Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

First thing is why we need to belive German sources, not the American ones? What makes German sources more credible? Because they are German ones?

For me this is very simple. The German authors mentioned by me have written much more about the comparision, while Hunnicutt and Zaloga just wrote a few lines. More importantly Paul-Werner Krapke was working in the BWB in a leading position on the Leopard 2 programme and on the joint evaluation. He was actually there at the tests, knowing the specifications, knowing the results. This is something we can't say about Zaloga or Hunnicutt. If there was an order by the German government, then he would have received it. This is also something we can't say about Zaloga or Hunnicutt. Do you think that Hunnicutt and Zaloga, both writing about the U.S. M1 tank did check German archives, asked German people and other sources which knew about the gag order? I don't think so.

I have no problem believing Zaloga or Hunnicutt in other matters, but in this point we have a source explaining why they should be wrong. Also it would mean that the armour technology used in the M1 Abrams (i.e. British Burlington armour) would be better (in terms of protection per weight and protection per size) than the German armour, although the Germans also had access to Burlington technology...
If I want to know something about an American tank, then I read American books. If I want to know something about German tanks, then I read German books. I think that the main topic of a book is always better covered by sources and more investigated by the author than some short thing he mentions in a subordinate clause without any further specifications (Hunnicutt puts there even the little word "somewhat" to the claims about the armour).

If I would give you two German books about blockhouses claiming Poles would live in bamboo huts, would you believe them?

Second is that Brits have obsession on armor protection, if they say that there were problems with armor protection, be it even that weak zone, then this is serious.

Is that really so? I think it is rather a myth. Take a look at the Challenger 1/2... the large hole in the glacis for the driver, the large unarmoured lower hull plate, the weak hull sides and the general not too high armour thickness. The Chieftain was better armoured than other tanks of this generation, but one heavy armoured tank should not mean that all are good armoured (not to mention that according to literature the main target in making the Chieftain was improving the firepower). The Centurion e.g. was really weak armoured, not better than the Panther at first, and later fitted with a 50 mm plate at the glacis... overall protection was lower than on the M48 or the T-55.
I think that such claims like "The British always use heavier armour" belong to the same category as "The rifled gun is better than the smoothbore because it is longer" and "The Germans always favour less armour and faster vehicles".

Have you any information that the British did actually test the armour of the Leopard 2 and M1A1? I have none.

And You or other Leopard 2 lovers might delude further beliving that weak zone was eliminated in Leopard 2A5 and further variants... it was not and never will be without complete turret redesign.

The thing is that the Leopard 2A5 got thicker armour than the T-90 and the M1A2 at this "weak" place. The only thing which might be a problem (and only for a very unrealistic angle of impact) is the optical sight channel. The mantlet however is thicker armoured and smaller than the mantlet of the M1.
I am no specialized lover of any tank, but it is just that the M1 lacks a number of capabilites until the introduction of the M1A2, and that in my opinion the XM1 just was inferior to the Leopard 2 alone because the choice of the gun. We also could compare the XM1 with the T-80B and I would not be a fan of the XM1. The XM1 is like you said an "interim" tank, but it was built at a time were much more was required. If the Cold War did become hot in 1984, then the only tank superior to the Soviet equipment would be the Leopard 2. The Challenger 1 and M1 simply could not perforate the later Soviet tank models with great probability.

 

[Damian]

For me this is very simple. The German authors mentioned by me have written much more about the comparision, while Hunnicutt and Zaloga just wrote a few lines. More importantly Paul-Werner Krapke was working in the BWB in a leading position on the Leopard 2 programme and on the joint evaluation. He was actually there at the tests, knowing the specifications, knowing the results. This is something we can't say about Zaloga or Hunnicutt. If there was an order by the German government, then he would have received it. This is also something we can't say about Zaloga or Hunnicutt. Do you think that Hunnicutt and Zaloga, both writing about the U.S. M1 tank did check German archives, asked German people and other sources which knew about the gag order? I don't think so.

I have no problem believing Zaloga or Hunnicutt in other matters, but in this point we have a source explaining why they should be wrong. Also it would mean that the armour technology used in the M1 Abrams (i.e. British Burlington armour) would be better (in terms of protection per weight and protection per size) than the German armour, although the Germans also had access to Burlington technology...
If I want to know something about an American tank, then I read American books. If I want to know something about German tanks, then I read German books. I think that the main topic of a book is always better covered by sources and more investigated by the author than some short thing he mentions in a subordinate clause without any further specifications (Hunnicutt puts there even the little word "somewhat" to the claims about the armour).

If I would give you two German books about blockhouses claiming Poles would live in bamboo huts, would you believe them?

But earlier someone here said (Militarysta I think) that Americans lied... why we should belive that actually Germans are not lie because their tank lost? This is the real problem, completely writing off statements of one side and beliving other side without any doubt.

We should remember that Zaloga and especially Hunnicutt, had access to TACOM archieves where all results data were stored.

Besides this why I should also belive that Germans are the best in designing AFV's? Because it is actually fight about that myth, especially from Militarysta side (and I don't blame him, he have friends there so he will defend them). In my opinion Germans never had really better designs than others, it is a good thing that Leopard 2 lost competitions in USA and UK, pitty it had won them in other countries.

