Nice work! Is the turret printed, or fabricated from sheet?
1 Like
Thanks John!
Is drilling printed resin fraught with danger and pitfalls? I worry about creating cracks
1 Like
I suppose there could be some risk if there are not enough holes, I did that method a few times, on resin about 2 - 3 mm thick, but I drilled a s**t load of mini holes around the area and then cut away a small section then went round hole to hole with a new blade … all the stress fractures seemed to follow the holes and not go off at an angle … i did it that way as at the time I didnt have a dremel type tool.
2 Likes
There is a NATO standard: STANAG 4385.
That the USA didn’t develop it doesn’t mean it can’t be a NATO standard.
1 Like
Jakko-
That was developed in 1993, well after the development of the gun tubes and their fielding with the Leopard 2 and M1A1. The Agreement ensures interoperability of 120mm ammunition, no more and no less.
1 Like
Not my point 
Nick asked the question as if the only natural thing to happen would have been for the United States to develop something and then it would of course have become a NATO standard.
Jakko-
There is NO standard for a NATO 120mm GUN. Even today. Nick’s question is straight to the heart of reality: The French CN-120, Israeli MG-251 and 253, Italian OTO-Melaka 120, et al (there are >dozen last time I checked). Amongst other things, they have differnt cradles/mounts, recoil systems, and the guns themselves. Even the ROK CN08 is not a licensed copy of the Rh-120 L55. It has some further fundamental differences in the design of the tube and breech assemblies.
And of course, ROK is not signatory to STANAG 4385. The standard only applies to the ammunition, making it possible for users to go to a warehouse sale and buy any ammunition the pick out. They will be assured of safe, reliable, and predictable operation in their tubes.
1 Like
You keep replying to things I’m not saying.
Edit, a few hours later: I realised that I probably misunderstood Nick’s comment. I read it as “Why didn’t the USA build a 120 mm gun of its own, which could then have become the NATO standard?” but it suddenly dawned on me that he probably meant: “Why didn’t the USA build its own gun that fires NATO-standard (German-type) 120 mm ammunition?”
1 Like
yes thats what I ment
1 Like
Hey Jakko-
Well, I’m still not sure where we are landing. LOLZ.
There never was a NATO STANDARD GUN (and there is not still). Interoperability means just that. Mechanically, the only thing they really share is tube dimensions and internal volume.
The trials bwteen the XM1 and the Leopard 2AV includedLeopards w/ a 105mm and 120mm. While US decision-makers chose the XM1, they discussed and approved tentative plans to use common equipment, including the 120mm gun. Two Leopard hulls and three turrets were tested. We had always wanted a larger gun, and the XM1 was designed to accommodate that growth.
As for not choosing a 120mm: goes back to my response where we discussed that German 120mm lacked the desired lethality, and the 105mm was keeping pace due to ammunition developments.
1 Like
Behold the Leopard 2 prototype tested at YPG (Yuma Proving Grounds). Notice the gun:
On the tool box, you can see PT13.
1 Like
The turret looks like it says T12? Which is interesting, because Spielberger says hull PT13 was fitted with T8. But T8 had a 105 mm gun while T12 had a 120 mm, so I guess it was swapped out before the 1975 hot-weather trials in the USA.
1 Like
Yes, confusing.
BUT- they did have 3 turrets and two hulls. Given a beer or two at Yuma, I’m sure the German maintainers could swap a turret in a day!
2 Likes
With all the Leopard 2 builds I have id love to have a leopard 2 prototype
completely scratch built from evergreen styrene except for the main gun which i tool from leftover RFM parts
1 Like
Look closely at that pic I post oof the PT. The turret is a Leopard 1A4 type. Get a donor kit, or find the sprue on eBay. It might save a lot of time and effort.
Now: look at this:
This is Turret 11 of the prototype run.
Here’s another view:
Some equipment details/interior
Credit where due: this information is from WarThunder-
Given these are FRG documents, I opine you are ready to rock a kit-bash!
1 Like
NOW-
Let’s move Leopard prototype discussions elsewhere. You deserve it, and I’m fresh out of intel!
1 Like
Another source: Saumur
1 Like
sorry about that
It’s a similar design to that of the Leopard 1A3 and 1A4, but it’s not the same turret. There are also dimensional differences in the hulls between the prototypes and production Leopard 2s, mainly in that the nose of the latter is longer.
Without even clicking the link, that diagram it shows in the preview is straight from Spielberger’s Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2 (Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag, 1995; ISBN 3-613-01655-9) — page 284, to be precise, and 283 has a similar one for the hulls.
2 Likes