In the end, the Panzer 68/88 entered service without ERA.
September 24, 2025 at 3:22 PM
In the end, the Panzer 68/88 entered service without ERA.
When only the turret or hull were uparmored, the probability of a mission kill was lower against warheads with 600 mm penetration (56% and 64% respectively) and 900 mm penetration (55% and 57% respectivley).
Thus, the 🇨🇭 military recommended installing ERA on both hull & turret.
Thus, the 🇨🇭 military recommended installing ERA on both hull & turret.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
When only the turret or hull were uparmored, the probability of a mission kill was lower against warheads with 600 mm penetration (56% and 64% respectively) and 900 mm penetration (55% and 57% respectivley).
Thus, the 🇨🇭 military recommended installing ERA on both hull & turret.
Thus, the 🇨🇭 military recommended installing ERA on both hull & turret.
By 🇨🇭 estimates, a fully up-armored Panzer 68 (ERA on turret and hull) matched the probability of a mission kill of the Leopard 2 against shaped charge warheads with 600 mm penetration (82%) and exceeded it against warheads with 900 mm penetration (75% vs 70%) over the frontal ±30° arc.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
By 🇨🇭 estimates, a fully up-armored Panzer 68 (ERA on turret and hull) matched the probability of a mission kill of the Leopard 2 against shaped charge warheads with 600 mm penetration (82%) and exceeded it against warheads with 900 mm penetration (75% vs 70%) over the frontal ±30° arc.
An even high post-penetration survivability was achieved when fitting ERA to hull and turret. It was caluclated to be 46% higher against anti-tank guided missiles with 600 mm penetration and 34% higher against ATGMs with 900 mm penetration.
Note that in these cases the armor was still penetrated.
Note that in these cases the armor was still penetrated.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
An even high post-penetration survivability was achieved when fitting ERA to hull and turret. It was caluclated to be 46% higher against anti-tank guided missiles with 600 mm penetration and 34% higher against ATGMs with 900 mm penetration.
Note that in these cases the armor was still penetrated.
Note that in these cases the armor was still penetrated.
The probability of crew survival against overmatching threats was also calculated. Against missiles with 600 mm penetration, the Panzer 68 was est. to have a 14% higher survivablity when the turret was fitted with ERA; against 900 mm penetrating missile, there was no differrence.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
The probability of crew survival against overmatching threats was also calculated. Against missiles with 600 mm penetration, the Panzer 68 was est. to have a 14% higher survivablity when the turret was fitted with ERA; against 900 mm penetrating missile, there was no differrence.
Overall, the Blazer ERA added 950 kilograms of weight, of which 550 kg were added to the turret. However, the desired level of protection was no achieved on the lower hull front, where only 400 mm of steel-equivalent protection could be reached with Blazer.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
Overall, the Blazer ERA added 950 kilograms of weight, of which 550 kg were added to the turret. However, the desired level of protection was no achieved on the lower hull front, where only 400 mm of steel-equivalent protection could be reached with Blazer.
The required level of protection was somewhat limited; stopping a RPG-7 (requiring an est. 350 mm steel-equivalent protection) over the ±30° frontal arc and the Sagger missile (requiring an est. 520 mm steel-equivalent protection) over the ±15° frontal arc on turret and hull front (not hull sides).
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
The required level of protection was somewhat limited; stopping a RPG-7 (requiring an est. 350 mm steel-equivalent protection) over the ±30° frontal arc and the Sagger missile (requiring an est. 520 mm steel-equivalent protection) over the ±15° frontal arc on turret and hull front (not hull sides).
Previously, a passive composite armor package providing protection against both KE projectiles and shaped charge warheads were proposed, but due its excessive weight of ca. 5 tonnes, the program was abandoned in 1986.
Subsequently, the lighter Blazer ERA kit was considered, adding only ~1 tonne.
Subsequently, the lighter Blazer ERA kit was considered, adding only ~1 tonne.
September 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM
Previously, a passive composite armor package providing protection against both KE projectiles and shaped charge warheads were proposed, but due its excessive weight of ca. 5 tonnes, the program was abandoned in 1986.
Subsequently, the lighter Blazer ERA kit was considered, adding only ~1 tonne.
Subsequently, the lighter Blazer ERA kit was considered, adding only ~1 tonne.
These early illustrations show a potential production variant of the Panther without any Leonardo-made parts.
July 31, 2025 at 5:11 PM
These early illustrations show a potential production variant of the Panther without any Leonardo-made parts.
That would at least be consistent with the British report stating that Germany claimed no weight increase caused by the new armor packs.
July 15, 2025 at 7:23 PM
That would at least be consistent with the British report stating that Germany claimed no weight increase caused by the new armor packs.
It should be noted, that 3rd generation armor package as planned & developed at the time was to be fully internal and did not include the later add-on modules defining the shape of the later Leopard 2 models.
Even without the add-on armor modules, a 2A5 is more than 2,600 kg heavier than a 2A4.
Even without the add-on armor modules, a 2A5 is more than 2,600 kg heavier than a 2A4.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
It should be noted, that 3rd generation armor package as planned & developed at the time was to be fully internal and did not include the later add-on modules defining the shape of the later Leopard 2 models.
Even without the add-on armor modules, a 2A5 is more than 2,600 kg heavier than a 2A4.
Even without the add-on armor modules, a 2A5 is more than 2,600 kg heavier than a 2A4.
The light roof armor - both in a passive and a reactive form - was deemed unsuitable, as it was only designed to stop ~40 mm shaped charges (i.e. DPICM and maybe KB44). A heavier solution against the ~60 mm class and EFPs was required.
It was however adopted on export models incl. Strv 122, 2A7Q.
