 and based off eighth batch vehicles, these became known as the TVM max and TVM min (62.5t).

 

Considering the differences between the TVM max and min are so small, I won't talk about them in detail.

Due to the changing political climate and decreasing defense budget, plans regarding the TVMs and the Leopard 2 "Improved" changed, this was the start of the KWS program.

In 1992, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany signed a contract following the agreement about the configuration of the KWS II project at a conference in Mannheim.

A TVM 2 (converted fifth batch vehicle) was built to the "Mannheim configuration" and extensively tested between 1993 and 1994.

 

The first Leopard 2A5s were officially handed over to the German Armour School on 30 November 1995.

 

 

Swedish trials

Sweden was looking for a new MBT to replace their Strv 103s and old Centurions, it put out a tender for a new MBT.

I will use quotes from one of the people in this project, do keep in mind it's Google translated from Swedish:

Quote

Request For Information

Following completion of the theoretical evaluation, four potential suppliers were sent an RFI (Request For Information). This on 11 November 1991. On 1 March 1992 was received answers to how the tanks Challenger 2 (Vickers Defense, UK), Leclerc (GIAT, France), the Leopard 2 "Improved" (Krauss-Maffei, Germany) and M1A2 "Abrams" ( General Dynamics, USA) was considered to meet the requirements of the tender specifications.In this context, it should be noted that the RFI response submitted by Krauss-Maffei did not maintain the same qualitative level as the responses from the other three suppliers. In the project group, the question was asked whether the Germans were really interested in participating in the procurement - perhaps they had just submitted a standard reply based on "brochure information"? But we soon realized that their interest was serious ...

 

Initially the four contenders were:

Quote

• British Challenger 2 was an improved version of Challenger 1, including a brand new tower
• American M1A2 was a widely developed version of M1A1 with, among other things, management systems, periscope with IRV to the group manager and that the car's electronic system was provided with a data bus system
• German Leopard 2 Improved was a significantly improved tank compared to the previous version A4; mainly with regard to the car's ballistic protection and that the wagon manager's periscope provided with IRV
• French Leclerc was still a tank under development; three men's crew, automatic charge and with a hyperbaric engine and a total weight of 8 tons lower than the competitors

 

Unfortunately the CR2 was pulled from the contest:

Quote

It gradually turned out that all countries had problems meeting FMV's wishes. Vickers was involved in the testing of Challenger 2 and in June, the English were forced to abandon their continued participation on the grounds that they needed their wagons for this trial because they had commitments to their client throughout 1993 . Circumstances which, however, spoke against the British carriage were the ribbed barrel (the others had smooth drilled barrels and could shoot the same type of ammunition) , the lower engine power (1200 hp in Challenger compared to 1500 hp in the other contestants) and the ammunition storage centrally located in the crew compartment. (Strange that they had not drawn deeper conclusions from the experience with Sherman during World War II). All in all, these facts may have contributed to the coarse retreat.

 

Quote

A total of 151 different types of tests and trials were conducted. They aimed to provide answers to questions regarding the subsystems / functions below:

•  Vehicle / Mobility
•  Weapon system / effect
•  Safety / Survival
•  Management / management system
•  Reliability / availability / maintenance
•  Ergonomics
•  Training

Accessibility means how large a portion of a vehicle can be used. The degree of availability is thus affected by downtime for repair, service and maintenance.

