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

[Laviduce 1,779]

On 26/01/2019 at 22:39, Necrons31467 said:

 

I'm already working on quite a few versions of different tanks:

 

 

Can't really find a good blueprint in the style of the ones shown above regarding the Leopard 2 with hull applique though.

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Laviduce

[Laviduce 1,779]

As far as i know the DM43(A1) was never adopted by the German army! Leopard 2A5 should get the DM23, DM33 and DM53 as an unlock.

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, Laviduce said:

As far as i know the DM43(A1) was never adopted by the German army! Leopard 2A5 should get the DM23, DM33 and DM53 as an unlock.

DM23 was out of service by the time the 2A5 prototypes existed, DM33 and DM53 are possible but have the problem that the former isn't powerful enough while the latter is too powerful (potentially).

This is why I also gave the option for DM43 despite the Germany army never having used it (apart from firing trials).

[WulfPack 1,693]

16 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

DM53

Sure if it is with T-90MS

[Necrons31467 14,236]

20 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

You might just be my favourite person of the day.

 

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

The new turret for the 2A5 did get added roof armour though...

[scavenjer 1,892]

5 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

The new turret for the 2A5 did get added roof armour though...

Not in the sense that it would protect against bomblets or EFPs.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

On 25/01/2019 at 18:47, Necrons31467 said:

 

Something like this then?

 

 

 

Why do you have the mantlet as weaker on both the 2A4 and 2A5?

 

2A4 = 420mm NERA (~220mm RHAe "B-tech") + 240mm Trunnion  (~200mm RHAe)

2A5 = ~600mm NERA + ~50mm 70 deg top wedge + 240mm Trunnion

 

Pretty certain the mantlet features protection close to that of the cheeks on both tanks, except the lower part of the A5's mantlet.

 

9 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Not in the sense that it would protect against bomblets or EFPs.

 

Well it's thicker, so it would protect more, esp. against KE munitions. The rear part was left unchanged though, which is probably why they introduced added armour for this part later.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Panthera_Pardus

[Necrons31467 14,236]

2 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Why do you have the mantlet as weaker on both the 2A4 and 2A5?

 

It says 720 in the picture.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Necrons31467

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

3 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

It says 720 in the picture.

 

I know, and the cheeks say 862mm... why would the mantlet be weaker? 

 

Swedish documents says it isn't.

 

Finally the 862mm figure is for Strv122 with B-tech internal NERA modules, whilst the German 2A5's would be with C-tech internal modules.

 

There's a reason the Germans wanted a APFSDS round capable of penetrating 1,000mm RHAe of armour, they've been there in terms of protection since the 90's.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Panthera_Pardus

[scavenjer 1,892]

5 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Finally the 862mm figure is for Strv122 with B-tech internal NERA modules, whilst the German 2A5's would be with C-tech internal modules.

The hull, yes, the turret.... we don't know.

Besides, the weight difference doesn't indicate such a thing:

Leopard 2A5 -> 59.7t

Strv 122 -> 62.5t

 

Difference of 2.8t makes it unlikely that the 2A5 had better internal armour.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

10 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

The hull, yes, the turret.... we don't know.

Besides, the weight difference doesn't indicate such a thing:

Leopard 2A5 -> 59.7t

Strv 122 -> 62.5t

 

Difference of 2.8t makes it unlikely that the 2A5 had better internal armour.

 

What do you mean we don't know? It is right there in the document, the Leopard 2 IMP was with Tech-Kombi-5, i.e. B-tech Pakete with D-tech Vorsch Modul, as illustrated in the percentage wise distribution of protection of the tanks' entire frontal section. 

 

 

Also keep in mind this is with the Leo 2 IMP turret without added front turret roof armour.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Panthera_Pardus

[Necrons31467 14,236]

24 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

I know, and the cheeks say 862mm... why would the mantlet be weaker? 

 

Swedish documents says it isn't.

 

Because the documents states that it is.

 

 

Red shows that there's a significant drop in protection compared to Yellow when the trajectory of a projectile intersects with the mantlet area.

This isn't just down to the 20° horizontal angle as Blue shows, the drop in protection against CE threats is rather low at only a 20° angle.

 

It doesn't show the protection against KE threaths, however, this:

 

 

Shows us that it is still DM53 proof, hence the 720mm estimate.

[scavenjer 1,892]

18 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

What do you mean we don't know? It is right there in the document, the Leopard 2 IMP was with Tech-Kombi-5, i.e. B-tech Pakete with D-tech Vorsch Modul, as illustrated in the percentage wise distribution of protection of the tanks' entire frontal section. 

That only talks about the TVM/KVT, not the leopard 2A5 as in-service.

 

21 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Also keep in mind this is with the Leo 2 IMP turret without added front turret roof armour.

That's with the add-on for both the turret front and roof, this is the TVM 1.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

1 minute ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Because the documents states that it is.

 

 

Red shows that there's a significant drop in protection compared to Yellow when the trajectory of a projectile intersects with the mantlet area.

This isn't just down to the 20° horizontal angle as Blue shows, the drop in protection against CE threats is rather low at only a 20° angle.

 

It doesn't show the protection against KE threaths, however, this:

 

 

Shows us that it is still DM53 proof, hence the 720mm estimate.

 

There's a drop because one shot is at 0 deg, i.e. higher LOS thickness is encountered, whilst the other shot is at 20 deg, i.e. perpendicular to the angle of the wedge and thus less LOS thickness encountered.

 

Furthermore the shot closest to the mantlet hits so that it will strike where there is a gap in the 2A5's mantlet armour due to a spacer needed to be placed between the trunnion opening and fixed NERA blocks. Hence the red L shaped "weak" point in the armour protection as seen in the 2nd picture.

