The Leopard 2 Thread

[Laviduce]

Cross-section of the Leopard 2(A0-A4) with uncensored hull front geometry:

 

 

[LoooSeR]

   Tetris reached Leos

[Serge]

Happy birthday Leopard-2.

[Serge]

Once more « happy birthday » but with an article today 

https://esut.de/2019/10/fachbeitraege/ruestung/15489/40-jahre-in-der-nutzung-kampfpanzer-leopard-2/?fbclid=IwAR2x65JSukdpESiLfVcRnwwVpQnTUwKBNjthQoxj4nS47rYTpqyibRxyB94

[DIADES]

5 hours ago, Serge said:

happy birthday

and such a beauty - still the best despite her age

[Serge]

I would say « it’s a good tank » but by no means the best. 

[DIADES]

17 hours ago, Serge said:

the best. 

OK, until we fight them against each other we won't know.  And even then, how do we arrange a fair fight?  So our judgements remain opinions and in my opinion, Leopard 2 is standard against which others are judged.

[Serge]

Like the Arjun. The world standard in India. 

[DIADES]

1 minute ago, Serge said:

The world standard in India. 

Nope.  The actual world standard - as in the one that others are benchmarked against (on paper anyway).  No nationalism in that assessment.  Its all a bit rubbery anyway.  What does "best " mean?  There is no single answer, no valid answer that is all encompassing.  Too many variables and too context dependent.

[Serge]

Aaaah ok. 

Something is something because it’s something. But, you know, it’s hard to define because maybe something else is something too. 

I know this theory. 

[DIADES]

Sorry, thought we were having an actual conversation, maybe another time.

[Wiedzmin]

not Leo2, but

 

 

one of test rigs with ERA(german made ERA) tested in Germany 

[LoooSeR]

   Canadian Leo2A6 in A-stan

[2805662]

16 hours ago, DIADES said:

Nope.  The actual world standard - as in the one that others are benchmarked against (on paper anyway).  No nationalism in that assessment.  Its all a bit rubbery anyway.  What does "best " mean?  There is no single answer, no valid answer that is all encompassing.  Too many variables and too context dependent.

Interesting. From a purely combat-tested crew survivability perspective, I’d rate the Abrams series as superior to Leopard 2. Leopard 2’s completely exposed hull ammunition wine-rack stowage is an inexcusable flaw. 
 

In terms of sensors, the gen 2 FLIR on Abrams (about to be superseded by gen 3 FLIR), is highest performing thermal currently available. My experience with European sensor systems is that they are available, expensive, and adequate, but underperform US systems, remaining a generation behind in performance. My most recent exposure to leading US AFV sensors is 2015, so a little dated, but I’ve heard nothing that would convince me that there’s been significant changes in this regard. 
 

 

[DIADES]

25 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Interesting.

Indeed - yes we can make valid comparisons feature by feature.  I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2.  Pretty much only the US can operate Abrams effectively due to fuel demand.  The US has the resources to lay fuel pipeline behind advancing armour - well at least if air superiority is held.  There is an argument that the turbine is not really a limit in US context.  In Australian context, the turbine is a dangerous limit - Australia cannot keep fuel up to Abrams in an serious advance.

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2

 

Problem isn't really that it's a turbine, moreso that the design for it dates back to the mid '60's. If the Abrams had the LV100-5 like it should have, there'd be no issues.

[DIADES]

46 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

LV100-5 l

Yep, would be a massive improvement but no matter what, turbines can't match Diesel efficiency under part loads.  Yes, a turbine at its set point will have outstanding absolute efficiency but at all other load points efficiency suffers.  Then lets talk air filter life....

 

Actually, we are headed off topic as this is a Leopard thread!

[Ramlaen]

5 hours ago, DIADES said:

Indeed - yes we can make valid comparisons feature by feature.  I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2.  Pretty much only the US can operate Abrams effectively due to fuel demand.  The US has the resources to lay fuel pipeline behind advancing armour - well at least if air superiority is held.  There is an argument that the turbine is not really a limit in US context.  In Australian context, the turbine is a dangerous limit - Australia cannot keep fuel up to Abrams in an serious advance.

Quote

Then lets talk air filter life....

 

I'm not sure you 1) are properly contextualizing how much of an army's fuel total consumption is taken up by its MBT and 2) have a solid grasp of field logistics.

 

Regarding air filters.

[DIADES]

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I'm not sure you 1

I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics.  I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF.  I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.

The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed.  In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over.  AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit.  An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.

[Kal]

the best tank and being the benchmark tank often are quite different.

Leopard 2 is a "better" tank than the T90/T72.  doesn't mean that the T90/T72 isn't the global benchmark tank.

Abrams is probably a "better" tank than a Leopard 2,  doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 isn't the western benchmark tank.

 

Egypt is supposedly buying some T90, despite getting near free Abrams, whatever the politics, I suppose ongoing costs are also large.  just how much training can a non oil state afford with an Abrams.

[Beer]

I think that You can't say it even like this. The first thing is that you need to know your own doctrine and a way how you want to use the tanks. T-64/72/80 were built for completely different way of use than the western tanks. Comparing a one against one scenario is wrong for many reasons. 

 

We can see that T-90 and later models of T-72 were successful in Syria and suffered minimal loses despite the operational area being flooded with ATGMs, i.e. it looks like this tanks somehow work with the Arab armies which aren't known for being well trained and effective. As a result Uralvagonzavod won quite a lot of export contracts. On the contrary the reputation of Abrams and Leopard 2 was somewhat damaged in Yemen and Syria. Of course no tank is invulnerable and if it's sitting duck in the open it will be destroyed sooner or later in an ATGM-rich environment. However the long-built aura of invulnerability went to a trash bin. 

