Turkish designed and made MBT Altay displayed. Here's the video.

[Penguin]

Leopard Experimentalentwicklung Keiler

Early prototype Leo2 (before Chobham) Note similarity with Lepard 1A3 / 1A4.
Uses rolled steel, spaced armor, placed at angle.

Leo1A3/4

Later Leo2 prototype

 

[Beny Karachun]

As you can see from the already posted image below, Leo2 front hull isn't 'flat'. It is an complete insert of compound laminate armor. As you can see, it is not a square box, but a shaped item. You have no idea how it looks on the inside. The image below also shows that the turret front actuall is angled, in 1 dimension. This type of armor in not there to deflect rounds (and there for not angled for that purpose) but to stop rounds. It's superior stopping power against heat or APFSDS penetrators comes from the composition of the armor (e.g. whether it uses layers of DU or tungsten or other, and what's beteween the layers) , not its thickness per se (which is what is affected by angling).

Both Abrams and Leo2 use the British Chobham/Burlington armor. Some Abrams also have DU.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm

Abrams turret side.

You still don't get it: It was angled to the extent that that kind of armor could be angled. You can continue to repeat that the armor wasn't angled well but you still haven't provided any documentation to support your claim that the armor is poor (for that or another reason) compared to contemporary tanks and you haven't put forward any supported suggestion of how it could have been angled differently. So, my conclusion remains: you don't get it and the 'easily penetrated' claim only holds if you put a 1980s Leo2A4 against an MBT with todays ammunitions. In short: bs.


Support your claims with source references, for starters.


And if Iron Fist was designed before those criteria came into place, naturally it would not be able to meet those criteria. A moving objective is not the same as system flaw.

You apparently are unwilling to look at and consider the intercompany rivalries here. Fine, that's your prerogative.

Gents, mind the language. I would prefer civilized discussion on content.

I wasn't talking about the Lopards 2 hull, I was talking about its turret, gun mantlet, it only got 420mm of armor
This is its actual thickness
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=L...hXO0RoKHRkrA_kQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=W8x9mWj84V6u9M:



Again- I do not complain about the Challenger 2 or Abrams, I complain on the Leopards 2A4 gun manlet, not the rest of the turret or hull
Even though the Abrams got many weaknesses
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=L...tbm=isch&q=Abrams+armor&imgrc=pOBgjkWjWEfYiM:

and also the Challenger https://www.google.co.il/search?q=L...ch&q=Challenger+2+armor&imgrc=e02_cRYLs45guM:

And I said 1000 times, that I said it ONLY against the Leopard 2A4, not the 2A5, 6 or 7.

 

[Penguin]

I wasn't talking about the Lopards 2 hull, I was talking about its turret, gun mantlet, it only got 420mm of armor
This is its actual thickness

Funny how you should qujote the source I provided. As I already posted, it actually says:

420mm armor block + 240mm light alloys mounted frame for gun + around mounted points between 80 and (mostly) ~230mm RHA metal plates. Thanks for this solution whole gun mantled mask area where protected well against early 1980s . Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2A4 is 420mm (42cm) thick and it has multilayered build. It's weight is equal 620kg.
APFSDS and HEAT munitions penetration this area by 3BM15 or early BK-15 round was rather questionable, and low possible to achieve. Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask was immune against BMP-1 main armament 2A28 Grom low pressure gun whit HEAT rounds, and Maliutka ATGM.

So, how is this poor and in comparison to what other contemporary tank(s), with what contemporary munition.

"And I said 1000 times, that I said it ONLY against the Leopard 2A4, not the 2A5, 6 or 7."

Compare 2A4 to its comtemporaries and their munitions at that time, not present day tanks or present day ammo, or you compare apples and oranges.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Funny how you should qujote the source I provided. As I already posted, it actually says:

420mm armor block + 240mm light alloys mounted frame for gun + around mounted points between 80 and (mostly) ~230mm RHA metal plates. Thanks for this solution whole gun mantled mask area where protected well against early 1980s . Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2A4 is 420mm (42cm) thick and it has multilayered build. It's weight is equal 620kg.
APFSDS and HEAT munitions penetration this area by 3BM15 or early BK-15 round was rather questionable, and low possible to achieve. Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask was immune against BMP-1 main armament 2A28 Grom low pressure gun whit HEAT rounds, and Maliutka ATGM.

So, how is this poor and in comparison to what other contemporary tank(s), with what contemporary munition.