 

General conclusions:

Quote

• All the wagons were largely equivalent in terms of mobility, with an advantage for Leclerc's acceleration due to its high specific engine power. Surprisingly, the accessibility was not otherwise affected by the large weight difference. Leclerc weighed 7 tons less than the other wagons.
• Leopard 2 Improved had the best hit results with practice ammunition and the shortest times for shots. With combat ammunition, M1A2 shot best. The wagon manager's observation possibilities were best in M1A2. However, the trolley was not provided with a day view for the wagon manager.
• Leopard 2 Improved had the best ballistic protection from the front, protection against enemy shelling, and was also provided with additional protection on the tower roof. M1A2 had a ballistic protection in export version. Shooting attempts against its best ballistic protection were made in the United States. Otherwise, the survival capacity of M1A2 was good when the ammunition was stored separately from the crew.
• M1A2 was the only one of the tested wagons that had an operational management system. M1A2's management system could be effectively adapted to Swedish requirements. A Leopard 2 Improved with a prototype design system was borrowed especially for the management attempts. This management system was also assessed after certain modifications correspond to the Swedish requirements and this system therefore came to be the basis for the management system which was later delivered with Strv 122.
• Leopard 2 Improved and M1A2 had the highest availability and least number of errors during the trial period. Here it turned out that Leclerc was not fully developed but was affected by a number of childhood diseases of more or less serious nature.

 

Further details:

Quote

In parallel with the paracetic experiments with the tanks , FMV carried out technical tests and analyzes. Particularly battle wagons survival - the ability came to be subject to rigorous review. Sliding tests were carried out in each country against sub-samples of the various tanks' protective modules in chassis and towers. The corresponding test was also done with the relevant hot ammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) on FFK in Karlsborg against all tanks or provided with a Swedish-developed protection from Åkers Krutbruk and the German partner partner IBD (Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth). Since we did not get enough documentation from the supplier, we had to build sub-hulls for our own head in order to be able to carry out sliding tests on the various tanks with the Swedish-developed protection - something that particularly surprised the French ...

This was a ballistic protection which, in many attitudes, increased the level of protection by 50-100%, above all the French , but also the American tank (something that a four-star American general got surprised by a review). The tanks' signatures within different wavelength ranges were also mapped - something that FOA helped with, among other things.

All the surveyed industries submitted tenders until June 1, 1993. There was a considerable amount of binders who arrived at FMV and about 3000 supplementary written questions were submitted to the tenderers. After the tender was received, the formal evaluation took place. This evaluation was tactical, technical, and economical. More than 2000 different parameters were evaluated in a computer-based valuation model.

F renegotiation with suppliers was conducted during the latter half of the year . This work was designed so that first the order draft was prepared in collaboration with the tenderers. Subsequently, supplementary quotations were requested with regard to the changes made. The third draft order was the basis for final negotiations and constituted the basis for the Government's proposal. This was submitted to the government on December 22, 1993.

 

Eventually after further evaluation the leopard 2 was chosen as overall being the best competitor.

 

 

As is evident from the Swedish trials and leaked documents, the Leopard 2 "Improved" was an excellent design in many of the aspects important for an MBT:

• Protection was excellent and the best of any NATO MBT then in-service
• Firepower was again top-notch, only suffering from old ammunition (DM33) which was soon resolved with the introduction of newer ammo
• Mobility was considered the best of the three tested MBTs, while the Leclerc superceded it in acceleration, it had other problems that degraded the overall rating
• It had the best reliability and least faults during trials
• C2 system was second best, being superceded by the M1A2s, though the system used on the IVT was modified and used for Swedish purposes.

 

In any case, it's important to realise we do not know the full extend of the test parameters, thus we should realise that the differences could be small or neglible for some of the parameters.

 

 

Specifications 

TVM:

Spoiler

Total height (over PERI):              3.03m

Length of the hull:                         7.88m

Length with turret turned to 6h:    8.65m

Width (with skirts):                       3.744m

Ground clearance, front:             0.54m

                             rear:               0.49m

Weight class:                              MLC70

Combat weight, turret:               22.000kg

                        hull:                    40.500kg

Total weight:                              62.500kg

 

Specific power:                         24hp/t

 

Ground pressure:                     9.2N/cm²

Neutral traverse:                      max. 11 sec

Obstacle clearance:                 1.1m

Max speed:                              68 km/h

Marching speed:                      4 km/h

Max speed reverse:                 30 km/h

 

Leopard 2A5:

