Leopard 2 turret armor values

[lavictoireestlavie]

Turret Armor KE Rha values for the Leopard 2E and Challenger 2 seems to be rather high. The M1A2 seems to have rather weak turret armor in comparison.

I thought the DU inserts should give the M1A2 SEP a definite KE edge over the Leopard 2 series of tanks. Can anybody explain this to me ?

[dejawolf]

leopard 2A5 front turret has a steeply angled hollow wedge designed to angle and break a sabot round before it hits the main armour. even a fairly minor angle induced on the penetrator will drastically reduce the

L/D ratio and therefore the penetration of the round.

also, the front turret max LOS thickness is about 1713mm.

the challenger turret armour, has the steepest angle on the front turret of any tank,

its angled backwards 52 degrees, and sideways 27 degrees, giving it nearly 1150mm of LOS thickness to work with.

for comparison, the M1A2 front turret LOS thickness is about 710mm at its thickest.

the M1A2 armour pretty much has the highest thickness efficiency of all these tanks,

getting 950mm out 710mm vs KE.

second place is challenger 2, with 1250mm out of 1150mm

and third place leopard 2 with 1380mm out of over 1700mm of armour.

Edited October 7, 2013 by dejawolf

[Volcano]

Can anybody explain this to me ?

Yes, in a nut shell: wedge and/or steep angle vs. non-wedge and/or shallow angle.

[Damian90]

the M1A2 front turret LOS thickness is about 710mm at its thickest.

Extremely underestimated. From a person that had opportunity to messure it, M1A2's front turret armor is ~850-900mm thick, compared to ~800-850mm thick of Leopard 2.

[DarkLabor]

A guy mesuring stuff with a two-inch-precision surely nailed it...

... or that's just guesstimations.

Would be better to see empirical evidences.

[Damian90]

Unfortunetaly no photos, I have only photos of Leopard 2A4 turret meassured, source is same as infos of M1A1/A2 turret thickness.

BTW If I am not wrong, weld lines on M1 models in SB, are too much to the front, not how they are on real thing, which might cause wrong estimations.

[dejawolf]

hmmh, the LOS thickness i put in could be wrong, but the M1A2 SEP armour figures was based on paul Lakowskis figures, and not estimated from the thickness of the armour.

[Damian90]

I am not sure if Paul's estimations were all proper, some of them are considered as wrong these days.

I also made some research on this subject, Dejawolf, you remember STGN? He made a very accurate 3d model of M1A1, to the scale, and his meassures of front armor were also around 900mm. As we know, M1A1's turret is same as M1A2's.

BTW here are some good photos:

Interior:

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6249/turret10.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2579/wieam1a1m1a22.jpg

Exterior:

http://merrillaviation.com/images/uploads/SCWS.png

SB model:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=16759&g2_serialNumber=1

You can see that on the model, weld lines are too far to the turret front edges, while on real thing armor ends just at GPS and CITV "chimneys".

BTW, CITV hole is smaller, than it's base visible from the outside.

Sorry for lack of photos, I lost whole my archieve due to HDD malfunction few weeks ago.

[Volcano]

Well the issue is not with the physical thickness in the first place, the issue is that IF Paul's values are so dated that they are now wrong, then newer estimates are needed. But until he makes newer estimates there is no reason to panic or assume an error.

[Damian90]

Well, Paul's estimations on physical thickness seems to be wrong. Good example is Leopard 2A1/A4.

In his "Armor Basics", Paul writes that "The turret thickness ranges from 1000mm near the corners and 1300mm inthe middle 700mm along the mantlet"

Source: http://pl.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics

While in reality, thickness at 0 degrees from turret longitudinal axis is same all over the place, it is ~800mm.

This rather shows something is not right.

[Volcano]

Ok, that very well could be true, or maybe he made a typo, or perhaps it is more complicated than he wanted to explain. Either way, you should probably take that information to the source.

[Companion]

For leo2A5/6, Chally2, M1A2, is there any ammo currently modeled that can pen that turret front anyway?

