Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

60+ tons heavy tanks are not a problem. It is a myth that there will be problems with their mobility. I can asure You with that. Polish Army also had concerns with this when we took Leopard 2's. But as some guys with knowledge on bridges said, if You see a bridge with a sign that heaviest vehicle that go through bridge can be only 50 tons heavy, this is for normal civilian vehicles. Such bridge can in fact hold a much heaviers vehicle, for example 100+ tons heavy.

Heavier tanks also can go snorkel through rivers, it is not a problem of weight but... a problem of long enough snorkler to go through deep enough rivers.

Besides this, NATO have many pontoon bridges, self propelled amphibian platforms or self propelled assault bridges. So there is really no problem with counter offensives.

NATO just choose such design philosophy for their 3rd generation tanks, to have the most universal machines as possible, good in defense and offense. The problem is that from all NATO armies at that time, only Americans used all lesssons learned from Arab-Israeli wars, rest of course started to ignore such aspects as crew survivability, or complete front armor integrity to just install a sight with slightly better thermal camera back then that served only 10 years before it was allready outdated compared to sights not interfering with front armor integrity yet having comparable or better thermal sights.

However it is truth that too big weight is a problem. There are ways to reduce weight, by using hydrogas suspension, reducing crew from 4 to 3 without a need to significantly change vehicle design, or using more advanced, strong enough yet lighter materials.

Good example here are Americans, the officials statements says that the new modernized M1, that probably will be designated M1A3, will be lighter, yet more survivable, with better protection.

Can we expect a slight change in it's design? Perhaps, and perhaps the new M1 will be more or less looks like this:

This is interesting as this prototype was seen transported somewhere year ago, perhaps some of solutions used in it, might be researched for the future M1 modernization. But these are of course only speculations and assumptions.

 

[pmaitra]

This is interesting as this prototype was seen transported somewhere year ago, perhaps some of solutions used in it, might be researched for the future M1 modernization. But these are of course only speculations and assumptions.

CSX Transportation. Probably just a tank returning from Iraq and being offloaded at Morehead City, NC. I see such tanks quite often on trains like that.

 

[Akim]

60+ tons heavy tanks are not a problem. It is a myth that there will be problems with their mobility. I can asure You with that. Polish Army also had concerns with this when we took Leopard 2's. But as some guys with knowledge on bridges said, if You see a bridge with a sign that heaviest vehicle that go through bridge can be only 50 tons heavy, this is for normal civilian vehicles. Such bridge can in fact hold a much heaviers vehicle, for example 100+ tons heavy.

Heavier tanks also can go snorkel through rivers, it is not a problem of weight but... a problem of long enough snorkler to go through deep enough rivers.

Besides this, NATO have many pontoon bridges, self propelled amphibian platforms or self propelled assault bridges. So there is really no problem with counter offensives.

NATO just choose such design philosophy for their 3rd generation tanks, to have the most universal machines as possible, good in defense and offense. The problem is that from all NATO armies at that time, only Americans used all lesssons learned from Arab-Israeli wars, rest of course started to ignore such aspects as crew survivability, or complete front armor integrity to just install a sight with slightly better thermal camera back then that served only 10 years before it was allready outdated compared to sights not interfering with front armor integrity yet having comparable or better thermal sights.

However it is truth that too big weight is a problem. There are ways to reduce weight, by using hydrogas suspension, reducing crew from 4 to 3 without a need to significantly change vehicle design, or using more advanced, strong enough yet lighter materials.

Good example here are Americans, the officials statements says that the new modernized M1, that probably will be designated M1A3, will be lighter, yet more survivable, with better protection.

Can we expect a slight change in it's design? Perhaps, and perhaps the new M1 will be more or less looks like this:


This is interesting as this prototype was seen transported somewhere year ago, perhaps some of solutions used in it, might be researched for the future M1 modernization. But these are of course only speculations and assumptions.

It is a not myth. Western tanks depend on bridges. About a pontoon I wrote already. It is necessary to have complete domination in air, to crush down tactical missiles, MLRS and long-range artillery. And it is simply impossible for today. The Germans were able to enter the maneuver battle, but due to the fact that the U.S. was ефсешс they lost this quality. Our tank crews feared the more collision with tanks FRG than with the American tanks. A West waged war only only torn by civil war, Yugoslavia and that limited by air bombardments. But about tanks.

There is increased security, valuable weight and and lowering of manoeuvrability goes there. In the desert of Iraq is not terrible, especially when you are covered by an assault aviation and helicopters. But in Europe (Ukraine - also Europe) it will be doing is impossible. So correctly Germans acted before, in preference to manoeuvrability of tank in the detriment of his protected. And what tanks are in Poland? Leo-2А4. 55 tons of weight. And that firstly there were problems. And Leo 2A6 and even more so, and even without training. And not compare railway bridges to auto- road .

Naturally I talk about a hypothetical conflict, but we in the military institute of looket as an opponent (not enemy), the best armies of the world. In Western military institutions think also. It does not mean that we will clash in a military conflict, simply we must know strengths and weaknesses of each other. Tank duels now are not present, therefore it is not necessary to compare Tactical Features of separate tank. Now soldier on a battle-field can give aiming to the tank on a purpose. French "Ellen" can act so.

 

[Damian]

CSX Transportation. Probably just a tank returning from Iraq and being offloaded at Morehead City, NC. I see such tanks quite often on trains like that.

Pmaitra, did You even noticed that this is not ordinary M1, but a prototype with new turret and gun?

It is not of course the new M1A3, but because it was recently moved somewhere, there can be suspicion that it might have been used for something.

It is a not myth. Western tanks depend on bridges. About a pontoon I wrote already. It is necessary to have complete domination in air, to crush down tactical missiles, MLRS and long-range artillery. And it is simply impossible for today. The Germans were able to enter the maneuver battle, but due to the fact that the U.S. was ефсешс they lost this quality. Our tank crews feared the more collision with tanks FRG than with the American tanks. A West waged war only only torn by civil war, Yugoslavia and that limited by air bombardments. But about tanks.

Well it is a myth. Hey I'am a citizen of country that use a western tanks. They are not so dependant on bridges as most people think. Not to mention that in reality these heavy MBT's can go through most bridges. It is because bridges have more strengh to hold on such weight than it is on markings placed near them. You think how much weight have a big truck? Some are also weighting 60 tons or more, so how they are able to go through these brigdes? Not to mention that these trucks have bigger pressure on ground than tanks.

There is increased security, valuable weight and and lowering of manoeuvrability goes there. In the desert of Iraq is not terrible, especially when you are covered by an assault aviation and helicopters. But in Europe (Ukraine - also Europe) it will be doing is impossible. So correctly Germans acted before, in preference to manoeuvrability of tank in the detriment of his protected. And what tanks are in Poland? Leo-2А4. 55 tons of weight. And that firstly there were problems. And Leo 2A6 and even more so, and even without training. And not compare railway bridges to auto- road .

You are making another mistake. You think I'am talking about railway brigdes? No I'am talking about road bridges. As I said, in my country, people that have knowledge about bridges, said avarage road brigde for cars, can hold on even 100+ tons. They even were showing some papers. And no, there were no problems with driving our Leopard 2's through bridges. As I said, this is a myth that 55-60+ tons heavy MBT's have problems with mobility in Europe.