Spoiler

Height over turret roof:                  2.64m

Height over PERI:                         3.00m

Total length:                                  9.97m

Length with turret turned to 6h:    8.49m

Width with skirts:                          3.74m

Width without skirts:                     3.55m

Ground clearance (average):       0.5m

Combat weight total:                    59.7t

Weight class:                               MLC 70

Max speed:                                 72 km/h

Max speed reverse:                    32 km/h

Slope climbing:                           60%

Sideways slope climbing:           30%

Obstacle clearance:                   1.1m

 

 

Protection

This is where we tread into slightly unknown territories despite all the information we have (both leaked and official).

We have essentially 3 different levels of protection:

• KVT/IVT/TVM 1 these were converted from fifth or eighth batch vehicles and fitted with B tech armour + D-2 add-on and roof protection
• "Mannheim configuration"/Leopard 2A5, these were using C tech hull armour without add-on and B tech turrets with different add-ons without roof protection
• Strv 122, most likely using C tech hull armour + different add-on, turret same as the Mannheim configuration but with roof protection

 

Considering there are still some unknowns, we should be cautious.

 

We do have good information on all three of these (one of them inferred):

Spoiler

Pictures, YAY:

These were the threats used to test the armour, we can see that the first APFSDS is DM33 and the last one is LKE II or what would become DM53.

 

As you can see, the right chart is for the TVM 1, it uses B tech base armour  and D-2 add-on, this is the official chart sent over from Germany and includes several other variants as you can see with the middle graph.

For the middle graph:

• Pink: B tech, 1979 base armour
• Red: inferred C tech, 1988 armour upgrade
• Yellow: matches B tech + D-2 wedges, so TVM 1
• Blue: Unknown, possibly different add-on or maybe using C tech hull
• Green: armour as adopted on the Strv 122, probably using C tech hull and different add-ons.

 

 

Turret protection, comparing "Swedish" version with "German" version (Strv 122 vs TVM 1)

Blue indicates KE, pink indicates CE.

 

As we can see, the turret front for the TVM ranges between 758mm (20°) and 862mm (0°).

For the Strv 122 it ranges between 720mm (30°) and 820mm (0°).

 Even the side armour is quite well protected.

 

Here we can see the hull protection, (NOT 2A5).

Again, we can see incredible levels of protection, both for the front as well as the side where the skirts are located.

 

We can sum up the protection with this chart:

TVM reaches 670mm of KE protection on the hull up to a 30° frontal arc, while the Strv 122 reaches 750mm up to a 35° frontal arc.

This does NOT apply to the leopard 2A5 as it doesn't feature the hull add-on.

 

The turret reaches very high levels of protection, and again the Strv 122 (same turret as 2A5 but with roof add-on) is better protected, fully protecting against LKE II (DM53) over an incredible arc of 60°.

 

Better representation of the turret armour, with the KE threat being DM53 (probably at 2000m):

This applies to both the Leopard 2A5 and Strv 122, as we can see, the turret is almost completely immune to KE ammunition of this time period, same with CE ammo.

 

All the add-ons fitted to the Strv 122.

 

DM53's design is perfectly suited to defeat armour such as on the leopard 2A5 or heavy ERA like employed by the late 80-90s:

It is a segmented jacketed penetrator with a special tip to defeat ERA.

 

As you can tell, the armour protection for even the prototypes is incredible, this is all due to the immensly high line of sight thickness, the add-on nearly doubles the base armour thickness.

Therefore, I think we can safely write off the Strv 122 for now, as it is clearly too powerful.

 

 

Firepower

As previously mentioned, the leopard 2 "improved" and 2A5 would use DM33 (already present in-game as JM33, though quite substantially underperforming as it is now).

