Polish Leo-2

Project of new polish MBT in early 90's. There was even a model but it ended in that phase It'd be a III generation tank, but the goverment cancelled that project, because of money...

Near future we have light expedition tank concept CV90120P* (Swedish cooperation) and one classifed project ;)

*

TorwaK · April 4, 2008

It looks really nice however light tank as you said. IMHO sabots can blow up them very fast becasue new technology gun control softwares able to track and shoot even fastest tanks. TU Army has 300+ Leopard 2 A4 however we started to manage our own project for 3 years.

Turkish Leo 2 A4's.

D-Scythe · April 4, 2008

It looks really nice however light tank as you said. IMHO sabots can blow up them very fast becasue new technology gun control softwares able to track and shoot even fastest tanks.

Um...the FCS of tank guns can blow up moving helicopters. It doesn't matter if a light tank can go 100 kmph - even an M60 forty years ago would've been able to put a SABOT through its turret easily.

The speed in tanks is used for maneuver warfare, not for dodging SABOTs.

Pilotasso · April 4, 2008

My country bought 40 of the Leo A6's. SHould be arriving next year.

Vekkinho · April 4, 2008

Nice pics guys!

RedTiger · April 7, 2008

I always found it interesting that the Leo 2 has a flat turret front. It looks almost vintage, like the Tiger I. I'm guessing that the armor, which is no doubt something like chobham, might make sloped armor pointless. I've seen add-on armor that give the turrent front a very extreme slope, but I hardly ever see it used.

GGTharos · April 7, 2008

The addon armor is for the 2A5 and onward.

It will cause a HEAT round to detonate prematurely, and a SABOT to 'catch and tumble' so it will not hit the flat part behind the wedge head on. The wedge isn't particularly heavy armor, it's there to mess up ballistics.

Alfa · April 7, 2008

I always found it interesting that the Leo 2 has a flat turret front. It looks almost vintage, like the Tiger I. I'm guessing that the armor, which is no doubt something like chobham, might make sloped armor pointless. I've seen add-on armor that give the turrent front a very extreme slope, but I hardly ever see it used

As GG said, it is a feature of Leopard 2A5 and 2A6. Here is a photo of a Danish Leopard 2A5...

...currently used(although in desert camo) in Helmand, Afghanistan :)

D-Scythe · April 9, 2008

I always found it interesting that the Leo 2 has a flat turret front. It looks almost vintage, like the Tiger I. I'm guessing that the armor, which is no doubt something like chobham, might make sloped armor pointless. I've seen add-on armor that give the turrent front a very extreme slope, but I hardly ever see it used.

Actually, in general, ceramic materials are more effective when it is NOT applied to slope armor. Though their armor applications are formidable, ceramics tend to crack when hit - a result of it's extreme hardness, which is desirable.

Unfortunately, the cracking of ceramic armor after the first hit degrades its ability to protect against subsequent hits. Thus, often, ceramics are applied as tiles in tank armor - by using many smaller plates of ceramics as armor instead of one big plate, you enhance multi-hit protection because only a couple of the smaller tiles will crack, as opposed to the entire thing.

Slope armor works by putting more armor in front of an incoming projectile, through geometry. Unfortunately, this means that a LOT more tiles will be exposed to a kinetic impact, resulting in a larger "area" of cracked tiles. This may lead the vehicle vulnerable to subsequent attacks, due to the degradation in the quality of the ceramic plates.

RedTiger · April 10, 2008

Actually, in general, ceramic materials are more effective when it is NOT applied to slope armor. Though their armor applications are formidable, ceramics tend to crack when hit - a result of it's extreme hardness, which is desirable.

Unfortunately, the cracking of ceramic armor after the first hit degrades its ability to protect against subsequent hits. Thus, often, ceramics are applied as tiles in tank armor - by using many smaller plates of ceramics as armor instead of one big plate, you enhance multi-hit protection because only a couple of the smaller tiles will crack, as opposed to the entire thing.

Slope armor works by putting more armor in front of an incoming projectile, through geometry. Unfortunately, this means that a LOT more tiles will be exposed to a kinetic impact, resulting in a larger "area" of cracked tiles. This may lead the vehicle vulnerable to subsequent attacks, due to the degradation in the quality of the ceramic plates.

You know, I've often wondered about that. The M1 has a sloped turret front and a very extreme sloped glacis, particularly on the top. Is it possible that more tiles are exposed but less energy is directed at each single one due to the slope and increased surface area?

vCSG3 Bloat 203 · April 10, 2008

You know, I've often wondered about that. The M1 has a sloped turret front and a very extreme sloped glacis, particularly on the top. Is it possible that more tiles are exposed but less energy is directed at each single one due to the slope and increased surface area?

it does sound about right. It has to be different for each individual armour design.

D-Scythe · April 10, 2008

You know, I've often wondered about that. The M1 has a sloped turret front and a very extreme sloped glacis, particularly on the top. Is it possible that more tiles are exposed but less energy is directed at each single one due to the slope and increased surface area?

The glacis of the M1 is a normal steel plate a couple inches thick. It does not incorporate any kind of exotic armor that I know of. If you wanna get a more definitive answer on the M1's armor scheme, you should hit the Tanknet forums.

RedTiger · April 10, 2008

Wow, never heard that before. I just always assumed that the entire front of the tank used the special armor. Thats quite a bit of tank there to have covered by armor that would be considered thin even by WWII standards. You wanna be hull-down for sure, that isn't always possible.

D-Scythe · April 10, 2008

Wow, never heard that before. I just always assumed that the entire front of the tank used the special armor. Thats quite a bit of tank there to have covered by armor that would be considered thin even by WWII standards. You wanna be hull-down for sure, that isn't always possible.

Well, from a frontal shot when both the M1 and its attacker are on even ground, any armored penetrator still has to travel through 500-600+ mm of RHAe, due to the fact that the glacis is sloped at something like ~80 degrees. Also, because it's sloped so steeply, it's a rather small target to hit.

Thus, the glacis protection should be adequate from the front, but obviously against top-attack weapons - or just attacks from an enemy at a higher ground - it leaves much to be desired.

Just a design compromise, I guess, with emphasis on frontal and side protection.

RedTiger · April 11, 2008

Yes, good info. Just goes to show that EVERY tank, even the much vaunted Abrams, still has to balance out armor, firepower, and speed -- and make sacrifices to do so.

tacit_blue · April 11, 2008

@Kusch

Thank's for the pictures!! I appreciate the time u've spent to get this info.

tacit

Sign In

Polish Leo-2

Recommended Posts

Kusch

TorwaK

VMFA117_Poko

Kusch

TorwaK

D-Scythe

Pilotasso

Vekkinho

RedTiger

GGTharos

Alfa

D-Scythe

RedTiger

vCSG3 Bloat 203

D-Scythe

RedTiger

D-Scythe

RedTiger

tacit_blue

Recently Browsing 0 members