Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1446249
RHA for kinetic rounds, and up to ~1200 mm RHA when it comes to SC. However, these figures only apply to the turret. Why is that? Here, a question emerges: what Type D armor is? There are two theories here. The first as- sumes that Type D armor is a new composite armor type hidden in slots in the hull and the turret. The second theory assumes that Type D armor only consists of the additional protection elements. For Leopard 2A5 featuring the Type D armor, we are referring to the wedge-shaped modules on the front of the turret, extra shielding on the sides (NERA, or NxRA), and new side aprons over the hull. The primary special armor is still the Type C solution. What is the truth here? We will not know for sure, for at least a couple of years. So, what is the actual level of protection for the Leopard 2A5? We are speak- ing of ~600 mm RHA for the front part of the turret against kinetic penetra- tors, and ~1,200 mm against shaped charges. For the front part of the hull the value is still around ~410-420 mm of RHA against kinetic rounds, and ~750-800 mm of RHA against a shaped charge, provided that the hull is just protected by the Type C armor. One should mention that Leopard 2 MBTs have a vast weak point on the right side of the turret, due to the placement of the EMES-15 sight and the optical tract reaching the interior of the turret. This requires large openings to be cut in the front armor. Even though the turret protection levels for Leopard 2PL and Leopard 2A5 MBTs may be considered to be acceptable, this cannot be said about the hull protection. This also stems from another weakness of the Leopard 2 family MBTs. The hull houses the main ammunition storage magazine, with 27 rounds. The placement of ammunition within the hull would not be a problem, how- ever, the storage comes in a form of a simple shelf that is not sep- arated from the crew with any bulkheads, or blow-out panels that would dissipate the fire or explosion outside (flames, gases of the propelling charges, pressure). The situation is further deteriorated by the weak armor of the front part of the hull. It may be optimistically assumed that our Leopard 2 MBTs would only be used in a defensive setting, with the hulls being covered by improvised protection - in the so-called hull-down position - and only the turret would remain exposed. Nonetheless, real-life conflicts usually occur rapidly and verify such optimistic assumptions. This has been proven by the experience gained in Syria. At least 3 Turkish Leopard 2A4 MBTs were effectively neutralized by rounds hitting the ammunition storage. For one tank, this led to a situation in which the turret was blown off, another vehicle suffered from even worse consequences. Apart from the loss of the turret, the exploding ammunition completely disintegrated the frontal section of the vehi- cle. The third tank suffered from the direct effects. The ammunition in the hull took a direct hit from an ATGM, while the tank simply disintegrated (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yafzmkv- VRiI&t=2s). Photographs of the wreckage can be found online. The above means that the survivability of the Leopard 2 MBT is somewhat similar to the T-72. This should ring a bell for the Polish Armed Forces. Realistically, we would be outnumbered by the po- tential adversary. We also cannot afford to lose the tank crews who undergo long, tedious, advanced training - which is also costly. Thus, a major emphasis shall be placed on the protection of lives and the health of the crews. Some problems emerge in other areas - such as firepower. In the case of the Leopard 2 MBT, this has been partially resolved by pro- curement of major quantities of live and training rounds, including the state-of-the-art APFSDS DM63A1 ammunition. Furthermore, ammunition has been developed by the Polish industry - PZ531 Mk1, and PZ531 Mk2 (still in development), and PZ511 HE round. HSW and Rheinmetall Waffe und Munitions also signed an agreement concerning license manufacturing of components of the 120 mm Rh120 tank guns, mainly the barrels. Ammunition is more of an issue in the case of the T-72 and PT-91 MBTs. One needs to be clear here: smoothbore 125 mm 2A46 guns of these tanks are obsolete and worn out - which translates into worse performance, and a higher chance of damage. A similar problem occurs when it comes to the separate-loading am- munition for the tank's main gun, nicknamed Rapira. Poland does not possess modern APFSDS rounds. Obsolete 3WBM7 ammunition with 3BM15 projectiles is the primary asset - with a steel short-core tungsten carbide penetrator. 3BM15, when hitting the armor at an angle of 0°, can penetrate up to ~460-470 mm of RHA at 2,1000 meters, when flying at a velocity of 1.5 km/s. At an angle of 30 to 50°, the penetration goes down to 280 mm. At 60° angle, it is as high as 300 mm. This means that 3BM15 is not a tool one would want to use when facing modern MBTs. Many sources also suggest that the Polish Armed Forces also have the 3WBM9 ammunition at its disposal, with 3BM22 projec- tiles, similar to 3BM15 but with a better tungsten core. The guaran- teed penetration at 2,000 meters is as high as 420 mm at 0°, and ANALYSIS