"And I said 1000 times, that I said it ONLY against the Leopard 2A4, not the 2A5, 6 or 7."

Compare 2A4 to its comtemporaries and their munitions at that time, not present day tanks or present day ammo, or you compare apples and oranges.

A AT11 Sniper ATGM, 3VBK25/3BK29 could also penetrate, And with simple little more add on armor they would not have.
All of them are in the Leopard 2A4 time

 

[C130]

It has its flaws- frontal hull armor is flat, any modern tank will be able to kill its crew
Cannon breach is flat- a simple shell will render the tank useless
It cannot fire ATGMs, it cannot defend itself from top attack ATGMs with its in development AKKOR APS, Its only advantage against *part* of modern tanks is its speed.

I'd like to see how it stacks up against M829A3 hitting it head on.

 

[Penguin]

A AT11 Sniper ATGM, 3VBK25/3BK29 could also penetrate, And with simple little more add on armor they would not have.
All of them are in the Leopard 2A4 time

You're still not comparing with other tanks of that time.

Again- I do not complain about the Challenger 2 or Abrams, I complain on the Leopards 2A4 gun manlet, not the rest of the turret or hull
Even though the Abrams got many weaknesses
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=Leopard+2+armor&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=949&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir3IruwJjNAhXO0RoKHRkrA_kQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=Abrams+armor&imgrc=pOBgjkWjWEfYiM:

and also the Challenger https://www.google.co.il/search?q=Leopard+2+armor&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=949&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir3IruwJjNAhXO0RoKHRkrA_kQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=Challenger+2+armor&imgrc=e02_cRYLs45guM:

Your first link is M1A2_SEP (M1A2 Baseline entered service 1992, SEP is later), the second is Challenger 2 (1993).

The Leopard 2A4s were manufactured in eight batches between 1985 and 1992. A3 delivered between December 1984 and December 1985. A2 programme began in 1984 and ended in 1987. Deliveries of the 2A1 models started in March 1982 and ended in November 1983. A third batch was built between November 1983 and November 1984. All the older models were upgraded to 2A4 standard.

Your M1A2SEP

Earlier M1A1 (HA)

Leo2A4

 

[Taygibay]

I know more than you Turkish cunt, go back to your country

Come on! Why did you have to degrade Turks, women and mostly yourself?
For a taunt?

And going back to his country?
Technically, you're both guests of Pakistan here! I'm not sure he's less welcome than you are ...

You should fix that attitude before someone does it for you.
Just sayin', Tay.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Come on! Why did you have to degrade Turks, women and mostly yourself?
For a taunt?

And going back to his country?
Technically, you're both guests of Pakistan here! I'm not sure he's less welcome than you are ...

You should fix that attitude before someone does it for you.
Just sayin', Tay.

Because he said "What a typical Israeli prick" to me.

You're still not comparing with other tanks of that time.



Your first link is M1A2_SEP (M1A2 Baseline entered service 1992, SEP is later), the second is Challenger 2 (1993).

The Leopard 2A4s were manufactured in eight batches between 1985 and 1992. A3 delivered between December 1984 and December 1985. A2 programme began in 1984 and ended in 1987. Deliveries of the 2A1 models started in March 1982 and ended in November 1983. A third batch was built between November 1983 and November 1984. All the older models were upgraded to 2A4 standard.

Your M1A2SEP

Earlier M1A1 (HA)

Leo2A4

I wasn't comparing the tanks of the time, I was just saying that one of the only weakness on the turret is the gun mantlet, I wasn't even comparing tanks, then you came and started talking about it, and it was much bigger than the weak spots of the Abrams for example, and was able to be penetrated by a certain amount of shells and ATGMs.

I'd like to see how it stacks up against M829A3 hitting it head on.

I doubt it wouldn't penetrate.

 

[Penguin]

Because he said "What a typical Israeli prick" to me.

The proper course of action would be to use the 'report'-button, on the lower left of the post.

I wasn't comparing the tanks of the time, I was just saying that one of the only weakness on the turret is the gun mantlet, I wasn't even comparing tanks, then you came and started talking about it, and it was much bigger than the weak spots of the Abrams for example, and was able to be penetrated by a certain amount of shells and ATGMs.

If you claim something is weak, you are using a standard or yardstick.