 

[Akim]

Well it is a myth. Hey I'am a citizen of country that use a western tanks. They are not so dependant on bridges as most people think. Not to mention that in reality these heavy MBT's can go through most bridges. It is because bridges have more strengh to hold on such weight than it is on markings placed near them. You think how much weight have a big truck? Some are also weighting 60 tons or more, so how they are able to go through these brigdes? Not to mention that these trucks have bigger pressure on ground than tanks.

Not mix up a truck with a tank. It does not mean certainly, that he rode into on a bridge and that collapsed at once. All bridges are created with the 25% margin of safety. And capacity is calculated in regard to long and width. Long-length truck not so is frightful for a bridge, because his pressure on supports not more than at an ordinary truck 8-10 tons. A tank is other case. Certainly he will march through a town. But you again count one machine only. Platoon in 3-4 tanks of require far more time if it Leo- 2, but not Т- 90.

 

[Damian]

That's true that in case of heavier tanks there is need a short delay between tanks crossing bridge, still, NATO countries do not have problems with their heavier tanks, even in european terrain.

 

[Akim]

That's true that in case of heavier tanks there is need a short delay between tanks crossing bridge, still, NATO countries do not have problems with their heavier tanks, even in european terrain.

I will recur once again. Tank weapon of offensive but not defensive and countries NATO do now from him "Drenoud land". The masses are surplus!

 

[Bhadra]

Damain,

Where is thar desrt in Europe?

Is NATO ? Warsaw terrain filled with Canal network. Canals or RCC type obstacle lines one after another which are required to be crossed or negotiated?

Are the areas in Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Russian prone to be inundated and flooded.

NATO terrain has no comparison with India Pakistan terrain.

 

[methos]

2) Ah, so now only German design solution will be the best? Yes we know this, and now maybe You should keep a bit more faith in other nations designing abilities.

The German design solution is very similar with working principles of heavy ERA like Kontakt-5 or Relikt so I wouldn't call it a purely "German design solution". The exact way how these principles work (e.g. thickness, materials, hardness and space) is the purely German design. The incoming projectile is weakened, the fragments have time to spread and therefore the base armour has to absorb less energy.
It is also not the best design depending on what you are looking for. E.g. it is far more heavy than Kontakt-5, but Kontakt-5 is only using two moving plates and is focused on the high-velocity - this way it seems to be easier "defeatable" (i.e. less efficient) when you are using a more ductile alloy.

I don't know why other countries did not field similar design solutions, but I would guess that there are reasons for this. The Challenger 2 for example weighs as much as a Leopard 2A6 while it doesn't have the wedge-shaped applique armour. The armour volume seems to be very similar (which is not true for the M1), which in my opinion implies that it has heavier armour and therefore better "base protection".
Adding ~1.5 tonnes (1 tonne for the frontal two modules, 1/2 for the side modules) was maybe deemed as to contraproductive...

I am not saying that this design is the best... just look at how thick the armour has to be for using such an armour design - nearly twice as thick. Or look at the mass-efficiency - it is below that of Kontakt-5 or Relikt. But if you look at the armour, then it still will have a very high mass-efficiency against both KE and CE... higher than that of NERA layers inside the armour.

1) Yes this is the case, NERA needs more layers to be effective. Wedge armor on Leopard 2 not nececary needs to be very efficent. In such case You will agree that for example BM Oplot with triple layered cumulative ERA "Duplet" is better proteced than Leopard 2?

The amount of armour at every tank is a compromise of weight, thickness and volume. Yes, the wegde-shaped armour of the Leopard 2A5 would be better if there were three or four layers of the same thickness, but this would probably increase weight and thickness too much. But if you would stay with the same mass and instead would use three or four layers (meaning that the layers would get thinner) you would probably not increase the performance (because smaller and thinner layers are less efficient in breaking a projectile). However you should not forget that after these two layers and the empty space a heavy block of composite armour follows.

About the BM Oplot's ERA: Maybe it is better, I don't think that I can make a judgement on it's quality. I believe that it is very weight efficient, but when it comes to protection against KE then there are always some problems I have. E.g. why should they need three layers when according to Harkonnen a single layer will already cut an APFSDS in several pieces?
Just by looking at the elements we see that they use linear shaped charges with a diameter of approx. 5 cm (maybe more maybe less, but less seems to be more probable judging from the images at btvt.narod.ru). These are obviously made of copper. Now when it comes to the penetration of shaped charges into metal, there is the density-law. I.e. the penetration depth is relative to the density of the liner material divded by the density of the material which should be penetrated (in dependance of the muzzle velocity of the HEAT jet). Here WHA and DU (stab-alloyed) are two times as strong as RHA. Then the charges are linear shaped charges (which means more contact surface - less penetration depth) and they have a rather low ammount of explosive. They are ot triggered in the ideal distance and they are use often in sloped configuration (hull at least, where they have to penetrate 270% of the penetrator's diameter) against a high-velocity round (which means that the penetration power is not focused on a single point). This are all reasons speakign against Harkonnen's claims that the ERA will cut the into several pieces - I think it is rather possible that the shaped charges will not cut through APFSDS, but only into it, meaning that it is more prone to breaking... maybe for defeating a single APFSDS several layers are required, maybe a single layer is already enough to cut an APFSDS into half as claimed by Harkonnen.
Maybe 3 layers Duplet are stronger than the Leopard 2 wedge, maybe they are similar strong, maybe they are weaker. I cannot come up with any qualitative judgement without having more information. Maybe a single Duplet layer is as strong as the wedge, maybe two, maybe three or maybe four. I don't have found any research papers regarding this topic, but I know that German and U.S. patents from the Cold War also wanted to use (linear) shaped charges for defeating KE and still noone ever used them until Knife/Duplet came.

2) What makes You think it is HHS? I never seen a source saying it is HHS, it is only assumption, not to mention we do not know hardness of these plates. Assuming that such protection is better than in other comparable MBT's is just biased "German superiority" myth.

I am not assuming that the armour is using HHS; this has been published in a German book and has been claimed by Paul L. on TankNet and in his writings.
I am also not saying that the armour of the Leopard 2 is stronger than that of any other MBT; I just said that this is one of the most mass-effective layouts possible without using explosives in the armour. I don't claim that the Leopard 2 got stronger armour than the Challenger 2 or the Leclerc - for such claims I don't have enough information. But the M1A2 has greater surface, greater internal volume, greater armour volume at the sides and there is still no single source or drawing implying that it has thicker armour than the Leopard 2 - when I measure the cavities on drawings I always get a value between 800 and 880 mm... not 960 mm. Essentially you are saying that the M1A2 has better frontal protection than the Leopard 2A5 while having thinner armour (regardless which value we use, when we include the frontal armour box of the wedge the Leopard 2 has thicker armour) and having very likely less weight located in the frontal armour? I see no "German superiorty myth" but rather some "DU and Chobham are the best armour" myth here.

Can I remind You that Americans and British were working on composite armor much longer than Germans, and have much greater experience to them in this manner. But of course You can belive that Germans all the sudden after WWII were able to quickly gain the same experience.

