militarysta

Propably this turret have simmilar autoloader: 34rnd 14-12rnd/min

M1A3

BTW: I made some mistake - of course I didn't told about angles under which the warhead strikes. All for frontal armour: For Leo2A4 it'll be (for +/- 0-25.) for ~880mm RHA vs HEAT up to ~1050mm RHA vs. HEAT. For M1A1HA it'll be (for +/- 0-25.) for ~960mm RHA vs. HEAT up to 1250mm RHA vs HEAT. It means that some ATGMS (like 9М120) theoretically can perforated frontal armour in leo2A4 and M1A1HA - but it was depended on the angle under which struck ATGMS, so probaly nex generation (Kornet, Chrizantiema) was necessary to be sure in armor penetration. Of course answer for that was Leo2A5 and M1A2 etc... Propably same problem was with APFSDS - For leo2A4(late) 500-590(600?)mm RHA vs.KE for M1A1HA 560-700mm RHA vs. KE And 3BM32 and 3BM42 were "on the border of the effectiveness" so next generation APFSDS was nessesery...

@Alex - nice photo. @Damian. (and it may be interesting for Alex) About that - As I said, I can wrote some only about Leoard2 family with some posibility of beeing corect. It's sure that LOS in Leo2A3-A6 is ~84cm. Any single person can chceck lenght Lh-44 to mask ratio (mask 40cm) and mask to front armour ratio (front armour ~84-88cm LOS). We now the "old" Burlinghton have 1,15-1,2 vs HEAT*, and DM12 tested on Leo2A4 penetrated it for only ~450mm then normal 650-700mm**. So it's about 1,3-1,35 for Leo2A4 (~1985). *Office of the MoD (E) 6MAR1970 "The Origins of Burlinghton" and "Progress report od Burlinghton" Annex A, 25 Feb. 1970 ** some part of this information give Stefan on his site: http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120_mm.htm (DM12) but he "forgot" about idea of this test - maybe this is the secret, and he applied some OPSPEC. In any case, from "friends" in Germany I know that it was a Leo2A4 for erly batch. As I said vs.HEAT value for Leo2A4 it is about ~1000mm vs. HEAT vs APFSDS vaue is propably ~470-500mm RHA for erly 2A4 - according to tests in Poland*. *In Poland "Gliwice tank factory (OBRUM) and Łabędy-Bumar SA) "open" open one old Leo2A4 (1985 year od production) and researched it. The effect of this is the insistence of the Polish producer PT-91, with the same resistance of PT-91 and Leparda2A4 (1985) vs APFSDS. PT-91 is ~480-500mm RHA vs.APFSDS. so erly Leo2A4 is the same (~480mm). Since 1986/1987 in half batch technology od Leopard2 armour was changed. In my opinnion it was ~580-600mm RHA vs APFSDS for this "improved" Leopard2A4. Acording to btvt T-80U with K-5 is ~600mm RHA vs. KE About M1A1HA - I can't write something as surely as in the case leopardów2. This below is a big speculation, and may be erroneous: M1A1HA LOS is 96cm. about 150-200mm RHA plates inside* (more on less) and ~760-810mm "special" armour. If we got 1.3 for "special armour" (Like in LeoA4) it give us: 150-200mm + +988- 1053 = 1139-1253mm RHA vs. HEAT. *(Of course we don't know how many mm RHA is insert M1A1HA armour. Some sources gives 3x50mm paltes, some 2x50mm + 100mm etc. ) But ~1140-1250mm RHA vs HEAT looks good. BTW: why next generation (Kornet, Chrizantiema) Russian ATGM have about 1200-1250mm RHA? Metis-M with 980mm was not enought? 9М120 with ~950mm was to little? Maybe ~980-1050mm RHA vs HEAT for Leo2A4, and ~1200mm for M1A1HA is true and Russian designers have once again increased penetration to make sure that anti-tank ATGM can destroyed tank, which entered service in the late 80's (Leo2A4 since 87, M1A1HA, etc)? ~700mm RHA vs. KE for M1A1HA looks propably. M829A1 have ~650mm for 2000m so in close distanse it is possible to pentrate ~700mm. AGM-64 with 300mm diamiter HEAT warhead should penetrated ~2000mm RHA. So it's not suprise that this weapons can penetrated M1A1HA. If Leo2A4 (~840-880mm LOS) for 1987 have ~600mm vs KE and T-80U (~600-680mm LOS? + ERA) for 1988 have ~600mm vs KE so M1A1HA with 960mm LOS should have what? In my opinnon 700mm is max. BTW: why next generation (BM48 3BM44M) Russian APFSDS have about 600-650mm RHA? Maybe APFSDS the mid 80's (3BM32, 3BM42) were probably too weak to overcome (on typical distances) improved protection Leo2A4 and M1A1HA? :-)

