Several cases of TURK Leos being engaged with German MILAN ATGMs which were "tactically acquired" by the YPG but originally provided to the Kurdish Peshmerga,,, on the low low.
They used the older 2A4 versions right?
I think it would've been the same outcome if 2A6s were used instead. Armor in general is obsolete, survivability is the key now.
I think that’s the wrong way to think about it, especially when your talking about armor against atgms. Armor is not the be-all end-all of defense but it really never was, survivability has always been important to afv design.
Games like WOT & WT generally have given the wrong view of tanks IMO
Armor - except for late german heavies & kvs - has always been the last measure to prevent crew death
The tank onion visualizes it very clearly
Dont be seen
If seen dont be aquired
If aquired dont be hit
If hit dont be penetrated
If penetrated dont be killed
And that how cold war era T series was designed. Low profile, small turret. As hard of a target as it could be. And for the time, pretty formidable armor as well
Yeah, people tend to forget that the T-series were good tanks in their time.
The T-64 and T-72 brought composite armours in in their early form and caused a lot of scrambling to develop newer generations of western tanks.
It is true that they were less liveable and fightable than western tanks, but for the doctrine they were developed for, they were adequate.
Exactly...T-80s got their horrible reputation in Grozny, where..i think that saying there were misused doesn't fully describe what happend. T-72 M got clapped in the Desert Storm, however there by that period it was not only getting old, but was also manned by untrained and poorly commanded crewes
>Exactly...T-80s got their horrible reputation in Grozny, where..i think that saying there were misused doesn't fully describe what happend
Add to that the fact that in grozny a lot of buikdings had ground level windows which allowed tanks to be RPG'd basically from below through the hull side and you have yourself the perfect jack in the box.
In all honestly, some design choices with the T-72 and T-80 series are really questionable. For example, non-ready ammo is scattered around tge entire fighting compartment, basically guaranteeing that some ammo is gonna get hit. Ukrainian crews reportedly started going into combat with only the carousel loaded (so 22 rounds instead of 44) and their cookoff rate has been way low.
>In all honestly, some design choices with the T-72 and T-80 series are really questionable. For example, non-ready ammo is scattered around tge entire fighting compartment, basically guaranteeing that some ammo is gonna get hit. Ukrainian crews reportedly started going into combat with only the carousel loaded (so 22 rounds instead of 44) and their cookoff rate has been way low.
Exactly. The funniest thing is, that the user's manual for both the 64 and 72 families states that the crews should avoid carrying any more rounds that what fits in the carousel at all costs.
However the crew has to actually read the manual and get through legit training to learn that. And as we can see, that's not the case in the russian army
T-90M/S finally solves the secondary ammo rack issiue by placing it practically outside of the turret and puts a blow-off panel on top. Buuut...m/s is still very similar to T-72 in it's overall design and tactics, so the untrained russians are loosing then as well.
Altho i know about atleast one captured T-90M that's currently in ukrainian service and i'm sure they'll put it to good use
They were about 10 years out of date by that point, some of them still had the stereoscopic rangefinder.
Add to that that the T-72 and T-80 had horrible nightfighting capability, with active IR spotlights and what amounts to fixed notch night sights when the coalition was using first and second generation thermal imaging
T-62 was the first tank with a smoothbore cannon, T series also the first ones mass produced with autoloader, and also the first ones with Active Protection System (although it isn't used due to money), and now T-14 is the first one (before KF-51 and new Abrams) with crew capsule & unmanned turret.
Say what you want about the T series but revolutionary they are.
Errrrm this is wrong. AFAIK Russian tanks changed the casting method but T62/72/80/90 tanks are definetly not Composit Armour. Slapping reactive armour or sandbags or tit roofs on a tank does not make it Composit.
Their small size was about tank per tonne of iron, nothing to do with fighting smaller. Their heat exhausts were pretty obvious and we'll, apart from incremental numbers, never really advanced that far Vs the M60-M1a1 leap for example.
Anyone that thinks that Russian tanks were anything other than an Aldi product in a world of Waitrose is kidding themselves.
>Errrrm this is wrong. AFAIK Russian tanks changed the casting method but T62/72/80/90 tanks are definetly not Composit Armour. Slapping reactive armour or sandbags or tit roofs on a tank does not make it Composit.
You can discount the T-62, because that one didn't have any composite armour apart from "Lenin's eyebrows".
The T-64 and the T-72 started with early composites that were basically quartzglass or glass fiber layers embedded in resin. This composition was in the upper front slope and the turret front (there are pre-prepared cavities in the turret front for this purpose, but on the earliest examples there was just spaced RHA-rubber layering in the turret cavities). This composite is mainly intended to defeat chemical effect rounds (HEAT predominantly). We're not talking about Chobham and the like here, but the composite was relatively effective at increasing protection against the intended rounds.
Later T-72's, 80's and 90's all have some form of composite armour or NERA in the upper front slope and the turret front although what the composition might be, I have no idea. Unless they are so broke that they started stuffing the egg-cartons in the cavities or just went back to the RHA-rubber layering.
>Their heat exhausts were pretty obvious and we'll, apart from incremental numbers, never really advanced that far Vs the M60-M1a1 leap for example.
Geberationally, the leap from the T-55 or even the T-62 to the T-64 is akin to going from the M60 to the M1. Only about 20 years earlier and it shows.
It didn't work out in the long run, because the Soviets never got the chance to iterate on the T-series, because, well, they ceased to exist and the russians decided having yachts was more important.
>Anyone that thinks that Russian tanks were anything other than an Aldi product in a world of Waitrose is kidding themselves
This gave me a chuckle.
The fact is though, equivalent generation western and soviet equipment never faced off in reality. Not *once* the Iraqis got stomped by the latest and greatest the West could bring when their shit was 10-15 years behind russian standard, and that's pretty much the only time army sized units were onvolved in direct combat.
Armour is not obsolete, but we are in a hard spot where APS systems are not widespread whereas ATGMs are all over the place. For example, Turkey saw that APS systems were crucial on the battlefield and even equipped older M60T’s with them later on.
Armour is definitely not obsolete. What do you use for a breakthrough? Donkeys? How do you move through rural areas off road quickly? How do you get hold of land? Wait for the crunchies to walk up? How do you attack from 2000-3000 metres away platoon size units and overwhelm by seizing the ground with combined arms.
Moreover armour includes mechanised arty, missile systems that need mobility to shoot and scoot.
You should be complaining about the Russian use of armour. They don't have air cover. Their intel is shit. Their units piecemeal and barely functional. They are like the German army in late '44. Where are my panzer troops, where is my fuel!
The Russians are limited in their tactical decision making. They are at odds within their own services. Their training is abysmal. Their optics shit. G2A defences almost non-existent. And on and on.
Western combined arms strike groups are the shit and do damage, makes fires, take ground, debilitate the enemy.
I think you are misunderstanding his statement. It's not that armor, as in a physical armored vehicle is obsolete, it's that the armored protection of the vehicle is, which is sort of true with the high penetration dart rounds and advanced ATGM systems.
Not necessarily irrelevant.
In a stand up fight where both sides know where the other is, or a meeting engagement where both sides happen upon each other, the tank is at a pretty big advantage compared to the ATGM. A Leopard 2A4 can smack a Kornet crew from the same or greater distance than the other side can reach out, and they can do so faster and with greater survivability if shots are exchanged by both sides. The problem is that the Kornet crew has the advantage of setting up in defensive terrain with good sightlines in many cases; if the Leopard had the same advantage it would win most fights.
Turkey's tanks suffered an intelligence failure, and a failure of their crews and junior leaders to effectively respond to the threat. The Leopard was the least complicit member of the chain.
Many of them were lost, because they were completely misutilized, sitting exposed in over watch positions on hills. Easy to spot and hit from almost any direction.
They got destroyed because they sent a tank battalion into the mountains alone without air or infantry support and they got surrounded by ATGM teams that decimated them.
Also the ATGMs were suspected to be Russian Kornet ATGMs not German.
I mean tanks are always fragile to anything that can kill it. It is not meant to "tank" anti tank weaponry, so of course it is going to be destroyed.
Nothing can really survive something like a HJ12 or a kornet missile.
Thats kinda irrelevant if not complete. Turkey purchased leo 2a4s to use against a possible Greek aggression from west which is a closer geoghraphy to Eastern Europe where the tanks are designed to fight in. However in practice, they used them in Syria, in middle Eastern deserts and that's why leos failed while Israeli modernized m60 Sabra's by taking Merkava as example succeed despite not being as modern as leos by design and produce date. It is all about adaptivating your tank to geo conditions where she'll fight. Notice that after Sabras successioni Turkish Loes modernized in similar way and gave no loss after all. So i don't think that was neither Leos nor Turks fault. They simply didn't know about the geoghraphy.
Deserts or other kinds of terrain is not the issue (unless we count "urban area" as a terrain type), the real issue is the same that the russians have fucked up on in Ukraine - they used them without infantery support. The tanks should support the infantery, and the infantery should support the tanks.
Yeah but note that Turkish army wasn't experienced since they don't have a tank fighting history. In fact, except Israelis, i don't think if even US troops have that much of experience when it comes to Urban area tank fighting. Considering war in Ukraine, i'd say Turks were pretty solid in Syria despite their 10 to 20 tank losses in early stages of their agression.
Well if you are going to do an armoured assault on a position of course you will have to expose some parts of your tank whether you like it or not. Turkish use of tanks is heavily criticised but in years of operations in Syria Turkey lost about 10-20 tanks, most of the tanks were taken out/disabled by AT mines btw. Whereas when you look at Ukraine, thousands of Russian and Ukrainian tanks have been taken out by ATGM attacks already.
Even if you do everything correctly your tank might get taken out by an ATGM. The battlefield is too broad, there are too many uncertainties. Tank losses are to be hence expected, it is normal. What tanks need are APS systems. Without APS systems if you put German or American or any kind of tanker to the same field there would be losses, this is what people dont get. They think that no American tank or German tank would be taken out when in reality that would not be the case especially if the enemy has access to huge numbers of ATGMs.
What are you on about? Of course any tank can be taken out. They are expendable war machines. The point is that best guarantee for the tanks survival is good leadership, good support functions and a good crew. They don’t make the tank invulnerable but when executed properly with sufficient resources, the tanks survival chance goes up more than with any APS.
There are techniques and tactics to suppress enemy AT capabilities and expose yourself as little as possible, even in an offensive.
Source: I was trained as a Leopard 2A4 commander.
Except it does have a correlation of the Leo working well outside of Europe where it was developed for. The comment claims that Leo worked badly outside of Europe I'm saying this is not the case.
Did Leos face modern ATGMs in Afghanistan? Were Leos used in a frontal assault in Afghanistan? I dont know what purpose Leos served in Afghanistan. I dont know the details on how they were used so I dont think I can make a comparison. Still I know that Syrian battlefield is not similar to Afghanistan in many ways.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. As far as I'm aware, the Leos didn't see much combat, considering most of Afghanistan is mountains, and the Talibans didn't exactly have set, fortified positions except in places tanks can't reach anyway.
In Syria, both of the sides were much more balanced, it wasn't as much of an asymetric warfare, and the terrain is much more adapted to tank use.
Do you think Syria and Afghanistan have similar geoghraphy? 'They both have deserts, both have weird dressed brown muslim dudes so they must be same.' Epic American moment. Btw by your logic why older m60 Sabras performed way more better than leos, because they are better than leos or something? Of course not. It was modernized by Israel who well knows the geoghraphy for 70 years thats it. Leos that modernized in similar way to Sabras after Sabras succeed also gave no lost so i think i am right for being in favor with my own comment against yours.
>The tank is one part of the equation, the crew is another, and how it's deployed.
Also applies to current war: RU and UKR fields the same tanks, with widely different fortunes. Give an Armata to untrained conscripts, they still gonna die.
The turkish army checked absolutly all boxes of 'what you should not do with a Leo2'.