Patents for the round showing it's special tip:

Spoiler

 

DM33 PELE (Penetrator Enhanced Lateral Effect):

Spoiler

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/garm/wednesday/borngen.pdf

Effect:

https://imgur.com/fduxzcx

 

There's also other rounds available to it, namely DM43 (never entered German service) and DM53 or LKE II as it was known in it's development phase:

Spoiler

DM53 would have roughly 700mm RHA penetration at an unknown range based on the Swedish leaked data, most probably this was at 2000m.

In-game stats from April's fools:

Spoiler

Considering how advanced this shell is, I would only consider adding this as a last resort.

 

Shells and their performance:

• DM12, same performance as right now, 1140m/s velocity, 650mm of penetration.
• DM33, 1650m/s velocity, 300mm of penetration at 60°
• DM43, 1740m/s velocity, ~325mm of penetration at 60°
• DM53, 1670m/s velocity, 368mm of penetration at 60, counters heavy ERA.
• DM33 PELE, 1650m/s velocity, ~100mm of penetration at 60°, acts like super AP with very high spalling/frag

 

EWNA:

Spoiler

EWNA stands for "Elektrische WaffenNachführAnlage", unlike many of it's peers, the leopard 2 doesn't feature a traditional stabiliser where the gun is mechanically stabilised like for example on the shermans with their gyro-stabilised cannons.

Instead, the German system is built around the gunsight and FCS, the FCS tells the turret/elevation drives to move as to keep the gun lined up with the gunsight, this means the gun will always follow where the gunner aims, whereas on other systems the gun would follow where the stabiliser "aims".

 

This has the added benefit that if the gun isn't lined up properly, it will not fire, unlike with stabilisers where the gunner could fire while the gun isn't lined up with where he's aiming.

In turn, this makes the weapon system incredibly accurate both directly and indirectly.

 

 

Pictures and misc.

2A5 hatch:

Spoiler

 

Turret with gun and one wedge dismounted:

Spoiler

 

TVM prototype being refurbished:

Spoiler

Note how many layers there are.

 

D technology skirts:

Spoiler

 

Possible armour as used in the "wedges":

Spoiler

 

KVT:

Spoiler

Note the old skirts

Here they were changed, as this is the IVT.

 

TVM:

Spoiler

Here we can see the TVM, it clearly uses the late D tech skirts.

 

TVM 2 "Mannheim configuration":

Spoiler

Note the lack of hull/roof add-ons and also the different shape of the turret add-ons compared to those on the TVM/KVT.

 

Leopard 2A5:

Spoiler

First 2A5s as delivered, note the similarity to the TVM 2 "Mannheim configuration".

 

 

 

Anyway, I think this is enough for now, if you have questions or want more information on a certain part, just let me know in the comments!

Also, be sure to check the poll.

 

 

 

 

Sources:

Swedish trials

Waffensysteme leopard 1 und leopard 2, Walter J Spielberger

Leopard 2 MBT, Osprey publishing

various.

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1
very detailed suggestion

Edited January 24, 2019 by dotEXCEL

[scavenjer 1,892]

10 hours ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

Open for Discussion.

Thank you

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

Very detailed and very interesting suggestion. You have my full support for the KVT, IVT, TVM 1 and the Leopard 2A5. As soon as tanks in War Thunder progress to a point, where such MBTs would be feasible, they, or at least some of these, should definitely be added. I could see the Leopard 2A5 as an early rank 7, while the KVT could be a premium rank 6 MBT, but with the br of a rank 7 tank, similar to the XM-1, since the KVT was a prototype. In any case, +1 from me!

[kamikazi21358 998]

Regarding Battle Rating:

 

I would really like to see BR decompression, preferably for Rank 3-6 for ground forces.  I believe this could solve or address like 75% of issues that can be associated with rank 3-6.  But anyways, relating to this,

considering a large number of vehicles we could see, and their historical ammunition, in my opinion, I think in my personal opinion for top tier Cold War era tanks (Leopard 2A4 ap.C, M1A1(HA), T-80U obr. 1990, etc.) should be at 14.0 BR, or 15.0 possibly.  This actually is kind of in line with the April fools event — I don’t remember exacly, but I think the T-90 was at ~14.3 or something, the same approximate area.

