Jump to content
Bekro

Leo 2A4 in Syria

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

 

Its the name of the village in Surrey next door to the research site.

 

I meant in the context of armor. In declassified documents, nowhere is mentioned codename "Chobham".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Jerchel book I see no passage indicating that the door was retrofitted at a later point. For all _I_ know the blast doors were in from day one. They definitely were in way before the 2A5 electric system replaced the hydraulics. I don't know what Grenny saw that he reported; maybe the doors were temporarily removed in his tank for reasons about which I do not want to speculate.

 

It IS true that the protection concept was reworked in the months (!) following the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Some of the papers of the meeting between the then General Inspector of the Armed Forces, Admiral Schnez, and the UK and US agencies responsible for the "Chobham" armor were declassifed a few years ago; basically the design was set and accepted in April '73, in June the meeting happened where the new armor type was revealed to the Germans, and while everybody was still thinking, the war started in the Golan heights in October. The key lessons taken from it was the necessity for modular construction where possible, so that field repair times could be massively reduced by simply swapping packages rather than searching for the exact problem and then, possibly, repairing it. At the same time the armor module layout was redesigned to accommodate the laminate slabs.

 

However, time was pressing. The MBT70 failure had already created a setback of five years to the overall "new tank" program which had originally been scheduled for introduction by 1975. So a whole new design concept was drafted by March '74, which is awesome if you think about it, particularly in the light that it actually worked and that the whole project was completed five and a half years later, in October '79 with the delivery of the first serial production tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damian90 said:

I meant in the context of armor. In declassified documents, nowhere is mentioned codename "Chobham".

 

4 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Chobham is just made up codename by someone.

 

To expand in full:

Chobham Common* / Chobham Heath* is the name of the area the Military Vehicles & Engineering Establishment site was built on and used as their open air testing ground.

Chobham is also the village in Surrey nest to this site.

 

That is where the unofficial name came from.

 

It is easier to remember than "experimental armour type 123-ABC-4"

 

A brief history of said site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Vehicles_and_Engineering_Establishment

 

*Common Land (Noun.)

Common land is land owned collectively by a number of persons, or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights

 

*Heath (Noun)

A heath is a shrubland habitat found mainly on free-draining infertile, acidic soils and is characterised by open, low-growing woody vegetation

 

These two types of land are not mutually exclusive.

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Such thing as Chobham armor do not exist. There was a program for armor development under codename Burlington in UK and Starflower in US. There were several armor designs developed within that program, and non had a codename. Chobham is just made up codename by someone.

 

So Challenger 1 uses one of the armor types developed within program.

 

The original M1 used armor codenamed as BRL-1 (Ballistic Research Laboratory - 1) or this is how it was called during tests, M1IP and M1A1 got armor codenamed as BRL-2 during tests which was thicker and heavier. With M1A1HA US completely abandoned armor technology codeveloped with UK, and replaced it with their own development we know as HAP or Heavy Armor Package. Heavy Armor Package got 3 generations of development and is now being replaced by so called Next Generation Armor Package or Next Evolutionary Armor.

You can read more about it here -> 

Challenger 2 uses a further development of the British armor package, that is codenamed as Dorchester. However Challenger 2 just like Challenger 1 and Chieftain have entire ammo storage in crew compartment, any ammo cook off can end up like this -> bDske3G.jpg
BQod6So.jpg
rFK8Jfm.jpg

@Maj.Hans

There are only two tanks at the moment I would go in to battle, M1 or T-14.

Well there have been numerous reports of CR-2s surviving ATGM and RPG hits while deployed in Iraq

There was ons example where a CR-2 took multiple hits from RPG and at least two hits from Milan's

the crew survived and the tank was repairable. 

Also the CR-2 uses two piece ammo, and the propellant is kept is armoured containers I believe.

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ssnake said:

In the Jerchel book I see no passage indicating that the door was retrofitted at a later point. For all _I_ know the blast doors were in from day one. They definitely were in way before the 2A5 electric system replaced the hydraulics. I don't know what Grenny saw that he reported; maybe the doors were temporarily removed in his tank for reasons about which I do not want ...

