BWMod Leopard 2A6 released

[hardrock 1]

sweet tank, but am I the only one who gets the BI logo on the sides of the turret and on the top of the back of the tank? Anyone know how to get rid of this?

other than that, this tank is awesome!

oh yeah dont forget the barrel recoil to the feature list.

Same bug as with the EC-135 then, I guess. Caused by other, faulty addons, IIRC.

[scottlee 0]

Machinegun texture is missing for some reason. Any way I can handle it out there?

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Latest "Basis Pack" installed?

Basis Pack V1.3 Download. <- Click here.

MfG Lee

[scottlee 0]

Of course, I did. Latest 1.3 bwmod basic pack installed.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Are you using old BWMod Demo?

MfG Lee

[StealthTiger 0]

High speed data transfer mirrors from Stealth-Net:

BWMod 2A6 Leopard - 0.9 Beta

BWMod Basic Pack (1.3) needed.

Enjoy!

[scottlee 0]

Are you using old BWMod Demo?

MfG Lee

Hmm. to make things sure, I've just put basic pack(v1.3)'s pbos and 2A6's into my 'bwmod' folder('-mod=bwmod'. There is no pbo's from bwmod other than these in the folder.

This is a great addon. It's still in beta stage though. I'd like to have it in one piece.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Hmm. to make things sure, I've just put basic pack(v1.3)'s pbos and 2A6's into my 'bwmod' folder('-mod=bwmod'. There is no pbo's from bwmod other than these in the folder.

Then it should work.

Can you please try downloading the Leopard again.

MfG Lee

[dabitup 0]

sweet tank, but am I the only one who gets the BI logo on the sides of the turret and on the top of the back of the tank?   Anyone know how to get rid of this?

other than that, this tank is awesome!

oh yeah dont forget the barrel recoil to the feature list.  

Same bug as with the EC-135 then, I guess. Caused by other, faulty addons, IIRC.

any Idea what addon? This bug is killing me...

[begorra2 0]

nice one -

I would be very happy to see the old BWMOD stuff upgraded

- other Leopards and stuff - with new scripts and put into some addon pack like "BWMOD 2" or something.

Any such plans?

[Capitaine Haddock 0]

any Idea what addon? This bug is killing me...

I fixed it by removing Philcommando's Tarawa (PCUSN.PBO), and probably more of his addons do the same. Worth a try.

[scottlee 0]

Hmm. to make things sure, I've just put basic pack(v1.3)'s pbos and 2A6's into my 'bwmod' folder('-mod=bwmod'. There is no pbo's from bwmod other than these in the folder.

Then it should work.

Can you please try downloading the Leopard again.

MfG Lee

I fixed it!! I suppose the v1.3 basic pack in my HDD is old one or broken. Thanks.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

That's good to hear.

Have fun with the Leo!

MfG Lee

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

At long last my BW mod troops can form an effective battle group.

I get lots of CTDs with the Marders and Wiesels also, could this be traced back to using PhilCommandos addons

[Flecktarn 0]

Hey man this is great tank, even better than INQ M1A.

I have no problem with it.

It runs like he is on tracks.        

But i'm very much missing missions.

[seminara 4]

Off topic:

Do any studies exist on the turret design of this AFV? I'm horrified to see a turret front which seems to be designed to deflect an armour piercing round (aimed at the front of the turret) down into the thinnly armoured top of the hull! Sure, it could deflect it up into the ar - but it's a 50-50 chance in either scenario.

[FerretFangs 0]

Well, I think it's unlikely a Leo 2A6 would ever be shot at in anger by another tank, ( Has it ever happened before? ) so it's sort of a moot point until it happens.

[seminara 4]

Wow. I can understand the architects of the Twin Towers having designed those buildings with that type of outlook, but not a German Govt designing a hugely expensive tank for - well - combat. And thanks to the war against the 'evil doers', that could easily involve the use of Leopards in Middle Eastern hot spots.

The Germans are great engineers and have learned plenty of lessons through tank design. In WWII, they changed the gun mantle of the Panther A because the lower curving slope caused a lethal shot trap. With this new model Leopard, the shot trap stretches across the entire face of the turret.

Anyway, still curious if anyone's come across a tech doc on the subject but it's not important.

[Hornet85 0]

realy nice tank cant wayt to blow it up with the Swedish 122 hehe nice work guys like allways

[Praet 0]

Do any studies exist on the turret design of this AFV?  I'm horrified to see a turret front which seems to be designed to deflect an armour piercing round (aimed at the front of the turret) down into the thinnly armoured top of the hull!  Sure, it could deflect it up into the ar - but it's a 50-50 chance in either scenario.  

Well, actually this confused me as well when I saw the first concept drawings of the A5 which was under development at that time, years ago.

To understand the idea behind this unconventionally shaped appliqué armor, you have to look at the performance of todays APFSDS pentrator rods. They are very rarely deflected by angled armor, a very flat angle, even more than on the new turret front, is required to ensure deflection of the penetrator. Then, to deflect a penetrator impacting at the given velocity and with the given energy, the hit area has to be massive and inflexible to keep the rod from penetrating into the armor or even through it.

In the case of the A5/A6 turret front armor, it is not massive.