Is that really so? I think it is rather a myth. Take a look at the Challenger 1/2... the large hole in the glacis for the driver, the large unarmoured lower hull plate, the weak hull sides and the general not too high armour thickness. The Chieftain was better armoured than other tanks of this generation, but one heavy armoured tank should not mean that all are good armoured (not to mention that according to literature the main target in making the Chieftain was improving the firepower). The Centurion e.g. was really weak armoured, not better than the Panther at first, and later fitted with a 50 mm plate at the glacis... overall protection was lower than on the M48 or the T-55.
I think that such claims like "The British always use heavier armour" belong to the same category as "The rifled gun is better than the smoothbore because it is longer" and "The Germans always favour less armour and faster vehicles".

Have you any information that the British did actually test the armour of the Leopard 2 and M1A1? I have none.

I only said that they have obsession about armor protection, not that actually their design are that well armored as they want to and claim to. See the difference?

The thing is that the Leopard 2A5 got thicker armour than the T-90 and the M1A2 at this "weak" place. The only thing which might be a problem (and only for a very unrealistic angle of impact) is the optical sight channel. The mantlet however is thicker armoured and smaller than the mantlet of the M1.

Leopard 2A5 armor is not thicker than both T-90 and M1A2... of course You count that wedge shaped screen yes? Well I wouldn't, unless You wan't to actually say yest to Ukrainians that claims T-84M Oplot with Duplet ERA modules have the thickes front turret armor from all modern MBT's?

Mantle in Leopard 2A5 have the same size as in previous versions, nothing changed in it's size, only that moving part with gun have been resized and both sides are not moving if You know what I mean.

So no, Leopard 2A5 and further versions have not thicker armor, neither gun mantle was reduced, only it's design changed and from external view it looks that way.

As a side note, that wedge shaped screen (NERA) should be treated as same protection messure as ERA on T-90 for example. And should not be treated as additional thickness for main armor.

I am no specialized lover of any tank, but it is just that the M1 lacks a number of capabilites until the introduction of the M1A2, and that in my opinion the XM1 just was inferior to the Leopard 2 alone because the choice of the gun. We also could compare the XM1 with the T-80B and I would not be a fan of the XM1. The XM1 is like you said an "interim" tank, but it was built at a time were much more was required. If the Cold War did become hot in 1984, then the only tank superior to the Soviet equipment would be the Leopard 2. The Challenger 1 and M1 simply could not perforate the later Soviet tank models with great probability.

But this is a complete ignoring the facts that Americans were able to quickly introduce new modifications and start manufacturing new tanks.

Germans were unable to do so, and never will be. And in the end Americans ended with better tank. M1A2SEP v2 is currently better than any variant of Leopard 2. It's armor protection is definetly not worse, in fact it will be improved further even if it is allready top line. It's anti tank firepower is better due to better ammunition, and M829A4 soon will be fielded, as well as AMP multipurpose ammunition. Crew survivability is superior to any other tank. Electronics package is superior to any other tank, as well as many FCS capabilities. Some solutions developed from Future Combat Systems will be introduced or are allready installed in tanks C2 system. If needed Americans can replace engine, transmission and suspension to much modern ones.

They just had capabilities to do so, and are doing this better because they have time, and they know that. I have strong suspicion that main sight flaw in Leopard 2 is caused because probably designers were in a hurry designing Leopard 2AV turret and decided to go on shortcuts + they didn't mounted such simple yet usefull thing on tank as MRS system for untill second half of 1980's.

And as for penetrating later Soviet tanks... it is very optimistic faith that Leopard 2 with it's ammunition used at that time would fair any better. Gun itself not make big difference, ammunition is also important.

 

[methos]

But earlier someone here said (Militarysta I think) that Americans lied... why we should belive that actually Germans are not lie because their tank lost? This is the real problem, completely writing off statements of one side and beliving other side without any doubt.

I can't speak for militarysta, but I believe what the Americans say, unless I have a source which deals more directly with the topic and says otherwise.

We should remember that Zaloga and especially Hunnicutt, had access to TACOM archieves where all results data were stored.

This still does not mean that the German claims are wrong. There could be some sort of file about the tests on the weight demonstrators.

Leopard 2A5 armor is not thicker than both T-90 and M1A2... of course You count that wedge shaped screen yes?

Yes, I do. Why should I not, they are made of mutliple layers of steel and rubber. I don't include the empty space. If I should not include them, then I maybe should not include some steel and rubber layers in the M1 armour too?

Mantle in Leopard 2A5 have the same size as in previous versions, nothing changed in it's size, only that moving part with gun have been resized and both sides are not moving if You know what I mean.

Not really. The mantlet armour was thickened by more than 10 cm (probably around 15 cm). After the armour upgrade the mantlet "sticks out" at the front when not fitted with wedge appliques, while previously the mantlet and the turret wall did have some more harmonic borders.

 

[Damian]

I can't speak for militarysta, but I believe what the Americans say, unless I have a source which deals more directly with the topic and says otherwise.

But do You have 100% certainity that this source is credible? Germans have agenda to lie, as well as Americans. However I belive more Americans, they are allways more credible than Germans. I was studying History You know, and in many historic sources, Germans are not very credible, not matters what is the subject of their reports.

