ECONOMICAL ÜBERPANZER: The Leopard 2A6 [Archive]

2RHPZ

07-31-2004, 03:02 AM

ECONOMICAL ÜBERPANZER: The Leopard 2A6

What's the best battle tank in the world? Everyone knows about the Abrams M1A2, but take a closer look at the German Leopard 2A6 -- proof that you can make a powerful, advanced tank, without the cost issues.

http://www.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_A26-2.jpg
Entering service with the Bundeswher (German Army) in 2001, the 2A6 is the latest improvement on a tank line that has been under development since the 60s.

Full article (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)

FallenAngel

07-31-2004, 03:22 AM

I'll pre-empt Ivy and his Abram's supporters here. They will claim the Abrams is better than the Leo2A6 because the M1 has been combat proven.

Which is kinda crap I think. Just because the German consitution (not to mention it's current political leaders) makes it highly unlikely for Leo2A6s to see combat in terms of an all-out ground war in the near future. On paper...the Leo2A6 seems to be the better vehicle. ;)

Shadow

07-31-2004, 04:42 AM

surprising?

AVZ

07-31-2004, 06:00 AM

b33f

07-31-2004, 06:43 AM

for all those blind leo supporters out there, patriotisim for germany is nice (for you), but actually the article doesnt say that the new leo is the better tank in all fields, only that it is more economical (very important for the under-budgeted german army)... about 1/3 the price of an M1A2 and less fuel consumption.

but the article does as well state that the M1A2 has the better armour, which is mainly because the germans won't (and don't) use DU.

btw: does the leo 2a6 actually feature chobham-style armour or is it steel only? maybe someone can enlighten me on this issue?

b33f

Kitsune

07-31-2004, 07:51 AM

The newer versions of the Leo use cobham armor. Contrary to the article, that states the superiority of the M1A2 as a self evident fact, the Leo II has won nearly every neutral comparision tests against any tank in the world, cluding the Abrams M1A2. And in terms of protection the Leopard is comparable to the M1A2, the body is less, the turret is better protected.

As far as DU is concerned, there may be good reasons not to use it. Eralier I didn't believe those horror stories about its effects, but I am not so sure anymore. There seems to be something to them. But theoretically, the Leo could use DU rounds without problems...the M1A2 uses the gun of the Leo after all (albeit not the new improved one of the A6 version).

Sorry to all none Germans. But when it comes to tanks the Germans have still an advantage.
Nobody does it better. p-)

soma

07-31-2004, 08:48 AM

AVZ

07-31-2004, 08:52 AM

But theoretically, the Leo could use DU rounds without problems...the M1A2 uses the gun of the Leo after all (albeit not the new improved one of the A6 version).

The rounds of the Leo are made of tungsten. Very hard metal which doesn't passes the complicatons of a Du round along.

Michael RVR

07-31-2004, 10:11 AM

There was an article in the aus army newspaper a few months back comparing the Leo2, chally 2 & m1a2, it basically said that the leo was more fuel efficient, could cross bigger obstacles and had greater range and i think speed, but still only due to the fact that our allies use the M1, that that would be a better bet.

Officially, the M1 was chosen over the leo because of crew protection systems, i think i read somewhere else that the challenger 2 couldn't be sourced in large enough numbers.

Personally, i don't think the Abrams is much of a better tank. At a price vs performance type test, the Leo comes out way way way on top though. ;)

Dutchman2

07-31-2004, 12:42 PM

I was a Technical Specialist in the Dutch maintenace compagny from 1997 till 2000, and my speciality was the repairing the weaponsystem of the Leopard 2A5. Roughly I took care of the whole turret.
In my days, the Leopard 2A5 was allready way better than the Abrams and the Challencer, exept of his armour. In speed, relaibility, accuracy and stealth the Leopard 2A5 was suprime on the other two. Also in ease of maintenace. In the 3,5 years I worked with the Leopard 2A5, I never had one big repairjob to do, or noticed any faulds in the basic design. Also his accuracy (with Coax MG and 120mm) was stunning: day or night, summer or winter, rain or heat, driving or not: the Leopard keep up hitting targets.
The 47,5 liter diesel, 1500 horsepower engine (from MTU= Mercedes :D ) , is also a better than the fuel expensive Gas-Turbine engine from the Abrams. In the 3,5 years, I saw only one broken track.
I don't say that the Abrams is a bad tank, I only say that the Leopard is better designed. The British Challencer is a huge laugh, unrelaible and not accurate! And they smell :D !

Greets,

Roger

Midav

07-31-2004, 01:01 PM

I wouldn't poke fun at the Challenger. It has the longest ranged kill of any tank and believe it did the feat several times ;)

Now, out of the three named tanks above, and not trying to sound PC, it comes down to crew performance and as to whom sees whom first and whom gets the first shot off.

Granted, the Leo won almost all CAT trophies. It also had the hunter killer system long before most other tanks did and able to acquire targets and fire on them faster.

Now, having lived in Germany most of my life, the Leo II is my favorite tank. However, realistically, it has several equals out there and I won't ignore that.

