Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Leopard 2 Thread


Recommended Posts

Hello guys, I have some questions about the Leopard 2A5 prototypes.

How do the TVMs and the KVT compare to the Leopard 2A5, when it come to armour?

The KVT was build using a Leo2A4 fromt the 5th batch(1985), so it should have less armour than the 2A5, because those used the 1988 or 1991 armour package, right?

The TVMs were build using a Leo2A4 fromt the 8th batch, so it should have the same frontal armour as the 2A5, right? The TVMs had improved roof armour, but i mostly care about the front and side protection.

Did they all share the same FCS? I know that the TVM-Max had a different PERI and a different thermal imager, but what about the rest? Same ballistics computer and sensors?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
25 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

The turret's in the right place, but where does the wall come from?

Probably not the same tank when I think about it, might be another picture I was talking about.


Anyways, another disabled Leopard 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Highly unlikely. The TFSA hasn't been in contact with ISIS for a while now since they don't share a frontline anymore.

The propaganda video uses quite old footage, including the one of the T-90 that caught fire (the remote MG's ammunition caught fire).


Here is the video for those that are curious (The Leopard is seens at 08:20) (WARING, GRAPHIC):


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday the German parliament finally approved the purchase of 103 Leopard 2 tanks currently owned by industry, they will be upgraded to the Leopard 2A7V standard.


According to the Wehrtechnik/Military Technology magazine, Turkey is wanting to upgrade 40 Leopard 2A4 tanks (together with 120 M60T Sabra tanks and 40 M60A3 tanks). The Leopard 2s are meant to receive ERA developed by Roketsan (the same as used on the M60A3 recently posted online), an APS (off-the-shelf system, because the Akkor APS is not ready; the M60T also is meant to receive an off-the-shelf APS), laser warning sensors, a 12.7 mm SARP RWS from Aselsan, aswell as a new camera system for enhanced situational awareness.

About 80 Turkish MBTs were used in Syria, of which 43 were Leopard 2A4s. In relation to the number used, the Leopard 2 losses seem to be average.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they aren't new. They are usually employed when it comes to camouflaging the vehicle, because shadows have a much darker color and create hard edges at the turret and hull front.




There are several variations, but in general the lower edge of the frontal armor should be covered:



Leopard 2 with rubber at the turret, cloth at the lower hull




Leopard 2 camoulfaged using cloth



SAAB Barracuda MCS



Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, That_Baka said:

I always wonder why poles didnt install their Erawa ERA on their Leopards 2?


Because they don't think it's necessary. According to older Polish articles, they assumed that the Leopard 2A4 is as well protected as the PT-91 with ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2  ERA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
  • Create New...