Leopard 2 A6 Tank

[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.

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.

nfloorl:

 

[Firn]

Of course we don't know how the Leopard II fares in battle. Why do the Danes and Canadians just drive them around for fun in Afghanistan when they did already so much to upgrade, transport and mantain them in the theater

 

[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.

nfloorl:

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

 

[jimbo1847]

Leopard 2 versus Abrams M1

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

Hi carman1877
I`m not sure what computers the Leopard 2 has but the Abrams uses the same German manufactured gun that the Leopard 2 uses viz. 120mm smooth bore. The U.S. call it the M256 I think.
Jimbo1847

 

[eckherl]

Hi carman1877
I`m not sure what computers the Leopard 2 has but the Abrams uses the same German manufactured gun that the Leopard 2 uses viz. 120mm smooth bore. The U.S. call it the M256 I think.
Jimbo1847

M1A2 SEP V series are the most advanced tanks that are currently being fielded electronic wise, upgrades are based accordingly on how we like to fight our ground battle doctrine, augmentation into other U.S force structures.

German manufactured 120mm gun designations are: L44 and L55
American manufactured 120mm gun designation is M256A1, a new gun that is slated for future U.S M1 series that goes by the designation of M291 is the same length as M256A1 and L44 but is lighter in weight and can handle higher muzzle velocity projectiles, we just may see German Leopards with this gun also.

 

[kato]

we just may see German Leopards with this gun also.

With a US-designed gun ? No chance.

Before that would ever happen Rheinmetall will rather dig out the NPzK-140 L/45 with its 20 MJ muzzle energy again (L/44: 10 MJ, L/55: 13 MJ).

 

[Waylander]

When it comes to Land systems our NIH-Syndrome is as big as the US one's...

I also doubt that we will see a non-German gun in the future unless our companies really mess things up.

 

[eckherl]

With a US-designed gun ? No chance.

Before that would ever happen Rheinmetall will rather dig out the NPzK-140 L/45 with its 20 MJ muzzle energy again (L/44: 10 MJ, L/55: 13 MJ).

Can anyone really afford a recoil mechanism that can with stand (sustained fire) 20 MJ, is it really warranted. Why not just go with a dual caliber breach and recoil mechanism that can keep things under 15 MJ ie: M291. Germany and U.S have worked together in the past on this project and there has been the current announcement that U.S and German based companies are at it again in regards to working together on a lighter air transportable SPH. Would you and Waylander get a case of red ass if Germany would buy a U.S designed gun, can we not return the favor after shoe horning your design into our tanks.

 

[eckherl]

When it comes to Land systems our NIH-Syndrome is as big as the US one's...

I also doubt that we will see a non-German gun in the future unless our companies really mess things up.

You and Kato are party poopers.:

 

[kato]

Can anyone really afford a recoil mechanism that can with stand (sustained fire) 20 MJ, is it really warranted.

NPzK-140 would probably need a complete new turret anyway (due to an autoloader or semi-automatic loading assist being needed for the separate ammunition), would hence be no problem to integrate. Besides, with separated ammo, one could always just load the breech with a lower-powered charge for sustained fire.

Besides, if low-recoil is really needed, Rheinmetall has the 120mm L/47 LLR in its portfolio for that. Designed for light tank hunters. The L/47 LLR actually is - in parts, anyways - a downscaled NPzK-140. 40% less recoil compared to L44 / M256.

there has been the current announcement that U.S and German based companies are at it again in regards to working together on a lighter air transportable SPH.

Donar? That's pretty much just sticking a German PzH2000 turret on a chassis built by certain European companies that were bought up by GDLS.

 

[Waylander]

Funnily enough this bastard child of an ASCOD chassis and a modified PzH2000 turret has better capabilities than the ugly NLOS-C while meeting all the goals of an air portable SPH.

While buying a US designed gun may be fair it may cost our industry in the long run.

Right now the German defence industry can (unlike the US one for example) deliver a top class vehicle in nearly every class of ground combat and combat support vehicles.
Our industry should at least try to compete in the fields it is world leading right now.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

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.

That is probably not true because the "unprotected" ammo of the Leo is stored in the otherwise best protetected part of the tank, meaning that if something penetrates badly enough to make that ammo go off, the tank is almost guaranteed to be dead anyway so it doesnt matter.
Its a design tradeoff, not bad protection. Personally i prefer the M1 design choice in this but i cant say the Leo is truly worse.

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

The peculiarities of turbine engines is that at optimal RPM, the turbine engine draws less fuel per power output. Problem is that a tank will very rarely travel at a speed or required power output that allows optimal RPM to be maintained, which is why turbines on ships tend to be more or less complex combinations of diesels, electrical and turbine engines to allow the latter to be used at their highest possible efficiency and only there.

So, the M1 CAN be less fuel thirsty than the Leo-2, but usually isnt. The really big difference however is while standing still with main engine running, this is when the real downside of turbine engines rears its very ugly head, lousy low RPM fuel efficiency, Abrams vs Leo2 ready to move but standing still, the former will use several times more fuel over time.

With the advances in diesels in the last few decades, turbine engines in tanks no longer makes sense. My own country´s foray into this area even had a diesel alongside to allow for "cheap" lowspeed running as well as the high performance from the turbine, and while that was still shown as a better(cheaper and, less total maintenance) choice than turbine only, the current Strv-122(Leo-2S) that replaced those Strv-103 manage to have still lower maintenance requirements while being almost as highperforming, despite weighing far more.
Likewise, Russia aint too happy about its remaining turbineusing T-80s.

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.

LeClerc is aimed more towards mobility, Challenger towards protection and the Merkava towards survivability. To simplify.
But really yes, all have their design choices, and while they can all be berated or praised most are good ideas one way or another and its a matter of current situation if they´re a good idea in the here and now or not.

Which brings up another point, are the Russians worried about their reactive armor packages with the latest generation KE projectiles

From what i hear, no. They keep improving their ERA as well, but even against earlier types, the new KEs are not supposed to be so much improved.
Note that this is not reliable information however.

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.

Quite so. A .50 could also double as basic air protection, which is why it would be my preferred pick. AGL would of course be the otherwise most useful.