Is that so? How comes that the Germans fielded laminated and reactive armour before them? I can show you a patent from 1938 which is already about composite armour (but this is not from an official institution), a Swiss patent from the 1920s and a French one from the late 1910s. The Americans and the Germans were on the same technological level during the MBT-70 design... and this was a lower level of technology than the Soviets had.

The last sentence is... amusing, it was not easier to just procure the real 4S22?

I don't know, do you sell Kontakt-5 to someone designing a tank gun and ammunition to counter it? Do you want to wait until the Swiss government approves to buy Kontakt-5? How many pieces do you have to buy at once? I think that the Swiss procurment agency did have reasons to do so,

All these drawings are failed, have improper weld lines, not a good scale etc. The best drawings were in Richard Hunnicutt books but also have intentionally or not, wrongly drawed weld lines to make armor thinner. You need to take these drawings and compare them with photos of real tanks showing correct weld lines positions.

And the drawings of T-90, Leclerc, Challenger 2 etc. are magically correct? And comparing the drawings of the M1 from Hunnicutt's book with images of the real vehicle show that they are pretty accurate.
Also I measured far more than this single drawing.

Do You also count the fact that M1 use lighter engine? Maybe first count weight of each vehicle component, then make conclusions, not otherwise. Not the whole weight is pure armor.

I tried to include these factors, but there are pretty much. The M1 hull has also more volume than that of the Challenger and Leopard 2 and carries more fuel. The problem is that not all facts are now and not all data is public. The Challenger uses a 1,200 hp engine which weighs less than the German MTU engine and is probably comparable to the M1's gas turbine in terms of weight.

The advance in materials technology might be far greater. I do not see a reason why Americans with far superior funding for R&D in every aspect of military, could not have advance much further than the others. Why not? Because they are not Germans?

You may notice that even though they spent more budget on researching they still buy armour from Isreal and Germany for their lighter vehicles.
I am not basing my expectations of the increase in armour protection on brochures from companies, but rather on research papers and files posted on the International Symposium of Ballsitics. If the authors there show that the difference in protection offered by various modified materials is only slightly stronger than that of the original material and that the less protective armour is often the most cost-effective, why should I not believe them? Maybe there was a new break-through in armour design between 1995 and 1999, but it is far more likely that there wasn't any.

Same with Ukrainians, their designers are probably smarter than most of west european designers if they were capable to design such great protection like "Knife" and "Duplet", a completely new quality in AFV's protection solutions.

Duplet and Knife are incredible if the claims of various Ukranian, esp. these of Harkonnen, are correct. However I listed some passages above a number of reasons why I personally doubt the claims made by Harkonnen. I have to less information for real estimations about it's performance.
I think it is reasonable to assume that it has a very high performance against shaped charges and performs at least as good as ERA against them. I also think is pretty obvious that it is very weight-efficient.
But when it comes to the performance against KE there are various reasons why the claimed performance is probably not achieved and there have various factors to be considered, about which I don't have any data... e.g. how good is a linear shaped charge against heavy metal? How good is a shaped charge against a metal rod moving at several times the speed of sound? etc.
It could be that a single layer of Knife and Duplet is as good as Kontakt-5; but it also could be that only two-layers will be as good and a single layer will be slightly inferior - I don't know and I am pretty sure that nobody here does.

 

[Damian]

The German design solution is very similar with working principles of heavy ERA like Kontakt-5 or Relikt so I wouldn't call it a purely "German design solution". The exact way how these principles work (e.g. thickness, materials, hardness and space) is the purely German design. The incoming projectile is weakened, the fragments have time to spread and therefore the base armour has to absorb less energy.
It is also not the best design depending on what you are looking for. E.g. it is far more heavy than Kontakt-5, but Kontakt-5 is only using two moving plates and is focused on the high-velocity - this way it seems to be easier "defeatable" (i.e. less efficient) when you are using a more ductile alloy.

I don't know why other countries did not field similar design solutions, but I would guess that there are reasons for this. The Challenger 2 for example weighs as much as a Leopard 2A6 while it doesn't have the wedge-shaped applique armour. The armour volume seems to be very similar (which is not true for the M1), which in my opinion implies that it has heavier armour and therefore better "base protection".
Adding ~1.5 tonnes (1 tonne for the frontal two modules, 1/2 for the side modules) was maybe deemed as to contraproductive...

I am not saying that this design is the best... just look at how thick the armour has to be for using such an armour design - nearly twice as thick. Or look at the mass-efficiency - it is below that of Kontakt-5 or Relikt. But if you look at the armour, then it still will have a very high mass-efficiency against both KE and CE... higher than that of NERA layers inside the armour.

You are making the most important mistake. You are messuring a wedge addon armor on Leopard 2A5/A6 as a complete armor protection. It should not be messure that way, dynamic protection is not added to the whole thickness of base armor. In such case we are coming to an absurd.

The amount of armour at every tank is a compromise of weight, thickness and volume. Yes, the wegde-shaped armour of the Leopard 2A5 would be better if there were three or four layers of the same thickness, but this would probably increase weight and thickness too much. But if you would stay with the same mass and instead would use three or four layers (meaning that the layers would get thinner) you would probably not increase the performance (because smaller and thinner layers are less efficient in breaking a projectile). However you should not forget that after these two layers and the empty space a heavy block of composite armour follows.

All armors react differently when hit by different projectiles. Addon NERA wedge on Leopard 2 will react differently with shorter, faster moving APFSDS like BM42, and will react differently with longer, slower APFSDS like M829A3 for example. There is nowhere said, as something certain that protection of such type will be efective against all projectile, especially the ones designed to more efficently defeat dynamic protection.

About the BM Oplot's ERA: Maybe it is better, I don't think that I can make a judgement on it's quality. I believe that it is very weight efficient, but when it comes to protection against KE then there are always some problems I have. E.g. why should they need three layers when according to Harkonnen a single layer will already cut an APFSDS in several pieces?
Just by looking at the elements we see that they use linear shaped charges with a diameter of approx. 5 cm (maybe more maybe less, but less seems to be more probable judging from the images at btvt.narod.ru). These are obviously made of copper. Now when it comes to the penetration of shaped charges into metal, there is the density-law. I.e. the penetration depth is relative to the density of the liner material divded by the density of the material which should be penetrated (in dependance of the muzzle velocity of the HEAT jet). Here WHA and DU (stab-alloyed) are two times as strong as RHA. Then the charges are linear shaped charges (which means more contact surface - less penetration depth) and they have a rather low ammount of explosive. They are ot triggered in the ideal distance and they are use often in sloped configuration (hull at least, where they have to penetrate 270% of the penetrator's diameter) against a high-velocity round (which means that the penetration power is not focused on a single point). This are all reasons speakign against Harkonnen's claims that the ERA will cut the into several pieces - I think it is rather possible that the shaped charges will not cut through APFSDS, but only into it, meaning that it is more prone to breaking... maybe for defeating a single APFSDS several layers are required, maybe a single layer is already enough to cut an APFSDS into half as claimed by Harkonnen.
Maybe 3 layers Duplet are stronger than the Leopard 2 wedge, maybe they are similar strong, maybe they are weaker. I cannot come up with any qualitative judgement without having more information. Maybe a single Duplet layer is as strong as the wedge, maybe two, maybe three or maybe four. I don't have found any research papers regarding this topic, but I know that German and U.S. patents from the Cold War also wanted to use (linear) shaped charges for defeating KE and still noone ever used them until Knife/Duplet came.