This still does not mean that the German claims are wrong. There could be some sort of file about the tests on the weight demonstrators.

And there is something more, Zaloga claimed that Leopard 2AV hull used spaced not composite armor, this also could give a bad impression for Americans that used composite armor on XM1 at that time.

Yes, I do. Why should I not, they are made of mutliple layers of steel and rubber. I don't include the empty space. If I should not include them, then I maybe should not include some steel and rubber layers in the M1 armour too?

It should not be treated as solid armor but more like ERA, the whole idea is very similiar, unless as I said, we should treat ERA as main armor and add it's thickness to the overall thickness of tanks armor... but then T-84M Oplot beats everything driving on that planet when it would come to front turret armor thickness.

Not really. The mantlet armour was thickened by more than 10 cm (probably around 15 cm). After the armour upgrade the mantlet "sticks out" at the front when not fitted with wedge appliques, while previously the mantlet and the turret wall did have some more harmonic borders.

I seen the turret without wedge addon armor. Size of mantled was not reduced as I said, only it's design changed. As for thickness, I agree it it thicker. However I must ask, how do You know that this plate behind mantle is made from armor steel? It might be simple steel, or even something else, light to not add to much weight, and won't offer significant increase in protection. And I think that in every tanks this plate behind gun mantle mask is not armor but a simple isolation made from some sort of lighter metal.

 

[methos]

But do You have 100% certainity that this source is credible? Germans have agenda to lie, as well as Americans. However I belive more Americans, they are allways more credible than Germans. I was studying History You know, and in many historic sources, Germans are not very credible, not matters what is the subject of their reports.

And this is the problem. "[h]ave an agenda to lie", "are allways more credible than Germans"... you are basing your opinion on stereotypes. I don't know if this has something to do with the sources you use or something based on an old slavo-germanic enemity, but I don't see that U.S. sources are more credible or that Germans and U.S. sources often lie. I simply can't see a justification for your claims.

And there is something more, Zaloga claimed that Leopard 2AV hull used spaced not composite armor, this also could give a bad impression for Americans that used composite armor on XM1 at that time.

That armour is spaced does not mean that it is no composite armour. Bulging plates armour is spaced and still it is composite armour. It is in my opinion very likely that the Germans used NERA at least as part of their armour - the space would then be required for the movement of the plates/rubber.

It should not be treated as solid armor but more like ERA, the whole idea is very similiar, unless as I said, we should treat ERA as main armor and add it's thickness to the overall thickness of tanks armor... but then T-84M Oplot beats everything driving on that planet when it would come to front turret armor thickness.

It is NERA, but this does not mean that it does not offer armour protection. Take a look at a NERA sandwich - it will allways offer more protection than the thickness of the steel plate. So If I include the steel plates as armour thickness (regarding if it is ERA or NERA) then there should be no problem. By saying however "NERA is no armour" you change facts in favour of the Challenger and M1.

seen the turret without wedge addon armor. Size of mantled was not reduced as I said, only it's design changed.

In the German language "gun mantlet" refers to the moving part of the armour (and I think in the English language too). This was reduced, at the sides it was replaced by boxes of composite armour, which are not as thick as the basic armour, but slightly thicker than the original mantlet.

However I must ask, how do You know that this plate behind mantle is made from armor steel?

I don't know. But according to the TankNet mild steel offers still about 80% of the protection of RHA. The part which holds the steel block of the gun mounting however is RHA (this plate can be seen from the interior).

 

[Damian]

And this is the problem. "[h]ave an agenda to lie", "are allways more credible than Germans"... you are basing your opinion on stereotypes. I don't know if this has something to do with the sources you use or something based on an old slavo-germanic enemity, but I don't see that U.S. sources are more credible or that Germans and U.S. sources often lie. I simply can't see a justification for your claims.

To the contrary, Americans are more credible than Germans. They are more critical to their own designs. These are my own experiences with both nations. As for old Slavo-Germanic enemity... I have other reasons to not like Germans, but this have nothing to do with AFV's designs.
I have completely different concept of MBT design than Germans presents in case of Leopard 2, I don't like this tank design, in fact on my own I would not get inside and fight in it.

That armour is spaced does not mean that it is no composite armour. Bulging plates armour is spaced and still it is composite armour. It is in my opinion very likely that the Germans used NERA at least as part of their armour - the space would then be required for the movement of the plates/rubber.

That's true, but Zaloga said Spaced Armor, not composite one, and when book was writen the understanding of composite armor was very different to what it is these days.

It is NERA, but this does not mean that it does not offer armour protection. Take a look at a NERA sandwich - it will allways offer more protection than the thickness of the steel plate. So If I include the steel plates as armour thickness (regarding if it is ERA or NERA) then there should be no problem. By saying however "NERA is no armour" you change facts in favour of the Challenger and M1.

I didn't say that NERA is no armor, I said it should not be counted as ERA is not counted to the overall thickness of main armor.

In the German language "gun mantlet" refers to the moving part of the armour (and I think in the English language too). This was reduced, at the sides it was replaced by boxes of composite armour, which are not as thick as the basic armour, but slightly thicker than the original mantlet.

