Leopard 2 A6 Tank

[carman1877]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

[Waylander]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks
Borders a this vs that thread, doesn't it?
Anyway...

Whoever said that the Leopard IIA6 is superior to the latest M1A2SEP versions is clearly wrong.
First of all there are several more modern Leopard versions available and in service than a plain normal Leopard IIA6 like used by Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal.

The most modern versions in service out there are the Leopard IIE (Spain), Leopard IIHEL (Greece) and Strv122 (Sweden).

In the end KMW offers the Leopard 2A6EX which essentially is a Leopard II with all the latest updates and gadgets bolted onto it with the possibility to add additional stuff from the POS program (urban warfare).

There isn't much difference between that and the most modern Abrams version one can buy.
If the customer is not willing to use US M289A3 ammunition because of concerns about DU ammo the L/55 of the Leopard offers better penetration capabilities.
Protection levels are hard to estimate but none of them has a distinct advantage over the other and one is going to find areas where one ore the other is better protected.
But as the ammo of the Abrams is completely protected by blow out panels while the Leopard only has it's ready ammo protected like this the Abrams clearly has the better post penetration survivability.
Both feature modern TIs and optics for the gunner and TC and use latest digital fire control systems.
There are several battlefield management systems available for both tanks but such a system is an individual item anyway and a customer can choose or integrate whatever he wants to use.

The Abrams is more thirsty.
And while the Abrams accelerates faster the Leopard arugably rides a little bit smoother cross country.

I am not sure if the TUSK I or II kit for the Abrams includes a minne protection kit like the M package which is available for the Leopard.

So while both of them have little advantages in some areas they have very similar capabilities and defenitely none of them has any war winning advantages over the other one.

Note that many other modern MBTs also play in the same League.
Be it a Challenger IIE, Leclerc T10 or Merkava Mk.IV.

[kato]

The most modern versions in service out there are the Leopard IIE (Spain), Leopard IIHEL (Greece) and Strv122 (Sweden).

"Most modern" would have of course been KWS-II+III - if the latter hadn't been cancelled in '95. Especially the new IFIS, not the 140mm gun would have been the big force multiplier. Ah well, maybe we'll get it with UrbOp now. Other force multipliers - e.g. ZEFF - we'll probably wait another decade or two for.

[Waylander]

Don't get me started on that. 3-4 other countries field better Leopards than we do...

[carman1877]

I also realized that the Leopard is more user friendly since it has a sterring wheel and very easy to use controls. It also has things that not many tanks have(to my knowledge), such as the camera to use when backing up, or electronic drviers hatch that can now be more armored becuase a crew member does not have to move it. One thing i read is that even with the new gun it does not have as good penetration as the M1A2, becuase the M1A2 uses Depleted Uranium rounds and the Leopard 2 does not. Does anyone know if the Leopard 2 uses SABOT rounds?

[Waylander]

It defenitely is user friendly but I am not sure if there is much of a difference performance wise between the steering wheel of a Leopard II (Or a Leclerc, Merk, etc.) and the steering used in the Abrams.

There are also things in the Leopard which are far from being userfriendly for example the TC joystick. Instead of controlling the commanders independent sight or the turret by moving the joystick one uses a cooly head on top of it while the joystick is fixed. I have no idea why they came up with such a brilliant idea...

The camera for driving backwards is also used in several modern versions of other MBTs as are power operated hatches (For example turret hatches of the Strv122 or Merkava Mk.IV).

And yes the Leopard uses SABOT.
The right designation would be APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) or KE (Kinetic Energy).
Every tank uses such rounds these days.
The ones currently in use with the Leopard II are DM33, DM53 and DM63.
Nearly all users use these KE rounds with Spain being the exception. They use an Israeli KE of which I forgot the name.