[scavenjer 1,892]

2 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

There's a drop because one shot is at 0 deg, i.e. higher LOS thickness is encountered, whilst the other shot is at 20 deg, i.e. perpendicular to the angle of the wedge and thus less LOS thickness encountered.

Yet a hit to the front right at 30° still gives 810mm of KE protection, thus the mantlet area is indeed weaker than the cheek itself.

 

3 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Furthermore the shot closest to the mantlet hits so that it will strike where there is a gap in the 2A5's mantlet armour due to a spacer needed to be placed between the trunnion opening and fixed NERA blocks. Hence the red L shaped "weak" point in the armour protection as seen in the 2nd picture.

This is what makes the armour around and on the mantlet weaker.

 

Still sufficient and most likely still nigh-impenetrable in-game.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

That only talks about the TVM/KVT, not the leopard 2A5 as in-service.

 

That's with the add-on for both the turret front and roof, this is the TVM 1.

 

I am once again talking about the front roof section, not that back section. We've been over this before.

 

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Yet a hit to the front right at 30° still gives 810mm of KE protection, thus the mantlet area is indeed weaker than the cheek itself.

 

In one spot from an angle, yes. Directly from the front? No. 

 

As I explained to Necrons there is an empty space left there by the spacers behind the fixed NERA blocks on either side of the newer more slender mantlet module, and this leaves a small "weak" point from a certain angle.

[scavenjer 1,892]

3 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

I am once again talking about the front roof section, not that back section. We've been over this before.

This would not affect anything.

At best that will prevent shrapnel from riding up on the armour and hitting the periscope for the loader.

 

We don't know what the actual leopard 2A5 turret uses for sure, nor the Strv 122 turret.

 

53 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Finally the 862mm figure is for Strv122 with B-tech internal NERA modules, whilst the German 2A5's would be with C-tech internal modules.

So assuming ^that is wrong.

As far as I can find, all authors mention the Strv 122 as a leopard 2A5 with better hull armour and turret roof add-on.

So, it's unlikely they use different internal armour or that they differ in frontal turret protection.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

The spacers for the fixed NERA blocks, needed to give the trunnion room to move up and down. Hence why these fixed blocks also stick out the same amount (2nd pic):

Spoiler

 

 

The actual mantlet NERA module however obviously doesn't need a spacer since it moves with the trunnion, so it was just made even thicker, by about 20cm it seems:

Spoiler

 

6 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

So assuming ^that is wrong.

As far as I can find, all authors mention the Strv 122 as a leopard 2A5 with better hull armour and turret roof add-on.

So, it's unlikely they use different internal armour or that they differ in frontal turret protection.

 

What "authors"? 

 

The Swedes went for cheaper base turrets, that much is clear. The Germans didn't have to their fleet of 2A4's already had C-tech Pakete.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Panthera_Pardus

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

9 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

This would not affect anything.

At best that will prevent shrapnel from riding up on the armour and hitting the periscope for the loader.

 

Wouldn't affect anything? On the contrary it would affect this area quite majorly as you go from about 45mm to 75mm thickness:

[scavenjer 1,892]

6 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

What "authors"? 

Spielberger and Jerchel.

Might've been one or two others as well, but I can't find it back right now.

 

12 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

The Swedes went for cheaper base turrets, that much is clear. The Germans didn't have to their fleet of 2A4's already had C-tech Pakete.

No?

Everything on the Strv 122 is more expensive, they also adopted IFIS in their own format and adopted the entire add-on package, they spent more than Germany did.

 

3 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Wouldn't affect anything? On the contrary it would affect this area quite majorly as you go from about 45mm to 75mm thickness:

Unlikely, that render seems to already showcase the Strv 122, the side add-on isn't flat which insinuates the later add-on (TVM had flat side add-on).

Spoiler

 

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Unlikely, that render seems to already showcase the Strv 122, the side add-on isn't flat which insinuates the later add-on (TVM had flat side add-on).

 

False logic for two reason:

1. The report is from before the Strv122 was even a thing, the vehicle in question being the Leo 2 IMP

2. The image is also missing the front part of the added spaced roof armour which would be present on the Strv122:

 

 

Hence it can't have been the Strv122.

 

 

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, Panthera_Pardus said:

False logic for two reason:

1. The report is from before the Strv122 was even a thing, the vehicle in question being the Leo 2 IMP

What would become the Strv 122 already existed in armour format.

 

1 minute ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

The image is also missing the front part of the added spaced roof armour which would be present on the Strv122:

Or was left out as it wasn't showcasing anything useful, as the TVM also had that segment but isn't represented in the renders either.

 

2 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Hence it can't have been the Strv122.

It can, atleast the armour layout.

[Pardus_Primera 1,884]

8 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

No?

Everything on the Strv 122 is more expensive, they also adopted IFIS in their own format and adopted the entire add-on package, they spent more than Germany did.

 

There's a limit to how much you can spend, and also to what you need. If B-tech Pakete + D-tech Vorsch. module already provided way more protection value than any Russian APFSDS round could hope to defeat, then paying extra for turrets with C-tech would've been seen as a waste of money. Keep in mind the Strv.122 was made with old 2A4 turrets reworked to A5 standard, as was the case with many of the German Leopards. 

[scavenjer 1,892]

2 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

There's a limit to how much you can spend, and also to what you need. If B-tech Pakete + D-tech Vorsch. module already provided way more protection value than any Russian APFSDS round could hope to defeat, then paying extra for turrets with C-tech would've been seen as a waste of money.

Yes, exactly why I consider it unlikely the 2A5 or Strv 122 have C tech base armour for the turret.

 

2 minutes ago, Panthera_Pardus said:

Keep in mind the Strv.122 was made with old 2A4 turrets reworked to A5 standard, as was the case with many of the German Leopards.

All German A5/A6s.