I measured your drawing. Your drawing include your idea of where the armour ends - I think it does end a little bit (maybe 2-3 px) earlier in front of the gunner's main sight. Then the armour would be about the same as on the Leopard 2 - but it would not be thicker. According to your drawing it is still thinner than that of the Leopard 2A5 with wedge.
However the images seems to be not for scale, or do you have any reason to assume that the armour at one side of the turret is significantly thicker than at the other side?
Leopard 2A5 have same thickness as Leopard 2A4. Stop adding the space occupied by wedge addon armor. It is allmost empty inside... unless of course for You, air should also be messured.
As for thickness, this is not my assumption, it is based on photographs of a real vehicle. Of course You can argue with reality, but this is not standing against what I said.
The armour weighs less - which would mean that there are more materials with low density inside or that there are less inserts. If you want the armour to be as strong as that of the Leopard 2, then it has to be more efficient per weight. You have to assume that the armour of the M1 is offering more protection per weight - something which seems unreasonable.
How do You know that armor weight less? You did weight messurements yourself? How do You know that Americans just use lighter other components. It was reported that Americans for example simplified the gun, changed the whole breach assembly, recoil system, that can be lighter. Also note that turret of M1 have only armor and ammunition + armament, not for example FCS components or turret traverse components that in M1 are placed in hull.
And of course it is unreasonable for Americans to be more advanced than germans because they are not Germans? I would say something about this... ah, not matters.
There is not much difference. The place where it is mounted and the efficiency, but not the used materials. It is essentially the same as inbuilt armour, but it cannot be located within the armour because of it's working mechanism.
There is significant difference, in design, working mechanism etc. What if Leopard 2 base composite armor do not have reactive elements? This is only assumption, but resonable. You assume that everyone allaround are inferior to Germans, I can assume the same for Germans.
You did not only citicize the sights placement, but also the fact how the armour is stored - which is essential the same way of storage than in any other tank except the M1.
Of course I criticize that. Ammunition storage in Leopard 2 and most tanks is not safe. Some time ago Russians had an accident where the whole crew during simple training died because of unisolated ammunition storage. Same can happen in any other tank, failure of electricity system, a sparks that can reach ammunition, and You can say bye bye for that poor crew. I do not accept such risk.
Puma turret and subsystem occupy less space inside than the turret of the Marder or the Ulan... so much to the "wasted space". There is no basket inside...
If you look at the armour protection and the engine, the suspension and transmission, the sights and the APS, then the Puma has very much advantages when compared to other vehicles - at the cost of more weight and less dismounts.
I do not say that the "flawd German tank" - or the Leopard 2 - is the best tank. I do not claim that it is better than all tanks, I just claim that it is a having more armour thickness and more armour mass at the front of the turret when compared to the M1A2.
SPz Puma have wasted space inside hull. Did You ever seen how much space is wasted there... space that could be used for two more dismounts. But of course we can assume that army that barely fights in any real war should be seen as a subject of worship.
And yes, You are indicating (not directly) that Leopard 2 is better, which is not true, Leopard 2 is a flawed design, s shame for the wester school of tank designing.
This is one point in which the F-16 is better, but when it comes to other points the EF-2000 outperforms many other aircraft. But we are not talking about the EF, we are talking about the M1 and the mighty American R&D, who still bought British armour and a German gun.
Maybe the U.S. are on a higher technological level, but there is no proof for this. They buy still armour for their medium weight vehicles from other countries and the main argument from most people speaking of the M1's heavy armour is DU... form which we don't know that it is better than other armour (at least for the rather small amounts of known alloys).
Maybe the Germans have a higher technological level - I don't know and I won't claim that without any proofs. But if they both are on the same level the Leopard 2A5 front is the better.
You seems to not get the point, or not understand the reality even.
Americans choose to use some of foreing weapon system, althout significantly altered in design, to reduce costs and time to design and procure specific wepon system or component, this is smart approach. They bought British armor and in the same time altered it, we do not even know how and what they changed. Same goes for German gun, that was improved and simplified. So they still have the very same gun, yet cheaper, simpler.
This is the point, Americans purchasing foreing stuff, with their own big R&D system and funding, can much improve this.
But I know that You as eurofile, will defend anything that EU, especially Germany, design and fields. Me as a European that know the reality, I'am against the overcomplicated, overexpensive and mostly outdated or badly designed european products. And there are plenty of examples that these products have better analogs in USA, Russia, Ukraine or even Asia.
I doubt that they opened the turret and looked into the armour - it is possible but the tank was returned to Germany after trials. They would have known this... I don't think that they were allowed to do so.
And who cares what Germans say? Here in Poland our guys just cut off and opened composite armor cavity, You think they give a damn what some Germans will say about this? You think that Britis and Americans would give a damn about Germans? I would say screw them, they can cry as load as they can, they mean nothing.
Do you think that the Greeks did open up the armour boxes and looked inside? Then they would know the armour of nearly every modern MBT.
And why not, what do You know about trails? There were rumors that Americans during Swedish trails, had agreement with Swedes to open armor cavieties on T-80U. You think that someone give a damn about what Russians will say in 1990's?
The Americans did not test the German armour during the joint evaluation and both Zaloga and Hunnicutt have a very spongy way of saying that the armour would be better. Hunnicat said "somewhat inferior" which implies that he didn't have many data about that and Zaloga's statement is very similar.
Both are close to TACOM, and they used TACOM archieves, it might be that there is agreement between US and German goverment that some informations will not be avaiable for public use. Such things happen, Militarysta is best example here.
Yes, the image is probably not for scale. It would not help measuring it.
Well it's Your problem. I provided photos, that prooves that armor is very thick, most probably thicker than in Leopard 2 (and I'am certain to that to be honest). You can not agree. But as I seen, many people agree that Leopard 2 armor is thinner.