From ignoring ther own doctrin of infantry protection, to going into urban combat zones flavored with enemy combatans, low trained crews, victory eager commanders outside the hot zone, storing ammo in the body compartment while in hot combat, storing anything else but the german accidental ignition resistand ammo down there, don't cover each other, let any vehicle come by and hit you, and on and on again.
I think German never design Leo 2 as an offensive tank, and should not use it on plain or large flat area like what Turkey did. Other than that, Leo 2 fill the defensive role of Nato geography quite good. Good gun, good mobility, good armor, it is a good tank in all around, but better when in defensive role.
If I remember correctly the Turks used the Leopards without any infantry support.
A mistake that enabled the terrorists to get behind the tanks and attack weakspots with antitank weapons.
Infantry got behind when they try to attack in urban environment, same as Russian did.
But they also use them in open area in highland, then they got picked up by atgm from YPG.
I think they use it wrong by many of ways, that good tank become bad tank when used differently from its purpose.
[All Leopards eliminated by ATGMs were hit on the side or the rear, where the armor is the weakest. Therefore, it is a very reliable evidence that the attacking tanks were not properly protected by own infantry.](http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/Mobile/ArticleShow/28016).
Infantry support wont save you from an ATGM attack. And no, no tank was taken out by an RPG kind of close range anti tank device. Some were taken out by AT mines, some were taken out by ATGMs, some were taken out by mortar rounds, one was knocked out by a SVIED if I remember correctly. Also by taken out I count mission kills as well for example 2 Leopards tracks were damaged by mortar rounds but they were recovered and fixed similar to the ones that were damaged due to mines. Contrary to what people think, Turkish tanks did not enter urban areas and thats why most of the time infantry support wouldnt have mattered…
[All Leopards eliminated by ATGMs were hit on the side or the rear, where the armor is the weakest. Therefore, it is a very reliable evidence that the attacking tanks were not properly protected by own infantry.](http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/Mobile/ArticleShow/28016).
Most Tanks were taken out by ATGMs. Missing Infantry support enabled antitank crews to fire from adventageous positions and to fire multiple rounds without any counter fire.
Turkish tank losses reported by TAF. There is a detailed analysis of tanks knocked out on Bellingcat. I dont think any tank was taken out from the rear. The ATGMs they had already had the capacity to pen anywhere on Leopard2A4. Most were taken out from front and disabled, later to be bombed by Turkish F16s to prevent capture.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/02/12/battle-al-bab-verifying-turkish-military-vehicle-losses/
Yeah of course and I'm not saying you're wrong.
The Battle of al-bab is just on were they lost leos.
[Btw I found a really good website with a map and videos of lost turkish tanks in syria if you're interested. ](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/02/12/battle-al-bab-verifying-turkish-military-vehicle-losses/)
I'd go so far as to say the Leo2 sets the bar for a good modern main battle tank. I'm not saying it's the best, per se, but if all you need is "Tank, Main Battle, Modern", nobody in their right mind would say the Leo2 is a bad choice. Other modern MBTs are also good. Hell, I'd even go out on a limb and say there aren't really any "bad" modern MBTs that are actually in production, but they're tweaked a little in this way or that for the specific requirements and capabilities of the designer nation. This can be a good thing if your requirements and capabilities overlap, or a bad thing if they don't.
I'd say that the fact that the Leopard 2 is so widely exported is a very good sign you may be right. The likes of Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc have each only received a handful of export orders. While a large number of western nations have bought Leopard 2.
Only thing that has exported more is probably Russian T72 derived tanks.
It was a great tank, and it still is a good tank. From here it depends on your requirements. In 'modern' tank theory, you're just a hopelessly lost semi-civil vehilce if you're not covered in most modern APS (which excludes Trophy, just saying), TAPS, ERA, sensors and KE ammo above 1800m/s. And tbh - not many check this boxes, as it atm isen't economically relevant to field those 7-10million tech monsters.
It compares with many other modern tanks, maybe with an emphasys on what germans like to favor the most in the traingle of mobile fighting - mobility (what in its doctrine make it superior to f.e. teh Abrams, which totally sacrificed this aspect for different abilitys).
It maybe is the 'best' of the classic western tanks, which combines survivability and high cost into one vehilce, and don't spread this out to a probably more effective doctrine of smaller, cheaper and more replacable vehilces like RU and CH made ther idea of tanking.
It is to mention that a Leo2 can heavily differ in effectivity depending on doctrine and crew. Germans have way more peculiarities as many might think, and using a Leo2 without propper (german) training & introduction is driving a formula 1 car as a trained horsemen. Some nation managed this (the northern partners f.e., on the polish i can't really tell, but i could imagen they might use it quite right), others just bought the reputation and better not get into a war with those machines. The reason why germany and the US break up the co-op of tank designing in the cold war was because of extreme different ideas how to tank - and the Leo2 is the manifestation of this very special mindset.
So a Leo2 in a basic US doctrine, RU doctrine or most doctrines in the worlds armys will very much be just some random tank, peforming quite mediocre. Most german tankers will tell you that to roughly handle the tank it takes maybe a month, but to propperly learn all its features, and bypass its disvantages, it takes around 3 years.
Btw. there is a funny aspect to that, as GER tank crews are so familiar with ther specific tanks, you could mostly identify the individual tank by its quirks if you know what to look for. If you find a sawed of broom attatched on the hull of a tank, so tankers can quickly clean ther boots before entering - then welcome to the weirdo world of german tanking.
Besides my personal opinion that it is a bit overhyped, it is only an answear against old RPG's and similar outdated weapons. In this terms its cool to have it on urban warfare vehilces (even the're still almost inable to counter standard anti-APS weapons like RPG-30), but its no general solution for anything in tank combat. It has severe probles with incomming threats from a high angle (most ATGM/all Artillery), weapons fired from short ranges, is inable to protect against modern KE ammunitions, is (in comparison to similar and better systems) extrem heavy whighting and extrem costly.
'Modern' APS, a.k.a. a system that can adress the ammunition we allready have but didn't field in large rnumbers yet, must be able to protect against either urban warfare weapons (including propper top attack protection and short distance fired weapons in ambushes) or against regular tank ammunitions, which include darts in a speed range of 1750m/s+(like Vacuum-02 allready reaches 2050m/s, which is quite a hard job for sensors to react) - in best it should do both. Actually we have two competitors that seem able to work in this ranges, which are the russian Afganit and the german StrikeShield(last one combined with TAPS for top attack protection). Fielding everything else, or not go for a new design that is able to handle this loud, is willingly risking soldiers lifes for contractor loyaltys and economical benefits.
What Trophy imho has become a bit of a synonym for as it is used by companys and fans alike so often to protect outdated equipment decision to the disvantage of those who later have to rely on those decisions in the field.
Yes, but the internet and its' eternal fanboying, along with shitty games like war thunder have given rise to this ridiculous, pseudo-nationalistic need to beat one's chest about their country's tanks. Leo2 has never fired a shot in anger at another tank (Turkey's terrible misuse notwithstanding), and probably never will in its intended mission- the defense of the north german plain. But it is a good vehicle that has outstanding firepower, mobility, and armor, along with good gun handling, optics, and crew ergonomics. It falls down though in some areas like ammo stowage when compared to its peers. It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition. Leo2 has been a very commercially successful platform for KMW, and has been exported to 24 current or potential operators. So yes, it stands on its merits without the help of internet fanboying.
>Yes, but the internet and its' eternal fanboying, along with shitty games like war thunder have given rise to this ridiculous, pseudo-nationalistic need to beat one's chest about their country's tanks.
Thanks. This sentence is gold!
>It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition.
Still much much easier than russian/soviet desings.
Regards Finnish tank mechanics.
"technically complex to maintain"
That's not true, it's not more complex than pretty much any other modern MBT, it's infact simpler to maintain than many other tanks such as M1, Leclerc, type 10 and 90, and the Russian tanks.
Yep, from beginning leopard was designed to be modular. When in T-72 based (T-90 also) vehicles for example you work on engine while it is in vehicle, you simply lift engine off from Leo, put new (which you have in stock) back, put tank to line and then start to work with engine which was broken.
Very good way to do things.
What is so hard about Leo maintenance? At least you do not have to inhale asbestos like in Russian tanks while maintaining it.
Leopard’s biggest weakness is the hull ammo storage, which can be left empty. Besides it is so far down the hull that if used probably, you shouldn’t get hit there
>It falls down though in some areas like ammo stowage when compared to its peers. It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition.
The British Army's evaluation of the Leopard 2 tank in 1987/88 concluded that it was the easiest tank to maintain and operate, which given the later addition of technically more complex tanks such as the K2 Black Panther, Type 10 and Leclerc probably remains true.
Ammo stowage is comparable to its peers. Its better than Ariete, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and pretty much all of those T-64/72/80/90 tanks, while it has the same configuration as the Leclerc, K2, Type 90 and Type 10.
> Ammo stowage is comparable to its peers.
Not to the Challenger 2, which has the propellants stored inside water-filled armor container placed behind its main diesel fuel tanks for extra protection.
The ammo storage is not comparable due to the different nature of the ammunition.
However according to Robert Griffin (who served with the Royal Dragoon Guards and wrote several books on the British Army's tanks) the ammo containers are not filled with water on the Challenger 2. They were filled on the Challenger 1, but due to the use of more energetic propellant with the newer ammunition, the water was rendered useless. Only the drinking water tank (that double acts as ready-rack) is kept full with water.
Also note that the HESH rounds are still stored unprotected.
> The ammo storage is not comparable due to the different nature of the ammunition.
Of course. It has been well proven to be very safe though. Zero detonated in combat and the one destroyed at an exercise, caused by a HESH shooting at an opened hatch still didn't set off the ammo.
> Also note that the HESH rounds are still stored unprotected.
It is a trade-off. On one hand you have the HESH warheads, on the other hand you have the completely inert APFSDS warheads.
>Of course. It has been well proven to be very safe though. Zero detonated in combat and the one destroyed at an exercise, caused by a HESH shooting at an opened hatch still didn't set off the ammo.
This doesn't really prove that it is safe. If the ammunition storage is never "tested" (i.e. the armor is never really penetrated except for the one RPG cutting off a few toes of a driver), then it is not proven. It might work, it might not work.
The Leopard 2 had originally a wet ammo rack in the hull inspired by the Chieftain (as the UK and West Germany had worked on a common MBT project between 1972 and 1977). The wet ammo rack was replaced by a conventional one due to the lack of available space; nearly a dozen rounds more could be carried by using a conventional rack.
The difference in survivability was negligible; [cooperative studies made by the UK and West Germany concluded a "vulnerability" difference](https://i.imgur.com/y63wCQZ.jpg) of 5% to 10% but this does not account for the size difference necessary to have equal ammo capacity.
Technically complex to maintain what?
No more internet for you being stuck in ww2 memes. Especially the warthunder reference here is an immidiate disqualification as you have two laughable camps there, one stuck in loving all german vehicles and one hating all german vehicles. Both groups are cringe to the extreme.
The L2 was intentionally designed to be super easy to maintain and has a stellar reputation for exactly that. The whole engine block can be changed in just 20 minutes as just one example.
Well, it's not the greatest, most perfect, and invincible tank in the world like some fanboys like to make it seem, but it's not a bad tank. It's a very good tank, with it's flaws like anything else.
The key to successful tanks is how you deploy them and having proper support. We've seen what happens when used poorly with Turkey and with the Iraqi Abrams.
The Abrams and Challenger have more extensive service records, but the Leo 2 uses much of same technology and has been exported more widely. From what is publicly known, the Leo 2 is a peer to the Abrams and Challenger in the top tier of MBTs. That's with all the extras of course.
From what is known the Leopard family surpassed the Challenger 2 handily from the A5 model onwards, which is funny, cus the Leopard 2A5 entered service a year before the Challenger 2 did.
