Design Flaw in Leo2 A4 Turret Front
-
Read in Osprey series on Challenger 2 that in the course of evaluating various MBTs including Leo2 A4 , M1A1 etc to replace British Army Challenger 1s and Chieftains, there was an issue regarding a design flaw in Leo2A4's frontal armor. This was corrected in subsequent Leo2 versions starting with the Leo2A5 being installed with wedge shaped ( vs slab shaped ones in L2A4 ) frontal armor.
Anyone has more info on this and on what was actually the design flaw ?
I assume that SAF L2A4s will subsequently have this fault, if any, rectified.
-
dont worry lah... the chief of army during an interview with ADJ already stated that the leopard with be undergoing a major complete all round upgrade that would see its weight spike and the leopards tracks being "tuned" to support the change.
so if its not an A5 and above... i am looking at the possibility of the LEO 2EVO.
this is singapore leh... we zhng everything from space shuttle to drinking straw one... its our culture since the inception of SAF... to "add value".
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
dont worry lah... the chief of army during an interview with ADJ already stated that the leopard with be undergoing a major complete all round upgrade that would see its weight spike and the leopards tracks being "tuned" to support the change.
so if its not an A5 and above... i am looking at the possibility of the LEO 2EVO.
this is singapore leh... we zhng everything from space shuttle to drinking straw one... its our culture since the inception of SAF... to "add value".
singapore Quality class organisation mah.
but i am hoping for more L2s :)
-
No design flaw. L2A4 had a flat face front for the turret whereas the Challenger started using sloped design for its turret. That's a reflection of the difference in era of design. The sloped turret is heavily influenced by the original Merkava design which appeared in the early 80s after original L2 design.
-
Having sloped turret is good.
Defense News (based in US) reported S'pore defense spending to go up 6% this year, in the midst of recession, maybe part of the increase is to "zhng" our >130 L2A4.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3913353
-
Hi "tripwire". Thanks for teh info.
Kindly tell me which issue of ADJ were Chief of Army's comments reported.
Lets hope they also add a Active Protection System in future although I think current systems are still not sufficiently mature.
-
The only design flaw that I'm aware of is that of a supposed flaw in the turret/gunner's sight area, as reported by the Greek army in their live test trials of a production 2A6 turret.
An unknown number of projectiles (30?) of unknown calibre and unkown type (APFSDS/HEAT?) were fired against the turret of which 2 hit the gunner's sight and 1 achieved complete penetration to the crew compartment, cia the gunner's sight.
This is supposed to have been rectified for the final production 2HEL delivered to the Greek Army. Noted was that the gunner's sight was not actually installed in the test turret but I have no idea what effect it will have on the penetration results.
Nonetheless. 1 complete penetration out of ?? multiple hits is still pretty good by my books ... now to see what they do to the SAF 2A4's.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
No design flaw. L2A4 had a flat face front for the turret whereas the Challenger started using sloped design for its turret. That's a reflection of the difference in era of design. The sloped turret is heavily influenced by the original Merkava design which appeared in the early 80s after original L2 design.
I think the slope armour on the Chally/M1 has more to do with their use of Chobham armour than any influence from the Merkava. The Leo went down a different path, supposedly space perforated steel, which has a different defeat mechanism, hence less vertical sloping.
-
The report is on tank-net. It was a random turret. No design flaw. Turrets aren't meant to withstand 30 shells (reportedly 120mm KEs).
Actually, the reverse is true wrt armour. The design philosophy of composite armour ie Cobham = no need angled deflection.
US designers didn't think it necessary as protection was sufficiently demonstrated in recent wars.
Leopards don't use Chobham. They use perforated, spaced armour (as compared to ceramic) that is actually lower maintenance. Same thing with merkava.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Hi "tripwire". Thanks for teh info.
Kindly tell me which issue of ADJ were Chief of Army's comments reported.
Lets hope they also add a Active Protection System in future although I think current systems are still not sufficiently mature.
november 2008.
-
Actually, the reverse is true wrt armour. The design philosophy of composite armour ie Cobham = no need angled deflection.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here ... it is the nature of high speed APFSDS that negates any angled defelction of slope armour (within reasonable limits).
Various composite armour systems have differing defeat mechanisms.
If you are saying that Chobham negates the need for angled surfaces, then why are the surfaces for the Challenger 2 and Abrams so steeply sloped (in 2-axis) viz. the Leopard 2 which is only sloped in 1 axis.