Like in Leoprd2. LOS beetwen A3-A6 is the same ~80-84cm "wedges" in Leo2A5-A6-A7 is obviously NERA or NxRA but wedges mass is only 2x500kg (~1000kg) Turret mas change form 16t to 21t. Even if we don't count "wedges" with mass difrence beetwen Lh44/Lh55 (+380) we have ~3500kg mass diffrence between Leo2A4 and Leo2A6.

"My Tank is better then others becouse is MINE" syndrom? Well it's not our problem :-) Of couse this what I had wrote about russian tanks or M1 famili is one big speculation. But Leo2 family im sure.

@Damian On my best knowledges - yes. It was to thin in first 2-3batch. But, i must check Leo2A1. Btw. If somebody have some doubt about mask thicknes, he can checkt this: 40cm. As I said - LOS right turret part is 2xmask LOS. 2x40cm =80cm +inner wall (~4cm?) so it's ~84cm Of course LOS thickness is not mm RHA vs KE value.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=284&p=11 1. Mask in Leo2A4 is 40-42cm LOS. 2x mask LOS for right turret part 2,4x mask LOS for left turret part. ~80-84cm for right part, ~100cm for left side (without EMES-15 it will be ~80cm). BTW: there is diffrence beetwen mask in first 2-3 batch mask is ~25cm after (et least) 1985 - 42cm. Draw in Wiedzmin post in otvaga show Leo2 for erly batch witch ~25cm mask. Even on that draw we can see that LOS is 3,3x mask LOS. 3,3x25cm = ~83cm Ok, I can by hard to belive after Andriej T. "fake" so I will try to make a pohoto with measure on polish Leo2A4 (1986). I shoud cut any speculation about LOS in Leo2A4.

Special armour for place where is ~20-10cm LOS? With british OPSPEC? Pointless :-) Beter M1A2 or M1A1HA. More interesting.

Yes, hard to say it, but You have right :-) This part was to thin to use "special armour". Ps. about this: http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=284&p=10 As I said draws form Andriej T. and btvt about Leo2A4 LOS are fakes. It's look diffren for pohotos or other draws:

BTW: LOS for side tower is less then 30cm: ~25-28cm ( at 30. we have ony 500mm LOS) So it's look like that: ps.I know - my broken english. (Thanks Gen.Jaruzelsky ;-)) pps. of course Leo2 on photo is not from 1987. It just a photo.

Ech...only for Leo2 I have proper dates* - so when I can wrote something about eg. Leo2A4 with 100% sure (EG: 80cm LOS), i can't do that about other tanks. *from Polish 10TK Bde and ex German TC from 294 / 304 TK reg.

Damian - second picture with Intermat is geek Leo2A6HEL. BTW: there was no change LOS thickness of front armour beetwen Leo2A4 and Leo2A5/A6 in Germany Turret for A5 was taken from old Leo2A3( mod to A4). Strv.122 is strange, bud in my opinnion LOS is the same like in germans 2A5. Andriej T. wrote total BS on His page (and unfortunetly on btvt) about Leo2 LOS thickness - propably he made a mistake and count LOS for Leo2A4 like for Leo2A1. Many years ago Paul Lakowsky wrote this: And it was true. Writing about 65cm LOS for Leo2A4 is BS. About russian tanks and M1 family I haven't proper dates (EG: draws T-90M turret) and literature is full od mistakes. But Leopard2 im preete sure. BTW: I did the same like Lakowsky and ask some TK about Leo2. He mesured Leo2A4 for me. And is ~800mm LOS. So we can stop talking about 65cm LOS in front Leo2A4. BTW: all draws are from Andriej T. or BTVT - so fo course scale and draws shows les then 80cm. Propably next time i made photo with Leo2A4 and cm mesure on it - it will cut all speculations about LOS for front armour.

