Anyone want a second hand Leopard 2?

[Adrian Harris]

This is the longest tank related article I've ever seen in the Daily Wail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Syria.html

I know at least one person here isn't a fan of the Leopard - seems with good reason if you accept the thrust of this article.

Adrian.

[Stephen White]

Ha, I’d better put my hand up. Thanks for posting, Adrian. Nothing to disagree with in an interesting piece. I suspect the hand of someone hoping to scupper any chance of the UK buying Leo. It’s fine tank - if you like parades and demonstrations but ask anyone who has to fight in tanks and they’ll say that if protection has been compromised at the altar of mobility, it’s a tank best avoided. Mind you, if mobility and reliability have been compromised at the altar of firepower and protection, the same is true. (Which is why the Tiger was not the tank of legend). Tank design is a compromise and that’s why those in the know turn to Comet and Centurion as tanks to go to war in. Of its later generation, that’s why Chieftain stood out. So, Armortek, you’ve given us two out of the three.....

Stephen

[mark lawson]

These are the 2A4 variant which lacked Chobham armour the 2A5 onward has the Chobham armour which will make a huge difference.

[Stephen White]

These are the 2A4 variant which lacked Chobham armour the 2A5 onward has the Chobham armour which will make a huge difference.

You’re quite right Mark.

“Chobham armour” is widely used to describe modern enhanced armour arrays, such as on the Leopard 2A7. The term should more properly used only to describe the array developed at FVRDE Chobham and used uniquely on modern British armour. Leopard 2 has neither Chobham armour, nor does it enjoy the levels of protection of CR2. So, whilst it’s true to say that the enhanced armour on the latest Leopards does increase protection, it is still not comparable.

The incidents in the Mail article were mine or IED related and there, all tanks are vulnerable to a degree. Leopard has fixed ammunition and the strike shown has resulted in a catastrophic ammunition detonation which has re-located the turret. Chieftain, CR1 and CR2 all have separated ammunition with bag charges stowed in wet liners to minimize the likelihood of such a detonation. So protection levels are significantly increased.

Ultimately, tank crews look at how well the designers have addressed the overall balance of protection, mobility, firepower and reliability. Tiger was flawed in this respect, in a way that Comet, Centurion and Chieftain were not (once the Chieftain L60 engine was sorted out.

Stephen

[Mark Heaps]

Chieftain, CR1 and CR2 all have separated ammunition with bag charges stowed in wet liners to minimize the likelihood of such a detonation.

Not quite correct. I speak from experiece having been responsible for fixing all three during my time in REME.
Chieftain - The last ones had wet liner charge bins- I cannot speak for the early marks.
CR1 - Early had wet liner, later ones did not. They instead had armoured charge bins.
CR2 - All the ones I saw and worked on, had the armoured charge bins. If they later reverted to wet stowage, it was after I left the army.

The advantages of 3-piece over single piece ammunition were
1 ) Larger gun size for the same turret ring diameter
2 ) No large cartridge left after firing that has to be collected somehow after ejection and stored somewhere until they can be disposed of outside the fighting compartment.
3) Less fatigue on the loader and quicker re-loading times.

Mark

[Stephen White]

Mark, quite right. Just tying to keep my last post short and simple. I think the conclusion remains valid ie that the British policy of separating main armament ammunition and storing propellant below the turret line increases protection. The interesting tank is the US M1. The designers recognized the vulnerability of one piece rounds and store the majority in the turret bussle,which has armoured doors which are supposed to shut automatically in the event of a penetration. In extremis the bussle is supposed to blow off. Not sure I’d be happy with that arrangement, might make your ears ring a bit.

Biggest problem with wet charge storage was leakage. Wet bag charge equals misfire or hang-fire. We had to check the charge bins regularly and seal some off if they leaked. Also remember drying bag charges over a fire.........

Interesting oriiginal post, thanks Adrian.

Stephen

[Mark Heaps]

Hi Stephan,
My understanding of the M1 was that the armoured doors between the bustle and fighting compartment were only opened when the loader required a round from the bustle and then closed immediately afterwards. The armoured doors being thicker than the armour on the bustle ( or parts of it ) would ensure (in theory ) that an explosion in the bustle would vent to the outside rather than into the fighting compartment. Obviously this could not protect the crew in the event of the bustle being penetrated and an explosion occurring whilst the doors were open.

The other advantage of wet stowage on CH and CR was that the charge bins were the perfect storage location on exercises for the loaves of bread to keep them as fresh as possible for as long as possible

[Adrian Harris]

> the loaves of bread

Are those the sort of loaves of bread which come in packs of four cylindrical metal containers with ring pulls

Adrian.

[Stephen White]

Couldn’t possibly comment. Inside the barrel was cool too but you had to remind your gunner never to depress the gun.......