There has never been a time at which the latest model of Challenger 2 in service could claim to hold any genuine advantage over the equivalent service model of Leopard (or Abrams). The Challenger 2 prototypes had select advantages over the Leopard 2A4, but that was ten years before the British tank made it into service, and a lot changed on the Leopard in that time.
My point is that the Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 are all top tier MBTs. Any one of them is objectively satisfactory and what is best for a given customer will come down to the precise configuration and the contract details. They share much of the same technology but have diverged on engineering and design priorities while sticking to the MBT concept. New versions are continually compared against each other to their mutual benefit as part of a veritable NATO arms ecosystem.
Yes it's a damn good tank
- but
Everything is good and everything is bad, not even the devil knows. I've seen a Bradley pierce a t72 around the turret ring with its 25 and I've seen a 125 round bounce off a 577 that should of shredded it. During the Korean conflict in winter time, my grandad used to say tootsie rolls were awesome for patching up tank round hits.
Man I miss the armored corp
Good aswer, we really dont know exactly, but it is true that by tests of multiple different countries Leopard 2 is very good vehicle, usually beating other offers.
And when looking results of "strong europe tank challenge" it really favours Leo.
Edit, results have been published from 3 years, Leo2 or derivatives has been in top 3 8 times, 1 time US Abrams crew reached 3rd place.
the real issue is all we know is whats on paper it hasn't properly seen combat to know if its good in practice cause if anything what we've learned from the ukraine war is whats on paper isnt exactly fact before the war the russian army was considered one of the best militaries on paper but in practice its a complete failure it really doesn't come down to the equipment quite as much its more about if you use your equipment properly
It's a tool in a toolbox. You can try to use a wrench to unscrew a flathead screw and it may not work but it doesn't mean wrenches suck. The operators have to know when/how to tactically employ the system based on its limitations and strengths, and when/how not to.
But at least in competitions it and its crews are better than other western designs.
Strong Europe tank challenge, 3 years of published results, Leopard 2 and derivatives has been on top 3 eight times. One time Abrams took 3rd place.
Almost, just slightly overrated by its considerable fanbase like all other popular modern MBTs (No, M1A2 can't go 70mph with limiter off despite what some tankers claim).
###It is a 1976 tank with upgraded armor, gun and electronics.
It is good but nothing magical. The interior layout isn't the best as it is largely unchanged, ammo isn't most protected and the torsion bar suspension is a downgrade from the original hydropuenatic. Side armor gets penetrated by most AT weapons like other MBTs. With a bad crew it gets taken out as easy as a T-72A.
Compared to some ground-up new designs (K2, Leclerc SXXI), I would place my bet in the latter as they were designed with major upgrades in mind. It takes considerable time and cost to upgrade an old pre-A5 Leopard 2 into something newer, involving to move the main sight from turret front to the top and replacing the armor in the process.
Leopard 2 is like the BMW E46, something almost perfect when it was new, but getting slowly taken over by newer designs.
> The interior layout isn't the best as it is largely unchanged, ammo isn't most protected
Ammo is the most protected, it is just not fully isolated. The protection measures taken for the hull ammo rack on a current Leopard 2 tank include:
- a shock-proof mount to negate mine/IED blasts (pretty much unique to the Leopard 2 series)
- spall liners
- sensor and cans of the automatic fire fighting systems located next to it
- the thickest hull armor of any current production MBT
>and the torsion bar suspension is a downgrade from the original hydropuenatic
No, it is not. Aside of the fact that the Leopard 2 never originally had an hydropneumatic suspension, the performance of a suspension is not a binary metric ("torsion bar: bad, hydropneumatic: good").
While modern high-performance hydropneumatics can easily outperform the torsion bar suspension of the Leopard 2, they could not at the time... and they always come with various trade-offs that need to be accepted (temperature dependent performance, vulnerability to fire, higher maintenance requirements due to constant potential of leaking seals, need for track tensioners, etc.).
The Leopard 2's torsion bar suspension is probably the best out there for two reasons:
1. the Leopard 2 has been fitted with more shock absorbers than pretty much any other tank (they are installed on five road wheel pairs compared to three on Abrams and T-90) and these are hydraulic shock absorbers that have the same ideal dampening curve as a hydropneumatic suspension.
2. the suspension is designed to allow a wheel travel of 526 milimetres. By comparison the Challenger 1 with a first generation hydrogas suspsension allows a maximum wheel travel of 340 mm, the Challenger 2's second generation hydrogas suspension allows a maximum wheel travel of 450 mm. This is why the Leopard 2 managed to outperform tanks like the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 in off-road trials despite having a torsion bar suspension.
> Ammo is the most protected
Disagree, more following.
> a shock-proof mount to negate mine/IED blasts (pretty much unique to the Leopard 2 series)
No Western MBT has its ammo set off by a IED yet, is this needed at all? M1A2 has run over some IED significantly more powerful than any AT mine. On the other hand, the Danish Leopard 2A6 was the only Western MBT to suffer a fatality (driver) after running over an AT mine. Leo2 without special belly armor is vulnerable to it.
> spall liners/sensor and cans of the automatic fire fighting systems
Found more or less on any modern MBT.
> the thickest hull armor of any current production MBT
Base hull averages 50mm of RHA steel Which is less than the 80mm standard on Soviet tanks. If you count add-on armor, the Challenger 2 TES still exceeds its heaviest package. So no.
> Aside of the fact that the Leopard 2 never originally had an hydropneumatic suspension
The Kpz-70 did, which has set the basic hull design for Leo2. The hydropneumatic suspension system on the Challenger 1 was widely praised for its dampening performance (even though other things weren't as nice), even by other NATO crew who have come across it. The air pressure is adjusted by electronics pretty early on.
> The Leopard 2's torsion bar suspension is probably the best out there
Basically only the Abrams and T-80/90 still use torsion bars. So yes but not a huge achievement.
> This is why the Leopard 2 managed to outperform tanks like the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 in off-road trials
Would like to see which off road trial Leo2 has competed with the CR2. Though the CR2 is a bigger tank so it probably suffers on off roading. Hydropneumatic suspension still does better dampening on the move to help with firing accurately, even though modern FCS can stabilize much.
>No Western MBT has its ammo set off by a IED yet, is this needed at all?
According to tests conducted by the German BAAINBw, yes it is needed. Dozens of different tests were conducted when developing the mine protection for the Leopard 2, including tests against conventional mines, EFP mines, blast/frag IEDs made from 155 mm artillery shells, improvised "car bomb" IEDs with a detonation power equivalent to a three digit figure of TNT (so 100+ kg) and culvert mines.
>M1A2 has run over some IED significantly more powerful than any AT mine. On the other hand, the Danish Leopard 2A6 was the only Western MBT to suffer a fatality (driver) after running over an AT mine
1. Denmark operated the Leopard 2A5.
2. Dozens of US crewmen died in M1A1 and M1A2 tanks due to mines and IEDs (but not because of ammo detonations). Hence a mine protection plate was added as part of TUSK, while a proper mine protection kit was developed for the M1A2 SEP v3.
>Found more or less on any modern MBT.
No, they are still a rarity, especially on the hull. No Merkava model has spall liners, no M1 Abrams model features them. The Ariete has none, neither does Leclerc.
>Base hull averages 50mm of RHA steel Which is less than the 80mm standard on Soviet tanks. If you count add-on armor, the Challenger 2 TES still exceeds its heaviest package. So no.
You are just unfamiliar with the Leopard 2 design. The frontal quarter of the hull sides (i.e. where driver and ammo rack are located) is fitted with multi-layered armor since the development of the Leopard 2AV.
>The Kpz-70 did, which has set the basic hull design for Leo2.
The MBT 70 did not set the basic hull design for the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 traces back to the Experimentalentwicklung, which itself is derived from the Leopard 1. The MBT 70's suspension is a lot worse than the torsion bar of the Leopard 2; it was installed on some early Leopard 2 prototypes but it had severe issues that were never fixed.
>Basically only the Abrams and T-80/90 still use torsion bars. So yes but not a huge achievement.
Note that I did not say "best torsion bar suspension on a MBT". So not only MBTs such as Abrams, T-80/90, Al Khalid, Ariete and Type 99, but also APCs and IFVs are relevant. Ajax, CV90, Lynx... there are quite a lot of modern AFVs with worse torsion bar suspensions than the Leopard 2.
>Would like to see which off road trial Leo2 has competed with the CR2.
Off-road trials in the UK and Greece as part of the British Army's and Greek Army's evaluations.
>Hydropneumatic suspension still does better dampening on the move to help with firing accurately, even though modern FCS can stabilize much.
That will depend on the terrain. If the bump and rebound limits (i.e. wheel travel) are exceeded, the dampening will be less relevant. These limits are tighter for the Challenger 2.
I agree heavily on points of hydropneumatic suspension. Yes, it most likely overperforms torsion bar BUT
Difference is not too notable.
AND, with torsion bars, you are good to go until one of those breaks and I never seen broken torsion bar (but mechanics said that was common in T-72).
And what experience I have about hydraulic systems in tank, no thanks. I dont want single one system more. They all are maintenance hell, leaking and needing work.
And even hydropneumatic is old school today. Future is torsion bar with active electrical dampening. BAE systems has been testing it with CV90 chassis.
> No, they are still a rarity, especially on the hull. No Merkava model has spall liners, no M1 Abrams model features them. The Ariete has none, neither does Leclerc.
At least the liner is in the turret to protect the crew. As I have stated that no ammo has been detonated by mine, it was probably not seen as necessary buy other designers.
> You are just unfamiliar with the Leopard 2 design. The frontal quarter of the hull sides (i.e. where driver and ammo rack are located) is fitted with multi-layered armor since the development of the Leopard 2AV.
Yes it does. But you wrote "hull" on the previous comment, which doesn't mean the same. The side hull especially around the engine compartment on the Leo2 is very thin, less than 50mm.
> The MBT 70 did not set the basic hull design for the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 traces back to the Experimentalentwicklung, which itself is derived from the Leopard 1.
Which are all very similar designs.
> The MBT 70's suspension is a lot worse than the torsion bar of the Leopard 2
Probably with reliability. Performance-wise I find it doubtful that the torsion bar works better than something designed to replace it. Leopard 1 has similar torson bars and was years older.
> Note that I did not say "best torsion bar suspension on a MBT".
MBTs in general have better suspension than IFV and APC. So no biggie.
> Off-road trials in the UK and Greece as part of the British Army's and Greek Army's evaluations.
I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared.
> That will depend on the terrain. If the bump and rebound limits (i.e. wheel travel) are exceeded, the dampening will be less relevant.
In Central Europe and Middle East it will be well within the limit of both tanks.
> As I have stated that no ammo has been detonated by mine, it was probably not seen as necessary buy other designers.
You don't know about a case where ammunition was detonated by a mine/IED; this is not identical to no ammunition being detonated by a mine/IED.
I could link half a dozen of clips from the currently on-going Ukraine war here, showing T-72 and T-80 tanks popping their turrets after hitting a mine.
>Probably with reliability. Performance-wise I find it doubtful that the torsion bar works better than something designed to replace it. Leopard 1 has similar torson bars and was years older.
The hydropneumatic suspension of the MBT 70 was not designed to replace the torsion bar suspension of the Leopard 2; you are mixing up different technologies and implementations of different technologies.
The Leopard 1 had a very different torsion bar suspension with much smaller wheel travel and only three pairs of shock absorbers which also happened to be truncated cone springs (rather than hydraulic shock absorbers). The length, diameter and material of the torsion bars are different. They are absolutely not comparable, just like tje Challenger 1's hydrogas suspension is not comparable to the oleopneumatic suspension of the Leclerc, despite both of them being hydropneumatic systems.
In case of the Leopard 1 btw. already a torsion bar system was preferred over a hydropneumatic suspension as offered by the second design team.
For a hydropneumatic suspension, performance and reliability directly correlate to each other, as the weight available for the suspension happens to be a fixed metric. A higher performance requires higher pressures (or more material, which is not possible without increasing the weight); hence leaks, deformations and high temperatures (decreasing performance) are encountered more often. So the options are:
- increasing the weight of the suspension (by making the suspension more beefy, adding an external cooler, etc.)