Unlike as for you, these where not my living room. Merely a peak in to "know your neighbor"...so likely I just got it wrong or remember incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My  point was that LEO 2 now became ''really'' combat proven. However, Leo  2a4 show some great weaknesses and I am not sure how Leo 2a6 will perform without active protection in such war zone. In all incidents, ATGMs shot from distances and quite hidden places . For your criticism of employment of the tanks by Turkish army I should say it is very succesfull in general and I do not think any of the European armies ,besides  British, could achieve that considering the inexperience of the aforementioned armies as well as the experience of ATGM operators and the number of ATGMs deployed by IS . Loosing only 5 tanks in about 3 months with only support of about 500-1000 Turkish soldiers and about 3000 FSA fighters is quite a succes in Syria. 

 

I brought you the example of C2 because of the account of the actual tank crews in combat incidents about armor resistance that I listened and watched. So far Leo 2a4 are not doing equally well and it really makes me wonder how LEO2a6 would do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grenny said:

Unlike as for you, these where not my living room. Merely a peak in to "know your neighbor"...so likely I just got it wrong or remember incorrectly.

 

from what i know, even leopard 2A1 and 2A0 had a working blast door. 

you can see it in place here: 
bw_kpz_leopard_2_a0-004.jpg

 

leopard 2A4 has a hydraulically operated ammunition door in steel beasts:
 

 

blastpanel.jpg

hydrdoor.jpg

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's miles between Leo2a4 and 2a5+ in armour and other aspects. You simply can't compare them as easily as you're trying too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grenny said:

Unlike as for you, these where not my living room. Merely a peak in to "know your neighbor"...so likely I just got it wrong or remember incorrectly.

 

Could be that the crew opened the door and turned off the power to it to easily load ammunition to get ready for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every system is perfect you know, you do have to open the door to get at the ammunition.

And well....big bang.

 

We calll it sod's / murphy's law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

New to SB, but with a life-long interest in tanks and AFVs.

 

Walter J Spielberger's 1979 book "From Half-Track to Leopard 2"  covers the Leopard 1 and 2 development in detail.

As Nils mentions above, the 1973 Yom Kippur War led to a rethink on the Leopard 2 design. Prior to this the  fundamental problem was keeping the tank within the Military Load Class (MLC)  50 specification.

After Yom Kippur all parties interested in the design, Germany, USA and UK (Main Battle Tank 3 Project), realised there was a need to extend the specification to MLC 60. In 1974 an improved Leopard 2 AV (Austere Version) was designed and tested.

However, changes to the turret were incorporated into turret No 14 of the 17 Leopard 2 K (Kanone)  prototypes ordered pre- Yom Kippur. The 1974-77 Leopard 2AV prototypes  were built with both 105mm and 120mm guns, and Spielberger's drawings show the blow out panels on the turret roof of both versions. This design feature was clearly incorporated very early on, and at a time when the US was still working  on the XM1 with General Motors and Chrysler. Consequently, it is no surprise that the Leo and M1 production turret layouts are so similar.

 

As a historical detail, Walter J Spielberger was Head of Public Relations at Krauss-Maffei, Ordnance Division, during the Leopard 2  development, so can be regarded as a primary source in this matter.

 

On topic: It is therefore highly likely that the Turkish vehicles are (were!) fitted with this standard feature.

 

Off topic: I am really enjoying SB Pro 4.0.10, and this hugely informative and interesting Forum. Thanks you one and all!

 

Trackpin. Out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Trackpin said:

New to SB, but with a life-long interest in tanks and AFVs

Welcome to the forums Trackpin, if youre interested in checking out Multi-player, theres a weekly TGIF (Thank God Its Friday) session scheduled to begin in just over an hour from now :)

 Cheers

http://www.steelbeasts.com/online_play.html/

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10063-tgif-2016-scenario-list-discussion-and-house-rules/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS captured 2 Leopard 2A4s and a YPR (possibly more) during a counter offensive in al Bab. They drove the YPR off, unknown what happened with the Leopards.