Perhaps because the Chobham relies on a secondary defeat mechanism in case the primary interface defeat mechanism fails?
Leopards don't use Chobham. They use perforated, spaced armour (as compared to ceramic) that is actually lower maintenance. Same thing with merkava.The armour package of the Merk has gone through quite a evolution from Merk 1 to Merk 4. Which one would you be referring to?
-
Perforated armour works by creating inconsistent stresses in the projectile causing it to fragment. Its meant to work against APFSDS as well.
I would however agree to say that no armour, no matter how sloped, will stop a APFSDS round completely and ultimately will still depend on how much armour it carries.
The thinking in the 70s and 80s was that long rod penetrators will make slope armour irrelevant. However, there is a revival of sloped armour in turret design as can be seen in L2A6.
The C2 and Abrams will still present a relatively flat face depending on the angle which the shooter approaches the tank. The L2A6 turret uses the same angled merkava design (all mks) that presents an angle no matter which way a ground level target approaches.
The armour package of the Merkava may have been upgraded but the same basic flat top turret design is still there. This despite the Mk III and IVs being rumoured to incorporate Chobham armour as well.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Perforated armour works by creating inconsistent stresses in the projectile causing it to fragment. Its meant to work against APFSDS as well.
Well at least we can agree on that.
I would however agree to say that no armour, no matter how sloped, will stop a APFSDS round completely and ultimately will still depend on how much armour it carries.
Your original reference to Chobham = no need angled deflection confused me. The main defeat mechanism of a ceramic faced composite is interface defeat, which doesn't depend on angles ... but yet, both Chally and Abrams design features lots of slope. Surely there is a reason for that?
Sloping and the defeat mechanisms associated with it are quite different. There are a few defeat mechanisms associated with sloped armour.
Sloping and deflection mechanism is what we normally call richochet. We can certainly agree that against modern long-rod APFSDS, it's not going to work.
Sloping and LOS thickness, in most cases is still valid and works along the line of "how much armour it carries"
Sloping and asymmetric defeat is still valid even against long rod APFSDS penetrators. This is a defeat mechanism common to most composite armours.The thinking in the 70s and 80s was that long rod penetrators will make slope armour irrelevant. However, there is a revival of sloped armour in turret design as can be seen in L2A6.
I don't know what you are referencing to, but sloped armour was still prevalent in the designs incepted in the 70s and 80s.
The use of sloped add-on armour for the L2A6 is not because of a revival in sloped armour. The base slab sided perforated steel base armour is still there. The add-on armour is most probably some composite/laminate where the primary mechanism is asymmetric defeat of the rod ... hence the slope.The C2 and Abrams will still present a relatively flat face depending on the angle which the shooter approaches the tank. The L2A6 turret uses the same angled merkava design (all mks) that presents an angle no matter which way a ground level target approaches.
Eyeballing the Chally 2 and Abrams doesn't give me much of a vertical surface (from the frontal aspect) ... unless I have a significant height advantage over them. I'm not sure if we're confusing slope with flat/curved surfaces ... ?
The armour package of the Merkava may have been upgraded but the same basic flat top turret design is still there. This despite the Mk III and IVs being rumoured to incorporate Chobham armour as well.
By "flat top" I take it you mean the disc/UFO shaped turret? All western bustle turrets have a flat top ;)
The Disc shaped turret is a "recent" developement. The Merk started off with spaced armour and a wedged shaped turret that was heavily sloped in the frontal aspect only. The spaced armour evolved into additional bolt-on composites and the shape of this only evolved into a disc starting from the Mk 3D onwards (~Y2000?) to the current Merk 4.From what I understand, the Merk composites are not Chobham (Ceramic) based. Photos of damaged panels from the shootout in Lebanon seems to indicate it is a Steel/Rubber sandwich.
-
Its semantics. The Merk turret design presents far more angle than either C2/M1. The M1 turret is only angled from the front. From a 15deg angle facing the M1 tank, it is almost flat-faced on certain parts of the turret.
You can call it wedge shaped, disc shaped, but fundamentally, all 4 merkava designs utilises the same principles just getting better in each.
The angled turret similar to Merk was discussed during M1 upgrades (can't remember source) but that was rejected as the improvements were considered marginal in comparison with Chobham. Marginal is a relative term.
