The Leopard 2 Thread

[Atokara]

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough

The PzH 2k was eliminated because it was worse than the K9 in multiple aspects from what is known on the 2 systems, not just the mobility.

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The fact that the Leopard 2 hull is already used in various applications by the Norwegian Army suggests that its performance is considered adequate, once the weight is reduced to similar levels.

Then why is Norway looking at a potential replacement? Most other countries who operate the Leopard simply upgrade it without holding any competitions. There is clearly something to be desired here that the Leopard isn't offering. Just look at Singapore and Indonesia. Both bought Leopards, both watched them sink into the jungle marshes, and now both mostly relegate them to paved infrastructure.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is greater growth potential for the adoption of mission kits. The Norwegian ministry of transportation (that as far as I've heard indirectly set the weight limit) has nothing to say when tanks get deployed abroad. The Norwegian Army used add-on armor solutions in Afghanistan (e.g. on the CV90) that are not used domestically.

Re-adding on features to match bog standard Leopard 2A7s in service in other countries isn't growth potential. Also any "growth potential" the Leopard has, the K2 has 2 or 3 fold that because its a much newer and lighter system. Also when 135/140mm systems come around, it will be much easier to adapt to the already autoloaded K2 turret, while the L2 will almost definitely need a brand new turret as well as turret drive systems.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The K2NO was showcased with the size-reduced Trophy VPS, not the Trophy APS. The VPS does not have the same "combat proven" and "fully qualified and tested by other NATO members" labels as the full size APS.

The VPS is Trophy APS. You are talking about the Trophy HV which is what is what is used by the Abrams and Mk IVM. The VPS takes almost all of it's parts from the HV and I would imagine the software could be ported over with some minor modification. I don't see how it would be possible for the VPS to flop when it's basically an HV with some weight shaved off. Ironically enough the K2 could even get the HV and stay under 62t at 61.8t.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Rheinmetall is not offering exclusive production to Australia in the LAND 400 Phase 3 program

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/10/18/rheinmetall-lynx-combat-support-vehicle/

Exclusive production of the CSV based on the lynx hull.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

not playing "mid program catch-up". The test integration of the Soucy tracks were planned before testing was started

I can't find anything showing that was the case, and if it was, why did it take RH until late Nov to show them off when the AS21 was delivered with Soucy's.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

the trials are all conducted with steel tracks

That's not true at all. In the vid released by the AUS army, the AS21 is clearly sporting Soucys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhtRxlmCO9M

 

You say that the Leopard won't be playing mid program catch up when the last page of this thread has been speculating how KMW can play mid-program catch-up to solve a problem that the K2NO never had in the first place. I will be absolutely floored if KMW manages to deliver their bid with an entirely brand new turret and heavy ERA within the next few days. You can like the Leopard all you want, but saying that the lighter tank with actual growth potential for mission modules isn't the better choice for a country looking for a lighter tank is just disingenuous. Sure the Leopard might work for other countries, but the K2NO is objectively the better pick here.

[SH_MM]

17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Just to clear this up (for me, at least), is the 2A5/A6/A7 wedge or L2PL “wedge” considered add on armor or mission kits? They seem to be very standard, insomuch that I haven’t seen a 2A5 and up without a wedge on their face, but many sources describe it as “add on”.

 

The wedge-shaped add-on armor is not considered a mission kit (in Germany), but KMW originally suggested that the Leopard 2A7 should have three different fits of armor:

1. the baseline vehicle looking like a Leopard 2A4 (with the latest possible armor inserts)
2. an add-on armor kit for duel operations (akin to the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7V forntal armor)
3. an add-on armor kit for urban and peace-keeping operations (akin to the Leopard 2A4M CAN, which is derived from this concept)

Germany considered this solution as too expensive and hence added add-on armor interfaces to the flanks of the hull and turret of the existing (2A5-derived) armor layout.

  

17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Also, is there more info on the “heavy ERA” KMW is interested in? It seems weird to desire anti-KE performance when COIN and ATGMs are still huge threats. 

 

No, but as I previously wrote it is most likely made by DND and/or GST. KMW already cooperated on the Puma IFV's side armor with DND and last year DND announced to have finished the developed of anti-KE/anti-tandem SC ERA.