Partially I agree, it is not perfect solution, yet in my opinion better one and, more perspective in a sense that it can be combined more efficently with other types of protection. For example there is nothing standing against combining a Knife/Duplet module with Kontakt-5 or Relikt under them. This makes interesting possibilities.

I am not assuming that the armour is using HHS; this has been published in a German book and has been claimed by Paul L. on TankNet and in his writings.
I am also not saying that the armour of the Leopard 2 is stronger than that of any other MBT; I just said that this is one of the most mass-effective layouts possible without using explosives in the armour. I don't claim that the Leopard 2 got stronger armour than the Challenger 2 or the Leclerc - for such claims I don't have enough information. But the M1A2 has greater surface, greater internal volume, greater armour volume at the sides and there is still no single source or drawing implying that it has thicker armour than the Leopard 2 - when I measure the cavities on drawings I always get a value between 800 and 880 mm... not 960 mm. Essentially you are saying that the M1A2 has better frontal protection than the Leopard 2A5 while having thinner armour (regardless which value we use, when we include the frontal armour box of the wedge the Leopard 2 has thicker armour) and having very likely less weight located in the frontal armour? I see no "German superiorty myth" but rather some "DU and Chobham are the best armour" myth here.

And You are again making mistakes here. Pure mathematical calculations are not well suited to estimate protection of vehicles without complete data about armor. Same comes about DU. Pure DU might not give advantages over other materials but in the same time DU is not a single element of armor. Key word, is that DU is encased in steel, what steel? It is RHA? SHS? HHS or THS? Or maybe ESR steel? What about other materials that could be used? What about the overall armor design?

Think about these. Besides this, even if M1A1/M1A2 front turret armor is less than ~900+ mm thick, it is still by Your own estimations more than Leopard 2 ~840mm max thick.

Is that so? How comes that the Germans fielded laminated and reactive armour before them? I can show you a patent from 1938 which is already about composite armour (but this is not from an official institution), a Swiss patent from the 1920s and a French one from the late 1910s. The Americans and the Germans were on the same technological level during the MBT-70 design... and this was a lower level of technology than the Soviets had.

What about the practical implementation and tests? Soviets are also claiming that they were first ones to design a composite armor using... grass.

But the fact is fact, the first tank ever, equipped with composite armor, even for ballistic tests only, was M4 Sherman with HCR2 armor package.

I don't know, do you sell Kontakt-5 to someone designing a tank gun and ammunition to counter it? Do you want to wait until the Swiss government approves to buy Kontakt-5? How many pieces do you have to buy at once? I think that the Swiss procurment agency did have reasons to do so,

British and Americans were able to... stole a complete T-80U from Soviets in late 1980's. Later Americans in early 1990's up to XXI century had a real shopping spree on Belarus, Ukraine, even Russia, purchasing whatever was possible.

And the drawings of T-90, Leclerc, Challenger 2 etc. are magically correct? And comparing the drawings of the M1 from Hunnicutt's book with images of the real vehicle show that they are pretty accurate.
Also I measured far more than this single drawing.

Yes they are correct, dunno what is the reason but I allways check weld lines positions first. In all avaiable drawings of M1 series, for some reason, welding lines are in wrong positions compared to the weld lines seen on real vehicles photos.

I tried to include these factors, but there are pretty much. The M1 hull has also more volume than that of the Challenger and Leopard 2 and carries more fuel. The problem is that not all facts are now and not all data is public. The Challenger uses a 1,200 hp engine which weighs less than the German MTU engine and is probably comparable to the M1's gas turbine in terms of weight.

You should also aks Yourself about the armor configuration and density in each cavity. M1 might, and this is rather certain, more densier frontal protection, than turret side protection. Also the extended turret sides protection is a benefit, also in tank vs tank combat. It is far more easier to disable Leopard 2 by attacking bustle and damaging something important like FCS computer or turret travers mechanisms placed in weakly protected turret bustle that is far more exposed, than to do the same with tank that have such things in a very low hull.

You may notice that even though they spent more budget on researching they still buy armour from Isreal and Germany for their lighter vehicles.
I am not basing my expectations of the increase in armour protection on brochures from companies, but rather on research papers and files posted on the International Symposium of Ballsitics. If the authors there show that the difference in protection offered by various modified materials is only slightly stronger than that of the original material and that the less protective armour is often the most cost-effective, why should I not believe them? Maybe there was a new break-through in armour design between 1995 and 1999, but it is far more likely that there wasn't any.

I hope You understand that some things are not shared with us, simple civilians. And knowing that Americans spend more money on military R&D, also vehicles protection, make me certain that they are not worser. Also purchasing a protection for lighter vehicles from other has benefits. Americans are not stupid, by procuring developments of other nations, they find a possible strong and weak points in any avaiable armor design they can use, and thus are reducing own R&D costs and time. This is smart.

Duplet and Knife are incredible if the claims of various Ukranian, esp. these of Harkonnen, are correct. However I listed some passages above a number of reasons why I personally doubt the claims made by Harkonnen. I have to less information for real estimations about it's performance.
I think it is reasonable to assume that it has a very high performance against shaped charges and performs at least as good as ERA against them. I also think is pretty obvious that it is very weight-efficient.
But when it comes to the performance against KE there are various reasons why the claimed performance is probably not achieved and there have various factors to be considered, about which I don't have any data... e.g. how good is a linear shaped charge against heavy metal? How good is a shaped charge against a metal rod moving at several times the speed of sound? etc.
It could be that a single layer of Knife and Duplet is as good as Kontakt-5; but it also could be that only two-layers will be as good and a single layer will be slightly inferior - I don't know and I am pretty sure that nobody here does.

I'am not talking about Harkonnen or BTSKT Microtec claims, but about the fact that Ukrainians were capable to develop such protection despite lower budget than most NATO countries have. It is certain that such protection is effective, definetly more effective than single or double layer of NERA but... Nobody knows how effective it is in reality, it might be claimed 90%, it might be 50% only, but the question is compared to what.

Hope You know what I have in mind.

Damain,

Where is thar desrt in Europe?

Is NATO ? Warsaw terrain filled with Canal network. Canals or RCC type obstacle lines one after another which are required to be crossed or negotiated?

Are the areas in Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Russian prone to be inundated and flooded.

NATO terrain has no comparison with India Pakistan terrain.

I do not know what You have in mind. You ever seen Europe? We have plenty of rivers, many of them very deep. And yet there are no problems with heavier tanks to cross them, on bridges or using snorkels or other equipment using to cross rivers.

 

[Akim]

What about the practical implementation and tests? Soviets are also claiming that they were first ones to design a composite armor using... grass.

But the fact is fact, the first tank ever, equipped with composite armor, even for ballistic tests only, was M4 Sherman with HCR2 armor package.

And when was it to me it is known about practical application Israel of ERA during «first Lebanese war»?

I do not know what You have in mind. You ever seen Europe? We have plenty of rivers, many of them very deep. And yet there are no problems with heavier tanks to cross them, on bridges or using snorkels or other equipment using to cross rivers.

Problems were not, because all forcing of the rivers pass for us on manoeuvres in ideal terms, environmentalists will interfere otherwise.