Other ammunitions in use with the Leopard II or close to being fielded are:
- DM-12 MZ (HEAT)
- DM-11/SQ (A modern HE with programmable fuze)
- a dumb swedish HE (HE Mk.I IIRC)
- PELE (a brittle KE rod which is used against buildings/fortifications for minimizing collateral damage)
- M1028 (US canister round)

Many other rounds are also certified for use with the Leopard II but are not fielded so far like most 120mm Israeli and US rounds, LAHAT ATGMs, DM43s, etc.

Using DU as a base material for your penetrator rods doesn't automatically mean that they are better than other rounds. Modern conventional alloys like used for the DM53/63 are self sharpening, fast, have good bending qualities, etc.

You won't find many DU rounds out there which outperform a DM53 fired out of a L/55.
M298A3 may be one of them.

As I said before a modern Leopard II is for sure in the lead group but you are also going to find alot of things in other modern MBTs which are better than what you find on an Abrams or Leopard II.

[carman1877]

Thanks Waylander for the info, do you know of any videos online showing the leopard 2 in wartime(such as Afghanistan)? I was also wondering becuase I know that the Abrams uses an enhanced version but is the Mg3 up to par with the M240? Our those add on armor pieces on the side(that look like flaps) supposed to protect the crew when performing maintenance on the engine, becuase i read that on Fprado.com?

[Waylander]

Just recently I have seen a video of Danish Leopards giving fire support during a joint Danish-British Operation but I can't find it anymore.
Maybe Grand Danois or others can help...

The MG3 is defenitely on par with the M240, especially when used as a mounted weapon or as a coax.
It is reliable, accurate and easy to handle.
The high rate of fire, while being something of a double-edged sword when it comes to infantry usage, is also an advantage as it allows good bursts and a nice surpressing fire.
I also think that the Leopard II has the better layout with the coax being serviced by the loader and not by the gunner.
Maybe others disagree with that.

But in the end the difference in performance is marginal at best.

[Grand Danois]

Just recently I have seen a video of Danish Leopards giving fire support during a joint Danish-British Operation but I can't find it anymore.
Maybe Grand Danois or others can help...

I know which one you're thinking about. There is also another one of Leo2s firing PELE rounds from high ground, but the only place where I can find them are on a Danish Defence Media page, which is in.... Danish.

Try entering "kampvogne i ilden", "wellness for leoparder", "slaget om spin masjed", "leoparden og varmen" in the search field ("søg").

http://www.forsvarskanalen.dk/fmc.aspx?bhcp=1

It's in Danish, for more international material there is always youtube. :)

[carman1877]

What is the point of the armor on the side that looks like flaps?

Thanks

[Waylander]

Thanks Grand Danois for the immediate help. :)

@carman
Flaps?

You mean the ones above the tracks like can bee seen in this picture?
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a6-048i.jpg

Or are especially referring to the camo suite of the Danish Leopard IIA5DK?

The ones above the tracks are plain normal light side skirts which are mainly there to reduce the dust produced by the tracks and offer some protection for the tracks against small arms fire.
The frontal heavy side skirts one the other hand (the thick ones in the frontal area) do add additional portection against KE and CE threats.

Heavy side skirts which cover the whole length of the track are available if wanted. There are several different versions of them.

The camouflage net of the Danish Leos is an advanced modern camouflage system which not only help to break up the silouette of the tank but also significantly reduce the IR-signature. A nice side effect of this is that they also help in keeping the interior of the tank cool which helps in theaters like Afghanistan.

[DavidDCM]

I think he means the "elephant ears", the additional turret side armor. well they are there to enhance the ballistic protection... what you read on fprado, that they are there to provide cover for maintenance crews during fieldworks at the engine is not their main purpose.

[carman1877]

Yes David i was talking about the "Elephant Ears", and thanks for the info. I was wondering after looking at pictures of the front of the turret that if another tank round hit the arrow shaped front turret does it impact or get diverted upward or downward? If it gets diverted downward it might be able to penetrate the weaker lower turret armor.