 

For COIN the integration of Trophy and the existing add-on armor kits are considered sufficient.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

There were several reasons for why the PzH 2000 lost out to the K9, not just these two (and it was more the K9/K10 package being great value for money rather than the PzH 2000 being particularly expensive

 

Definitely, such procurement decisions seldomly are based on a single aspect (unlike maybe you add a weird "mine survivability requirement" to your SPG program like Australia...). Costs, overall weight, dimensions, workshare, firing performance, protection, mobility, maintainability, electronics, leadability, etc. matter.

 

Still German coverage of the trials including the recapitulation by Hptm Harling from the Artillerielehrbattaillon 325, who was part of the Bundeswehr team supporting KMW on the sales pitch, suggests that reliability and performance in firing trials was good (and in somce trials performance was "impressive". KMW used a PzH 2000 from the German Army's inventory for the trials, which is not on par with the current offering.

Spoiler

Driving over a vehicle-launched bridge

 

Direct firing on target in 1,400 m distance

 

Towing an recovery vehicle

 

Adding snow grousers

 

Driving slalom on ice

 

Driving fast through snow

 

I was mistaken in my last comment; the total amount of snow grousers mounted during trials was 76 (from 20 original) - apparently all SPGs were used with this amount. Teams from the different vendors and the crews from the evaluation teams were not allowed to mix and spend time together.

 

First week of trials was used to gather information on the local conditions and used for preparation of actual tests. Second week started with the Joint Distinguished Visitors Day, where the SPG systems were showcased to visitors from Norway, Finland and Denmark. Which tests were conducted with which SPG was decided by tombola. First trials for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 were logistic trials (measuring load axle load on a wheeled transport vehicle loaden with Panzerhaubitze 2000), followed by trials of the navigation systems. The following day the stowage was evaluated; at first the German team showed how its gear is stored, then it was tested if Norwegian equipment (everything ranging from an additional machine gun to tents and a field toilet) could be stored in the existing stowage boxes, externally and what modifications could be used to store it.

 

This was followed by a session of emergency evacuations (where the time was measured) under different conditions - even with Norwegian body armor, hemlets and breathing air bottles. Such tests are not so commonly trained in Germany. The rest of the second week was used for mobility trials - tactical march, driving on ice and through heavy terrain. At the start of the third week of trials, the crossing of an armored vehicle launched bridge was conducted, followed by trials of the ammunition handling and autoloader.

 

The first firing trials were conducted afteerwards, which then were followed by three days of driving through different prepared tracks in different terrain coniditons (including mountain roads, ice-covered roads, offroad travel and river crossing). Per day up to 120 kilometers were traveled by the Panzerhaubitze 2000.

 

After a series of tests regarding maintenance, documentation and technical servicing, followed by further firing trials (in this case switching between multiple targets in quick succession was the primary goal of the tests). During the next firing trials, direct firing was tested. The supplied ammunition charges (L8A1) were considered poor for the job, but all targets were successfully engaged with direct hits (should be perfect score).

 

This was followed by further mobility trials - long endurance match, driving through 800 mm deep snow, accelerating to maximum speed on a 800 meters long, icy road without (!) snow grousers, towing an armored recovery vehicle, driving slalom through a 200 meters long track with pylons placed every 15 meters and emergency brake tests. The last days of the trials were used again for firing trials, this time the autoloader could showcase itself as a "big strength" of the Panzerhaubtize 2000.

 

16 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

This is going to be a difficult pitch since the Norwegian Army has made it repeatedly clear that it wants mature and preferably off-the-shelf solutions.

 

Interessting. They had no issues choosing Wisent 2 variants with unproven components and ordering the unproven G5 ACSV.

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

The PzH 2k was eliminated because it was worse than the K9 in multiple aspects from what is known on the 2 systems, not just the mobility.

 

Both the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and K9 have their own set of strength. According to South Korean twitter users, the on-going PIP will bring electronics and autoloader only on par with the current Panzerhaubitze 2000A3 variant. Then again the Netherlands and Germany still use the older A2 standard (which also was used in Australian and Norwegian trials) and are going to skip the A3 standard (going straight to the Panzerhaubitze 2000A4 still in development).