Comparison of the weakened zones around the cannon. MBT type area width/ LOS thickness area Leo2A4: ~90/~42cm M1A2: ~90/~45-48cm (raczej 48cm) T-90A: ~90/<45cm T-72B: ~80-85(??)/35cm(?) btw - about mask in Leo2A4: width - 90cm LOS - 42cm height - ~50cm Mass: 551kg BTW - Our best estimates gives Leo2 this value mm RHA vs.APFSDS: Leo2A3 - 470mm Leo2A4 (od 88) -580-600mm Leo2A5/A6 - 680-700mm + NERA Of course it not "truth revealed" and may be mistaken. BTW2 My article about Active Protection Systems: http://gdziewojsko.wordpress.com/wozy-bojowe/aktywne-systemy-ochrony/ in polish, but google translator is quite good :-)

First: Strv.122 Second: FAKE: http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/57551.html total bull****: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg BS2: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/leo3.jpg closer to the truth: copy in all possible forums recommended - nationalism does not justify lying

impossible :-) First: RHA plate next to "chamber" (behind EMES-15) has 165-85mm thickness, when we count LOS fort this place - immposible. Green - most tipical firing angle blue - worst scenario, but only for ~2degrees of firing angle (less 180mm) for rest angels in this scenario - ~300-400mm LOS (300mm side of the hull with a contribution on the left to EMES-15)

Amo storage in hull: T-72, Leo2, M1A2

LOS for Leo2A4, T-90A, T-90S:

ps. LOS in Leo2A4: turret detail (LOS right side) week point - window, and "gap" for EMES-15: url=http://imagefra.me/]

About "wedges" in: Strv.122 Leo2A6HEL/E Leo2A7+ url=http://img257.imageshack.us/i/p1090470s.jpg/] "Wedges" structure: (click to zoom) As we can see there is "in" wedges: I. first layer: - ~5mm thick (1) (??) - ~5mm thick (2) (nicked metal material) II. Air gap (between 2 and 3 on photo) - propably it have ~30mm thick in middle of wall wedge. II. second layer: - ~5mm thick (3) (??) - ~5mm thick (5) (nicked metal material) All is 40mm thick with 30mm air gap. of course LOS is mucht bigger (wedge angle) After that we have triangle "something" inside wedge. - it have dual structure too. All of that looks like NERA or NxRA. So "wedges" in Leo2A5-A7 are similar in concept, (but completely different in structure and action) to Soviet/Russian havy ERA. More about Leo2 (in Polish): http://www.militarium.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4600&start=340 and more about tanks: http://www.militarium.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3 best regards

IMPORTANT to: Alex there is small problem with Leo2 armour. First plate have between 30-50mm steel, then is 600mm chamber for some "insert" and end plate have about 150mm steel. All is ~780-800mm LOS. So my estimatoes for Leo2 have ~15-30mm RHA margin of error. All is about first plate - it's more than 30mm but I have some doubt - im not sure about 50mm it could be for example:40mm... But sure is: a) 600mm chamber for some "x" insert more then 150mm RHA (or HSS) on end amour LOS. - this plate is invicible for us under "open" the "chambers" - so many people haven't idea about this 150-180mm and they think that all is 30mm+600+30-50mm - but it is false. Real is: 30-50mm + 600mm + 150-180mm like here: Ps. and RHA plate in T-90 in 45 degree have of course minor value then in 30.