 

So although the Br listed is 13.0 max, I would much like to see these types of tanks at ~14.3, ~14.7, ~15.0+ BR, presuming we see them (tbh I really, really hope they stop with top tier Cold War tanks instead.)

 

 

 

Regarding the Strv 122:

 

It should be in the independent Swedish tree, if we go that high up.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

7 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Regarding the Strv 122:

 

It should be in the independent Swedish tree, if we go that high up.

thats why there is a poll option for that

[WulfPack 1,693]

Can't exactly say no when I've done the T-90A +1

[Monarch_C 187]

it's a very well detailed suggestion,but i have to say no,i think other nations aren't going to get something good enough to fight it especially the british.

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

11 minutes ago, Dipul_3 said:

it's a very well detailed suggestion,but i have to say no,i think other nations aren't going to get something good enough to fight it especially the british.

Well for Britain I could very well see a Challenger 2 prototype being added as a counter, other than that, I think only Japan would lack a comparable MBT, since America could get the M1A1 or M1A1HA, Russia the T-90A, France the Leclerc prototype or just the regular Leclerc Serie 1 and Italy the C1 Ariete.

That's how I see it anyway, I could very well be wrong about judging the performance of these MBTs.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

22 minutes ago, Dipul_3 said:

it's a very well detailed suggestion,but i have to say no,i think other nations aren't going to get something good enough to fight it especially the british.

not all nations will end up with a TOP-Top-Tier.... italy will end with the Ariete...with what? br 10.3-10.7? if the 2A5 sitsat 13.0 it will never see it

Edited January 24, 2019 by dotEXCEL

[PantherAl 4,883]

Excellent suggestion... my inner troll says make it the Swedish version the only Leo 2A5(ish) and make it so MM sends it against the Germans.

 

 

 

But seriously, +1 from me.

[scavenjer 1,892]

22 minutes ago, Dipul_3 said:

it's a very well detailed suggestion,but i have to say no,i think other nations aren't going to get something good enough to fight it especially the british.

Perhaps I could add the option for an early KVT prototype that essentially has a normal leopard 2A4 hull (like in-game) and the turret add-on?
 

Spoiler

 

Just now, PantherAl said:

Excellent suggestion... my inner troll says make it the Swedish version the only Leo 2A5(ish) and make it so MM sends it against the Germans.

Hehehehe, then the Swedes should also get the export M1A2 and verse the US with only the M1A1s :P .

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

Just now, PantherAl said:

Excellent suggestion... my inner troll says make it the Swedish version the only Leo 2A5(ish) and make it so MM sends it against the Germans.

 

 

 

But seriously, +1 from me.

oh boy.... wait till we speak again in discord.. #tiltedAF

[Mo_guy96 245]

The 2a5 looks so good,how could I possibly say no?

 

Amazing how good the armor protection is on this tank as well. 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

1 hour ago, Stuhlfleisch said:

Well for Britain I could very well see a Challenger 2 prototype being added as a counter

How would this be any different from just adding a normal Challenger 2?

 

As for the this list of Leopard 2A5 versions, sure whenever Gaijin has enough counters to balance it. The Strv. 122 should go into an independent Swedish tree though.

[Conraire 5,723]

+1 from me, good job on writing out the suggestion.  Though like others have said.  As long as the Big 3 + Britain have something to balance it out its alright.

[TheElite96 5,839]

Wow... very detailed suggestion, And a good looking tank too... great job !

+1  

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

1 hour ago, Mercedes4321 said:

How would this be any different from just adding a normal Challenger 2?

I am actually not quite sure… As long as they are balanced I would have no problem to see the serial Challenger 2 being added as a contender to the Leopard 2A5.