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

Then why is Norway looking at a potential replacement? Most other countries who operate the Leopard simply upgrade it without holding any competitions

 

Because Norway already had a competition for upgrading the Leopard 2 (Project 5050). This showed that it was too expensive to upgrade the Leopard 2 and the upgrade potential of the old Leopard 2A4 was limited. Hence Norway decided to buy new tanks, which will offer better performance & a longer lifetime at similar costs. Competition can only be beneficial - either by forcing KMW to make a cheaper, better suited offer to Norway or by letting Norway choose a potentially better tank.

 

Why would Norway buy the Leguan 2 and Wisent 2 - both based on the Leopard 2A7 hull - if it was not satisified with the Leopard 2's performance?

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

Just look at Singapore and Indonesia. Both bought Leopards, both watched them sink into the jungle marshes, and now both mostly relegate them to paved infrastructure.

 

Because Singapore has so much jungle...

 

As for the Leopard 2RI:

Spoiler

 

They are quite happy with it.

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

Re-adding on features to match bog standard Leopard 2A7s in service in other countries isn't growth potential. Also any "growth potential" the Leopard has, the K2 has 2 or 3 fold that because its a much newer and lighter system. Also when 135/140mm systems come around, it will be much easier to adapt to the already autoloaded K2 turret, while the L2 will almost definitely need a brand new turret as well as turret drive systems.

 

Negative. A hypothetical Leopard 2A7V at 61 tons would have 8 tonnes of guaranteed growth potential, as its current drivetrain is designed for and qualified to withstand at least 69 tonnes. The same does not apply with the current K2(NO). Norway would have to pay for the development of the modifications required for the drivetrain to withstand and additional 8 tonnes, it would have to pay for the qualification campaign to show that the modifications actually work and it would have to pay for its K2NO tanks to be actually fitted with such modifications.

So there is a clear different in growth potential.

 

You are suggesting that Norway repeats the same "mistake" as with Project 5050. One can upgrade a Leopard 2A4NO tank to a Leopard 2A7V, but it requires extensive modifications to the hull and drivetrain, which Norway didn't want to pay. Why would Norway suddenly want to pay for them in case of the K2NO in a decade or two?

 

Given that neither the 130 mm nor the 140 mm ammunition (nor the respective guns) fit into the K2(NO), suggesting that it has more growth potential in that regard seems a bit silly. When you have to change the gun, the gun mount, the stabilizer, the gun and turret drives and the autoloader, you are making just as many changes to the tank as required on a Leopard 2A7... the big difference is however that the Leopard 2A7 has a much bigger market, the EDA and the LEOBEN community behind it, which are willing to fund the development of such upgrades. Meanwhile Hanwha of South Korea is looking at developing its new tank with little attention being paid to the development of domestic upgrades for the K2 (though it doesn't really need those, given the South Korean geopolitical situation).

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

The VPS is Trophy APS. You are talking about the Trophy HV which is what is what is used by the Abrams and Mk IVM. The VPS takes almost all of it's parts from the HV and I would imagine the software could be ported over with some minor modification.

 

Trophy APS = Trophy-HV

Trophy VPS = Trophy-MV

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/ausa-2019-rafaels-lighter-trophy-system-included-in-omfv-bid

 

That is the current nomenclature as used by Rafael and its partners (such as Leonardo DRS for the United States)... and yes, it is a stupid nomenclature.

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

I don't see how it would be possible for the VPS to flop when it's basically an HV with some weight shaved off. Ironically enough the K2 could even get the HV and stay under 62t at 61.8t.

 

It likely won't be a flop. But it has at the moment not been fully tested and qualified to government/NATO standards, there is still a (minimal) risk and paying for the testing and qualification campaign is very expensive. Its the same reason why Germany choose Trophy (tested according to NATO standards by the US, actually used in operational environment) over the ADS, even though the ADS has been already integrated into the Leopard 2(SG).

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/10/18/rheinmetall-lynx-combat-support-vehicle/

Exclusive production of the CSV based on the lynx hull.

 

Note that it doesn't say anywhere that the Lynx CSV would be exclusively manufactured in Australia if selected by another customer. It is uniquely Australian, as it specifically designed for Australian requirements using Australian industrial partners (which own parts of the IP such as e.g. the crane and winch).

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

I can't find anything showing that was the case, and if it was, why did it take RH until late Nov to show them off when the AS21 was delivered with Soucy's.