Dutchman2

07-31-2004, 02:31 PM

I wouldn't poke fun at the Challenger. It has the longest ranged kill of any tank and believe it did the feat several times ;)

It has also the most powerfull canon. I saw them many times on the NATO ranges in Bergen-Hohne Germany, but I was suprized how many times they missed targets. Our sergeants tolds us to pay caution when we drove behind a Challencer, and when we did, our windows where full of grease and tiny drops of oil! Proberly they blow the oil direct out of the exhaustsystem :D .
One day, we where on Hallen-Bahn 9 (maintenance place near range 9), and on the other side of the road, a Challencer was repaired by a UK maintenance soldier with the engine still running. I asked hime why he didn't turn the engine off (standart savety rule in the Dutch Army), he said it was a problem to get them started. So I asked if it was because it was broken, but he answered that it was pretty normal that they had problems with starting :|
Well, with a good crew, it will be a useful tank also. I also heared that their armour is the best in the world, and that it can stand a hit of his own -powerful- gun :backhand: !

Dutchman2

07-31-2004, 02:32 PM

:backhand: !

Uh, this was supost to be a woot ! and no :backhand: !!!

Phoenix

07-31-2004, 03:02 PM

2006 the development of the Leopard 3 will continue ...

but only the government change

perdurabo

07-31-2004, 04:41 PM

Leo3? wow. Leo2A6 moust powerfull kiling machine is not enough?
good we are friends now cause i live around 50km from border with germany.... :lol:

gbos

07-31-2004, 05:23 PM

Technical evaluation scores after 2 months field tests by the Greek army:

Leo2 GR (in field tests the strv122 version): 86.72%
M1A2 : 84.55%
Leclerc : 84.11%
Challenger : 83.70%
Russian T-80U: results not disclosed
Ukrainian T-84: results not disclosed
Merkava 3: not given for test
Ariete: not given for test

(Source : Ptisi defense magazine March 2002)

Kampfbaer

07-31-2004, 07:06 PM

gbos

08-01-2004, 03:56 AM

As i've stated in a different tank thread a couple of days ago their are some tanks in the NATO inventory that play in the major league. :D

M1, LEO2 and others have a lot in common and it will come down on the skill of the crew.

Does the US have any plans to upgrade the M1 with the longer barrel gun?

How much is the penetration difference between tungsten and DU ammo?

longer barrel and DU ammo :D

In short the L55 gun with the DM-53 round gives very close penatration figures with the L44 gun with the M829A2 DU round.

As far as I know US is not planning to buy the L55 gun because the above penetration capabilities are considered adequate for today’s standards. Anyway the advantage is for the L55 gun because its more accurate, can hold higher chamber pressure and you can always fire DU rounds with it if you finally decide to do so.

The L55 gun its a state of the art equipment so i :hug: Germans.

Operation Ivy

08-01-2004, 09:22 AM

What a crappy thread p-)

Well lets get these things dirty and get some to Iraq so we test them out with the Abrams by their side :D

Dutchman2

08-01-2004, 09:52 AM

The US and West Germany designed together a main battle tank in the 70's: the MBT 70 project. It had a main 120mm gun, and a 20mm MK20 Rh202 canon for AA use. Becuase of the high cost, and different wishes from the US and Germany the project stoped. one of the things where tha germany wanted a 'normal' Diesel engine, and the US a Gasturbine engine. The things they learned from the MBT 70 project is worked in the Leo2 and the M1 MBT's years later. That's why they are both so close in prestations.
In my opinion, the Swedish version of the Leo2A5 is the best designed version with best armour (also on top of the turret).
And I would like to see the Leo2 in action also. He's ready for it :D !

Operation Ivy

08-01-2004, 10:05 AM

The US and West Germany designed together a main battle tank in the 70's: the MBT 70 project

If this project ever would have worked out, man that tank would have been awsome p-)

Operation Ivy

08-01-2004, 12:08 PM

I'll pre-empt Ivy and his Abram's supporters here. They will claim the Abrams is better than the Leo2A6 because the M1 has been combat proven.

Im pretty sure i never said the Abrams was better then the Leo2, i always said the Leo2 wasnt the best :D p-)

Midav

08-01-2004, 12:21 PM

If this project ever would have worked out, man that tank would have been awsome p-)

Most definitely!

Dutchman2

08-01-2004, 04:11 PM

The US and West Germany designed together a main battle tank in the 70's: the MBT 70 project

If this project ever would have worked out, man that tank would have been awsome p-)

Read this articel, you can see some lines of the future M1 allready in the 1970's design :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70

Operation Ivy

08-02-2004, 01:46 PM

The Abrams wont be getting the new L55 gun in the near future :( because the performance of the L44 that we have now is still superior to that of the L55..as of right now but later in the future the L55 will surpass the L44 once more testing is done so that DU Muntions coming out of the L55 are stable and more powerful :D

Also in this article they say that the Army has decided to get HoneyWell to develop a new turbine engine the LV100-5 (i thought this was cancelled i cant quite remember)