IMHO these boxes are still mantlet part, just not moving but can be deinstalled from the turret and are mounted in the mantlet opening.

I don't know. But according to the TankNet mild steel offers still about 80% of the protection of RHA. The part which holds the steel block of the gun mounting however is RHA (this plate can be seen from the interior).

Still IMHO for weight reduction that is needed for servomechanism to work as well as they can, it is probably not RHA, or if it is it's not very thick. So mantlet is still a weak zone.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

interesting Update:
Never knew Brits also tried Unmanned turret concept..

English only in the late '60s began to explore the problem of creating tanks with remote weapons. On the chassis of obsolete World War II with OMET they found the layout of the tower with a 75-mm cannon. However, the British also failed to realize the full benefits of this arrangement. All ports are unresolved problems with the automatic loader and the inability to create in the years of effective systems of monitoring and taking aim.

Source:
Gur Khan attacks!






Carry on discussion..

 

[methos]

To the contrary, Americans are more credible than Germans. They are more critical to their own designs. These are my own experiences with both nations. As for old Slavo-Germanic enemity... I have other reasons to not like Germans, but this have nothing to do with AFV's designs.

If you do believe members of one of these two nations more because of your personal experiences: Do so. But don't expect anyone to understand this behaviour.

That's true, but Zaloga said Spaced Armor, not composite one, and when book was writen the understanding of composite armor was very different to what it is these days.

The main problem again is: Where does Zaloga have this information and is he more reliable than others? For American and British tanks we know what armour is used, as they openly tell the world. Early tanks used Burlington ("Chobham"), later models use improved armour incorporating DU or "second generation Burlington armour" aka Dorchester armour.
But we don't have any information about the German armour, nearly every author claims that the Leopard 2 uses a different type of armour. I have seen author claiming that the Leopard uses the following armours:
Chobham or a ceramic composite armour
Spaced steel armour
Spaced multi-layered armour
NERA i.e. bulging plates armour
Laminated armour
All of the above at the same time
Perforated armour

And this are all types of armour claimed to be used in the Leopard 2 mentioned in literature (so not including some theories from websites/forums). You know want me to say "all the German authors lie and Zaloga is right"... do you see the problem? For example the claims that the Leopard 2 would use a type of bulging plates armour (in German Beulblechpanzerung) comes from a book which focus only on the Leopard 2. It is rather well written and includes dozens of drawings and images, while Zaloga mentions the Leopard 2 in how many lines? Ten? Then the next problem is were does Zaloga got his informations? From the American archieves?

Regarding the term "spaced armour":
1.) Please take a look at the declassified CIA file "U.S. Intelligence and Soviet Armor". On page 35 the author(s) describe the applique on the Leopard 1 as spaced armour. Based on the patent (patent number DE2324724 from Blohm & Voss) however the rubber-coated mounting bolts work like coil-springs (they work even better than coil-springs, because the latter one have problems with sloped impact).
2.) In the German language there is no exact term for "spaced armour". Spaced armour is a type of "Schottpanzerung" (bulkhead armour), which is defined by steel layers forming a chamber - if the chamber is filled or not does not really matter, as long as the steel is part of the defeat mechanism. The German term "Schottpanzerung" is also used to describe laminated armour (e.g. the hull armour of the T-64/72 or the turret armour of the MBT-70) or reactive armour (Leopard 1A1A1 applique, T-72B turret armour).

Some time ago I sent militarysta a few images from a patent describing how to mount armour semi-modular in steel cavities. The armour there was not drawn very detailed, but based on the patent description it included steel and rubber, while it had a very "spaced" appearance (i.e. it incorporated large empty space).

Still IMHO for weight reduction that is needed for servomechanism to work as well as they can, it is probably not RHA, or if it is it's not very thick. So mantlet is still a weak zone.

It is part of the gun mounting. It could be Aluminium, but it could be steel.

Never knew Brits also tried Unmanned turret concept..

English only in the late '60s began to explore the problem of creating tanks with remote weapons. On the chassis of obsolete World War II with OMET they found the layout of the tower with a 75-mm cannon. However, the British also failed to realize the full benefits of this arrangement. All ports are unresolved problems with the automatic loader and the inability to create in the years of effective systems of monitoring and taking aim.

The Americans and the Germans did have similar vehicles (at least conceptual). One of them is the Bogward proposal for the Leopard tank.

Edit: The images mentioned above to Damian. Patent is from 1975.

 

[Damian]

The main problem again is: Where does Zaloga have this information and is he more reliable than others? For American and British tanks we know what armour is used, as they openly tell the world. Early tanks used Burlington ("Chobham"), later models use improved armour incorporating DU or "second generation Burlington armour" aka Dorchester armour.
But we don't have any information about the German armour, nearly every author claims that the Leopard 2 uses a different type of armour. I have seen author claiming that the Leopard uses the following armours:
Chobham or a ceramic composite armour
Spaced steel armour
Spaced multi-layered armour
NERA i.e. bulging plates armour
Laminated armour
All of the above at the same time
Perforated armour

And this are all types of armour claimed to be used in the Leopard 2 mentioned in literature (so not including some theories from websites/forums). You know want me to say "all the German authors lie and Zaloga is right"... do you see the problem? For example the claims that the Leopard 2 would use a type of bulging plates armour (in German Beulblechpanzerung) comes from a book which focus only on the Leopard 2. It is rather well written and includes dozens of drawings and images, while Zaloga mentions the Leopard 2 in how many lines? Ten? Then the next problem is were does Zaloga got his informations? From the American archieves?

