I never said MEXAS-H was an improvement over other armors (even though it’s clear as day it’s better than all of them, considering it’s the only MEXAS family armor that is rated for use by MBTs).
he H/M/L variants are just differently big packages aimed att differently big vehicles, but they use the same armor technology. The technology was improved thus increasing protection levels of all variants.
This isn’t even true, MEXAS-L and M have never been used by any first-class MBTs, in fact, they’re mostly aimed at lower weight class vehicles as they don’t require nearly as much protection as things like Leopard 2s, such as APCs & IFVs (US Stryker for example uses MEXAS-M, Leopard C2 also uses it).
No, both was Leopard 2 “improved”
Okay, where’s the contradiction? “Improved” here is just the English translation for the German name of the project “Leopard 2 Kampfwertsteigerung” (literal translation is “Combat Capability Improvement”), IVT and TVM both are a result of it.
That or you’re saying that the IVT is the german armor and that the Swedes were the ones that developed the TVM armor package.
IVT is the armor standard that Germany had originally aimed for to use MBT fleet wide (like I said about an hour earlier or so; doctrinal differences where Germany opted for a less capable but far larger force centered around the IVT armor standard, and Sweden opted for a smaller but more capable force based on the TVM armor standard - I can’t be more explicit than this, and if you’ll still have issues understanding the core of my explanation, then sorry, there’ll be nothing more for me to say in order to help you here).
On images from the tests you can see that the extra side armor on the turret is present.
How is the presence of side turret panels the make-or-break part here?
The technology was improved thus increasing protection levels of all variants.
Right, here’s the thing;
TVM 2 was already in testing with the final version of MEXAS-H add-on when this “supposed co-development” was taking place. According to basically every source I’ve seen, TVM 2 (which eventually became the 2A5) and Strv 122 use the exact same armor; so either Akers had magically, within a span of about ~3 months, not only improved on the MEXAS-H standard by about ~25% in terms of KE and CE protection, while keeping the armor the exact same in terms of weight, physical dimensions & shape, but also did it while also having pretty much no prior experience in designing & developing armor & materials used in armors. Do you not see the problem here?
No? the actual test data from the trials state that they tested both Swedish made and German made add-on armors.
The actual test data is just the slide with armor levels, everything else is from Lindstroms presentation, including the comment “Swedish developed…”.
I’ve never seen this stated anywhere.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? I have posted that advert twice already.
Why would they call it the German solution and the Swedish solution then?
Here’s the 2 + 2:
- Germany wants a different armor standard (IVT) → “German solution”
- Sweden wants a different armor standard (TVM) from Germany’s → “Swedish solution”.
Was this clear enough?
Stay on topic. take personal quarrels to PM’s please.
Oh I’ve already muted him, I’ve known Jaden for months and I know what sort of an individual he is, he’s just not worth the time, lol.
Leopard 2A5+ (improved protection)
Yes, hull & roof add-ons.