It was however adopted on export models incl. Strv 122, 2A7Q.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
The light roof armor - both in a passive and a reactive form - was deemed unsuitable, as it was only designed to stop ~40 mm shaped charges (i.e. DPICM and maybe KB44). A heavier solution against the ~60 mm class and EFPs was required.
It was however adopted on export models incl. Strv 122, 2A7Q.
It was however adopted on export models incl. Strv 122, 2A7Q.
The new armor was designed to provide 650 mm steel-equivalent protection against KE rounds and 1,200 mm against shaped charges. It was developed by the BWB together with Clouth Gummiwerke, Blohm & Voss, IBD and Krauss-Maffei (as OEM most likely).
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
The new armor was designed to provide 650 mm steel-equivalent protection against KE rounds and 1,200 mm against shaped charges. It was developed by the BWB together with Clouth Gummiwerke, Blohm & Voss, IBD and Krauss-Maffei (as OEM most likely).
As per Krauss-Maffei, this would add a total of 2,600 kg to the tank, of which 1,600 kg came from the heavier armor and 800 kg came from the added liner.
Other attendees of the meeting disputed this. This matches contemporary communication with 🇬🇧 that the new armor would not increase the weight.
Other attendees of the meeting disputed this. This matches contemporary communication with 🇬🇧 that the new armor would not increase the weight.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
As per Krauss-Maffei, this would add a total of 2,600 kg to the tank, of which 1,600 kg came from the heavier armor and 800 kg came from the added liner.
Other attendees of the meeting disputed this. This matches contemporary communication with 🇬🇧 that the new armor would not increase the weight.
Other attendees of the meeting disputed this. This matches contemporary communication with 🇬🇧 that the new armor would not increase the weight.
Some proposed minor changes were a new hatch in the turret bustle floor to allow restocking the turret's ammunition rack from outside, adding a infrantry phone and modifying the ventilation system for the engine.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Some proposed minor changes were a new hatch in the turret bustle floor to allow restocking the turret's ammunition rack from outside, adding a infrantry phone and modifying the ventilation system for the engine.
The most important change with demonstrator was the greatly enhanced protection via adopting third generation special armor, modifying the NBC protection system, reducing noise and thermal signatures and adding a combined spall/anti-radiation liner in the hull.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
The most important change with demonstrator was the greatly enhanced protection via adopting third generation special armor, modifying the NBC protection system, reducing noise and thermal signatures and adding a combined spall/anti-radiation liner in the hull.
To improve the controllability, a navigation system, an improved rear view for the driver (via a rear-driving camera) and a guide system for the commander & driver in degraded emergency mode were offered. Additionally, the tank was to be prepared for adopting the IFIS BMS at a later point of time.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
To improve the controllability, a navigation system, an improved rear view for the driver (via a rear-driving camera) and a guide system for the commander & driver in degraded emergency mode were offered. Additionally, the tank was to be prepared for adopting the IFIS BMS at a later point of time.
Electrical turret and gun drives, better brakes (combining parking brake and service brake in the transmission) and an APU (a small gas turbine mounted in the rear hull sponson) were also offered.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Electrical turret and gun drives, better brakes (combining parking brake and service brake in the transmission) and an APU (a small gas turbine mounted in the rear hull sponson) were also offered.
In regards to firepower, the commander's sight was to include a thermal imager & laser rangefinder. Mechanisms to quickly slew to the turret to a vision block & for quickly lowering the commander's seat, and a MRS were to be added.
The MGs were to be modified so they could be operated from inside.
The MGs were to be modified so they could be operated from inside.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
In regards to firepower, the commander's sight was to include a thermal imager & laser rangefinder. Mechanisms to quickly slew to the turret to a vision block & for quickly lowering the commander's seat, and a MRS were to be added.
The MGs were to be modified so they could be operated from inside.
The MGs were to be modified so they could be operated from inside.
When the "shopping list" (as it was called in a 🇨🇭 report on the meeting) offered by KM was compared to the requirements by 🇳🇱🇩🇪 &🇨🇭, only about 1/4 of the items remained.
KM was offering "everything" without caring about funding, as the 🇬🇧 would only adopt a foreign tank "as is", i.e. already in use.
KM was offering "everything" without caring about funding, as the 🇬🇧 would only adopt a foreign tank "as is", i.e. already in use.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
When the "shopping list" (as it was called in a 🇨🇭 report on the meeting) offered by KM was compared to the requirements by 🇳🇱🇩🇪 &🇨🇭, only about 1/4 of the items remained.
KM was offering "everything" without caring about funding, as the 🇬🇧 would only adopt a foreign tank "as is", i.e. already in use.
KM was offering "everything" without caring about funding, as the 🇬🇧 would only adopt a foreign tank "as is", i.e. already in use.
For the Leopard 2 KWS demonstrator, Krauss-Maffei and other 🇩🇪 industry members suggested a number of possible upgrades to protection, firepower, controllability, reliability and other changes.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
For the Leopard 2 KWS demonstrator, Krauss-Maffei and other 🇩🇪 industry members suggested a number of possible upgrades to protection, firepower, controllability, reliability and other changes.
During the 🇬🇧 tests, the Leopard 2 performed better than the competition in form of the Challenger 2, upgraded Chieftain &&M1A1 Block II. While the 🇨🇭 documents carefully state that this was the case "in the 🇩🇪 opinion", we also know that from the UK archives that 🇬🇧 Army pushed for the Leopard 2.
July 13, 2025 at 7:44 PM
During the 🇬🇧 tests, the Leopard 2 performed better than the competition in form of the Challenger 2, upgraded Chieftain &&M1A1 Block II. While the 🇨🇭 documents carefully state that this was the case "in the 🇩🇪 opinion", we also know that from the UK archives that 🇬🇧 Army pushed for the Leopard 2.