Regarding the term "spaced armour":
1.) Please take a look at the declassified CIA file "U.S. Intelligence and Soviet Armor". On page 35 the author(s) describe the applique on the Leopard 1 as spaced armour. Based on the patent (patent number DE2324724 from Blohm & Voss) however the rubber-coated mounting bolts work like coil-springs (they work even better than coil-springs, because the latter one have problems with sloped impact).
2.) In the German language there is no exact term for "spaced armour". Spaced armour is a type of "Schottpanzerung" (bulkhead armour), which is defined by steel layers forming a chamber - if the chamber is filled or not does not really matter, as long as the steel is part of the defeat mechanism. The German term "Schottpanzerung" is also used to describe laminated armour (e.g. the hull armour of the T-64/72 or the turret armour of the MBT-70) or reactive armour (Leopard 1A1A1 applique, T-72B turret armour).

Some time ago I sent militarysta a few images from a patent describing how to mount armour semi-modular in steel cavities. The armour there was not drawn very detailed, but based on the patent description it included steel and rubber, while it had a very "spaced" appearance (i.e. it incorporated large empty space).

So maybe it is a terminology issue? English language terminology might more clrearly tell the difference between composite and spaced armor while German one as You said don't have such clarity, at least not for non German speakers.

As for how Zaloga knew what armor was used, do Germans sources says something about transfer of information about armor to USA? Or did Americans actually could open armor cavieties in Leopard 2AV?

Then there is also one more explanation. Germans send tanks without armor as their sources claims but Americans did not know about it, when they tested tanks and opened cavieties what they seen could be impreted by them as simple spaced armor... You will agree that this is also explanation.

Interesting drawings, number 2 and 3 are from design point of view similiar to what we know about Burlington, the last drawing also is similiar to one of types of armor described in Przezdziecki article, where Burlington designers claimed that layers placed at different, sometimes very... "exotic" layers can provide high levels of protection. BTW Is not the shape of armor cavity on M1 lower front hull ("beak") on the last drawing?

 

[methos]

As for how Zaloga knew what armor was used, do Germans sources says something about transfer of information about armor to USA? Or did Americans actually could open armor cavieties in Leopard 2AV?

Then there is also one more explanation. Germans send tanks without armor as their sources claims but Americans did not know about it, when they tested tanks and opened cavieties what they seen could be impreted by them as simple spaced armor... You will agree that this is also explanation.

The first Leopard 2 prototypes which were sent to America (prior the joint evaluation of the Leopard 2AV/XM1) did in fact feature some kind of spaced armour. They used an improved version of the Leopard 1A4 turret. According to TankNet post the Leopard 1A4 uses laminated steel (three different hardnesses for increased protection) and empty space (partially filled with Polystyrene according to a Dutch book). Some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were later fitted with a spaced armour plate at the glacis for increased protection. The problem is that this prototypes were not made for the U.S. and did still have the MBT-70 level of protection as target. The Germans later decided to increase the protection requirement on their own after the analysis of the 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) and created the turret T14 mod. with thicker composite armour and a flat sided appearance. This turret was used as base design for the Leopard 2AV turret, but since the Germans made only a single turret for testing new armour technologies, the hull still featured less sophisticated armour. According to Paul-Werner Krapke the first hull prototypes with composite armour did have problems in a number of ballistic tests in 1975, which lead to a complete redesign, which is also claimed to be one of the reason why the Leopard 2AV arrived later than originally planned.

I have no clue of how the Americans did receive information about the German composite armour and armour thickness. Maybe the manufacturer did send the plans, maybe they did measure armour thickness of the real prototype but this was not made for ballistic tests and did not have inserts.

Then there is also one more explanation. Germans send tanks without armor as their sources claims but Americans did not know about it, when they tested tanks and opened cavieties what they seen could be impreted by them as simple spaced armor... You will agree that this is also explanation.

Yes this would be an explanation. But iirc. the Americans knew that they were shooting at weight demonstrators instead of real armour.

Interesting drawings, number 2 and 3 are from design point of view similiar to what we know about Burlington, the last drawing also is similiar to one of types of armor described in Przezdziecki article, where Burlington designers claimed that layers placed at different, sometimes very... "exotic" layers can provide high levels of protection. BTW Is not the shape of armor cavity on M1 lower front hull ("beak") on the last drawing?

It looks like an Abrams hull, but the Leopard 2AV also had such a hull configuration (maybe not as extreme as the M1).

