Can anyone explain to me why the Leopard 2's turret is shaped

>>33745587

Deflecting shots has not been a thing since WW2.

Modern projectiles cannot be deflected.

>>33745704
Basically this

>>33745587
>Doesn't that direct shots into the turret ring?
sabots shatter before they bounce

File: 2337068_orig[1].jpg (177KB, 800x597px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x597px

>>33745704
>>33745798

So why is the leopard the only tank with this seemingly exposed turret design?

All the other modern tanks I've seen have a single downward sloping turret face, not an V shape like this. What advantage does this confer over the others?

>>33745833
All western tanks have a seemingly exposed turret ring or shot traps, but they just don't matter anymore cuz shit doesn't bounce.

For instance the leo 2 used to have a square turret more akin to the Abrams, but the newer variants feature the arrowhead shaped armor covering the frontal arc of the turret which is actually superior at defeating KE penetrators and shaped charges

File: leopard_2a6_tower_06_of_27.jpg (465KB, 2256x1496px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 2256x1496px

>>33745833
>>33745866
The Leopard 2A5 and later models still have its flat sided armor under that > shaped steel/rubber/steel applique armor.

File: ZTZ-99.jpg (63KB, 488x503px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 488x503px

>>33745971
Chinese tanks also have a > wedge, but of a different construction.

File: UrdunMerkavaIVTurret.jpg (84KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x551px

Merk 4 turret with the spaced armor modules removed.

File: leopard_2a6_tower_01_of_27.jpg (506KB, 2256x1496px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 2256x1496px

>>33745587
The V shaped portion of the turret is not solid steel, or solid anything really. It is a very thin piece of steel under which lies NERA and layered ceramic armor.

All modern tanks are like this, shot traps really don't, and in fact, cannot exist with modern ammunition and armor profiles.

>>33745704
>Modern projectiles cannot be deflected.
they are instead shattered

More spacing, I assume.

>>33748208
you sure germaniggers got ceramics last I checked they were using perforated aluminum . at best that add on package is just steel and sandwiched rubber to act as nera

File: 1471074803633.jpg (82KB, 1008x683px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1008x683px

>>33745587

>>33751174
germans make the best guns and the best armor you can diss them all you want it won't change that fact.

>>33751418
uh. they haven't made the best armor since pre ww1 with the krupp's invention of cemented plate. they were surpassed immediately. even the Americans made better armor. As far as guns go if we are being autistic about it. dm63 is ffar inferior to m829a3 let alone a4. Currently the guns of germany have hit their skill plateau. As far as pure fielded and accepted for service guns the armata's 125mm is currently king pushing out 16mj easy with a 1 meter long penetrator

>>33751418
Germans are to poor and pussy to use DU alloy armor packages. they basically can't compete on that front outside of false marketing to sell tanks

>>33745833
type-10 tanks also does this.

>>33751589
I haven't heard of anyone but the US using DU in their armor at all.

>>33751589
DU is actually considerably cheaper than Tungsten, which is the reason the US uses it.

Other than sabots and armor, DU has no demand, but a constant supply from fuel enrichment. Meanwhile, Tungsten is in high demand for a variety of uses.

>>33745833
From what I gather the type of armor used works better at stopping things when it's faced flat on instead of sloped hence all the flat turret faces.

They then bolt on sloped pieces that serve a different function that probably works better when sloped.

>>33745833
>So why is the leopard the only tank with this seemingly exposed turret design?
The newest model Merkavas have a similar turret, arguably an even worse one if shot traps actually worry you.

>>33745587
German military's funding has been gutted so bad their tank crews need to catch any rounds fired at them so they can re-purpose it for their own guns.

>>33745704
you realize sloped armor makes it so that a projectile must penetrate more, right? having a slope is a good way to """""thicken"""""" the armor without thickening it.

>>33745994
thanks doc

>>33746090
Actually the idea behind this is pretty clever, maintenance-wise.

If armor modules get damaged during battle, you can just wrench for an hour, change them and have a new battlworthy tank.

>>33756858
You're a spaz

>>33751418
>this is what the modern wehraboo believes

the german military is a joke

>>33756759

lol

File: m1vsmerka.png (1MB, 1240x476px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x476px

>>33751551
>As far as pure fielded and accepted for service guns the armata's 125mm is currently king pushing out 16mj easy with a 1 meter long penetrator
good fucking luck with that. I heard they managed to blow up the barrels in tests.

