Leopard 2A4 with L55?

[Leopard_Boy]

I've been hanging around these forums waiting for something to post. And finally I've got a question.

I'm a model builder and I'm building a 1/72 Leopard 2 A4. The kit comes with two barrels, a short one that I believe is the L44, and a long one that says in the directions I'm not supposed to use. But I can convert it to make it fit.

My question is, since I think it's a L55 meant for the Leopard 2A6 kit, are there any, or will there be any Leopard 2 A4's with the L55 barrel in real life?

I'm into doing somewhat out of the ordinary things on my models, and having the L55 I believe would be out of the ordinary, but I'm also hoping it's real. It's even going to be a Finnish Leopard when I'm done. . .

But anyway, thanks ahead of time.

 

[Waylander]

While it is easy to upgrade a Leopard IIA4 with a L/55 so far nobody has done this without also upgrading other parts of the tank at least up to A6.

So far these countries operate the following Leo versions.
If I write A4 some minor parts like comm equipment and MGs may still differ.

Germany - A4, A5, A6, A6M
Netherlands - A6, A6M
Switzerland - Pz87 (An A4 with another name)
Greece - A4, HEL
Spain - A4, E
Sweden - Strv121 (A4 with another name), Strv122, Strv122B
Poland - A4
Austria - A4
Portugal - A6
Denmark - A5DK
Norway - A4
Chile - A4
Finland - A4
Singapore - A4

Out of these versions only A6, A6M, HEL and E feature the L/55.

 

[Leopard_Boy]

So would you say it is possible to have a 2 A4 with a L55 without upgrading it to the A6?

 

[Waylander]

As I said.
It is possible. The gun upgrade, which includes some upgrades to the FCS and better muzzle brakes, has nothing to do with the other upgrades some tanks got like more armor, electric turret drive, etc.

So in theory it is possible but in reality nobody has yet added a L/55 without also upgrading other parts of the tank.

And especially when you want it to become a finnish Leo you have to stay with the L/44.

 

[Leopard_Boy]

Alright, thank you very much.

 

[SGMilitary]

Leopard 2A4 with L55 gun

Hey guys,

This is an interesting topic.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tanks procured by Singapore is already upgraded

with L55 gun system.

Any other details about the latest development of this tank??

Thanks and Regards,

 

[gary1910]

Hey guys,

This is an interesting topic.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tanks procured by Singapore is already upgraded

with L55 gun system.

Any other details about the latest development of this tank??

Thanks and Regards,

There is no report or even rumours that we intend to arm our Leo 2 with L55, in fact I don't even think it is necessary comsidering the MBT in the region, L44 is more than sufficient.

At most we will upgrades to A5 standard(i.e. uparmouring) and perhaps even with mine resistant, i.e. A5M standard (i.e. A6M without the L55) for urban warfare.

 

[Waylander]

I would also think that the smaller gun is an advantage.
At least there is enough wood and city in and around Singapore to justify staying with a smaller gun.

The combat distance are going to be small and a L/44 with DM63 is going to be able to deal with everything in this region.

If one feels that something more is needed in terms of protection you can always upgrad the Leos to something like the A5DK, Strv122(B) or A5M.

 

[eckherl]

What is the Leos main rival, a PT-91M. L/44 will not have a issue dealing with it.

 

[Rythm]

and better muzzle brakes

What? I believed you didnt smoke, waylander

 

[Waylander]

Maybe I am slow now but I don't get it.
Did I use the wrong words?
:shudder :unknown

 

[Rythm]

A muzzle brake is a Mündungsbremse like they got on the them howitzers. On the Leos you dont have them, instead you only have the Barrelbrakes Rohrbremsen.

 

[eckherl]

A muzzle brake is a Mündungsbremse like they got on the them howitzers. On the Leos you dont have them, instead you only have the Barrelbrakes Rohrbremsen.

ERR - you wouldn`t happen to mean bore evacuator would you. Also it is quite possible to put a muzzle brake on to any size gun caliber that you choose, regardless if you are firing FSDS.

 

[Waylander]

Okay I actually mean Rohrrücklaufbremsen.

So barrelbrakes is the right word. Thanks for the help
I think managed to mix this up in the past, too...

So I am talking about the brakes which work against the recoil inside the turret. They are strengthened from A5 onwards.
And while one can also fire DM53/63 with the old brakes it is better to have them strengthened.