If you say something is a weak spot on a certain make an model MBT, then if that is not in relation to the ammunition of the time of that make and model MBT, you're really comparing apples and oranges. Of course, 120mm smoothbore ammo of today, or even that of the 1980s would most certainly effectively deal with the WW2 vintage Tiger 2 / King Tiger. It's newer and makes use of innovations since the Tiger 2, and that vehicle, even though that was one of the best protected vehicles of its time, wasn't designed to deal with those ammunitions. Note here 'best protected of vehicles of its time': judging protection good or bad can be done in the absolute and also in the relative, that is in relation to contemporary vehicles.

 

[Beny Karachun]

The proper course of action would be to use the 'report'-button, on the lower left of the post.



If you claim something is weak, you are using a standard or yardstick.

If you say something is a weak spot on a certain make an model MBT, then if that is not in relation to the ammunition of the time of that make and model MBT, you're really comparing apples and oranges. Of course, 120mm smoothbore ammo of today, or even that of the 1980s would most certainly effectively deal with the WW2 vintage Tiger 2 / King Tiger. It's newer and makes use of innovations since the Tiger 2, and that vehicle, even though that was one of the best protected vehicles of its time, wasn't designed to deal with those ammunitions. Note here 'best protected of vehicles of its time': judging protection good or bad can be done in the absolute and also in the relative, that is in relation to contemporary vehicles.

the AT11 Sniper ATGM can penetrate this and it is in the Leopard's 2A4 time, even early versions of the Spike NLOS and Kornet are at its time.
I didn't say that the Leopard 2A4 was bad protected, I said it could be better, and that many shells from then were able to penetrate it from the turret (Not even talking about its hull)

 

[Penguin]

Funny how you should qujote the source I provided. As I already posted, it actually says:

420mm armor block + 240mm light alloys mounted frame for gun + around mounted points between 80 and (mostly) ~230mm RHA metal plates. Thanks for this solution whole gun mantled mask area where protected well against early 1980s . Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2A4 is 420mm (42cm) thick and it has multilayered build. It's weight is equal 620kg.
APFSDS and HEAT munitions penetration this area by 3BM15 or early BK-15 round was rather questionable, and low possible to achieve. Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask was immune against BMP-1 main armament 2A28 Grom low pressure gun whit HEAT rounds, and Maliutka ATGM.

I should add to this: 420mm is the actualy physical thinkness of the compound composite armor block, not the RHA equivalent i.e. the protection level. Note also that in addition there are a tungsten gunframe and mounting points of between 80 and 230mm RHA steel, which - while not armor per se - add protection

And this is the comparable M1 Abrams from that period. Beyond 1985 you got M1A1, including M1A1 HA (with depleted uranium inserts) from 1989 through 1993. Note the mantlet of the early M1 is 440mm at best.

Now for protection levels (RHA equivalent)

Leo 2A4

Leo2E, one of the best protected Leo2s, based on the 2A6. The first Leopard 2Es were not manufactured until late 2003. Note lower half of mantlet is still at original values.

M1A1 HA

Above pic as compares to the following from
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Panzerung_und_Schutzsysteme

M1 Abrams
Hull front (KE): 400 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 700 mm
Turret front (KE): 400 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 700 mm

M1 IP / M1A1
Hull front (KE): 490 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 800 mm
Turret front (KE): 450 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 920 mm

M1A1 HA
Hull front (KE): 590 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 800 mm
Turret front (KE): 680 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1320 mm

M1A2
Hull front (KE): 625 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 1050 mm
Turret front (KE): 900 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1620 mm

M1A2 SEP
Hull front (KE): 625 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 1050 mm
Turret front (KE): 960 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1620 mm

Below, from http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

The armor protection of today's M1A1 Abrams models is much better than that of the original M1A1 HA tanks that saw combat during the Gulf War (1991).

M1A1HA, as deployed during the Gulf War, 1991
Turret (KE): 600 - 680
Turret (CE): 1,080 - 1,320
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE): 510 - 800
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 630
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 900

M1A1HA, as in service 2002 (same M1A1HC, M1A1D)
Turret (KE): 800 - 900
Turret (CE): 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE): 510 - 1,050
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 650
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 970

M1A2 SEP (2002-2004)
Turret (KE): 940 - 960
Turret (CE): 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE):510 - 1,050
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 650
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 970

Conclusion 1: the image does not show M1A1 HA levels of protection of 1991 but of a later period.
Conclusion 2: compared to that picture of post 1991 protections, the Leo2A4 mantlet does better than the Abrams mantlet, at least on KE. It lags on protection against CE/HEAT but not hugely: it still offer 75% of the protection of a post 1991 Abrams. This is while ignoring that little lesser armored strip at the bottom of the Abrams' mantlet.