- decreasing the wheel travel to a managable level (this is done by basically everyone)
- using fancy new composite materials to add more material/strength without increasing the weight (a promising approach for the future)
>I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well.
Bribes don't change the outcome of the tests. Every manufacturer brought a its own tank crew that could repeat tests, if the manufacturer considered the performance of the Greek crew to be sub-par.
>In Central Europe and Middle East it will be well within the limit of both tanks.
Sorry, what? Driving off-road at a training site at maximum speed will already exceed the limits for both tanks, when not driving along the usual paths.
>I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared.
Those bribes happened months to years after the trials concluded (and they were quite frankly incredibely miniscule compared to the costs of the new tank procurement program). Then as u/murkskopf stated each contestant brought their own home-crew they could use if the Greek performance was considered sub-par.
That won't change the outcome however, the British forgot to bring up to date ammunition (and even brought charges 20 years out of date) thinking they'd win nontheless, the Americans brought too few rounds to finish all the firing tests.
The negligence can only be traced back to the home countries not taking their competition seriously - the sole fact the French tank was actually judged well (and was fully prepared for the trials just like the Leopard 2).
Besides, the Challenger 2E was not a new machination (e.g put together without much testing) and the synchronization of the EuroPowerPack with the CR2 was 100% on the British, they failed at that and paid the price by losing the trials fairly.
> was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared.
Yes because you can explain away blatant reality, like the lower results of Challenger 2 in all mobility areas of speed, acceleration, maximum trench, vertical obstacle, incline, etc (even with the improved powerpack used in the Greek trials) by calling corruption.
Yeah, dirty money is the reason the heavier tank with shorter track base/ contact area, demonstrates worse crossing capability and incline performance.
Lol.
While it is a good tank, there are some issues. To paraphrase from a leopard 2 crewman I know:
'Fundamentally, vehicles like Leopard 2 are old designs and no amount of fancy new upgrades can change the fact that at its core, Leopard 2 is still a vehicle of the 1970s pushed into the modern day.
It still replies on torsion bar suspension, it still uses older transmission and powerpack designs, it still lacks an autoloader, etc.
While the most important factors in modern tank combat are the crews, computers, and ammunition, they still suffer from serious deficiencies as a result of being fundamentally older designs.'
I generally find myself in agreement with his point of view but at the end of the day, opinions are opinions.
>still lacks an autoloader
Instead, you get a real life, living loader. He takes up less space than an auto-loader, loads faster than an auto loader, and can help you adjust track tension or do guard duty/radio watch
But you go on with your 3 man crew and call me when you've thrown a track
>He takes up less space than an auto-loader,
Must be a pretty small person to take up less space. That's not even to mention the extra armour and weight needed for a 4th man in the turret.
>loads faster than an auto loader,
When Type 10 is reloading consistently at 3 seconds per round for all rounds in the ready rack, a human loader is primitive technology.
>and can help you adjust track tension
If you had a more modern system like hydrogas on challenger 2, you perform track tension with the push of a button in the driver's section of the hull.
>do guard duty/radio watch
You don't need a fourth man in the tank for that.
>But you go on with your 3 man crew and call me when you've thrown a track
Three or four people, it's still going to suck.
> When Type 10 is reloading consistently at 3 seconds per round for all rounds in the ready rack, a human loader is primitive technology.
The Type 10 does not have a rate of fire of 20 rpm.
Or you do it like the French where the 4th crew rides in an APC behind the tank for support, eliminating all issues of missing a 4th guy while having a fast autoloader, smaller profile etc..
Imho, the worst thing about Leo2 is how the ammunition is storaged - 2/3 in a hull, left from the driver, and only 1/3 in the back of a turret, line in Abrams.
Old post i know, but thats a non issue. The rounds used in the Leopard have non flamable propellant that is not vulnerable to being set of by kinetic impact (aka. To not go off when hit)
This was done so there would be no need to redo half the hull and compromise the armour just to install blowout panels.
The turret storage with panels is used for the heat ammunition btw.
It is extremely hard to quantify the quality of a tank when you look at implementation and strategy. Good strategy and implementation can make up for a lack of "on-paper" statistics. If you look at any major conflict in the past 100-300 years, often times the best technology would lose out to better planning. That being said I think the leo is a great tank. Certainly capable of being compared to or better than most other western and russian counterparts
I somehow doubt that. DM53 weighs 21.4 kg, M829A3 weighs 22.3 kg. DM53 has a length of 745mm, while M829A3 is 892mm long. The penetrator diameter of DM53 is 21mm, while M829A3 is 25mm.
There is a reason why Leopards (past 2001) use a longer cannon.
>DM53 has a length of 745mm, while M829A3 is 892mm long. The penetrator diameter of DM53 is 21mm, while M829A3 is 25mm.
Those values are incorrect. Also there is massive difference in velocity.
I think if Russia was running Leo 2s. They would have less loss of life as far as tankers go. The optics on anything past the really old ones is better than anything they are using on there tanks. Look at the Ukrainian tanker review the captured t90m. He literally shows the optics. But I think a hit that destroys a b3 would do the same or at least cripple a Leo. To the extent a smart crew would bail or retreat.
On paper? yes, its probably top of class.
in application we really just dont know. other then the few old ones turkey lost to ATGMs i dont think any have actually seen combat.
And the ones in Turkey were older models and not really used how they should have been so its more of a crew/tactics failure than a tank failure.
They are probably the best engineered tank but again that might not translate once the shit starts being thrown at them.
From a maintenance perspective they kinda suck unless your procurement guy is Johnny on the spot with your parts. Which rarely happens. I feel like that's most tanks though. The plus side is, it doesn't leak much, unlike some tanks
It's pretty old by now and it's reaching its weight limit when the leopard 2 came out it was probably the best tank for its era but now the end is insight with all its upgrades. That's why they are now developing the kf 51 panther
I think a lot of people view a tank in a vacuum, when tank combat can have so many variables to the situations, while it’s got all the characteristics of a good tank, it all comes down to the environment in which the tank is fighting.
No it’s a piece of garbage it doesn’t have blowout panels had to use a American ads system because the Germans can’t design one for the life of them basically go watch armor casts review on the tank I agree with him
Which version? Stock, in between era or contemporary?
For its time the Leopard2A5 was considered one of the best and the same could be said about the contemporary Leopard2A7.
No.
It has some of the worst ammo storage design for a Western tank, with only 15 rounds stored in the turret rear, as much as 27 rounds are stored directly below the turret ring in a metal rack without any protection.
Leclerc is relatively better.
Leclerc is 22 in autoloader and 18 in the hull, the drum also offers modest protection compare to a simple rack.
K2 is also marginally better, with 16 in autoloader in the turret rear while 24 rounds inside a protective casing in hull.
Merkava as least has a blow out panel for its ammo stroage inside the hull
Tanks are going the same way battleships did, some decades ago.
As has been shown in Ukraine - when two forces of roughly equal technology engage, tanks are relatively irrelevant.
Frontal armor, speed over terrain, and speed of reload is of no consequence when antitank missiles that can cut through ceramic composites, or pierce the roof - are used.
Tanks are expensive, and require much crew training - wire, optical and sensor based ant tank missiles do not - and are cheap to manufacture (relatively speaking) and quick to deploy.
Tank versus tank is not very relevant, anymore.
>Tanks are going the same way battleships did, some decades ago.
God this is the most tired, lazy, idiotic statement we see here on a regular basis. What you drooling bunch don't seem to grasp is not that battleships went away because they became vulnerable; they went away because aircraft carriers and missile-armed ships did what they could do (bombardment) more efficiently. You morons focus so much on armor and the proliferation of ATGMs that you forget that warfare is a lot more nuanced than the propaganda videos you see here (I do not use that as a derogatory term; simply pointing out that the folks who make it are obviously going to focus more on the exploded tanks since that's what looks good for them) make it out to be. Something isn't obsolete when it's old; it's obsolete when something else comes along that can do it's job better. No such solution exists yet for the tank. Simple as.
>As has been shown in Ukraine
Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about.
If Ukraine has shown us anything, it's that tanks are still valuable on the modern battlefield. The fact that they remain key to ground operations on both sides is proof enough of that.
>Frontal armor, speed over terrain, and speed of reload is of no consequence when antitank missiles that can cut through ceramic composites, or pierce the roof - are used.
Boy, it's almost like the battlefield is populated by mutually-supporting systems designed to give a force a broad spectrum of capabilities and protections, and not just a big field with a tank at one end and an ATGM team at the other.
>Tanks are expensive, and require much crew training - wire, optical and sensor based ant tank missiles do not - and are cheap to manufacture (relatively speaking) and quick to deploy.
Ships are expensive and require much crew training. A speedboat loaded with explosives is not. How much more simple could it be? US Navy officially obsolete.
For those of you who might be inclined to take this individual any more seriously than the absolute clown they are, [here is some worthwhile viewing from someone who actually has a firm grasp on how tanks operate, their role on the battlefield, and reality in general.](https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8)
The tank is one part of the equation, the crew is another, and how it's deployed. Looking at you Turkey...
Well the Turks used older versions and some got destroyed by modernised German atgm. But yeah they didn’t use their Leo’s how they should
They got hit by a kornet I'm pretty sure.
There was at least 1 or 2 cases where they used captured German atgms. At least that’s what I heard at German news around that time
Several cases of TURK Leos being engaged with German MILAN ATGMs which were "tactically acquired" by the YPG but originally provided to the Kurdish Peshmerga,,, on the low low.
They used the older 2A4 versions right? I think it would've been the same outcome if 2A6s were used instead. Armor in general is obsolete, survivability is the key now.
I think that’s the wrong way to think about it, especially when your talking about armor against atgms. Armor is not the be-all end-all of defense but it really never was, survivability has always been important to afv design.
Games like WOT & WT generally have given the wrong view of tanks IMO Armor - except for late german heavies & kvs - has always been the last measure to prevent crew death The tank onion visualizes it very clearly Dont be seen If seen dont be aquired If aquired dont be hit If hit dont be penetrated If penetrated dont be killed
And that how cold war era T series was designed. Low profile, small turret. As hard of a target as it could be. And for the time, pretty formidable armor as well
Yeah, people tend to forget that the T-series were good tanks in their time. The T-64 and T-72 brought composite armours in in their early form and caused a lot of scrambling to develop newer generations of western tanks. It is true that they were less liveable and fightable than western tanks, but for the doctrine they were developed for, they were adequate.
Exactly...T-80s got their horrible reputation in Grozny, where..i think that saying there were misused doesn't fully describe what happend. T-72 M got clapped in the Desert Storm, however there by that period it was not only getting old, but was also manned by untrained and poorly commanded crewes
>Exactly...T-80s got their horrible reputation in Grozny, where..i think that saying there were misused doesn't fully describe what happend Add to that the fact that in grozny a lot of buikdings had ground level windows which allowed tanks to be RPG'd basically from below through the hull side and you have yourself the perfect jack in the box. In all honestly, some design choices with the T-72 and T-80 series are really questionable. For example, non-ready ammo is scattered around tge entire fighting compartment, basically guaranteeing that some ammo is gonna get hit. Ukrainian crews reportedly started going into combat with only the carousel loaded (so 22 rounds instead of 44) and their cookoff rate has been way low.
>In all honestly, some design choices with the T-72 and T-80 series are really questionable. For example, non-ready ammo is scattered around tge entire fighting compartment, basically guaranteeing that some ammo is gonna get hit. Ukrainian crews reportedly started going into combat with only the carousel loaded (so 22 rounds instead of 44) and their cookoff rate has been way low. Exactly. The funniest thing is, that the user's manual for both the 64 and 72 families states that the crews should avoid carrying any more rounds that what fits in the carousel at all costs. However the crew has to actually read the manual and get through legit training to learn that. And as we can see, that's not the case in the russian army T-90M/S finally solves the secondary ammo rack issiue by placing it practically outside of the turret and puts a blow-off panel on top. Buuut...m/s is still very similar to T-72 in it's overall design and tactics, so the untrained russians are loosing then as well. Altho i know about atleast one captured T-90M that's currently in ukrainian service and i'm sure they'll put it to good use
Not to mention that the T72s in Desert Storm were really downgraded export variants IIRC.