 

Maybe because you don't read paid subscription articles in the German language, and because you don't follow the Lynx development as much. That the Lynx can use rubber band tracks from either DST or Soucy was already stated in 2016 when the KF31 was revealed. Two years later it was also mentioned that the KF41 Lynx is available with rubber band tracks. That the Lynx would be demonstrated with Soucy tracks was stated by Rheinmetall and Soucy two years ago.

 

Why it only was tested in late November? Because there was a time window between tests. That's the same reason why the 130 mm L/47 smoothbore gun and its autoloader were demonstrated on the Challenger 3 prototype - because there was time after tests to integrate them.

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

That's not true at all. In the vid released by the AUS army, the AS21 is clearly sporting Soucys.

 

No, the Lynx continued tests with steel tracks. I wasn't talking about the AS21. Rheinmetall fitted the KF41 Lynx with rubber tracks, proved that it works and then converted it back to steel tracks of use in further tests, as this is their primary offer. But if Australia wants rubber tracks, Rheinmetall already has proven that they are no issues with using Soucy's CRT.

 

If they were playing catch-up, they would have kept the CRT for further tests.

 

10 hours ago, Atokara said:

You say that the Leopard won't be playing mid program catch up when the last page of this thread has been speculating how KMW can play mid-program catch-up to solve a problem that the K2NO never had in the first place.

 

1. I didn't say that.

 

2. Before bids or trials haven't even started, there is certainly no "mid-program catch-up".

 

3. I pointed out that there are easy solutions to copy many weight-aspects found on the K2NO (such as removing the mine protection kit and reducing the side armor), but I specifically said that this isn't a good idea (why adopt your competition's weaknesses?) and instead mentioned suggestions made for the German Leopard 2Ax tank. Specifically changing armor packages (which also was done in case of the K2NO, which has heavier and improved armor over the off-the-shelf K2 Black Panther) makes lots of sense.

[Laser Shark]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Interessting. They had no issues choosing Wisent 2 variants with unproven components and ordering the unproven G5 ACSV.

 

Different project, different time (the ACSV G5 is also a very curious case since that project originally called for elongated/welded together M113s, not completely new vehicles).

 

When it comes to the Norwegian tank replacement programme, there seems to be quite a bit of urgency, however, since they want to start fielding the new tanks from 2025. In order to make this possible, they’ve already had to accelerate certain parts of the programme rather than follow the usual procedure, f.i. accepting tenders and announcing the winter trials before the project & funding had even been approved by the Norwegian Parliament. This is also why there is a stated preference for solutions that can be gotten off-the-shelf and/or don't need a lot of development.

 

Now I do not know how far in the development process the 2Ax variant is, but considering that KMW’s offer is still called “A7NO”, I’m not holding my hopes up for something terribly exciting. This would also explain why the K2NO is based on the regular K2, and not the K2M.

[Voodoo]

The direct firing tests were not done at 1400 m, more like 900, FYI.

[Laser Shark]

16 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

The direct firing tests were not done at 1400 m, more like 900, FYI.

 

Feel like sharing your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the PzH 2000 vs the K9?

[Voodoo]

20 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

Feel like sharing your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the PzH 2000 vs the K9?

 

Can't really comment much, other than the PzH 2000 is massive and heavy, and is prone to breaking down. I have never seen a full battery drive back to base by themselves from an exercise. The loading mechanism is also quite sensitive to dust and dirt. Now, this is my impression from the things I've been told and seen over the years - I do not have any personal experience with it. 

+ Stores more ammo

 

K9

+ The most accurate gun

+ The most mobile 

- Some Korean solutions I can't wrap my head around

 

Crew level nitpicking:

Pzh 2000 has more fancy and comfy seats all over, while the K9 has these "hurts your ass if you sit in it for more than one hour"-seats. 

 

 

 

Tried to paste this in the general arty thread, but couldn't. Thought it would be better to discuss this there.

 

 

[SH_MM]

23 hours ago, Voodoo said:

The direct firing tests were not done at 1400 m, more like 900, FYI.

 

Odd, given that Hptm Harling specifically mentions that they fired over a valley at targets in 1,400 meters distance.

53 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

K9

+ The most accurate gun

 

Would you say that the gun is more accurate or is it the targeting system or the munition? Harling complained about the L8A1 propellant charges not being matched with the German sights.

23 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Now I do not know how far in the development process the 2Ax variant is, but considering that KMW’s offer is still called “A7NO”, I’m not holding my hopes up for something terribly exciting. This would also explain why the K2NO is based on the regular K2, and not the K2M.