Conclusion 3: pic below is most likely M1A2SEP

Chally2 mantlet:

• at center 713mm KE / 910mm CE
• further out 668mm KE / 762mm CE
  
• at the top 870mm KE / 930mm CE

Leo2A4 mantlet: 612mm KE / 982mm CE

Conclusion 4: Leo2A4 less against KE, better against CE.

In case Leopard-2A4 we can assume or estimate armour protection.

For turret: 860-760-620mm LOS
(turret front, turret front for 30 degree, turret sides for 30 degree)
vs APFSDS (in mm RHA) = 570-510-410mm
vs HEAT (in mm RHA) = 910-810-640

hull for 640mm LOS thickness =
circa 500mm vs APFSDS and
circa 700mm vs HEAT

Such values should be compare with ammunition level in 1980s:

ammo mark penetration achievable (A) on 2000m, - penetration guaranteed (G) on 2000m
3BM-26: A: 440mm G: ~400mm
3BM-29: A: 450mm G: ~410mm
3BM-32: A: 500mm G: ~460mm
3BM-42: A: 460mm G: ~430mm

and whit typical SC (HEAT) warhead abilities:
9М111М (1983) penetration 600 mm RHA;
9М120 (1985) penetration 800 mm RHA;
9М128 (1985) penetration 650 mm RHA,
9M119M Инвар (1992?) penetration 700-750 mm RHA
Kornet (1993) penetration 1100 mm RHA

As we can see during whole 1980s. Leopard-2A4 armor in theory was good enough protection - at least for turret and hull front even on circa 1000m distance.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm

 

[Penguin]

As for side protection

Leo2A4

M1A1(HA)

Chally 2

 

[Penguin]

the AT11 Sniper ATGM can penetrate this and it is in the Leopard's 2A4 time, even early versions of the Spike NLOS and Kornet are at its time.
I didn't say that the Leopard 2A4 was bad protected, I said it could be better, and that many shells from then were able to penetrate it from the turret (Not even talking about its hull)

The 9M119 Svir and 9M119M Refleks missiles are similar, but vary in range and launch platform
Missile 9M119M "Invar" put into service in 1992, and the missile 9M119M1 "Invar-M" in the second half of the 1990s
The 4.5 kg 125mm tandem warhead of Refleks can apparently penetrate up to 900mm of armor
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119


9K119M Refleks-M (AT-11 SNIPER-B) is a guided weapons system launched from the 2A46M main gun of T-80 and T-90 MBTs. The 9K119M uses the 9M119M missile. The ammunition round is 3UBK20 and consists of the 9M119M missile and the 9Kh949 reduced charge propellant casing with a spacer plug which seats the missile properly into the main gun.

Weight

• round: 24 kg
• missile: 17.2 kg
• warhead: 4.5 kg

Penetration

• 700-750 mm RHA @ 90°
• 650-700 mm RHA @ 90° behind ERA

See: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/refleks.html

I believe the 900mm found in the wiki on 9M119 relates to the 9M119M1 "Invar-M", introduced late 1990s or later
See: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html

Russian designation: Refleks
Year of introduction 1985
Missile 9M-119
Warhead 9M-136
Round 3UBK-14
Warhead weight ~4.5 kg
RHA penetration at 90° 650-700mm

Russian designation Invar
Year of introduction 1989
Missile 9M-119M
Warhead 9M-136M
Round 3UBK-20
Warhead weight ~4.5 kg
RHA penetration at 90° 700-750mm (-50mm if ERA)

Russian designation Invar-M
Year of introduction 2006?
Missile 9M-? [note: possibly 9M119M1]
Warhead 9M-?
Round 3UBK-?
Warhead weight ~5 kg
RHA penetration at 90° 800-900mm (-50mm if ERA)

All these missiles are max 125mm diameter, limited by the tank gun. When you start comparing to ATGWs like KOrtnet and Spike NLOS, you are leaving the tank v tank scenario.