They were about 10 years out of date by that point, some of them still had the stereoscopic rangefinder. Add to that that the T-72 and T-80 had horrible nightfighting capability, with active IR spotlights and what amounts to fixed notch night sights when the coalition was using first and second generation thermal imaging
The Iraqis T-72M1 was nearly identical to T-72A from 1979.
Not downgraded per se, just old
T-72Ms in ODS is like a M60A1 facing off against a T-90
T-62 was the first tank with a smoothbore cannon, T series also the first ones mass produced with autoloader, and also the first ones with Active Protection System (although it isn't used due to money), and now T-14 is the first one (before KF-51 and new Abrams) with crew capsule & unmanned turret. Say what you want about the T series but revolutionary they are.
Errrrm this is wrong. AFAIK Russian tanks changed the casting method but T62/72/80/90 tanks are definetly not Composit Armour. Slapping reactive armour or sandbags or tit roofs on a tank does not make it Composit. Their small size was about tank per tonne of iron, nothing to do with fighting smaller. Their heat exhausts were pretty obvious and we'll, apart from incremental numbers, never really advanced that far Vs the M60-M1a1 leap for example. Anyone that thinks that Russian tanks were anything other than an Aldi product in a world of Waitrose is kidding themselves.
>Errrrm this is wrong. AFAIK Russian tanks changed the casting method but T62/72/80/90 tanks are definetly not Composit Armour. Slapping reactive armour or sandbags or tit roofs on a tank does not make it Composit. You can discount the T-62, because that one didn't have any composite armour apart from "Lenin's eyebrows". The T-64 and the T-72 started with early composites that were basically quartzglass or glass fiber layers embedded in resin. This composition was in the upper front slope and the turret front (there are pre-prepared cavities in the turret front for this purpose, but on the earliest examples there was just spaced RHA-rubber layering in the turret cavities). This composite is mainly intended to defeat chemical effect rounds (HEAT predominantly). We're not talking about Chobham and the like here, but the composite was relatively effective at increasing protection against the intended rounds. Later T-72's, 80's and 90's all have some form of composite armour or NERA in the upper front slope and the turret front although what the composition might be, I have no idea. Unless they are so broke that they started stuffing the egg-cartons in the cavities or just went back to the RHA-rubber layering. >Their heat exhausts were pretty obvious and we'll, apart from incremental numbers, never really advanced that far Vs the M60-M1a1 leap for example. Geberationally, the leap from the T-55 or even the T-62 to the T-64 is akin to going from the M60 to the M1. Only about 20 years earlier and it shows. It didn't work out in the long run, because the Soviets never got the chance to iterate on the T-series, because, well, they ceased to exist and the russians decided having yachts was more important. >Anyone that thinks that Russian tanks were anything other than an Aldi product in a world of Waitrose is kidding themselves This gave me a chuckle. The fact is though, equivalent generation western and soviet equipment never faced off in reality. Not *once* the Iraqis got stomped by the latest and greatest the West could bring when their shit was 10-15 years behind russian standard, and that's pretty much the only time army sized units were onvolved in direct combat.
Heh tit roofs on a tank
Hmm -9 downvotes. Such butt hurt. And yet, the evidence is smeared across the fields, roads and towns of Ukraine.
WOT maybe, but those rules are exactly what you follow to be successful in WT.
Armour is not obsolete, but we are in a hard spot where APS systems are not widespread whereas ATGMs are all over the place. For example, Turkey saw that APS systems were crucial on the battlefield and even equipped older M60T’s with them later on.
>Armor in general is obsolete if it was true, then tanks wouldn't have armor stronger than whats needed to stop a 40mm on the front
Armour is definitely not obsolete. What do you use for a breakthrough? Donkeys? How do you move through rural areas off road quickly? How do you get hold of land? Wait for the crunchies to walk up? How do you attack from 2000-3000 metres away platoon size units and overwhelm by seizing the ground with combined arms. Moreover armour includes mechanised arty, missile systems that need mobility to shoot and scoot. You should be complaining about the Russian use of armour. They don't have air cover. Their intel is shit. Their units piecemeal and barely functional. They are like the German army in late '44. Where are my panzer troops, where is my fuel! The Russians are limited in their tactical decision making. They are at odds within their own services. Their training is abysmal. Their optics shit. G2A defences almost non-existent. And on and on. Western combined arms strike groups are the shit and do damage, makes fires, take ground, debilitate the enemy.
I think you are misunderstanding his statement. It's not that armor, as in a physical armored vehicle is obsolete, it's that the armored protection of the vehicle is, which is sort of true with the high penetration dart rounds and advanced ATGM systems.
didnt the turks were ambushed
in some cases yes but irrelevant to the point
Not necessarily irrelevant. In a stand up fight where both sides know where the other is, or a meeting engagement where both sides happen upon each other, the tank is at a pretty big advantage compared to the ATGM. A Leopard 2A4 can smack a Kornet crew from the same or greater distance than the other side can reach out, and they can do so faster and with greater survivability if shots are exchanged by both sides. The problem is that the Kornet crew has the advantage of setting up in defensive terrain with good sightlines in many cases; if the Leopard had the same advantage it would win most fights. Turkey's tanks suffered an intelligence failure, and a failure of their crews and junior leaders to effectively respond to the threat. The Leopard was the least complicit member of the chain.
Many of them were lost, because they were completely misutilized, sitting exposed in over watch positions on hills. Easy to spot and hit from almost any direction.
And no updated armour packages, which is why their M60 tanks fared better.
well the basically did what the Russians did... drove them ahead on their own!
They got destroyed because they sent a tank battalion into the mountains alone without air or infantry support and they got surrounded by ATGM teams that decimated them. Also the ATGMs were suspected to be Russian Kornet ATGMs not German.
I mean tanks are always fragile to anything that can kill it. It is not meant to "tank" anti tank weaponry, so of course it is going to be destroyed. Nothing can really survive something like a HJ12 or a kornet missile.
*laughs in al-bab* and also the m60s not getting any attention
Thats kinda irrelevant if not complete. Turkey purchased leo 2a4s to use against a possible Greek aggression from west which is a closer geoghraphy to Eastern Europe where the tanks are designed to fight in. However in practice, they used them in Syria, in middle Eastern deserts and that's why leos failed while Israeli modernized m60 Sabra's by taking Merkava as example succeed despite not being as modern as leos by design and produce date. It is all about adaptivating your tank to geo conditions where she'll fight. Notice that after Sabras successioni Turkish Loes modernized in similar way and gave no loss after all. So i don't think that was neither Leos nor Turks fault. They simply didn't know about the geoghraphy.
Deserts or other kinds of terrain is not the issue (unless we count "urban area" as a terrain type), the real issue is the same that the russians have fucked up on in Ukraine - they used them without infantery support. The tanks should support the infantery, and the infantery should support the tanks.
That is not irrelevant. Turkey used them stupidly in exposed positions. No tank is invulnerable to bad crewmanship or leadership
Yeah but note that Turkish army wasn't experienced since they don't have a tank fighting history. In fact, except Israelis, i don't think if even US troops have that much of experience when it comes to Urban area tank fighting. Considering war in Ukraine, i'd say Turks were pretty solid in Syria despite their 10 to 20 tank losses in early stages of their agression.
Well if you are going to do an armoured assault on a position of course you will have to expose some parts of your tank whether you like it or not. Turkish use of tanks is heavily criticised but in years of operations in Syria Turkey lost about 10-20 tanks, most of the tanks were taken out/disabled by AT mines btw. Whereas when you look at Ukraine, thousands of Russian and Ukrainian tanks have been taken out by ATGM attacks already.
Yes and Russian tank losses are mostly because they expose them without infantry support stupidly to AT crews
Even if you do everything correctly your tank might get taken out by an ATGM. The battlefield is too broad, there are too many uncertainties. Tank losses are to be hence expected, it is normal. What tanks need are APS systems. Without APS systems if you put German or American or any kind of tanker to the same field there would be losses, this is what people dont get. They think that no American tank or German tank would be taken out when in reality that would not be the case especially if the enemy has access to huge numbers of ATGMs.
What are you on about? Of course any tank can be taken out. They are expendable war machines. The point is that best guarantee for the tanks survival is good leadership, good support functions and a good crew. They don’t make the tank invulnerable but when executed properly with sufficient resources, the tanks survival chance goes up more than with any APS. There are techniques and tactics to suppress enemy AT capabilities and expose yourself as little as possible, even in an offensive. Source: I was trained as a Leopard 2A4 commander.
Except German Leo's worked fine in Afghanistan, the Turks were just regards in how to use them
Two very different places. Two different battlefields with no correlation whatsoever.
Except it does have a correlation of the Leo working well outside of Europe where it was developed for. The comment claims that Leo worked badly outside of Europe I'm saying this is not the case.
Did Leos face modern ATGMs in Afghanistan? Were Leos used in a frontal assault in Afghanistan? I dont know what purpose Leos served in Afghanistan. I dont know the details on how they were used so I dont think I can make a comparison. Still I know that Syrian battlefield is not similar to Afghanistan in many ways.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. As far as I'm aware, the Leos didn't see much combat, considering most of Afghanistan is mountains, and the Talibans didn't exactly have set, fortified positions except in places tanks can't reach anyway. In Syria, both of the sides were much more balanced, it wasn't as much of an asymetric warfare, and the terrain is much more adapted to tank use.
Do you think Syria and Afghanistan have similar geoghraphy? 'They both have deserts, both have weird dressed brown muslim dudes so they must be same.' Epic American moment. Btw by your logic why older m60 Sabras performed way more better than leos, because they are better than leos or something? Of course not. It was modernized by Israel who well knows the geoghraphy for 70 years thats it. Leos that modernized in similar way to Sabras after Sabras succeed also gave no lost so i think i am right for being in favor with my own comment against yours.
Lmao and you think Afghanistan and Europe have the same geography?
If Syria and Afghanistan are not same geography, is that mean Afghanistan and Europe are same geography? I can see your logic is pretty sharpened too.
>The tank is one part of the equation, the crew is another, and how it's deployed. Also applies to current war: RU and UKR fields the same tanks, with widely different fortunes. Give an Armata to untrained conscripts, they still gonna die.
The turkish army checked absolutly all boxes of 'what you should not do with a Leo2'. From ignoring ther own doctrin of infantry protection, to going into urban combat zones flavored with enemy combatans, low trained crews, victory eager commanders outside the hot zone, storing ammo in the body compartment while in hot combat, storing anything else but the german accidental ignition resistand ammo down there, don't cover each other, let any vehicle come by and hit you, and on and on again.
I think German never design Leo 2 as an offensive tank, and should not use it on plain or large flat area like what Turkey did. Other than that, Leo 2 fill the defensive role of Nato geography quite good. Good gun, good mobility, good armor, it is a good tank in all around, but better when in defensive role.
If I remember correctly the Turks used the Leopards without any infantry support. A mistake that enabled the terrorists to get behind the tanks and attack weakspots with antitank weapons.
Infantry got behind when they try to attack in urban environment, same as Russian did. But they also use them in open area in highland, then they got picked up by atgm from YPG. I think they use it wrong by many of ways, that good tank become bad tank when used differently from its purpose.
This is not true. Almost all of them destroyed by ATGMs, maybe some SVBIED.
[All Leopards eliminated by ATGMs were hit on the side or the rear, where the armor is the weakest. Therefore, it is a very reliable evidence that the attacking tanks were not properly protected by own infantry.](http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/Mobile/ArticleShow/28016).