 

Well, the Leopard 2A4M CAN is still called 2A4, but it has not much in common with the old tank in terms of electronics, optics and protection. A new "A*" designation will only be awarded to a Leopard 2 variant once the BAAINBw has tested and qualified it.

 

A concept for a low-profile turret seemingly for the Leopard 2 was applied for by Rheinmetall in mid-2020. This seems to be a more refined version of the turret concept developed by Wegmann for the Kampfpanzer 3 tank program of the mid to late 1980s.

 

I am not sure if Krauss-Maffei Wegmann meant this concept when suggesting that a new turret could significantly decrease the weight. Back in the 1980s, Wegmann's concept allowed reducing turret height by circa 20% without sacrificing gun depression. The main focus of Rheinmetall's design is reducing weight by using the turret roof as part of the counter-weight for the gun (relevant regarding recoil & stabilization) while reducing turret volume at the same time.

 

 

[Voodoo]

56 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Odd, given that Hptm Harling specifically mentions that they fired over a valley at targets in 1,400 meters distance.

 

Would you say that the gun is more accurate or is it the targeting system or the munition? Harling complained about the L8A1 propellant charges not being matched with the German sights.

 

 

I might remember wrong, they could have done some firing at 1,400 meters later on. But that first picture you posted is from the 850 m stand, and they were definetly firing from there. 

 

As far as I know, all competitors were firing Norwegian projectiles and charges. L8A1? Could you elaborate? Never heard of it.

The K9's gun itself is more accurate. It had almost no spread compared to the others.

[Laser Shark]

@VoodooMany Tanks! It’s always great to hear from people who actually have some hands on experience with these systems, and/or have been more close to them than most people.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Well, the Leopard 2A4M CAN is still called 2A4, but it has not much in common with the old tank in terms of electronics, optics and protection. A new "A*" designation will only be awarded to a Leopard 2 variant once the BAAINBw has tested and qualified it.

 

 

I guess ymmv, but to me that redesigned turret is enough of a departure from the A7 to warrant a new designation. And even if they cannot grant it an “Ax” designation, they could always come up with something else entirely, like “Leopard 2 IT-NOR” (improved turret-Norway) to give an example (not a great one admittedly, but you get the idea).

 

But anyway, assuming I'm wrong, and KMW can convince FMA that they can deliver a reliable solution featuring this new turret by 2025 (or at least not much later), it certainly wouldn’t hurt their chances. That's for sure.

[Gun Ready]

If you want to read a really good article about Leopard 2 in Canadian Army then go to

Https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/mdn-dnd/D12-11-19-2-eng.pdf

LCol (ret.) Perry Wells gives a good overview about the Leopard Tank Replacement Project on pages 60 to 69

[N-L-M]

Quick note in passing, haven't fully read the thread, but regarding gun accuracy the PzH was noted to have a very significant cold gun effect in Afghanistan. If the K9 avoids this problem, it could very well be more accurate.

[SH_MM]

On 1/4/2022 at 5:02 PM, Voodoo said:

I might remember wrong, they could have done some firing at 1,400 meters later on. But that first picture you posted is from the 850 m stand, and they were definetly firing from there. 

Then that is a mistake on my end; the captions only said that the photo shows Panzerhaubitze 2000 during the direct fire trials. The text specifically mentions that (some of) the direct firing trials were conducted at 1,400 m range.

 

On 1/4/2022 at 5:02 PM, Voodoo said:

As far as I know, all competitors were firing Norwegian projectiles and charges. L8A1? Could you elaborate? Never heard of it.

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally developed with the use of a modular propellant charge system (DM72, DM82, etc.).

 

 

When the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally deployed in Afghanistan, it was discovered that the modular propellant charges used back then had issues with consistency/temperature sensitivity, which resulted in old L8A1 propellant charges being used.

 

 

The L8A1 is a tubular container/cylinder, into which up to seven propellant bags/sticks are inserted. In Germany, there is a special case of an eight propellant bag/stick being loaded for direct firing (when eight charges are used, they are all loaded at once in a large bag). This was done already with the M109 and is also done with the Panzerhaubitze 2000.

