Leopard 2A4 for Ukraine: how can we punch the German "cat" in the face
A lot has been said and written about the fact that Germany and a number of other countries have already made the final decision to supply Ukrainian troops with their Leopards-2, so we won’t talk about how we have come to such a life, and we won’t talk about the sacred “red lines”.
Something else is interesting here. The fact is that a considerable part of the deliveries will consist of relatively old modifications. tanks under the index "Leopard-2A4". They will be given by the Poles, Norwegians, Spaniards and even the Germans themselves, who have promised to allocate a whole battalion of obsolete vehicles.
Junk, of course, junk, but what can the protection of these steel "cats" give, and what can we oppose to it?
A little about the tarnished reputation of the tank
The question regarding the reputation of the Leopard-2A4 is quite interesting. On the one hand, it is impossible to deny a lot of advantages of this machine, which includes ease of use, high reliability and increased resource of the main components and assemblies, electronics, and so on. In general, everything that is inherent in German military equipment.
On the other hand, there was the Syrian war and Turkey's decision to participate in it through direct intervention against the Kurds. It seems that many saw the consequences of this in the form of a certain number of Turkish Leopards-2A4 gouged into the trash. Later, versions were even put forward that some of the tanks were destroyed from the oldest Soviet anti-tank missile system "Malyutka", which belongs to the first generation of such systems.
Let's agree, the blow to the reputation was crushing, but only within the general public. Here, after all, the rule is simple: showed on TV or in articles on the Internet a few photos or videos with lined equipment, and in the eyes of the average layman it automatically becomes bad, with thin armor, and it was obviously made by fools who do not understand anything about it.
In fact, the combat use of Turkish tanks and all these incidents with their defeat cannot give a full picture of the Leopard-2A4 armor. Still, the side projections, where they often flew in, as well as the stern and the roof, are the weak spots of absolutely any tank, whether it be at least the Leopard, even the T-72B3, even the Challenger-2. So there’s not even anything to talk about here: during the special operation, when the German “gifts” reach the front, there will be similar situations. An anti-tank grenade, and even more so a missile on board, can most likely lead to the expected result in the form of a vehicle failure, crew injuries, fire, and so on.
A tank's security should be assessed primarily by looking at its frontal parts of the hull and turret, where the bulk of the armor is concentrated. You can, of course, argue for a long time that no one shoots in the forehead, but the Leopard-2A4, like all serial tanks existing in the world, is built according to the principles of differentiated armor and does not imply other approaches to assessment.
And here an interesting situation emerges: there are no statistics at all on the “Germans” destroyed or simply knocked out in the forehead. Therefore, we cannot yet unequivocally answer the question of whether the tank is poorly protected or not. Practice will show this. However, the available data suggests that it will not become a very difficult opponent for our anti-tank weapons, but it can rattle nerves.
Modern indicators do not match
Still, the Leopard-2A4 is a rather old car, so it’s clearly not worth making a very high-tech miracle or a “wunderwaffe” out of it, which can bring its owner’s troops to some transcendental level. Although Western experts of various calibers, as well as nimble editors of Wikipedia, managed to attribute to this old man the magical ability to fend off exclusively all Russian shells, from sub-caliber to the most advanced missiles with a cumulative warhead.
In reality, things turn out a little differently. Serial production of this particular modification of the Leopard for the needs of the Bundeswehr began at the end of 1985 and lasted almost six years until March 1992. Tanks of this release for the entire period of time received two armor options, which are designated as B-tech and C-tech.
All tanks produced from 1985 to 1987 had protection configuration B. Production vehicles from 1988 to 1992 already had more advanced C armor with increased durability. No other booking in the Leopard-2A4 was provided for either in export copies or for the internal needs of the German Ministry of Defense. Therefore, tanks will arrive in Ukraine either with the first or with the second protection option, which, by the way, are not distinguished by huge indicators of durability.
At the moment, there is no specific and official data on what components were contained in one or another booking option. All that can be said with some certainty is the presence of ceramics and other high-hard inserts, coupled with semi-active armor that uses the energy of a cumulative jet to destroy it. In the West, such elements are called NERA (Non-Explosive Reactive Armor). In our country, by the way, almost all advanced tanks are equipped with such in different variations, so this is by no means the prerogative of "NATO" vehicles.