 

[Damian]

The first Leopard 2 prototypes which were sent to America (prior the joint evaluation of the Leopard 2AV/XM1) did in fact feature some kind of spaced armour. They used an improved version of the Leopard 1A4 turret. According to TankNet post the Leopard 1A4 uses laminated steel (three different hardnesses for increased protection) and empty space (partially filled with Polystyrene according to a Dutch book). Some of the Leopard 2 prototypes were later fitted with a spaced armour plate at the glacis for increased protection. The problem is that this prototypes were not made for the U.S. and did still have the MBT-70 level of protection as target. The Germans later decided to increase the protection requirement on their own after the analysis of the 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) and created the turret T14 mod. with thicker composite armour and a flat sided appearance. This turret was used as base design for the Leopard 2AV turret, but since the Germans made only a single turret for testing new armour technologies, the hull still featured less sophisticated armour. According to Paul-Werner Krapke the first hull prototypes with composite did have problems in a number of ballistic tests in 1975, which lead to a complete redesign, which is also claimed to be one of the reason why the Leopard 2AV arrived later than originally planned.

I have no clue of how the Americans did receive information about the German composite armour and armour thickness. Maybe the manufacturer did send the plans, maybe they did measure armour thickness of the real prototype but this was not made for ballistic tests and did not have inserts.

Probably the answer is somewhere in TACOM and German archieves?

Yes this would be an explanation. But iirc. the Americans knew that they were shooting at weight demonstrators instead of real armour.

But this means that Germans on their own didn't belived they can win the competition if they sended something like that. Americans tested what they have and thats it.

Other thing is that probably even if Americans would test Leopard 2AV with real armor, they would most probably just slightly redesign XM1 by incorporating for example thicker front turret armor then not in 1984 with M1IP.

It looks like an Abrams hull, but the Leopard 2AV also had such a hull configuration (maybe not as extreme as the M1).

Wonder why Germans redesigned the hull, it appreas to be much better optimized for thick composite armor than standard hull. IMHO both tanks could actually have best hull protection if some things would done differently.

I have some ideas, but in case of Leopard 2 it would mean that driver need to sit in hull center line, not on the right side. Now, th lower front hull can stay as it is is, but the glacis plate on both sides of driver station can have internal cavieties for composite armor inserts. It would be slightly resassemble Challenger 1 and 2 glacis plates however I think that it is possible to avoid creating this distinctive tunel for driver hatch and his vision block/blocks.

I hope You know what I have in mind, this would end with a hull with... virtually no weak zones visible from frontal projection, and extremely well armored hull front.

The question however is with turret, but If my ideas are correct, it would be possible to design hull in such a way that turret would not interfere with driver hatch, allowing him to open it in any turret position. But IMHO this means that vision block should be installed in a hull not hatch. Something like in a Soviet tanks but with a glacis designed such way there would not be that weak zone in vision blocks area.

Something like that perhaps, but this is only primitive drawing representing overall idea, definetly many tweaks to design should be done.



On the other hand I suppose that back then weight limit of around 55 tons should be deleted... yeah, issue in this idea can be weight.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

interesting Update:
Never knew Brits also tried Unmanned turret concept..

Source:
Gur Khan attacks!






Carry on discussion..

So why not use unmanned turrets? Wont it be more efficient and safer?

The Chassis looks like the Vicker Vijayantha?

 

[Damian]

@GK there were several problems encountered back then with unmanned turrets. First situational awareness of tank commander is lower due to placement of his small cupola, he can only see front and partially sides trough his vision blocks. These days this problem can be solved by installing small panoramic view cameras on hull.

Another problem is fire control system, mainly it's optical devices, they can't be anymore simple telescople or periscope types with mechanical connection (vision channel) to gunner and commander sights oculars. What is seen by sights need to be electronicaly (via cable) transferred to sort of monitor or sighting occular, back then it was immposible or very difficult.

And even these days there are problems with this. Victor Murakhovski reported that Russians had problems with very advanced FCS and sighting systems of their Object 195 (T-95) and this was one of reasons to cancell whole program and start a new with "Armata" (Object 198) heavy tracked universal combat platform that will use in it's tank variant many design solutions from Object 195.

If You compare Object 195 with Kharkiv made Object 477/477A You can see that the latter one have less advanced FCS because it does not use a real unmanned turret but a low profile turret with crew placed in turret basket and below turret race ring. Thus everything is simpler.

Americans with their TTB (Tank Test Bed) based on M1 tank hull, also faced problems with FCS and sights, perhaps Germans with their NGP/EGS faced similiar problems.

However all future designs will go with unmanned turrets in my opinion. As You pointed out they have many advantages.

First turrets of modern tanks allready weights nearly 30 tons (if not 30 tons and more allready), by reducing turret to unmanned one with minimum of armor we can probably reduce it's weight to 10 tons, maybe even less, and smaller turret with armor or addon armor can have far more efficent protection.

Saved weight can be used two ways, or for lighter vehicle, so this means we won't use it for more armor for hull, or we can use it for more armor on hull. In fact such vehicle can have protection level higher than any of todays best armored tanks having the same or lower weight.

Also tank hull is preatty low while unmanned turret being smaller, makes vehicle much harder to spot and hit.

And there are many other probabale advantages, like lower price because less material needs to be used for building vehicles when unmmaned turret is smaller. Internal volume can be used much more efficently, etc. etc. etc.

Of course to reduce weight more without reducing armor protection, more compact and lighter engine should be used, as well as torsion bar suspension should be replaced with hydrogas suspension system, that is easier in maintnance and lighter by at leas 1 ton, however currently it can perhaps more than 1 ton.

Armor itself cen be lighter while at leas as strong as today.