 

[methos]

You are making the most important mistake. You are messuring a wedge addon armor on Leopard 2A5/A6 as a complete armor protection. It should not be messure that way, dynamic protection is not added to the whole thickness of base armor. In such case we are coming to an absurd.

This is not a mistake and this is not absurd. It is armour and it is containing pretty much steel.
Dynamic protection is not added... so what is with the dynamic layers inside the armour? Do we say "the T-72B has 400 mm steel armour" because the rest of the armour is dynamic? No! Do we say that the dynamic elements in Chobham armour or the side armour of the M1A1HA do no count? No! Just because the armour is mounted further away from the vehicle center and there is empty space between the turret and the armour (which is required for achieving the level of protection) this is does not mean that it is some armour we do not count. ERA is also included in most estimates - Kontakt-1 and Blazer by adding ~30-50 mm RHA to the turret armour (which is essentially the thickness of the steel plates at the angles used for mounting it frontally). The steel content Kontakt-5 is also included as armour in Paul L's values at least.
What you are doing is more or less trying to find a way how to make the Leopard 2 look worse than the M1.

You are essentially saying that if I have two types of armour - one time 100 mm steel and one time 80 mm steel plus 20 mm steel after an empty space - I would have to say "tank a got 100 mm armour, tank b only 80 mm"!

All armors react differently when hit by different projectiles. Addon NERA wedge on Leopard 2 will react differently with shorter, faster moving APFSDS like BM42, and will react differently with longer, slower APFSDS like M829A3 for example. There is nowhere said, as something certain that protection of such type will be efective against all projectile, especially the ones designed to more efficently defeat dynamic protection.

You answer to your own claim already: "All armors react differently when hit by different projectiles" - the same is true for the base armour. Ceramics, titanium, glass, NERA, etc. all these materials offer protection depending on the exact projectile. The wedge-shaped add-on modul will react differently when hit by M829A3 instead of BM42, but the same is true for the base armour. The internal NERA-layers or ceramic layers will also react differently and offer another level of protection. Modern ammunition is designed to work better against reactive armour but also better against composite armour.

And You are again making mistakes here. Pure mathematical calculations are not well suited to estimate protection of vehicles without complete data about armor. Same comes about DU. Pure DU might not give advantages over other materials but in the same time DU is not a single element of armor. Key word, is that DU is encased in steel, what steel? It is RHA? SHS? HHS or THS? Or maybe ESR steel? What about other materials that could be used? What about the overall armor design?

You say "tank a is better than tank b" - I at least try to find reason for justifying such claims. If the armour of both tanks is on a broadly similar level, then the tank with more armour at the front will be better protected, regardless of RHA/SHS/HHS/ESR/DU - if we assume that the armour is similar, then the heavier frontal array will offer more protection. It happens that there are a number of reasons (and I won't name them here a third time) speak against the M1 having more armour protection at the frontal surface.

Think about these. Besides this, even if M1A1/M1A2 front turret armor is less than ~900+ mm thick, it is still by Your own estimations more than Leopard 2 ~840mm max thick.

Yes, 850 - 880 mm vs 840 mm... what a huge difference. And this does not include the outermost armour layers. Also the Leopard 2A5 got spall-liners, which are arguably also some sort of armour.

But the fact is fact, the first tank ever, equipped with composite armor, even for ballistic tests only, was M4 Sherman with HCR2 armor package.

Depends on your definition of ballistic tests and composite armour. If you say that composite armour needs to be made of several materials - then it might be true. If you include spaced armour, laminated armour and specifically shaped armour in the definition of composite armour, then the U.S. were not the first.
If you define ballistic tests as "tests done on real vehicles" - then you are probably true. Otherwise not. HCR2 was not fielded, while the armour packages from the Germans were fielded prior the U.S. had their first composite armoured vehicle in service.

You should also aks Yourself about the armor configuration and density in each cavity. M1 might, and this is rather certain, more densier frontal protection, than turret side protection.

The other tanks might also have more dense frontal armour... this will lead to nowhere. The M1 has more mass at the sides (and a larger frontal profile) - this means that a greater percentage of the total weight is not used for increasing armour thickness.

The welding seams are pretty accurate - on some drawings there is a small difference which can be seen at the gunner's sight - but this is not enough to increase this to 960 mm. On other images however the armour ends where it should end - at the gunner's sight. 960 mm is not reasonable.

 

[pmaitra]

Pmaitra, did You even noticed that this is not ordinary M1, but a prototype with new turret and gun?

Perhaps you are correct, but that could also be a field job on the same old turret. It's all speculation now.

 

[Damian]

This is not a mistake and this is not absurd. It is armour and it is containing pretty much steel.
Dynamic protection is not added... so what is with the dynamic layers inside the armour? Do we say "the T-72B has 400 mm steel armour" because the rest of the armour is dynamic? No! Do we say that the dynamic elements in Chobham armour or the side armour of the M1A1HA do no count? No! Just because the armour is mounted further away from the vehicle center and there is empty space between the turret and the armour (which is required for achieving the level of protection) this is does not mean that it is some armour we do not count. ERA is also included in most estimates - Kontakt-1 and Blazer by adding ~30-50 mm RHA to the turret armour (which is essentially the thickness of the steel plates at the angles used for mounting it frontally). The steel content Kontakt-5 is also included as armour in Paul L's values at least.
What you are doing is more or less trying to find a way how to make the Leopard 2 look worse than the M1.

You are essentially saying that if I have two types of armour - one time 100 mm steel and one time 80 mm steel plus 20 mm steel after an empty space - I would have to say "tank a got 100 mm armour, tank b only 80 mm"!

This is wrong thinking. If we would count a base armor thickness (that can contain build in dynamic protection) + addon dynamic protection thickness as a sum of whole armor thickness then we come to an absurd.

This means that not matter what You will weld to the base armor, You will get better protected vehicle... which is again an absurd.

And I do not need to make Leopard 2 looking worse... it is worse, less perspective design.

You answer to your own claim already: "All armors react differently when hit by different projectiles" - the same is true for the base armour. Ceramics, titanium, glass, NERA, etc. all these materials offer protection depending on the exact projectile. The wedge-shaped add-on modul will react differently when hit by M829A3 instead of BM42, but the same is true for the base armour. The internal NERA-layers or ceramic layers will also react differently and offer another level of protection. Modern ammunition is designed to work better against reactive armour but also better against composite armour.

And this does not mean that Leopard 2 is better protected than M1 or any other MBT.

You say "tank a is better than tank b" - I at least try to find reason for justifying such claims. If the armour of both tanks is on a broadly similar level, then the tank with more armour at the front will be better protected, regardless of RHA/SHS/HHS/ESR/DU - if we assume that the armour is similar, then the heavier frontal array will offer more protection. It happens that there are a number of reasons (and I won't name them here a third time) speak against the M1 having more armour protection at the frontal surface.

And I said many times why Leopard 2 is less protected. it have thinner armor, You can even claim against reality, but this is a fact. If addind some wedge shaped NERA modules would be so great solution I'am certain that British, French and American tanks would also recive it, why not?

I suspect that Your bias towards Leopard 2 comes from fact that You are from country where people use german language.