However, if the composition of the reservation is not very clear, then the tender for the supply of Leopards-2 to Sweden brings clarity in terms of indicators of its durability. There, both the Germans and the Swedes tried to give a more or less clear picture not only of the prototypes of the tank in the face of the Leopard 2 Improved (an improved vehicle, the solutions of which were partially implemented on the Leopard-2A5) and Strv-122 (the Swedish version of the Leopard- 2A5" with reinforced protection). Our Leopard-2A4 also lit up there.
On the left, the resistance indicators of the Leopard-2A4 with type B armor against sub-caliber shells in heading angles. On the right are the indicators of the same tank, equipped with additional armor modules on the turret and hull according to the Leopard 2 Improved program.
Judging by the illustration, the entire frontal projection of the Leopard-2A4 tank with the armor of option B is approximately 60-70% protected from sub-caliber shells with a penetration of about 300 millimeters in steel equivalent. As for more powerful ammunition with a penetration capacity of 400-500 mm, we are talking about literally 20-30 percent when fired directly into the forehead.
In general, judging by open data, the Leopard-2A4 with type B armor holds sub-caliber shells with a penetration of 350-400 mm and cumulative shells with a penetration of up to 600-700 mm in the forehead. This is not even the level of late Soviet tanks, such as the T-72B and T-80U, which provided a greater level of protection without dynamic protection due to passive armor alone.
Reinforced protection (C-tech) of the late Leopard-2A4 version, although it differs from the early version of the armor, did not bring anything radical in principle. The performance of its resistance can be judged to some extent by the British report, in which the British tried to evaluate them and compare them with those of their Challenger.
British assessment of the durability of the Leopard-2 turret with old and new armor. KE - resistance against sub-caliber projectiles, CE - resistance against cumulative means
So, the reinforced armor of the "Leopard" in the frontal projection of the tower gives 410-420 mm from sub-caliber projectiles and 750-800 mm from HEAT weapons. On the forehead of the hull, apparently, the results are about the same. Even in this design, the protection of the tank is about 20 percent weaker than that of the Soviet T-72B and T-80U without dynamic protection.
In general, armor by the end of the 80s was far from being the most advanced, and by today's standards it was completely outdated. Although it is impossible to call it absolutely useless. It cannot be overcome by the old means.
What to break through?
We already briefly spoke about the sides, the stern and other vulnerabilities above - when fired at a right (or so) angle, even fairly ancient grenade launchers and anti-tank missile systems can do a lot of things. However, even the armor-piercing shells of the 30mm automatic cannons will inflict heavy damage on a German tank with some degree of probability.
Do not forget about artillery, mines and drones, dangerous for any armored vehicle in the NWO zone, and not only.
As for the frontal projection of the Leopard-2A4, tank cumulative shells, grenade launchers of old modifications and very old anti-tank systems will not have the desired effect. The latter will be useful to know for those who are actively promoting the idea that it is possible to cope with the German "cat" with some complex like "Malyutka" of the 60s.
However, there are a lot of means by which you can properly buy the "German" in the forehead.
Of the tank ammunition, first of all, sub-caliber shells should be noted. Their uranium modifications, it seems, were not brought into the special operation zone, so the Soviet Mangoes, and even more so the Russian Leads in tungsten version, if any, may be quite effective.
Tank guided missiles can also be used. In terms of convenience and frequency of use, they, I think, are far from in the first place, but the same Invar and its modernized version will cope with German armor.
Of the specialized anti-tank weapons, the missiles of the Shturm, Khrizantema-S, Konkurs-M complexes, as well as the Metis-M and Kornet anti-tank systems will show good effectiveness against the Leopard-2A4 armor.
It is possible and necessary to summarize this list with a rather interesting illustration that appeared on the net. Its author/authors described in sufficient detail how to beat a German guest, so many thanks to them for this.
Image source: odetievbrony.ru
Image source: odetievbrony.ru
Information