51 thoughts on “Rheinmetall Leopard 2 Evolution

  1. Well, the Evolution armour package has been spotted as available for the Leo2 A4 in Armoured Warfare..

    Lets just hope it doesn’t disappoint.

  2. I get it you feel very aroused around your tanks but seriously, keep the “amour” down a little bit and let’s talk more about armor and such things :-P

    • Neither Qatar nor Saudi Arabia is dictatorship. Monarchy, yes, but not dictatorship. They have a different culture, different society than yours. Be a little more tolerant of other people, even it’s not easy for a German.

      By the way, it’s sort of weird to see this superiority complex of Germans. No matter if you are Nazis or Democrats, you always feel superior to everyone else.

  3. There are actually people talking about shot traps.
    In 2015.
    How fucking stupid can people get?

  4. Hmmm.. is it just me or are that turret not so shell bouncing like?? I mean, not sloped?? It may be spaced armor, but still… and the space between turret and hull is just begging to be hit :P

    • http://i.imgur.com/ePgAxLD.jpg
      This is what a kinetic penetrator does to sloped armor. In WWII sloped armor’s main idea was to deflect or shatter incoming shells. In the modern battlefield, APFSDS focuses the energy to a small point, making sloped armor more or less obsolete.
      Contrary to popular belief, sloped armor does not decrease weight. The more sloped it is, the more area you have to cover because you need space for your modeules.

      • Actually yes it does decrease the weight since the angling increases effective armor thickness based on the angle of the incoming round while not having to increase actual thickness. That being said, today’s HEAT & APFSDS would have a pen rating of >800-900mm of RHA, making armor thickness a moot point.

        Also armor angling is very space inefficient…just look at the russian designs and the crew “comfort” they have…

        • Except that statements like that tend to regard the “actual thickness” of the armour as the thickness as measured from the normal of the surface… and neglects that gains you might get from increasing the effective armour thickness is often offset by needing a larger surface area to cover the same vertical height.

          Think of simulating a sloped surface using LEGO bricks (the flat style, since that actually results in something that looks reasonably sloped). For flat armour, simply pile the bricks on top of one another, for sloped armour, shift the bricks back one row of bumps for each layer. You’ll find that, for a given height, width, and depth of armour as seen from a horizontal viewpoint, you use the same number of bricks either way. A similar observation occurs with sloped armour: you’re effectively using the same volume of metal (height times width times “effective armour thickness”) regardless of the slope of the plate.

          Now, there are other advantages with having sloped armour, and it DOES offer some weight savings compared to earlier designs in that you can do away with horizontal “roof” surfaces that you might need with a “box tank” design. On its own, though, a glacis plate of a given effective armour thickness is no lighter when sloped at sixty degrees than it is as a flat vertical surface.

          • It’s probably hollow and modular like the 2A6 and A7. Besides the additional armour is clearly in response to man portable anti tank weapons. KW is just doing to the Leopard 2 what the British and US did to thier tanks 10 years ago and bolt on a shed load of module armour.

        • Not very interesting since it’s not true. They intended to bring the Chieftain but the UK backed down(political reasons) so they had to make to with their own design…y’know the whole “put crew safety at a premium” thing that the Merkava does so well, with engine at the front, whole crew in the middle and armored carrier at the back, that’s no chieftain design I’ve seen.

          • I didn’t say it was a chieftain design, but it was down to the chief that you have the merkava! Anyways the Merkava is a first class tank :)

            • Ah yes, due to the Chieftain’s inability to mount a worthwhile powerplant(iirc because the british insisted on having a multifuel engine which was unreliable at best) and Britain’s backing out of the deal, the Israelis had to make due and develop their own tank.

              And indeed it’s a first class tank. Tbh, the Chally would be on my top of the list if the brits would stop using that rifled 120mm and went for the Rheinmetall 120 smoothbore that their comrades use(Leo, Abrams, not sure about Leclerc) cuz boy it can take punishment!