I would have much different opinion about Leopard 2 if it would have been better designed, without these idotic design solutions like main sight placement, or ammunition in unprotected rack in hull.

I don't know how You, but I respect tank crews, and for someone who is designing such vehicles, one of priority should be, designing vehicle that even in case of armor failure, and perforation, still will be capable to maximize crews chances of survival.

I seen too much photos of dead tank crews members, burned to bones, because someone ignored this aspect. But of course if You wish You can like a tank that is just a deathtrap to it's crew.

Yes, 850 - 880 mm vs 840 mm... what a huge difference. And this does not include the outermost armour layers. Also the Leopard 2A5 got spall-liners, which are arguably also some sort of armour.

It is a huge difference. Spall liners do not stop projectile, only spalling, besides this, spall liners are mostly placed in Leopard 2 to minimize risk of spall hitting unprotected ammunition in hull.

Depends on your definition of ballistic tests and composite armour. If you say that composite armour needs to be made of several materials - then it might be true. If you include spaced armour, laminated armour and specifically shaped armour in the definition of composite armour, then the U.S. were not the first.
If you define ballistic tests as "tests done on real vehicles" - then you are probably true. Otherwise not. HCR2 was not fielded, while the armour packages from the Germans were fielded prior the U.S. had their first composite armoured vehicle in service.

Oh, so now You claim that Germans had composite armor (the real ones made from different materials, not spaced armor or something like that, the difference is very well described, what is and what is not composite armor) on some of vehicles earlier than Americans. Well show me these vehixles with real composite armor in 1940's!

The other tanks might also have more dense frontal armour... this will lead to nowhere. The M1 has more mass at the sides (and a larger frontal profile) - this means that a greater percentage of the total weight is not used for increasing armour thickness.

The welding seams are pretty accurate - on some drawings there is a small difference which can be seen at the gunner's sight - but this is not enough to increase this to 960 mm. On other images however the armour ends where it should end - at the gunner's sight. 960 mm is not reasonable.

1) But You are also ignoring completely the dynamic working mechanism of M1's armor. In case of dynamic protection density is not that important, besides this, proper levels of density might be achieved by using DU encased in some sort of steel. Do You know how many and how thick DU plates are placed there, and in what steel is used as DU encasement? No, neither do I, but claiming that Leopard 2 is definetly better protected is just biased, and very unfair, because it is based on that myth of german superiority. But in fact Germans were never superior. When we compare frontal protection of PzKpfw VI Ausf E and M26, we can see that much lighter ~40 tons heavy M26 have comparable, or even better frontal protection than ~56 tons heavy german tank, so where is this superiority? Same goes for Soviets, ~40 tons heavy IS-2 and IS-3 series were far better protected than Tiger or Panther, while being lighter and smaller.

So I do not see a reason why all the sudden Germans create a super tank, better than anything else... again because it's German?

2)



This is properly marked armor.

 

[Damian]

Perhaps you are correct, but that could also be a field job on the same old turret. It's all speculation now.

It's not a speculation. it was confirmed by guys from US that this is one of several CATTB/ATAC prototypes.

Besides this, where You see a field job, when there is completely new turret, just placed on M1A1 hull.

 

[Damian]

BTW, additional photo to improve understanding where armor starts and where ends inside.

 

[methos]

And I do not need to make Leopard 2 looking worse... it is worse, less perspective design.

I actually should stop discussing this topic with you, because you already have made your decision pior this started, but I think I will contribute to it with this last post.

And this does not mean that Leopard 2 is better protected than M1 or any other MBT.

Yes, this does not mean that the Leopard 2 is better protected. However the Leopard 2 has a smaller frontal profile under full armour and less side armour and less volume, while it weighs about the same at as M1A2 SEP turret.
I do not say that it is necessarily better protected than any other tank, but that the M1 does have a turret design which means that less protection is located at the front. The SEP is 4 years newer than the Leopard 2A5, so maybe it features newer armour - but this would not be enough to end up with a higher protection level than the Leopard 2A5 - at least unless there happened a magical breakthrough in armour material design (for which no proofs exist).

And I said many times why Leopard 2 is less protected. it have thinner armor, You can even claim against reality, but this is a fact. If addind some wedge shaped NERA modules would be so great solution I'am certain that British, French and American tanks would also recive it, why not?

You can continue saying that the M1 Abrams has thicker armour, but this is not a fact, it has not been proven. In the end all proofs that the armour is thinner than claimed by you are based on estimates and measurements from other people are ignored by you. You can posts this here thousand times - as long as you do not provide any source I won't believe you. But let's ignore that.
Just let us assume that you would be right and the M1 Abrams has thicker armour - it still does not have more armour weight. This would mean that the armour is less dense, which implies that it uses less thick components or less dense compenents (and this also would be a contradiction to the DU claims).
Is is possible to have with lighter armour of greater thickness the same or even a slightly higher degree of effectiveness, but this is not necessary - it also could be worse.

As for the useage of heavy NERA: The Russians and Chinese use heavy ERA. This will essentially offer similar performance at a lower weight. When you would put Kontakt-5 on a M1 tank then it would be better protected than a M1 without Kontakt-5, right?

As direct answer to the sentence "If addind some wedge shaped NERA modules would be so great solution I'am certain that British, French and American tanks would also recive it, why not?[/":
We also know that Kontakt-5 is a very good armour, which was capable to degrade the efficiency of all contemporary tanks by such a degree, that Soviet vehicles were practically immune to NATO ammunition, but no NATO country adopted Kontakt-5. This is exactly the same.

I suspect that Your bias towards Leopard 2 comes from fact that You are from country where people use german language.

Sure, I am biased because I won't believe that the M1A2 has 960 mm thick armour without any proof. I am biased because I don't see how the M1A2 can has better armour than the Leopard 2, while having a larger armour volume not located at the front and a larger frontal profile. I am biased because I know how effective spaced NERA and heavy NERA is based on research papers... definetly true.

I would have much different opinion about Leopard 2 if it would have been better designed, without these idotic design solutions like main sight placement, or ammunition in unprotected rack in hull.

Several tank designers follow the same idiotic way and noone copies the M1. But they as tank designers and studied engineers have no clue about designing vehicles...

It is a huge difference. Spall liners do not stop projectile, only spalling, besides this, spall liners are mostly placed in Leopard 2 to minimize risk of spall hitting unprotected ammunition in hull.

It is a difference of 10 to 40 mm, just for the case that you didn't notice. This hufe difference is equal to 1 - 5%. This is not the numbers which I would call huge difference.
I recommend you to check the exact location of the spall-liners and the location of the ammunition. Essentially they wouldn't have to install spall-liners at the turret, because of the cone-shaped form in which the splinters/spall spreads itself after a penetration.

Oh, so now You claim that Germans had composite armor (the real ones made from different materials, not spaced armor or something like that, the difference is very well described, what is and what is not composite armor) on some of vehicles earlier than Americans. Well show me these vehixles with real composite armor in 1940's!

I am not talking about the Germans only, but also about countries like France, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland and Russia. But there are files (patents,reports) and there are examples of test-firings on non-homogenous/composite armour prior the Sherman HCR was made. I'd bet that there were other archaic types of composite armour in the U.S. too prior the HCR panels were made.