 

According to Hptm Harling, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was trialed with the L8A1 propellant. No idea why, maybe it was issued by the Norwegian forces or it was used because the temperature sensitivity of the modular propellant charges was not fixed back then. But it was not an ideal solution for the Panzerhaubtize 2000 and according to Harling, direct firing trials were conducted with the L8A1 containing only seven charge bags/sticks. The battlesight of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (and Germany's older M109 after upgrades) were designed for an "overcharge", i.e. L8A1 with eight propellant charge bags/sticks or maximum possible amount of modular charge modules.

 

1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Quick note in passing, haven't fully read the thread, but regarding gun accuracy the PzH was noted to have a very significant cold gun effect in Afghanistan. If the K9 avoids this problem, it could very well be more accurate.

Sounds like a reasonable theory. As both the L/52 barrels of K9 and PzH 2000 are JBMoU compatible guns, there shouldn't be relevant differences in the construction of barrel and breech, suggesting that other factors - such as the cold gun effect - played a role.

 

[Voodoo]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally developed with the use of a modular propellant charge system (DM72, DM82, etc.).

 

 

When the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally deployed in Afghanistan, it was discovered that the modular propellant charges used back then had issues with consistency/temperature sensitivity, which resulted in old L8A1 propellant charges being used.

 

 

 

The L8A1 is a tubular container/cylinder, into which up to seven propellant bags/sticks are inserted. In Germany, there is a special case of an eight propellant bag/stick being loaded for direct firing (when eight charges are used, they are all loaded at once in a large bag). This was done already with the M109 and is also done with the Panzerhaubitze 2000.

 

According to Hptm Harling, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was trialed with the L8A1 propellant. No idea why, maybe it was issued by the Norwegian forces or it was used because the temperature sensitivity of the modular propellant charges was not fixed back then. But it was not an ideal solution for the Panzerhaubtize 2000 and according to Harling, direct firing trials were conducted with the L8A1 containing only seven charge bags/sticks. The battlesight of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (and Germany's older M109 after upgrades) were designed for an "overcharge", i.e. L8A1 with eight propellant charge bags/sticks or maximum possible amount of modular charge modules.

 

 

 

Thanks for the info regarding the L8A1, never heard or seen it. 

 

Could Hptm Harling be meaning "any type of bag charges" when saying L8A1? As it has never been used in Norway. Ever since the adaption of 155 mm artillery, M4A2 and NM23(Norwegian produced M4A2 White bag, with seven bags ranging from 3 to 7) has been used. I'm pretty sure norwegian ammo was given to all, so it has to be either the NM23 or the DM72, as that's the only propellant available. 

 

 

They could have given out the NM23 only, as the M109A3GNM  sight is matched with seven bags, and didn't think anything of it. Just speculation on my part. 

 

When I said the K9 had the most accurate gun I was not talking about the direct firing trials - I don't know the results. I meant the indirect firing only. I should have specified.

[Gun Ready]

Why is this posted in the MBT Leopard 2 thread? Please switch to General artillery... thread!

[Laser Shark]

2 Leopard 2A7/A7NO were recently spotted in Oslo:

 

 

 

[Laviduce]

No turret add-on/applique armor to save weight ?

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

2 Leopard 2A7/A7NO were recently spotted in Oslo:

 

 

 

So my guess was wrong. No weight reduction measures can be seen. Looks like 2A7V.

[Laser Shark]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Looks like 2A7V.

 

Do you think these two may have been borrowed from the German Army? If so, that might explain the apparent lack of weight saving measures. Not an optimal solution in any case, but better than nothing I suppose.

[Rico]

The video is quite short where the picture is from. If I am correct there are Spectus cameras in front+rear which we don't have in Danmark but the Germans. We would have read something if they were from Hungary which are not delivered yet. So yes Germans I would guess.

[Laser Shark]

So it turns out these two look pretty much identical to a tank that was on display in Hungary several months ago: 

 

 

[123]

1

[Laser Shark]

Agreed. Just to add even more evidence, this more recent (if rather small) image shows that they aren't outfitted with PERI RTWL either, which is one of the changes that appears to be more or less confirmed for the A7NO :

 

[David Moyes]

https://www-tungt-no.translate.goog/article/view/829265/vektgebyr_pa_153000_kroner_og_anmeldt_for_ulovlig_kabotasje?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no

[Voodoo]

The trailer was 15 tons over weight. This doesn't have anything to do with the tank itself.

[David Moyes]

@Voodoo

Right but it's still funny.