[swerve]

... if another tank round hit the arrow shaped front turret does it impact or get diverted upward or downward? If it gets diverted downward it might be able to penetrate the weaker lower turret armor.
I know little of this sort of thing, but IIRC the spaced armour should induce yawing in the rod, so that instead of hitting whatever is behind it cleanly, it strikes at an angle to the direction of travel. Its penetrative ability is thus reduced greatly, enough (fingers crossed) not to be able to penetrate any of the armour behind there.

Anyone with real knowledge please correct me gently. I make no claims to expertise.

[carman1877]

Does anyone know why the driver seat is on the right side and not the middle?

[DavidDCM]

Because next to the driver is the hull ammunition bunker with 27 main gun rounds. The Abrams for example does not have a hull bunker and thus has the driver in the center position.

[carman1877]

Are the Main and Comander sights the same as the Abrams? The day and thermal?

[Waylander]

Regarding optics/TI:
No, they are not. But the Laser is the same as it comes licensed produced from hughes IIRC.
There are several optics and thermals available and in service for the Leopard. The German Leopard II from A5 onwards have a 12x daylight channel as well as a 2nd generation TI-channel wuth 4x and 12x magnification.
The TI of the new PERI-R17A2 is a 3rd generation TI (4x, 12x, 24x).
The Spanish Leopard IIE for example have a 3rd gen TI for both gunner and commander and also allow for different magnifications of the daylight and TI channels and are comparable to what is fielded with the M1A2SEP.


Regarding wedge armor:
Swerve is partially right with it's explanation of how the armor works.
Modern rounds don't get deflected even when they are hitting at an extreme angle.
There are pictures of rounds having entered the gun tube of tanks at extreme angle as well as scratching the top turrets of T-72s without getting deflected.

The KWS II add-on armor of the Leopard II is not a solid block. This would be much to heavy. Instead it consists of several layers of solid plates arranged at different angles with some space between them. This arrangement is supported by some other capabilities of the armor about which we won't discuss here. ;)
A KE penetrator rod hitting the add-on armor is under immense pressure by the different angeld plates. This results in it hitting the main armor at a bad angle and so highly reduces the penetration capability of the rod. Depending on the round fired as well as the angle of impact the rod may also get blunted or brakes apart reducing penetration even further.

So instead of deflecting the round (which as I said modern rounds don't do anyways) the add-on armor "sucks in" the rod in order to break it apart.

[carman1877]

Doesn't the Leopard 2 lack in secondary armament to the Abrams becuase it lacks a .50?

[Waylander]

That's due to different philosophies of how one should lead a tank.

In Germany one thinks that the commander should command the tank, stay on the radios and search the terrain for enemies and for navigation. Still enough workload.
A weapon for the commander would distract him from this as well as limit the view out of the hatch.
The commanders hatch has provisions made for a MG but they are not used.

The americans think that a .50cal for the commander offers more advantages than disadvantages.
In certain situations (like a thunder run through Bagdad) it certainly does.
Fighting a maneuver battle against enemy mech forces it probably doesn't.

One also has to remember that the Leopard II had hunter-killer capabilities right from the beginning while the Abrams only got much later from M1A2 upwards.
Thus in a firefight the TC in a Leopard isn't able to use his MG anyway as he is using the independent commanders sight.

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.

What I would prefer and what is available from several companies is an independent weapons steation with a GPMG/.50cal/AGL on the turret which can be controlled by both the commander and loader.

[eckherl]

Regarding optics/TI:
No, they are not. But the Laser is the same as it comes licensed produced from hughes IIRC.
There are several optics and thermals available and in service for the Leopard. The German Leopard II from A5 onwards have a 12x daylight channel as well as a 2nd generation TI-channel wuth 4x and 12x magnification.
The TI of the new PERI-R17A2 is a 3rd generation TI (4x, 12x, 24x).
The Spanish Leopard IIE for example have a 3rd gen TI for both gunner and commander and also allow for different magnifications of the daylight and TI channels and are comparable to what is fielded with the M1A2SEP.


Regarding wedge armor:
Swerve is partially right with it's explanation of how the armor works.
Modern rounds don't get deflected even when they are hitting at an extreme angle.
There are pictures of rounds having entered the gun tube of tanks at extreme angle as well as scratching the top turrets of T-72s without getting deflected.

