Right here
“My source is me”.
Lol.
1 Like
I take it you are illiterate then
1 Like
You mean like that time you and your gang had spent hours upon hours trying to find out who Frank Lobitz is, but still failing in the end, just for Trioner to do that for you within 2 minutes while drunk?
Lol my dude, you used my old forum post about the 122C as a source (ofc you will deny this, like you always do when called out).
1 Like
No, I mean when last night I simply said there are sources saying many things and most of them differing. Followed by you coming in here and insulting me for no reason
Trioner also has paid access to the book which no one else does
Seemingly I can’t send the gif I want to just imagine “he’s making it up as he goes along” from Monty pythons life of Brian
And I’ve provided those sources (grand total of two), didn’t you see?
Followed by you coming in here and insulting me for no reason
Already playing the victim card? Eh.
Trioner also has paid access to the book which no one else does
He doesn’t, the pdf is public, and you could also have had it if you simply looked it up or asked me for it - but it’s easier to complain and/or make up things on the fly, such as; “Lobitz is a tanker and not the head of the Leopard 2 program in the BAAINBw” ;)
1 Like
He said he paid for it
Oregano or foulke agreed
And why would I need to provide sources to state that
If someone has a reliable source then it doesn’t matter what I’ve said
He paid for a subscription to an online article talking about Lobitz (like 2$ or something, but he didn’t really need to anyways, he just did that to annoy y’all lmao), we’re talking about the book “Gesamtwerk” here, which has been available online in the pdf form for months.
And why would I need to provide sources to state that
Probably to finally make a reputation for yourself outside of your echo chamber, rather than ruining it every time you start typing?
If someone has a reliable source then it doesn’t matter what I’ve said
Considering the fact your sources weren’t reliable, no. Eh, anyways, ima just continue my talk with Necronomica, since he at least can discus things normally and source his things, unlike you (who tends to half-ass everything, scream at everyone when things don’t go your way, and uh, lie a whole lot) ))
1 Like
Thanks for agreeing
All you’ve done is look like a confounded moron
Never said they were, in fact I believe I inferred the opposite
That’s level 20 Oxford reading for you
That’s not what i said though.
The H version is not an improvement over the others. the mexas it self was improved within the H variant. Loot at it like this: The 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.
No, both was Leopard 2 “improved” (the TVM that later became the 2A5 after armor improvements (presumably made by Sweden), trying to find sources to prove this) with German and with Swedish armor addons.
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.
On images from the tests you can see that the extra side armor on the turret is present.
The internal designation within KVM for the 122 was Leopard 2A5S. or the Leopard 2A5+ (improved protection)
No? the actual test data from the trials state that they tested both Swedish made and German made add-on armors.
I’ve never seen this stated anywhere.
Why would they call it the German solution and the Swedish solution then?
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
The Bundeswehr didn’t want the full armour package because of weight and cost constrictions. The “german solution” is B-Tech hull + D-Tech turret + D-Tech add-on (add-on was later left out completely), while the “swedish solution” is the TVM max’s full package with D-Tech internal + add-on.
1 Like
Gen 3 (MEXAS) is from 1990-1994 and was used on Leo 2A5 and Strv 122.
Gen 4 and 5 is AMAP (rebrand/continued development of MEXAS)
The “German” armor package is the TVM/KVT an early version of MEXAS that was never adopted, it is the initial proposal that they approached Sweden with, to improve the armor. Easily recognizable by its flat turret side add-ons armor. This MEXAS Armor was designed after 1984. The TVMs were build using it in 1989:
Sweden was probably not happy with this design and approached IBD for a cooperation to improve it for their requirements.
In 1994 under the swedish trials they compared the results of that cooperation of their MEXAS solution (Swedish) to the initial proposal (German). This improved version was later adopted.
In 2004 MEXAS was rebranded into AMAP, (which also has multiple generations) and in 2014-2019 it was bought up by Rheinmetall.
KMW on the other hand developed their own similar armor package for the Leopard 2A7V in cooperation with GEKE and EODH, possibly in cooperation with Rheinmetall.
Using the 1994s MEXAS armor value values for the 2A7V (which doesnt even use it) or Strv 123A is not really useful. As I demonstrated, that there are at least 3 newer generations of this armor.
6 Likes
No thats just you
2 Likes
I started this thread thinking it would be a fun hype thing, welp it turned into a online argument like all else lol
Thats how it always goes with leopard talks, look at the can leo, its a cesspool between british and German players because the majority of both sides are ignorant.
Not really something unique to the leos, any modern tank with a big fanbase (hence not the chally or ariete) will have people screeching at eachother in every related thread over who / what and why their tank is obviously better than the rest and why gaijin is biased and racist toward that nationality because it’s not the ultra-mega death machine 9000 they believe it to be. The french cry “gaijin hates france” and the chinese cry “gaijin is racist” all the time because of this.