1) But You are also ignoring completely the dynamic working mechanism of M1's armor. In case of dynamic protection density is not that important, besides this, proper levels of density might be achieved by using DU encased in some sort of steel. Do You know how many and how thick DU plates are placed there, and in what steel is used as DU encasement? No, neither do I, but claiming that Leopard 2 is definetly better protected is just biased, and very unfair, because it is based on that myth of german superiority.

This is just plain wrong. If you space dynamic layers (e.g. NERA-sandwiches) further away then there is more room to work with and you increase the rubber/elastomere content then the armour will offer more protection against HEAT (weightwise!) - but only against HEAT. For defeating KE ammunition however the fact that the steel plates bulge more will not matter much... here thicker layers (or more layers per space) are better. The Soviets used a pretty tricky approach on the T-72B, were they used a combination of thick steel plates and thin aluminium layers - but the layout of this armour was not very good.

I don't know how many DU is inside there and how it is placed. However we can roughly estimate the thickness of a weightwize equivalent steel block - at least this has been done by others. If the DU alloy is a stab-alloy (like the U.S. ammunition), then a DU plate will weigh as much as a ~2.4 times thicker steel plate. Likewise if it is an alloy with less than 20% non-Du-components, than the weight of a DU plate will be the same as a ~2.1 times thicker steel plate. Judging by the estimates from other people there is not very much DU in the front.

I don't know which steel types are used in the U.S: armour, but we don't know the same for the German armour. We don't know how the armour looks like, but we also don't know how the German armour looks like. Maybe the U.S. armour is stronger per weight, maybe not - but there is less weight and this way less density - which reduces the possibilty that it is stronger per thickness (even better armour per weight will then have problems of getting better when there is simply less weight). You can make the U.S. armour better simply by assuming that they use stronger components and magical DU-alloys. But if we believe that both countries have a similar level of armour technology at the same time, then the M1A2 will not have better armour.

Weight is relevant. One example:
What is better a 560 mm thick armour or a 400 mm thick armour that weighs more? If the 560 mm armour is 80 mm RHA, 105 mm STEF and 20 mm RHA at 68.5° (T-64 and T-72 hull armour) and the 400 mm thick armour is RHA (Chieftain e.g.), then the thinner armour is better.

You may re-read what I wrote, I never claimed that the Leopard 2A5 is definetly better protected. I wrote that the fact that the armour of the M1A2 SEP is newer, it is not necessarily better protected. Maybe the armour inserts are more effective per weight, but the weight is not the same as that of the Leopard 2A5.

This is properly marked armor.

Assuming that this image is for scale it still won't be enough for 960 mm armour thickness. If the image is not for scale (what would be necessary for this being 960 mm), then we cannot use this image for measuring armour thickness... which means that your other values are wrong. Maybe militarysta, who according to you made this estimations, can post how he came to the value. But this turns out to be less than 960 mm.

Your drawing also shows that the cavity "overlaps" the corner of the gunner's main sight. However the images from the overhauling you also posted show that this is not true, this image here also shows that it ends slightly prior the corner of the gunner's sight - the backplate would then be ~2 x as thick as the Leopard 2 backplate.

Edit: Don't waste your time on defencetalk, there people which are not serving are worth nothing. I asked Swiss people (incl. militaries), I searched through books and the intnernet and no source say that one of the two Pz-87WE prototypes left Switzerland. But a former military says "you have no clue about this" and then all people there believe him.

Don't waste your time for repplying, until you won't provide sources there won't be much responce from me.

 

[Damian]

I actually should stop discussing this topic with you, because you already have made your decision pior this started, but I think I will contribute to it with this last post.

I can say the same.

Yes, this does not mean that the Leopard 2 is better protected. However the Leopard 2 has a smaller frontal profile under full armour and less side armour and less volume, while it weighs about the same at as M1A2 SEP turret.
I do not say that it is necessarily better protected than any other tank, but that the M1 does have a turret design which means that less protection is located at the front. The SEP is 4 years newer than the Leopard 2A5, so maybe it features newer armour - but this would not be enough to end up with a higher protection level than the Leopard 2A5 - at least unless there happened a magical breakthrough in armour material design (for which no proofs exist).

Again You are making wrong assumption. How do You know where the most of turret weight is concentrated? You know such data? No, pure turret design is not enough to say what have better protection... in such situation the best protected tanks should be BM Oplot, T-90MS, Arjun or K2 or some Chinese tanks.

But the important factors are materials and internal armor design. I completely not understand why all the sudden Germans must have something better? While other nations were far more innovative, and spend much more time and money on R&D work.

You can continue saying that the M1 Abrams has thicker armour, but this is not a fact, it has not been proven. In the end all proofs that the armour is thinner than claimed by you are based on estimates and measurements from other people are ignored by you. You can posts this here thousand times - as long as you do not provide any source I won't believe you. But let's ignore that.
Just let us assume that you would be right and the M1 Abrams has thicker armour - it still does not have more armour weight. This would mean that the armour is less dense, which implies that it uses less thick components or less dense compenents (and this also would be a contradiction to the DU claims).
Is is possible to have with lighter armour of greater thickness the same or even a slightly higher degree of effectiveness, but this is not necessary - it also could be worse.

As for the useage of heavy NERA: The Russians and Chinese use heavy ERA. This will essentially offer similar performance at a lower weight. When you would put Kontakt-5 on a M1 tank then it would be better protected than a M1 without Kontakt-5, right?

As direct answer to the sentence "If addind some wedge shaped NERA modules would be so great solution I'am certain that British, French and American tanks would also recive it, why not?[/":
We also know that Kontakt-5 is a very good armour, which was capable to degrade the efficiency of all contemporary tanks by such a degree, that Soviet vehicles were practically immune to NATO ammunition, but no NATO country adopted Kontakt-5. This is exactly the same.

So You see, M1 can have better protection. It was actually confirmed by British tests, when British were very disapointed with Leopard 2 frontal protection, and the initial replacement for Chieftain and Challenger 1 was M1A1/M1A2, it was better protected from British point of view. Why we should not belive them? In the end they did not accepted M1 series and continued with Challenger 2, so British don't have any agenda behind these claims.

Sure, I am biased because I won't believe that the M1A2 has 960 mm thick armour without any proof. I am biased because I don't see how the M1A2 can has better armour than the Leopard 2, while having a larger armour volume not located at the front and a larger frontal profile. I am biased because I know how effective spaced NERA and heavy NERA is based on research papers... definetly true.

No, because You ignore, such facts like British opinion on Leopard 2. It is typical for Leopard 2 lovers... US claims that Leopard 2 did not meet their protection standards, of course false, British says that Leopard 2 was inferior... of course false. Even Swedes said that M1A2 was initially their preffered choice due to it's armor protection... of course Leopard 2 lovers will say it is false. I wonder why.

Several tank designers follow the same idiotic way and noone copies the M1. But they as tank designers and studied engineers have no clue about designing vehicles...

I'am not responsible for wrong decisions. Not to mention, actually what tank designers, besides Indians, choose such main sight placement?

K2 have sight placed just like in M1, Type 90 and Type 10 also, Merkava Mk4 have also sight placed in the same scheme, Turkish Altay also have such placed sight like on M1 from what we can see on graphics publiced by Turkish goverment.

So besides Arjun, Leopard 2 and Leclerc, nobody places sights this way.

