Armour penetration and repeated hits.

[roqf77]

Realy? (to undead reindeer cavalry).

[Steiner14]

What is [m/joules]?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Do not be confused by the fact that both are called Leopard 2s. They are the result of technology that matured twenty years apart, and it shows. In the same way the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are very different in terms of their capabilities.

More like 15 years. First delivery of 2A4 was 1985, first delivery of 2A6 2001, and the A5 is early 90s, so a ten year gap, if we are generous.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The L55 gun on the A6 can “just” penetrate the front armour of the A4. The L55 gun having a muzzle energy of 13.5 m/joules.

Sorry, is there a typo somewhere, or are you trying to say that the L44 will have trouble with the front armour of the A4? At what ranges?

[flamingknives]

I'd hazard that Kip means MJ, or MegaJoules (force in Newtons x distance x 10^6)

Being as he's old and getting a bit senile, some errors in definitions are to be expected

[kipanderson]

Andreas,

“and the A5 is early 90s, so a ten year gap, if we are generous.”

Andreas, you are confusing the very long development of the A5/A6 with when they were finalized/type classified. But no matter. I have no interest in bun fights over Leopard 2s

Enough to say that the A5/A6 weighs 4.5 tons more than the A4, has a different gun with a third greater muzzle energy, different optics, different electronic gun control, more and different armour, and now a different engine too.

“Sorry, is there a typo somewhere, or are you trying to say that the L44 will have trouble with the front armour of the A4? At what ranges?”

No, no typo…. the L44 gun cannot cope with the frontal armour of the A5/A6, the L55 gun can “just” cope with the frontal armour of the A4 tank. Note, modern tanks tend to have armour that over matches the current generation kinetic projectiles. For example, the L55 gun of the A6 cannot penetrate the frontal armour of the A6…. if you follow me.

This is a “very” odd discussion . My guess is that I am up against an emotional attachment to the A4 by those who may have come across it in their time in the military .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I use Chobham armour as short hand for laminated because eit may ring more bells with some. Can do a wildly nerdish rant on armour if you wish, but am not interested .

PPS. Andreas, to answer your specific question on the A4, an A4 would indeed struggle when trying to penetrate an A4. The front turret of the A4 has protection equivalent to 700mm odd of RHA, the latest L44 gun ammo around 650mm penetration at 1,000m. However… it now gets very complicated . It depends on the exact type of laminated armour, the latest segmented long rod penetrators are optimized for use against internal reactive armour, not German style ‘70s/’80s laminated armour. The rant could get very long and send all to sleep . Masses of qualifications . Depleted uranium or tungsten also matters, but as much as it did twenty years ago.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just a quick add on… the A5/A6 also has armour designed to withstand repeated hits, the A4 armour being earlier Chobham/laminated armour is not designed to withstand repeated hits. Suffers as face-hardened plate did in WWII. But “withstanding repeated hits” in all relative .

BTW. The Germans did get the armour for the early Leopard 2s from the UK; it is in indeed Chobham armour. This is a famous example of the Yanks getting very angry with the UK for sharing technology with Europe. The US put a lot on pressure on the UK “not” to share the technology with Europe, but only with the US.

All the best,

Kip.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

hi there Kip,

A5 and A6 are just modernized earlier variants. they use the very same hulls and turrets of earlier batches. yes, there's lots of new stuff, but so there was with A4 as well. the differences in capacity between A4 and A6 are still pretty small if you compare it to other modernizations out there, especially those for old Soviet tanks.

armor differences between A4 and A6 deal mostly with the turret. the hull offers basicly the same level of protection and the standard A4 gun penetrates the A6 front hull just fine, not to mention the sides. i'm not sure if you are aware, but both L44 and L55 use the same ammo. L55 gets a little better penetration, but the real reason for the L55 gun is the greater accuracy at very long ranges.

in my opinion A4 should do fine against A6, as long as the A4 refuses to get into hull-down duels at 2000-5000 meters. in practice the side with better tactics, battlefield awareness and crew wins.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Andreas, to answer your specific question on the A4, an A4 would indeed struggle when trying to penetrate an A4. The front turret of the A4 has protection equivalent to 700mm odd of RHA, the latest L44 gun ammo around 650mm penetration at 1,000m. However… it now gets very complicated . It depends on the exact type of laminated armour, the latest segmented long rod penetrators are optimized for use against internal reactive armour, not German style ‘70s/’80s laminated armour. The rant could get very long and send all to sleep . Masses of qualifications . Depleted uranium or tungsten also matters, but as much as it did twenty years ago.

Kip

I have no emotional attachment to the A4, since I was in the Luftwaffe. Now if you started telling me that the Unimog was not in fact the best off-road military truck ever, I'd come over to the UK to give you a piece of my mind.

I am just asking because I thought it was a given that the Abrams or indeed any other tank) with an L44 would penetrate an A4 frontally.

So no more eggshells with hammers. Interesting.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Andreas,

“and the A5 is early 90s, so a ten year gap, if we are generous.”

Andreas, you are confusing the very long development of the A5/A6 with when they were finalized/type classified. But no matter. I have no interest in bun fights over Leopard 2s

Just to clarify this - from what I could find they started delivering the A4 from 85, and developing the A5 in 1988/9? And deliver that from 1992/5? While the A6 was introduced in 2001.