              • What advantages does a smoothbore have in relation to rifled besides increased barrel life? Rifles can fire HESH

              • There is only one quite big problem with merkava. Mainly front armour in the area of gearbox/final drives(there’s very little space there). It’s too thin to effectively protect the tank’s power plant against modern KE rounds, so a first hit/first kill is a must for it. It all comes down to the first merkava, since it was developed with max crew protection in mind, when the IDF did not have access to chobam style composite armour(blazer package does not count). Hence the front engine configuration and quite extreme angles on the turret to maximize the odds for a shell to slip upon hit.
                Don’t get me wrong, i’m not trying to piss on it’s design, every mbt has something that could be corrected ( i’m looking at you soviet ammo rack). And i think we can safely assume Merky has better optics and FCS that most machines in the region(save for Turkish Altay at least)

  5. they have added just some modular armor ? shit, there is some since at least 1990, they could have done better…or earlier.

  6. Why do i have feeling that this tank can be remotely driven aka being as a drone.

  7. Why do only the Russians (and former WP countries, and WP derived tanks) use ERA bricks to increase the tank’s frontal protection?

      • Only Brits use Chobbham. Not even Abrams has Chobbham contrary to what a lot of people might have heard

    • They are not the only ones, most other nations that use them though only fit in time of conflict or war zones.

      The Israelis were the first to generally fit them (Blazer) iirc and the Soviets copied an example for their first version if the press blurbs are correct

    • Maybe cause it’s not that effective against two or three phase HEAT (tandem charge) or too much of a risk for nearby infantry, hell I don’t know.
      I just know that it isn’t as effective as everyone praises it to be but it does look pretty cool I have to admit ;)

  8. Originally shown at Eurosatory exhibition in Paris, France, in mid-June 2010, based on the Leopard 2A4 with L44 120mm, modular improved design for urban operations (hence the L44 being used according to some of the press reports I read at the time)

  9. 120mm L/55 is reaching its technical limits. Would not be a sufficent weapon in next 5-7 years.

    Time to research and produce that 140mm, dear German engineers.

    • I can’t do the math, but would higher caliber really make any difference with sub-caliber ammunition (APFSDS)? Wouldn’t you also need a longer gun for 140mm caliber? I assume that you could get better penetrating capability from the 120mm too if you made it longer, but that would hinder the practical performance.

    • It was already Researched in the 90s by Rheinmetall(Rheinmetall Neue Panzerkanone 140, NPzK-140,) but found unnecessary.

      • “but found unnecesary” … at the time. at least they have all the ground work done if they ever do decide that 120mm armed tanks need upgunning.

        • In WWII bigger guns were pretty useful to gain more firepower.
          Nowadays it comes down to the ammunition and what purposes it serves.

    • Some time ago i read article about 150mm (maybe it was 140 as you say, but i am almost sure it was 150) Rheinmetall gun for future Leo 3. The thing was said (according to the article) to be capable of penetrating T-80 through front armour all the way to back and out at virtually any typical combat range with APFSDS.

      “You, you and you- step in line.” *BOOM* :D

    • Oh yes… “Bigger bore diameter must mean better penetration”
      9mm para vs 7.62mm NATO, anyone?

      • Well, bigged bore diameter means better penetration, as long as you compare two guns with comparable barrel lengths, chamber pressures and aerodynamic profile of bullet, which those two you mentioned simply AREN’T.
        Luger is round bullet typically fired from 5″ barrel with muzzle energy around 550J, 7,62 NATO is long, pointed bullet typically fired from barrels 16-20″ long with muzzle energy of over 2700J.

        Now of course you can allways just increase chamber pressure or elongate barrel (or both), but let’s face it – Rheinmetall’s 120mm is at limits in both of those terms – chamber pressures are so great the thing has barrel life of about 260 rounds and every noticable increase in pressures would increase barrel wear exponentialy. Gun with barrel life of 60 rounds? Not very desirable in battlefield conditions, is it?

        Also – barrel lenth of 55 calibres, i.e. 6,6m is quite a lot – longer barrel would be possible, but also more vulnerable and a LOT more expensive, not to mention problematic in terms of torsion strain and oscillation.

  10. The Video is of the Leo 2 Revolution developed by Rheinmettal and unveiled in Paris in 2010

    The Leopard 2 Evolution is a different add on pack made by IBD Deisenroth Engineering for the leopard 2A4, it was unveiled at the CANSEC 2009 show in Ottawa, Canada.

    Although they look similar they are not the same system.

  11. Pingback: Rheinmetall Defence - Leopard 2 MBT Revolution

  12. God dammit Germany, I want the old “oh look something that’s 5 years ahead of any of you faggots” back.