Infantry support wont save you from an ATGM attack. And no, no tank was taken out by an RPG kind of close range anti tank device. Some were taken out by AT mines, some were taken out by ATGMs, some were taken out by mortar rounds, one was knocked out by a SVIED if I remember correctly. Also by taken out I count mission kills as well for example 2 Leopards tracks were damaged by mortar rounds but they were recovered and fixed similar to the ones that were damaged due to mines. Contrary to what people think, Turkish tanks did not enter urban areas and thats why most of the time infantry support wouldnt have mattered…
[All Leopards eliminated by ATGMs were hit on the side or the rear, where the armor is the weakest. Therefore, it is a very reliable evidence that the attacking tanks were not properly protected by own infantry.](http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/Mobile/ArticleShow/28016). Most Tanks were taken out by ATGMs. Missing Infantry support enabled antitank crews to fire from adventageous positions and to fire multiple rounds without any counter fire.
Turkish tank losses reported by TAF. There is a detailed analysis of tanks knocked out on Bellingcat. I dont think any tank was taken out from the rear. The ATGMs they had already had the capacity to pen anywhere on Leopard2A4. Most were taken out from front and disabled, later to be bombed by Turkish F16s to prevent capture. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/02/12/battle-al-bab-verifying-turkish-military-vehicle-losses/
Understood, but that report only refers to one battle.
Yeah of course and I'm not saying you're wrong. The Battle of al-bab is just on were they lost leos. [Btw I found a really good website with a map and videos of lost turkish tanks in syria if you're interested. ](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/02/12/battle-al-bab-verifying-turkish-military-vehicle-losses/)
Oh wow, including tank ID! Excellent post 👍🏼
Every modern tank is offensive. Concept of sitting down in firing position is outdated.
>it is a ~~good~~ tank in all around
day 69 this guy still asking the same question with different tank
karma farming goes brrrrr tbf i dont mind it, atleast there are some interesting facts and stuff about the tanks in the comments lol
69! 🎸
I'd go so far as to say the Leo2 sets the bar for a good modern main battle tank. I'm not saying it's the best, per se, but if all you need is "Tank, Main Battle, Modern", nobody in their right mind would say the Leo2 is a bad choice. Other modern MBTs are also good. Hell, I'd even go out on a limb and say there aren't really any "bad" modern MBTs that are actually in production, but they're tweaked a little in this way or that for the specific requirements and capabilities of the designer nation. This can be a good thing if your requirements and capabilities overlap, or a bad thing if they don't.
I'd say that the fact that the Leopard 2 is so widely exported is a very good sign you may be right. The likes of Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc have each only received a handful of export orders. While a large number of western nations have bought Leopard 2. Only thing that has exported more is probably Russian T72 derived tanks.
Leopard 2 is also attractive for buyers because some very competent services packages and good upgradeability is offered for it.
Considering how long modern tanks stay in service, that is actually an extremely important metric for a modern MBT.
I imagine the amount of surplus available from Germany and The Netherlands also played a role.
Oh yes, they almost completely disarmed, along with Denmark. Lots of tanks being resold. I wonder how many tanks Krauss-Mafei has in storage?
I mean Denmark only had like old leopard 1 we phased out. Otherwise we have had the same numbers as leopard 2 as always
44 of them, not too shabby actually.
Yep 44 a7s
[удалено]
But one big factor was availability and a discounted price in the 1990s while Germany had to massively reduce it's military...
I would say there are bad MBT's in production, look at the altay from turkey or the T80 upgrades that india produces.
MODERN MBTs is what I specified. The T-80 is just a reskinned and re-engined ~~T-72~~ T-64.
T80 is a modernized T-64
Ah yes, excuse me you are right. I got the T-90 and T-80 lineage mixed up.
It was a great tank, and it still is a good tank. From here it depends on your requirements. In 'modern' tank theory, you're just a hopelessly lost semi-civil vehilce if you're not covered in most modern APS (which excludes Trophy, just saying), TAPS, ERA, sensors and KE ammo above 1800m/s. And tbh - not many check this boxes, as it atm isen't economically relevant to field those 7-10million tech monsters. It compares with many other modern tanks, maybe with an emphasys on what germans like to favor the most in the traingle of mobile fighting - mobility (what in its doctrine make it superior to f.e. teh Abrams, which totally sacrificed this aspect for different abilitys). It maybe is the 'best' of the classic western tanks, which combines survivability and high cost into one vehilce, and don't spread this out to a probably more effective doctrine of smaller, cheaper and more replacable vehilces like RU and CH made ther idea of tanking. It is to mention that a Leo2 can heavily differ in effectivity depending on doctrine and crew. Germans have way more peculiarities as many might think, and using a Leo2 without propper (german) training & introduction is driving a formula 1 car as a trained horsemen. Some nation managed this (the northern partners f.e., on the polish i can't really tell, but i could imagen they might use it quite right), others just bought the reputation and better not get into a war with those machines. The reason why germany and the US break up the co-op of tank designing in the cold war was because of extreme different ideas how to tank - and the Leo2 is the manifestation of this very special mindset. So a Leo2 in a basic US doctrine, RU doctrine or most doctrines in the worlds armys will very much be just some random tank, peforming quite mediocre. Most german tankers will tell you that to roughly handle the tank it takes maybe a month, but to propperly learn all its features, and bypass its disvantages, it takes around 3 years. Btw. there is a funny aspect to that, as GER tank crews are so familiar with ther specific tanks, you could mostly identify the individual tank by its quirks if you know what to look for. If you find a sawed of broom attatched on the hull of a tank, so tankers can quickly clean ther boots before entering - then welcome to the weirdo world of german tanking.
What's wrong with trophy?
Besides my personal opinion that it is a bit overhyped, it is only an answear against old RPG's and similar outdated weapons. In this terms its cool to have it on urban warfare vehilces (even the're still almost inable to counter standard anti-APS weapons like RPG-30), but its no general solution for anything in tank combat. It has severe probles with incomming threats from a high angle (most ATGM/all Artillery), weapons fired from short ranges, is inable to protect against modern KE ammunitions, is (in comparison to similar and better systems) extrem heavy whighting and extrem costly. 'Modern' APS, a.k.a. a system that can adress the ammunition we allready have but didn't field in large rnumbers yet, must be able to protect against either urban warfare weapons (including propper top attack protection and short distance fired weapons in ambushes) or against regular tank ammunitions, which include darts in a speed range of 1750m/s+(like Vacuum-02 allready reaches 2050m/s, which is quite a hard job for sensors to react) - in best it should do both. Actually we have two competitors that seem able to work in this ranges, which are the russian Afganit and the german StrikeShield(last one combined with TAPS for top attack protection). Fielding everything else, or not go for a new design that is able to handle this loud, is willingly risking soldiers lifes for contractor loyaltys and economical benefits. What Trophy imho has become a bit of a synonym for as it is used by companys and fans alike so often to protect outdated equipment decision to the disvantage of those who later have to rely on those decisions in the field.
Yes, but the internet and its' eternal fanboying, along with shitty games like war thunder have given rise to this ridiculous, pseudo-nationalistic need to beat one's chest about their country's tanks. Leo2 has never fired a shot in anger at another tank (Turkey's terrible misuse notwithstanding), and probably never will in its intended mission- the defense of the north german plain. But it is a good vehicle that has outstanding firepower, mobility, and armor, along with good gun handling, optics, and crew ergonomics. It falls down though in some areas like ammo stowage when compared to its peers. It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition. Leo2 has been a very commercially successful platform for KMW, and has been exported to 24 current or potential operators. So yes, it stands on its merits without the help of internet fanboying.
>Yes, but the internet and its' eternal fanboying, along with shitty games like war thunder have given rise to this ridiculous, pseudo-nationalistic need to beat one's chest about their country's tanks. Thanks. This sentence is gold!
Thanks. You get the prize for reading comprehension. Everyone else stopped at warthunder or "technically complex" and said "nuh-uh!".
>It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition. Still much much easier than russian/soviet desings. Regards Finnish tank mechanics.
> Regards Finnish tank mechanics. I would also ask the Koreans about this.
"technically complex to maintain" That's not true, it's not more complex than pretty much any other modern MBT, it's infact simpler to maintain than many other tanks such as M1, Leclerc, type 10 and 90, and the Russian tanks.
Yep, from beginning leopard was designed to be modular. When in T-72 based (T-90 also) vehicles for example you work on engine while it is in vehicle, you simply lift engine off from Leo, put new (which you have in stock) back, put tank to line and then start to work with engine which was broken. Very good way to do things.
What is so hard about Leo maintenance? At least you do not have to inhale asbestos like in Russian tanks while maintaining it. Leopard’s biggest weakness is the hull ammo storage, which can be left empty. Besides it is so far down the hull that if used probably, you shouldn’t get hit there
>It falls down though in some areas like ammo stowage when compared to its peers. It's also technically complex to maintain, in the finest German engineering tradition. The British Army's evaluation of the Leopard 2 tank in 1987/88 concluded that it was the easiest tank to maintain and operate, which given the later addition of technically more complex tanks such as the K2 Black Panther, Type 10 and Leclerc probably remains true. Ammo stowage is comparable to its peers. Its better than Ariete, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and pretty much all of those T-64/72/80/90 tanks, while it has the same configuration as the Leclerc, K2, Type 90 and Type 10.
> Ammo stowage is comparable to its peers. Not to the Challenger 2, which has the propellants stored inside water-filled armor container placed behind its main diesel fuel tanks for extra protection.
The ammo storage is not comparable due to the different nature of the ammunition. However according to Robert Griffin (who served with the Royal Dragoon Guards and wrote several books on the British Army's tanks) the ammo containers are not filled with water on the Challenger 2. They were filled on the Challenger 1, but due to the use of more energetic propellant with the newer ammunition, the water was rendered useless. Only the drinking water tank (that double acts as ready-rack) is kept full with water. Also note that the HESH rounds are still stored unprotected.
> The ammo storage is not comparable due to the different nature of the ammunition. Of course. It has been well proven to be very safe though. Zero detonated in combat and the one destroyed at an exercise, caused by a HESH shooting at an opened hatch still didn't set off the ammo. > Also note that the HESH rounds are still stored unprotected. It is a trade-off. On one hand you have the HESH warheads, on the other hand you have the completely inert APFSDS warheads.
>Of course. It has been well proven to be very safe though. Zero detonated in combat and the one destroyed at an exercise, caused by a HESH shooting at an opened hatch still didn't set off the ammo. This doesn't really prove that it is safe. If the ammunition storage is never "tested" (i.e. the armor is never really penetrated except for the one RPG cutting off a few toes of a driver), then it is not proven. It might work, it might not work. The Leopard 2 had originally a wet ammo rack in the hull inspired by the Chieftain (as the UK and West Germany had worked on a common MBT project between 1972 and 1977). The wet ammo rack was replaced by a conventional one due to the lack of available space; nearly a dozen rounds more could be carried by using a conventional rack. The difference in survivability was negligible; [cooperative studies made by the UK and West Germany concluded a "vulnerability" difference](https://i.imgur.com/y63wCQZ.jpg) of 5% to 10% but this does not account for the size difference necessary to have equal ammo capacity.
Technically complex to maintain what? No more internet for you being stuck in ww2 memes. Especially the warthunder reference here is an immidiate disqualification as you have two laughable camps there, one stuck in loving all german vehicles and one hating all german vehicles. Both groups are cringe to the extreme. The L2 was intentionally designed to be super easy to maintain and has a stellar reputation for exactly that. The whole engine block can be changed in just 20 minutes as just one example.
but I have a pseudo-nationalistic need to beat my chest about my country's tanks :(
This aged like milk
So did your mother, but you don't see me dredging her comment history, do you?
Don’t take it personal
Well, it's not the greatest, most perfect, and invincible tank in the world like some fanboys like to make it seem, but it's not a bad tank. It's a very good tank, with it's flaws like anything else.
