The cope is strong with this one.
9 Likes
That is how the Americans saw it. And it’s true from that perspective the Leopard 2 was just a bigger Leopard 1 that they added Special armor too after US requested it.
It is still taller and has less special armor coverage.
Gdls kept making propaganda to downsize the leopard 2 as a worst not even comparable competitor It wasnt even the American themselves seriously, gdls spew a lot of bs in the 80’s that today its a motive of study for other companies due to how ridiculus It was
Here It Is:
This Is not all but an example of the ridiculity of the claims, if you aré wondering what Is a leopard 2/2 they aré feferring to the 2A5
4 Likes
The same “Americans” that lied about the Leopard 2 having a bigger shottrap due to wedges (which aren’t even at high enough obliquity to “deflect” anything?).
And it’s true from that perspective the Leopard 2 was just a bigger Leopard 1 that they added Special armor too after US requested it.
Special armor was planned after the lessons learned from the Yom Kippur conflict, not due to US’s request, Leopard 2 was always going to have it. The question was to what capacity, and extent, and whose. As Germany had developed their own composite armors independently from the US & the UK, but still upon taking in UK’s armor documentation and learned from it, as Germany’s package initially relied on perforated spaced steel array with little “actual NERA”, that changed and the armor, after introduction of NERA layers, became what we know as Mix 1/B-technology.
Also, that’s how saying the M1 is just an uparmored M60, imo, blind and ignorant.
It is still taller and has less special armor coverage.
Taller in what sense? Because overall height difference is genuinely insignificant:
For modern FCS’s, the existing difference is irrelevant.
As for armor coverage, indeed, Leopard 2 does have less coverage on the turret, and somewhat less externally only the hull - because Leopard 2s have internally placed composite on the sides, behind the fuel tanks, so the actual coverage in terms of side hull composite, was actually greater, and said armor provided far greater protection than M1s relatively thin skirts. In strict terms, Leopard 2 chose higher levels of protection over properly armored area(s) versus M1 that instead had lower levels of protection over a greater area, both are completely fine.
The turret, yes, the rear is protected only by spaced armor, and I’d guess the designers simply viewed armoring of the area as not important due to other measures taken, such as blow-out panels, obviously.
4 Likes
The Americans/GLDS was not alone in smearing their competitors, the Germans did the exact same thing mind you, it’s just politics as usual.
1 Like
Amricans(as per American defense research)never posted themselves a document calling the leopard 2 bad or making outrageous claims, the private company GDLS(d) called the leopard 2 bad on their terms wich majority of them were Made up claims, the germans did not do that, the european testing campaign from different allied tanks in different countries had about similar results for trials of tanks, from the famous swedish and greek trials all the way to the british trials, with, in fact even leclerc took an L during greek trials, this Is impartial and It really dosent show favoritism, even abrams placed really high
1 Like
Tbf the Swiss kind of called the M1 an overpriced Chevrolet when it was being trialed against the Leopard 2.
I mean the early m1 was like that because mass production was barely starting for some parts but generally M1 abrams export prices have always been somewhat on the expensive side
We can’t get the exact value of the hull improvements but I don’t think it’s necessary at all.
All Gajin need to do is to remodel M1 a little and improve the protection by some procentage over generations.
It’s obvious there were upgrades and people want them in-game.
1 Like
This is getting off topic.
But come on the Leopard 2 was not designed with Special Armor in mind otherwise it would not have had a giant hole in the front armor for the sight.
And no the M1 is not just an uparmored M60, in the same way that the Leopard 2 is a large Leopard 1, an unarmored M60 was a competitor in the early XM-1 program and in the late stages the “Super M60” was also proposed as an alternative.
The Leopard is about 10cm taller, why is that important you ask, because height scales linearly while weight is cubed.
Less special armor means more likely to be killed from infantry AT weapons from the flank.
Which “early” unarmored Leopard 2 prototypes did not have - they had a roof/side turret mounted sight instead, these were called “Generation 1 prototypes”, with the introduction of composite armor plating they were then called “Generation 2 prototypes”, 2AV in itself, is a product of the MoU with US, but Germany had been testing different armors for the 2nd generation before then still (Leopard 2 PT-14, being one such example).The sight area itself wasn’t much of a weakend zone either, it was about as well protected as the glacis of the hull, so ~360mm’ish+ RHAe vs APFSDS based on Germany’s requirement to protect versus DM13 fired out of the 120mm cannon at 1.5km’s, which was quite a bit better than US’s XM578 requirements.