This is just plain wrong. If you space dynamic layers (e.g. NERA-sandwiches) further away then there is more room to work with and you increase the rubber/elastomere content then the armour will offer more protection against HEAT - but only against HEAT. For defeating KE ammunition however the fact that the steel plates bulge more will not matter much... here thicker layers (or more layers per space) are better. The Soviets used a pretty tricky approach on the T-72B, were they used a combination of thick steel plates and thin aluminium layers - but the layout of this armour was not very good.

Side armor of the M1 sugest that Americans also preffer more plates of avarage thickness in a more dense design.

I don't know how many DU is inside there and how it is placed. However we can roughly estimate the thickness of a weightwize equivalent steel block - at least this has been done by others. If the DU alloy is a stab-alloy (like the U.S. ammunition), then a DU plate will weigh as much as a ~2.4 times thicker steel plate. Likewise if it is an alloy with less than 20% non-Du-components, than the weight of a DU plate will be the same as a ~2.1 times thicker steel plate. Judging by the estimates from other people there is not very much DU in the front.

I don't know which steel types are used in the U.S: armour, but we don't know the same for the German armour. We don't know how the armour looks like, but we also don't know how the German armour looks like. Maybe the U.S. armour is stronger per weight, maybe not - but there is less weight and this way less density - which reduces the possibilty that it is stronger per thickness (even better armour per weight will then have problems of getting better when there is simply less weight). You can make the U.S. armour better simply by assuming that they use stronger components and magical DU-alloys. But if we believe that both countries have a similar level of armour technology at the same time, then the M1A2 will not have better armour.

Weight is relevant. One example:
What is better a 560 mm thick armour or a 400 mm thick armour that weighs more? If the 560 mm armour is 80 mm RHA, 105 mm STEF and 20 mm RHA at 68.5° (T-64 and T-72 hull armour) and the 400 mm thick armour is RHA (Chieftain e.g.), then the thinner armour is better.

You may re-read what I wrote, I never claimed that the Leopard 2A5 is definetly better protected. I wrote that the fact that the armour of the M1A2 SEP is newer, it is not necessarily better protected. Maybe the armour inserts are more effective per weight, but the weight is not the same as that of the Leopard 2A5.

You are making too many assumptions based on uncomplete data. As for know at least two, independent sources claimed that M1/M1A1 was better protected than Leopard 2A1-A4, I do not see a reason why M1A2SEP also should not be better protected, or at least on par if You can't accept these two independent sources claims of it's inferiority.

Oh and this comparrision between Chieftain and T-64... very amusing.

Assuming that this image is for scale it still won't be enough for 960 mm armour thickness. If the image is not for scale (what would be necessary for this being 960 mm), then we cannot use this image for measuring armour thickness... which means that your other values are wrong. Maybe militarysta, who according to you made this estimations, can post how he came to the value. But this turns out to be less than 960 mm.

Your drawing also shows that the cavity "overlaps" the corner of the gunner's main sight. However the images from the overhauling you also posted show that this is not true, this image here also shows that it ends slightly prior the corner of the gunner's sight - the backplate would then be ~2 x as thick as the Leopard 2 backplate.

It starts to remind me Harkonnen. When he saw Militarysta estimations about Leopard 2 it was "no, it can't be truth", then there were photos of messuring real tank.

As for drawing, it is not perfect, I do not have good enough drawing skill to make it as it is in reality, especially in placec where armor have more... complex design. But being simplified, it is still good enough.

Now take a Leopard 2 drawing, mark armor placement, and try to compare. M1 will have thicker armor.

 

[methos]

I know how much weight is probably located at the front because of estimations, weight of diverese components and the volume (internal, external).

Damian, let's try to see it from my perspective:
- You claim that the M1 is having thicker armour, but my measurments (and these are not based on the drawings from Hunnicutt only and I already did measure the armour not to the weld line, but just to the edge of the gunner's sight) show otherwise. The measurements and estimation of other people say otherwise. And you have no source for your statement and actualy no point supporting except "it is a fact"
- You openly admit that you are against the Leopard 2 per se
- You say that thicker armour is necessarily a indicator for more protection, but even if the armour of the M1 is thicker then it still would weigh less - e.g. you are saying that the U.S. armour is more weight-effective and at least as thickness effective as the armour of the German tank
- You say that we cannot estimate the level of the protection of the M1, because we don't know how the armour is designed and what alloys are used - but the same is true for the Leopard 2
- You say that the frontal armour module of the Leopard 2A5 does not matter, because it is a reactive design. At the same time you claim that the M1 does use dynamic (reactive) armour elements inside the armour
- You claimed my weight values for the M1A2 SEP would be wrong, but they came from your source, which is btw. the producer
- You continously claim that the German design has "no future" and is flawed and idiotic, but tank designers around the globe make similar designs and reality has shown that the Leopard 2 design has still pretty much future
- You continously say that I would claim that the German armour is superior because it is German. However I never wrote that... instead I assumed that both countries have the same level of technology at the same point of time
- I have various sources supporting my claims, but you haven't provided any

But the important factors are materials and internal armor design. I completely not understand why all the sudden Germans must have something better? While other nations were far more innovative, and spend much more time and money on R&D work.

Where the ---- did I say that German armour inserts are better? Nowhere. I said that that they are heavier which means that if they have the same weight-efficiency as the U.S. inserts (i.e. both countries are on the same level of technology) the German armour will be offer more protection (but the same protection per weight). If the M1A2 (SEP) would have the same level of frontal protection than the Leopard 2A5, then the armour of it would be significantly more weight-efficient - this claims can only be true if the U.S. armour is on a higher technological level!

So You see, M1 can have better protection. It was actually confirmed by British tests, when British were very disapointed with Leopard 2 frontal protection, and the initial replacement for Chieftain and Challenger 1 was M1A1/M1A2, it was better protected from British point of view. Why we should not belive them? In the end they did not accepted M1 series and continued with Challenger 2, so British don't have any agenda behind these claims.

You are aware that they didn't make test-firings? You are aware that they criticized the layout (integration) and this only on the Leopard 2A4?

You are making too many assumptions based on uncomplete data. As for know at least two, independent sources claimed that M1/M1A1 was better protected than Leopard 2A1-A4, I do not see a reason why M1A2SEP also should not be better protected, or at least on par if You can't accept these two independent sources claims of it's inferiority.

No independent source claims this. Name me some... the Osprey Challenger 2 title does not mention the protection level, but the integrity. And what is the second?

It starts to remind me Harkonnen. When he saw Militarysta estimations about Leopard 2 it was "no, it can't be truth", then there were photos of messuring real tank.

You can compare me with Harkonnen if you want, but I can do the same. He once came up with a measurement (65 cm) and didn't want to change it - you are doing the same. You came up with a value (and you didn't even measure this by yourself according to you) and you are not willing to accept the fact that neither your drawings nor the drawings from other sources do contain these thickness value.

Now take a Leopard 2 drawing, mark armor placement, and try to compare. M1 will have thicker armor.

I'll do that.

 

[methos]

If the image in Hunnicutt's book is for scale and your lines are correct (I actually would move the lines a little away from the gunner's sight), then the turret armour thickness is at one side thinner to equal and at the other equal to thicker.