Is that broadly correct?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Kip,

if i am not mistaken, DM-53 shot from A4's L44 gun should penetrate over 700mm from 2000 meters. as the front hull of A6 offers just some 600mm worth of protection, it seems to me that DM-53 should penetrate A6 armor even in frontal engagements at 2000 meters.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Now if you started telling me that the Unimog was not in fact the best off-road military truck ever, I'd come over to the UK to give you a piece of my mind.

Nasu is better.

[flamingknives]

The big difference is the turret armour:

2A4 - 590-690mm

2A6 - 920-940mm

CR1 - 590-620mm

CR2 - 920-960mm

Source: http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

It's about what you'd expect from the addition of the wedge on the Leo 2A5. The 2A5, AIUI, was a response to the British MoD request for a replacement for the Challenger 1 (CR1) In the end, they chose the Challenger 2, AFAICT, because it

a) was British

had a rifled gun (good for HESH)

c) was compatible with the existing applique up-armour set

d) had automotive gear more-or-less the same as the tank it was replacing.

[Andreas]

Rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about. If I had wanted to talk about tracked vehicles I would have said that. Being a civilised country, Germany needed wheeled trucks. Being what it is, Finland needed tracked trucks.

1l/km fuel use. Snigger.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Being a civilised country, Germany needed wheeled trucks. Being what it is, Finland needed tracked trucks.

Being a Nordic country, Finland does not need roads.

[kipanderson]

Undead reindeer cavalry, hi,

“if i am not mistaken, DM-53 shot from A4's L44 gun should penetrate over 700mm from 2000 meters. as the front hull of A6 offers just some 600mm worth of protection, it seems to me that DM-53 should penetrate A6 armor even in frontal engagements at 2000 meters.”

Spot on… in fact… I would just put the penetration of the L44 gun with DM53 at 650mm, with L55 gun at 720mm. But yes, we agree.

The discussion between us is a very good example of how people, who in terms of facts agree, can end up on opposite sides due the different “spin” they put on their posts .

Just a small point, as we speak, the Germans and other users of the L55 gun are introducing the first ammo that is “not” backwardly combatable with the L44 gun. It wa sin Jane’s a few months back. It will be the first operational round to fully take advantage of the far greater “down the barrel” pressure capabilities of the L55 gun.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Note the L55 gun can produce 13.5 megajoules, the basic, early ‘90s 140mm gun, 18 megajoules of muzzle energy. With the technology used in the L55 gun ported to the 140mm gun, its muzzle energy would be nearer 24 megqjuoles . In a real war, all would adopt the 140mm guns.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... the BV-206... one of my favorites! Came pretty close to buying an ex-Swedish one a few years back. Still would love one, but the sucker is a bit long. That would require a longer trailer and heavier truck than I already have. At least when I get a T-72 I have no illusions about being able to move it on my own

In a real war, all would adopt the 140mm guns.

In a real war it would be all over before someone could even say "hey, what about those 140 designs we have lying around?"

Steve

[Sergei]

Not a Bandvagn, but Finnish Sisu Nasu.

Propaganda video of Nasu

[Bigduke6]

Rubbish yourself, Ural will drive circles around anything you can field. I've seen those babies start at minus 30 and get through marsh that tracked vehicles got stuck in. And if it's minus 40, just build a fire underneath the engine. Vroom!

AND you can let air in and out of the tires at a push of a button. And there are six tires, and what's more, they're the same 2 meter tires that go on Scud carriers and BTRs! Beat that for good rationalized Socialst production technique, if you can - and you know you can't!

And since it's a Russian truck, you don't have to worry about it being dirty. It looks better, in fact.

Originally posted by Andreas:

Rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about. If I had wanted to talk about tracked vehicles I would have said that. Being a civilised country, Germany needed wheeled trucks. Being what it is, Finland needed tracked trucks.

1l/km fuel use. Snigger.

[P_Brett]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

And since it's a Russian truck, you don't have to worry about it being dirty. It looks better, in fact.

That comment is worthy of a kudos!

[roqf77]

kip, what about the l30 charm un. its the l44 rheinmetal gun isnt it?

but it has cromium lining that reduces friction and increases the muzzle velocity. are these rounds backwardly compatible?

and i believe that some one mentioned the l55 gun being fitted to the challenger 2 as well. this is true but it is going to be given to vickers(alvis or bae or whoever it is now) to modify, possibly with the rifling and the cromium etc.

[ September 05, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by roqf77:

kip, what about the l30 charm un. its the l44 rheinmetal gun isnt it?

No, the CHARM gun is rifled, the Rheinmetall gun is a smoothbore.

All the best,

John.

[roqf77]

i am aware of that. i was just wondering about the ammo. as the uk is developing a du round with a larger round and longer. still 120mm but as its sabot the dart is being increased. i was just wondering if they were related in any way.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The discussion between us is a very good example of how people, who in terms of facts agree, can end up on opposite sides due the different “spin” they put on their posts .

have to agree with that

and now that i am in this mood, i have to say that A6 has definite upper hand over A4, if A6 manages to get hull-down positions.

i just personally dislike Western, overly passive, defensive doctrines of tank tactics. they might be good in 1985 Fulda Gap battles, but other than that i hate the idea of using tanks as pillboxes.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Nasu

good name is everything.

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei... if I were Haaglunds I'd be asking some questions about that design Well, unless they had a hand in the development.

Steve