>>33757100
Downside is said armor modules take far more extensive damage than over a wider area of coverage.

>>33757710
>comparing damage from a missile with a 126lbs warhead to one with a warhead mass of 10lbs

I don't even

>>33757729
this deviates from my point how?

>>33756858
An equal mass of sloped and vertical armor covering a 1 meter space have the same effective thickness.

>>33757490
The archetypal "I have no way to refute this post, but nevertheless must voice my butthurt" post.

>>33757758
Significantly different payload. It's like shooting AR500 III+ steel plate hit by .22 LR vs ESAPI with a 12.7x99 and asking what's the difference.

>>33745833
Leo 2 actually has a flat turret face. The wedges are applique spaced armor.

>>33751589
>too poor

DU is a waste product of nuclear weapons manufacturing, retard. The main fucking reason the US uses is is because it costs next to nothing when you're building nukes anyway.

A proper tungsten alloy package is every single bit as good for armor as any DU package in the world, it'll just cost a bit more.

>>33758765
You want me to refute a post that's talking absolute nonsense, and is very clear on the fact?

File: rbpoJTQGVGU.jpg (170KB, 1168x591px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1168x591px

>>33757710
>Downside is said armor modules take far more extensive damage than over a wider area of coverage.


No

>>33756858

Modern armor works by causing a projectile to strike a series of plates of varying materials and shapes in order to disrupt the energy of the projectile or break it up into smaller pieces. The thickness of the armor isn't as important as what it's made of.

Tank designers have apparently concluded that flat plates function better than sloped ones for this purpose.

You're at least 50 years out of date on your tank armor info. The stuff you're talking about was state of the art in 1940.

>>33751589
Abrams uses a German licensed 120mm

>>33758845
>Significantly different payload. It's like shooting AR500 III+ steel plate hit by .22 LR vs ESAPI with a 12.7x99 and asking what's the difference.
Have you actually read the caption? It says the Abrams got hit by the much bigger warhead and all it did was make a fist-sized hole in the turret front, while the relatively piddly warhead of the Kornet practically mauled a huge portion of the Merk 4's frontal turret armor. Mind you Mavericks aren't that much better in penetration than the Kornet- in fact it could even be worse against complex armor given its lack of a tandem warhead and less advanced shaped charge design.

>>33761113
The armor is still pretty much intact albeit it was penetrated was it not?

>>33745833
Because it looks cool

>>33751589
Please don't tell me you actually believe this

>>33763714
>less advanced

shaped charge penetration is directly related to diameter, it's why large AT missiles are still effective after all this time, aside from the obvious utility against ERA, tandem warheads are also a byproduct of weight and size restrictions that limit penetration of ATGMs.

but to get to your original post, I still don't understand why you're trying to say as other tanks have also survived kornet hits, notably the challenger 2 and m1

>>33750086
They actually can be deflected, it just requires a very oblique angle hit

It's so that the turret can sit just a little bit lower in the hull of the tank and still have a good slope to improve armor thickness. It is true that sloped armor is far less effective from when it was first utilized but the concept still holds true today. If you look at the back of the tank and the angles of the lower part of the turret you can see how it just barely has enough clearance to do a full 360 degree rotation.

>>33763838
>shaped charge penetration is directly related to diameter, it's why large AT missiles are still effective after all this time, aside from the obvious utility against ERA, tandem warheads are also a byproduct of weight and size restrictions that limit penetration of ATGMs.
Diameter plays a big part in determining base penetration potential but liner design(shape and material), explosive charge design, standoff distance give out huge multipliers as well. Its no accident the Kornet can claim up to 9x is CD in penetration while the Maverick can claim about only half to 2/3 of that. And we've seen this in the real world, as the Maverick missile failed to penetrate an M1A1HA, but the Kornet penetrated an M1A1 without the DU armor which only means penetration performance difference between the two can not be more than 200-300 mm.

>>33763838
>challenger 2
I don't think it was fired upon by a Kornet in the first place. And my point is that integrated (the one where the composite armor modules are housed within a steel box instead of laid on just the steel wall a la Merk) armor protects the internal fragile armor much better from hits the Merk 4s solution.