For example nano technology can help here. AFAIK during Future Combat Systems program, designers were capable to design very light and thin armor for Manned Ground Vehicle tracked universal combat platform. With it's thickness and low weight, it was capable to protect 20-29 tons vehicle against 45mm APFSDS ammunition over frontal arc, something that many todays 30 tons vehicles can't do, not to mention 20-29 tons heavy vehicles.

This shows how much improved can be armor protection without increasing significantly vehicle weight.

Such composite armor with addon modules of heavy ERA like Knife or Relikt can further improve vehicle protection without increasing it's weight in to absurdal levels.

Unmanned turret design can even allow designers to increase side and rear hull protection. For example today side hull armor of modern tanks is max 80mm thick, due to weight reduction it can be probably increased to something around 100mm without significantly increasing vehicle width when side skirts are not installed. While additional heavier armor can be installed on side skirts or can be designed in form of side skirts.

There are plenty of solutions, in fact what world needs today for such design to emerge is a "catalyst" in form of first such vehicle fielded by some army, for example Russian one, then others not want to be in disadvantage will follow.

 

[militarysta]

I would back to the Leopard-2.

I have a simple answer why germans decide to developed so big mantled gun mask -in end of 70. it was simplest way to..eleminated gun mantled mask weak area - yes I know how it sounds but in that years IMHO it's closer to the truth.

1. Firstly pleas look at gun mantled mask in T-64, T-72, M60 and others. This plase is obvious weak area - in T-72B it can be perforated even by 14,5mm (!). What worse - weak area is not only in mask but area around it - when gun and gun mantled mask is mounted to the turret - so in reality this place is bigger then only gun mantled mask - like here in T-90S:



2. After that we should realise that AT weapons perforation level was mucht lower then today -it's very important.
Russian 115mm APFSDS have:
3БМ4 200mm RHA for 2000m
ЗБМ6 240mm RHA for 2000m
ATGM 9P133 Malutka (HEAT) can achive 400mm RHA
2A28 Grom cal.75mm using in BMP-1 whit PG-15V HEAT round can perforate 280–350mm RHA
btw: manual to the grom - (196?) 73mm 2A28 Grom Gun Manual
used in SPG-9 Kopye granade PG-9V can perforate 300mm RHA
used in RPG-7 PG-7W and PG-7WM have 260 and 300mm RHA, in PG-7WS it was 400mm RHA
So in and of 70. it was mucht less then now -it's, as I said, important to realised this.


3. What we know about gun mantled mask in Leo2A4? 420mm LOS in 0. in 30. it can be even 500mm LOS(!). Its weight is 630kg, and 420mm x 940mm x 520mm. How about armour level?
If we took effectiveness of mass for Leopard-2A4 "special armour" like for British Cobhan (1,3-1,5 more against APFSDS and more than 3 against HEAT warhead then steel block a the same weight) , then the protection provided by gun manted mask whit weight 630kg will be like:
a) 235-272 mm vs APFSDS
b) 542 mm vs HEAT
Of course its pure speculation (armour in gun mantled mask can be totally difrent then in turret front), but gun mantled mask LOS is ~42cm + backplate (about 40mm thick), and it's just a half of turret front (84cm and 74cm for some angle), so is possible that turret front is close to
~470-540mm vs APFSDS
950-1080mm vs HEAT

So in aned of 1970s. and on begining of the 1980s. Leopard-2 gun mantled mask offer very good rotection against infanty AT weapons -I suppose that it can whinstand most of soviet AT infanty weapons based on HEAT warhed. Of course in late 80. situation was diffrent and modern AT weapons haven't problem whit perforated gun mantled mask. But in that years KWS programs was started and finnaly in A5 gun mantled mask was reduced as in M1 or others.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This above is based on one of the best article about Burlinghton special armour written by Paweł Przeździecki here are some parts whit translation in english:


Resumme:

1. till 10 marc 1970 began a collaboration between GB and Germnay about Burlinghton - code name for this was "Buckhorse".
2. till october 1970 German gained access to level 1-4 and for some person to 5-6 about Burlinghton - (rest in article in tables) In May 1972 British handed over Germany, most of the technical information about Burlinghton. In february 1974 Americans (with the consent of the British) share their experiences whit Germans about Burlinghton.
3. In 1976 Germany broke off cooperation. In the opinion of the British it was a deliberate -Germany granted full access to the Burlington, and broke off cooperation without incurring costs.
4. In second half of 1973 Germans developed Leo-2 turret whit multi layers armour, in 1975 Leo-2AV wa done whit second generation multi layer armour.
5.Germany claimed that 2AV armour is ther own solutions, not only copied Burlinghton.


Well - its all about Leo-2. It seems that Germnas have full acess to Burlinghton and it possible that they just copy it, and after that modified.
Of course I don't risk statment that Leo-2 use Cobhan armour, but what is sure - Germans have in fact almoust full access to Cobham technology, and there are two options:
1) Just copied it -as British said (I doubt in that) and Improved this what they have from British and USA - I'm thinking that Burlinghton form circa 1974 was improved in Germany, so it can by slighty diffrent then "orginal" Burlinghton.
2) work on their own solution, but whit knowleges about Burlinghton in background

Apart from that, in my opinnion we can't say that German "special armour" was whorse then Burlinghton - if Germnas have almoust full access to Burlinghton, and they work on their own solution that is (for me) obvious that they choose just better option, whits better protection.

