Modelling > Engineering Dept.

Leopard 1s for Ukraine

(1/3) > >>

apophenia:
According to Oryxspioenkop, delivery of some 130+ Leopard 1A5s is pending for Ukraine (funded by Berlin with ex-Danish, -Dutch, and -German origins). All of these tanks are armed with L7A3 or L7A4 105 mm L/52 guns. Hardly ideal when dealing with T-72B3s let alone T-90s. Still, the Leopard 1A5 is what is on offer.

Although slightly smaller than a Leopard 2, the Leo 1 still makes a pretty big target compared with most Russian MBTs. That raises questions about what can be done quickly (and comparatively easily) to improve frontal arc protection. First, an acknowledgement that steel Leopard 1 hull armour and 1A5 turret armour are in no way comparable to C-Technologie composite armour which forms the basis for Leopard 2 protection.

My question relates to whether it is feasible and/or advantageous to apply Leopard 2A5-style appliqué armours over the lesser armour protection of the Leopard 1A5?

Specifically, I'm wondering about the comparatively simple Keilpanzerung (wedge armour) modules applied to the turret front of 2A5s. As I understand it, IBD's Keilpanzerung are a 28 mm thick construction of two steel armour plates sandwiching a 'rubber' central layer. The purpose is to absorb kinetic energy from an impacting APFSDS round while also deflecting its course. With luck, the original inner armour can then withstand the final impact (or further deflect) the 'dart'. With that out of the way, the key question emerges ...

Assume that Leopard 2A5-style Keilpanzerung has been applied to our Leo 1A5. Before its Ukrainian crew can close to 800 m effective gun range, an RU T-72B3M looses a 125 mm Svinets round. The Ukrainian tank's Keilpanzerung takes the impact, absorbing some of the KE of the Svinets 'dart' while also deviating it slightly from its original course. Is the 50-to-70 mm thick armour of the original, underlying Leopard 1A5 turret strong enough to protect its crew from whatever punch that 'dart' still has?

I realize that, without range testing, we're working with best guesses here. That said, what do we think?

__________________________________

Image My take on Keilpanzerung applied to a Leopard 1A5.

Armour additions beyond the Keilpanzerung are forward hull and ad hoc ballistic track skirts covered in Ukrainian ERA 'blocks' (as would be the not-visible-here front glacis plate) Slat armour covers the engine area and aft parts of the suspension. I have also shown hinged turret side add-on panels although I don't know how realistic that is.

My image is based on a preserved Danish Leopard 1A5-DK-1. That adds another wrinkle to the protection question since Leopard 1A5-DKs retained the 1A3-style welded-steel turret (whereas ex-Dutch and -German Leopard 1A5s being sent to Ukraine will have cast turrets). Other than moving the smoke discharger cluster aft (to clear the add-on armour), no other changes have been made to the 'base' Leopard 1.

GTX_Admin:
What about the Modular Expandable Armor System (MEXAS) appliqué armour kit?

Old Wombat:
I was thinking that earlier, wouldn't a whole bunch of MEXAS kits be the quickest & easiest way to improve the survivability of Ukrainian Leo 1's?

Hello? Canada, are you out there? ???

apophenia:

--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 12, 2023, 07:30:42 AM ---What about the Modular Expandable Armor System (MEXAS) appliqué armour kit?

--- End quote ---

Yeah, MEXAS is my go-to for Leopard 1s as well but I doubt that there's many such kits out there.

Since MEXAS is considered obsolete, I doubt that IBD would be willing to make more. Redesigning the kit for AMAP could work but would also chew up time that can't really be spared.

BTW, attached are 'inside' views of the Leopard 2A5 wedge armour sections.


--- Quote from: Old Wombat on June 12, 2023, 09:35:55 AM ---... Hello? Canada, are you out there? ???

--- End quote ---

Qui, mais ...

But there are a few problems there. The Leopard C2 MEXAS haven't been operational since 2011. They had been offered for sale to Jordan. When that deal fell through, the tanks were sent back to Canada where they were sent to museums, used as gate guardians, blasted as range 'hard targets', or gone into storage. In Canada, the latter means that the tanks are now next to useless ... though open-air storage in Alberta wouldn't have effected the MEXAS kits much.

The next thing is that Canada's Leopard C2 was an updated C1 fitted with ex-Bundeswehr cast-and-appliqué turrets from Leopard 1A1A1s. [1] I've found it hard to pin down the exact models of the Leopard 1s slated for Ukraine. If the Dutch or German examples have cast turrets, Canada may have a few MEXAS kits that could be scrounged up from storage. And that would be a good thing. The problem is: Canada only ever had 25-odd MEXAS kits to begin with. Say there are 10 kits left in storage. That leaves us with ~120 Ukraine-bound Leopard 1A5s with Duran Duran-era armour protection  :P

______________________________

[1] A long-standing puzzle for me is whether that 1A5 polycarbonate appliqué was replaced by the MEXAS turret kit or was it simply overlaid? Does anyone know the answer?

apophenia:
OT side note on why Leopard 1s?

The obvious answer is that the Leopard 1A5s and -DKs are readily available and, as stored vehicles, sending them to Ukraine takes nothing away from donor nations' readiness.

I note that some journalists are puzzling over why the older Leopard 1A5s would be sent to Ukraine at all. Tankers will already know the answer - the Leo 1s' rifled gun can fire spin-stabilised HESH rounds (AFAIK, there is no 120x570mm NATO HESH round). This explains why, in Afghanistan, when superior Leopard 2A6Ms arrived, Leopard C2s remained in action. A C2 could pop an L35 HESH round at a mud brick wall and the 2A6M could not.

Of course, an L35A2 HESH round is going to be just as effective against any concrete emplacements the RU create or adapt in Ukraine. And the beauty from the ZSU side is that angle-of-attack and strike velocity are largely irrelevant. L35 rounds only hold 2.1 kg of RDX. But HESH does its damage to reinforced concrete by blast, spalling, and shock wave effect. And, of course, both blast and fragmentation are also going to have "secondary anti-personnel effects" for anyone unlucky enough to be exposed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page