We're moving back in a circle on the L2 turret design that my original post mentioned is a reflection of the times. The disc shaped turret of the L2A6 is actually an evolution of the Merkava Mk 1 turret which was influenced in part Russian design tech (which favoured rounded designs) which again went back to the JS design.
Each turret design is an evolution of the past and a reflection of thinking at that time. I don't regard it as design flaws, just designs that will be outdated when technology improves.
-
From what I understand from the description in the British Army finding was that it was a design flaw in the L2A4 frontal armor which affected the armor integrity. They did not specifically refer to the vulnerability of the slab armor and gunners sight per se.
In any case , this flaw, if any, will be irrelevant once addition armor is added on to SAF L2A4s.
Also, this is a limit to how much armor one can add & I think the future will definitely be in APS.
-
I'm sure the numerous actual users of the Leopard 2 and 2A4 will disagree.
-
Disagree to what in particular ?
-
To it being a design flaw. No tank user will ever procure/use a flawed weapon.
-
Its semantics. The Merk turret design presents far more angle than either C2/M1. The M1 turret is only angled from the front. From a 15deg angle facing the M1 tank, it is almost flat-faced on certain parts of the turret.
You can call it wedge shaped, disc shaped, but fundamentally, all 4 merkava designs utilises the same principles just getting better in each.
Dude, what are you talking about?
The M1 may have little horizontal slope at 15deg off facing, but you still have the vertical slope to contend with.
The Merk Mk 1 is essentially slab sided. The more you get a side angle on that turret, the less you have to deal with slope
This is a wedge shape profile. It is highly optimised for a frontal engagement.
Contrast this with the UFO/Disc profile of a Mk 3D/4 which offers significant slope even from a side profile. The profiling of the armour has changed from front optimised to an All Aspect.
The material composition of the armour has changed from spaced steel to composite add ons ... and yet you insist the 4 models (turret) utilise the same principle.
We're moving back in a circle on the L2 turret design that my original post mentioned is a reflection of the times. The disc shaped turret of the L2A6 is actually an evolution of the Merkava Mk 1 turret which was influenced in part Russian design tech (which favoured rounded designs) which again went back to the JS design.
This I'd like to hear more of ... can you please expand?
The L2A6 is a disc shaped turret?
The Merk 1 turret is influenced by soviet rounded turret designs?
-
Originally posted by slim10:
To it being a design flaw. No tank user will ever knowingly procure/use a flawed weapon.
fixed it for ya ;)
history contains examples of quite a few "flawed" designs ... not known at time of inception. credit where credit is due, they mostly get fixed.
-
You're looking at it from the top side. Look at it from the front for the Mk 1.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=2050
Compared to the M1...
Its really a well-designed turret for the merk but as GW showed, the relatively flatter face wasn't exactly a disadvantage for the M1...
Well, the L2A4 isn't a flawed design. Outdated, maybe but certainly not flawed. Whacking 21st century shells on a 20th century turret doesn't make it flawed. Just outdated.
My definition of flawed is where the equipment was not capable of meeting design requirements. In that respect, haven't read anything that suggested the L2A4 didn't meet original design requirements.
-
As clearly stated, it was reported in the publication that the British Army observed the design flaw in the frontal armor of the L2A4 when comparing various then current MBT designs. No further details were given. Neither was there any comment that the vertical slab armor per se was the flaw. The purpose of raising this topic is to find out if there are any other reports from other sources which have made similar observations. This is only publication that I have seen where such a comment was made.
The overall design of L2s is obviously excellent given the many users that have decided that this is the best MBT for them. But given its lack of actual battle exposure one will never know how the L2A4 wud have stood up to the acid test of war.
Does anyone know which countries besides SG now operate L2A4s in significant numbers ? As far as I know most users of L2A4s have mostly upgraded the L2A4 armor & notably the frontal armor.
-
Sorry, re-read the thread and you did mention that the source was from Osprey but nothing specific mentioned.
As a UK publication, I doubt if there is any credibility to that report.
The UK assessment of the L2 was done in the course of evaluating the C2. To justify local production of a MBT vs adopting a german design, would one be surprised? lol.
There is no design flaw for the L2.
Also, I doubt if it could have been the L2A4. The L2A4 was built only from 1985 onwards. The Challenger assessments were done in the early 80s.
-
-