 

[militarysta]

This above is based on one of the best article about Burlinghton special armour written by Paweł Przeździecki:
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl.../PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf

Im think those article (in polish unfortunatly) are the best very erly Burlinghton descripcions avaible in the inernet.

 

[methos]

But this means that Germans on their own didn't belived they can win the competition if they sended something like that. Americans tested what they have and thats it.

The Germans could not sent the armour package at the date when the armour was trialled because they were not (fully?) produced back then.

Wonder why Germans redesigned the hull, it appreas to be much better optimized for thick composite armor than standard hull.

The standard configuration seems to have smaller cavities than the M1/Leopard 2AV (not thinner, but smaller when seen from the front) - weight may be the reason for this decision.

I have some ideas, but in case of Leopard 2 it would mean that driver need to sit in hull center line, not on the right side. Now, th lower front hull can stay as it is is, but the glacis plate on both sides of driver station can have internal cavieties for composite armor inserts. It would be slightly resassemble Challenger 1 and 2 glacis plates however I think that it is possible to avoid creating this distinctive tunel for driver hatch and his vision block/blocks.

I hope You know what I have in mind, this would end with a hull with... virtually no weak zones visible from frontal projection, and extremely well armored hull front.

The question however is with turret, but If my ideas are correct, it would be possible to design hull in such a way that turret would not interfere with driver hatch, allowing him to open it in any turret position. But IMHO this means that vision block should be installed in a hull not hatch. Something like in a Soviet tanks but with a glacis designed such way there would not be that weak zone in vision blocks area.

Something like that perhaps, but this is only primitive drawing representing overall idea, definetly many tweaks to design should be done.

I think that the Leopard 2 and the M1 already have a pretty good protected driver place - it is at least better than that of the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 and the Challenger 1/2. What about the Strv 122/Leopard 2E way? Fitting rather thin composite armour/NERA works pretty fine with the slope. The idea behind the Leopard 2/M1 layout is that due to the slope less composite armour is needed. This still means vulnerability to a lot of indirect attack weapons, but in the end every weapon system has to made of compromises.

The Chassis looks like the Vicker Vijayantha?

The chassis is shorter than the Vijayanta and also not as high.

Americans with their TTB (Tank Test Bed) based on M1 tank hull, also faced problems with FCS and sights, perhaps Germans with their NGP/EGS faced similiar problems.

Germans cut down NGP to IFV variant only, then changed the requirements for the IFV and the final IFV still got an unmanned turret.

 

[militarysta]

T


I think that the Leopard 2 and the M1 already have a pretty good protected driver place - it is at least better than that of the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 and the Challenger 1/2. What about the Strv 122/Leopard 2E way? Fitting rather thin composite armour/NERA works pretty fine with the slope.

I will say more - upper glastic plate and turret roof in M1 and Leo2 was almoust impossible to penerate up to middle 1980s. (~1986).




So slopped and thick turret roof (580mm RHA) and upper glastic plate (~320mm RHA) was impossible to perforate by 3BM22 (1976) and 3BM26 (1983). Espacially for that reson - this APFSDS penetrator are mady by more then tree parts whit tungsten "slug" inside.
They perform very badly against slopped targets - exspecially so slopped ike turret roof...
In my opinnion no better situation was in HEAT warhed thema in ATGM's and RPG's granades - all of them need some the minimum angle of tilt to initiate the detonator in warhead - in very modern PzF-3 it is:

~15. degree. The same in RPG-7, BK-14 etc.
In Leo2 this plate is slopped in less then 7. so it was very very possible that:
a) detonator does not work at so slopped target
b) warhead just slips and hit frontal turret armour (what was the best options)

In late 80. when modern APFSDS became avaible (3Bm42; 3Bm48) this NERA (or even SLERA) pannel on turret and hull was placed.
So now in upper glastick Leo-2 plate we have: 40mm thick NERA(SLERA?) pannel (~320mm thick in that angle) + 320mm RHA plate - all gives about 640mm LOS when half of that is active working NERA.

 

[Damian]

@Methos, Militarysta.

I completely agree that M1 and Leopard 2 have best protected hull front (however French claims that Leclerc front hull also have better protection than drawing we have, needs further investigation). However this does not mean it can't be further improved. Even without armor improvement, I think that shape could be partially improved. I mean that place where hatch is installed could be not angled, 0 degrees, flat. Dunno how clear I made this.

At least there is plenty of things that can be improved.

 

[militarysta]

@Methos, Militarysta.

. I mean that place where hatch is installed could be not angled, 0 degrees, flat. .

It was - even in CCCP (Soviet Union) take a look at Ob.187 hull -the same idea
BTW: in TTB and in EGS wasthe same - flat surface whit hatches.

 

[Damian]

It was - even in CCCP (Soviet Union) take a look at Ob.187 hull -the same idea
BTW: in TTB and in EGS wasthe same - flat surface whit hatches.

Nope, Object 187 with western style hull front have hatch placed at the same angle as rest of glacis plate, same for M1 and Leo2.