 

The media is a strong weapon today. Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no video of any catastrophic kill of T-90A from Syria. There are however several ones where T-90A or T-72B ob.1989 withstood direct hits from TOW 2 ATGMs to the turret and upper glacis covered by Kontakt-5. On the other hand the two videos with Turkish Leopard 2A4 and Saudi M1A2S exploding in a huge fireball after being hit by rather light Metis ATGM went viral very quickly. Interestigly there is no documented loss of Leclerc in Yemen (I remember only one damaged one by mine). 

 

Leopard 2 and Abrams are expensive, they have expensive mainteanence and need four crew members instead of three. The quantity is a quality of its own and no war ever was won by score of destroyed tanks or killed enemies. Also let's say that you are dealing with a civil war spreading over the whole country and the frontlines are thousands of kilometers long. Would you prefer to have 100 expensive and on paper fantastic tanks or 1000 old ones which cost few bucks and anyone can operate them? In this situation a T-62 can be a better tank than Abrams in the overal picture even though one against one the T-62 has zero chance. 

[Rico]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:24 AM, DIADES said:

I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics.  I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF.  I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.

The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed.  In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over.  AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit.  An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.

Just to get a feeling how much fuel does the M1A2 consume?

I know this is difficult to answer since this based on terrain but the Leo2 consumes around 10-12l Diesel when the Engine is running but the vehicle is not moving (this should be comparable independent of the terrain). 

[Alzoc]

44 minutes ago, Rico said:

Just to get a feeling how much fuel does the M1A2 consume?

I know this is difficult to answer since this based on terrain but the Leo2 consumes around 10-12l Diesel when the Engine is running but the vehicle is not moving (this should be comparable independent of the terrain). 

 

There is the results of the Swedish trials:

 

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 Imp	M1A2
Körd sträcka	3.000 km	3.730 km	3.800 km
Använt bränsle	41.400 liter	26.874 liter	56.488 liter
Bränsleförbrukning	138 liter/10 km	72 liter/10 km	148 liter/10 km
Avlossade skott	235	271	289

 

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

 

So the answer is a lot more than a classic diesel but not much more than a turbocharged engine.

[VertigoEx]

On 10/28/2019 at 3:09 AM, Beer said:

I think that You can't say it even like this. The first thing is that you need to know your own doctrine and a way how you want to use the tanks. T-64/72/80 were built for completely different way of use than the western tanks. Comparing a one against one scenario is wrong for many reasons. 

 

We can see that T-90 and later models of T-72 were successful in Syria and suffered minimal loses despite the operational area being flooded with ATGMs, i.e. it looks like this tanks somehow work with the Arab armies which aren't known for being well trained and effective. As a result Uralvagonzavod won quite a lot of export contracts. On the contrary the reputation of Abrams and Leopard 2 was somewhat damaged in Yemen and Syria. Of course no tank is invulnerable and if it's sitting duck in the open it will be destroyed sooner or later in an ATGM-rich environment. However the long-built aura of invulnerability went to a trash bin. 

 

The media is a strong weapon today. Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no video of any catastrophic kill of T-90A from Syria. There are however several ones where T-90A or T-72B ob.1989 withstood direct hits from TOW 2 ATGMs to the turret and upper glacis covered by Kontakt-5. On the other hand the two videos with Turkish Leopard 2A4 and Saudi M1A2S exploding in a huge fireball after being hit by rather light Metis ATGM went viral very quickly. Interestigly there is no documented loss of Leclerc in Yemen (I remember only one damaged one by mine). 

 

 

There have been a few T-90s destroyed in Syria and in the Donbass iirc. The Tow-2 should not be that effective against anything with K5. A Tow-2A should have little issue against K5 armored tanks.  A captured T-90A was knocked out by a T-72 for example. APFSDS impact from the side. I suspect it was probably a BM-22/42. That said their combat performance seems to have been very good, and excellent in certain roles. 

 

 

The videos we see are selection bias, tank hunter killer teams in Yemen knew rather well that shooting an Abrams from the front was a death sentence, as you would be spotted by the very good thermal sights rather quickly, a kill not being all that likely. The videos I have seen suggest that the hits to the Abrams occur from the side and near oblique angles to the turret armor. The Abrams reputation for crew suitability seems to be intact. 

 

The Leo-2A4 used in turkey have very poor armor protection, and its likely that it is Type-B. Not sufficient for even the late 1980s. It isn't being used as it would be in the late 1980s however. 

 

There was one Lecerc driver killed with a ATGM hit the hull front. Not sure where the impact was, some suggested it was near the edge of the composite array. 

 

 

 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

There is the results of the Swedish trials:

 

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 Imp	M1A2
Körd sträcka	3.000 km	3.730 km	3.800 km
Använt bränsle	41.400 liter	26.874 liter	56.488 liter
Bränsleförbrukning	138 liter/10 km	72 liter/10 km	148 liter/10 km
Avlossade skott	235	271	289

 

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

 

So the answer is a lot more than a classic diesel but not much more than a turbocharged engine.

 

Very nice report for reading. That gives quite some input.

Besides that shows that the examinors from Sweden think that the Leo2A6 seems bit better than M1A2 (regarding the discussion above).