[WulfPack 1,693]

4 hours ago, Stuhlfleisch said:

since America could get the M1A1 or M1A1HA

I was thinking M1A2 or Sep

On 22/01/2019 at 14:10, scavenjer said:

DM53 would have roughly 700mm RHA penetration

Would you have information on the T-90A's 3BM60?

[magazine2 7,957]

I welcome more Leopard 2's into the game since I love them. However I hope Britain gets something too, such as the Vickers Mk. 7, someday even though there's not enough information on it.

[scavenjer 1,892]

9 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Would you have information on the T-90A's 3BM60?

Sadly there is quite little information about 3BM60 (Svinets-2).

It supposedly entered service in 2002, however it was only able to be used in the T-90A and T-72B3 from 2014, which is also the first time we actually see footage for the round.

Spoiler

^this is practically the only information we have on Svinets-2, but at the point this slide was made it was still under development.

 

The only picture I know of which has been more or less confirmed to show Svinets-1/2 is this:

Spoiler

There is simply too little information to make an estimation, but based on that slide picture (which might very well be fake, but does seem to be accurate for the most part), 3BM60 would penetrate about 650mm LOS at an unknown distance (not mentioned).

 

I do have to point out how RHA penetration is kind of pointless with this level of tanks, DM53 for instance is relatively poor against RHA, but would perform much better against composites, the goal for KWS I was a round fired from the L55 to penetrate a composite array equivalent to 1000mm RHA.

Do note the emphasis on not using RHA penetration.

 

In the end, it's mostly speculation but I believe the values we saw in april's fools weren't too far off.

[WulfPack 1,693]

28 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

The only picture I know of which has been more or less confirmed to show Svinets-1/2 is this:

  Hide contents

Thought 3BM59/60 were 740mm (Total length)? At least that's what the new loader allowed for.

30 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

do have to point out how RHA penetration is kind of pointless with this level of tanks, DM53 for instance is relatively poor against RHA, but would perform much better against composites, the goal for KWS I was a round fired from the L55 to penetrate a composite array equivalent to 1000mm RHA.

Do note the emphasis on not using RHA penetration.

 

I'm not sure I support it with the DM53 then. Save for a few areas on the turret, it would little to no trouble with the T-90As armor.

I must ask why most estimation put the DU 3BM59 ahead of the Tungsten 3BM60. Wouldn't Tungsten have better pen at those velocities? 

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, WulfPack said:

Thought 3BM59/60 were 740mm (Total length)? At least that's what the new loader allowed for.

Could very well be, I wouldn't take those numbers on that picture for granted.

 

1 minute ago, WulfPack said:

I'm not sure I support it with the DM53 then. Save for a few areas on the turret, it would little to no trouble with the T-90As armor.

I must ask why most estimation put the DU 3BM59 ahead of the Tungsten 3BM60. Wouldn't Tungsten have better pen at those velocities? 

Yes, that's why I also gave values for DM33 and DM43, DM53 most likely is too good (unless you match it up against M1A2 SEP and T-90M).

I would disregard most estimates for penetration unless they are done by people such as SH_MM from below the turret ring blog, there is a lot that goes into estimating APFSDS performance, it's not that clear-cut.

 

Generally speaking, DU alloys are more dense than tungsten alloys because they have a higher % of actual DU in them.

Tungsten alloys have been tweaked and constantly changed over time to optimise them for newer penetrator designs, they are more difficult to make work, hence why most tungsten penetrators nowadays are jacketed long rods and often use slightly lower density alloys to prevent IBSFs (In Barrel Structural Failures) by increasing structural integrity.

With DU, there's less work and optimisation required to make the rounds reliable, longer and of high density alloys.

 

If you look at this picture, everything is explained by the title:

Spoiler

With the same impact energy (same weight/density) and L/D, tungsten does start to overtake DU around 1650/m/s-1750m/s, there's more that goes into it, but I'll leave that out of this topic, I can PM you some more research papers to read if you'd like to.

[swpixy 1,220]