Post by hunter on Dec 9, 2019 23:26:25 GMT
talking about the Leopard 1, then no. It was designed in the 1960s when guided missiles like the TOW or Sagger AT-3 could penetrate 200 mm or more of armor.
It was considered to be impossible with the technology of the day to completely armor against a penetration (if you had, say, 300mm of armor, it would be easy to upgrade the missile to have 400mm penetration. Indeed current models have over 1000mm penetration).
Instead, enough armor was put on the Leopard 1 to protect against small caliber auto cannon and instead of armor, rely on speed for protection.
The Leopard 1 and the French AMX 30, which was designed with the same idea, both have good guns, good gun handling, excellent mobility and poor armor. So no, they are not “tough” tanks.
Later developments in armor came up with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) which significantly reduced the effectiveness of the shaped charge warheads used on missiles. In addition, new composite armors were developed which gave much improved performance against both HEAT and kinetic energy penetrators.
Thus the Leopard II was designed quite differently. It has various combinations of armor plates of different materials and void spaces. The total thickness is up to 1500mm in places, although a lot of that is empty void space. This gives the tank excellent protection against HEAT and decent protection against kinetic weapons, at least from the frontal arc.
At the same time, the Leopard II retains great mobility and an even better gun.
It was considered to be impossible with the technology of the day to completely armor against a penetration (if you had, say, 300mm of armor, it would be easy to upgrade the missile to have 400mm penetration. Indeed current models have over 1000mm penetration).
Instead, enough armor was put on the Leopard 1 to protect against small caliber auto cannon and instead of armor, rely on speed for protection.
The Leopard 1 and the French AMX 30, which was designed with the same idea, both have good guns, good gun handling, excellent mobility and poor armor. So no, they are not “tough” tanks.
Later developments in armor came up with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) which significantly reduced the effectiveness of the shaped charge warheads used on missiles. In addition, new composite armors were developed which gave much improved performance against both HEAT and kinetic energy penetrators.
Thus the Leopard II was designed quite differently. It has various combinations of armor plates of different materials and void spaces. The total thickness is up to 1500mm in places, although a lot of that is empty void space. This gives the tank excellent protection against HEAT and decent protection against kinetic weapons, at least from the frontal arc.
At the same time, the Leopard II retains great mobility and an even better gun.
So the new Leopard II is much more protected than the Leopard I and probably qualifies as a “tough” tank.
In this video we take a look at the gorgeous Leopard 1 Main Battle Tank on a training live fire exercise. The tanks are going through a gun run exercise where they test the skills of their crews to maintain competency and skill set for gunnery, loading and commanding of the tank.