In eve online terms, they are "overtanked"

Jokes aside, is Mr. Lakowski likely to work on new set of estimations?

[Volcano]

For leo2A5/6, Chally2, M1A2, is there any ammo currently modeled that can pen that turret front anyway?

Right, the answer is no (in normal circumstances at least). An example of an abnormal circumstance would be the M1A2 sitting at just the right downward angle to make a very close range impact @ 90 degrees by ideal KE ammo, and that would likely result in a penetration through turret front. So normally if any of these tanks were increased by 50mm or 1000mm thicker in the front then it wouldn't make much difference until a further advancement in KE ammunition, I guess.

Jokes aside, is Mr. Lakowski likely to work on new set of estimations?

Anything is possible, but as for how likely? Who knows. Edited October 8, 2013 by Volcano
typos

[Hedgehog]

For leo2A5/6, Chally2, M1A2, is there any ammo currently modeled that can pen that turret front anyway?

In Steel beasts terms, no.

Highest performing KE round is DM-53 from the L55 with a "Estimation" of 970 mm RHAe at 0 meters.

(So M1A2 is just about possible.)

(I lose more CR2s to hull hits than anything else. If your dancing with anything made later than the mid 80s, you need to very careful with the placing of your tank.)

[Tacbat]

Are there frontal armour diagrams for the Strv-122 and Leo 2A5 series?

[dejawolf]

Are there frontal armour diagrams for the Strv-122 and Leo 2A5 series?

strv 122 and leo 2a5DK are identical to the 2E.

german leopard 2A5, turret is identical to 2E, hull is identical to 2A4.

[Tjay]

WARNING - NOOB QUESTION COMING.

I see discussion of slope angles. I thought these were irrelevant these days as KE rounds always 'turned' to penetrate the armour at 90 degrees. So the actual thickness is all that matters. ?

[Grenny]

WARNING - NOOB QUESTION COMING.

I see discussion of slope angles. I thought these were irrelevant these days as KE rounds always 'turned' to penetrate the armour at 90 degrees. So the actual thickness is all that matters. ?

No. The KE penetrator will allways pierce the target...no ricochet exept for extremely shollow angles.

The angle will determinate how much material it has to punch through and how big the sheer forces on the rod will be.

[dejawolf]

WARNING - NOOB QUESTION COMING.

I see discussion of slope angles. I thought these were irrelevant these days as KE rounds always 'turned' to penetrate the armour at 90 degrees. So the actual thickness is all that matters. ?

this is wrong. slope angles still matter. the reason is simple. 20mm steel angled at 60 degrees will have a LOS thickness of 40mm.

however it matters less than it used to. back in the days of steel penetrators, slope would offer additional protection to just bare LOS thickness, as the rounds would partially or fully ricochet. so 20mm steel angled at 60 degrees could offer 50-60mm LOS protection.

even today, some older HEAT rounds not shaped like this:

but more like this:

might offer reduced penetration against sloped armour, or fail to fuse entirely,

due to the placement of the fuse.

[DarkLabor]

Number of plates (= number of impacts),thicknesses, angles, compositions, shock absorptions, spaces, etc.

That's the major parameters to take into account.

[DarkLabor]

this is wrong. slope angles still matter. the reason is simple. 20mm steel angled at 60 degrees will have a LOS thickness of 40mm.

however it matters less than it used to. back in the days of steel penetrators, slope would offer additional protection to just bare LOS thickness, as the rounds would partially or fully ricochet. so 20mm steel angled at 60 degrees could offer 50-60mm LOS protection.

even today, some older HEAT rounds not shaped like this:

but more like this:

might offer reduced penetration against sloped armour, or fail to fuse entirely,

due to the placement of the fuse.

You take it as a way to increase LOS thicknesses, but don't forget the long term benefit of deviation through multi-layered armors.

[Tjay]

Thanks for the replies guys.

[Tacbat]

strv 122 and leo 2a5DK are identical to the 2E.

german leopard 2A5, turret is identical to 2E, hull is identical to 2A4.

Thanks Deja.