Please note:
"The key to the effectiveness of a HEAT round is the diameter of the warhead. As the penetration continues through the armor, the width of the hole decreases leading to a characteristic fist to finger penetration, where the size of the eventual finger is based on the size of the original fist. In general, very early HEAT rounds could expect to penetrate armor of 150% to 250% of their diameters, and these numbers were typical of early weapons used during World War II. Since then, the penetration of HEAT rounds relative to projectile diameters has steadily increased as a result of improved liner material and metal jet performance. Some modern examples claim numbers as high as 700%"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

7x 120mm = 840mm
7x 125mm = 875mm

Kornet is 152mm, and therefor significantly more powerful in terms of CE. It was first introduced into service with the Russian Army in 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet

7x 152mm = 1064mm

Spike NLOS: Diameter 170mm . The first variants entered service with the IDF in 1981. Besides Israel, operators are Colombia, South Korea, UK. All of these experts are post 2005 and, given who their neighbors are and what they have, its users are not likely to face Leo2A4 used against them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)

7x 170mm = 1190mm

Remember these 125mm HEAT rounds:
9М111М (1983) penetration 600 mm RHA;
9М120 (1985) penetration 800 mm RHA;
9М128 (1985) penetration 650 mm RHA,
9M119M Инвар (1992?) penetration 700-750 mm RHA

Compared to 152mm Kornet round
Kornet (1993) penetration 1100 mm RHA

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/turkish-...d-heres-the-video.219470/page-3#ixzz4B6QGXnDw

 

[Taygibay]

Because he said "What a typical Israeli prick" to me.

True, I had missed that. Still, don't stoop to insult level
if only for your sake; enjoy your convo with Penguin instead.

Have a good day, Tay.

 

[Beny Karachun]

I should add to this: 420mm is the actualy physical thinkness of the compound composite armor block, not the RHA equivalent i.e. the protection level. Note also that in addition there are a tungsten gunframe and mounting points of between 80 and 230mm RHA steel, which - while not armor per se - add protection

And this is the comparable M1 Abrams from that period. Beyond 1985 you got M1A1, including M1A1 HA (with depleted uranium inserts) from 1989 through 1993. Note the mantlet of the early M1 is 440mm at best.

Now for protection levels (RHA equivalent)

Leo 2A4

Leo2E, one of the best protected Leo2s, based on the 2A6. The first Leopard 2Es were not manufactured until late 2003. Note lower half of mantlet is still at original values.

M1A1 HA

Above pic as compares to the following from
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Panzerung_und_Schutzsysteme

M1 Abrams
Hull front (KE): 400 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 700 mm
Turret front (KE): 400 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 700 mm

M1 IP / M1A1
Hull front (KE): 490 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 800 mm
Turret front (KE): 450 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 920 mm

M1A1 HA
Hull front (KE): 590 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 800 mm
Turret front (KE): 680 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1320 mm

M1A2
Hull front (KE): 625 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 1050 mm
Turret front (KE): 900 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1620 mm

M1A2 SEP
Hull front (KE): 625 mm
Hull front (HEAT): 1050 mm
Turret front (KE): 960 mm
Turret front (HEAT): 1620 mm

Below, from http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

The armor protection of today's M1A1 Abrams models is much better than that of the original M1A1 HA tanks that saw combat during the Gulf War (1991).

M1A1HA, as deployed during the Gulf War, 1991
Turret (KE): 600 - 680
Turret (CE): 1,080 - 1,320
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE): 510 - 800
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 630
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 900

M1A1HA, as in service 2002 (same M1A1HC, M1A1D)
Turret (KE): 800 - 900
Turret (CE): 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE): 510 - 1,050
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 650
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 970

M1A2 SEP (2002-2004)
Turret (KE): 940 - 960
Turret (CE): 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis (KE): 560 - 590
Glacis (CE):510 - 1,050
Lower front hull (KE): 580 - 650
Lower front hull (CE): 800 - 970

Conclusion 1: the image does not show M1A1 HA levels of protection of 1991 but of a later period.
Conclusion 2: compared to that picture of post 1991 protections, the Leo2A4 mantlet does better than the Abrams mantlet, at least on KE. It lags on protection against CE/HEAT but not hugely: it still offer 75% of the protection of a post 1991 Abrams. This is while ignoring that little lesser armored strip at the bottom of the Abrams' mantlet.

Conclusion 3: pic below is most likely M1A2SEP

Chally2 mantlet:

• at center 713mm KE / 910mm CE
• further out 668mm KE / 762mm CE
  
• at the top 870mm KE / 930mm CE

Leo2A4 mantlet: 612mm KE / 982mm CE

Conclusion 4: Leo2A4 less against KE, better against CE.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm

You know... I didn't say that the Leopard was better or worse than any other tank, just have weaknesses.