In fact, it consists of multiple angled armor plates of varying composition, with empty spaces in between. This concept was chosen primarily to defeat shaped charge/HEAT rounds by destabilizing the "jet" reducing its focus by spreading it over a bigger area, heavily reducing its armor penetrating abilities. Although the same destabilizing effects, although to a reduced extent, also apply to APFSDS penetrators, the armor package would look different when designed to cope with kinetic energy rounds, most notably by protruding even more from the turret front. Because the outer armor plates are not able to withstand a penetrator, it will not be deflected but will punch trough, get more and more unstable when passing through the various plates and have notably reduced penetrating capabilities when hitting the basic trurret front armor. Thus, the angled armor is mainly intended to increase the amount of armor that a penetrator has to pass trough on its horizontal ballistic path. The "50-50" distribution of the angles is due to the fact that a too flat lower angle was to be avoided. At very flat angles, pentrator deflection can occur even on thin armor plates and then there would be a problematic ballistic pocket on the turret front of the A5/A6 (in addition to other problems, such as the driver being unable to look out of his hatch or even escape through his hatch, which already has become more difficult with the current design).

[seminara 4]

Well, actually this confused me as well when I saw the first concept drawings of the A5 which was under development at that time, years ago.

@Praet

Many thanks for the in-depth and intelligent reply...fascinating stuff. Are you in the industry or like me simply an avid AFV fan?

Re. the escape route for the driver, I've seen this become a problem with more and more vehicle designs. It seems inhuman to design a tank which prevents the driver from bailing out if the turret isn't at a specific angle - which it will never be in an emergency. The only alternative the poor bugger will have will be to climb up through the turret hatches - which is VERY unlikely if the tank is on fire.

What a nightmare.

Cheers

Steiner

[Praet 0]

Are you in the industry or like me simply an avid AFV fan?

Nah, neither in the industry nor a tanker, just as interested in this and other topics as many others are as well

You pick up a lot of stuff over the years, but there's always something new.

Well, on the escape route problem - this is indeed a problem many current AFV designs are facing. For example, over the last years I hae stumbled across two articles describing occasions on which the drivers of two Abrams tanks weren't able to get out of the vehicle in time and drowned or suffocated when their tank got stuck in the mud, both times because the turret was not in 12 nor 6 o'clock position. This made it impossible to escape, neither via their own hatches (which were blocked by the spacious turret front armor) nor the turret hatches, as the slightly traversed turret blocked the way from the driver's position to the turret basket. This is a major design flaw in the M1, as far the driver is concerned. As an example (as it is the topic of this thread), the Leopard 2 has an additional escape hatch in the vehicle floor just behind the driver through which both the driver and the turret crew can get out of the vehicle. Additionally, the redesigned driver's hatch sliding to the side is never completely blocked by the A5/A6 turret armor, plus there is nothing in the turret basket that would prevent the crew from getting in or out there regardless of the position of the turret (although it can get a little tricky under some circumstances).

This problem is getting more and more into the focus as in modern tank concepts, very often all crew workstations are moved into the hull for better protection and a lighter turret reducing the overall weight, leading to a two or three man vehicle crew.

[FerretFangs 0]

Well, I've asked tankers about the crew/autoloader issues on the Abrams, and they've told me that in combat that fourth man becomes very important. Not necessarily as the loader, but for all the other things he does when the tank isn't using it's main gun.

I believe we need a fast, reliable autoloader on the Abrams, but that the advantages of retaining a fourth crewman as an assistant gunner utilizing remote operated weapons stations from within the turret, far outweighs the disadvantges of supporting a four-man crew. And this is doubly important in MOUT operations, when the gunner is often engaging with the maingun/coax, the commander has his head and torso exposed while operating the M2, and the loader is doing double duty as a loader for the M256, and operating the M240 topside. Currently, the loader is overworked, and poorly utilized.

Finally, the Abrams turret needs an armament upgrade too. Both the hatches on the top should be turned into AAV7-type cuppola/turrets, armed with either the M2HB or an M134 minigun, and the MK19/MK47 GL.

[Praet 0]

Have you heard about the Abrams TUSK program?

This Tank Urban Survival Kit introduces several improvements based on experiences made with the Abrams in urban warfare, especially in the ongoing engagement in Iraq.

TUSK includes ERA along the vehicles side, slat armor protecting the engine compartment, enhanced night-fighting capabilities, a remotely controlled weapons station in place of the cdr's M2, a gun shield for the loader's M240 as well as exhaust gas deflectors and a tank/infantry telephone in the rear. This should at least come close to your thoughts about an Abrams MOUT upgrade.

It is true that the loader is of importance not only due to his main task of loading the main gun, but he can also assist the gunner when maintaining the weapons systems, he can help guarding the tank when it's assigned to wait for action and much more. In fact, you could probably find something a fifth or a sixth crew member could do in combat.

BUT

The bigger the crew, the bigger the vehicle, the more room needs to be armored hence the heavier the vehicle. In my opinion, it's the wrong path to follow when trying to convert a combat vehicle designed to fight others of his kind in relatively open terrain into a suitable combat vehicle for urban warfare. I do, however, support the idea behind making existing vehicles more survivable in MOUT scenarios.

For future urban scenarios, I think a new vehicle concept is required, offering comparable armor protection (enhanced by passive and active protection systems) and an adaptable weapons layout that could comprise small to medium calibre rapid fire weapons, automatic grenade launchers up to breech-loaded mortars with direct fire capabilities such as AMOS. It could have a crew of four, carrying two to four infantrymen in a rear compartment, perhaps along the lines of the Merkava.

At the same time, a follow-on to the current main battle tanks should be developed. I have yet to be convinced that such a future MBT is no longer required.

[FerretFangs 0]

Yes, I knew about the TUSK upgrade. I think the CROWS leaves a little to be desired as far as fire support is concerned. And I'm totally in agreement with the rest.