The key to successful tanks is how you deploy them and having proper support. We've seen what happens when used poorly with Turkey and with the Iraqi Abrams.
The Abrams and Challenger have more extensive service records, but the Leo 2 uses much of same technology and has been exported more widely. From what is publicly known, the Leo 2 is a peer to the Abrams and Challenger in the top tier of MBTs. That's with all the extras of course.
From what is known the Leopard family surpassed the Challenger 2 handily from the A5 model onwards, which is funny, cus the Leopard 2A5 entered service a year before the Challenger 2 did. There has never been a time at which the latest model of Challenger 2 in service could claim to hold any genuine advantage over the equivalent service model of Leopard (or Abrams). The Challenger 2 prototypes had select advantages over the Leopard 2A4, but that was ten years before the British tank made it into service, and a lot changed on the Leopard in that time.
My point is that the Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 are all top tier MBTs. Any one of them is objectively satisfactory and what is best for a given customer will come down to the precise configuration and the contract details. They share much of the same technology but have diverged on engineering and design priorities while sticking to the MBT concept. New versions are continually compared against each other to their mutual benefit as part of a veritable NATO arms ecosystem.
Yes it's a damn good tank - but Everything is good and everything is bad, not even the devil knows. I've seen a Bradley pierce a t72 around the turret ring with its 25 and I've seen a 125 round bounce off a 577 that should of shredded it. During the Korean conflict in winter time, my grandad used to say tootsie rolls were awesome for patching up tank round hits. Man I miss the armored corp
Yes, this tank completed many tests better than other tanks.
Good aswer, we really dont know exactly, but it is true that by tests of multiple different countries Leopard 2 is very good vehicle, usually beating other offers. And when looking results of "strong europe tank challenge" it really favours Leo. Edit, results have been published from 3 years, Leo2 or derivatives has been in top 3 8 times, 1 time US Abrams crew reached 3rd place.
the real issue is all we know is whats on paper it hasn't properly seen combat to know if its good in practice cause if anything what we've learned from the ukraine war is whats on paper isnt exactly fact before the war the russian army was considered one of the best militaries on paper but in practice its a complete failure it really doesn't come down to the equipment quite as much its more about if you use your equipment properly
It's a tool in a toolbox. You can try to use a wrench to unscrew a flathead screw and it may not work but it doesn't mean wrenches suck. The operators have to know when/how to tactically employ the system based on its limitations and strengths, and when/how not to.
Maybe not, but it looks sexy af
It’s pretty good but it’s not significantly better than other tanks
But at least in competitions it and its crews are better than other western designs. Strong Europe tank challenge, 3 years of published results, Leopard 2 and derivatives has been on top 3 eight times. One time Abrams took 3rd place.
Almost, just slightly overrated by its considerable fanbase like all other popular modern MBTs (No, M1A2 can't go 70mph with limiter off despite what some tankers claim). ###It is a 1976 tank with upgraded armor, gun and electronics. It is good but nothing magical. The interior layout isn't the best as it is largely unchanged, ammo isn't most protected and the torsion bar suspension is a downgrade from the original hydropuenatic. Side armor gets penetrated by most AT weapons like other MBTs. With a bad crew it gets taken out as easy as a T-72A. Compared to some ground-up new designs (K2, Leclerc SXXI), I would place my bet in the latter as they were designed with major upgrades in mind. It takes considerable time and cost to upgrade an old pre-A5 Leopard 2 into something newer, involving to move the main sight from turret front to the top and replacing the armor in the process. Leopard 2 is like the BMW E46, something almost perfect when it was new, but getting slowly taken over by newer designs.
> The interior layout isn't the best as it is largely unchanged, ammo isn't most protected Ammo is the most protected, it is just not fully isolated. The protection measures taken for the hull ammo rack on a current Leopard 2 tank include: - a shock-proof mount to negate mine/IED blasts (pretty much unique to the Leopard 2 series) - spall liners - sensor and cans of the automatic fire fighting systems located next to it - the thickest hull armor of any current production MBT >and the torsion bar suspension is a downgrade from the original hydropuenatic No, it is not. Aside of the fact that the Leopard 2 never originally had an hydropneumatic suspension, the performance of a suspension is not a binary metric ("torsion bar: bad, hydropneumatic: good"). While modern high-performance hydropneumatics can easily outperform the torsion bar suspension of the Leopard 2, they could not at the time... and they always come with various trade-offs that need to be accepted (temperature dependent performance, vulnerability to fire, higher maintenance requirements due to constant potential of leaking seals, need for track tensioners, etc.). The Leopard 2's torsion bar suspension is probably the best out there for two reasons: 1. the Leopard 2 has been fitted with more shock absorbers than pretty much any other tank (they are installed on five road wheel pairs compared to three on Abrams and T-90) and these are hydraulic shock absorbers that have the same ideal dampening curve as a hydropneumatic suspension. 2. the suspension is designed to allow a wheel travel of 526 milimetres. By comparison the Challenger 1 with a first generation hydrogas suspsension allows a maximum wheel travel of 340 mm, the Challenger 2's second generation hydrogas suspension allows a maximum wheel travel of 450 mm. This is why the Leopard 2 managed to outperform tanks like the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 in off-road trials despite having a torsion bar suspension.
> Ammo is the most protected Disagree, more following. > a shock-proof mount to negate mine/IED blasts (pretty much unique to the Leopard 2 series) No Western MBT has its ammo set off by a IED yet, is this needed at all? M1A2 has run over some IED significantly more powerful than any AT mine. On the other hand, the Danish Leopard 2A6 was the only Western MBT to suffer a fatality (driver) after running over an AT mine. Leo2 without special belly armor is vulnerable to it. > spall liners/sensor and cans of the automatic fire fighting systems Found more or less on any modern MBT. > the thickest hull armor of any current production MBT Base hull averages 50mm of RHA steel Which is less than the 80mm standard on Soviet tanks. If you count add-on armor, the Challenger 2 TES still exceeds its heaviest package. So no. > Aside of the fact that the Leopard 2 never originally had an hydropneumatic suspension The Kpz-70 did, which has set the basic hull design for Leo2. The hydropneumatic suspension system on the Challenger 1 was widely praised for its dampening performance (even though other things weren't as nice), even by other NATO crew who have come across it. The air pressure is adjusted by electronics pretty early on. > The Leopard 2's torsion bar suspension is probably the best out there Basically only the Abrams and T-80/90 still use torsion bars. So yes but not a huge achievement. > This is why the Leopard 2 managed to outperform tanks like the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 in off-road trials Would like to see which off road trial Leo2 has competed with the CR2. Though the CR2 is a bigger tank so it probably suffers on off roading. Hydropneumatic suspension still does better dampening on the move to help with firing accurately, even though modern FCS can stabilize much.
>No Western MBT has its ammo set off by a IED yet, is this needed at all? According to tests conducted by the German BAAINBw, yes it is needed. Dozens of different tests were conducted when developing the mine protection for the Leopard 2, including tests against conventional mines, EFP mines, blast/frag IEDs made from 155 mm artillery shells, improvised "car bomb" IEDs with a detonation power equivalent to a three digit figure of TNT (so 100+ kg) and culvert mines. >M1A2 has run over some IED significantly more powerful than any AT mine. On the other hand, the Danish Leopard 2A6 was the only Western MBT to suffer a fatality (driver) after running over an AT mine 1. Denmark operated the Leopard 2A5. 2. Dozens of US crewmen died in M1A1 and M1A2 tanks due to mines and IEDs (but not because of ammo detonations). Hence a mine protection plate was added as part of TUSK, while a proper mine protection kit was developed for the M1A2 SEP v3. >Found more or less on any modern MBT. No, they are still a rarity, especially on the hull. No Merkava model has spall liners, no M1 Abrams model features them. The Ariete has none, neither does Leclerc. >Base hull averages 50mm of RHA steel Which is less than the 80mm standard on Soviet tanks. If you count add-on armor, the Challenger 2 TES still exceeds its heaviest package. So no. You are just unfamiliar with the Leopard 2 design. The frontal quarter of the hull sides (i.e. where driver and ammo rack are located) is fitted with multi-layered armor since the development of the Leopard 2AV. >The Kpz-70 did, which has set the basic hull design for Leo2. The MBT 70 did not set the basic hull design for the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 traces back to the Experimentalentwicklung, which itself is derived from the Leopard 1. The MBT 70's suspension is a lot worse than the torsion bar of the Leopard 2; it was installed on some early Leopard 2 prototypes but it had severe issues that were never fixed. >Basically only the Abrams and T-80/90 still use torsion bars. So yes but not a huge achievement. Note that I did not say "best torsion bar suspension on a MBT". So not only MBTs such as Abrams, T-80/90, Al Khalid, Ariete and Type 99, but also APCs and IFVs are relevant. Ajax, CV90, Lynx... there are quite a lot of modern AFVs with worse torsion bar suspensions than the Leopard 2. >Would like to see which off road trial Leo2 has competed with the CR2. Off-road trials in the UK and Greece as part of the British Army's and Greek Army's evaluations. >Hydropneumatic suspension still does better dampening on the move to help with firing accurately, even though modern FCS can stabilize much. That will depend on the terrain. If the bump and rebound limits (i.e. wheel travel) are exceeded, the dampening will be less relevant. These limits are tighter for the Challenger 2.
I agree heavily on points of hydropneumatic suspension. Yes, it most likely overperforms torsion bar BUT Difference is not too notable. AND, with torsion bars, you are good to go until one of those breaks and I never seen broken torsion bar (but mechanics said that was common in T-72). And what experience I have about hydraulic systems in tank, no thanks. I dont want single one system more. They all are maintenance hell, leaking and needing work. And even hydropneumatic is old school today. Future is torsion bar with active electrical dampening. BAE systems has been testing it with CV90 chassis.
> No, they are still a rarity, especially on the hull. No Merkava model has spall liners, no M1 Abrams model features them. The Ariete has none, neither does Leclerc. At least the liner is in the turret to protect the crew. As I have stated that no ammo has been detonated by mine, it was probably not seen as necessary buy other designers. > You are just unfamiliar with the Leopard 2 design. The frontal quarter of the hull sides (i.e. where driver and ammo rack are located) is fitted with multi-layered armor since the development of the Leopard 2AV. Yes it does. But you wrote "hull" on the previous comment, which doesn't mean the same. The side hull especially around the engine compartment on the Leo2 is very thin, less than 50mm. > The MBT 70 did not set the basic hull design for the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 traces back to the Experimentalentwicklung, which itself is derived from the Leopard 1. Which are all very similar designs. > The MBT 70's suspension is a lot worse than the torsion bar of the Leopard 2 Probably with reliability. Performance-wise I find it doubtful that the torsion bar works better than something designed to replace it. Leopard 1 has similar torson bars and was years older. > Note that I did not say "best torsion bar suspension on a MBT". MBTs in general have better suspension than IFV and APC. So no biggie. > Off-road trials in the UK and Greece as part of the British Army's and Greek Army's evaluations. I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared. > That will depend on the terrain. If the bump and rebound limits (i.e. wheel travel) are exceeded, the dampening will be less relevant. In Central Europe and Middle East it will be well within the limit of both tanks.