If you don’t know, why do you talk?
And no the M1 is not just an uparmored M60, in the same way that the Leopard 2 is a large Leopard 1, an unarmored M60 was a competitor in the early XM-1 program and in the late stages the “Super M60” was also proposed as an alternative.
You’re completely missing the point, you’re thinking of early PT series which were built upon the Leopard 1, yes, but by the time 2nd generation appeared, the vehicle had very little to do with being an “uparmored Leopard 1”, calling it is ignorant.
A complete redesign of hull and turret with inclusion of composite material in both hull and turret, different armor profile along with different design doctrine, change to the internal hull crew position, all these make it vastly different.
Less special armor means more likely to be killed from infantry AT weapons from the flank.
The crew has a similar level of protection on the turret, and more on the hull, again due to the presence of internally placed composite layers in the hull’s side. By comparison, the M1 crew was protected only by the external skirts, which were less thick than Leopard 2s heavy skirts.
The only place with “less special armor” was the turret bustle, but it was deemed protected enough versus hand-held anti-tank rifles/23mm AP which was Germany’s/BW’s requirement, whether it was a mistake or not, idk.
This is getting off topic.
Indeed, I believe it’s about time we drop it. Good talk anyways.
5 Likes
Focusing just on that specific part since the rest was already discussed.
Most people, if not all, talk about the armor being in the ballpark of 530mm of KE protection which would make sense as that’s a ~35% increase over the current armor that would come from the heavy composite in the hull.
4 Likes
No because clearly the 10 tons the m1 gained over its lifetime were all exclusively turret upgrades and nothing else 😼😼
1 Like
I get the feeling that you are sensitive about the Leopard 2 which makes brief conversation difficult, but please be a little more charitable.
The German didn’t not have Chobham like armor, they were given a less efficient version of it in about 1976. They used “simple” multilayer spaced steel armor all the way into series production. But US-DE collaboration started just before the Yom Kippur war:
The right side of the Leopard 2 turret is a intricate mess of overlapping armor, it’s a waste of armor, space and cost. It was not designed around Chobham style armor.
The internal layout of the Leopard 2 still features a large ammo rack in the crew compartment just like the leopard 1
The Leopard 2 is much closer to a Leopard 1 than an Abrams is to an M60.
2 Likes
Weren’t there still restrictions on germanys manufacturing/weapons development then due to WW2?
Or had that stuff been lifted at that point?
This outright states T-14 prototype introduced composite armor due to Yom Kippur War, not due to US - GER MoU, you can remain ignorant, or concede.
The right side of the Leopard 2 turret is a intricate mess of overlapping armor, it’s a waste of armor, space and cost. It was not designed around Chobham style armor.
Like I said before, and you apparently failed to read - original armour wasn’t based on NERA (which “Chobham” makes use of, it was based on perforated spaced steel.
The German didn’t not have Chobham like armor, they were given a less efficient version of it in about 1976.
Lie. They acquired information on NERA from the UK by 1970. Chobham is nothing more than NERA applied in a certain way.
The right side of the Leopard 2 turret is a intricate mess of overlapping armor, it’s a waste of armor, space and cost. It was not designed around Chobham style armor.
Doesn’t matter. NERA plating can be adapted. Just because “it was a mess” doesn’t mean anything.
The internal layout of the Leopard 2 still features a large ammo rack in the crew compartment just like the leopard 1
And so do many other tanks… if that is the only way you judge whether a vehicle is this or that, you are both ignorant and disingenous.
1 Like
I don’t know, it’s not something I have read into.
That’s this armor:
It’s from the late eighties, early nineties and we don’t know how they achieved that.
Well the extension itself probably dosen’t add up to 3.6 to 3.8 tons but if you increase the side armor a bit you will quickly get up there. To use an example incrasing the frontal armor of the Special Armor IFV concept from protection against XM579 to XM774 added 2 tons to the vehicle weight.
Turret side protection should already have been increased for the SEPv1 or SEPv2, but that is another report Gaijin has conveniently ignored.
Also where are you pulling this side armor increase from? We have a bunch of documents which state that the SEPv3 had some form of improved hull front armor, but I have yet to see any mention of side armor increases on the SEPv3.