 

[Rythm]

ERR - you wouldn`t happen to mean bore evacuator would you. Also it is quite possible to put a muzzle brake on to any size gun caliber that you choose, regardless if you are firing FSDS.

eh, no. I mean a proper muzzle brake, here is a pic of a muzzlebrake on a 30mm cannon. Yes, you could add a muzzlebrake to any gun but typically the gun of a modern MBT dont have them, whilst most (all?) howitzers got them.

 

[eckherl]

Okay I actually mean Rohrrücklaufbremsen.

So barrelbrakes is the right word. Thanks for the help
I think managed to mix this up in the past, too...

So I am talking about the brakes which work against the recoil inside the turret. They are strengthened from A5 onwards.
And while one can also fire DM53/63 with the old brakes it is better to have them strengthened.

Okay Waylander - now you got me confused, is the correct word recoil mechanism, we discussed this before when I brought up the L55 upgrade.

 

[eckherl]

eh, no. I mean a proper muzzle brake, here is a pic of a muzzlebrake on a 30mm cannon. Yes, you could add a muzzlebrake to any gun but typically the gun of a modern MBT dont have them, whilst most (all?) howitzers got them.

Really - wow thanks for straightening me out on that. I think I know what Waylander was referring to now, he was using different terminology then what I am used to hearing.

Do you know why mainguns on tanks do not have muzzle brakes.

 

[DavidDCM]

We discussed that in a German military forum a while back. Translating the explanation is a real challenge to my english skills:

Basically because they are not needed (Oh really? You may ask ). The sense of a muzzle break would be to reduce recoil, so that either you don't need such strong barrel brakes, or you could use stronger ammunition. Option 1 is not needed, because obviously there exist strong enough barrel brakes to compensate the recoil. Option 2, stronger ammunition, can not be achieved by adding a muzzle brake, because not the recoil is the limiting factor here, but other parts of the gun. Every possible round that could be fired from the 120mm gun without destroying it (by ripping apart the barrel, or the chamber, for example), does not need a muzzle break to reduce the recoil. Every possible round that would produce a recoil which would have to be compensated by a additional muzzle brake would rip apart the gun anyway.

Well, that's how I understood the answer (the German version was a little more complicated, it was written by a guy who is a former Leo2 commander as well as graduated engineer, so lot's of physical stuff I barely understood even in German...). I know that kato posts in that forum (whq) too, so maybe he has read that thread too and can correct me.

 

[eckherl]

We discussed that in a German military forum a while back. Translating the explanation is a real challenge to my english skills:

Basically because they are not needed (Oh really? You may ask ). The sense of a muzzle break would be to reduce recoil, so that either you don't need such strong barrel brakes, or you could use stronger ammunition. Option 1 is not needed, because obviously there exist strong enough barrel brakes to compensate the recoil. Option 2, stronger ammunition, can not be achieved by adding a muzzle brake, because not the recoil is the limiting factor here, but other parts of the gun. Every possible round that could be fired from the 120mm gun without destroying it (by ripping apart the barrel, or the chamber, for example), does not need a muzzle break to reduce the recoil. Every possible round that would produce a recoil which would have to be compensated by a additional muzzle brake would rip apart the gun anyway.

Well, that's how I understood the answer (the German version was a little more complicated, it was written by a guy who is a former Leo2 commander as well as graduated engineer, so lot's of physical stuff I barely understood even in German...). I know that kato posts in that forum (whq) too, so maybe he has read that thread too and can correct me.

It is not so much that you would use a muzzle brake as a primary reason to control the amount of recoil for the recoil mechanism though it does assist in that task, you can always control the amount of recoil by changing the inertia valves and strengthening the gun trunnions if you have a heavier platform, but you would still need it to help comphensate for firing higher velocity tank ammunition, especially in lighter gun tubes, so in a sense muzzle brakes do help control the over pressures and recoil induced on the gun tube.
Reasons most likely why you do not see them as of yet:

1. Current ammunition is capable of defeating current armor threats.
2. Cost of production.
3. Noise level to surrounding troops.

One should look at the current wheeled and light tracked vehicles and you will see them installed, exception being at the current time the Stryker MGS platform that is currently using up remaining stocks of M68A1 gun tubes, but this does limit the type of rounds that can be fired out of it.

 

[Waylander]

Why are they using M48 stocks?
Shouldn't newer 105mm be available from old M60s and M1IPs?

I strongly advocate that German is becoming the standard language in which tank..sorry...Panzer operations and technics are discussed.

Would be so much easier for me!