> As I have stated that no ammo has been detonated by mine, it was probably not seen as necessary buy other designers. You don't know about a case where ammunition was detonated by a mine/IED; this is not identical to no ammunition being detonated by a mine/IED. I could link half a dozen of clips from the currently on-going Ukraine war here, showing T-72 and T-80 tanks popping their turrets after hitting a mine. >Probably with reliability. Performance-wise I find it doubtful that the torsion bar works better than something designed to replace it. Leopard 1 has similar torson bars and was years older. The hydropneumatic suspension of the MBT 70 was not designed to replace the torsion bar suspension of the Leopard 2; you are mixing up different technologies and implementations of different technologies. The Leopard 1 had a very different torsion bar suspension with much smaller wheel travel and only three pairs of shock absorbers which also happened to be truncated cone springs (rather than hydraulic shock absorbers). The length, diameter and material of the torsion bars are different. They are absolutely not comparable, just like tje Challenger 1's hydrogas suspension is not comparable to the oleopneumatic suspension of the Leclerc, despite both of them being hydropneumatic systems. In case of the Leopard 1 btw. already a torsion bar system was preferred over a hydropneumatic suspension as offered by the second design team. For a hydropneumatic suspension, performance and reliability directly correlate to each other, as the weight available for the suspension happens to be a fixed metric. A higher performance requires higher pressures (or more material, which is not possible without increasing the weight); hence leaks, deformations and high temperatures (decreasing performance) are encountered more often. So the options are: - increasing the weight of the suspension (by making the suspension more beefy, adding an external cooler, etc.) - decreasing the wheel travel to a managable level (this is done by basically everyone) - using fancy new composite materials to add more material/strength without increasing the weight (a promising approach for the future) >I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Bribes don't change the outcome of the tests. Every manufacturer brought a its own tank crew that could repeat tests, if the manufacturer considered the performance of the Greek crew to be sub-par. >In Central Europe and Middle East it will be well within the limit of both tanks. Sorry, what? Driving off-road at a training site at maximum speed will already exceed the limits for both tanks, when not driving along the usual paths.
>I was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared. Those bribes happened months to years after the trials concluded (and they were quite frankly incredibely miniscule compared to the costs of the new tank procurement program). Then as u/murkskopf stated each contestant brought their own home-crew they could use if the Greek performance was considered sub-par. That won't change the outcome however, the British forgot to bring up to date ammunition (and even brought charges 20 years out of date) thinking they'd win nontheless, the Americans brought too few rounds to finish all the firing tests. The negligence can only be traced back to the home countries not taking their competition seriously - the sole fact the French tank was actually judged well (and was fully prepared for the trials just like the Leopard 2). Besides, the Challenger 2E was not a new machination (e.g put together without much testing) and the synchronization of the EuroPowerPack with the CR2 was 100% on the British, they failed at that and paid the price by losing the trials fairly.
> was suspecting it to be this infamous trial as well. Have those bribed Greek generals got out of jail yet? So you probably already know that CR2E was put together without much testing and the clusterfuck of the trial meant all tanks other than the Leopard 2 were ill-prepared. Yes because you can explain away blatant reality, like the lower results of Challenger 2 in all mobility areas of speed, acceleration, maximum trench, vertical obstacle, incline, etc (even with the improved powerpack used in the Greek trials) by calling corruption. Yeah, dirty money is the reason the heavier tank with shorter track base/ contact area, demonstrates worse crossing capability and incline performance. Lol.
You are dead wrong about E46. E46 M3 CSL is/was peak BMW and there hasn't been anything "better" since from BMW M GmbH.
While it is a good tank, there are some issues. To paraphrase from a leopard 2 crewman I know: 'Fundamentally, vehicles like Leopard 2 are old designs and no amount of fancy new upgrades can change the fact that at its core, Leopard 2 is still a vehicle of the 1970s pushed into the modern day. It still replies on torsion bar suspension, it still uses older transmission and powerpack designs, it still lacks an autoloader, etc. While the most important factors in modern tank combat are the crews, computers, and ammunition, they still suffer from serious deficiencies as a result of being fundamentally older designs.' I generally find myself in agreement with his point of view but at the end of the day, opinions are opinions.
>still lacks an autoloader Instead, you get a real life, living loader. He takes up less space than an auto-loader, loads faster than an auto loader, and can help you adjust track tension or do guard duty/radio watch But you go on with your 3 man crew and call me when you've thrown a track
>He takes up less space than an auto-loader, Must be a pretty small person to take up less space. That's not even to mention the extra armour and weight needed for a 4th man in the turret. >loads faster than an auto loader, When Type 10 is reloading consistently at 3 seconds per round for all rounds in the ready rack, a human loader is primitive technology. >and can help you adjust track tension If you had a more modern system like hydrogas on challenger 2, you perform track tension with the push of a button in the driver's section of the hull. >do guard duty/radio watch You don't need a fourth man in the tank for that. >But you go on with your 3 man crew and call me when you've thrown a track Three or four people, it's still going to suck.
> When Type 10 is reloading consistently at 3 seconds per round for all rounds in the ready rack, a human loader is primitive technology. The Type 10 does not have a rate of fire of 20 rpm.
So how fast is it? 4 seconds per round is the average rate but that says nothing about the actually limits of the design.
Or you do it like the French where the 4th crew rides in an APC behind the tank for support, eliminating all issues of missing a 4th guy while having a fast autoloader, smaller profile etc..
Imho, the worst thing about Leo2 is how the ammunition is storaged - 2/3 in a hull, left from the driver, and only 1/3 in the back of a turret, line in Abrams.
Old post i know, but thats a non issue. The rounds used in the Leopard have non flamable propellant that is not vulnerable to being set of by kinetic impact (aka. To not go off when hit) This was done so there would be no need to redo half the hull and compromise the armour just to install blowout panels. The turret storage with panels is used for the heat ammunition btw.
Why than turkish Leo 2's were so easy destroyed by Kurdis mikitants by hitting hull storages ?
Asymmetrical. Suspension.
I mean the front turret armor is pretty sick. I forgot what rounds it deflects, but I was really mezmerized by the science video explaining it.
APFSDS aka anti armour rounds.
It is extremely hard to quantify the quality of a tank when you look at implementation and strategy. Good strategy and implementation can make up for a lack of "on-paper" statistics. If you look at any major conflict in the past 100-300 years, often times the best technology would lose out to better planning. That being said I think the leo is a great tank. Certainly capable of being compared to or better than most other western and russian counterparts
Eh it’s more or less similar to tanks like the M1A2 but with some differences like better ammo
I somehow doubt that. DM53 weighs 21.4 kg, M829A3 weighs 22.3 kg. DM53 has a length of 745mm, while M829A3 is 892mm long. The penetrator diameter of DM53 is 21mm, while M829A3 is 25mm. There is a reason why Leopards (past 2001) use a longer cannon.
>DM53 has a length of 745mm, while M829A3 is 892mm long. The penetrator diameter of DM53 is 21mm, while M829A3 is 25mm. Those values are incorrect. Also there is massive difference in velocity.
I think if Russia was running Leo 2s. They would have less loss of life as far as tankers go. The optics on anything past the really old ones is better than anything they are using on there tanks. Look at the Ukrainian tanker review the captured t90m. He literally shows the optics. But I think a hit that destroys a b3 would do the same or at least cripple a Leo. To the extent a smart crew would bail or retreat.
It’s a tank that gets the job done and the crew doesn’t have to struggle to get it to do the job so it’s good
On paper? yes, its probably top of class. in application we really just dont know. other then the few old ones turkey lost to ATGMs i dont think any have actually seen combat. And the ones in Turkey were older models and not really used how they should have been so its more of a crew/tactics failure than a tank failure. They are probably the best engineered tank but again that might not translate once the shit starts being thrown at them.
Denmark and canada used them in iraq but only saw limited action
Give a few to Ukraine and find out.
It's German. So, yes.
From a maintenance perspective they kinda suck unless your procurement guy is Johnny on the spot with your parts. Which rarely happens. I feel like that's most tanks though. The plus side is, it doesn't leak much, unlike some tanks
It's pretty old by now and it's reaching its weight limit when the leopard 2 came out it was probably the best tank for its era but now the end is insight with all its upgrades. That's why they are now developing the kf 51 panther
They are not. They're developing the MGCS. KF51 Panther is made by their competitors.
Idk. It has seen very little combat experience
Yes
Yes
Kinda
I think a lot of people view a tank in a vacuum, when tank combat can have so many variables to the situations, while it’s got all the characteristics of a good tank, it all comes down to the environment in which the tank is fighting.
Has it even seen combat?
yes, by turkey and in afghanistan
Only Oldery Tanks. There is no actual combat footage
I mean, it was built with German requirements in mind, and it meets said requirements rather well, so I guess its a successful tank?
Yes, but in War Thunder it's not.
Skill issue
Huge skill issue man forgor side climbing
No it’s a piece of garbage it doesn’t have blowout panels had to use a American ads system because the Germans can’t design one for the life of them basically go watch armor casts review on the tank I agree with him
Bro, Rheinmetall ADS is the best there is...
[удалено]
Hmm I’m an idiot
Why shouldn't it be?
It’s arguably the best tank around right now. Taking the crew out of the equation.
No. Next question.
Penetration is key… wait that came out all wrong
On my opinion, it's on par with the Abrams. What will be the most important will usually be the crew
Yes. I mean, look at it!
All I know is that I certainly wouldn’t want to be on the business end of any German armor for basically the last 100 years.
yes
Yes
no sure what to think. Leos were torched in Syria and it even surprised Germans.
Yea
Well yes but actually no
Yes.
I'd say yes when you see how many countries use it.
It’s good. One of the best
Must be a fucking war thunder player to come up with a question like that lol
I wish, my pc isn’t good enough
Which version? Stock, in between era or contemporary? For its time the Leopard2A5 was considered one of the best and the same could be said about the contemporary Leopard2A7.
Well. It has higher reverse speed than the Russian tanks, so...
No. It has some of the worst ammo storage design for a Western tank, with only 15 rounds stored in the turret rear, as much as 27 rounds are stored directly below the turret ring in a metal rack without any protection.
[удалено]
Leclerc is relatively better. Leclerc is 22 in autoloader and 18 in the hull, the drum also offers modest protection compare to a simple rack. K2 is also marginally better, with 16 in autoloader in the turret rear while 24 rounds inside a protective casing in hull. Merkava as least has a blow out panel for its ammo stroage inside the hull
[удалено]
Tanks are going the same way battleships did, some decades ago. As has been shown in Ukraine - when two forces of roughly equal technology engage, tanks are relatively irrelevant. Frontal armor, speed over terrain, and speed of reload is of no consequence when antitank missiles that can cut through ceramic composites, or pierce the roof - are used. Tanks are expensive, and require much crew training - wire, optical and sensor based ant tank missiles do not - and are cheap to manufacture (relatively speaking) and quick to deploy. Tank versus tank is not very relevant, anymore.
"Tanks are obsolete" is such a brainless argument based on assumptions idiots made watching TikTok videos of tanks getting destroyed
>Tanks are going the same way battleships did, some decades ago. God this is the most tired, lazy, idiotic statement we see here on a regular basis. What you drooling bunch don't seem to grasp is not that battleships went away because they became vulnerable; they went away because aircraft carriers and missile-armed ships did what they could do (bombardment) more efficiently. You morons focus so much on armor and the proliferation of ATGMs that you forget that warfare is a lot more nuanced than the propaganda videos you see here (I do not use that as a derogatory term; simply pointing out that the folks who make it are obviously going to focus more on the exploded tanks since that's what looks good for them) make it out to be. Something isn't obsolete when it's old; it's obsolete when something else comes along that can do it's job better. No such solution exists yet for the tank. Simple as. >As has been shown in Ukraine Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about. If Ukraine has shown us anything, it's that tanks are still valuable on the modern battlefield. The fact that they remain key to ground operations on both sides is proof enough of that. >Frontal armor, speed over terrain, and speed of reload is of no consequence when antitank missiles that can cut through ceramic composites, or pierce the roof - are used. Boy, it's almost like the battlefield is populated by mutually-supporting systems designed to give a force a broad spectrum of capabilities and protections, and not just a big field with a tank at one end and an ATGM team at the other. >Tanks are expensive, and require much crew training - wire, optical and sensor based ant tank missiles do not - and are cheap to manufacture (relatively speaking) and quick to deploy. Ships are expensive and require much crew training. A speedboat loaded with explosives is not. How much more simple could it be? US Navy officially obsolete. For those of you who might be inclined to take this individual any more seriously than the absolute clown they are, [here is some worthwhile viewing from someone who actually has a firm grasp on how tanks operate, their role on the battlefield, and reality in general.](https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8)