IMORTANT! Ours estimates have some simplification, and estimation on the basis of very incomplete data - so it's obvious that contain some mistakes. Two best known tanks: Leopard2 family, and T-90A (will be T-80U and T-72BW soon) are estimated with a rather minor error then M1 family - when OPSPEC is critical, and where there were many more estimates and assumptions. These estimates can change when better data will be found. BTW: I didn't vs. HEAT estimates for T-90A becouse: 1) in my opinnion T-90A have 540-960mm vs. HEAT on fornt turret and ~780mm vs HEAT in 30. - this is for "basic" armour. 2) Polish ERAWA-2 (ERA) armour can reduce HEAT warhed for 40-60% so propably K-5/Relikt cant do the same (or even better...). It's means that K-5/Relikt + basic armour in T-90A turret can stop 90% HEAT warhed. Propably US-Army has the same opinions - becouse now there are TOP-ATTACK weapons in use (Javelin, TOW-2B, etc). The same in Israel - LAHAT and Spike... So making estimates for T-90A about HEAT is pointless.

OK Finall version Leo2: vs. APFSDS: vs. HEAT (new): next - M1A2

He he he Leopard2A3/ erly 2A4 on 2A3 armour level, or Leopard2A4 since 1986 batch? There is big difrence beetwen mas of Leopard2. There is difrence between: Leopard2A3 + erly 2A4 Leopard2A4 since 1986 Leopard2A5 Leopard2A6 (germany) Leopard2A6EX (A6M, A6HEL, A6E, and Strv.122 with Lh44(2A5)) Point: 53800kg is correct but for Leo2A4 after some addons in armour (since 1986) - it is "late" model of Leo2A4 - about 27+ ~25 this tank we have in 10Tk Bde in Świętoszów, and is a more then 1500kg diffrennce between this "late" Leo2A4 and... Leo2A4 form earlier batch...propably reson is that there is no change in armour between Leo2A3 and Leo2A4 (elry). So mass is the same. Dynamometers showed (during the raising turrets) of more than 1.5 tons a strange difference in the weight of the turret between A3/A4 and A4(late). So 52000kg is in theory correct. 53800kg is correct too - but only for late Leo2A4. And turret for Leo2A5 had been taken from Leo2A4 on Leo2A3 standards -not for "late" 2A4. So we have bigger mass difrent there. There are very good pohotos of them, it first source. Second - i have some friends in Germany, but it's not good to write that in internet - OPSPEC. "Wedges" are not so simple as they are looks. First external forming "wedge" have a layered structure - all is 40mm LOS thick. Second you have 30mm RHA plates inside "wedges". In my and my friends opinnion this wedges can "blunt" pin of rode. This part of rode (pin) is responsible for mor then 15% of RHA efficiency - when you "blunt" in enought befor basic armour - you can improve the effectiveness of armour very well. This picture under is "simply" and VERY simply idea od that. On real is much more complicated and "wedges" works in diffrent (but simmilar in idea) way: But there is some problem about structure of external plate (with is forming "wedge") - it's not "monoblock" it have multi structure with steel and "x". It's OPSPEC. So "blant" the tip of rod is frst way (rather better vs. WH rod then DU), second - L: D ratio and That bending force will induce a wobble in the rod, much like the wobble an arrow has as it leaves a bow from curving around the front piece. This wobble will persist over the short distance to the main armor and most likely the rod will impact at a small but significant andle off perpendicular. This means instead of a circular hole it will form an oblong....the larger the L: D ratio the more pronounced the deviation from a circle. Because the hole is larger the energy required is greater per depth of penetration. Even a degree off perpendicular can have a huge effect on penetration. . Well - old M830 is US copy of DM-12. DM-12 have guaranteed 650mm RHA, and test in Poland shows it very well. But DM-12 in some conditions could penetrate 700mm RHA plate. I know it coud look stange but it's fact. Diamiter of head is not only. BTW: LAHAT have the same head like Spike. It's 750mm RHA for old, and 800mm+ for new head ("warhead"?)

BTW: There is one misteke in thinking about "wedges" in Leo2A5/A6: "Internal" plates in wedges are 30mm RHA monoblock External forming "wedge" have a layered structure - total thickness is 40mm, but they are made of layers - this is not a monoblock steel! In my opinnion it's only reson to have weight ~500kg for ONE wedge BTW2: turret for Leo2A5 where taken for...old Leopard2A3/A4 on A3 armour standards - it's important becouse "my sources" :-) said that the insert was changed for new + wedges. In that way it have sense... and weight diffrence bettwen Leo2A4 and leo2A5 have sense in taht way...