C0SdNd1XAAAz6nx.jpg

C0SdTMAXUAEE4Nq.jpg

Edited by TankHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could have been a victim of a "friendly" air-strike......i believe the Turkish Air Force did bomb some of their vehicles  after they were abandoned by the turkish crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TankHunter said:

IS captured 2 Leopard 2A4s and a YPR (possibly more) during a counter offensive in al Bab. They drove the YPR off, unknown what happened with the Leopards.

C0SdNd1XAAAz6nx.jpg

C0SdTMAXUAEE4Nq.jpg

 

 

Ze German Zuperior Technologik baffled their jihadi addled minds.

Or they couldn't find the button labeled: Tornalama motorları başlıyor

 

Who knows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hedgehog said:

 

 

Ze German Zuperior Technologik baffled their jihadi addled minds.

Or they couldn't find the button labeled: Tornalama motorları başlıyor

 

Who knows.

 

...no, the maschine ghost of the Leopard refused to obey them :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grenny said:

...no, the maschine ghost of the Leopard refused to obey them :-P

 

The good thing about German over engineering, as Ssnake says in:

12 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...plus, maintenance. 95% of all tank related activities are maintenance. Tanks are always broken. I'm not sure if I ever spent a day in a perfectly working tank; combat-serviceable, sure, but in perfect condition?

If I didn't know about a defect it was probably just waiting to be discovered, but already there.

 

And that already was, in the early 1990s, with a peace-time optimized army structure that had a first class, staggered maintenance organization where even a regular field battalion tried to keep 95% of its fleet battle ready at any time.

 

is an offend Leopard Machine Spirit is likely to go: "Nein. Fehler Kode 01234ADX  Wenden Sie sich bitte an Ihr Wartungshandbuch."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still baffles me. 10 years in afghanistan, and danes, germans and norwegians didn't lose a single tank to ATGM fire. 

a few months in syria and turkey is losing them like they're going out of fashion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main difference is that in Syria the parties (whatever label you may give them - freedom fighters, rebels, terrorists, islamofascists) have access to (relatively modern) ATGMs in quantity, something that the Taliban do not. Also, at least the Danes sent Leo 2A5 with better hull armor (and a few other modifications to increase survivability); they still lost at least one tank to an IED (don't know if it was a total write-off, but most certainly a case for depot level repairs).

 

That said, ATGM losses can usually be attributed to a lack of situational awareness, at least to some degree. Putting tanks into static overwatch positions is another invitation to the other party to bring missiles. Also, it seems from the footage that I saw that the ATGMs in use are all pretty long range. A concealed position at 3km distance, a low launch signature, suitable positioning (sun glare), and heat blur apparently offer enough tactical advantage.

Tanks need mobility for their survival. Keep them long enough in the same place, and you'll lose them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in these asymetric scenarios is, that the enemy ALWAYS has first strike, which is very difficult to counter. In fact you need something to help your survive the 1st strike and then retaliate. ==> a lot more effort needs to be put into APS systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it's the weaponized lawyers that prevent widespread adoption of APSs, as far as I can see.

 

Oh noes! Autonomous weapon discharges! Why can't a human make such decisions?!

Whom can we litigate if it is an automatic response to an incoming threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

So far it's the weaponized lawyers that prevent widespread adoption of APSs, as far as I can see.

 

Oh noes! Autonomous weapon discharges! Why can't a human make such decisions?!

Whom can we litigate if it is an automatic response to an incoming threat?

Hit the nail on the head here.(Same thing happend to several IED jammers who could als neutralize(=pre-trigger) wire operated IEDs). Had a lengthy discussusion with jurists involved.

 

Jr.:"The APS round could detonate and harm civilians near by"

Me.:"But if they're that close to the vehicle, they will be hurt by RPG round anyway+ our own people get killed."

Jr.:" Yes, but that is not a problem."

Me saying.:"Why?" (thinking: "WTF!!!")

Jr.: "Because then the Bw will not be responsible for the deaths/injury."

...I was out of words by that moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...