The KWS II add-on armor of the Leopard II is not a solid block. This would be much to heavy. Instead it consists of several layers of solid plates arranged at different angles with some space between them. This arrangement is supported by some other capabilities of the armor about which we won't discuss here. ;)
A KE penetrator rod hitting the add-on armor is under immense pressure by the different angeld plates. This results in it hitting the main armor at a bad angle and so highly reduces the penetration capability of the rod. Depending on the round fired as well as the angle of impact the rod may also get blunted or brakes apart reducing penetration even further.

So instead of deflecting the round (which as I said modern rounds don't do anyways) the add-on armor "sucks in" the rod in order to break it apart.

Regarding wedge armor,:)

Now I do not know if it will suck in all KE penetrators and break them apart, but it sure in the hell does a good job of slowing the majority of them down to make the primary armor effective in stopping them entirely.

Which brings up another point, are the Russians worried about their reactive armor packages with the latest generation KE projectiles that very well could come equipped with one heck of a composite outer linning, it already is in use due to the length of the rods to help with flight improvements.:unknown

[Waylander]

Sure, as I wrote breaking the rod is the ideal outcome and is for sure not always achievable.
But it is defenitely going to slow down the rod as well as make it hit the main armor at a bad angle.

[Firn]

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.

What I would prefer and what is available from several companies is an independent weapons steation with a GPMG/.50cal/AGL on the turret which can be controlled by both the commander and loader.

I think that most on the thread about the secondary armament of MBTs agreed on the last bit. With such a configuration you can have three sets of eyes independently scanning the environment 360° with great optics while driving.

All in all AMAP-ADS should be huge improvement for any MBT, forming another light and yet potentially very effective layer of armor on all the sides of the tank.

[eckherl]

Sure, as I wrote breaking the rod is the ideal outcome and is for sure not always achievable.
But it is defenitely going to slow down the rod as well as make it hit the main armor at a bad angle.

Which is how KE projectiles operate, energy and mass. If you deminish either performance value of the projectile then you have accomplished your goal inregards to the performance level of add on turret armor for LEO2A5 or 6 series. With Russian claims of being able to do *both* with some of their reactive packages, I and many others are skeptical of this, especially with some of the later KE generation rounds.

[Tavarisch]

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.



Kords don't use 14.5mm the last time I checked. Sorry if I'm being bitchy, but I just had to point that out. :)

[Waylander]

Damnit. I always get confused with Kord, Dushka, NSW and KPW.
Not my first time and I assume not my last one. :D

Thanks for that.

Nevertheless my point was that one can put a TC MG of any size onto the Leopard if one wants to.

[momo]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

i don't really know but the challenger 2 has given better results in Iraq than the Abrams. I also don't know what makes the leopard 2 better than the abrams but as of today i haven't heard of any leo 2 tank being tested in battle, so i guess it's just pure speculation, unless someone posts any information that would prove it

[momo]

ups, i only saw the first message, i didn't realize there were two pages of replies

[Oce]

i don't really know but the challenger 2 has given better results in Iraq than the Abrams. I also don't know what makes the leopard 2 better than the abrams but as of today i haven't heard of any leo 2 tank being tested in battle, so i guess it's just pure speculation, unless someone posts any information that would prove it

For example:

I guess it`s pure speculation that the F22 and EF are actually the best because they haven`t been proved in battle.

:onfloorl:

[Firn]

Of course we don't know how the Leopard II fares in battle. Why do the Danes and Canadians just drive them (http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2008/05/canadian-armour.html) around for fun in Afghanistan when they did already so much to upgrade, transport and mantain them in the theater :confused:

[eckherl]

For example:

I guess it`s pure speculation that the F22 and EF are actually the best because they haven`t been proved in battle.

:onfloorl:

Isn`t modern technology something... its amazing what a computer and actual testing of a weapons platform under simulated conditions can achieve.